Big Chill: ‘Substantial Cooling’ Predicted Within The Next Few Years

La Niña expected to contribute

From the Daily Star, 14 August 2016

Climate boffins believe the UK’s topsy-turvy climate is in for a chilly twist within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger “substantial cooling”.

lan-nina-forecast

Drastic changes in ocean conditions, greenhouse gases and a weakening of the sun threaten increasingly worsening winters of blistering blizzards and severe snowstorms for years to come.

This cocktail of climate threats, paired with “hasty climate policies”, could mean “rolling blackouts” in the UK over the next few years, plunging the country into long period of darkness.

These “worse case scenario” climate threats will hit the elderly hardest, leaving “some pensioners alone in the dark” on a freezing nights resigned to a “lonely death”.

An intense La Nina weather front could wreak havoc on the UK’s climate, photo Getty

It is thought these will be brought about for the most part by a massive decrease in solar activity, meaning fewer “sunspots” and solar flares to warm up earth.

Scientists recently warned the sun’s activity is at its lowest for 100 years, meaning earth is experiencing eerily similar conditions to the period when the last mini ice age hit.

This drop in sunspot activity leads to a so-called Maunder Minimum, which is believed to be responsible for the cripplingly cold winters Europe experienced three centuries ago.

The last time Britain entered a Maunder minimum period was in the 1600s, when temperatures sunk so low, London’s river Thames froze over.

Drawing on 400 years of sunspot observations, experts believe we are heading for a similar temperature “minimum”.

However, Grahame Madge, meteorologist for the Met Office, told Daily Star Online although a “grand solar minimum” is expected, it will do little to counteract global warming caused by man-made change.

Another major factor in the predicted cool down could be the switch from an usually strong El Nino to a La Nina weather front in the pacific ocean.

Meteorologist for AccuWeather Tyler Roys told Daily Star Online La Nina could contribute to the chilly mix.

He said that the onset of La Nina – which is associated with cooler temperatures – has a much more drastic effect on weather in the British Isles and could spell a climate cool down.

He said: “Looking at the similarities of 1998 to last years El Nino event, one can assume there could be such a drop off.” La Nina has more of an effect on the weather for the British Isles than El Nino does.

“A La Nina that is based over the eastern Pacific Ocean tends for favour a cooler and drier then normal weather pattern for much of western Europe.”

The Met Office said the onset of La Nina from 2017 is likely to “buck the trend” in terms of record breaking global temperature averages, predicting a cool down across the globe.

Full story

Advertisements

206 thoughts on “Big Chill: ‘Substantial Cooling’ Predicted Within The Next Few Years

  1. Scientists recently warned the sun’s activity is at its lowest for 100 years
    Whenever we have such lows, they are followed by increased solar activity. The next solar cycle already looks to be a bit stronger than the current one.

    • “… a massive decrease in solar activity, meaning fewer “sunspots” and solar flares to warm up earth…”
      I have never seen anything suggesting that sunspots or solar flares do anything to warm up the earth.

      • ‘From the Daily Star’.
        Like ‘From the National Enquirer’, but with pictures of poor unfortunate young ladies who struggle to afford clothes.
        The ‘Mirror’ it ain’t. And the ‘Mirror’ ain’t much of a newspaper . . . .
        Auto

      • auto August 15, 2016 at 12:25 pm
        The pictures are to ensure the print version ‘readership’ know which way up to hold the paper.

      • “I have never seen anything suggesting that sunspots or solar flares do anything to warm up the earth.”
        I can’t vouch for its accuracy, but here’s the first thing that came up when I did a search for “what do more sunspots mean?” Do you have anything scientific to counter it?

        “Intuitively one may assume the that total solar irradiance would decrease as the number of (optically dark) sunspots increased.” However direct satellite measurements of irradiance have shown just the opposite to be the case. This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise.”

        http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
        Jeff, now at least you’ve seen something suggesting that sunspots warm up global temperatures.

      • Thanks to ever-increasing Global Warming, the young ladies do not need clothes. This is, of course, incontrovertible proof that the warming is Man Made.

      • I believe the causation run like this: decreases in sunspots is symptomatic of a weaker solar wind. A weaker solar wind is less able to protect the earth from high energy cosmic rays coming from deep space. As more cosmic rays pass through the atmosphere, more atmospheric molecules are split into ions. These extra ions are seed for increased cloud formation. Greater cloud formation reflects more solar radiation away from earths surface, and hence cooling. See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/25/svensmark-publishes-solar-activity-has-a-direct-impact-on-earths-cloud-cover/

    • Real time solar activity is like a trickle charger, while the AMO is the grid-scale battery. There is no comparison in short term observations and models. So the better question is whether the last 70 years of solar activity matters, not the trickle charger.
      http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif
      http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-NorthAtlantic%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    • If we looked at the stock market and the economy with century averages, we would come up with even more failed prediction models than the current crop.

    • The South polar field appears to be making a move back toward zero. Too early to know how far it will correct or this is just a random fluctuation. The North polar field has done little strengthening since reversal. So it looks to me like we’re at least 5-6 months away from any decent predictions for SC 25 to see where the south polar field strength tracks.
      http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
      Further evidence that making SC25 predictions at this point is dicey is how fast SC24’s SSN and F10.7 are decaying relative to Predictions.
      http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif
      http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-10-cm-radio-flux.gif

      • The South polar field appears to be making a move back toward zero. Too early to know how far it will correct or this is just a random fluctuation.
        Because the sun’s axis is tilted with respect to the Earth’s orbit, the south pole cap is now becoming less visible and the magnetic field thus decreasing. This is the expected and observed behavior. Similarly, the north polar cap was less visible during the first half of 2016, resulting in a smaller observed magnetic field.
        You can see the same behavior of the polar fields leading up the previous minimum. In short: the fields have now stabilized and can be used for prediction.
        http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields.png

    • “Solar activity has reached the same level in every century”
      That statement doesn’t recognize the “area under the curve” is most definitely not the “same level” in each century. By the way what is your prediction for Cycle 25 since you say it is going to be higher than 24? I don’t know if Zharkova et al 2015 implies a lower SSN for Cycles 25 and 26 compared to 24, but I’m guessing it does.

