A possible Triple Climate Whammy for the UK ahead?

Guest opinion by John Hardy (UK)

image

Abraham Hondius “The Frozen Thames” 1677 (during the Maunder minimum)

Two separate indicators of climate change suggest that there is a risk of substantial cooling from 2017 onward. There is also likely to be a gap in energy production worsened by hasty climate change policies, making it three unrelated problems at the same time. In the worst case we could have rolling blackouts in Europe in the next few years.

Why might we expect the climate to cool? Both sides in the climate change debate (see for example this document from CRU) acknowledge a number of factors which appear to correlate to some degree with global temperature:

1. The concentration of water vapour, methane, carbon dioxide and some other gases (“Greenhouse Gasses” or GHGs) in the atmosphere

2. Solar cycles (specifically sunspot cycles)

3. The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

4. Aerosols (from volcanic eruptions and other sources)

5. Milankovitch cycles

[Note – “correlate” i.e. both change in step. There is violent disagreement on “causation”, i.e. whether one actually causes the other. It is possible for example that rising temperatures cause an increase in carbon dioxide rather than the other way around]

Number 4 in our list – Aerosols – are rather unpredictable. Number 5 – Milankovitch cycles – are very long. No one credible on either side of the argument maintains that GHG will cause a step change in climate in the near term.

This leaves number 2 – Solar cycles, and number 3 – ENSO. Historical data and present trends suggest that both may be heading for a strong downturn at more or less the same time.

Whammy 1 – Solar Cycles

There are records of sunspot activity going back hundreds of years. Rather bizarrely there is a historical correlation between low sunspot activity and cooler periods:

image

Graph of sunspot numbers against year

(from Wikipedia – CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=969067. Downloaded 27 June 2016)

There is an obvious 11 year cycle but with other variations on top of that. The critical point is that levels of sunspot activity correlate strongly with temperatures: in particular the Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age and the Dalton Minimum likewise was a cold period.

In 2006 NASA predicted “Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries.” (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/), and it is shaping up that way. Several recent posts have made a similar point:

image

Graph of sunspot numbers against year on a shorter timescale

(From ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/weekly/RecentIndices.txt . Data downloaded 6 June 2016)

This pattern is similar to the cycles at the start of the Dalton minimum above, a period of significant cooling. This suggests the possibility that we might be heading for a similar temperature “minimum”.

Note again that this is only correlation, not causation. It could be coincidence.

Whammy 2 – ENSO

It was well known to peoples living on the Pacific coast that temperatures were cyclic. The warm years were dubbed “El Nino” and the cold ones “La Nina”. The ENSO index attempts to put some numbers on this. Six variables related to the tropical Pacific are combined into a “multivariate ENSO index”.

So what is the evidence that this correlates with global temperature more widely? It has been gleefully and widely reported that 2015 global temperatures were the highest in recent years. This is certainly so in the global temperature data sets we have available, although they are all different and all disputed. The higher temperatures in 2015 have been interpreted in the media as a resumption of CO2 induced warming, but the correlation is far stronger with ENSO. 1998 and 2015 were both strong “el Nino” years. Here is the detail

The graph below is the HADCRUT4 (Met Office and UEA Climate Research Unit) data set with the 1998 and 2015 peaks circled:

image

UK Met. Office temperature anomaly versus year

(Downloaded from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html 27June 2016. Emphasis added)

And here is the University of Alabama satellite data set, again with 1998 and 2015 circled:

image

University of Alabama temperature anomaly versus year

(Downloaded from http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ 27 June 2016. Emphasis added)

These two datasets are different in detail, but both agree that there was a peak around 1998 which was not significantly exceeded until 2015.

The graph below plots the multivariate ENSO index. The positive red peaks are (warm) “el Nino” years and the negative blue peaks are (cold) “la Nina” years. Again, 1998 and 2015 are circled:

Graph of ENSO index against year

Downloaded from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ 27 June 2016. Emphasis added

If (and only if) previous patterns are repeated, we are now headed into the “La Nina” part of the cycle. If this occurs we would be likely to see a reduction in global average temperatures, although the correlation with temperature appears to be different in different locations.

Whammy 3 – Power supply

There seems to be a strong possibility of a shortfall in UK energy supply in the coming years, and this reflects a pattern over much of Europe. A report from the UK Institute of Mechanical Engineers noted that it is UK government policy to close all remaining coal-fired generating capacity by 2025. They conclude that “…The loss of coal by 2025, along with growth in demand and the closure of the majority of our nuclear power stations will therefore be significant, leaving a potential supply gap of 40%–55%, depending on wind levels….” And “…we have neither the time, resources, nor the sufficient [Sic] number of skilled people to build enough CCGTs [Combined Cycle Gas Turbines] to plug this gap…”

See http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/1-oscar/reports-policy-statements-and-documents/engineering-the-uk-electricity-gap.pdf

If this analysis is correct (and they discuss various scenarios) the UK may have a growing power problem, and other western countries may have similar problems in the rush to scrap coal-fired and nuclear power stations.

Discussion

Relatively sudden temperature changes do occasionally occur. The most extreme in the time scale of human agriculture was the Younger Dryas about 12,000 years ago. In Greenland at that time the temperature is believed to have dropped 10oC in 10 years although the change in global average may have been less. 10oC is the same order as the difference between the mean temperature for January and the mean temperature for May in London.

We would be extremely unfortunate to be hit by a Younger Dryas magnitude event; but two of the main factors correlating to earlier climate changes appear to be heading for a strong downturn at the same time. If we are hit by a combination of a very strong La Nina at the same time as a repeat of something like the Dalton minimum we could be in for some cold winters.

The uncertainty of the power supply, caused in part by green opposition to coal and nuclear, could make it a triple whammy. Rolling blackouts are a possibility, particularly on cold, still, evenings. To some pensioners, alone in the dark on a freezing night with heating inoperative, it would mean a lonely death. Folk with the honourable intention of “saving the planet” may instead be killing their grannies.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Resourceguy

So the Atlantic Ocean didn’t make the cut?

John Silver

Nor whammy four: one or two heavy volcanic eruptions would really put you up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
A couple of years without summer again? It’s happened before.

Greg

” Triple Climate Whammy ”
Any article with a title like that is obviously not going to be very scientific. Save it for the Daily Mail.
Scan article: Whammy 2…. Wammy3… I read enough to know I don’t want to read this.

David Smith

Greg,
The use of the word “whammy” by the author is tongue-in-cheek. The info below each title is not. It is a brief and carefully considered presentation of the facts as we know them. Crucially, unlike the thermageddonists, the author makes a concerted effort to (correctly) emphasise that correlation does not mean causation.
In short, a good article perhaps to get the undecided who might visit this site to think a bit further about the CAGW hypothesis and maybe encorage them to proceed to dig a bit further.
It was brief and punchy articles similar to this at WUWT many years ago that turned from an unquestioning alarmist to a sceptic who began to arm himself with the real facts. I had no idea about ENSO, PDO, tropospheric hot-spots, or what an atmospheric lapse rate was until WUWT gave me a good schooling.

David Smith

…turned “me” from an…
Small keyboard on phone screen.
Fat thumbs.

D. J. Hawkins

Your ENSO index graph appears to be missing.

John Hardy

Sorry about that. The electrons must have tripped over their own bootlaces somewhere mid-atlantic

John

John Hardy

Here is the link:

D. J. Hawkins

Looks like it ate your link, too…^^^^

Marcus

…The road to Hell is paved with good intentions “

I don’t believe GangGreen has any good intentions, but bad intentions will get them to Hell all the same.

