Mini Ice Age On The Way?

[UV-RAY]

Plateauing over a decade? It's a start.

Especially considering more UHI stations have been filtered into the averages over the last couple of decades.

Now we are opening a can of worms with that one.

[Roger J Smith]

The coldest climate I could foresee in the 21st century would resemble the period 1861 to 1900 or a modified version of the Dalton minimum. I don't foresee anything as cold as the heart of the LIA or the Maunder period, even if we had Maunder type solar (in)activity.

The reason for that is simply the effects of greenhouse gases interacting with natural variability. It could get about 0.5 to 1.0 C colder than this past decade on average, but that would be about the lowest it could fall, while the LIA was more like 1.0 to 2.0 colder.

Some extremely cold winters could develop in that scenario but as others have noted, a climate shift involves a change in frequency of warm, average and cold years and seasons.

As to the question of a real ice age, that would seem to be tens of thousands of years into the future since the Milankovitch factors do not change very quickly towards the ice age signature in this current inter-glacial, and one might imagine that either we'll have the technology to overcome that next ice age, or that greenhouse gas levels will stabilize at levels that might prevent glaciation in that distant future time.

But the short-term conclusion for me is that anything goes, we are probably into a higher variability climate on a slight downturn of overall temperature trends, a scenario which permits almost any extreme.

[Optimus Prime]

Plateauing over a decade? It's a start.

Especially considering more UHI stations have been filtered into the averages over the last couple of decades.

It's still a warming and why is the Arctic warming immensely even though there are NO concrete jungles up there...that's where most of the warming is taking place and in parts of Russia where huge wildernesses still remain. Part of the reason why so many companies and governments have invested into the climate change idea is because it's from solid information. From what I see, it's pretty obvious our 7 billion population with all our technology ISN'T cooling the earth down.

[Snowyowl9]

Your quite right there is no cooling. merely a plateauing of temperatures over the last decade, as for a possible Maunder Minimum, well we can only speculate for now.

Well we can say the UK had it`s 3rd coldest year last year since 1963...1986 was 2nd.

[Optimus Prime]

Well we can say the UK had it`s 3rd coldest year last year since 1963...1986 was 2nd.

Natural variability...most of the world had its warmest.

[jethro]

Lets not turn it into an AGW thread, but even the skeptics global temperature records et al Spencer and UAH show NO cooling.

Unless of course we want to believe a few articles that say that an ice age might be on it's way, (even though they go on to say that it's still very unknown) and then disbelieve the worlds actual scientists....

Still it takes all sorts.

One of the easiest ways to not turn this into an AGW thread is to not indulge in the labelling of scientists of being in one camp, or the other, when it comes to AGW.

Sceptics do not have their own temperature record, neither do the pro AGW camp - there are merely several different temperature data sets.

The one which you refer to is on the NASA Aqua satellite, it hasn't been launched by Spencer, nor has it been launched by any individual scientist who supports one side of this debate over another. Spencer's work with this temperature record has been supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE, for which he has been awarded NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal.

To quote Spencer "Climate change — it happens, with or without our help". His work is trying to decipher how much is manmade and how much is natural - one of the Holy Grails in this debate by all scientists concerned.

If the Solar Physicists are predicting a future event, why would anyone be looking at the current temperature record? The missed cycle/deep minima/disappearance of sunspots has yet to happen. If it happens and if it results in cooling (regional or global) that evidence will not be apparent until it actually happens. To make a judgement prior to that by saying "there's no cooling at the moment" is like saying today, that next winter wasn't cold.

Plateauing over a decade? It's a start.

Especially considering more UHI stations have been filtered into the averages over the last couple of decades.

There are no UHI in the satellite records.

[19jacobob93]

As to the question of a real ice age, that would seem to be tens of thousands of years into the future since the Milankovitch factors do not change very quickly towards the ice age signature in this current inter-glacial, and one might imagine that either we'll have the technology to overcome that next ice age, or that greenhouse gas levels will stabilize at levels that might prevent glaciation in that distant future time.

You do know 'greenhouse gasses' increase with temperature not the other way round, and i am amazed that you think 'AGW' (which doesn't really exist) can prevent a glacial occurring!

Also they have strategically dropped the term 'global warming' and replaced it with 'climate change/disruption' because that way i covers everything and if the Earth was to cool instead of heat, they could say "see! We told you it would change!"