      • The area under the curve for the 18th century is on par with that of the 20th, within the uncertainty of the estimates, but it is not a given that the climate must have a 100-year response time, and if it did, then there would not be ‘substantial-cooling-predicted-within-the-next-few-years’.

      • Zharkova et al 2015 implies a lower SSN for Cycles 25 and 26 compared to 24, but I’m guessing it does
        since Zharkova et al. can’t hindcast the past, their prediction of the future is irrelevant.
        It is a bit premature to give a more precise number for SC25, but if I must, I would guess 10-20% higher than SC24, as the current cycle still has time to further increase the polar fields.

    • “the next solar cycle already looks…”, Leif? What part of it are you seeing that you can say that? Certainly no sign of it on your (sadly neglected) solar pages.

    • “…since Zharkova et al. can’t hindcast the past, their prediction of the future is irrelevant.”
      We have a most excellent chance to see if you are correct in about 9 years. You are higher, she is lower. I’ll set my alert timer for 9 years from now. That’s the beauty of reality, it trumps ego every single time, although sometimes it takes some time to bubble to the top.

    • Yes, regional warming caused by solar cycle changes is always followed by regional cooling caused by solar cycle changes.
      The foundation of science is that fundamental theoretical beliefs can and are proven incorrect by new observations.
      The warming in the last 150 years has caused by solar cycle changes, not by the rise in atmospheric CO2. The rise in atmospheric CO2 was caused by increased planetary temperature and an increase in deep earth CH4 emission which is low in C13, not by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
      It is no surprise that global warming will be followed by cooling. The paleo record shows that has been 342 warming events in the last 250,000 years in the southern hemisphere with the same periodicity of the warming events in the northern hemisphere. The warming events correlate with solar cycle changes and all were followed by cooling events which also correlate with solar cycle changes.
      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

      Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
      …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

      http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2012/07/09/researchers-create-mri-of-the-suns-interior-motions.html

      Once the scientists captured the precise movement waves on the Sun’s surface, they were able to calculate its unseen plasma motions. This procedure is not unlike measuring the strength and direction of an ocean’s current by monitoring the time it takes a swimmer to move across the water—currents moving against the swimmer will result in slower times while those going in the same direction will produce faster times, with stronger and weaker currents enhancing or diminishing the impact on the swimmer.
      What they found significantly departed from existing theory–specifically, the speed of the Sun’s plasma motions were approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected.
      “Our current theoretical understanding of magnetic field generation in the Sun relies on these motions being of a certain magnitude,” explained Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. “These convective motions are currently believed to prop up large-scale circulations in the outer third of the Sun that generate magnetic fields.”
      “However, our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations,” continued Hanasoge, also a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Plank Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. “If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.”
      http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf

      The peculiar solar cycle 24 – where do we stand?
      Solar cycle 24 has been very weak so far. It was preceded by an extremely quiet and long solar minimum. Data from the solar interior, the solar surface and the heliosphere all show that cycle 24 began from an unusual minimum and is unlike the cycles that preceded it. We begin this review of where solar cycle 24 stands today with a look at the antecedents of this cycle, and examine why the minimum preceding the cycle is considered peculiar (§ 2). We then examine in § 3 whether we missed early signs that the cycle could be unusual. § 4 describes where cycle 24 is at today.

      • Solar Cycle 24 is not particular peculiar, being similar to SC14 and others in the past.
        The foundation of science is that fundamental theoretical beliefs can and are proven incorrect by new observations.
        Often those ‘new’ observations are premature, misinterpreted, or simply overhyped. The ones you mention are good examples of that. The Sun is behaving quite normally.
        The Hanasoge paper is badly worded. Here is what Hanasoge explained to me by email:
        “I now realize it’s a bit of a confusing statement because it’s a slightly technical concept. The “rapidity” of solar rotation is defined in our context through the Rossby number: the ratio of convective velocity to the speed of rotation. It is largely thought that the Sun, in the context of Rossby number, is a slow rotator, i.e. that Coriolis forces play a very weak role in influencing convective motions. However our results show that the convective motions are substantially weaker than previously thought, which means the Rossby number is very low and convection therefore is strongly influenced by rotation and Coriolis forces (much more so than previously thought). In that sense, the Sun is “fast rotator”.”
        He is talking about a particular form of motions [overturning of convective cells, e.g. as seen in the granulation, not about ‘plasma motions’ in general. This has nothing to do with the solar dynamo and the maintenance of solar activity.

  2. There’s something cheering (as well as sobering) in the fact that sloppy thinking and ignorance can be turned in any direction at any moment. The reporter talked to “climate boffins” and got the idea that sunspots warm up the earth!

  3. Why do observed values for ENSO in the graphic finish in May? I would expect to already have data for MJJ…

      • Its a compliment.
        From Wikipedia – which is pretty good for this kind of non-controversial trivia:

        During World War II, boffin was applied with some affection to scientists and engineers working on new military technologies. It was particularly associated with the members of the team that worked on radar at Bawdsey Research Station under Sir Robert Watson-Watt, but also with computer scientists like Alan Turing, aeronautical engineers like Barnes Wallis and their associates, and the scientists of the Department of Miscellaneous Weapons Development. Widespread usage may have been encouraged by the common wartime practice of using substitutes for critical words in war-related conversation, to confuse eavesdroppers or spies.[citation needed]
        The Oxford English Dictionary quotes use in The Times in September 1945:[5]
        1945 Times 15 Sept. 5/4 A band of scientific men who performed their wartime wonders at Malvern and apparently called themselves “the boffins”.
        The word, and the image of the boffin-hero, were further spread by Nevil Shute’s novel No Highway (1948), Paul Brickhill’s non-fiction book The Dambusters (1951) and Shute’s autobiography Slide Rule (1954). Films of The Small Back Room (1948), No Highway (1951, as No Highway in the Sky), and The Dambusters (1954) also featured boffins as heroes, as did stand-alone films such as The Man in the White Suit (1951) and The Sound Barrier (1952).[citation needed]
        Boffin continued, in this immediate postwar period, to carry its wartime connotations: a modern-day wizard who labours in secret to create incomprehensible devices of great power. Over time, however, as Britain’s high-technology enterprises became less dominant, the mystique of the boffin gradually faded, and by the 1980s boffins were relegated, in UK popular culture, to semi-comic supporting characters such as Q, the fussy armourer-inventor in the James Bond films, and the term itself gradually took on a slightly negative connotation.[6]

      • “A boffin is British slang for a scientist, engineer, or other person engaged in technical or scientific work. The original World War II conception of war-winning researchers means that the term tends to have more positive connotations than related terms like spod, egghead, nerd, or geek.” Boffin

        You have to be careful with British English, especially when you speak American English and you think you know what they are really saying.