Javert Chip

A.D. Everard
Oh yea?
How do you feel about them wanting to throw you in jail for not believing their “model” science?

Javert Chip

A.D Everard
I withdraw my comment – I misread yours. Mea culpa.

Excellent point!

David Smith

Javert,
You admitted you’d made a mistake and humbly aplogised. Therefore, it’s probably a good thing you’re a sceptic, as the warmists never admit they’re wrong and never, ever apologise.
🙂

I agree with David Smith. No problem, Javert. 🙂

Russell

“@AnnCoulter: “I believe in science” Dem code for “we’re shutting down coal mines, steel plants and any other remaining manufacturing””

John Hardy

True – but there are very many good-hearted people who have been deceived by this stuff

I constructed this graph about 3 years ago
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.gif
decline in the CET is already under way.

decline in the CET is already under way.
No, it is not:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif

No, it is not. 2014 was the warmest year ever in CET and 2016 is already 0.5C warmer

Leif
The last full year was 2015 and whilst 2014 was the warmest year in CET the trend to the end of 2015 was still slightly down, with different seasons showing different trends as per my article.
The warmth of 2016 is down to a warm january and February but other months have been coolish.its not been at all a good summer over here and my tomatoes and runner beans are suffering!
Tonyb

First of all: weather is not climate. Second: there is no evidence from CET that the climate is turning colder. In fact, during the last couple of declining solar activity, CET has had it warmest decades.

May and June 2016 were warm, not cool.
2014 5.7 6.2 7.6 10.2 12.2 15.1
2015 4.4 4.0 6.4 9.0 10.8 14.0
2016 5.4 4.9 5.8 7.5 12.5 15.2
But it is silly [as you do] to consider a few months only.

Hi doc
Nice to hear from you so soon, I’m indeed flattered by your prompt and continuous attention.
That doesn’t mean that on this as on a number of other occasions your accuracy in data observation is up to your usual speed, or to put it plainly, you are wrong sir.
During the last decade the CET has declined by nearly 0.3C, and at that rate in another three or four decades it may be back to late 1600s.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET%202005%20-2015.gif
The sun is on its way from the Grand Maximum to a new Grand Minimum and the CET unsurprisingly may follow from its ‘unprecedented’ high towards the LIA epoch.

You should not be flattered, but rather ashamed for pushing your nonsense and not be man enough to admit your failure. Here is the real thing [for the time where we have space measurements of total solar output:
http://www.leif.org/research/CET-and-GN-Space-Age.png
2016 is preliminary.

Leif
We [are] talking about very slight cooling on a very short trend. It means nothing As it is too slight and too short to be meaningful.
Tonyb

Yet you claimed it was significant. Go figure…
And it is a warming, not a cooling.

No doc, you are wrong,
Here is the real thing
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/2CETtr.gif
11 years of rising CET (SC23), 11 years of falling CET (SC24)

Except that SC23 ends in 2008 not 2005, and SC24 begins in 2009, not 2005.
And none of your trends are significant. Amazing how some people can’t handle the truth.

Jay Hope

Only a fool would trust this data, Lief! The MET office have been caught with their scientific pants around their ankles so many times, it’s embarrassing, even for them.

So Vuk is fool because he makes his false claim based on this data. I’ll tend to agree with you on that.

Doc, get real
Number of sunspots 1995 – 2005 was aprox 670 with CET rising trend 0.0417
Number of sunspots 1995 – 2005 was aprox 370 with CET falling trend –0.0284
Ergo:
Strong solar activity = temperatures rising
Weak solar activity = temperatures falling

correction (it’s getting late here)
Number of sunspots 1995 – 2005 was aprox 670 with CET rising trend 0.0417
Number of sunspots 2005 – 2015 was aprox 370 with CET falling trend –0.0284
Ergo:
Strong solar activity = temperatures rising
Weak solar activity = temperatures falling

Vuk: as usual you don’t show error bars. Your CET ‘trend’ 2005-2015 is -0.028+-0.062, i.e. the error bar is twice as large as the ‘signal’, so no significance here, as you can also see from the R^2 = 0.023, meaning that 98% of the change is not ‘explained’ by the meaningless trend.. So, as usual, you don’t know what you are talking about, and as is my wont, I debunk your nonsense. That is all.

Richard Barraclough

The CET monthly anomalies for 2016 so far are (in comparison with 1961-90)
Jan +1.64
Feb +1.14
Mar +0.09
Apr -0.43
May +1.37
Jun +1.08
Jul +1.00 (to 28th)
2016 is well on track for another top-ten finish (out of 367 years)
There’s certainly no sign of a drastic cooling just yet. I’d say anyone with unripe tomatoes and beans must look for another cause.
Jay Hope – just what is it about the CET that you don’t trust?
You can argue that the average of 3 stations is not a good basis for a well-publicised dataset, but I would suggest that there is no fudging of the readings. There are plenty of enthusiastic amateurs with weather stations near to those sites who would quickly spot any subterfuge.

John Silver

LOL, believing the MET office is like believing the Göbbels ofice.

Tell that to Vuk…

Mickey Reno

Leif, vuk, which ever of you is correct, I’m just glad that something so obvious as to be unmistakable for absolute and objective truth is going on. Carry on.

Paul, Somerset

Richard Barraclough: ” I would suggest that there is no fudging of the readings.”
I would suggest that since the Hadley Centre took over the CET record it has become nothing but fudge.
Page 3 of this UK Government document discusses the compilation of the CET record:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229814/surface_temperature_summary_report.pdf
A couple of sentences immediately jump out:
“Since 1974 the data have
been adjusted by 0.1-0.3 degree C to allow for urban
warming.”
“In November 2004, the weather station
Stonyhurst replaced Ringway and revised urban warming and bias adjustments have now been
applied to the Stonyhurst data after a period of reduced reliability from the station in the
summer months.”
That “adjustment” of 0.1-0.3C for urban warming looks at least 10 times too small for a start. Whichever way you look at it, whether from comparing overnight temps on cloudless summer nights in English towns with those in the countryside, or from the actual experience of simply cycling from a rural lane to an urban street on a winter’s morning, the whole of the rise in the CET in the last 40 years would be down to being stuck with a dataset that inadequately accounts for the effects of urbanization on temperature. Anyone who genuinely believes that 0.1-0.3C covers the change in the English landscape in the last 40 years needs just once to make an actual journey from countryside to town on a cold morning without their beloved car.

Richard Barraclough

Hi Paul from Somerset,
Yes, I agree there are problems with the consistency of the record over the long term, as the Met Office is forced to admit. However, it is widely quoted, not only by the Met Office, but by the press, and bloggers (as you see here), and in the absence of anything which can be proved to be more accurate, I guess that will continue.
The alternative would be to say “The records are wildly inaccurate, therefore there’s no point in discussing them”
Anyway, the gist of this article concerned not the long term, but the last few years, with discussion around whether the recent falls and rises are of any significance. During that time, we can only assume that changes to land use at Pershore, Rockhamstead, etc have not been too significant, and that the graphs, trend-lines, etc used by contributors do show some real changes in the CET.
But if by some chance they increased every reading by 0.1 degrees, there would indeed be no way of knowing.

