Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[parmenides3]

What has occurred to me is that there is something quite interesting going on in all the 'GW' threads, in terms of the way in which many of us ( I include myself, on occasion), appear to function in similar ways. As this is just a broad idea, though, you may find fault with it.

Very few of us, on either 'side', or the 'balancers', appear to have any certainty about the future of the climate. This demonstrates to me that most of us are, in fact, quite rational and genuinely concerned about the possible answers.

Likewise, almost every thread seems to develop in the same way; initially, attempts to offer suggestions, ideas or counter-arguments, followed by criticism, justified or not, of other people's ideas, followed by defenses of ideas and counter-criticisms, followed by a steadily escalating entrenchment, sometimes becoming more personal than rational, leading to a general termination, because nobody is any the wiser at the end than they were at the beginning. The problem lies not with the people, but with the nature of the argument itself.

First, I would say that, however much any of us might wish it, there can be no certainty about this question. If we come 'seeking enlightenment', we find instead more confusion, and and up where we began. The desire for certainty, founded on existing doubt, is a powerful enough force that we end up sounding much more convinced than we actually are, not merely because we wish to take issue with another person's post, but also because we are, in effect, 'thinking out loud' - using the process of writing itself to help understand our own beliefs.

If we are going to learn anything from these threads, then we must remember that, in the end, we are all starting from the same position; uncertainty. We must also remember that all we really want is to understand the questions better.

Everyone on NW must feel entitled, and able, to comment on these threads, without fear of ridicule, sarcasm or looking stupid.

Likewise, I suggest, we all need to remember our similarities first, and try to engage with the actual question as often as possible.

Rant over.

P

[Devonian]

I think that's a bit harsh. I've read what Wilson wrote and to my reading, no matter how I try to spin it, he wasn't accusing anyone of being religious. What he said, I think, was that some of the arguments were "akin to" being religious. AS it happens I tend to agree with this point. There are some on here who, in my opinion, doggedly hang onto points of view because it's what they wish, rather than what they have proof of. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that, but it would certainly be "akin" to religious faith.

What I find particularly interesting is your second post, lower down, in which you say you don't like being accused. Unless somebody moderated a post out, or wrote in invisible ink, or I otherwise missed it, I don't recall Wilson accusing anybody specific of anything. However, as one of my favourite people used to say, "if the cap fits..."

In terms of understatements that's up there with "Houston, we've got a problem"

Is it me whos supposed to have done something wrong? All I think is that the use of the word religion in debates about agw often causes trouble. I posted that opinion, and asked questions, to clarify things. I still can't understand what Wilson is saying.

[parmenides3]

Is it me whos supposed to have done something wrong? All I think is that the use of the word religion in debates about agw often causes trouble. I posted that opinion, and asked questions, to clarify things. I still can't understand what Wilson is saying.

As I said earlier, Devonian, I think we all have the occasional tendency to misinterpret each others' posts, which helps explain why it can be so difficult to make progress. The point that was being made, which I think I agree with, is that GW discussions often look more like arguments about items of 'faith' than of 'reason'. This is because it so often boils down to what each of us is inclined to believe.

You were picking up on an implication that wasn't really there - the idea that you were being irrational. What happened was what always ends up happening; discussion (accusation) about what one person or another did or didn't mean, rather than discussion about why we think the climate might get warmer or cooler. Don't worry about it; let's stick to the subject.

P

[johnholmes]

okay can we move on now folks. Its a great thread. What was said has been said. As P suggests we do, all of us, sometimes post something which we think is okay, but because none of us has the benefit of the 'cut and thrust' of spoken debate, seeing each other, can be misunderstood. All I ask is, please move on.

John

Edited September 1, 2006 by johnholmes

[VillagePlank]

Is it me whos supposed to have done something wrong? All I think is that the use of the word religion in debates about agw often causes trouble. I posted that opinion, and asked questions, to clarify things. I still can't understand what Wilson is saying.

I did not intend to imply that you were religious; if you felt that way then please accept my apologies.

However, I still stand by my observation that this sort of argument (one where there is no lay scientific explanation; there is a lay scientific explanation for, say, gravity, or the motion of the moon) nearly always tend to rooted in opinion. This of course, manifests itself, in an opinion of which article or study presents the more accurate picture of the future of our climate. For some, of course, there are conspiracies of greed, and manipulation, too; of which one can only argue using common sense.

This is not meant as a support for one view or the other; I think I've made my position clear in this thread and elsewhere, and I do not feel the need to regurgitate that.