      • @RACookPE1978
        Interesting etymology. It is not in my Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1976.

  4. I agree Solar is falling off but it is physically impossible to cool down to the levels of the LIA in very short period of time unless a major volcanic eruption occurs, asteroid hits or Mankind starts a nuclear war.
    Every past warm period took as long to cool as it took to warm.
    I am not jumping on the Dramatic Global cooling scare train, I am a realist..
    Look.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/765209505974157313

    • Clouds can cool the Earth very quickly. I think we will soon get a real time demonstration of this effect.
      If we are lucky it will be over in 25 years. No problem.
      Unless you are dependent on windmills to keep the lights on the furnace lit. I think I should put a thermoacoustic generator in my furnace to keep the fan going. Hmmm… [Thinks]

    • Unfortunately, it is possible for heat to be lost from the system in very short order. For example, according to RSS data, the temperature anomaly fell from +0.9 degC to – 0.1 deg C (a change of about 1 deg C) in under a year and half between 1998 and mid 1999. See:
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2000
      The land thermometer data suggests a more mooted response but still in the order of about 0.6deg C.
      It is possible for temperatures to drop very quickly but whether temperatures will drop quickly (or at all) will depend upon conditions. Given our lack of knowledge and understanding, no one can predict the future; it is a mugs game.

      • I guess a cooler East Pacific (c. one sixth of the Earth’s surface would have most of the atmosphere blow over it in a year or so. With water’s vastly greater heat capacity, fast cooling could be explainable? Brett

    • Yes, clouds can cool the land mass but it must take a decade or more to cool the oceans. That’s a lot of water to lower the heat content.

  5. I do wonder where this discussion will go. Solar cycling is apparently hard to measure, as Dr Svalgaard will swear, but something that looks like it has apparently been going on to produce cycling faster than the Milankovich cycles.

    • +1…..lowering the intellectual tone a little with that tabloid, and I don’t mean from papers in general, I mean amongst all those publications which mix news with bobs. …

    • Indeed, how times change. And, you be hard pushed to call it msm in its print heyday! Is it like food. It’s not the restaurant, it’s the chef. Though I’ve never heard of the author of the piece before. I have heard “the ice age is coming!” before.

  6. Whatever may happen to the real temperatures, we know that NOAA and NASA have everything under control to show that every year from now on, will be the warmest year in recorded history.

  7. It is always useful to look back at earlier predictions and weigh them against present real measurements.
    Some of you may remember this prediction by David Hathaway at NASA regarding cool temperatures by 2022.
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
    Since the cycle sunspot number is actually lower than Hathaways prediction, see WUWT’s link to Nasa’s solar page:
    http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif
    I wonder now, how David Hathaway views the Sun’s conveyor belt attenuation bottoming out spots circa 2022. Has he changed his opinion?
    I am still insulating my home until further notice.

  8. “Drastic changes in ocean conditions”?
    The sea temperature will remain in the current range (-2 to +36 ° C), the salinity will remain between 3.3 to 3.7%, the pH will be between 8.0 and 8.5, the waves will be between 0 and 100 m high (including rogue waves), the currents will continue to flow, mostly in the directions in which they are currently flowing (pun intended), tides will rise and fall, and geothermal effects on temperature, composition, and flow will continue to be unaccounted for.
    What will be ‘drastic’?

  9. Grahame Madge, meteorologist for the Met Office, told Daily Star Online although a “grand solar minimum” is expected, it will do little to counteract global warming caused by man-made change.
    Mr Madge’s problem is that the “global warming caused by man-made change” is so much smaller than he thinks it is based on flawed climate models. We may be able to ask him to eat his hat in a year’s time.

  10. We live in an exciting age. We have the tools to observe the Universe and everything around us with incredible detail….as well as the understanding to interpret the empirical data.
    Sometimes our preconceived notions cause us to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in but thanks to technology and modern science, the evidence will continue to pour in with increasing accuracy and better interpretation(s).
    Our understanding of the past gives us general ideas to use in speculating about the future. Measuring and interpreting the present, still leaves some questions unanswered…….for a while, but makes being an objective scientist fun in today’s age.
    Think how boring it would be to go back just a few hundred years and be a scientist in that age……..the scientifically challenged in today’s world have access to far more authentic science than the scientific elite of a couple centuries ago!

  11. Dunno about the solar minimum. Do know about LaNina short term, AMO and PDO longer term, and stuff like Akasofu’s Arctic ice cycles and the Curry stadium wave hypothesis. Suggests we will see global temperature stasis or slight cooling, and Summer Arctic ice recovery, until about 2030-2035.

  12. Like Joe Bastardi, I’ll probably be castigated by some on “my side” for calling it as I see it. But the newspaper story is the “global cooling” equivalant of “global warming” sloppy/biased journalism. “the Young Dryas”? Seriously?
    If I was really cynical, I’d say that it was planted, to create bad publicity for skeptics. This article will get torn to shreds by our opponents. It uses ***OLD*** data and forecasts. Note that the “observed” data on the graph only goes through April. The plume forecast chart was issued in mid-May, 3 months ago. Since then, almost all forecasts have backtracked significantly.
    * JAMSTEC http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d1/iod/sintex_f1_forecast.html.en and select “El Nino index” from the “Parameter:” dropdown menu. The forecast has basically flat-lined at neutral. For a comparison, select “May 2016” from the “Start date:” dropdown menu, and compare. That forecast was calling for a La Nina.
    * There has been a similar backtracking at Scripps. Compare their May ENSO3.4 area forecast http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/pictures_made_2016-05.html with their August forecast http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/pictures_made_2016-08.html

    Target      May August
    MJJ 16    -0.62
    JJA 16    -1.21
    JAS 16    -1.69
    ASO 16    -2.02  -1.12
    SON 16    -2.20  -1.35
    OND 16    -2.30  -1.50
    NDJ 16/17 -2.34  -1.56
    DJF 16/17 -2.32  -1.53
    JFM 17    -2.16  -1.43
    FMA 17    *****  -1.28
    MAM 17    *****  -1.07
    AMJ 17    *****  -0.86
    

    * The observed ENSO3.4 anomaly has flatlined the past several weeks, invalidating most of the wild mid-May forecasts in the chart in the article. Here it is, for weeks centred on Wednesday. Source http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst8110.for

    29JUN2016     -0.4
    06JUL2016     -0.4
    13JUL2016     -0.6
    20JUL2016     -0.6
    27JUL2016     -0.5
    03AUG2016     -0.5
    10AUG2016     -0.6
    

    We need to be more careful before latching on to any article that seems to favour our side. BTW, I’m retired, so it’s not a problem for me, but there seems to be a lot of NSFW content on the paper’s website. With friends like that…

  13. I’m still astounded that they continue to assert, in one way or another, that if the source of incoming engergy (the sun) is decreased that the existing source of positive feedbacks will continue in such great force as to overwhelm the reduction in energy.

