h/t Benny Peiser – the UK MET office has published a study which suggests solar activity is currently plummeting, the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years. The study also raises the odds of Maunder Minimum style conditions by 2050 from 8% to 15 – 20%.
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
The abstract of the study;
The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity. However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end. Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.
Read more: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html
Naturally the MET thinks that anthropogenic forcing will overwhelm the cooling effect. In the context of farcical model predictions of anthropogenic warming of up to +6.6c by 2100, which the MET still officially treats as serious science, a degree or so of cooling, due to a lull in solar activity, might not seem a big deal.
Nevertheless, the fact the MET have raised the risk of significant global cooling from their 8% estimate, produced in 2010, to 15 – 20% is intriguing. The MET assures us however, that any reprieve from global warming will be temporary – potentially leaving open the option of running global warming scares, in the midst of brutal little ice age style winters.
Perhaps the science is not as settled, as some politicians have been led to believe.
Climategate Email 0700.txt
… Communications between scientists and politicians are becoming more and more important and the scientific population must be large enough to be visible. D Raynaud commented that the work by Stocker in 1997 on the gross rate of emissions and the change in thermo circulation is important to conferences such as Kyoto. K Hutter added that politicians accused scientists of a high signal to noise ratio; scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals. The time-frame for science and politics is very different; politicians need instant information, but scientific results take a long time
A Ghazi pointed out that the funding is set once the politicians want the research to be done. We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. …
Winter isn’t coming. Summer is here. Stay tuned for updates.
==============
It’s cooling folks For how long???????
Probably ~20 years. Then PDO flips and we get 1976-998 type warming for ~30 years. Then flat again, etc.
Nah, don’t ya know that the Sun has NO effect on our climate. That’s what ‘experts’ tell us.
Cite please, otherwise you’re just a troll.
Per AGhazi, quoted above –
“We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. …”
Plus whole armadas, serious shedloads, and absolute bag-loads of correctness!
We truly do not understand weather – let alone climate.
Short term weather, yes, we have a loose handle on [more or less].
Climate –
Aren’t there several variables? WUWT – I think – did a big page of them . . . . . . . .
Auto – snuggling up tonight!
Warm I can cope with (May not like) ; cold I need to snuggle up!
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
The text quoted in the article above is part of the introduction to the paper, not the abstract. The abstract actually reads:
“Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Bevan.
Interesting. They are suggesting the negative forcing may be significant over that region. It reminds me of some of the Professor Lockwood research.
Ah! Mike Lockwood was one of the authors. Ignore my comment about him.
Looks as though David Evans may have been right all along.
Now, be reasonable. The Notch ‘theory’ was Dead-on-Arrival as its premise is plainly wrong. Educate yourself a bit, and pay attention to the facts, e.g.to the actual variation of TSI:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-to-Now.png
The Notch-Delay theory doesn’t rely on TSI variations.
Go educate yourself. TSI was the starting point for the whole thing [“the big news”].
The tiny changes in TSI are only a proxy for an amplification factor.
My hypothesis provides a possible candidate.
Unfortunately you increasingly mix disinformation in amongst your factual comments.
It is the sun stupid. The maple seeds around my home are anemic. The endosperms are 10% of normal size. I still have to run the heating system. WTF?
No amount of adjusting the temperature record can account for a quiet, low output sun.
“No amount of adjusting the temperature record can account for a quiet, low output sun.”
Oh, you will be surprised.
🙂
Interestingly, they say that whilst reduction in solar activity will make little difference, associated reduction in UV will:
‘Abstract.
Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.’
Even if the alarmists accept this paper, it is unlikely to counter the hysteria that is bring whipped up for the Paris beanfeast.
Old’un
I will go one step further. I think the Met Office may have softly encouraged the publication of this paper, with it’s defects, just so that they can say, AT PARIS, we looked at the solar radiance issue and it is just not a serious effort. Planned condemnation by faint praise. Yes, I think the Machiavellian bastards would do such a thing. Seed the realm with infertile weeds so to speak.
Paul Westhaver: I like that: “Seed the realm with infertile weeds” It bears on something I keep banging on about: that when it comes to Paris they (the scientivists) need to cover all the bases. On the one hand, if the climate cools, and it’s a Maunder on the way, they need to be able to say it’s a very minor thing and AGW will transcend it; OTOH, if the Maunder is bigger than they are saying right now they will claim that the cooling is all down to the mitigation, carbon taxes, solar farms, wind farms and FF disinvestment that they advocated. A win/win for them. (‘winwin’ is Serbo-Mongolian slang for ‘lying toe-rags’) [grin]
Hi Harry Passfield,
You are bang on! Those lying toe-rag scientivists can thus pick and chose their issue du jour from the endless crop of annual infertile weeds. Dandelions are really just yellow flowers. doncha know.
It’s all part of the long row back. They are preparing an exit strategy.
Note that 0.8C is total warming over of 20th c. , so what they are saying here ( ever so quietely ) is that a large proportion of the warming of the last century may be due to the high solar activity. You can’t have it both ways.
Oh, you will be surprised.
Always. But never amazed.
Paul…I like your post on what may be behind the MET publishing the paper – IMO, everything generated for public digestion by our government has a behind the scenes reason, and that reason is good for the gov’t but negative for citizens.
I apply the same logic to any agency funded by gov’t.
Scientists… pishaw! Scientists are agenda driven creatures with a whole toolbox of axes to grind, just like the rest of the world. For the past 8-10 years that I have been frequenting WUWT, my consistent complaint is that scientists carping “science” as an inoculation against criticism that they are humans and given to their prejudices, are full of cr@p. They sell out for cheap too. The Met Office is a political office decorated with goofy nerds who will authenticate the propaganda du jour.
Paul. For the sake of correctness, you may like to modify the article text. The organism you refer to is the UK Meteorological Office, the Met Office for short ( capital M,O ), Not the MET. The term “the Met” usually refers to the Metropolitain Police Force ( the force that covers London ).
Mike,
Duly noted. My truncation was of my own creation and since I am 5000 miles away from the UK, I concede ignorance on my part.
The Met here is The Metropolitan Opera in NYC. So I am doubly wrong.!
“Scientists” are fully capable of agendas that even the government doesn’t care about. Just look at where the cosmologists have taken us with their “Big Bang” theory: dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, expanding space, n-dimensions, …… not terribly useful.
All because they assume gravity is the operative “thing” out there, when even satellites are telling us that space is ELECTRIC.
the question is how is this being coordinated, because coordinated it is. Some group somewhere is making sure all the bases are covered, this isnt just an organic process, this is a concerted and controlled propaganda machine, certain papers are produced at intervals (more recently leading up to Paris) to cover all the issues, the Pope, EPA, Obama, UN,and scientific organisations all seem to be working together without being linked. It is a masterful scenario written and controlled by someone, all we need is a chink in the armour, one dissenting voice from the inside and it will all fall down. If they can maintain security then all is lost because not even the truth and facts can fight this kind of organisation. I know I sound like a conspiricy theorist but i am just calling it as I see it, the big picture is that the message is being controlled and just recently as the earth doesnt seem to be cooperating with the script, thay are adding a few variations to cover the continuity of the story.
The Nature paper is about BOTH solar UV output and the AMO (Atlantic ocean currents). Significant changes in total solar irradiance is not predicted, only a couple watts per meter-squared. It is known that UV absorbs in the high atmosphere, and recent analyses suggest that energy input can propagate down into the AMO. (I have no idea how, but papers have been published on this.) It the AMO that is predicted to produce cooling in Europe and eastern north America, a few degrees over many decades, and global cooling, about 0.12 deg. Thus they compare it to the Maunder Minimum of a few hundred years ago, when possibly similar things occurred.
Isn’t odd that a scientist five years ago was illoried by colleagues for suggesting the sun was the problem. Yet here we are predicting significant effects of just that same celestial body.
Not odd. It is a gradual move into admission that natural factors are quite important for global temperature. Most are not quite there yet. So they point some effect of a natural factor, but then say something like “but human-produced CO2 is still active in causing warming”. It will be a slow process, over the past couple years there are obvious changes in perspective of some.
My Creps are not blooming!!
My heat pump only needs to cool mid afternoon!!
My pecan trees put on fuzz but never made a pecan, poor squirrels!!