If solar TSI was 3 or 4 W/m2 lower in the lLittle Ice Age time period, it could easily have led to a decline in temperatures after a few decades.
We know the Earth is absorbing an extra 0.6 W/m2 right now and after a few decades it should lead to a warmer Earth.
Let’s say the opposite occurred in the Little Ice Age, the Sun was less luminous or the Earth’s Albedo increased to produce the same effect.
Viola, a colder Earth after a few decades.
But it has to be in that range, Solar 3 to 4 W/m2 lower or more ice on the planet leading to 0.05 increase in Albedo. So, we need evidence that is what really happened.

But it has to be in that range, Solar 3 to 4 W/m2 lower or more ice on the planet leading to 0.05 increase in Albedo. So, we need evidence that is what really happened.
And there is no such evidence, on the contrary:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
“The minimal solar activity, which measurements show to be frequently observable between active‐region decay products regardless of the phase of the sunspot cycle, was approached globally after an unusually long lull in sunspot activity in 2008–2009. Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009.”

Leo Smith

Viola, a colder Earth
Did she change her name from Gaia?
Frigid nym shifting b*tch! 😉

Dr. Deanster

TSI is a WORTHLESS measure. The Top of Atmosphere readings for TSI are no indication of the amount of energy that is actually entering the climate system. I remember the report of the “young sun” by those guys at Stanford …. it was the OCEANS that kept the surface habitable, not the amount of TSI [which was 70% of today], nor Greenhouse gases [there was no evidence of massive concentrations of CO2 from the proxies used].
TSI being worthless is why the Alarmists Modelers use it. They use it to eliminate a whole host of possible natural influences on the climate system….. thus allowing their pet, CO2, to seem more important that it is.

HenryP

true

There is a generation of young Britons who never experienced a prolong electricity power cut. One simple thing that most of people can afford is a simple 12 V (car battery potential) to 240V (mains supply) converter. When electricity is down on a cold winter day an ordinary fully charged car battery should be able to drive the electrically controlled gas boiler for number of hours. Next step but a more costly is a small diesel generator.
By taking above advice from someone who experienced power cuts, someone more sceptical about forever rising temperatures and the climate never going colder, not to mention vulnerability ofthe UK mainland electricity supply capacity , you can’t go much wrong.
Listen to advice from the man from the ‘warm’ California the land of plenty and do nothing you may do fine but there is no guaranty.

Here is another pause for (CET cooling) thought
Early warning of a tipping point? Ignore it at your peril.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET2015.gif

There are lots of those, and they don’t mean anything for the climate.

HenryP

Hi vuk
interesting graph…personally I don’t trust means data from the last 25 years compared to 75 or more years ago due to the difference in recording and calibration techniques. I think with minima and maxima that error becomes somewhat less, as you do only one reading a day of a thermometer that gets stuck at its max. and min.
did you perhaps ever look at CET max. and min?

Pause for thought
Using Dr. Svalgaard’s graph it can be seen that the every Solar cycle min and max can linked to somewhat delayed major CET peak or trough as shown in the top panel.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ScEnCe.gif
but what about the high CETs in between SC peaks.
Lower panel shows possible elNino/laNina influence on the CET.

Pause for thought
Thinking is good, but uncritical ‘thinking’ is bad. CET and Solar Activity are completely uncorrelated:
http://www.leif.org/research/CET-and-GN-Uncorrelated.png

Not so fast.
You need to look at the rate of change
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GCs0.gif

Shows CET going through the roof…

Just over 1C, but it is already turning down, not visible since averaging truncates the end.
I am showing data as it is, and I look at the data before I comment, unlike you’ve done
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETs2015.gif

Your comments do not match what the [cherry-picked] data shows, so have no value.

You need to do better than that.
As professional scientist you have duty to get it right, if there might be even tiniest uncertainty to make it absolutely clear. Saying something doesn’t exist because you can’t see it, haven’t bothered to look for it or even worse you don’t wish to see it is abrogation of scientist’s duty.
However, as an ‘oddball’ or a ‘crank’ (doing this for fun of it, not many people take much notice of what I say anyway) I am not burdened with such a heavy responsibility.

There are well-known ways to see if a claim is plausible or even worth considering further, and your stuff always falls short.
You may not care if your mutterings have value, but you pollute an otherwise good blog with them and that has to be countered [especially since the owner of the blog doesn’t care either].

John Finn

Jay Hope
July 28, 2016 at 3:30 pm

Only a fool would trust this data, Lief! The MET office have been caught with their scientific pants around their ankles so many times, it’s embarrassing, even for them.

I don’t think the criticism is valid – certainly not regarding the CET record. There are a number of independent records that support the CET record. Philip Eden a meteorologist and climate sceptic, had been keeping his own record of CE temperatures (up to 2014) which agreed closely with the official Met Office record.
http://www.climate-uk.com/provisional.htm
I know of station records which are located slap bang in the middle of the CE region and if anything the recent trends are greater than the CET trend. I know these locations well and am satisfied that any UHI contamination over the past 60 years at least is negligible.

Øyvind Davidsen

The MET’s record high temperature fraud at Heathrow last year, was thoroughly documented here at WUWT. It says it all.

All is lost.

cirby

If I were a power production hardware company, I’d do a little pre-planning. Sketch out the requirements for building and selling a LOT of gas-fired turbine power plants, for example. They wouldn’t have to be state of the art, but they would need to be built in a short time frame.
On the other hand, the world is going to be a few years into the cold before most folks realize just how bad their bet on AGW was…

Gerry, England

Except that the idiots intend to phase out gas as well unless it has that great mythical thing – carbon capture and storage. So it is little wonder that nobody is rolling up to build new gas plants. Why would a private company invest on those terms? The UK has the bizarre situation of privately owned generation with a government controlled market. And gas will be banned as a domestic fuel as well – so even more demand on the non-existent capacity. And I don’t even need to mention what will happen if they can bribe enough people to have electric cars.

What? There cannot be problem–Michael Mann did away with the LIA in his famous graph! 🙂

MCourtney

Doesn’t matter if it keeps warming or if it starts cooling.
So long as the T change is at the same rate it has been.
Most people barely notice a difference until they remember more snow in Winter 40 years ago.
It’s not a problem at this pace.

Bruce Cobb

Whammy 4 – Preparing for “catastrophic” warming, when in fact cooling is more likely, and is more dangerous.

Harry Passfield

Bruce: That’s where the catastrophe comes in.

Harry Passfield

Quite right, MCourtney. As I said on the brain-washing thread to the Griff: Problem? What problem. The vast majority of the populace would not know of a change in climate (ie: over a period of 30 years or so) unless some scientist pointed out to them that the 0.7 Deg C upward change in GAT (whatever that is) that will occur in the next decade is going to fry them. As if. But no problem.

John hardy
Here is my reconstruction of CET which extends this long running temperature series back to 1540 .comment image
As can be seen, the LIA can be viewed as intermittent rather than a several centuries long cold period. Also within the graphic are various sun spot minimums and also volcanic eruptions.
As can be observed, there is some sort of correlation with the maunder minimum, but less so with other sun spot minimum periods. However, after an examination of Hubert lambs work on winds it would appear that at least some of these cold periods , including th Maunder, coincided with a considerable increase of winter easterlies. It is extended winter easterlies that gives us exceptionally cold winters, similarly extended periods of westerly winds bring us warm winters.
Whether sun spots cause weather patterns to shift to bring wind directions from one direction or another I can not say, or whether it causes the jet stream to move its position is similarly unknown.
I am ambivalent about the effects of sun spots and also volcanic eruptions. Consequently, unless something happens to cause material changes to the jet stream or wind directions, I think it likely we will generally continue the warming we can observe, that commenced some 300 Years ago.
Tonyb

Scott

Tonyb, is this using HADCrut data? If so, it’s already an issue. Just asking.

