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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

243 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
KLohrn
July 29, 2016 10:11 am

Don’t forget the ricochet, we have just come off of a 40 year string of maximum solar cycles with all planets in the solar system rising in temperature. 2015 were the last confetti pop from all that max output.

HenryP
Reply to  KLohrn
July 29, 2016 10:53 am

the sun is currently at its most brightest and most damaging. Feels hotter to me as well [ compared to 40 years ago]
This must be due to the lower solar polar magnetic field strengths which allows more of the most energetic particles to escape./

Reply to  HenryP
July 29, 2016 10:58 am

No, that is not the way it works.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 29, 2016 11:32 am

It seems logical to me as we know that one of the problems with getting energy from nuclear fusion [on earth] has to do with maintaining a magnetic field
anyway, how else to explain increase in ozone, both NH and SH, from 1995
clearly more probably caused by natural processes TOA than by man made processes
hint: look at the R -values….comment image

Reply to  HenryP
July 29, 2016 11:36 am

The Sun has no problem maintaining its magnetic field, and what you posit is still not the way it works. I could give you a long explanation of the process, but you would simply ignore it, so why should I bother?

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 29, 2016 11:45 am

true enough
as I am sure it would not explain the results I am getting….
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/28/a-possible-triple-climate-whammy-for-the-uk-ahead/#comment-2267465
so, indeed, don’t bother

RobM
July 29, 2016 10:24 am

Seems like a good time to go into the petard business! If a cooling period and even blackouts is what it takes to finally kick the climate change cult in the groin, I’m all for it.

KLohrn
July 29, 2016 10:28 am

Blackouts in the U.K. will obviously be found a result of Brexit, not ice covering the Thames.

Reply to  KLohrn
July 30, 2016 5:54 am

Energy is cheep, it’s not a scarce resource, Brexit has f”k all to do with anything moron..

Pavel
July 29, 2016 12:16 pm

According to my findings and prognostics solar cycle 24 will end in near future dat means before new year 2017 with little correction of 3 months.Solar Grand Minimum will start instantly from 2017 for at least 10 years with no solar cycles activity.

Reply to  Pavel
July 29, 2016 8:27 pm

Solar cycle 25 will likely be a bit higher than SC24, see http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/

Bill Hunter
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 2, 2016 2:24 am

How do you get from “suggesting” to “likely” with the error bars?

Reply to  Bill Hunter
August 2, 2016 2:41 am

Because the polar fields are still increasing and have a way to go until they stabilize [some three years before the minimum].

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 2, 2016 11:45 am

at least it is interesting to note that Dr. No agrees with me that cycle 25 will be bigger than cycle 24
looking at the surface areas between the two lines [of dr. No’s graph] it makes sense to me think that the sun [from 2014] has just started cycling back.
At this stage it is important to remember where we are in terms of the sun’s main clock:
2016-87= 1929
If you have shares
it might be a good idea to sell…
[dust bowl drought approaching soon]/?

Reply to  HenryP
August 2, 2016 6:42 pm

SC25 might be a bit larger than SC24, but not nearly as large as SC23.
“cycling back”? that is not how the sun works.
more global cooling
There has been cooling as yet.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 2, 2016 11:06 am

again I say
your graph exactly confirms the mirror [on the magnetic field strengths] applicable from 2014
it is just that the polarity has changed
amazing
so, as I said
cycle 25, when it starts – which could be still quite a few years, will be more or less equal in strength as cycle 23.
mark my words
remember my name

Reply to  HenryP
August 2, 2016 11:22 am

Unfortunately, the sun does not know exactly what you know.

Resourceguy
July 29, 2016 12:47 pm

The next two to four years will exhibit significant cooling in NH winters and cooler summers. Not sure about global, but I would guess some there also with lag times to see it in the smoothed data.

July 29, 2016 8:25 pm

Jay Hope July 28, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Only a fool would trust this data
So, you are calling Vuk a fool for the trust he has in CET. I’ll tend to agree with you, at least what he does with it is foolish.