Yesterday I saw a really bright spot in the sky and thought it was the sun behind a little tiny cloud with a rainbow next to it. But the sun was about 30degrees away from it. It was there about 10 minutes and then dissappeared. Wierd…
Of course, any warming will only be “temporary”. Have the alarmist climate “scientists” redefined the meaning of words now as they have redefined “science” and natural law?
Everything is temporary.
CO2 fines won’t be.
The paper states: “Due to intellectual property right restrictions, we cannot provide either the source code or the documentation papers for HadGEM2”
That excludes the paper from serious consideration.
But Leif, It must be a good study because,…..well because it is from the MET Office.
And everyone knows that Met Office forecasts are always spot on.
anyone in the uk that has had cause to follow met forecasts for the last 30 years will be well aware the increased use of modeling has resulted in a marked decrease in accuracy. so much so most people involved in serious marine activities completely ignore them these days.
Absolutely.
Bit chilly:
” …the increased use of modeling has resulted in a marked decrease in accuracy” is the exact opposite of the truth. I know because i worked with their NWP models for 22 of those “last 30 years”.
Back 30 years ago NWP models still made the forecasts and this is the development of Supercomputers in that time …..
“This pattern of advancing technology and increasingly complex models continued, with the Met Office buying successively quicker computers every five to ten years. By 1982, our CDC Cyber 205 could do 200 million calculations a second, but by 1997 a Cray T3E was doing more than a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) a second.
We are now using an IBM supercomputer which can do more than 1000 trillion calculations a second. Its power allows it to take in hundreds of thousands of weather observations from all over the world which it then takes as a starting point for running an atmospheric model containing more than a million lines of code.
This is the improvement in forecast accuracy in that time….
http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/School+Members+Area/Ask+the+experts/Meteorological+forecasting.htm
“The graph shows how many days into a forecast period this average error is reached compared to a baseline in 1980. This graph shows that a three-day forecast today is more accurate than a one-day forecast in 1980.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/who/accuracy/forecasts
So was this paper privately produced, so as to have private intellectual property rights associated with it, or is it a product of the publicly funded MET office? Something doesn’t fit here.
Leif, is this still on target for the 1st?
http://www.sidc.be/silso/
As far as I know, yes. But should there be a small delay, I wouldn’t complain.
Climate Science article – intellectual property rights? Surely there has to be some intellectual content for there to be intellectual property right?
I think CRU and/or the Met Office used the same lame excuse to evade FOIA requests by David Holland or Steve McIntyre. Good enough to use for justifying IPCC spiel, but a bit too good to let us plebs actually see it.
There are now entities in the education research arena that have developed a matrix used to accept or reject research for review on the efficacy of educational treatments (programs, curriculum, strategies, etc). The matrix is publicly available so researchers will know from the outset if their design meets strict criteria. Researchers are still free to publish their work in whatever journal accepts it, but if that research does not meet the criteria for inclusion, well, it just isn’t considered worthy of review. Now I wonder why someone thought it was necessary to create an entity that would serve as a public-accessible review to see if the treatment they are using actually has a chance in hell of working?
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Publications_Reviews.aspx?f=All%20Publication%20and%20Product%20Types,5;#pubsearch
I think climate science should have such a matrix. Why? Because the public consumer often does not know good research from bad, and that is especially true in the climate science arena. The evidence is often displayed here on all sides of this debate.
Any such matrix will be quickly tampered with by warmists, then used to block publication of contrarian papers.
Ms. Gray,
Great links. I’d like your opinion. Reading the links, my initial take away was: is the “What Works” content a process to lift average or below average teachers or, do you think it’s a process to make good teachers great?
Thank you,
Neither. It’s main endeavor is meant to improve educational research design, a notoriously low hanging fruit endeavor with notable exceptions. Sadly, the educational journals and curriculum producers fill 100’s of journals with sub-par research. This helps screen out that copious amount of chaff. If used by school districts, it can result in better spent limited budgets for curriculum and training as they focus better on a good bet instead of hype.
Elitist progressives who can’t get past their arrogant self importance controlling our knowledge. No thanks! That’s why we need open debate on blogs, less the FCC and executive orders.
Did you read their manual on what constitutes statistically valid research methods? Apparently not. Of if you did, you did not understand it. If you would endeavor to understand it, my thinking is that you would wish climate researchers used such standards.
The manual does not say anything at all about the outcome of research. It does however clearly set forth what constitutes reliable research methods.
I am not for any governance in publishing. Publishers are the messenger, if one does not agree with sloppy science, then do not subscribe to the hypothesis. As I have said, Svensmark, Landshceidt and others were initially castigated by the so called elitist leadership in science. AGW was accepted by many who today see the untruths in its’ hypocracy. Let the chips fall where they may, I see no need to allow a selection committee to dictate publishing guidelines. Like APA, it is a guideline, but really does not seem to stick. Example is all the acronyms and lack of citations. Many papers expect the readers to be as well read as the writer. So no wonder people give up on reading something beyond their understanding. It is the responsibility of the writer communicate the message; rather than turn around and be snarly at the perceived ignorance of readers.
Leif
Spot on. Nail hammer hammer nail commence
There is something interesting going on here. This paper claims regional skill. That could well be worth a fortune if the claim is correct.
And kids, a paper with a mechanism to explain cooling? How much treasure be there?
==============
Agreed Leif, but the paper does have entertainment value… 🙂
as do most of the comments here.
Perhaps they should develop their own intellectual property rights with their own money.
lsvalgaard.
“That excludes the paper from serious consideration.”
Why do you say that?
Anecdotally, judging by the reaction, the paper is getting a lot of serious consideration.
I would not consider the attention it is getting here as ‘serious’, but perhaps my bar for what is worthwhile is [much] higher than yours.
lsvalgaard.
“I would not consider the attention it is getting here as ‘serious’, but perhaps my bar for what is worthwhile is [much] higher than yours.”
Not just from WUWT.
I probably should not have added that second question, I did mean why do you say “That excludes the paper from serious consideration.” I do not see someone not releasing details an issue if IP considerations apply.
The self-correcting nature of science relies on replication and checking what goes into a paper. If that is not possible because of IP consideration, self-correcting science is not possible.
lsvalgaard.
I do agree that a paper needs to describes how they arrived at a result in sufficient details, but I don’t agree it also means they have to hand over all their data and computer source code.
It would be a bit like asking to hand over all your lab equipment after you had done an experiment so other can perform the same experiment using the same equipment.
I guess as a professional courtesy someone might make their data and source code available to other researchers. I interpreted that comment by the researches as meaning they could not make available the HadGEM2 source code and documentation as it was the Intellectual Property of the Hadley Centre – you had to ask the Hadley Centre for it.
It would be a bit like asking to hand over all your lab equipment after you had done an experiment so other can perform the same experiment using the same equipment.
No, that is not what scientific repeatability is about. It is about finding the same result with different equipment. The code contains the assumptions and shortcuts in the analysis and the data is, of course, what is important.
Remember where this comes from who it is intended for. Its intent is social,political not scientific.Its Machiavellian.A serious discussion should rather be of what its goal is and how effective it is in achiving it goal.
Again the purpose of this paper is to infuence the masses
I’m done.Sigh.. ready aim fire.
michael
lsvalgaard
So your turning into a proper climate snob now that you have joined the exclusive club of (solar) climate editors
Clearly the ever-increasing CO2 levels are causing solar activity to decrease ….
I do not normally believe anything the Met Office has to say. If I want to know what the weather is doing I check my £25 weather station and look out of the window rather than their misinterpretations of what their £60,000,000 computer says. In this case I will listen for the following reasons:
1) It is based on sound scientific principles with an accurate historical correlation.
2) It could be that they have found their get-out clause from CO2 warming, that they have defended with such vigour. They certainly need something to get them out of the 18.5 year hole they have dug themselves into.
First, lets get this out of the way:
“Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. ”
Now we can focus on the real science…
Funny how many “scientific” articles include that disclaimer isn’t it? Sort of like Copernicus where you have to engage the party line then you can to get published and not executed. “Here is all my science but I could be wrong and probably am so don’t kill me” 🙂
You must show respect to the Church of Global Warming.
If they admit that there hasn’t even been any warming for nearly two decades they run the risk of losing their funding.