Of course it will change, it has done forever and we cannot control the fact!

Please don't buy into what the mass media tells you, and don't fall for what is the biggest money-making scam of all time!

Edited June 19, 2011 by 19jacobob93

[jethro]

You do know 'greenhouse gasses' increase with temperature not the other way round, and i am amazed that you think 'AGW' (which doesn't really exist) can prevent a glacial occurring!

Also they have strategically dropped the term 'global warming' and replaced it with 'climate change/disruption' because that way i covers everything and if the Earth was to cool instead of heat, they could say "see! We told you it would change!"

Of course it will change, it has done forever and we cannot control the fact!

Please don't buy into what the mass media tells you, and don't fall for what is the biggest money-making scam of all time!

The area to discuss Climate Change can be found here: http://forum.netweather.tv/forum/105-climate-and-environment/

[Roger J Smith]

Obviously new to the forum to imagine that I would be an AGW proponent.

My point remains valid, and I disagree with the notion that the current increase in greenhouse gases is like any other historical case, a response only to warming temperatures.

That is one of those reverse lies that the ultra-skeptics have thrown out to counter what they perceive to be the big lies of the AGW lobby.

Two wrongs do not make a right. A more reasonable analysis is that the modern increase in greenhouse gases can be linked to human activity, and that it has imparted some upward direction to temperatures, although by what amount and through what exact set of changes in atmospheric chemistry and circulation, worthy of an even fuller debate than may have already occurred.

While some may think it is "cute" to counter distortions with other distortions, I find that it slows down the legitimate criticism of AGW by setting up easily disproven and frankly ridiculous conspiracy-like theories. The rise in greenhouse gases is at least 80% from human activity and while it may now be accompanied by a slight component that resembles previous natural cycles, that does not excuse the blatant attempt to distort the complex and if I may so, subtle, debate that is required to understand these issues.

[19jacobob93]

The area to discuss Climate Change can be found here: http://forum.netweather.tv/forum/105-climate-and-environment/

Oh, I wasn't aware that a mini ice age has absolutely nothing to do with a change in climate.

[jethro]

Oh, I wasn't aware that a mini ice age has absolutely nothing to do with a change in climate.

I was relying on you understanding the difference between a mini ice age caused by a slumbering Sun and AGW. So there is no confusion, the validity (or otherwise) of the theory of AGW has a home in the Climate area of the forum. The discussion in this thread is about a natural phenomena, completely unconnected to that discussion. There is room in this thread for the cross over area of that discussion on the impact upon temperatures, and whether or not the expected impact of AGW can counter any fall due to a deep minima.

What there is absolutely no room for in this thread are statements of belief on the theory of AGW, nor statements of the political implications - the place for those is here: http://forum.netweather.tv/forum/105-climate-and-environment/. Please do join in, you will of course be expected to provide scientific evidence/peer reviewed papers to support your stance.

[Optimus Prime]

I can't see how you can really avoid climate change discussion in a thread that basically is about discussing climate change - a New Iceage

One thing I would like to add - yes in some instances temperature does drive CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. But that's in the natural environment that is subject to influence from the weather. You can't use that same hypothesis for anthropogenic climate change because we're releasing gigatons of CO2 per year. The reverse is happening here, we're releasing vast amounts of one particular gas that is raising the global thermometer.

A new ice-age I can assume is possible but not because of what we do, more due to the natural cycle that humans in part control at present.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Optimus Prime

[jethro]

The debate about the validity of the theory of AGW has a separate area of the forum - it is this part of the discussion which has no place here.

[19jacobob93]

Obviously new to the forum to imagine that I would be an AGW proponent.

My point remains valid, and I disagree with the notion that the current increase in greenhouse gases is like any other historical case, a response only to warming temperatures.

That is one of those reverse lies that the ultra-skeptics have thrown out to counter what they perceive to be the big lies of the AGW lobby.

Two wrongs do not make a right. A more reasonable analysis is that the modern increase in greenhouse gases can be linked to human activity, and that it has imparted some upward direction to temperatures, although by what amount and through what exact set of changes in atmospheric chemistry and circulation, worthy of an even fuller debate than may have already occurred.

While some may think it is "cute" to counter distortions with other distortions, I find that it slows down the legitimate criticism of AGW by setting up easily disproven and frankly ridiculous conspiracy-like theories. The rise in greenhouse gases is at least 80% from human activity and while it may now be accompanied by a slight component that resembles previous natural cycles, that does not excuse the blatant attempt to distort the complex and if I may so, subtle, debate that is required to understand these issues.