Scott
Purely CET, compiled back to 1659 by Gordon Manley and extended by myself several years ago to 1540 . I am currently working on a version covering the 13th century
Tonyb

CAW

Tonyb…just a note, some of the work of Maya Tolstoy, a marine geophysicist, might explain the sunspot/volcanism relationship. See”Mid-ocean ridge systems as a Climate valve” study.

Julio Garcia

“Killing Granny”…a great book for O’Reilly or even for Anthony

Sunspot numbers or Solar Activity (SA) can serve as a proxy for changes in heat content added into earth’s climate system. But the temperature response will be to the accumulation of heat over time, and not immediately to the SA variations. An approach to this is explained here:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/quantifying-natural-climate-change/

I fully expect the climate to get much colder in the near future, based on many factors. But the one factor that I would mention first is that the climate has been cycling hotter and colder for a long, long time. Why should it stop now? Just because silly progressives want to tax CO2 and take down Western civilization?
I think Mother Nature will continue to be the dominate force in climate — not puny mankind.

UK grid is a problem next winter no matter what the weather does. It is cold and dark in winter. Peak demand is after dark on winter days. Solar is useless then. Wind output is frequently zero for days given prevailing winter weather patterns. Those same highs also cause comtinental wind to go to zero at yhe same time. The grid now has zero reserve capacity including interconnects, thanks to several old end of life coal station closures. The National Grid is planning to keep some of this mothballed old coal capacity on standby for restart. But it is old and unreliable, cannot start or ramp rapidly, and in any event amounts to 5% reserve when the norm is a bare minimum of 10%, and 12-15% is considered normal. Disaster by design.

MarkW

I believe in taking people at their word.
For many years, there have been a lot of prominent greens/environmentalists who have been saying that the world’s population needs to be reduced. Drastically.

RicDre

I wonder, do these prominent greens/environmentalists volunteer to take part in this drastic population reduction?

MarkW

It’s always someone else who needs to sacrifice for the greater good.
Funny dat.

bit chilly

ricdre, if the state of uk power generation is as bad as i believe, in the depths of winter the greens may not have a choice in taking part. people will need something to burn to keep warm 😉
[Careful what you wish for: Burning greens as fuel always creates more smoke, creates less heat, makes a less efficient fire. .mod]

Walter Sobchak

They always want the brown babies to disappear.

Another factor is the govt push for more renewables, which steadily reduces the market for non-renewables, and nobody wants to invest in a shrinking market. Some regard Hinkley C nuclear power station as being too expensive, but EDF are bearing all the construction risk, plus maybe the risk that the thing may have to be switched off at times when the wind is blowing.

The other two plants of that EDF/Ariva design are grossly over budget and behind schedule. Hinckley was a bad political decision, now collapsing all by itself. Flexible CCGT can be put on the sites of closed old coal stations in 2-2.5 years, because the transmission infrastructure is already there. But won’t be until the perverse incentives situation is fixed. Germany has the same problem for same reasons. Shutting Irsching (two newish CCGT) because could not get standby subsidies covering uneconomic capacity with wind preferences.

There are 4 EPR reactors already under construction, not 2. They are in France, Finland and China. The two in China are on schedule. The first should be supplying electricity sometime next year.

Mrs May says:
Not so fast, I have to think about it.
Whole thing is up in the air again.

Griff

Last December the UK got 18% of its electricity from wind… the figures for early 2016 aren’t in yet but should be comparable… there were about 3 days when there was high pressure after dark….
The climate pattern for the next several years is expected to be stormy/continual depressions off the Atlantic.
Even with the coal closures this spring there is (just) enough for next winter…. and other means such as demand management and the continued year on year drop in demand help, as do increasing connections to the continent, prototype grid storage and other small scale despatchable renewables. (I note too the 2 new HVDC lines to bring in more wind power for next winter, plus the new tidal turbines, tiny first step in a new power trend)
This article is frankly climate alarmism (all studies show a Maunder won’t dent the overall warming trend – the effect locally too is not anywhere in the extremes this invents)

HenryP

Griff says
all studies show a Maunder won’t dent the overall warming trend –
Henry says
all studies?
You mean all studies except mine….
My finding is that there is no man made global warming.
There is no room for it in my equation?
If there was, I would have told you, as I am an honest man.
My finding is that we are already globally cooling, on average, from 1995
I analysed all the daily data of the 54 weather stations myselfcomment image
admittedly, it is not by an awful lot,
so there is no reason for alarm
I can still drive my big truck just for the fun of it…

John
Sorry, forgot to mention that you are of course right about our lack of energy supplies. Successive govts seem to have wilfully ignored the need to provide sufficient amounts of affordable base power. Our latitude makes us unsuited to solar power and our wind is too intermittent to be reliable , especially during a cold windless winter high pressure event.
Should Hinckley point nuclear power station, approved today, actually go ahead, it will be a dozen years until we feel the benefit. In the meantime perfectly useable power stations are closed in order to meet our carbon reduction strategies. We must hope that the coming winter is as mild as the last one, second warmest in CET. The warmest was over 150 Years ago.
Tonyb

Tony, a perverse thought. Perhaps a bad winter with some serious blackouts with unfortunate consequences would shock UK energy policy to its senses sooner rather than later.
Economics has not done the trick. Engineering warnings haven’t worked. Transmission interconnect capacity hasn’t been built to offset baseload closures. CCGT is uneconomic when forced to low capacity by wind preferences, so no replacement baseload is in the works. Seems the UK politicians, the media, and much of the voting population are oblivious. They need a wakeup call.

Rud
I think there is more of an air of realism since Brexit. However whether that will translate to urgently building grown up power stations s another matter. We must hope for a sunny and windy winter to give renewables their best chance. However, they are no alternative to nuclear or fossil fuel power so it will be a close run thing
Tonyb

Rud
A very strange turn of events. The uk govt has just announced it wants to wait Until the autumn before making a decision. The VIP party for Friday has been cancelled. Are the govt having a rethink about this expensive white elephant?
Tonyb

auto

Rud,
You suggest that thousands of [excess] deaths will provide a joined-up energy policy?
I never thought of you as a straw-in-the-hair optimist before.
I fear that even Brexit hasn’t shaken our [UK] system enough.
I do hope you are right – but warmth is better – and cold kills.
Auto – hoping, if nothing else.

Mrs. May’s sweeping broom is in the action again.
It may never happen.

Auto, not so much an optimist as a battle scarred realist about corporate and government politics.
Tonyb, good news. I have suspected for months Hinckley would collapse. The EDF CFO resigned over it. The French labor unions are concerned it would collapse EDF. And the newest UK subsidy estimates are much higher than before (IIRC ~3x). New PM, new ministry with new minister, a chance for action.
But cancelling Hinckley and Swansea tidal lagoon because they are financial suicide does not provide the needed rational energy policy that results in economic, reliable baseload.
US will close about 1/3 of its remaining coal capacity by 2025–old age (average closure is 48 years service, average current age is 42). Almost all replacement is CCGT on economic grounds. 1/3 the capital/MW, 2/3 construction time, and cheaper operating cost at any natural gas price below $8/mbtu. We are running $2-3 for the next few decades thanks to fracked gas shales. No brainer.