Copernicus’ “out” was “this is just mathematics.”
Yep, it’s a well recognized fact that the sun has nothing to do with the global mean near-surface temperature of the Earth.
The statement “Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.” would still apply if the sun were to vanish from the sky.
Hey, who turned out the lights???
And it is cold! 🙂
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
More evidence we are on the cusp of the Next Grand Minimum
CYA time for the MET? I smell fear that they know they are wrong and are planting the seeds of reality just so they can claim to have predicted it when it hits. Low solar, PDO in negative phase for a decade now, AMO peaked and on the way down. They may be a conniving bunch of money grubbing, sell your scientific soul for 30 pieces of silver climeunists but they know how this is going to end.
Or they are just lining up a conveyor belt of excuses for a global temperature pause with emerging signs of decline. They need to be ready for CYA beyond volcanoes and ocean cycles, in addition to the various things that never happened in the story lines.
Julia Slingo (who is the Chief Scientist at the Met Office) more than a year ago made a comment to the effect that there may be no resumption to warming before 2030.
This comment was made when discussing ocean cycles, and it implicitly recognised the existence of the ‘pause’/’hiatus’/’plateau’ and recognises the role of natural variation.
If she is right, it will mean that ‘pause’/’hiatus’/’plateau’ will be about 40 years in length (as it will tend to lengthen at both ends).
one can already see that warmists require a lot of negative natural variation (negative ocean cycles, low solar activity etc), if they are to maintain any legitimacy behind claims of high CO2 sensitivity.
The next few years will prove crucial. The warmists are probably right that Paris is the last chance to ‘save’ the world, since there is every prospect that in the run up to AR6 there will be no resumption of warming, the ‘pause’/’hiatus’/’plateau’ will have continued, and if cooling begins to onset not only will all the models be well outside their 95% confidence bounds, the public will smell a rat.
There is nothing like a bit of cold frigid winter weather to waken the senses.
So, in the 90 years between 1940 and 2030 there will have been 22 years of warming, I am convinced, we are all going to fry.
As I have pointed out over at Bishop Hill, they are claiming that the Sun is going to do something they have insisted it cannot do, & also by their UNIPCC colleagues, the Sun is going to have a significant affect upon the Earth’s climate, which they have all insisted it doesn’t have! So, it’s a case of, “Can I have my cake & eat it, please?”
that is absolutely on the money.
I think it is interesting that the Met Office is saying that solar activity might cause temperatures to drop but solar activity does not cause temperatures to rise.
But Leif claims that low solar activity has all but insignificant impact on climate/temperatures down here on planet Earth.
What, either way? Does he?
“scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals” – Translation: “the squeakiest wheel gets the grease.”
In my opinion its a real possibility. Keith Briffa (CRU) also mentioned pressure to conform to a narrative which oversold the certainty – perhaps this pressure was a response to political demands for “stronger signals”.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4872.txt
… I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. …
“the squeakiest wheel gets the grease.”
I think that with climate “science” it is the sneakiest wheel that gets the grease.
Apologies that this is on an unrelated topic, but I am just listening to a couple of witnesses on the radio describing the Karachi heat-wave.
First witness, “we have never had temperatures like this”.
Yes, you have “9 June 1938 47.8 °C (118.0 °F) Karachi Sindh”. source wikipedia.
The second witness is explaining that the situation has been worsened by the prolonged power-cuts, causing air-conditioning to fail, the poor and unreliable privately owned water supply system AND importantly, the fact that it is currently Ramadan, and people are therefore attempting to fast from water intake.
I just thought that I would mention these points before we are told that the deaths result from the dreaded 0.8degree C rise in 140 years of NOAA records.
Meanwhile, in Holland three judges have today decided that the entire population must be consigned to an exercise in theatrical unilateral economic idiocy.
This is clearly an unprecedented level of bullcrap. And possibly a significant game changer.
Since now some of the most imbecilic and scientifically illiterate members of society (i.e. judges) can potentially carry us into their dreamworld dystopian future of carbon leakage, punishing energy costs and dependence on Putin’s gas. Very bad news for everyone, really.
I’m sure that both these topics are lined up for discussion on WUWT later today, but here’s a heads up:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/dutch-government-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling
An apparent inability (or sensibility) to alter local dress codes may have something to do with it:
http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/5ff1225/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fbd%2F2fddbf756ab9f6a2acdbfdbfeeb54e%2Fmedia%3A35931d15c4814e70bff77668b65386c3PakistanHeatstroke.JPEG
It is Ramadam, and some people will not drink even water during the hours of daylight! No surprise that this causes serious dehydration and sunstroke etc.
Not nice to see these people suffering, even if some of it appears to be slightly self induced. They do need the monsoon to come.
I imagine a decently insulated abode with AC would suit them just fine until the Monsoon shows.
The big problem is that politicians have been doing one thing in public and another in private. Playing to the green gallery by promising massive reductions in CO2 whilst at the same time putting up coal fired power stations and generally ignoring CO2 as a non-problem.
Now judges are in effect saying: “the rhetoric must match reality”.
So do they
1. Pander to a few green voters by putting up taxes, destroying their economy and basically telling everyone else to get stuffed.
2. Do the sensible thing and stop pandering to the greens.
indefatigablefrog at 7:49 am
“Professor Pier Vellinga, Urgenda’s chairman and the originator of the 2C target in 1989 said that the breakthrough judgement would have a massive impact. “The ruling is of enormous significance, and beyond our expectations,” he said. …. The court also ordered the government to pay all of Urgenda’s costs.”
*********************************************************************************************************
A name to remember as the EU slowly but surely collapses.
a.k.a Professor Useful Idiot.
Mr Putin says thanks.
And Putin also wants to say thanks to the fracking protestors who brought about a cut in the output of the main dutch gas field from a target of 39.4 billion cubic meters to 13.5 billion cubic meters.
I did phone the Kremlin and ask to speak to Putin to congratulate him on all this.
But the receptionist told me – “no, I am sorry. Mr Putin cannot speak to you right now. He is busy dancing and laughing with joy”.
Armenia is getting a full dose of Russia’s iron fist over reliable energy.
They should drag Josh Fox off to The Hague and place him under an international tribunal for all the winter deaths looming in Eastern Europe.
Maybe the Dutch Government should refer the judges to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram 1971.
The brainwashing has progressed that far that even our judges have no idea about the content of the issue.
Should be simple for the Dutch government to painlessly meet their emissions targets. The Ministry of Truth just needs to take a page from climate science and give the emissions data a brisk little massage and – voila!
“three judges ruled that government plans to cut emissions by just 14-17% compared to 1990 levels by 2020 were unlawful, given the scale of the threat posed by climate change.” I thought the Dutch were a sensible people but clearly they’re barking mad allowing judges to rule on climate change. Judges! My jaw keeps dropping in disbelief.
Oh well, when brutally cold winters keep coming maybe they’ll have a re-think.
Naturally, nobody was taking exact measurements until relatively lately. The folks at the Met Office are relying on proxies. Generally speaking, proxies tend to smooth out changes. ie. A proxy will (more often than not) make a very rapid change look like a slower change. Just on general principles, I’m not sure I trust the headline.
I had the same thought – they’re talking about heliogenic isotope ratios as the historical proxy for solar activity? How, pray tell, does one get any kind of decent resolution out of such a measurement?
Demonstrate that you can account for each and every atom in a kilogram of seawater, then get back to me with your supposed precision measurements of isotope ratios in a soil or rock sample of known age.
Quite right, but high-frequency hysteria seems to be a theme of our times.
Frequency and pitch.
I guess consumers will be the big losers in the end much like they are the last to know a lot of things like war and unintended policy effects. They will be misled about a possible threat because the political policy line of warming is stronger than the science of indicated cooling. The farm sector will have higher prices from crop shortages and the MET office will continue to have no cost predictions and excuses. The pattern is already set with bad prediction records and budget increases for higher speed computers. In fact it will lead to larger computer systems purchased, if the delivery trucks can get through the snow drifts.
This is politics, to desensitise the UK Public from IPCC CO2 pseudoscience which has dominated the Hadley Centre since Houghton gave up Science in favour of propaganda. About 18 months ago, they apparently substituted about half the warming in the 80s and 90s by solar effects, diluting CO2 claims. In time that will be reduced still further. The reason for this change appears to be that the real scientists were sick and tired of having to push the fake CO2 warming when it fouled up future predictions – models ‘running too hot’.