Sparks
Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 30, 2016 5:50 am

Lief this nonsense where they use their adversarys data against them gets confusing. most of the time friendly fire arguments break out lol

July 30, 2016 6:10 am

Solar cycle 25 will be higher or much the same as this sunspot cycle, but the solar minimums will be longer. Longer periods without sunspots is the narrative here.

HenryP
Reply to  Sparks
July 30, 2016 7:13 am

if you look at the solar polar magnetic field strengths: note that you can draw quadratics from the bottom to top and top to bottom which clearly come to a dead end stop in 2014.Double pole switch?
from thereon you can figure out that the next 43 years of the Gleissberg will be the exact mirror image of the last 43 years as displayed
i.e. anti scissors in place of scissorscomment image

HenryP
July 30, 2016 7:32 am

You probably did not get that, because I was too brief
In this picture you can see [on the bottom graph] where we were with cycle 24 as far as monthly SSN is concerned: right in the middle.comment image
Putting in the mirror in from there and it follows that cycle 25 will be exactly the same strength as cycle 23.
Now place your bets that Dr.No (Leif) will not agree with me……

HenryP
Reply to  HenryP
July 30, 2016 7:36 am

Henry said
In this picture you can see [on the bottom graph] where we were with cycle 24 as far as monthly SSN is concerned: right in the middle.
.
Henry says
that should be:
In this picture you can see [on the bottom graph] where we were in 2014 with cycle 24 as far as monthly SSN is concerned: right in the middle.

Reply to  HenryP
July 30, 2016 7:59 am

You are right, I don’t [or rather: the sun doesn’t] agree, as there is no such thing and ‘exact’ in this. And the cycles are not mirrored, etc. But have fun as long as you know it is not science.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 30, 2016 9:22 am

shame on you, Dr. No
you did not even allow people some time to think a bit for themselves
anyway, here you can see that between 1927 and 2014 SSN is essentially unchanged
and I can draw hyperbola for SSN from 1927-1972 and from 1972-2014 {represented here by linear approximation)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1972/to:2014/offset:10/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1972/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/trend
furthermore, I can fit all of my data and find correlation with the magnetic field strengths of the sun on minima and ozone and the position of the planets and quite a few others [like the flooding of the Nile : do you remember we discussed William Arnold’s paper and you said it was rubbish?]
here is the one on maxima in Alaska that turned me straight into a skeptic of global warming:
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg
The irony is of course that your graphs helped me a lot in making my final determinations…….
Thanks for all your help , ehhh, dr. No.

Reply to  HenryP
July 30, 2016 11:09 am

Glad to be of help in your quest for self-aggrandizement. Too bad for the rest of us that the Sun and the climate don’t work like that.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
July 30, 2016 11:29 am

Glad to be of help in your quest for self-aggrandizement. Too bad for the rest of us that the Sun and the climate don’t work like that.
henry says
Actually, I started my investigations after feeling guilty about driving a big double cab truck. My dogs jump on the back and go with me wherever I go and it always feels so good to take them for a drive or a spin up the hills here…
Cannot tell you how relieved I felt to find that burning extra diesel is not going to change anything to the climate……
It is the sun, stupid!!
[and the idiots – besides myself – actually trying to measure global temperature]

Reply to  HenryP
July 30, 2016 11:33 am

the idiots – besides myself – actually trying to measure global temperature
Self-knowledge is always good. Pleas continue to be one.

Sarah Hill
July 30, 2016 9:01 am

Should be interesting to see what happens….so far, no cooling

HenryP
Reply to  Sarah Hill
July 30, 2016 10:52 am

Hi Sara
You say: so far, no cooling
Henry says
that determination depends a lot on where you measure and from what time you started measuring
[using the same equipment and recording techniques]
Where I live, it seems there never was any warming….measured from more than 40 years ago!

Griff
July 30, 2016 12:48 pm

If you want to worry about the UK, it is a dead cert next winter will bring one or more severe flooding events, due to intense rainfall/winter storms.
There will (again) be 1 in 100, 200, 300 year floods and infrastructure damage….