I understand everyone is starting to get sidetracked here and I appologise! But it is true that a rise in SSTs causes more CO2 to be released as the waters are less dense but that is probably a minute amount. The large amount of strong El Ninos recently could back this up.

Of course skeptics have tried disproving the theories! It would be strange for them not to. But AGW has been taken to far in general.

The other thing is that although CO2 is rising dramatically on Earth, the temperature changes on Mars in recent years directly corrolate to those experienced on Earth. So Al Gore, do Martians drive around in Range Rovers too? No, so this also points towards a factor that is possibly on a Solar cyclic scale.

Please let's not gabble on about global warming on this topic though!

I was relying on you understanding the difference between a mini ice age caused by a slumbering Sun and AGW. So there is no confusion, the validity (or otherwise) of the theory of AGW has a home in the Climate area of the forum. The discussion in this thread is about a natural phenomena, completely unconnected to that discussion. There is room in this thread for the cross over area of that discussion on the impact upon temperatures, and whether or not the expected impact of AGW can counter any fall due to a deep minima.

What there is absolutely no room for in this thread are statements of belief on the theory of AGW, nor statements of the political implications - the place for those is here: http://forum.netweather.tv/forum/105-climate-and-environment/. Please do join in, you will of course be expected to provide scientific evidence/peer reviewed papers to support your stance.

I understand, I was actually replying to someone who brought it up but i'll shut up now!

[Optimus Prime]

The other thing is that although CO2 is rising dramatically on Earth, the temperature changes on Mars in recent years directly corrolate to those experienced on Earth. So Al Gore, do Martians drive around in Range Rovers too? No, so this also points towards a factor that is possibly on a Solar cyclic scale.

Do the Metoffice actually have weather stations positioned around Mars? I can imagine it's very difficult to plot a reliable temperature series on a planet we don't actually inhabit.

[19jacobob93]

Do the Metoffice actually have weather stations positioned around Mars? I can imagine it's very difficult to plot a reliable temperature series on a planet we don't actually inhabit.

Pfft. The MO can't predict the weather back here on Earth more than a day in advance.

NASA have actually been monitoring Mars' temperature since the '70s.

Just found this which kind of explains some of it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

[ZONE 51]

Factors of an ice age :

1- sun/solar activity

2-sea temperatures

3-vocanoes

4-man-made influences

The factor we can't and do not control or infuence is the sun, i think its important in this thread to focus on this, the activity from the sun has opened up a new dissusion about an ice age, if the sun was normal activity then would we be talking about a new ice age? the sun warm the oceans and with out it our seas would be very cold all over, some underground volcanic activity does heat some areas of sea around the world, but most of the oceans would cool without the sun, when i think about areas of the world where temperatures soar to 40c for months then i think a cooling would be ok for some! an ice age would only affect areas of the world that see a temperate climate? like ours, i don't think the arctic would notice? with the arctic blasts being more extreme over us though for example, but then we get mild months to, we then think how can this be a mini ice age? it could be because its just started(if it has-im not a scientist!) and the tropical swly's TM airmass in winter would bring very mild air as those areas are hot where its coming from(Africa) mixing in that hot air cools down to very mild as it passes over the Atlantic ocean to our shores, solar infuences on our jet stream has caused a pattern where we see more blocking in winter to get more cold conditions, it could be that it is more severe for 2011/2012 , remember the polar vortex? imagine that more severe than december! its confusing when we think how can we get hot days in summer and very mild days in winter if we are heading for a mini(short)ice age, well when we think of the hot air down south and its comes our way then it makes sense, if the heat was not turning up down south for months on end and summer then we would be worried! we need to also look at how all the volcanoes over the last 2 years at least are affecting the atmosphere, i read it don't do anything at all to affect temperatures, although some say it does so its kind of confusing , im sure it does do something up there! i can't think where all those gases and particals end up i think somewhere in the upper layers? or maybe its floated out into space? i don't know ive not studied any reports on it properly, but i would think it does cause a layer that reflects the suns rays somehow.

so lots to think about and next winter is the one to show us what its all about? i think we need years but i would say it would be unusual to get another extreme month this winter coming, but then if it does i would think (as i have been) hey...somethings going on here.....