It’ll take time to remove the science from political control because none of the staff dare admit that the CO2 méme is a busted flush, but this solar projection is mainstream now. I have made it clear that there will probably have to be inshore icebreakers in UK Northern Ports come the winter of 2020, at which time the excess winter death toll from cold and the rolling power cuts will approach the key level of c. 100,000/year, a political minefield at the end of the present government. It has reacted by stopping subsidies for onshore windmills in favour of another approach.
” the UK MET office has published a study which suggests solar activity is currently plummeting, the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years ”
Nine thousand years ago … where have I heard that number before? Oh yeah! that was when an up tick in CO2 ended the Wisconsin Glacial Episode. There was an article about that on Wattsupwiththat.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/23/a-shift-in-climate-forcing-led-to-demise-of-laurentide-ice-sheet-9000-years-ago/
“when an up tick in CO2 ended the Wisconsin Glacial Episode”
Do we know that to be true? Or could it be that CO2 ticked up when the Wisconsin Glacial Episode ended?
Yes, that “9,300 years ago” also rang a bell with me – didn’t we experience the Younger Dryas about then??
No – Younger Dryas were between 12,800 and 11,500 years BP.
It would have been nice to read the article but with the auto play ads continuously adjusting the screen it was impossible…..
Install Adblock and it will fix your problem.
Adblock, noScript, and install a custom host.txt file from mvps.org, and turn on pop-up blocker.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
Unless you like ads, in which case, ignore this comment.
Paul…could you be more specific with a direct link to the host.txt
Here it is in zip form… last time I checked there was 16-20 thousand urls redirected to the 127 home url.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.zip
I have downloaded it within the past year and extracted the text.
much of it ads, trackers and p0rn.. I don’t need any of those links thank-you.
🙂
I’m confused. You quote an abstract, but it’s not the one at http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html. That one, an article about a simulation, says:
Did people make a last minute swap of the abstract?
Its in the Introduction not the Abstract.
Oh, there it is, it’s in the introduction, I was searching for |9300| instead of |9,300|.
I also see in http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html text that shows the “new” estimate isn’t so new, but perhaps the Nature paper is the first reference in peer reviewed literature:
Remember the statement “But don’t expect a little ice age.” It is just asking to go down in the list of famous last words.
Ric: the quotation you refer to was from the ‘Introduction’ section of the paper. It was not the Abstract as claimed.
I provided a read more link – sorry if it was unclear what I was quoting.
Climate scientists so often use language that makes it difficult to keep in mind that a computer model (eg the typical “climate models”) are simply an algorithmic expression of a theory and that running the model produces “data” that quantify the predictions of the model, but do not confirm or refute the model.
Only “real world” measurements, eg readings from a thermometer, produce data that can confirm or refute a model. Yet these guys use language such as “Both Experiments Show…..” as if something about the real world has been revealed.
All the major IPCC-accepted models from the 1980’s and 90’s have been falsified by the actual temperatures measured since the models predicted incipient catastrophic global warming. Until models are created and confirmed by successful predictions, all articles such as the above are as likely to be misleading as useful.
Alarmists Really don’t help themselves…..
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/28/willie-soon-s-climate-denial-wasn-t-ever-credible-climate-scientists
At least your link got it right: Willie Soon’s ‘work’ is widely discredited [for good reasons].
So is yours [for good reasons]
See what I did there ?
Desmogblog is still in operation? I honestly thought they were defunct. I haven’t seen a link to them in a while, even on the lukewarmer boards.
This article reminds me of “Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age” (.pdf, Habibullo Abdussamatov. November 25, 2013), at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf
And that paper was junk too.
What this paper is to you is not junk ,but rather one that does not agree with your positions.
that is an unsubstantiated supposition. On what do you base that?
As are all your comments and reply’s.
Mr Svalgaard is unquestionably right on the point that the refusal of the authors to make their code and data fully available for falsification renders this paper valueless, scientifically.
It is good that we can agree on something.
Their refusal is also a slap in the face of the public who after all has paid for this ‘research’.
PeterK has it spot on. Leif may well be correct, in that it is unacceptable that this paper cannot be verified, but it is equally unacceptable to make a drive-by comment that a paper is “junk, too” without a very brief explanation as to why that opinion is held. It makes the comment completely worthless. And I have to say that, despite his evident knowledge, the vast majority of Leif’s comments are completely worthless – being merely sharp remarks (stabs) with no substance. He may well be a very busy man – so don’t bother making any comment at all!
Must agree with Leif and Monckton on this one. Although the conclusions may appear helpful to my position, the refusal to provide code (or pseudo code/algorithm) and data excludes it from being useful scientifically.
This issue was discussed at length on CA years ago. There are almost no good reasons for a scientist to protect IP instead of advancing science. Given that, I would suspect that the purpose here is to establish a negative or decreasing baseline. That would enable them to claim that global warming is happening even though temperatures are flat or decreasing.
It seems preposterous that one could predict solar climate 100 years out.
So what happens if solar activity plunges to Maunder-like levels and global temperature holds steady instead of also taking a deep plunge?
Those linking Solar activity to Earth’s temperature will have to admit they were wrong, or invent a very good excuse, or move the goal posts.
Belief trumps data. Their very good excuse will be as awful as the twisted “mechanism” guesses often profferred by solar-climate adherents.
Lets also not forget Earth’s weakening magnetic field at play here too.
Easy answer Donald, those who believe in a solar /climate relationship will be wrong.
On the other hand if the temperature response is down we will be correct.
No, the second part does not follow, as there could be other reasons.
Yeah, Lief, the dog ate my research … SDP and LS really should go out for supper some time and make a post on what you agree on (if anything) and where you disagree and why. I could read your past and ongoing discussions, but I am betting you have a lot of areas of agreement that would show up after a nice dinner – perhaps Chinese so there are no knives on the table. (and yes, I read all your discussion on Allan MacRae’s post and I will read your discussion below. Still you guys could collaborate and make a great post on your differing views, putting it all in one place.)
You are both extremely intelligent, I enjoy both your posts, but I really don’t understand the low level vitriol.
But I am just an interested reader, no scientist, so “Carry On”. Are you old enough to remember the “Carry On” movies? Carry On.
No if the global temperatures go down when prolonged solar minimum conditions are present this time I will be correct. This will tie together all of my findings and thoughts about the present as well as the past as far as the climate is concerned.
No, Sal, that doesn’t follow. There could be other reasons, or you may be correct for the wrong reason. e.g.: I flip a coin. My theory is that if heads come up I win a million dollars. Tails came up and I didn’t win the money, but that does not prove that my head = money theory was correct.
It never fails to amaze me that Salvatore continues to make the same mistake over and over again. It is essential that investigators leave no stone unturned in determining that the null hypothesis remains in first place (in fact it’s still in first place when the research result is a tie). Bias increases exponentially when investigators do not engage in required null hypothesis due diligence. Rejecting the null hypothesis requires a rock steady desire to actually NOT reject the null hypothesis. It should be evident to every reader here that Sal has already rejected the null hypothesis without the least bit of research into the null hypothesis (and I must add that many CO2 researchers have made the same error).
you may be correct for the wrong reason
==============
either someone is correct for the right reason or they are correct for the wrong reason. which is it?
Salvatore said, “This will tie together all of my findings and thoughts about the present as well as the past as far as the climate is concerned.”
======================
It would take a careful examination of all these thoughts and observation to determine if the conclusion is likely correct Pamela and Leif’s dismissal simply based on “other potential reasons” always has generic validity, but then it also always lacks specific validity, which must be compared against what “all of the findings and thoughts about the present as well as the past as far as the climate is concerned.” entails.
therefore take the “correlation is not causation” dismissal here as without basis short of detailed critique.
I am pointing out a failure in Sal’s investigative technique. He has not done due diligence in first ruling out natural intrinsic drivers, by proper literature review and the application of knowledge pertaining to Earth’s fluid and thermo dynamics within its oceans and atmosphere, before arriving at his conjecture as to the cause of Earth’s temperature trends. AGW scientists make the same mistake.