    • overwhelm the reduction in energy
      The reduction is minuscule and would, if it even happened, reduce temperatures by less than a tenth of the degree. Hardly a ‘big chill’.

      • The figure of a tenth of a degree, is it based on the change of TSI?
        If there are longer solar minimums in general wouldn’t they cause cooler conditions for the British isles?
        And if the Sun causes El nino events, how does this ‘tenth of a degree’ hold true?

        • It is based on the energy we receive from the sun. Longer minima would not relate to the claim of the article:
          “big-chill-substantial-cooling-predicted-within-the-next-few-years”
          There is no evidence that the Sun causes el Nino events and in any case do last long enough to match your ‘longer minima’.

      • If +0.7 K is a threat to survival of life on Earth, then “big chill” seems fairly proportional claim for 0.1 of cooling.

      • The latest spike in El nino has already fallen, are you expecting temperatures not to plummet around the British isles due to this up coming solar minima? there is plenty of evidence that winter temperatures do plummet during weak solar periods and solar minima, taking the last solar minimum for example, in 2010 near the end of one of the longest recent solar minimums, the British Isles had one of it’s worst winters in decades, hundreds of thousands of people queued for hours in the cold to get fresh water as their pipes froze and burst, the largest lake in the UK partially froze over which had not been seen in over 60 years, Ireland and much of the UK had its coldest summer on record and in some cases over 60 years or 100 years was recorded, there was record snowfalls and fatalities from avalanches which was unheard of.
        There is already the weakest sunspot cycle in over 100 years taken place, along with an El Nino putting extra moisture in the air and a long solar minimum an its way could see huge winter snowfalls coming up over the next few years, that’s my opinion, of course many colder winters over the British isles wont effect the global anomaly for some reason??.
        And as you already know it is my opinion that the Suns poles striking the Earth’s oceans cause El nino, both on the 11 year period and higher enso spikes are produced around the 22 year period when the polar configuration changes.
        Another Fact is, winters and summers have been getting colder around the British isles not warmer, snow and Ice have been killing scores of thousands of cattle in recent years as well as destroying crops, snow and Ice have been deeper and lasting longer in the mountains too.
        I think it is dangerous to downplay the seriousness of colder winters coming up due to weakening solar effects (known or unknown), it could leave millions unprepared and cause a lot of needles suffering and death.
        People comparing forecasts of a cooling period with the likes of “man made global warming” is disgusting, surviving freezing cold winters in the UK is incomparable and nothing like having a warm summer or a string of warm winters, there have been a rise of homeless people freezing to death on the streets since 2008, that’s not even the amount of suffering that the freezing cold can bring.

    • … if the source of incoming engergy (the sun) is decreased …

      They’re right. The visible light coming at us from the sun changes hardly at all. That won’t be the cause of any temperature change.
      There seems to be an association between long periods of low sunspot numbers and decreased temperatures. An example would be the Maunder Minimum.
      One theory is that the sunspot count is correlated with the Sun’s magnetic field, which reacts with the Earth’s magnetic field, which lets in more cosmic rays, which provides nucleation for clouds, which reduces the amount of solar radiation that reaches the planet’s surface.
      Some folks are predicting a mini ice age. If that happens, it may put an end to CAGW theory. It will or won’t happen, we’ll see.
      It doesn’t matter. They have a backup plan. The atmosphere is losing oxygen four times as fast as it is gaining CO2. We may have trouble breathing in as few as a couple of thousand years. We must quit burning fossil fuels. We must give up our comfortable life styles. We must erase humanity from the face of the earth. Think of all the cute little critters who will also have trouble breathing. etc. etc. etc. [/sarc]

      • I make no predictions, but one should not overlook ongoing changes in the Earth’s magnetic field when discussing the point you raise.

      • For a longish time I’ve been threatening myself to look into orbital variations more closely for patterns in planetary alignments that might perturb things enough to make a difference in energy received from the Sun. Quite a few folks who study insolation have made claims the Sun’s output doesn’t change enough to explain major climate shifts, but they clearly have happened. If a “grand solar minimum” isn’t enough to cause an ice age, what causes them? ‘d think perhaps moving the Earth a bit further away might help.

      • Bartleby says: August 15, 2016 at 1:54 pm
        Quite a few folks who study insolation have made claims the Sun’s output doesn’t change enough to explain major climate shifts, but they clearly have happened. If a “grand solar minimum” isn’t enough to cause an ice age, what causes them?

        Okay then …
        The sun’s radiation doesn’t change much – about 0.2%
        Insolation refers to the solar radiation that actually reaches the surface of the Earth. It changes a lot.
        Grand solar minimum refers to sunspots and solar flares. It could affect how much solar radiation reaches the Earth’s surface by the process I explained above.
        Orbital variations have a big effect. The Earth’s orbit is not circular. It is closest to the Sun about January 3. That means the planet receives more radiation during the northern hemisphere winter. link
        There are also long term orbital variations called Milankovitch cycles. They are thought to cause ice ages.
        There are lots of variables that might have an effect on the climate. I recommend that everyone, who hasn’t done so, should take a gander at the WUWT Potential Climatic Variables Page. It has lots of references to the Earth’s orbit. 🙂

  14. I suspect the Brits are no better prepared for snow events that they were when I lived there in the early 1980s. The basic approach was to wait for the snow to melt. Nothing like active snow removal existed then.