Griff
Reply to  HenryP
August 1, 2016 3:35 am

Well publish and the nobel prize is yours Henry…

Reply to  Griff
August 1, 2016 3:50 am

If you or somebody pays me….

ulriclyons
July 30, 2016 2:59 pm

The coldest solar magnetic phase of the Dalton Minimum, 1807-1817, saw El Nino roughly double in frequency, hand in hand with the increase in negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions that made NW Europe cold.
https://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/historic-el-nino-events

ulriclyons
Reply to  ulriclyons
July 30, 2016 2:59 pm
HenryP
Reply to  ulriclyons
July 31, 2016 9:42 am

is this data set different to the “corrected|” data set
i.e. is this the original CET data set?

ulriclyons
Reply to  ulriclyons
July 31, 2016 10:53 am

They appear the same values in that period:
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qj53manley.pdf

HenryP
Reply to  ulriclyons
July 31, 2016 11:22 am

well
going through that report is enough to put me off, as I know of all the problems
e.g.
“relying on amateur observations before 1841”
never mind the differences in calibration and recording techniques…especially from before and after 1950 to date.
The best is not go further back in time then I did, i.e. 43 years, i.e. one half a Gleissberg.

ulriclyons
Reply to  ulriclyons
July 31, 2016 2:41 pm

You wanted to know if it was the original data.

Sparks
Reply to  ulriclyons
July 30, 2016 6:26 pm

Enso and the spikes of el nino that drive planetary weather patterns are natural, I will go so far as to say they are solar driven events, how? at the moment my opinion is that the sun’s poles strike the earth during their rotation and reversal, but it’s the configuration of the polarity that causes the spikes, approximately every 22 years, for example sometimes the positive pole of the sun will sweep past the earths conductive oceans before the negative pole sweeps past, I’m sure Lief can tell you which of the suns poles swept past the Earth and in what order to prove my point 🙂 you’re welcome…

Reply to  Sparks
July 30, 2016 8:13 pm

I think you don’t say what you mean [if you do, you are utterly wrong]. So, make clear what you mean by ‘pole’. E.g. what was the latitude of the solar north pole in 2008, according to your view?

ulriclyons
Reply to  Sparks
July 31, 2016 9:35 am

A lack of Aurora sightings in the coldest part of the Dalton Minimum:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf
Note the low solar wind speed leading into the 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Nino episodes:
http://snag.gy/dZ00l.jpg

HenryP
Reply to  ulriclyons
July 31, 2016 10:49 am

hi ulric
what exactly are we measuring with solar wind speed and how is it done?

Sparks
Reply to  Sparks
August 4, 2016 3:06 pm

Lief,
The change in the configuration of the Sun’s polarity striking Earth’s oceans is on going, in 2008 (to your dismay is related to my point) the Sun’s negative polarity was at rest at the southern geographic pole, this means it rotated and reversed around the Sun from when it was at rest at the geographical North Pole around 1998 these years are both around the time of solar minimums.
1998 was a strong El nino year that produced a positive spike in Global temperature anomaly on Earth, moving forward 18 years we have the same configuration of the sun’s polarity and a strong El nino, although it is not exactly 22 years, this is based on the length of an average solar cycle of the so called 11 year cycle which is based on the average length between solar maxima…
The point remains, the [configuration] of the [suns polarity] striking Earth’s conductive oceans, produce El nino spikes, this in-turn drives the global temperature anomaly.
The configuration of the sun’s moving polarities (Negative and Positive poles) are very important as well as the timing as they rotate towards the solar equator and reverse.

Reply to  Sparks
August 4, 2016 3:07 pm

the Sun’s polarity
What are the Sun’s polarities?

Reply to  Sparks
August 4, 2016 6:04 pm

The Sun’s polarities are the positive and negative force produced by way of E=mc2, its “poles” the source of the magnetic polar field.

