Feedback/Notes

 

Latest Activity

Grinning Cat commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
""But I don't want to be a door-to-door salesman. I'm not a Jehovah's Witness,…"
20 minutes ago
Grinning Cat commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Thanks, Stephen, for the video; I'm starting to watch it now. Has it indeed become more…"
30 minutes ago
Mrs.B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"This is exhausting."
6 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral | Fungus
"Good visuals."
7 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral | Fungus
"Dinosaur Size Comparison 3D - Smallest to Biggest"
10 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Pedlars and Street Selling - Documentary, UK Bylaws have become a nightmare for street pedlars in…"
12 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Ian my friend and neighbour has just had his second jab of the Oxford AstraZeneca with no…"
12 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance. -- Sam Harris,…"
15 hours ago
Chris B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Thanks Ian! Sounds are still quite startling but interesting. I have lost the  higher pitch…"
17 hours ago
Ian Mason commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"I was going to do some temping over the Summer but after a try-out I got turned down. It was…"
17 hours ago
Ian Mason commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"I hope things go well, Chris. People tell me that they have to get used to hearing aids over time…"
17 hours ago
Chris B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Thanks!"
18 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Oh you do need something good for a change! Let's hope this set works well."
18 hours ago
Chris B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"In the meantime I started my second trial period with hearing aids. This time it's a set with…"
18 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Well somebody needs to get on the ball. We got the Pfizer, & the only allergy mentioned was…"
19 hours ago
Chris B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Sort of, but all the talk has made people insecure and unable to decide what to do. And all the…"
19 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Is there no plan in place at all?"
20 hours ago
Chris B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Congrats on your first shots! Here it's still much talk and little action..."
20 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Thanks, Ian....seemed like a long wait."
23 hours ago
Ian Mason commented on Sydni Moser's group Coffee Break
"Congratulations, Mrs. B."
yesterday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Birthdays

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

  • Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By DAVID ROSE

Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still. 

 

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

The world average temperature from 1997 to 2012

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

World solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

Four hundred years of sunspot observations

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-globa...

Views: 349

Replies to This Discussion

First Estimate of Solar Cycle 25 Amplitude – may be the smallest in over 300 years

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/latest_256_45001.jpg?w=640

Guest post by David Archibald

Predicting the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24 was a big business. Jan Janssens provides the most complete table of Solar Cycle 24 predictions at:http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html

Prediction activity for Solar Cycle 24 seemed to have peaked in 2007. In year before, Dr David Hathaway of NASA made the first general estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_lon...

Based on the slowing of the Sun’s “Great Conveyor Belt”, he predicted that

“The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries.” He is very likely to have got the year wrong in that Solar Cycle 25 is unlikely to start until 2025.

In this paper: http://www.probeinternational.org/Livingston-penn-2010.pdf,

Livingston and Penn provided the first hard estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude based on a physical model. That estimate is 7, which would make it the smallest solar cycle for over 300 years.

This is figure 2 from their paper:

image

Livingston and Penn have been tracking the decline in sunspot magnetic field, predicting that sunspots will disappear when the umbral magnetic field strength falls below 1,500 gauss, as per this figure from their 2010 paper:

image

Dr Svalgaard has updated of the progression of that decline on his research page at:

http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png

With data updated to year end 2011, the line of best fit on Dr Svalgaard’s figure of Umbral Magnetic Field now intersects the 1,500 guass sunspot cutoff in 2030:

image

Using the Livingston and Penn Solar Cycle 25 amplitude estimate, this is what the solar cycle record is projected to look like:

image

And, yes, that means the end of the Modern Warm Period.

===========================================================

Further reading:

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict -Sunspots may disappear altogether in next cycle.

NASA Long Range Solar Forecast – Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in c...

Here is the Rebutal by Greg Laden and others

New British Study Confirms Climate Change Consensus, Daily Mail Get...

Category: Climate • Climate Change • Global Warming • LIAR!!!!
Posted on: January 29, 2012 11:21 AM, by Greg Laden

Since the Daily Mail is a British thing and the latest form of entertainment in Britain is Libel Tourism, I won't say to you that the Daily Mail is a rag full of lies and deceit. Instead, I'll let you be the judge.

The study:

Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming

23 January 2012 - New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun's activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.

It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

Gareth Jones, a climate change detection scientist with the Met Office, said: "This research shows that the most likely change in the Sun's output will not have a big impact on global temperatures or do much to slow the warming we expect from greenhouse gases.

Continued here

What the Daily Mail said about it:

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

The supposed 'consensus' on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997....

continued

I haven't seen the original research report, but then again, neither has David Rose of the Daily Mail, it would appear. Given the British Love of Libel Tourism I won't say that David Rose is a big fat liar and should not be taken seriously as a journalist. I'll let you be the judge of that!

Here's another post examining the Daily Mail nonsense.

The Daily Mail Prints Climate Nonsense

One of my students asked me about a new article just printed in The Daily Mail, a right-wing newspaper in the U.K.  The article’s title is, “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and i...“.  Here’s a rule of thumb for you.  If you ever read anything about climate change in The Daily Mail, the odds are excellent that it’s nonsense.  Anyway, here is what I told my student.

Hi [Name Removed],

This is why I’ve gone all militant on these guys.

Solar activity is explicitly incorporated in climate models.  It’s difficult to predict what the Sun will do in the short term, though, so projections based on the models make some assumptions about that, but at least you can incorporate measured values when you are “hindcasting” the models.