    • It’s not economically viable in the UK to maintain the sorts of snow clearing vehicles that places like Russia, Canada or Finland might employ. We simply don’t get big snow events often enough. In my childhood, we had no snow on the ground in NW London from New Year 1971 to December 1979, save one freak overnight storm in May 1975 (which of course melted within 12 hrs). In the 1980s there were more snowy winters, then it returned in the 1990s to fewer. We’ve had a few cold snowy ones since 2010, but last winter was one of the mildest ever.

  15. I am embarrassed to have such a report on a prestigious site such as WUWT. It is not a newspaper, it is titillation for the masses. Sorry Anthony, I don’t know what the American equivalent rag would be, The National Enquirer perhaps? In the UK, The “Daily Star” has even less credence than “The Sun” and even the “Sunday Sport” provokes more interest (WWII German Bomber found on the Moon being a classic). Still, it’s provoked a discussion which has been interesting even if the source material has as much scientific credibility as “Plan 9 From Outer Space”

    • It was reported in other UK newspapers.
      It is a story doing the rounds. Whether there is any merit in the point it was seeking to make, only time will tell.
      Since cAGW is a PR game, any news is relevant.

    • “It was reported in other UK newspapers.”
      I see a report in the Express. As noted below, the source seems to be a Guest Post by John Hardy at WUWT. So when th Express starts:

      A “triple whammy” of unlikely weather surprises could cause temperatures to plummet from next year.
      Experts believe the UK could be in for a big freeze within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger “substantial cooling”.

      the “experts” are a Mr John Hardy writing a guest post at WUWT. Echo chamber stuff.

      • It’s an echo chamber? you’re confusing a current event topic with the antics of paid for “man made global warming” awareness campaigns…
        Winters can be more deadly for the British isles than anything global warming can cause despite the disproportionate alarm.

      • Hope there is no positive gain in this loop, or eventually the only thing WUWT and the Daily Star will be reporting is this article!

    • Yes, but you are past masters at ‘muddling through’. That’s the other half of what makes you Brits.

    • That link had a lot of swirly colors in it Ren. On a side note, I saw a wind speed of 520 km/h at 10 hPa.

  16. Compared to many, may be most, countries UK barely has any weather at all. It is never really hot (>100F), really cold (100MPH), no tornadoes, no tropical storms, but one inch of snow can bring London to a halt.

  17. Looks like this post completes a circle. The Daily Star doesn’t give a source or name these “climate boffins”, except in an odd way. It mentions “John Hardy” twice, without saying who he is; the second mention says:
    ‘John Hardy said it would be “extremely unfortunate” if the UK were to be hit by a Younger Dryas magnitude event.’
    Now on July 28th, WUWT published a Guest Opinion by John Hardy, also giving no details of who he is. And sure enough, the quotes like “hasty climate policies” and “some pensioners alone in the dark” come straight from this article. It looks very like the “climate boffins” are Mr Hardy writing on WUWT.

  18. I don’t trust any weather- or climate-related predictions beyond a week. Even at 100 hours they become unreliable, or let’s say less reliable than “the weather tomorrow will be just like today.”

  19. However, Grahame Madge, meteorologist for the Met Office, told Daily Star Online although a “grand solar minimum” is expected, it will do little to counteract global warming caused by man-made change.
    You have to say stuff like this to keep your job, or in other cases get more grant money.

  20. However, Grahame Madge, meteorologist for the Met Office, told Daily Star Online although a “grand solar minimum” is expected, it will do little to counteract global warming caused by man-made change
    This statement is garbage.

  21. This is nothing but a trashy, strawman-filled hit piece, whose sole intent is to mischaracterize, and mock skeptic arguments.

  22. FIRST SENTENCE:
    “Climate boffins believe the UK’s topsy-turvy climate is in for a chilly twist within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger “substantial cooling”.”
    climate boffins = King’s (Queen’s) english for climate scientists
    climate buffoons = American english for most climate scientists !
    If there is one things climate scientists should have learned in the past 40 years, and I often wonder if they have learned anything, it is that predictions of the future climate are no more accurate than flipping a coin..
    In the most recent period, between the 1998 and 2105 El Nino temperature peaks, virtually every climate prediction was wrong — the solar cooling theory, circa 2005, was wrong, and the CO2 warming theory, circa mid-1970s, was wrong = the predictions were almost 100% wrong — equivalent to a coin flip where the coin lands on its side !
    So we have a subset of scientists who call themselves “climate scientists”, and in the early 2000s I don’t recall anyone predicting an average temperature plateau for the next decade !
    To be wrong 50% of the time you could flip a coin.
    To be wrong 100% of the time, you have to get a climate science PhD !
    People who make climate predictions are like children seeking attention.
    Since the causes of climate change are not well understood, there is no accurate climate physics model that could have any hope of leading to an accurate prediction.
    Even if there was a perfect climate physics model, predictions of the future climate may be impossible if climate changes are non-cyclical, with no leading indicators.
    Climate blog for non-scientists
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com

    • ‘So we have a subset of scientists who call themselves “climate scientists”’
      There is no evidence that this article is based on anything from climate scientists at all. None are quoted.

      • So a skeptic site had the temerity to publish a clump of model outputs that predict cooling.
        No one else seems to want to do this.
        The scientist in me asks ‘Are these ‘projections’ as good as any other in the past that predict warming?’
        The problem for this onlooker is that these results are as good as any other on the model front, not fit for purpose.
        As those informed in Australia watch the debate, natural variation with an unknown sign in at least
        short time scales is dominating the longer term climate change.
        Any bet that we are warming on century scales is at best a hypothesis.
        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/navigating-oceans-of-data-variability-to-forecast-climate-change/news-story/149aee8d73a118ebb4210f97d31175f2
        ‘Scientists can track heat the moving in and out of the ocean, but they are still not so good at predicting when that will happen.
        The Australian
        12:00AM August 13, 2016
        Graham Lloyd
        Environment Editor
        Sydney
        After almost two decades of dispute over its existence, the pause in the rise of global surface temperatures that began in 1998 finally has worked its way to the forefront of climate change research.
        The consensus position now is that the slowdown is real and that much more needs to be known about the natural forces causing it.
        These cycles include the one responsible for the fact the widely claimed Antarctic Peninsula hot spot has been cooling, not warming, since the turn of the century, supposedly unrelated to the pause.’