You asked for evidence. I do not see how I can present evidence that a view is religious in nature that would be compelling and rational without resorting to subjective opinions that I hold. I do not, however, see this as a basis that my opinion is therefore in and of itself wrong.

My point about scientific prudence remains. This is a view I hold, which, I suspect many people do not. Both sides of the camp 'seem' to jump on the newest articles to validate their opinion. If they were always waiting for such an article, and could not have argued out their case before the article was published is it not prudent not to argue?

Whether you believe an ice-age is imminent, or the Earth is just about to boil, is irrelevant to my point.

[The Penguin]

Wilson, what you say regarding lay science is self-evidently true, but it misses the point that with academic science (as applied to climate change) at its current level of development, any predictive analysis will also be a matter of opinion. Slightly more valid no doubt but still based on opinion.

[Devonian]

I did not intend to imply that you were religious; if you felt that way then please accept my apologies.

However, I still stand by my observation that this sort of argument (one where there is no lay scientific explanation; there is a lay scientific explanation for, say, gravity, or the motion of the moon) nearly always tend to rooted in opinion. This of course, manifests itself, in an opinion of which article or study presents the more accurate picture of the future of our climate. For some, of course, there are conspiracies of greed, and manipulation, too; of which one can only argue using common sense.

This is not meant as a support for one view or the other; I think I've made my position clear in this thread and elsewhere, and I do not feel the need to regurgitate that.

You asked for evidence. I do not see how I can present evidence that a view is religious in nature that would be compelling and rational without resorting to subjective opinions that I hold. I do not, however, see this as a basis that my opinion is therefore in and of itself wrong.

My point about scientific prudence remains. This is a view I hold, which, I suspect many people do not. Both sides of the camp 'seem' to jump on the newest articles to validate their opinion. If they were always waiting for such an article, and could not have argued out their case before the article was published is it not prudent not to argue?

Whether you believe an ice-age is imminent, or the Earth is just about to boil, is irrelevant to my point.

I think we've both misunderstood each other. Apologies for that. I'm afraid I've seen to many people branded 'religious' (in an ''ad homming' way) in these dabates in various places for me not to react to the word. But, I may have missed your point :lol:

I (so this is my view) think the 'scientifically prudent' approach is this:

CO2 is a potent ghg. It's concentration is rising rapidly to levels not seen for at least 600,000 year atm and millions of years if it rises as much as is likely. This rise in CO2 conc is (nb) due to our activities. Simple models of the Earth's atmosphere first used over 100 years ago and more sophisticate models that become better over time indicate pretty much the same thing - warming, of about 1C directly due to CO2 and probably (nb) several more degrees warming on top of that due to feedback effects. Additional, other changes we have made may well have climate changing effects (deforestation, cfc's, methane...).

Does that sound right

[VillagePlank]

Sounds pretty OK to me

[parmenides3]

The debate about the recent paper which showed a 2C cooling of the upper ocean in 2003-2005 continues unabated. One reason why this paper (Lyman et. al.) is significant is that it was unextpected; none of the GCMs modelled any such effect. Another reason is that it suggests cooling forces which had not been aniticipated. This lates post, from Climate Science, offers further support for the Lyman paper's findings. I've done a long post to save people the trouble of linking. Definitiely worthy of comment, this one! P

September 1, 2006

Peer-reviewed Papers Which Supports The Lyman et al Ocean Cooling Diagnosis

Filed under: Climate Change Metrics, Climate Science Reporting, Climate Change Forcings — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 6:15 am

A 2004 Science article by E. Pallé, P. R. Goode, P. Montañés-Rodríguez, and S. E. Koonin

entitled “Changes in Earth’s Reflectance Over the Past Two Decades” (see; subscription required) and a follow-on 2005 Geophysical Research Letters paper by Pallé E., P. Montañés-Rodriguez, P. R. Goode, S. E. Koonin, M. Wild, and S. Casadio entitled “A multi-data comparison of shortwave climate forcing changes” (see; subscription required) provide support as a reason for the recent observed upper ocean cooling that is reported in Lyman et al (see). The two Pallé et al papers are excellent scientific contributions on the monitoring of the radiative imbalance of the climate system. [and thanks to Francois Ouellette who also noticed the importance of the Pallé et al research in a Comment on the Climate Science weblog].