The situation can be turned around – just remove wind preference. With all power sources competing equally, there would be more power generated more cheaply. To get an even better result, bring coal back in as Germany has done.

MJ agree about preferences. But Germany has cheap strip mine brown coal, UK does not. UK potentially has lots of fracked gas; certainly the resource is there in the Weald and Bowlin basins. When gas is available at below $8/mbtu, CCGT is always cheaper than coal. UK should go CCGT like US. Horses for courses.

bit chilly

tonyb, i think we need to hope for a cloud filled southwesterly wind dominated winter to keep warm. the sun shining in winter where i live in the uk usually means high pressure with the resultant desperately cold long nights. fingers crossed that blocking high remains over iceland this winter.
the few days i have witnessed proper sea ice in the north sea have all been during long bouts of high pressure in the depths of winter. even easterly winds are “warm” on winter nights on the east coast as the sea surface over which the wind blows is usually warmer than than night time land temperatures.

Walt D.

Ban Coal and Nuclear. Let the Buggers Freeze in the Dark

Stephen Skinner

“Why might we expect the climate to cool?
Because the last 500,000 years has been predominantly ice age with brief warm periods, like the one we are in now.

Gabro

Actually, the last 2.6 million years for the Northern Hemisphere and 34 million for SH ice sheets.

Griff

Except of course AGW has reversed the ‘natural’ trend…. 🙂

rbabcock

NG peaking stations are efficient and are just a jet engine or two or three. They are modular in design, can be put in place in 12 months or less and can be started and stopped quickly. Just need a plug into the grid and a NG source. We have a few here in North Carolina. Someone could probably put one in and charge a fortune when it is needed.

RWturner

How do you supply that with NG when the pipeline loses pressure? That’s where the problem lies, with the outdated pipeline infrastructure that no one seems to be in a big hurry to update.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2012/11/06/weve-seen-the-electric-grid-at-its-worst-how-about-the-gas-network/#1be7c1a53bc4

RWT, FPL built an expanded capacity pipeline to supply its new Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale CCGT. Taps off a main pipeline feeding SE US somewhere in north Florida. That type stuff doesn’t lose pressure ever. These aren’t old local feeders like the one that blew up in California.

SCGT peakers can make economic sense when they can be planned to run a certain number of hours each day across a known season. In NC, in South Florida, and in Texas that is extended summer and AC demand. We have 4 in Fort Lauderdale that complement our new 2200 Mw CCGT plant. But they don’t make sense if just used when the wind doesn’t blow. The UK capacity difference is in GW not MW, and their usage would be too little and uneconomic without major subsidies. Thats why none have been built. Instead people are installing big diesel gen sets because much cheaper capital. That is a bandaid solution on a national grid scale problem.

rbabcock

They are certainly better than nothing and are modular, so the more turbines the higher the output. If you are running wind or solar with no storage to speak of, there will be some units running (the whole grid won’t be dead) so they would contribute. Duke Energy runs quite a few of these. Here is a link to a 667MW one in Ohio. Not inconsequential http://www.duke-energy.com/power-plants/oil-gas-fired/madison.asp

RWturner

New England is racing England to see who can be the first to cause a mass blackout during a major cold snap. Some rivalries never die.
There was a story posted this week in USA Today about how the power grid is currently doing just fine, touting someone as saying “I told you so” to people warning that too much base load was being put on gas. They don’t seem to understand that the problem will occur in the middle of winter when pipeline infrastructure literally cannot physically move the gas that will be demanded for heat and electricity. It almost happened two winters ago, but there is much less coal power now.

ShrNfr

I am more than willing to wear long johns if it means seeing the folks who attend the Longfellow meeting in Cambridge understand what they did when they killed coal. Sadly, those loons will always be loons.

Penelope

The loons have been enabled by the foundations: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6ce8dd13-e4ab-4b31-9485-6d2b8a6f6b00/chainofenvironmentalcommand.pdf
The same rich & powerful who control the political sphere subsidize the activists & see that grants go to the loons. The activists and loons are mere masks. Did you know that in many US cities construction for decades has been aimed at satisfying an expected influx from the countryside. Seems a good argument for the population concentration mandated by Agenda 21 is “That’s the only way we can supply them with energy.”

Katana

Bad Luck as Robert A. Heinlein said in relation to disregarding facts and their proponents.

Chris Hanley

“… a number of factors which appear to correlate to some degree with global temperature:
1. The concentration of water vapour, methane, carbon dioxide and some other gases (“Greenhouse Gasses” or GHGs) in the atmosphere …”.
==========================================
It is claimed with varying degrees of attribution that the GAT rise since the pre-industrial LIA can be at least partly attributed to human GHG emissions then, who knows, even the miserablists amongst us may ‘learn how to stop worrying and love the Anthropocene’.

Jim

As a farmer in the south of England, and someone whose livelihood is dependent on the weather I take a close interest in it, and I would have to say on a purely anecdotal basis that temperatures here may well have risen on average, but that is definitely NOT the same as rising absolutely. I would suspect that the main reason for the statistical higher temperatures in the last decade is due to higher minimum temperatures, not rising maximum temperatures. Summers particularly are noticeably wetter and cooler and winters are milder than they used to be. We rarely get very hot spells in summer in recent years, and prolonged cold snaps in winter have become rarer too (though we did have a couple of cold winters a few years back). Ask anyone who has been farming here for 40+ years and they will tell you that summers particularly were hotter and dryer in past decades, and winters colder – the seasons appear to have become closer together, with less overall variation. Farmers are people who spend their time out in all winds and weathers and whose knowledge of the weather is direct experience, not from a chart of statistics.

Hi Jim
According to data, you are correct about summers and winters, it is the winters that got warmer.
Here is what the data shows for the last two decadescomment image
As you can see there were warmer and cooler years in both decades, but the last decade had less of the warmer and more of the cooler years.

Jay Hope

I agree, Vuk. BTW, I wasn’t referring to you when I used the word ‘fool’ in my previous message. I was referring to Lief but he didn’t understand.

bit chilly

agreed jim, as are fishermen.

Richard Barraclough

Anecdotally, I would have to agree. In the memory, summers were always warm and sunny, and winters were frosty.
However, the differences between summer and winter for the CET for the last few decades shown no big differences, and are as follows
1960s 11.5
1970s 11.1
1980s 11.3
1990s 11.2
2000s 11.1
2010s 11.4 so far
As far as 10-year averages go, both summer and winter peaked in 2006-07, and have dropped away slightly since, but are both still well above the 1960s

Gabro

The CET’s books have been cooked.

John Finn

<

Gabro July 29, 2016 at 9:48 am
The CET’s books have been cooked.

No they haven’t. There are several people who are/were monitoring them. Most independent observations validate the CET record.

James Fosser

I am off to see my old granny in the UK before the winter sets in. I am bringing a bottle of good old Aussie sunshine for her and she can put her tired old work worn feet on it in the cold and darkness. She will then not have to decide to ”Eat or heat”?(She could use the bottle as an excuse to invite the old guy next door for a sleep over!).

IPCC AR5 WG1 says “it is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming”, there will be a strong rebound from the ‘hiatus’, and solar influences will be less. There are some testable predictions. Meanwhile since 1996 CO2 concentration has increased by half the total since 1958, UAH global anomaly trend is +0.1C for this period, and 55% of monthly UAH variation is associated with the MEI 5 months previously (74% using 12 month means). Stand by.