      • So a skeptic site had the temerity to publish a clump of model outputs that predict cooling.
        No one else seems to want to do this.
        The scientist in me asks ‘Are these ‘projections’ as good as any other in the past that predict warming?’
        The problem for this onlooker is that these results are as good as any other on the model front, not fit for purpose.
        As those informed in Australia watch the debate, natural variation with an unknown sign in at least
        short time scales is dominating the longer term climate change.
        Any bet that we are warming on century scales is at best a hypothesis.
        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/navigating-oceans-of-data-variability-to-forecast-climate-change/news-story/149aee8d73a118ebb4210f97d31175f2
        ‘Scientists can track heat the moving in and out of the ocean, but they are still not so good at predicting when that will happen.
        The Australian
        12:00AM August 13, 2016
        Graham Lloyd
        Environment Editor
        Sydney
        After almost two decades of dispute over its existence, the pause in the rise of global surface temperatures that began in 1998 finally has worked its way to the forefront of climate change research.
        The consensus position now is that the slowdown is real and that much more needs to be known about the natural forces causing it.
        These cycles include the one responsible for the fact the widely claimed Antarctic Peninsula hot spot has been cooling, not warming, since the turn of the century, supposedly unrelated to the pause.’

      • My point is not clear.
        ‘No one else seems to want to do this’
        My point about no one else is that tonight when I switch SBS or ABC the warming narrative will be boosted.
        The ‘no one’ refers to the MSM.
        A lot of climate scientist are interested in ENSO predictions.
        They affect a big slab of the globe.
        As an Australian climate scientist you must be aware of BOM predictions eg
        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
        So its not an anomaly to discuss such predictions.
        Even here.
        The problem for us Aussies is to actually predict climate on the continent of Australia in a validated way.
        No more half shod declarations of dams not filling etc., which are an embarrassment to us all.
        Particularly as they continue to fail to materialise.
        http://www.waternsw.com.au/supply/dam-levels/greater-sydneys-dam-levels
        The federal government’s decision to finance short term models is a step in the right direction, even if unsuccessful.
        It focuses us on the problem of determining the actual’ forcings’ their sign and magnitude, rather than assuming its all CO2.
        It remains to be seen if the Chinese data hackers will end up knowing more about the models, their success or failures, than we do.
        Judging by by the Chinese investment guidelines, they don’t have any problem with buying extensive pastoral properties in Oz, despite the dire prognosis of climate given by some.
        http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/treasurers-decision-to-block-sale-of-kidman-cattle-empire-to-chinese-buyer-is-xenophobic-jay-weatherill-says/news-story/d4e6fcace682d65a283bd7c30f08af43
        Even if it may be blocked.
        Perhaps ,with our data, their climate models work better than ours.

      • My post was a general statement about anyone making climate predictions.
        I stated there is a subset of scientists who are climate modelers.
        That is a fact.
        In the same sentence I also stated:
        “… in the early 2000s I don’t recall anyone predicting an average temperature plateau
        for the next decade !”
        “Anyone” referred to climate modelers.
        Do you know of any climate modelers who predicted a flat average temperature trend for a decade or more in the early 2000s?
        My point, and I did have one, is that it seemed obvious the future climate had to either get warmer, or cooler … and then it stayed the same for a long time, and fooled almost everyone!

  23. https://iceagenow.info/video-headed-ice-age-scientist/
    PROFESSOR ZHARKOVA has no agenda which makes what she says meaningful.
    Further she has a good chance of being correct.
    As far as the climate of the earth this period of time is in no way unique.
    The climate in the big picture is controlled by Milankovitch Cycles, Land Ocean arrangements, with Solar Activity and the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the earth superimposed upon this.
    These factors then exert influences on the terrestrial items on the earth that determine the climate.
    Terrestrial Items
    Atmospheric Circulation
    Sea Surface Temperatures
    Global Cloud Coverage
    Global Snow Coverage
    Global Sea Ice Coverage
    Enso
    Volcanic Activity
    All of this gives an x climate over x time. The historical climatic record supports this.
    That is WHAT likely makes the climate change, NOT the scam they promote which is AGW.
    The historical climatic record showing this period of time in the climate is in no way unique while changes in CO2 concentrations having no correlation in leading to resultant climate changes.
    Now how the cooling evolves will have to be monitored. Of course going from an El Nino condition to an La Nina condition is going to cause an initial cooling.
    For clues that if solar is involved the depth of the cooling will have to be monitored and if the cooling is accompanied by the terrestrial items I have mentioned above.
    Each one of those terrestrial items having been shown to be linked to Milankovitch Cycles Land Ocean Arrangements in the big slow moving picture while solar and geo magnetic variability being factors that can change these terrestrial items on a much smaller time scale.
    The solar parameters needed are
    Solar Wind sub 350 km/sec.
    AP index 5 or lower
    EUV LIGHT 100 units or less
    COSMIC RAY COUNTS – 6500 or greater
    SOLAR IRRADIANCE – off by .15% or greater.
    All very attainable going forward and being compounded by a weakening geo magnetic which if attained with sufficient duration of time will translate into bringing the terrestrial items that control our climate to values which will cause the climate to cool gradually if not in a sharp drop off if certain thresholds should be meant.

  24. ENSO models suck big time.
    Looking at March model projections, the plume was everywhere from strong La Niña to a return to El Niño conditions. With so many models, why don’t they just take out the ones that perform worse?
    I decided to do that and selected the 5 models that got it right in the March projection and made a projection to December with only those. They predict neutral conditions at -0.44°C.
    The problem is that only 2 months later Niño 3.4 is already at -0.44, so the “best performers” predict flat Niño 3.4 temperatures for the next 4 months and no or marginal La Niña.
    http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/ENSO%20prediction_zpspohk8nrx.png
    Now I understand why they don’t get rid of worst performers, they can be best performers in the following months. But predicting a very wide plume of results somehow doesn’t come as predicting anything.
    Now the nice thing is they all get paid regardless of how wrong they get it.