The abstract of the Geophysical Research Letters article reads,

“Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. We compare here the available data sets related to Earth’s reflectance, in order to assess the observational constraints on the models. We find a consistent picture among all data sets of an albedo decreased during 1985–2000 between 2–3 and 6–7 W/m 2, which is highly climatically significant. The largest discrepancy among the data sets occurs during 2000–2004, when some present an increasing reflectance trend, while CERES observations show a steady decrease of about 2 W/m 2.”

An important excerpt from the paper is,

“One of the theoretical arguments used by Wielicki et al. [2005] against the large albedo increase in 2003 was the lack of response (cooling) in global temperatures and/or ocean heat content. This can be solved by the new ISCCP data, where the cloud increase 2000–2004 is mainly due to increasing mid and high clouds. These high altitude clouds will increase the Earth’s reflectance, especially if the increase occurs over the relatively dark oceanic areas, but the net forcing of these high cloud changes is probably near zero or even positive, due to their strong infrared absorption.”

The Lyman et al paper suggests that the net forcing is actually negative.

The Wielicki et al 2005 Science paper is entitled “Changes in Earth’s Albedo Measured by Satellite” (see; subscription required) by Bruce A. Wielicki, Takmeng Wong, Norman Loeb, Patrick Minnis, Kory Priestley, and Robert Kandel with the abstract

“NASA global satellite data provide observations of Earth’s albedo, i.e., the fraction of incident solar radiation that is reflected back to space. The satellite data show that the last four years are within natural variability and fail to confirm the 6% relative increase in albedo inferred from observations of earthshine from the moon. Longer global satellite records will be required to discern climate trends in Earth’s albedo. ”

Thus the Wielicki et al 2005 paper was published to refute the Pallé et al Science paper. An unsettling issue with the two Science papers, is that Pallé was refused the opportunity to publish a response to the Wielicki et al criticism of their research. This is yet another example where a magazine that reports on climate science has inappropriately taken sides on an issue, and used its position to squelch alternative views of the science.

The Lyman et al paper, which documents ocean cooling, provides scientific support for the finds in the Pallé et al study.

Courtesy of Roger A. Piele Sr. Climate Science; http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/

[Stratos Ferric]

The debate about the recent paper which showed a 2C cooling of the upper ocean in 2003-2005 continues unabated. One reason why this paper (Lyman et. al.) is significant is that it was unextpected; none of the GCMs modelled any such effect. Another reason is that it suggests cooling forces which had not been aniticipated. This lates post, from Climate Science, offers further support for the Lyman paper's findings. I've done a long post to save people the trouble of linking. Definitiely worthy of comment, this one! P

Courtesy of Roger A. Piele Sr. Climate Science; http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/

The albedo problem has never been resolved, so far as I am aware, and it looks like it might be some way off being. There was always a theory, with good face validity, that said a warmer global climate was a cloudier (and therefore wetter) one overall. The debate then was about whether increased cloud was a +ve or -ve feedback, or indeed, neutral overall. You can see there the arguments both ways.

[parmenides3]

The albedo problem has never been resolved, so far as I am aware, and it looks like it might be some way off being. There was always a theory, with good face validity, that said a warmer global climate was a cloudier (and therefore wetter) one overall. The debate then was about whether increased cloud was a +ve or -ve feedback, or indeed, neutral overall. You can see there the arguments both ways.

The best I could find on this was Brian Soden, from an article on climate feedbacks. It makes your point quite effectively.

Consistent with previous studies, clouds were found to provide the largest source of uncertainty in current models. For the most sensitive models, cloud feedback is positive and comparable in strength to the combined “water vapor plus lapse rate” feedback. For the least sensitive models, cloud feedback is close to neutral. Many specialists and non-specialists alike are sometimes surprised to see that the model-predicted values for cloud feedback ranges from neutral to strongly positive; often believing that cloud feedback is more uniformly distributed between negative and positive values. This confusion may stem, in part, from misinterpretations of the change in the easily-diagnosed "cloud radiative forcing" in model simulations of climate change. This diagnostic, based on the comparison of clear sky and cloudy sky radiation differences (Cess et al, 1996) is related to the more-difficult-to-calculate cloud feedback, but can be negatively biased by correlated changes in water vapor and temperature (Soden et al., 2004). Thus studies that use the "cloud radiative forcing" calculation have reported a more negatively skewed 'cloud feedback' then seen here. However, based on these estimates and on a survey of published values of feedback calculations (Colman 2003), there do not appear to be any models for which clouds provide a substantial negative feedback on the climate.

On a similar track, I've just found an abstract for a paper suggesting using seawater as a means of stimulating low-level marine cloud formation, thus mitigating GW. If I can find the actual paper, I'll post a link.