Anyway, here is the Met Office press release about the paper they are probably referring to.  Now, let me show you how people like this Daily Mail reporter manipulate the public.

1. They cite a reputable source, the UK Met Office, but they don’t actually quote the paper or anyone from the Met Office.  Why?  Because “climate” is about long-term averages and trends, so real climatologists don’t go about announcing that “there hasn’t been any global warming in (fill in the blank with a number less than about 30) years”.  The weather is a chaotic system, so in the short term you can get just about any trend you like.

2. All you have to do to get the trend you want is to “cherry-pick” the start and end dates.  In this case, they pick 1997 and 2011.  (They also cherry-pick the dataset, even though the press release I linked gives different results for the NASA and NOAA datasets.  The one from the Met Office, HadCRUT, doesn’t include the polar regions, so it usually gives a little less steep warming trend than the others.)  The problem is that the overall trend for the last 30-40 years is between about +0.15 and +0.2 °C per decade, but the interannual variability is about +/-0.2 °C PER YEAR.  So you can definitely see a distinct trend if you go back far enough, but the random noise can give you all sorts of results in the short term.  Let me illustrate.  I calculate that the trend in the HadCRUT data from 1997-2011 is about +0.01 °C per decade, and not statistically significant.  (In this case, a statistically significant result is one where the 95% confidence interval does not overlap zero.)  What happens if we change the start and end dates by just one year, from 1996-2010?  Then the trend is 0.10 °C/decade, and still not statistically significant.  Do you see how you can use the random noise, e.g., from El Niño and La Niña oscillations, to get the trend you want in the short term?

3. Next, they launch off into their nonsense about how the flat temperature trend is all because of a decrease in solar activity, and we’re heading into a new Little Ice Age.  The press release the Met Office put out just prior to the one I already mentioned was entitled, “Decline in Solar Output Unlikely To Offset Global Warming“, but the Daily Mail reporter says that these findings are “fiercely disputed by other solar experts,” and quotes Henrik Svensmark.  I could name a couple other solar guys who agree with Svensmark, but that’s all.  He’s definitely on the fringes.  Svensmark has an interesting theory about why changes in Solar output might exert a much greater influence on climate than the models give it credit for, but the problem is that the statistics don’t pan out.

4. But wait!  Just in case people didn’t buy the Solar connection, let’s completely switch gears and blame the whole thing on ocean circulation!  The ridiculous thing is that the standard climate models DO incorporate ocean circulation AND variations in Solar output, and these things DO affect the temperature projections so that any given model will predict periods of several years where there might even be overall cooling.  The models just differ about when these “pauses” in global warming will happen, because the system is chaotic and the timing of these things are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions and the model details.

5. If the scientific consensus doesn’t agree with what you want to hear, the Daily Mail reporter knows that you can always get some D-list fringe scientists to make it all better.  E.g., take a look at Nicola Scafetta, who thinks that Jupiter and Saturn are affecting the climate to create a 60-year cycle, which Judy Curry also apparently buys into.   Yep.  But don’t ask Scafetta or Curry what Jupiter or Saturn are supposed to be doing that affects the climate, because they can’t give any physical mechanism.  Maybe that’s why the Daily Mail calls Curry “one of America’s most eminent climate experts.”  Whatever.  Also, take a look at Benny Peiser, who is a social anthropologist too ignorant to properly read the scientific literature on climate change.

Now, take a step back and look at what has been done to the public.  Most people have no idea about statistical cherry-picking, and even those who do wouldn’t necessarily suspect anything.  Most people would have no idea that the Daily Mail is quoting a bunch of fringe scientists, and they would have no idea why the views of these scientists are dismissed by the others.  It turns out that Svensmark WAS taken seriously, but his hypothesis hasn’t panned out.  It turns out that Scafetta’s ideas are little better than curve-fitted astrology, at this point.  It turns out that climate models DO account for ocean circulation, but there is no convincing evidence that this does much outside timescales of a few years.

Like I said, this is why I’ve gone militant on these guys.  I think they are patently dishonest.

Yep. Makes sense. The Daily Mail is not a serious publication.

I give the Daily Mail about as mnnucch credence on science as I do HufffPo or Fox News.

Pretty much...Ha! Good to see see you, Dave, I hope all is well!

Pretty well. Trying to stir myself out of lurker mode.

Jump right in! :-)

Just a quick look at their Science Home page: they bundle the video game section with it. How seriouser can you get?

I'm going to reserve my judgment until I see this story covered by scientific journals. Mainly because the Daily Mail is not a serious newspaper, at all.

Well, NASA is quoted in the Daily Mail trash article but from the video they've just released, NASA does not agree with them.

Uploaded by on Jan 20, 2012

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880.The finding sustains a trend that has seen the 21st century experience nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York released an analysis of how temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience higher temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) higher than the mid-20th century baseline.

More From Kevin Drum

 

Lying With Charts, Global Warming Edition

| Sun Jan. 29, 2012 10:08 PM PST

In my email today, the Washington Times passes along some great news: "Global warming trend ended in 1997, new data shows." The link is to a piece in the Daily Mail that, sure enough, tells us that our real worry isn't warming, it's the possibility of the Thames freezing over. And to prove that the world is no longer heating up, they include one of my all-time favorite graphs. I've recreated it using NASA data:

Look! No warming trend! But do you see the problem? I've given you a hint by embedding the 1997-2011 data within a larger chart, instead of just producing it on its own, as the Mail did. So that should make things pretty obvious. But in case you need a bigger hint, click the link for the full set of data, not cherry-picked to begin with the huge El Niño spike of 1998.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service