Core samples indicate that during the last ice age, the co2 level were up to 100o percent greater than now. Were there fridges, trucks and jumbo jets in that time?
[Typo in the number: “o” is inserted; also “times as much” or “percent greater” ? .mod]

That seems to be erroneous; according to all data I have seen, the CO2 levels closely tracked the temperatures throughout the entire ice core record (about 800,000 years).

And that seems to be one of the many problems. The authors of this and other different reports suggested that any other interpretation of their results was wrong. I don’t know who to believe.

joelobryan

Prediction: It’ll be President Trump’s fault when CAGW becomes CAGC in the 2018 midterm US election spin cycle.

Gabro

Back to the future!
The 1970s, to be exact, when global cooling was all the worry rage.

joelobryan

the solution is in the next ballot box for Albertans.

It always gets worse before it gets better:
http://www.therebel.media/fire_berman

TDBraun

Interesting but not convincing. A lot of “might” and “could” as in scare-tactic AGW releases, combined with “killing your grannies” stuff. The science presented seems reasonable, so why not go ahead and make a prediction now rather than hedging your bets?

TA

“These two datasets are different in detail, but both agree that there was a peak around 1998 which was not significantly exceeded until 2015.”
The UAH dataset has a peak at 1998, that was not exceeded until Feb. 2016, by one-tenth of a degree, and which has subsequently fallen well below the 1998 high.
The dataset that shows higher temperatures in 2015 is a bastardized version of the surface temperature record which was created to push the CAGW narrative.

JohnTyler

Hold on a minute folks.
Have we not been repeatedly told that it is human supplied CO2 that is causing warming and that if we do nothing, planet earth will burn off its atmosphere and earth will turn into a charcoal briquet?
Is not CO2 higher today than, say, 20 or 50 or 75 or 100 years ago?
So how is it possible, given the higher CO2 levels, that earth can cool?
After all, the AGW zealots insist that CO2 and ONLY CO2 is the driving mechanism of climate (all
the other factors have little to no affect on climate) and CO2 is certainly not decreasing.
This is a DIRECT contradiction of the AGW / CO2 thesis !!!
Why is it that no one is calling out this contradiction (hypocrisy) ??

Crispin in Waterloo

“After all, the AGW zealots insist that CO2 and ONLY CO2 is the driving mechanism of climate”
Actually we can be more precise. They insist that anthropogenic CO2 and only anthropogenic CO2 is the ‘driving mechanism’ of ‘change’. Really! That’s what they say. Just that little bit and just that source. They even claim it is detectably humans wot dunnit.

David A

John, because this,
=================
“After all, the AGW zealots insist that CO2 and ONLY CO2 is the driving mechanism of climate…
=================
is not what the CAGW theory says.
It does say the troposphere as a whole will rise in M.T. about 20 percent faster then the surface. (It is not, the surface is rising faster for whatever reason, but that reason cannot be additional CO2 assuming our observations are capable of measuring anything)
It does say (The IPCC CIMP 5 models) that the warming will be faster then what we are now observing even at the end of a very strong El Nino.
It is likely that the pause will resume, or very close, and the models will be even further off then before.
CAGW theory also says many harms will occur which are not manifesting. It also grossly underestimates benefits, which are manifesting.
John, what I am saying is that over editorializing your statements will weaken skeptical arguments, and strengthen alarmist rhetoric. I recommend making arguments supportable in peer reviewed reports and or, at a minimum, use of statements and national data base graphics from skeptical scientists. CO2 Science and Poptek, and the NIPCC are excellent resources for peer reviewed reports. WUWT, Climate Audit and others are excellent sites that dominate in the scientific statements and supportive graphics based on national and international data bases. Real Science is a great source for documenting media deceptions and past records.
Mods, sorry for the duplicate post below.

Robert from oz

One thing I don’t see much of is the affect of continental drift on climate , Australia is moving Faster than first thought towards the north east .

Gabro

What happened to Hondius during the Third Anglo-Dutch War?
English were surely liberal in treatment of enemy aliens.

RBom

The thing that gets US politicians on the move is, death, especially the death of their voting constituents.
Fewer votes means a greater likely hood of failing against a rival.
Climate change, colder or hotter, anthropogenic or natural, is the great “divider” not “equalizer”.
For instance. In the US communists and democrats typically fall into the low income category whereas republicans and capitalists fall into the upper income category. So, colder or hotter, it is more likely that communists and democrats will be winnowed out, i.e. unable by income to cope with the colder or hotter, whereas republicans and capitalists can lounge in the homes and offices at ease knowing the fact that they can buy their way out a colder or hotter situation.
Therefore this is the reason that the Bush administrations ignored the “climate warming catastrophic” scare mongering, and the Obama regimes attempted to harvest wealth from the republicans and capitalists to give to the communists and democrats. Unfortunately, the “funds” given to the communists and democrats did not go for buying air conditioning and heating but payed for illegal drugs, healthcare ponzi schemes, marijuana legalization, police militarization, prostitutes and renewable energy fraud companies as on display at the Democratic (but not Democracy) National Convention.
Life in the US is never boring!
Ja ja

Prohibition raises the cost of the drugs. Now if the gangs and cartels support the Democrats… Well then Prohibition is working fine for them.
Republicans have moral objections to drugs.
A marriage made in heaven.

Andyj

I call bullcr*p on CET. Dr. Judith Curry proved its been altered against all scientific principles.
Back in the 80’s/90’s (NW England) snow was a very rare thing indeed and summers were unbearable at work. Three months in ’76 were almost unbreathable yet show nothing on CET. Its as if its all made up.

John Finn

Back in the 80’s/90’s (NW England) snow was a very rare thing indeed and summers were unbearable at work. Three months in ’76 were almost unbreathable yet show nothing on CET. Its as if its all made up.

1976 is clearly shown as a hot summer in the CET record. However July 2006 was the warmest month – I agree with this. I’ve checked the CET record against totally independent observations and it’s fine. Re: 80s winters. 1981/82 was very cold and snowy. . Feb 1986 was bitter.
I think your memory is playing tricks.

in this link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
you can see graphic comparison of the CET seasons from 1660 to 2013 when graph was constructed (need to be updated for the last couple of years)

SAMURAI

There is a 5th phenomenon involving 30-yr PDO cool cycles which will also contribute to global cooling for at least the next 20+ years.
There is a 100.00% correlation between 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles and global warming/cooling trends since 1850 (different colors represent PDO warm/cool cycles):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend
The cooling effects from the current 30-yr PDO cool cycle which started in 2005 have so far been obscured by the 2009/10, 20015/16 El Nino cycles and the Northern Pacific “The Blob” phenomena, however, after the current La Nina cycle runs its course, from 2018, the global temp trend from 2005 should flatten out, and then gradually show a cooling trend for 30 years (2005~2035), as has occurred during every PDO cool cycle since 1850.
Moreover, the AMO will enter its 30-year cool cycle from around 2020, which will add to global cooling.
To put a nice little cherry on top, the weakest solar cycle since 1790 will begin around 2022, and the one after that starting around 2033, will likely be the weakest since 1645..
Given all the above, by 2021, the disparity between CAGW global warming mean projections vs. UAH/RSS/Radiosonde mean anomalies will likely exceed 3~4 standard deviations with flat/falling global trends for 25+ years (since mid 1996), which will be more than sufficient criteria to officially disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis under the rules of the scientific method.

joelobryan

The Govt CAGW Senior pseudoscientists probably already have their retirement dates from civil service penciled in to 2019-2021.
Climate Science will proceed to where it should with their retirements. But their mendacity will leave a trail of career carnage on their young and mid-level proteges left behind.