P

[snowsure]

I have received an e-mail from a rather eminent scientist.

"Almost without exception, reputable climate scientists believe there is no chance of the planet as a whole cooling in the next twenty years. However, there is a chance of the climate of the British Isles changing significantly, to one of warmer drier summers (especially in the southern half of the British Isles) and colder winters, but no-one is sure if or when this may happen as it depends on the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean responding in a particular way to the melting of Arctic sea-ice (i.e. ice formed by the freezing of sea water)."

As such I know this persons credentials so I feel happy to accept all that I have read.

Like many people, I cannot be "won-over" by well worded arguments from literate people if I do not know from what position they are starting from.

This forum is not peer-reviewed or peer-overseen (to my knowledge) so who has good credentials to be able to speak expertly on climate change?

[Stratos Ferric]

I have received an e-mail from a rather eminent scientist.

"Almost without exception, reputable climate scientists believe there is no chance of the planet as a whole cooling in the next twenty years. However, there is a chance of the climate of the British Isles changing significantly, to one of warmer drier summers (especially in the southern half of the British Isles) and colder winters, but no-one is sure if or when this may happen as it depends on the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean responding in a particular way to the melting of Arctic sea-ice (i.e. ice formed by the freezing of sea water)."

As such I know this persons credentials so I feel happy to accept all that I have read.

Like many people, I cannot be "won-over" by well worded arguments from literate people if I do not know from what position they are starting from.

This forum is not peer-reviewed or peer-overseen (to my knowledge) so who has good credentials to be able to speak expertly on climate change?

Snowsure, nobody HAS to believe anything, but therein on these threads, I think, is part of the rub, and one or two people's monikers might, perhaps, be read as giving the game away. For all that you may think I'm a GW freak I am not; I'm simply following the numbers, and reading papers that i consider reputable. Yes. it's not ALWAYS easy to see what's reputable, but going back to source publications that have stringent editorial processes usually helps. IAN is most certainly NOT a good example of such.

To be fair to P3 he is at least spending some time looking for papers, and not obviously taking sides - unless I'm very much mistaken the post on albedo is an argument at least for confusion in understanding, and potentially for a cooling feed-back from current warming. What's more, the papers he provides links to have a provenenace that can be checked. You talking about "an eminent" scientist that you trust is like Daniel talking about a "well known site that he trusts". The Oregon petition was signed by a welter of scientists - okay, some of them didn't actually appear to exist and many of the others were expert in fields like genetics and semiconductor cooling, but hey...

Most of your posts seem to emanate from an emotional position that cannot bear the thought of never having snow again, or at least seeing it in diminshed quantities in the future. I had much sympathy for Wilson's point to a similar effect yesterday when he suggested that some people's thinking was almost religious in this regard. I really don't mind what people believe personally, but if we're going to debate let's try to do so by providing data and facts to back up our positions. Otherwise we might as well be kids in the playground arguing about who's got the bigger dad.

Osborne ponders on whether to have closed threads: the quality of some of the discussion on thread like this make the case rather eloquently I think.

[parmenides3]

I have received an e-mail from a rather eminent scientist.

"Almost without exception, reputable climate scientists believe there is no chance of the planet as a whole cooling in the next twenty years. However, there is a chance of the climate of the British Isles changing significantly, to one of warmer drier summers (especially in the southern half of the British Isles) and colder winters, but no-one is sure if or when this may happen as it depends on the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean responding in a particular way to the melting of Arctic sea-ice (i.e. ice formed by the freezing of sea water)."

As such I know this persons credentials so I feel happy to accept all that I have read.

Like many people, I cannot be "won-over" by well worded arguments from literate people if I do not know from what position they are starting from.

This forum is not peer-reviewed or peer-overseen (to my knowledge) so who has good credentials to be able to speak expertly on climate change?

You are very lucky, Snowsure, to be able to draw on such resources. Most of us are only able to read what the scientists write and, sometimes, post what they write, as supporting evidence for a point of view or opinion. Clearly, this is not as reliable as getting the facts first hand, as we probably don't communicate the details accurately all the time, not through malice or intent, but through imperfect understanding or unrecognised bias.

I hope you will agree, though, that many of the posters provide first-hand references and links to the source material, so that others can, if they choose, read and decide for themselves. Would you accept, then, if these people have read the scientific papers, studied the arguments and expressed an opinion, that it is at least as likely as yours to be well-founded? Any doubt can be dealt with by reading the links provided.