If that’s the case, then February 2015 (which was the coldest month ever on record for Buffalo) is a taste of what’s to come … and the taste it left with me was truly foul.
Of course, it’ll be even rougher for our neighbors to the north if they’ll be faced with shorter and shorter (and weaker) summers. Move south dear Canadians.
I think February was rather warm in British Columbia. Certainly warmer than the northeast US and nearby provinces. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/08/1934-2015-a-tale-of-two-februaries/
BTW, western NY as a whole only had the second coldest February – 1934 is #1.
Exceptional, but not necessarily a taste of what’s to come. Definitely a taste of what we had.
Ric Werne at 8:19 am
BC is getting fried by the Eastern Pacific “BLOB”. My left coast friends will say this confirms global warming while across the Rockies we have had both above normal and below normal weather – temperature, rain, wind, hail snow …. everything as usual. We’ll see what the next hundred years brings. Well, some of you will …
Meanwhile, here in Southwest Florida we had a mild winter, the Gulf temps remained comfortable and we had an early start to typical summertime thunderstorms which kept May from being too dry as is usual.
It is pleasantly tropically hot right now (around 90F) and I have just come inside after about 2 hrs of yard work. I enjoy the heat but I must say that it is a lot easier to tolerate when I able to cool down, rehydrate, shower and then sit comfortably at my computer in a room cooled to a cozy 82F. And that is made possible because of the wonderful electricity produced by coal fired power plants and delivered over a well maintained grid. And yet I keep reading stories about how we must rid ourselves of these awful coal fired power plants or we will perish. Makes no sense to me.
CO2 is like the Uncle Remus Tar Baby. The climatologists have embraced the Tar Baby and can’t let go so they have to make excuses. And yes, we will be saddled with a very sad outcome as the Paris coup will take over all energy systems and force us to do stupid things while we freeze to death.
This will not be comical, it will be brutal and revolts will definitely rise due to this. It is one thing to be somewhat warm, freezing to death is much nastier and more likely and will motivate people to storm Bastilles.
I’m already stacking next winter’s firewood in my Bastille!
As am I. Four cords of dry hardwood have been delivered and half is presently stacked. The rest will be taken care of this coming weekend.
It’s never too early to put in next winter’s heating supply!
Watch Professor Murry Salby on U-tube give his lecture on Atmospheric CO2. the lecture was delivered in Westminster London on 15 March this year. His textbook on Atmospheric physics and climate change published by Cambridge University Press is used by most postgraduate physics students in UK universities who are studying atmospheric CO2. It is THE book on this subject and is in much demand.
I downloaded a free pdf copy from:
http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/jzavala/OceanoAtmosfera/Physics%20of%20the%20Atmosphere%20and%20Climate%20-%20Murry%20Salby.pdf
Don’t know the book, but his lecture on atmospheric CO2 contains a lot of errors, which make that his result (the integration of temperature causes the whole CO2 increase) is completely wrong…
Only your opinion Ferd. Why dont you get a copy of Salby’s book do all the exercises and then come back here so we can take you more seriously.
FrankKarrv,
I was in London last year where he did speak in the Parliament buildings and watched his speaches in Sidney, Hamburg and the recent one in London. What he said (but didn’t repeat in London this time) about CO2 migration in ice cores is physically impossible (a 10-15 fold peak shaving), as that implies that during glacial periods the CO2 levels were far too low to sustain most (C3-type) plants (thus life) and even negative…
“The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity.”
They obviously haven’t been reading your papers, Leif!
or worse: haven’t paid attention to what the Sun have actually been doing.
I am going to die laughing.
Do you guys also believe the last three years are the ‘warmest years evah’ too?
The establishment academics, amazingly , seem finally to have noticed that the sun has some influence on the climate and are even paying attention to the 60 year temperature cycle which any high school graduate can plainly see in the temperature data. See Fig 15 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The key question in climate forecasting however is where we are with regard to the quasi – millennial solar cycle which is also plainly apparent in the temperatures. see Fig 5 (From Humlum ) at the link above.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JRFF7ZFvgKw/U81X0SC899I/AAAAAAAAAS8/PIcfIxO3QUQ/s1600/GISP2%2520TemperatureSince10700%2520BP%2520with%2520CO2%2520from%2520EPICA%2520DomeC.GIF
(The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore end here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2)
Looking at the decline in solar activity discussed in recent papers and seen in Figs 13 and 14 since 1991
it is reasonable to suggest that we are now 24 years past the peak in the solar activity cycle; The corresponding temperature peak ( with a 12 year lag time ) may well turn out to be the peak in the RSS temperature trend data in 2003 since when we have a 12 year cooling trend.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JVvSFvACeJY/VYS8i51Cs1I/AAAAAAAAAWw/g-B0x8ouSJg/s1600/may2015trendrss.png
So, here is the first of our recurrent peddlers tooting his horn, watch for more to come.
There is no evidence that there is a 1000-yr period with predictive capability and that it has just peaked.
I’m with Leif on this. It’s the quality of evidence that you have to examine and do so with a very cynical attitude
The linked blog also provides estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling.
I am also willing to predict that Leif will finally be willing to recognize the obvious in about 2123 after two more 60 year cycles.
If you are correct, I’ll buy you a beer in 2123. BTW, there very likely is a 60-yr cycle in climate, but not in solar activity, so there is little to concede. Your 1000-yr cycle is just a cyclomania-symptom and need not be taken seriously.
The key is ‘are predictions coming true?’ So far, global warming predictions are failing fast. Global cooling predictions are increasingly accurate. One can have all sorts of theories about stuff but proof is in the pudding.
This is why the temperature data tampering is such a huge issue. It is all about manufacturing ‘hottest years evah!’ all the time when this is not happening.
Leif . Glad to see we are in agreement re 60 year temperature cycle. That’s a start. Do you have any opinion on whether the temperature in 2063 is likely to be warmer or cooler than in 2003?
Do you think earth will cool until 2033?
Well, the 60-yr cycle is not your invention, so you cannot take credit for that. And it is not a true cycle, so it has limited predictability. I don’t think anybody can with confidence predict 2063. If they claim they can, they are fraudsters. Do you make such a claim?
And BTW, I don’t agree with you in particular. The 60-yr cycle is well known, Norman Page or not.
Leif. The original comment didn’t claim any special responsibility for discovering the 60 year cycle .I said
“The establishment academics, amazingly , seem finally to have noticed that the sun has some influence on the climate and are even paying attention to the 60 year temperature cycle which any high school graduate can plainly see in the temperature data.”
I notice you didn’t respond to the questions.I assume that ,as usual,you don’t care to speculate.
I do science, not mindless speculation.
Leif The IPCC claim 95% certainty for their range of temperature forecasts .Apparently this certainty was achieved by about 20 guys sitting round a table and voting their expert opinions .Is this fraudulent? Only if some of the persons involved really didn’t believe the numbers they approved but just went along for the ride to form an acceptable consensus. How can anyone apart from the individual persons involved know that?
Similarly if I or anybody else chooses to make a forecast for any time in the future and makes the methods, arguments and data base transparent , it may well be wrong but why on earth do you think it is necessarily fraudulent.?
makes the methods, arguments and data base transparent
Transparency is not enough, it also has to be credible and plausible, and there you fail. Then to claim that you are nevertheless to be believed, that is the fraud sneaks in.
Careful Leif, if computer scientists are right about the technological singularity, you might have to buy that beer 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Eric We already have a fine example of such a singularity in the growing explosion of stupidity seen in the successive IPCC reports. The problem of such complex computer programs and their untestable outputs is that masses of people who should know better adopt these outputs as a basis for their CAGW religion.
Leif My approach is to present links to the data and state clearly the assumptions used in any forecast and let readers judge for themselves. Obviously I fail to convince you personally.- but I find that unsurprising since credibility and plausibility is a judgment made by the reader and your views on sun and climate are well known and pretty much set in stone.
As to what I claim re belief in my forecasts this is what actually say
“The chief uncertainties relate to the exact timing of the current millennial solar activity peak and to the regionally variable lag time between the solar activity peak and its appearance as a peak in land temperatures and global SST and the RSS data A +/- 12 year lag between the neutron count and the RSS data has been used here following Fig3 in Usoskin et al:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U
Other investigators have suggested lags between 12 and 20 years. We will see.