SAMURAI

The CAGW scam officially kicked off in 1988 with Dr. Hansen’s CAGW Congressional testimony, and he’s already taken early retirement….
I think Hansen got out early before risking a Congressional subpoena to explain why the US wasted $trillions based on his 1988 testimony…
When the CAGW scam implodes, and after Congressional hearings expose the level of corruption that existed in climatology, “97%” (just joking) of these “scientists” will become pariahs and unemployable, and rightfully so.

Sparks

Number 5 – Milankovitch cycles – are very long.
Milankovitch cycles are planetary changes on a large time-scale of earth’s precession.
It’s the rotational motion of the geographical axis such as the wobbling caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun, Moon, and other planets.
In case you’re wondering if there are orbital changes on a shorter time-scale and if these shorter time-scale changes in planetary orbits cause a warming or cooling on a planetary scale, There are and these changes do.
It was noted above that;
The critical point is that levels of sunspot activity correlate strongly with temperatures: in particular the Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age and the Dalton Minimum likewise was a cold period.”
The key point to keep in mind is that there is strong agreement between weak sunspot cycle activity and periods on earth when it was notably cooler, it’s an observation everyone “credible” accepts.
And without having a correlation/causation dispute, shorter time-scale changes in planetary orbits also agree.
The shorter time-scale changes in planetary orbits can be looked at from their degree of change and graphed the exact same way as the change in sunspot cycle activity.
Example:comment image

David A

John, because this,
=================
“After all, the AGW zealots insist that CO2 and ONLY CO2 is the driving mechanism of climate…
=================
is not what the CAGW theory says.
It does say the troposphere as a whole will rise in M.T. about 20 percent faster then the surface. (It is not, the surface is rising faster for whatever reason, but that reason cannot be additional CO2 assuming our observations are capable of measuring anything)
It does say (The IPCC CIMP 5 models) that the warming will be faster then what we are now observing even at the end of a very strong El Nino.
It is likely that the pause will resume, or very close, and the models will be even further off then before.
CAGW theory also says many harms will occur which are not manifesting. It also grossly underestimates benefits, which are manifesting.
John, what I am saying is that over editorializing your statements will weaken skeptical arguments, and strengthen alarmist rhetoric. I recommend making arguments supportable in peer reviewed reports and or, at a minimum, use of statements and national data base graphics from skeptical scientists. CO2 Science and Poptek, and the NIPCC are excellent resources for peer reviewed reports. WUWT, Climate Audit and others are excellent sites that dominate in the scientific statements and supportive graphics based on national and international data bases. Real Science is a great source for documenting the past, and pointing out Media lies.
Cheers

Toneb

” …is not what the CAGW theory says.
It does say the troposphere as a whole will rise in M.T. about 20 percent faster then the surface. (It is not, the surface is rising faster for whatever reason, but that reason cannot be additional CO2 assuming our observations are capable of measuring anything)”
First of all there is no “CAGW” theory. It is the AGW theory.
Skeptics invented the term.
And also, sorry the rest is wrong as well…..
“Temperature trends in the updated data show three noteworthy features. First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=E3E127F60A1336BA12B61FA58DF9AF8D.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org

TA

“First of all there is no “CAGW” theory. It is the AGW theory.
Skeptics invented the term.”
Yes, there is a CAGW theory. Every dire prediction of the Alarmists predicts “Catastrophic” weather changes because of human-produced CO2 (AGW). They are one and the same, certainly in Alarmists’ minds.
Skeptics separate the two because one (AGW) is plausible, and the other (CAGW) is not plausible, based on what we are seeing in the real world.
CO2 might cause the atmosphere to heat up slightly, but not to the point of catastrophe. That’s why skeptics say “AGW maybe, CAGW no”, and that’s why they separate the two.

Re the iopscience paper “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2):”
“We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging…”
The “updated data” that shows “a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions” is itself derived using a model, is it not?
Even so…”tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models.”
The study is apparently designed to demonstrate tropical troposphere is warming more than other studies indicate. It “improves” a similar 2005 study inasmuch as “expected patterns now appear somewhat more clearly.”

Toneb

“Skeptics separate the two because one (AGW) is plausible, and the other (CAGW) is not plausible, based on what we are seeing in the real world.
CO2 might cause the atmosphere to heat up slightly, but not to the point of catastrophe. That’s why skeptics say “AGW maybe, CAGW no”, and that’s why they separate the two.”
Nope. There is the theory of AGW – that man-made CO2 is driving an increase in global mean temps. There is a range of response quantified for that.
Yes, some quite nasty things could happen if the ECS is 4.5C/x2 CO2, but it could equally be 1.5C.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
“As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) “there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.”
You see that is the difference – climate scientists don’t say “no” to anything, else that’s NOT science.
And, needless to say, I disagree with your “based on what we are seeing in the real world”, mostly because with feed-backs, we are a long way from being near the time when we will see it in the real world.

TA

Toneb: “Nope. There is the theory of AGW – that man-made CO2 is driving an increase in global mean temps. There is a range of response quantified for that.”
You can desribe it that way, and I can describe it as AGW/CAGW. We are talking about the same thing.
Toneb: “You see that is the difference – climate scientists don’t say “no” to anything, else that’s NOT science.”
Well, I did qualify my “no”. No evidence now, is the meaning.
Toneb: “And, needless to say, I disagree with your “based on what we are seeing in the real world”, mostly because with feed-backs, we are a long way from being near the time when we will see it in the real world.”
If we see it at all.

Me

My understanding is that the UK has thousands of diesel generators on standby to keep the lights on.
We’ll bankrupt ourselves, but electricity should be available.

Coach Springer

Is the UK planning on building the (tens of?) thousands more needed to keep up with further elimination of coal and nuclear?

Griff

It has diesel generator back up which is what’s called STOR – a strategic reserve intended to cover for sudden grid outages (major power line severed, power station hit by falling plane).
Typical usage of any of the sites is under 2 hours a year…
but yes, you could run that stuff for some hours in an emergency…

Espen

Are british temperatures really positively correlated with ENSO? I didn’t think they were.

I appreciate the author’s caution in “predicting” future cooling. Weather and climate patterns are notoriously hard to predict from—what looks like a pattern really proves to be nothing. There are so many factors involved, many we may not even know about, that prediction is more luck than skill.
The most appropriate reaction to climate would be to prepare for ALL possibilities—cooling, warming and no change. Tossing all the preparations into the “warming” baskets pretty much assures that cooling with be devastating if it occurs at a high level. IF we were actually dealing with science, preparation for all outcomes would be the proper answer. Unfortunately, science is the farthest thing from climate discussions much of the time.