      • Salvatore, I may be as mistaken as anybody, but I always try to stick to the evidence no matter where it leads. Nobody knows how the next two decades are going to be climatically and whoever claims to know is either lying or deceiving himself. I agree with Dr. Leif Svalgaard in that there is nothing wrong or unusual with solar activity, and that centennial minima happen every century (surprise) while solar grand minima and very cold events don’t. I also agree with him that there is no indication that we might have significant cooling in the next two decades, which obviously doesn’t mean that we won’t have it. I just think it is improbable given 400 years of global warming. Even if we are reaching the end of global warming as one day it will happen, it is a lot more probable that we will start cooling similarly to how we warmed, following a multidecadal trend downward instead of just dropping half a degree in one generation. Only a very big volcanic eruption or a meteorite can do that and so far we cannot predict those either.
        I just don’t understand the passion of people for being scared silly with warming or cooling. Must come from watching too many scary movies when young.
        I agree with you in some things and disagree in others, same as with Leif. I have no problem with that and see it as perfectly natural. Science advances from disagreements. If we all agreed all the time we would know a lot less.

      • For example, look at the AMO:
        http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif
        Does it look like it is going to come down in the next two decades? It could perfectly well stay up there a couple more decades like it did from 1940 to 1960, and that would make significant cooling very hard to come. Or it could start to go down in a few years and then we might get some cooling. It is very unlike that it will start going up from where it is, so I am not projecting an acceleration of warming.
        This graph includes 2015, but no visible effect from El Niño yet. 2016 should see a significant spike up like in 1998 that should be interpreted within context.

  25. A la Nina is unlikely, more probable are neutral conditions. I would not forecast British weather from conditions in the Pacific, the connection is tenuous.

    • Talking about probabilities in ENSO is science fiction. Models are updated and zeroed to conditions every month and they are completely unreliable in just 4 months.

  26. We are not sure as to how strong La Nina may be ,how weak solar activity may, how weak the geo magnetic field may be going forward, thus how much global cooling will result.
    Indications are we are heading for cooling.

      • Leif says:
        “Agree that cold is bad, but there is no ‘actionable’ evidence that it will be cold.”
        Whether cold or hot, just what actions could be taken to change that, unless you speak of preparations such as stockpiling or increasing home insulation, etc.? Certainly there are no actions to be taken to change what is coming in terms of climate or weather?

      • Yes there is especially since post 2005. Solar activity being much more active in the years leading up to 2005 in contrast to years following year 2005, while the geo magnetic field has been in a steady decline combined with the N. magnetic pole changing in location at a very rapid clip.
        In addition the solar data has shown nothing but weakness post 2005.

        • Salvatore, this is simply nonsense. Before 2005 we had a solar cycle maximum, after that we had a solar Cycle minimum. The geomagnetic field has changed 10% the last 150 years, and has no effect on the climate anyway.

      • Leif says:
        “Some people say “burn more fossil fuel” :-)”
        A fools errand, just like burning less fossil fuels.

      • Svalgaard says ” temperatures are at all time high”
        Surely this is not true over the Holocene?

        • Of course not. And also not over the 4.5 billion years of the Earth’s past.
          So, obviously I must have meant for the modern temperature record since, say, 1850.

      • The Holocene data is enough to establish a reasonable timespan to gauge the movement of world temps. The Holocene record shows many periods that are warmer than today. How can this happen?
        I would suggest the length and depth of solar grand minima are the main drivers of temperature fluctuation across the Holocene. That being so we should expect a small decrease in temperatures over the next decade at least.

      • Leif:
        you write:
        “Of course not. And also not over the 4.5 billion years of the Earth’s past.
        So, obviously I must have meant for the modern temperature record since, say, 1850.
        But that date is conveniently, right at the end of the LIA….why not use say the Minoan Warm Period as your reference?
        or the Roman Warm Period..
        of the MWP?
        it would appear that 1850 is very likely cooler than the norm for the last few thousand years, no?
        just putting it out there.

        • Because to say that there was cooling after the warming peaks you mention has little immediate relevance for the current period. It is clear that eventually the modern warm period will be followed by cooling. There is just no evidence that that cooling has already started or will begin tomorrow.

      • Ok Dr Svalgaard.
        I still think that this comment:
        “Temperatures are at all time high…” more readily lends itself to misinterpretation than say:
        “Temperatures have been increasing since the end of the LIA”, no?
        I must add that you are quite patient, and for those who wish to learn, a great source of information.

        • No matter what one says, it can [and will ] always be misinterpreted.
          One could perhaps say: “since the last time the temperatures were low”. That even removes the whining about the reality of the LIA and when it stopped. I don’t think my comment really confused anybody. It is quite clear that the intention was to point out that there is no evidence for a ‘big chill’ having begun.

      • Dear Dr Svalgaard:
        “Temperatures are at an all time high” isnt really anything at all like what you’ve just backed into writing.
        I expected more precise use of language from you, thats all.
        To go from “all time high”, to the last 170 or so years is quite a metamorphosis, isnt it?
        Unless of course you perspective goes back only to 1850, which from perusing your reconstructions of sunspots, appears not to be the case.
        Youre confident about opining about levels of solar activity long before 1850, why does that date stand as the beginning of “all time”, other than it being a relatively cool recent period of time on earth?
        It is interesting-the way you phrased your assertion, thats all.

        • All time high for the period where we have reliable temperature measurements. That should be obvious. I don’t think anybody will get confused over this. Were you confused?

      • Svalgaard says ” It is clear that eventually the modern warm period will be followed by cooling. ”
        Excluding Milankovitch forcing, what will cause this cooling?

        • The climate system has in the past showed a strong degree of variation up and down. There is no good reason to believe that the future will much different.

      • Such a poor response. Either you have no clue on the drivers of climate change across the Holocene or refuse to comment in fear of damaging your current position of “It’s not the Sun stupid” ?

      • I have already given that response, but you continue to duck and weave?
        What causes the temperature modulations across the Holocene?

        • I think, George IV, that you could be indulging in an ad ignorantium argument, that since no one knows wahat causes temperature changes faster than the Milankovivich cycles, the cause must be solar variations. What Lief Svalgaard seems to be stating is that he cannot find any good evidence of sufficient solar cycles.

          • the cause must be solar variations
            And that just pushes the problem to the Sun: what causes the solar variations and what solar evidence do we have of any such putative variations?

      • It seems you are not up to the task. This may be your ultimate downfall. If you cannot explain the global temperature fluctuations across the Holocene then you have no place in the current debate. My position is clear, the Holocene variations are due to solar influence, the length and depth of solar grand minima being the driver of that change.