The forum isn't peer-reviewed in the same way that scientific papers are, because the posts aren't so formal. however, the debate we are engaging in is the process of peer-review, in a sense, as people who offer sensible posts tend to get more response than people who simply 'mouth off' (this isn't referring to you, by the way). And it is important to remember that the links/references used are very often peer-reviewed papers in their own right.

Finally, I would like to thank you for posting a response from an eminent scientist which reiterates what I have been saying for the past few weeks.

P

[Stratos Ferric]

I have received an e-mail from a rather eminent scientist.

"Almost without exception, reputable climate scientists believe there is no chance of the planet as a whole cooling in the next twenty years. However, there is a chance of the climate of the British Isles changing significantly, to one of warmer drier summers (especially in the southern half of the British Isles) and colder winters, but no-one is sure if or when this may happen as it depends on the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean responding in a particular way to the melting of Arctic sea-ice (i.e. ice formed by the freezing of sea water)."

As such I know this persons credentials so I feel happy to accept all that I have read.

Not sure what you're accepting. If you can be bothered to read all the posts on here (assuming you haven't already) I think that all sides have already accepted and covered you eminent friend's point, but is stress that he says "there is a chance..." and "no one can be sure if or when". Pretty much what we've already covered previously; it might happen, but it is only one of several potential outcomes. Hadley have modelled quite dramatic cooling for the UK (cooler summers as well as winters by the way) if the NAD fails. What we can't be sure of is whether it will, and how it will. Logically, the spin of the earth coupled with heat flux dictates that ocean currents move the way that they do, with continents interfering with the flow. There would still be a huge body of warm water wanting to move polewards somewhere across the Atlantic, the flow HAS to go somewhere, it can't just pile up like a stack of tins of beans. To resist such a flow would require a mass of water from the pole which whilst possible for a while, would itself suggest warming at the pole SO EXTREME as to potentially offset any cooling through loss of NAD.

I think, whilst the many scenarios are at best loosely modellable, they simply rely on too many unknowns and unknowables to call it for sure, but, to reitterate, one possible outcome is a cooler UK.

[parmenides3]

Not sure what you're accepting. If you can be bothered to read all the posts on here (assuming you haven't already) I think that all sides have already accepted and covered you eminent friend's point, but is stress that he says "there is a chance..." and "no one can be sure if or when". Pretty much what we've already covered previously; it might happen, but it is only one of several potential outcomes. Hadley have modelled quite dramatic cooling for the UK (cooler summers as well as winters by the way) if the NAD fails. What we can't be sure of is whether it will, and how it will. Logically, the spin of the earth coupled with heat flux dictates that ocean currents move the way that they do, with continents interfering with the flow. There would still be a huge body of warm water wanting to move polewards somewhere across the Atlantic, the flow HAS to go somewhere, it can't just pile up like a stack of tins of beans. To resist such a flow would require a mass of water from the pole which whilst possible for a while, would itself suggest warming at the pole SO EXTREME as to potentially offset any cooling through loss of NAD.

I think, whilst the many scenarios are at best loosely modellable, they simply rely on too many unknowns and unknowables to call it for sure, but, to reitterate, one possible outcome is a cooler UK.

With ref. to where all the warm/saline water goes, the Schlesinger paper's model had the THC switching rotation as a result of a strong 'hosing'; this would lead the gulf stream to 'turn left' at the Azores, head up to Labrador, then come round to the Denmark Strait, finally turning South, and passing the UK from the North. Such an occurrence would, IF possible, certainly cool our climate! This, coupled with heavily reduced deep ocean overturning (hypothetical), would lower our regional sea temperatures considerably.

By the way, for the time being, I am going to offer challenges to the 'consensus' view, and propose some other 'cooling' scenarios, as I think this would be a good way to test the rigour of the arguments for or against warming or cooling.

I am surprised nobody has picked up on the idea of using seawater to create clouds, thus cooling the earth. I don't think this paper has been presented yet, but to my mind, if such an idea were feasible, it would be an absolute sensation.

P

[snowsure]

Thanks to P3 and SF for such reasonable responses.

I am not at liberty to declare the name of the scientist. However, they are a senior member of the Royal Meteorlogical society.

A speculative e-mail is the extent of my relationship there.

BTW SF, good precis regarding my emotive hope of cooling.

[parmenides3]

Some initial thoughts about why/how the UK climate could cool during the next thirty years, even if there is Global Warming.