Bruce Cobb

Saying cooling is possible, or quite likely isn’t a prediction, but it is a warning, and it does fly in the face of CAGW ideology, which is not only wrong, but has put us on a stupid path energy-wise. The take-away is that regardless of what the climate does we need cheap, reliable energy and vibrant economies. That is especially true in the case of significant cooling, which would cause far more hardship than warming does. In fact, the warming we’ve experienced has probably been on balance, beneficial.

rtj1211

A lot of ifs and buts in there:
1. When NASA said in 2006 that solar cycle 25 ‘could be the weakest in centuries’, upon what evidence did they base that?
i. Principal Component Analysis of historical sunspot data?
ii. Physical data from other aspects of solar activity (I’m not a solar physicist so I don’t know what that might be, but it’s the obvious question to ask)?
iii. Longer term data concerning the cyclicality of temperature minima (if so what data was that)?
I don’t think there’s any doubt we’re about to have a minimum of some sort, I’m just not clear that anyone has explained how they can predict it to be of a Maunder-type rather than a Dalton-type?
The obvious question to ask as well is this; ‘in the decade since 2006, which data sets make the argument for a Maunder-style minimum stronger’?
2. There are many in the more skeptical side of the climate debates who suggest that, rather than the 1998 el Nino inducing ‘global warming’, what it actually did was to reset the earth’s temperature equilibrium at about 0.2 – 0.3C higher than before. If so, will the 2015 el Nino do something similar or are different factors at play where the 1998 event is concerned?
After all, even if solar activity declined up to 2022, if a further 0.3C rise in global temperature occurred due to the 2015 el Nino, the declines in temperature due to the loss of solar activity might not be as bad as feared.
3. There is also the question of polar ice extent and how that affects the rate of cooling due to loss of solar output.
I have no knowledge of what the state of the Arctic Polar Ice sheet was in the run-up to the Maunder Minimum, but it would certainly be newsworthy if it showed regular openings of the NW and NE passages. As most postulate that albedo effects are positive reinforcers of entry into cooler regimens, one does have to ask if the effects of reduced solar output will be so stark if the polar ice extent is rather lower than usual??
4. It is also worth asking whether, when the Maunder Minimum occurred, we were in a regimen of regular la Ninas rather than, as we have experienced since 1980, a period of unusually high prevalence of el Nino conditions.
I get the impression from certain data sources that there is a significant correlation between strong la Nina prevalanaces on a decadal-to-interdecadalm scale and entry into significant cooling periods.
One might therefore like to ask whether there are rigorous models suggesting that the next 20 – 30 years will see a deficit of el Nino activity?
My judgement, based on the questions I have asked above, suggests that I would be more inclined to predict a Dalton-style minimum in terms of temperature decreases, even if the solar output were more of a Maunder-level.
Time will tell of course……at least there is no evidence yet that humans can control the output of the sun, as they are certainly malevolent enough to try and destroy food harvests using ‘geoengineering’……

When NASA said in 2006 that solar cycle 25 ‘could be the weakest in centuries’, upon what evidence did they base that?
Solar Cycle prediction is best based on the strength of the sun’s polar magnetic field, see:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Predictions%20SHINE%202006.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparing-HMI-WSO-Polar-Fields.pdf

wws

Not to take away anything from the article, but Londoners have a much more down to earth explanation as to why the Thames doesn’t freeze over anymore – the Georgians and Victorians put a great deal of money and effort into channeling and confining the Thames, getting rid of much of the estuary that used to take up significant parts of the city. They did this, understandably, to increase the useful building area inside the city. This had the effect of making the Thames itself deeper and much faster than it was in previous centuries, with the side effect that it is now very hard for that river to ever freeze again.

Toneb

Also look at the photo.
That is the old London bridge in the background. See the many arches – which were very effective at holding back any ice floating to the North Sea. That choking is what allowed the ice to gel together and form a solid sheet from bank to bank. Can’t happen now. It would have done in the winter of 62/63.
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/abstracts/Mar/16032013-burt.pdf

Why all this talk about UK weather? UK has less surface area to the earth as CO2 to the atmosphere. Global what happened to Global?

Resourceguy

So this is just another pretty graph (below), turning points don’t matter, and since long cycles in ocean temperature are hard to work with they can be ignored. Climate science is not unlike other sciences that are hindered by incomplete data sets and long cycles. That cautionary statement needs to be a standard line in climate studies like the caution applied to almost all medical research studies.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif

The millennial and 60 year natural temperature cycles peaked more or less simultaneously in 2003/4. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-imminent-collapse-of-cagw-delusion.html
For more detail see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

See the millennial turning point at about 2005 on Resourceguys preceding post.

climatologist

It is difficult to forecast, especially about the future. We can only wait and see.

Resourceguy

Bingo, that’s what the advocacy reach and win-the-day-regardless-of-the-truth courtroom tactics are all about. And the attitude of “out of an abundance of caution” is going to end up diverting trillions of human capital to nonsense and insiders while taking resources away from other needs.

HenryP

It seems where I live it already started cooling. In fact, it seems to me it never warmed here a bit, at least not as far as minima are concerned, as AGW would have it. Perhaps it might be fun to look at minima and maxima rather than at means?
comment image

HenryP

just for the sake of clarity:
toneb =tonyb
???
or not??

Toneb

not

HenryP

@toneb
the study you quoted further up does not tie up with my own study, where I looked at 54 [randomly] chosen stations balanced by latitude. Because I decided to look at change in K per annum, I don’t have to worry about the longitude of my sample.
My conclusion is that it is already globally cooling,comment image
whoever says different must have done something wrong.

Toneb

“whoever says different must have done something wrong.”
And maybe, just maybe, that someone was you.

HenryP

you can have as many elections about issues but the reality is that in science you only need one person to get it right. All data sets have been fudged or fiddled with to comply either with politics or because of obvious erroneous measurements. RSS and UAh are now in version 5 or 6 or whatever, which shows you that problems are experienced. In the latter case [ of the satellites] I have no clue how the probes can withstand current solar conditions. [very damaging to any material]

Perry

UK nuclear power project faces new delays. Building the reactor could bankrupt EDF. That’s just one mess.
So far, we’ve wasted over £1 billion planning an EU transport project that has trebled in projected cost to nearly £90 billion & will not meet the completion date of 2026. With good luck, Teresa May’s government will cancel it.
https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/projects-by-country/united-kingdom/2014-uk-tm-0324-s
By train, it presently takes 1 hour 24 minutes to travel between London & Birmingham. For people in business that time is not wasted as wi fi is available. HS2 would reduce the time to 49 minutes, but the station is not in central Birmingham, so there is still a walk of at least ten minutes. By 2026, it won’t be necessary to travel to offices to work.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3713696/Costs-vanity-rail-project-HS2-hit-90bn-Report-urges-Theresa-ditch-scheme-spend-money-Britain-s-existing-lines.html
I’m going to brush up my Mesolithic hunting skills. Marrow bone jelly, any one?

The best proxy for energy actually reaching the Earths surface is the 10.7cm Flux measured in Penticton, Canada. This measurement is highly correlated to Sun Spots and to Solar EUV and UV.
Presently, the Flux measurement is a 70 sfu where 60-65 sfu are the lowest measurements.

It is possible to reconstruct F10.7 flux from its geomagnetic signature:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107-rY-1740-2015.png
see how to: http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf

Johann Wundersamer

There is an obvious 11 year cycle but with other variations on top of that. The critical point is that levels of sunspot activity correlate strongly with temperatures: in particular the Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age and the Dalton Minimum likewise was a cold period.
____________________________________________
Yes, There is an obvious 11 year cycle but with other variations on top of that.
And there are 4 stroke cycles on the performance of a 4 cylinder automobile motor with no variations on top of that.
____________________________________________
So why don’t concentrate on top variations.
What is cycle obversation good for other than hindrance. Just filter that noise out.

HenryP

@Johann
interesting that you should mention a 4 stroke cycle
4 cycles immediately visible:
11 years Wolf
22-23 years Hale-Nicholson
86-87 years Wolf-Gleissberg
210 years De Vries
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
from my own results I know exactly where we are in Gleissberg. I am not [yet] sure where we are in De Vries.