      • The major warming periods are associated with time periods of weak or no solar grand minima. This is beyond question. What is your position on why the Holecene temperature record varies so much?

      • Wow..such cherry picking. Show us deep grand minima during the MWP, and the Roman and Minoan warming periods. And still you duck the question, it would seem you have no position on what drives temperature fluctuations across the Holocene?
        If you can’t answer this question it would seem that you have no stake in this debate?

      • No, you are showing one example of where the the solar proxy record doesn’t line up with the temperature record. The isotope solar record can be influenced by other sources but you have not shown the major warming periods associated with solar grand minima of any strength. You still have not answered my question on what causes the Holocene temperature fluctuations, so we must assume you have no clue?

        • the major warming periods associated with solar grand minima of any strength.
          I specifically outlined them with red boxes. Perhaps you didn’t even look.
          causes the Holocene temperature fluctuations, so we must assume you have no clue?>/i>
          I think the honest answer [not based on any biased ‘position’] is that we don’t really know. But any complicated system can have [and has] fluctuations [‘natural variability’].
          Pretending that you know is not valid science.

      • Your example is before the MWP, so a big fail.
        But thanks for finally admitting you don’t know the answer to the question. But perhaps if not sure on the reason for the temperature fluctuation across the Holocene you could be more open to some of the possibilities. It’s not all about TSI.

      • Your example is before the MWP, so a big fail.
        For your information, most of the Holocene was before the MWP. Here I show the records again. Study them carefully:
        https://i0.wp.com/www.leif.org/research/Greenland-Snow-Temp-4000-yrs.png
        https://i0.wp.com/www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-Temps-NOT.png
        The last one happened during the MWP.
        If, as you claim, warming is always caused by a grand minimum, it should hold at all times, even before the MWP.
        you don’t know the answer to the question.
        Nobody knows the honest answer to the question. If they say they do, there are lying or ignorant.
        you could be more open to some of the possibilities. It’s not all about TSI.
        What other possibilities. All solar data vary like TSI as the variations are due to the same underlying cause.
        If you have evidence of ‘other possibilities’ show them.
        Otherwise you can freely admit that you don’t.

  27. Solar activity aside, the La Nina impact on sensible weather is now apparent along the US West Coast. I’m prepping for a cold, relatively moisture starved, winter (while hoping against all hope that we get one of those odd “wet La Nina” events where NorCal falls in more with the Pac NW than the rest of the SW US).

  28. Whatever cooling comes in the next few years will be blamed on global warming (i.e. John Holdren doing freelance work) or Brexit, maybe both.

  29. Anthony, I have been reading and commenting on your blog for a fair few years. While I find it interesting, and do not always agree, I do find your independent perspective thought provoking. But please, please do me and others a favour. Check out your source material when using the UK press. Many of our Daily papers are about as a reliable as children’s comics. They are not like the news media in the US. Some are so biased as to be completely untrustworthy. As soon as anyone in the UK sees your source was the Daily Star they will either think it is April fools day, or make less charitable comments. You have lots of followers in UK, just check out the reliability of these rags before quoting them. Cheers.

  30. Salvatore, this is simply nonsense. Before 2005 we had a solar cycle maximum, after that we had a solar Cycle minimum. The geomagnetic field has changed 10% the last 150 years, and has no effect on the climate anyway
    Leif says which I not surprisingly disagree with.

  31. lsvalgaard Says “since Zharkova et al. can’t hindcast the past, their prediction of the future is irrelevant.”
    I guess that applies to 100% of the IPCC models as well? If that is the standard, then the IPCC is a gonner.

  32. JAVIER – your post in responding to me can not be argued with. It does make sense.
    I think we do agree on a solar /climate connection and if solar parameters become low enough that will be realized or I should say more apparent. I also think you agree that this period of time in the climate is not unique. Correct?
    I think the solar prediction is much harder to get a handle on then the climate prediction. I think with the climate one can say if x and x happen you get an x result ,but the problem is being able to predict x and x .
    I think only time will tell because as you said no one really knows all we can do is take educated takes on it and try to back it up with reasoning and try to make the most logical case based on the historical climatic record and data.

  33. Climate boffins believe the UK’s topsy-turvy climate is in for a chilly twist within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger “substantial cooling”.
    Wow can an intelligent person even hear himself say that?
    Climate boffins believe the UK’s topsy-turvy climate is in for a warm twist within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger “substantial warming”.
    Still sounds like BS no matter which way you put it:)
    Cheers
    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  34. Richard Verney wrote:
    Given our lack of knowledge and understanding, no one can predict the future; it is a mugs game.
    Wrong! Everyone can predict the future. The question is: are the predictions so simplistic that the prediction must come true or are they based on evidence and theory with a reasonable or high probability of coming true?
    Examples:
    I predict that in Australia next January will be warmer than last July. Simplistic, and I would say will come true at better than 97% probability.
    I predict that Australia’s next January average temperature will be from 0 to 0.5C cooler than the January 2015 temperature. Evidence = January temperatures in the past have fluctuated within a narrow range. Theory = End of El Ninyo, start of La Ninya. Probability of being correct? Regret to say not statistically different from 0.5.
    QED.

  35. A return to ice age conditions would be cataclysmic for the UK and north west Europe and we see those conditions in the geology just as we see evidence of past volcanic activity around dormant volcanoes. Some people see climate study as determining who has the most extreme weather ,this is bigoted because the change in climate in the climate during glaciations in the UK is very extreme. I think that when these newspapers make predictions that we are going to have a massive heat wave this week where all max. temp. record would fall as the star did last week then they should also be made to print when there claims were false or else they simply get away with this.

  36. lsvalgaard August 15, 2016 at 8:16 am
    Scientists recently warned the sun’s activity is at its lowest for 100 years
    Whenever we have such lows, they are followed by increased solar activity. The next solar cycle already looks to be a bit stronger than the current one.
    We have actually at least eight years in delay of zonal flow responsible for cycle 25 so, if solar cycle 24 is gonna by shorter and will end on beginning of next year ( is very realistic). We will have interesting situation, shorter cycle 24 that mins 2.8 years absence + 8 years delaying of zonal flow responsible for cycle 25 ,so we have in future at least 10 years minimum with no spots on solar surface. Mr Isvalgaard im correct ?

Comments are closed.