Edited June 20, 2011 by ElectricSnowStorm

[Optimus Prime]

The problem with the idea that the recent cold winters are due to a solar influence is that it doesn't explain the cold winters of the 80s and 40s (and to a degree the 1960s but the only really cold winter in the 60s was 1962/1963 and the majority were rather cold/near normal)

The increase in atmospheric CO2 would magnify the effects of the sun, so even if the sun is releasing less heat energy the earth probably wouldn't cool sufficiently, even the influences in the ecosystem probably wouldn't be that great overall unless it effects a driver that's sensitive to solar change.

There was a fairly interesting article in the Metro this morning on P24;

"If the minimum lasted until 2100

There would be a drease in global temperature of between 0.1c and 0.3c. Unfortunately global warming is set to increase global temperatures by between 3.7c and 4.5c. polar ice could increase by upto 4 per cent but is set to decrease by 40 per cent as a result of global warming"

If anyone gets the chance to read the full article the editors column makes for some interesting (non-alarming) reading.

[VillagePlank]

IMO, the most important fact that many folks are missing is that, as yet, there's not one iota of evidence that suggests that the Earth is actually cooling...

Well, it was pretty warm when the Earth was just formed, and it's certainly cooler, now

Edited June 20, 2011 by Sparticle

[UV-RAY]

It's still a warming and why is the Arctic warming immensely even though there are NO concrete jungles up there...that's where most of the warming is taking place and in parts of Russia where huge wildernesses still remain. Part of the reason why so many companies and governments have invested into the climate change idea is because it's from solid information. From what I see, it's pretty obvious our 7 billion population with all our technology ISN'T cooling the earth down.

Due to warmer waters, as a result of a positive PDO for thirty years, and a Positive NAO, add into the mix high solar activity and frequently strong el ninos and you have all the ingredients for what we are witnessing in the arctic. You really need to look at the bigger picture, by looking into past climatic shifts. Your right about 7 billion of mankind having an effect, though not through AGW IMO.

The problem with the idea that the recent cold winters are due to a solar influence is that it doesn't explain the cold winters of the 80s and 40s (and to a degree the 1960s but the only really cold winter in the 60s was 1962/1963 and the majority were rather cold/near normal)

The increase in atmospheric CO2 would magnify the effects of the sun, so even if the sun is releasing less heat energy the earth probably wouldn't cool sufficiently, even the influences in the ecosystem probably wouldn't be that great overall unless it effects a driver that's sensitive to solar change.

There was a fairly interesting article in the Metro this morning on P24;

"If the minimum lasted until 2100

There would be a drease in global temperature of between 0.1c and 0.3c. Unfortunately global warming is set to increase global temperatures by between 3.7c and 4.5c. polar ice could increase by upto 4 per cent but is set to decrease by 40 per cent as a result of global warming"

If anyone gets the chance to read the full article the editors column makes for some interesting (non-alarming) reading.

Look back and correlate temps with ENSO and the PDO, it's not just solar activity that changes our climate there's a whole spectrum of feedbacks to consider. Too many vested interest with too much to lose are doing their best to misinform and hoodwink the general public.

Apologies for getting way of topic, I'll keep to the subject we are meant to be discussing from here on.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Seven of Nine

[Gavin P]

I get the impression that many people on here think a period of below average temperatures like 'the little ice age' means there will only be year after year of icy cold winters and such like.

I looked at some written records and it does seem like there were some very mild winters in that period too, in fact sometimes 3 back to back!

So whilst it would inevitably mean cooler winters, it wouldn't mean a cold winter every year I'm sure.

Some of those detailed summers are pretty hot too!

Indeed. Low solar actvity actually seems to make the weather more prone to extremes. Thats not just extreme cold, but at times extreme warmth as well as droughts and floods.

It also doesn't negate all the other short term influences we know can have an effect on our weather, such as ENSO, the NAO state, the PDO state, etc...

So whilst we would be one of the most prone places on earth to seeing changed weather patterns from low solar activity, it clearly wouldn't always mean cold weather, nor would it mean the weather is constantly blocked with no extended periods of zonal normality.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Gavin P

[UV-RAY]

Indeed. Low solar actvity actually seems to make the weather more prone to extremes. Thats not just extreme cold, but at times extreme warmth as well as droughts and floods.