How confident should one be in the predictions in this post? The pattern and quasi-periodicity method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However, statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and, in relation to an ensemble of IPCC climate models, are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in, as some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure (say 65/35) for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly.
Your Usoskin link is dead [incomplete]
your views on sun and climate are well known and pretty much set in stone.
That is complete nonsense. Nothing is set in stone. I’ll change my view if compelling evidence is brought forward. So far, you have not presented any.
Sorry this should work.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U
did you try it yourself by clicking on the wordpress formatted page?
No. it works from my blog but for some reason doesn’t post to WUWT correctly. I’ll see what I can do.
I know the paper, of course, so do it for others
The Usoskin 2005 paper does not reflect recent thinking on solar activity. e.g. uses the faulty old Group Sunspot Number. Here is a modern version of the realtionship between 14C and the GSN:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
Leif if you have the time and inclination to follow this up go to
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Scroll rapidly to Section 4 and click on the link there. See Fig 3 showing delay between solar activity and temperature.
I know that paper. [I know all relevant literature – that is my job to do] and as I said it is based on incorrect solar data.
Dr. Page, I agree with the notion that those in the warmist camp generally seem to think that the sun cannot cause warming when it’s more active, but now suddenly can certainly cause cooling when it’s activity wanes. That general bias can be seen from one article and discussion after another over the years. I believe such a bias even has something to do with the very poor accuracy of the models also.
Being a simple mechanic and truck driver I try to equate the suns heating of the earth more in the terms of industrial heating. With a gas IR heating unit being the much larger component than a forced draft unit. A gas IR unit heats the objects in the building while a forced draft unit heats the air it blows out and that in turn heats the objects in the building. As a rule a gas IR unit will make a person feel warmer faster but once the IR unit does heat of the contents of the building it goes much much longer before it has to kick on again and the heat is much more even.
Since water is our greatest heat reservoir on the planet I then ask, which unit would heat a large swimming pool that took up maybe, lets say, 71% of the floor space in the building quicker and more efficiently?
If I understand it, the orthodox position is that only solar irradiance can effect surface temperature. They deny that changes in the solar wind can have much effect on climate. If the theory that changes in the solar wind modulate cloudiness is correct, then we should see evidence of it in the next few years.
Not to mention the weakening of Earth’s magnetic field as well.
There is evidence for it in the Dalton Minimum, particularly through the colder run of years in Europe from 1807-1817, with a dearth of Aurora sightings. Page 11:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf
CET:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
The solar wind must have a direct effect on polar air pressure, that is where the solar wind couples with the atmosphere. At least by means of Joule heating and ozone destruction.
This paper is confirming what Lockwood has suggested which is this present decline in solar activity is very rapid. They are also correct in suggesting solar variability does indeed impact the climate, which is true and can be shown through the historical climatic record (not manipulated) when contrasted to solar variability especially when solar variability is shown in the context of Milankovitch Cycles and the phase of the PDO/AMO,ENSO and volcanic activity.
In addition the strength of the earth’s magnetic field has to be taking into account, for when this field is weak it will enhance given solar variability, while when strong it will moderate given solar variability. Presently the earth’s magnetic field like solar is in a rapid decline, however it still has a way to go on the down side before we can say the field is so weak that a magnetic excursion is likely to take place.
Weak solar and geomagnetic fields equate to a cooler climate.
However one last note on this article is they still cling to AGW theory which they think (wrongly) is going to somehow prevent global cooling. They are wrong on that score but the fact that they acknowledge solar variability and it’s impact on the climatic system is a step in the right direction.
The recent solar lull 2008-2010 shows that solar activity post 2005 is on a rapid decline, solar variability is indeed present (all one has to do is contrast the recent solar lull to solar activity 1950-2000 to confirm this), and that my low average value solar parameters (which I feel will cause a significant climatic impact) are attainable as is shown through the solar data in that time period.
The reason why the recent solar lull did not have a big impact on the climate in 2008-2010 is twofold. First the duration of the lull was not long enough and secondly not enough years of sub solar activity proceeded it.
If this recent solar lull has had the duration of the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum ,a decline in global temperatures would have been the result but this decline in global temperatures as a result of solar activity on the decline has jut been delayed not postponed. I expect soon after the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends which is right around the corner a global temperature decline will take place along with a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern as will be evidenced by a negative AO,NAO and an expanded but weaker polar vortex in the N.H.
Sea surface temperatures will also start to show a more pronounced cooling trend in response to weaker solar irradiance.
A faster earth rotation (-LOD) is correlated with low solar activity which in turn is correlated to the ACI (atmospheric circulation index) becoming more meridional which in turn is correlated to lower global temperatures.
An increase in geological activity in association with prolonged minimum solar periods as shown by data (space and science center headed by Dr. Casey ) is also a big secondary effect associated with prolonged minimum solar periods of time which contributes to global cooling when solar activity is in this minimum phase.
MY CRITERIA FOR SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED FOR COOLING:
I will send those in my next post.
Here is the next peddler. Sal, we don’t need to see your speculations, again, and again, and again, and again, and …
You really don’t like disputes, do you? (clearing my throat) Um, we all complain about one sided web sites, is this one going to start punishing people for arguing?
Repeating the same old, tired, speculations is not arguing.
I present a very clear cut speculation if one wants to call it that which is I say the global temperature response will be down if my low average value solar parameters are meant or even approached.
If the resultant global temperature trend does not respond the way I suggest the theory or speculation will be wrong.
It is quite simple and to the point and I do not have any vague statements and or if and buts about it like so many in this field always do when presenting a climate forecast. My approach is clear cut and concise.
You say that if the sun does this or that, then the climate will do that or this, but you fail to demonstrate that that follows from your assumptions and also fail to forecast what the Sun will do, so your forecast has no value.
emsnews said:
>You really don’t like disputes, do you? (clearing my throat) Um, we all complain about one sided web sites,
We all complain about repetitious web sites too! I do sort of like this comment:
> this decline in global temperatures as a result of solar activity on the decline has jut been delayed not postponed.
I had thought that the decline had been postponed, not delayed.
Quite right, Lord Kelvin.
Yes, and…fast drop in solar output of various sorts means the effects are delayed thanks to oceans still being warmer. Once the earth adjusts to the new energy levels which are lower, the oceans will become colder and this means inevitably a colder climate which will impact the Northern Hemisphere the most.
Just like heating water. If you suddenly turn off the heat, the water doesn’t immediately get cold, it cools down slowly.
Your analogy is ridiculously ill-matched to the well-known and calculable change in solar radiance (includes all frequencies which themselves can be calculated in terms of potential change in W/m2 here on Earth by band width). Yes there is a calculable affect on temperature. Buried deep in Earth’s own natural intrinsic climate and weather pattern variation noise.
What keeps our oceans warm? Eh? Magic?
The sun heats the oceans. The water absorbs energy from this particular star. Minus that, our planet would be totally frozen.
Ergo: this star determines exactly how much energy is added to our oceans. No other force is as great and tiny changes in solar energy levels translates into big climate changes on the planet.
Your climate sensitivity is getting so small due to your various amplification guesses that you might as well accept that CO2 is equally capable of warming or cooling the planet.
You are conflating two different issues. Yes the Sun’s energy is absorbed by the oceans and if we had no Sun the oceans would turn cold nearly instantly all other things being equal (quite like a fantasy movie because lots of things would go south if the Sun went away). But we are not talking about that process, we are talking about anomalous regime shifts. And there are natural intrinsic Earth entities that can way out-do the Sun in terms of solar insolation change (described as the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth’s surface).
CO2 has no where near the residence time of SW solar radiation. Residence time of energy input (which is what determines heat capacity) is what determines how much energy flux an equal watt per sq meter input generates. We simply do not have an accurate record of surface insolation (especial disparate w/l and the residence time of disparate w/L) into the oceans where residence time can vary from hours to centuries.
The pot on a flame analogy is very much potentially valid, until this surface insolation flux and WL specific variation and residence time is known over a fairly long time scale. Until then the null hypothesis is that the sun drives the ENSO cycles.
David, I believe you are incorrect. When an observation is made (as in box plots set on the ground), whatever effects are observed must first be determined to have a cause within that box. The null hypothesis is what is in the box.