First proposal: there is too much dependence in GCMs (and the policy documents which rely on them) on CO2 as the principal forcing agent of climate change, and too little on other forcings, some human-induced, some natural. As a consequence, the models' predictions of future temperature rise are not reliable. There is a good chance that CO2 induced warming may be less than the current models suggest.

Second proposal: As of yet, GCMs have shown no skill at predicting climate changes at a regional or local level. The predictions for the UK climate are too dependent on scaling-down of global effects, and do not take specific local climate forcings sufficiently into account. Therefore, the assumption of local warming in line with global expectation is not well-founded.

Third proposal: The unpredictable variables in GCMs are particularly significant in relation to the UK because of its local climate influences and position in relation to ocean surface currents. A small variation in trends such as surface heat transport, temperature anomalies or jetstream patterns are perfectly feasible and would, if the patterns changed appropriately, lead to a local cooling of the UK climate.

Fourth proposal: two of the least understood mechanisms of climate change, the Arctic-Atlantic freshwater exchange and clouds, are strong influences on the UK climate. Appropriate seasonal cloud variations and meso-scale eddy fluctuations of surface freshwater are as likely to occur as a continuation of the current trends. This would lead to a cooling effect.

I'll add some more when I think of them. This should tease the grey matter in the meantime. The conclusion of these four points is that we can have good reasons to believe that our (local) climate will cool, if only temporarily, at some stage in the next thirty years, sufficiently to lead to extensive hard frosts and substantial snow cover.

Any takers?

P

[Guest Mike W]

You missed a massive volcanic eruption, which would also cause a cooling, possibly even a global cooling of a certain duration, and also a possibility of a long solar minimum that is alledgedly coming up which may cause cooling or lead to increase in chances of major volcanic eruptions of VEI 4 level and/or higher. I can't see how we could get any cool-down TBH.

[parmenides3]

You missed a massive volcanic eruption, which would also cause a cooling, possibly even a global cooling of a certain duration, and also a possibility of a long solar minimum that is alledgedly coming up which may cause cooling or lead to increase in chances of major volcanic eruptions of VEI 4 level and/or higher. I can't see how we could get any cool-down TBH.

You're right, but I missed them out deliberately. Volcanic eruptions cannot be predicted, so could only ever be considered to be a possible threat. The solar influence is, as far as NW is concerned, far too much of a hot potato to throw into the mix and is, at best, also a speculation. My four proposals are more specific than this; they are observations of real situations which are identifiable now and which represent a real likelihood of cooling.

P

[summer blizzard]

I just thought that i would post a conversation which me and Viking had about the coming Gliessburg Minima...

Hi SB

Been reading your stuff re the Gleissberg minima and find it fascinating!

As you'll probably know from my posts I am a fan of the possibility ofglobal cooling in the future not warming. This is really based on my feeling that cycles such as solar output have far more impact on our climate than many like to admit. Human beings are arrogant and we like to assume that we have much more effect on things than we actually do!

That said, if the Gleissberg minima is due in 2030 then we should be seeing observable effects much sooner, question is, how much sooner? Could it be that last winter was the beginning of this process? Given that at this early stage this coming winter looks like it could be a cold one also could we already be on the road or is it too far out yet. What I mean by that is how gradual is this process - should we already be seeing observable effects now or will it be a few years yet?

Regards

Viking

Hi...

Thankyou for your interest in this topic.

While we humans are arrogant, it must be stressed that we are having an effect on the climate, however it is not something that seventy years of Global Cooling cannot erase.

Techically, this solar cycle ends around 2016, which is when we should enter the Gliessburg Minima however the cooling trend should begin after the next solar maximum (biggest since 1958), in 2011, so in answer to your question, the current short term cooling is due to the sunspot minima although if two years of relatively low sunspot activity can knock the winter CET back so to around 3C in winter (my expectation), you can imagine what sustained minima could invoke.

In summay, we should expect to see a warming trend from next year, peaking around 2011 with a record warm yearly CET probable however from then on, we should see the effects of the Gliessburg Minima, from 2015 onwards, the futures white.

Peaks in terms of cold should be 2030 and 2074 however the snowiest winters maybe 2022, 2038, 2049, 2060 with warming trend again from 2088, because of the multiple cold peaks, the Gliessburg Minima should be on the scale of the Maunder Minima and not the Dalton Minima, such as the one observed around 1810.

[Devonian]

I just thought that i would post a conversation which me and Viking had about the coming Gliessburg Minima...

Hi SB

Been reading your stuff re the Gleissberg minima and find it fascinating!

