Guest opinion by John Hardy (UK)
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:
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:
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:
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:
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…”
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Meanwhile, back at the (Alberta) ranch…
“I think Venezuela has moved north,” said an oil executive. “If the reality were not so stark it could be a Monty Python script.”
the solution is in the next ballot box for Albertans.
It always gets worse before it gets better:
http://www.therebel.media/fire_berman
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?
“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.
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) ??
“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.
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.
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 .
What happened to Hondius during the Third Anglo-Dutch War?
English were surely liberal in treatment of enemy aliens.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
” …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
“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.”
“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.
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.
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.
Is the UK planning on building the (tens of?) thousands more needed to keep up with further elimination of coal and nuclear?
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…
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
It is difficult to forecast, especially about the future. We can only wait and see.
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.
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?
just for the sake of clarity:
toneb =tonyb
???
or not??
not
@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,
whoever says different must have done something wrong.
“whoever says different must have done something wrong.”
And maybe, just maybe, that someone was you.
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]
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
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.
@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.