In terms of Earth’s temperature variations, the null hypothesis must be within the confines of Earth (its oceans, atmosphere, rotation and orbit). That said, there are observed effects that were investigated, such as the tides, that were determined to have a connection to extrinsic factors, but even in that case, it is the rotation of the Earth that causes the major component of the tides (IE the null hypothesis is kept), while the extent of tides has an external factor (IE the null hypothesis is rejected).
I know that there are other definitions of the null hypothesis, with some believing it is whatever you say it is. I disagree only because I prefer a straight forward approach to scientific investigation. Drivers are within the “box” of effects. That even extends to the idea that Earth is the center of the Universe. In that case, the null hypothesis has been rejected.
The bottom line, it is up to the investigator to thoroughly show us that the null hypothesis in terms of Earth’s intrinsic (inside the box) factors can be questioned and that there is a decent chance of them being rejected. Sal cannot just ignore Earth’s intrinsic factors. That he chooses to leaves his thesis without a supporting base, thus can be ignored. Which is also why I ignore catastrophic anthropogenic warming research.
Thank you Pamela. I have not examined his work closely, but my impression is that I see difference’s between Salvatore’s “the sun done it”, and CAGW. One of many fatal problems with CAGW theory (theory is perhaps generous) is that there is extensive observable evidence that CAGW is simply wrong, whereas, as my post reflects, there is much information MISSING regarding solar influences on climate beyond simple TSI.
Because so much observational evidence is lacking, I find disparate speculative hypothesis to be grounds for real research, except for the fact that, alas, CAGW sucks the research field dry. However none should claim more then a hypothesis.
Oh, and also CAGW is , IMV, quite clearly corrupt at this point. It is difficult for anyone, let alone impossible for politicians to spend billions, and keep the dark side of human nature from manifesting. Salvatore is asking for no political change from me, nor is he asking to fundamentally change the principles on which the US were founded, nor is he claiming the sky is falling if we do not accept his thoughts. However I agree, at this point we simply lack the knowledge we need to truly understand climate.
Also, BTW Pamela, I would add what is within the box, is well, who defines the box. I suppose you are defining the earths atmosphere, land and oceans as the box. However, all the energy within the box has a complex source outside the box, and is highly interactive daily within the box, I would not discount it as outside the null. There is no doubt that insolation drives ENSO, and there is great mystery as to what drives cloud changes, surface insolation flux, atmospheric changes in jet streams etc. We simply do not know, and much information is MIA. Perhaps the Null should be “we do not know” but it does change. I would not have the hubris to say that many dozens of PHD scientists searching for and finding some evidence for solar influences well above TSI flux are not doing science. .
Posting time after time that everyone else is wrong and you are right gets real old also. It is an indicator of something. Something not good.
Agree mark, it does get old after a while. Perhaps we shoud ignore it and see the good in life, while enjoying scientists stating their findings.
Hey Pamela,
How about cloud cover changes over time.
It does. A climate regime that emphasizes El Nino-like conditions (did you know that the Atlantic also has an El Nino?) will necessarily produce clouds from evaporation. Those clouds tend to be the cumulonimbus type which do a bang up job of reflecting solar radiation away from the ocean surface.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general (10 years) which commenced in year 2005. This part has been satisfied.
If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
We shall see in the very near future since the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 is just about history.
Thank you for posting this morning’s correspondence from the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, entitled “Met Office: Temperatures Could Plummet As Sun Enters Cooler Phase”.
Quelle surprise! On September 1, 2002, the Calgary Herald published my article that stated:
“If [as I believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
My predictive rack record is excellent to date. I really do NOT want to be correct about our 2002 global cooling prediction. A continuation of “the Pause” would be just fine.
More people will die premature deaths if climate turns colder, especially since politicians have degraded our energy systems with “green energy” schemes that are not green and produce little useful energy.
Also, I’m getting old and hate the cold.
Best regards to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1968600
To be even more clear Ferdinand, I sincerely hope that your hypo is correct.
As I said above, atmospheric CO2 is not dangerously high, it is dangerously low.
If you are correct, then humanity can, in theory, maintain atmospheric CO2 above dangerously low concentrations for a long time, perhaps even in perpetuity.
If CO2 is largely driven by natural causes including temperature, then one of the next major global cooling periods (ice ages) will be the end of carbon-based terrestrial life on Earth, and this will happen “in the blink of an eye” in geologic time.
As a member of this fascinating group of carbon-based terrestrial life forms, I feel that I have an obligation to encourage our survival on this beautiful blue-water planet, at least for a little while.
Best personal regards, Allan
Post script:
In 2002 I (we) predicted global cooling to commence by 2020-2030. I am now leaning towards 2020 or sooner. I expect the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 to moderate as temperatures decline. How CO2 behaves will depend largely on the amount of cooling, of which I have no opinion at this time. Again, I hope to be wrong about this prediction – I can live with being wrong, much more than we all can live in even a slightly cooler world.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
Not to worry because the lead scientist said, rather like two Irishman comparing the mystic properties of Tea, AGW will overwhelm anything our star can do because…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136780/You-need-wrap-UK-set-plunge-mini-ice-age-Met-Office-warns-one-five-chance-temperatures-drop-leaves-seen-17th-century.html
Exit strategies come in a lot of forms. This one has the advantage of letting everything change but not the theory. You will now see a host of the usual suspects follow this lead and we will have a seamless, meaningless shift in climate without risk to the 100,000s of practitioners that have been attracted into the ‘discipline’ and ‘educated’ and will need jobs monitoring the progress of the coeval cooling/warming.
What happened to the ‘barbeque summer’ the MET Office predicted for 2009?
It missed the UK completely… that summer was wet, windy and totally forgettable.
The MET Office record of forecasting/predicting/guessing is likely to mean that sun-spot activity will soon rapidly increase. We must prepare, we have been warned – the wise ones have spoken. (sarc off)
Don’t forget their predictions of mild winters either before we had really cold ones instead. But these predictions were all based on the output of the computer models – what else. Maybe now they have done some actual observations/genuine studies and have got a “little” concerned that things are going t**s up.
Perhaps it has finally begun to dawn that all those who poured scorn and derision on the MET Office may have had a valid point.
Relying on ‘computer models’ is increasingly being shown up as fools’ gold – it’s not the real thing.
MET Office staff should get outside a lot more; they might just learn from Nature in the raw: That it’s wet, windy, unpredictable and not warming. Do proper research, ask intelligent questions then you might start to learn about that weird thing called climate…
atmospheric physicists at Imperial College London analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA’s SORCE satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun’s activity declined — warming the Earth’s surface.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html
Leif has stated his position and his reasons for his positions which is fine, and others like myself have stated our positions.
Time(I hope) should tell who is and who is not correct. This is in a wait and see situation for now. Actually all of the diverse opinions about climate change are in a wait and see situation.
I hope the prolonged solar minimum will be as severe as is possible and at the same time CO2 concentrations go up as much as possible so we can see how the global temperature will react. Maybe this will finally bring some clarity to the situation.
My bottom line is I want to know one way or the other, and all I have done in the meantime is taken a position and put forth my reasons why ,on this matter. It is hard to have a position on something if you can not back it up with reasoning.
Do I repeat my position yes I do ,but so does everybody else.
It is hard to have a position on something if you can not back it up with reasoning
But you have not done that at all.
I have back it up with reasoning by looking into the past and seeing what took place.
I guess I don’t understand what’s Leif’s position is regarding the connection between solar activity (in its many forms) and global mean surface temperature. Can some (preferably Leif) summarize it?
There is no compelling enough evidence to convince me that the solar influence is a major driver. It is clear that there is a 0.1 degree solar effect, but that drowns in the noise.
Thanks. And I agree, we lack evidence.
Not to worry, evidence is on its way!
Few Interglacials last much longer than our lovely moment in the meaningless sun.
So, does this mean the global warming model outputs are just a small step from being invalidated? What temperature changes can we expect by 2100 now: plus or minus 6.6C?These global warming proponents are very good at seeing which way the wind blows and placing bets both ways. Just when the global warming gravy train appears to be about to fly off the rails, thank the Green Gods that the great high priests have the foresight (or lack of integrity) to fling themselves forward to quickly patch the broken rails.