As you'll probably know from my posts I am a fan of the possibility ofglobal cooling in the future not warming. This is really based on my feeling that cycles such as solar output have far more impact on our climate than many like to admit. Human beings are arrogant and we like to assume that we have much more effect on things than we actually do!

That said, if the Gleissberg minima is due in 2030 then we should be seeing observable effects much sooner, question is, how much sooner? Could it be that last winter was the beginning of this process? Given that at this early stage this coming winter looks like it could be a cold one also could we already be on the road or is it too far out yet. What I mean by that is how gradual is this process - should we already be seeing observable effects now or will it be a few years yet?

Regards

Viking

Hi...

Thankyou for your interest in this topic.

While we humans are arrogant, it must be stressed that we are having an effect on the climate, however it is not something that seventy years of Global Cooling cannot erase.

Techically, this solar cycle ends around 2016, which is when we should enter the Gliessburg Minima however the cooling trend should begin after the next solar maximum (biggest since 1958), in 2011, so in answer to your question, the current short term cooling is due to the sunspot minima although if two years of relatively low sunspot activity can knock the winter CET back so to around 3C in winter (my expectation), you can imagine what sustained minima could invoke.

In summay, we should expect to see a warming trend from next year, peaking around 2011 with a record warm yearly CET probable however from then on, we should see the effects of the Gliessburg Minima, from 2015 onwards, the futures white.

Peaks in terms of cold should be 2030 and 2074 however the snowiest winters maybe 2022, 2038, 2049, 2060 with warming trend again from 2088, because of the multiple cold peaks, the Gliessburg Minima should be on the scale of the Maunder Minima and not the Dalton Minima, such as the one observed around 1810.

Thanks for that. Very interesting. So really we dont have much longer to wait, a few more years before we really start to see the cold kick in. Are we expecting something a la Maunder minimum then with severe winters, winter fairs on the frozen Thames etc. Out of interest, how cold were those winters?

Regards

Viking

Hi

Thanks for this SB. I have now gone off and done some more reading on the subject and I have to say I am convinced!

Interesting times lie ahead. A reasonably cold winter this year due to the solar minima, followed by a period of warming to the maxima in 2011 and then the fun should start. Didnt actually think we could see something like this in my lifetime.

Given that this could last for perhaps 70 years would this cold speel be enough to basically wipe out the global warming we have seen and essentially "reset the clock."

Regards

Viking

Yes, i think that it will wipe out most of global warming, by the end of the the 21st centuary, the world is expected to have warmed by around 3.5C in 200 years, i think that global warming may have a effect, but given that the little Ice Age was around 2C lower than today in terms of the CET, i think that over 200 years, the net rise will be around 1.5C, baring in mind that a rise of 0.5C has already occured.

Interesting stuff. So what sort of climate can we expect during this spell? Are we looking at the UK having a climate like northern Canada/northern Scadinavia for example, with prolonged, severe winters with lots of lying snow/hard frosts and short dry summers or could it even be worse than that, or is that perhaps an overstatement?

Yes, i think that it will wipe out most of global warming, by the end of the the 21st centuary, the world is expected to have warmed by around 3.5C in 200 years, i think that global warming may have a effect, but given that the little Ice Age was around 2C lower than today in terms of the CET, i think that over 200 years, the net rise will be around 1.5C, baring in mind that a rise of 0.5C has already occured.

Interesting stuff. So what sort of climate can we expect during this spell? Are we looking at the UK having a climate like northern Canada/northern Scadinavia for example, with prolonged, severe winters with lots of lying snow/hard frosts and short dry summers or could it even be worse than that, or is that perhaps an overstatement?

I think this is pure speculation - unless someone has evidence from sound scientific sources? I've seen no evidence of a coming spectacular cooling of the sun except on dodgy website (the kind of stuff the astrologer T. Landshiedt came up with...).

LIA 2C colder? I think you'll find that is not so, perhaps a degree colder than now at most (in long term averges that is). Again, though, I'm open to evidence - like the CET for 1690-1720 perhaps?).

Edited September 3, 2006 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

Morning SB, all.

I know that this is your favoured hypothesis, that reduced sunspot activity will have a cooling effect on our climate (in fact, global climate), but I have to point out a couple of problems with your analysis as it stands.

There is no doubt that the Sun is the most important influence - in general terms - on the world's climate. Likewise, it is well established that fluctuations in solar output cause measurable temperature changes.

You suggest that, after 2012, the next period of maximum activity, temperatures are likely to start falling prior to the minimum being reached. I don't see how this could work. If the temperature is responding to reduced irradiance, then the effect - cooling - will necessarily follow the cause. What the lag of temperature behind irradiance is, if there is any, I don't know.