Reply to  Sparks
August 4, 2016 6:56 pm

That [is not] how the Sun works. In the core of the sun, 4 million tons of mass is every second converted into energy according to E = mc2; it then takes some 200,000 years for that energy to percolate to the surface. There are no positive or negative ‘forces’ associated with this. The magnetic field at the solar poles waxes and wanes over the 11-yr sunspot cycle but basically stays in place, reversing its sign at every sunspot maximum. The interplanetary magnetic field that sweeps over the Earth comes from solar low and mid-latitudes.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 4, 2016 7:05 pm

Energy from the core of the sun reaches the surface of the sun instantaneously, the mass of a star is equal to the strength of its polar field at rest. Play from the “blood sport” script all you want, this is a fact!!

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 4, 2016 7:10 pm

Apologies Lief, I actually thought you were being vulgar because of your typo and not having a conversation.

Reply to  Sparks
August 4, 2016 7:12 pm

I may be rude or blunt [if you deserve it], but never vulgar 🙂

co2islife
July 30, 2016 7:56 pm

This article does a great job pointing out that the real threat to mankind is a coming ice age, and wind and solar won’t provide enough power to keep society alive. These “green” movements put all of society at risk.

HenryP
Reply to  co2islife
July 30, 2016 10:45 pm

I think we have the knowledge today to prevent an ice age,
for example by sprinkling carbon dust on ice sheets that have moved too near civilization.
As you say: carbon is life…..

July 31, 2016 2:18 am

O sole
O sole mio
è che il tuo viso
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Image7.jpg
O sole
O sole mio
Is that your face!
Latest image of sun from NASA

HenryP
August 1, 2016 10:00 am

true enough
problem is I don’t really trust any data before 1950 on account of not finding much proof of any re-calibrations done on thermometers before that time/….those are the facts as I see them happening in front of my eyes…
do you have an answer for me here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/28/a-possible-triple-climate-whammy-for-the-uk-ahead/#comment-2269046
??

HenryP
Reply to  HenryP
August 1, 2016 10:03 am

sorry
if it was not clear
that reply was directed at Ulric Lyons

Bill Hunter
August 2, 2016 2:42 am

Seems to me Leif is not satisfied that CET shows enough cooling to be a candidate for a climate control. . . .and of course the dip is off by 4 years 2005/2009 which Leif also pointed out. Of course CO2 has been rising rapidly now for 18 years without any substantial climate warming and the date is off by 18 years. So one might say that if Leif’s argument against Vuk is devastating. . . .well. . . .
I guess we know very little about the climate. I am going to pop some corn and enjoy the show.

Reply to  Bill Hunter
August 2, 2016 2:47 am

CET shows enough cooling
CET has shown no cooling:
http://www.leif.org/research/CET-and-GN-Space-Age.png

Bill Hunter
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 3, 2016 11:46 pm

you mean then not enough years. ok, whats enough? 40 years?

Reply to  Bill Hunter
August 3, 2016 11:54 pm

The ones who claim cooling must justify why their choice of years show what they claim. I don’t see any cooling.

HenryP
Reply to  Bill Hunter
August 2, 2016 4:37 am

Hunter
look at this comment:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/28/a-possible-triple-climate-whammy-for-the-uk-ahead/#comment-2268246
and also the two comments after that. If you figure it out like me [i.e. you cannot go lower than zero with magnetic field strengths…..meaning it must go up from 2014] , it follows that cycle 25 will be similar in strength than cycle 23.
just remember that what happens now on the sun [it is still very quiet] will cause more global coolingcomment image

HenryP
Reply to  HenryP
August 3, 2016 1:16 am

what you see in my graph on the speed of warming (up to and including 2014), is that we had warming from 1973 (when I started measuring) until around 1995. 1995 is the bending point where positive turns to negative. From then onward it started cooling, as far as minima and maxima is concerned, i.e. what comes in and what goes out, [never mind T mean on earth]. Each Gleissberg consists of 4 Hale cycles and each Hale cycle consists of 2 Wolf cycles.
The turning point we just had was the one in 2014. That would set the begin of the deceleration of global cooling. [you can imagine my graph coming further towards you but now it turned around like a hyperbola, instead of a parabola. The point where cooling turns to warming again will be 1 Hale cycle from 2014, i.e. ca. 23 years from now= 2036-2037.