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”.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
True, no grand solar minimum is expected.
The Met is garbage too. They haven’t a bloody clue about anything.
Grahame Madge is in fact a press officer for the Met Office not a meteorologist so it’s definitely a dubious statement.
This is nothing but a trashy, strawman-filled hit piece, whose sole intent is to mischaracterize, and mock skeptic arguments.
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.’
“No one else seems to want to do this.”
Rubbish! The only results shown are the ENSO predictions. The graph is taken directly from IRI at Columbia University. They are published every month, and widely disseminated.
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!
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.
PROFESSOR ZHARKOVA has no agenda which makes what she says meaningful.
Further she has a good chance of being correct.
No,, since she cannot hindcast the past, prediction the future is in even worse shape.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1512-05516-Zharkova-Fail-by-Usoskin.pdf
“As we show here, Zh15 work fails in reconstruction of the past solar activity and accordingly is not trustworthy in predictions.”
Well, obviously, nobody could be as expert as you are, Lief. Who is this woman anyway? She’s just one of the scientists who discovered that solar flares produce seismic waves in the Sun’s interior! What have you discovered?? Nothing, IMO.
Your ignorance is profound…
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.
Javier I am with you on everything . My only contention is the data thus far looks favorable for a chance of quiet solar conditions going forward.
Maybe ? But your data is quite good.
If we are at a 100-year low, the trend will be expected to be up, as it was in previous 100-year lows.
and the solar /volcanic connection. Those areas we differ on Javier.
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.
What 100 year low ? Who is that in response to?
Solar activity, in case you haven’t noticed…
100 years is not a good indicator especially due to the fact the sun was in a very active mode the past 100 years. Very bad indicator.
The sun has been equally active in other centuries…
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.
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.
There are no such indications.
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?
Some people say “burn more fossil fuel” 🙂
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.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
I see weakness post 2005 in contrast to earlier years.
You see simply that solar min is weaker than solar max. No surprise.
Leif the indications could not be more obvious that we are heading for cooling.
Temperatures are at all time high…
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” ?
Your proper response would be to give evidence of the ‘big chill’ in the next few years.
I have already given that response, but you continue to duck and weave?
What causes the temperature modulations across the Holocene?
And how does your ‘evidence’ justify a big chill in the next few years?
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.
My position is clear
It would seem that ‘your position’ is the driver, rather than any actual solar evidence…
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?
This is beyond question
In a skeptical position, nothing is beyond question.
Here are Greenland snow temperatures the last 400 years compared with solar activity [derived from 10Be]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Greenland-Snow-Temp-4000-yrs.png
last 400 years
last 4000 years.
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?
I just did [last 4000 years – but you evidently didn’t even look at the Figure]. Here is another example:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-Temps-NOT.png
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:
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm
and the magnetic field strength compounds solar effects which of course you say no to. Which is why it follows you would say the magnetic field of earth has no climatic impacts.
Wrong on all counts n my opinion. We shall see because one of us is going to have to be correct since we disagree on everything just about 100%.
You can be right for the wrong reasons…
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.
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.
Yes Salvatore, we agree on that.
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
“Wow can an intelligent person even hear himself say that?”
Maybe not. It’s a journalist summarising this WUWT Guest Opinion. Written by “climate boffins”? No.
Right – maybe but you have to admit that it smells like these boffins are getting ready for a climate cooling and are preparing explanations in order to try and retain the AGW myth as viable.
Dont you think?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
“you have to admit that it smells like these boffins”
No. There are no boffins. You are hearing the wisdom of John Hardy, expressed in a WUWT guest post, and recycled boffinated courtesy of Daily Star.
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.
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.
Waves in the stratosphere in the south and pressure anomalies.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JAS_SH_2016.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JAS_SH_2016.png
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 ?
if solar cycle 24 is gonna by shorter and will end on beginning of next year ( is very realistic).
SC24 is not going to be shorter and the next minimum is still 3-4 years away. You can see that on this Figure:
http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Figure-1.png
Explanation here: http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=1657
I agree!
Above in this thread you refer to reliable instrument records and one can reasonably infer that you mean post 1850.
Yet in this thread,you posted a temperature reconstruction, based on ice cores.
Is this, in your opinion, reliable?
If so, how would you frame todays temperatures in the historical context provided by the time series you posted?
One has to use what is available. The reliability can only be judged when the series are used in context and compared with other data. This is the essence of science.
In the Central Arctic ice extent in August increased clearly.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png