Even when the level of irradiance goes down, after 2011/2012 (the cycles are not absolutely regular), we would still have to take into account the other primary forcing mechanisms, as your post suggests. But I cannot reconcile the figures you give. The IPCC suggests a CO2 induced temperature rise of ~3.5 in 100, not 200 years. Best estimates of solar flux suggest a cooling effect of about 1 - 1.2C over the 11 year cycle. A period of several cycles with reduced activity might well be enough to compensate for such rises, but each cycle will still have its own local maximum, so the net cooling effect would be less than the sum of the sequential coolings.

You mention this coming Winter as a period of minimum activity, but can we relate the weather of the 10 year period 1996-2006 to the Solar cycle? In other words, does the temperature variation match the sunspot activity?

For global temperatures to drop significantly between 2020-2070 from this cause, there would probably need to be a drop in irradiance of ~-2-3 Wm2. Is there evidence of this kind of drop during the Maunder minimum?

My feeling on this, then, is that we would still need to have at least one other forcing mechanism contributing to the cooling, beyond the impact of Solar flux, to have the kind of effects you describe in your dialogue.

This is definitely your 'baby', so can you post some numbers or measurements which we can use to demonstrate a likely future cooling? Then we can add another string to our 'cooling'bow.

Thanks for the post,

P

[summer blizzard]

I think this is pure speculation - unless someone has evidence from sound scientific sources? I've seen no evidence of a coming spectacular cooling of the sun except on dodgy website (the kind of stuff the astrologer T. Landshiedt came up with...).

LIA 2C colder? I think you'll find that is not so, perhaps a degree colder than now at most (in long term averges that is). Again, though, I'm open to evidence - like the CET for 1690-1720 perhaps?).

http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot8.html

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&s...mum&spell=1

Those are links to information relating to the Gliessburg Minimum.

As for the Little Ice Age average CET, here was the information i could gleam from the Manley CET records...

With a 0.5C margin of error, the average CET for the 1659 to 1699 period was 8.64, which is 1.11C below todays average, so it appears that you are right.

[Devonian]

Morning SB, all.

I know that this is your favoured hypothesis, that reduced sunspot activity will have a cooling effect on our climate (in fact, global climate), but I have to point out a couple of problems with your analysis as it stands.

There is no doubt that the Sun is the most important influence - in general terms - on the world's climate. Likewise, it is well established that fluctuations in solar output cause measurable temperature changes.

You suggest that, after 2012, the next period of maximum activity, temperatures are likely to start falling prior to the minimum being reached. I don't see how this could work. If the temperature is responding to reduced irradiance, then the effect - cooling - will necessarily follow the cause. What the lag of temperature behind irradiance is, if there is any, I don't know.

Even when the level of irradiance goes down, after 2011/2012 (the cycles are not absolutely regular), we would still have to take into account the other primary forcing mechanisms, as your post suggests. But I cannot reconcile the figures you give. The IPCC suggests a CO2 induced temperature rise of ~3.5 in 100, not 200 years. Best estimates of solar flux suggest a cooling effect of about 1 - 1.2C over the 11 year cycle. A period of several cycles with reduced activity might well be enough to compensate for such rises, but each cycle will still have its own local maximum, so the net cooling effect would be less than the sum of the sequential coolings.

You mention this coming Winter as a period of minimum activity, but can we relate the weather of the 10 year period 1996-2006 to the Solar cycle? In other words, does the temperature variation match the sunspot activity?

For global temperatures to drop significantly between 2020-2070 from this cause, there would probably need to be a drop in irradiance of ~-2-3 Wm2. Is there evidence of this kind of drop during the Maunder minimum?

My feeling on this, then, is that we would still need to have at least one other forcing mechanism contributing to the cooling, beyond the impact of Solar flux, to have the kind of effects you describe in your dialogue.

This is definitely your 'baby', so can you post some numbers or measurements which we can use to demonstrate a likely future cooling? Then we can add another string to our 'cooling'bow.

Thanks for the post,

P

P3 "Best estimates of solar flux suggest a cooling effect of about 1 - 1.2C over the 11 year cycle.". Sounds like an awful lot to me. I can't think of any 11 year solar cycle showing any obvious temperature change (over 11 years I mean, or 22 or....). 1C plus is an awful lot imo. It's enough to come out of a LIA and end up where we are now - and that's taken hundreds of years.

So, who's credibly claiming 1C plus?