On the contrary, if we slip into an extended period of cooling, the vindication of CAGW will be chiseled in stone by the warmist crowd. Their textbooks will say, “By 2015, CAGW theory had been robustly confirmed. However, as solar activity continued to decline in the following years, overhwhelming the effects of mandade GHGs,….”
As far as I am concerned:
NO Archived Data, and/or
NO Detailed Description of Methods, and/or
NO Complete Computer Code, and/or
NO Reproducibility =
NO SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE!
Hiding behind a “non-disclosure” agreement or “intellectual property right restrictions” is cause for derision; such attempts should not be accepted for publishing or consideration in a scientific venue.
Your comments are misleading. I have just been reading the fulltext , via the link in the posting and there is a detailed section on methods and about 60 refs .
To give other readers an indication of how detailed the info is , here is just one part of the methods section :
”
Methods
The control model. We use the Met Office Hadley Centre general circulation
model, HadGEM2-CC (carbon cycle)55, with historical and future forcings
specified according to the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)
as used in HadGEM2-ES (Earth System)30. This version of HadGEM2 is a ‘high
top’ model with 60 vertical levels and an upper boundary at 84 km, so is capable of
resolving relevant stratospheric processes56–58. The horizontal resolution is 1.875
longitude by 1.25 latitude. The ocean resolution is 11, increasing in the
tropics to 0.3, with 40 vertical levels. The TSI is partitioned across six shortwave
spectral bands (0.2–10 mm) with spectral changes associated with changing TSI
accounted for. For the historical period, the TSI and spectrally resolved irradiance
(SSI) used is that recommended by CMIP5 (Lean, Calculations of solar irradiance,
http://sparcsolaris.gfz-potsdam.de/cmip5.php, accessed 2 June 2009 from the
earlier fuberlin site), with a repeating 11-year cycle, based on the period 1998–2008,
imposed for future scenarios. Time-varying ozone distributions include a
component related to solar variability30.”
There is much more .
The comment about copyright is also misleading . The authors make it clear that the Met Office Unified model used is available under licence , like most computer programs , and as a UK taxpayer , if the Met Office can pick up a bit of money for the work their employees do , then it lessens the burden on me.
However the main complaint about your dismissive comments is that it might discourage readers from learning from some of the refs ( if they can get through the paywalls) , eg the refs on the Maunder min on climate as seen by different workers :
42. Cubasch, U. et al. Simulation of the role of solar and orbital forcing on climate.
Adv. Space Res. 37, 1629–1634 (2006).
43. Gray, L. J. et al. Solar influences on climate. Rev. Geophys. 48, RG4001 (2010).
44. Eddy, J. A. The Maunder Minimum. Science 192, 1189–1202 (1976).
45. Luterbacher, J. et al. The late Maunder Minimum (1675-1715) – A key period
for studying decadal scale climatic change in Europe. Clim. Change 49, 441–462
(2001).
It is a common complaint by some of the professionals, like Lief, that the quality of scientific understanding on this website is disappointingly low. Well it is not going to improve if people like you discourage education by reading from professional scientists just because you disapprove of an article.
ITSS.
Come on guys.
Let’s hear for Pope. From his encyclical to God’s eyes, the order goes forth: dial the sun down. The sun goes down!
Fling funds to 800. lov. Papa.
Smile please.
Well… we still call it sun “rise” and sun “set” or sun “down” and NOT “Earth Turned Away” and “Earth Turned Towards”, the sun…. in English anyway.
Even amongst the science types, for example:
http://www.sunrisesunset.com/
Maybe the only thing that can dismantle this climate change thing is actual climate change.
Leif says I say
You say that if the sun does this or that, then the climate will do that or this, but you fail to demonstrate that that follows from your assumptions and also fail to forecast what the Sun will do, so your forecast has no value.
MY REPLY- is I have shown through the record of past historical temperature data that at times of prolonged deep solar minimum periods the sustained global temperature trend has been lower and at times of prolonged solar maximum periods the sustained global temperature has been up, and that the recent solar lull of 2008-2010 shows that my low average value solar parameters are attainable.
Further it does not take much of a leap forward to say during the recent prolonged solar minimums ,those being the Maunder and Dalton ,had solar parameter values which were probably similar to the solar lull of 2008-2010 and the corresponding global temperature trend according to all of the data(not manipulated yet) has been down. Therefore my assumptions are based on valid reasoning.
As far as what the sun is going to do going forward no one really knows including you Leif, but I do think I know what the climate is going to do if my solar parameters are attained.
recent prolonged solar minimums ,those being the Maunder and Dalton, had solar parameter values which were probably similar to the solar lull of 2008-2010
I will agree with that, but then the temperatures should have been similar and they have not been, end of story.
Nope, this is an error. The temperatures could have been anything; they depend on the past as well as on current solar parameters.
============
I do think I know what the climate is going to do
Perhaps an attack of the DK-syndrome?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Leif, are you now an expert in psychology too? Too funny.
Good link. I especially like …
As David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude: “The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”
We can quietly ponder which of you is in which category 🙂
Personally, I enjoy your back and forth banter and have learned from both of you.
Crikey Bernard, don’t encourage him he will just get worse.
Here is a great plot:
http://rjh.org/~rjh/canberra/canberra-weather-ll.html
It is updated daily.
When the sun is up, It is hot. When it is night time, it is cold. Hot, cold, hot, cold etc…
Since the earth always is radiating during the day and night, (unless I am wrong about that) then the 20C swing in temperature in 12 hours is due to incident radiation from… the sun no less. That is pretty incredible. Surface temperatures swings with such magnitudes in such a short period of time. Every Day.
That variation in surface temp is due to a variation in nominal solar radiation from say… average to zero in 12 hours. One would think that with this information (20 C delta), a 1% variation in solar output could contribute a surface temperature variation of say 0.2C in 12 hours. Based on simple scaling. So why would not a smaller yet sustained reduction in solar output not yield a reduction in average surface temp? I think it is a rational conjecture to presume that the solar output variation has an effect, when it can be so glaringly observed on a daily basis.
+1
They are preparing the latest excuse for why the earth isn’t warming. The sun did it.
No it is not the end of the story for two reasons. Reason number one is the solar lull’s duration was not near long enough in time and it was not proceeded by enough years of sub- solar activity in general.
The lull of 2008-2010 followed very closely countless years of above average solar activity.
Here are countless graphs of temperature data which all support my findings.
http://www.c3headlines.com/chartsimages.html
The lull of 2008-2010 followed very closely countless years of above average solar activity.
So did the Dalton Minimum and the 1900-minimum: http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
hmm…
http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
The really hard cold years of the Dalton mimimum came in the middle of the second low cycle. Presumably thermal inertia of the oceans buffers the changes for decade or two.
This is going to hit hardest around 2020-2025.
True, yet we had a very long minimum beginning about 1630. Ocean overturning is in the vicinity of 1,000 years. The entire climate system is full of disparate drivers, all of undetermined influence, some seasonal, some decadal, some on century scales and some on cycles lasting many thousands of years. The timing of how all these interact is ever varying, so perhaps no one should expect to see a consistent similar response in any one factor.
I took a look at the first graph, http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb0846feef970d-pi .
It’s a plot of the last 20 May US temperatures, showing a decline. It makes no mention of the Sun. Shouldn’t there be a mention of the Sun if it supports your findings? Perhaps it supports an inverse relationship between temperature and population. Or temperature and and the performance of the Boston Red Sox so far this year? (They’re both declining.)
If the climate did enter Maunder Minimum like conditions, how long do you think it would take for alarmists to switch from “we’re all going to die from global warming” to “we’re all going to die from global cooling.” They’ll probably stick with the “hot or cold, it’s all climate change” meme until voters get fed up and threaten to cut climate funding. Then the “settled science” will suddenly change to account for CO2 cooling. One thing’s for sure, they will not want us to use more fossil fuels to try to warm the climate. To them, the ends justify the means, so they will still push for an end to the use of fossil fuels even if it means millions have to freeze to death.
It would still be your fault and you would still be compelled to pay for your sins.
If the climate did enter Maunder Minimum like conditions, how long do you think it would take for alarmists to switch from “we’re all going to die from global warming” to “we’re all going to die from global cooling Won’t happen because there’s no capitalist villain to blame and so there’s no political advantage.