It also doesn't negate all the other short term influences we know can have an effect on our weather, such as ENSO, the NAO state, the PDO state, etc...

So whilst we would be one of the most prone places on earth to seeing changed weather patterns from low solar activity, it clearly wouldn't always mean cold weather, nor would it mean the weather is constantly blocked with no extended periods of zonal normality.

That's a very valid point as what records there are for that period clearly indicate the extremities encountered.

[jethro]

The problem with the idea that the recent cold winters are due to a solar influence is that it doesn't explain the cold winters of the 80s and 40s (and to a degree the 1960s but the only really cold winter in the 60s was 1962/1963 and the majority were rather cold/near normal)

The increase in atmospheric CO2 would magnify the effects of the sun, so even if the sun is releasing less heat energy the earth probably wouldn't cool sufficiently, even the influences in the ecosystem probably wouldn't be that great overall unless it effects a driver that's sensitive to solar change.

There was a fairly interesting article in the Metro this morning on P24;

"If the minimum lasted until 2100

There would be a drease in global temperature of between 0.1c and 0.3c. Unfortunately global warming is set to increase global temperatures by between 3.7c and 4.5c. polar ice could increase by upto 4 per cent but is set to decrease by 40 per cent as a result of global warming"

If anyone gets the chance to read the full article the editors column makes for some interesting (non-alarming) reading.

I suspect this editorial is based upon a paper published earlier in the year in Geophysical Research, by Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

This study is based upon the changes in Total Solar Irradience (TSI); the small changes which occur have a small, but measurable impact upon climate. It is this measurement which is used in the climate models by the various bodies involved, including the IPCC.

It is a valid way of measuring the global impact of Solar influence upon climate when trying to decipher the energy budget, but it does not measure the various weather changes associated with Solar differences. It's a bit of a spurious conclusion to reach if this study is applied to indicate likely changes on a local scale. The NH, and in particular NW Europe will experience a greater degree of change and temperature drop if history repeats - all previous deep minima have had a large impact upon both weather and temperature change in this part of the world.

Globally, the average temperature may not drop much if the Sun goes to sleep, regionally, it is likely to drop substantially more than 0.1 - 0.3.

Here is Don Easterbrook's take on this predicted minimum:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_DEMISE_OF_SUNSPOTS.pdf

He's been predicting for years that this would happen, together with making predictions of cooling. Personally, I take his start point of cooling from the high point of the 1998 super El Nino as a tad disingenuous but I'll leave you to make up your own minds. If nothing else, he does provide some pretty graphs which demonstrate past quiet periods/temperature change.

[Iceberg]

Ignoring the temperature issue which I think stands for itself.

If Sunspots effect the Jet stream and give us colder winters there should be a good correlation between lower sunspot numbers and lower NAO's over the winters and higher sunspot numbers and higher NAO's.

Below is a graph which has (very poorly done) representations of Sunspot maximums(red) and sunspot minima (blue).

Apart from the close correlation with the 2009/2010 winter any kind of closer match is patchy at best.

The NAO by and large has a much better correlation with longer term PDO trends, which indicates more that the NAO(read that as Jet stream strength) is more controlled by upstream drivers (Glaam, PDO, PNA pretty much the factors that GP uses for his forecasts).

So in answer.

We seem to have an issue pinning Jetsream strength(or position) on Sunspot numbers.

We seem to have an issue currently with a realtime mechanism for Sunspot effects on the Jet stream, remember the jet stream by and large forms due to it's strength and the position of the hadley cells and general hemispheric wave lengths.

We seem to have an issue saying how much the position of the Jet stream will effect hemispheric temperatures (locally yes, hemispherically there is not enough evidence for me.)

All of this IMO makes any link between any possible forecast of a sunspot minima with an ice age rather incredulous.

[Optimus Prime]

Jethro - unfortunately acrobat reader isn't working for me right now but I will certainly read those links you provided when I get the chance.

From a personal point of view I would certainly emphasise the unusually cold (comparitive to the last 20 years) weather in 2010 was influenced at some degree by the solar activity. But I also think it coincided with a freak anomaly in the wind and ocean currents that effect us directly. I would have atleast expected the cold anomaly to have effected a greater area outside of North America and North West europe in any case.

When taking into account all these things and what lags and what effects the world in real time makes things confusing for me.

PS I would like to see the calulations involved in predicting these outcomes. I'm sure it'd make for some blody hard reading.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Optimus Prime