Study: German Scientists Conclude 20th Century Warming “Nothing Unusual” …Foresee “Global Cooling Until 2080″!

August 23, 2015

We’ll probably be treated to the sight (again) of climate cultists protesting anthropogenic global warming… in a snowstorm.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Another study shows that 20thC temperature rise is nothing unusual historically.

The Die kalte Sonne site here features a worrisome essay by German climate scientists Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Dr. Alexander Hempelmann and Carl Otto Weiss. They carefully examined climate changes of the past and have found that the recent changes (of the last 40 years are nothing out of the ordinary and that we need to worry about a global cooling that will persist until 2080.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/study-german-scientists-conclude-20th-century-warming-nothing-unusual-foresee-global-cooling-until-2080/#sthash.NRtJCZNt.dpbs

I will let readers make their own judgements. But I will pose a simple question, which warmists always shy away from:

What brought about the MWP and subsequently the LIA, not to mention previous cold and warm episodes.
Their usual answer is to deny they ever existed, but the evidence overwhelmingly shows that they did.

Only when we understand these events can we begin to understand recent warming.

View original post


Our quiet sun: long-term cooling on the way?

May 3, 2015

science agw sun

No, I’m not predicting from computer models where the results are largely predetermined by the inputs and assumptions of the programmers (1). I’m just noting a possibility based on simple observation of centuries of data. When Sol grows quiet for extended periods, the Earth grows colder:

The sun is almost completely blank. The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. The sun’s X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 24 hours. Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and the current nearly blank sun may signal the end of the solar maximum phase. Solar cycle 24 began after an unusually deep solar minimum that lasted from 2007 to 2009 which included more spotless days on the sun compared to any minimum in almost a century.

The article notes that declining solar activity doesn’t mean no solar storms that can disrupt communications — some very strong ones happen on the down-slope, so to speak. But, what we’re concerned with here is the possible effect on Earth’s climate. As you know if you’ve been reading this blog for a while, I’m of the school that holds the Sun far more responsible for Earth’s changing climate than any amount of carbon dioxide we’ve pumped into the atmosphere in the last century of so. And I believe the evidence supports that much more than it does the catastrophic man-caused climate change theology theory. From later in the article, here’s what happened the last time the Sun had a quiescent period of this magnitude or larger:

Finally, if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere – and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830 (below). Both of these historical periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many scientists as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.

The highlighted portion refers to the work of Henrik Svensmark and others to study the relation between solar activity, cosmic rays,  and cloud formation on Earth, the last of which is a regulator of temperature  Early experimental results have lent credibility to this hypothesis, and I think we’ll eventually find that such natural cycles are the real reason for climate change on Earth, and not a trace gas that’s been raised to the level of an all-powerful demon.

Footnote:
(1) That’s the UN IPCC’s job.


Prof Bob Carter warns of unpreparedness for Global Cooling

September 14, 2014

No, I’ve not become a cold-climate alarmist, but I do think a long-term cooling is more likely than continued warming, simply based on the cycles and the Sun’s behavioral history. And long-term cooling is much harder on humanity than a gradual warming, increased crop failures being an example. Carter wrote an excellent survey of the skeptical case – Climate: the counter-consensus.

Watts Up With That?

HadCRUT_cooling from 2001

Eric Worrall writes:

Professor Bob Carter, writing in today’s edition of The Australian, a major Aussie daily newspaper, warns that the world is unprepared for imminent global cooling, because of the obsession of policy makers with global warming.

According to Bob Carter;

Heading for ice age

“GRAHAM Lloyd has reported on the Bureau of Meteorology’s capitulation to scientific criticism that it should publish an accounting of the corrections it makes to temperature records (“Bureau warms to transparency over adjusted records”, 12/9). Corrections which, furthermore, act to reinforce the bureau’s dedication to a prognosis of future dangerous global warming, by turning cooling temperature trends into warming ones — a practice also known to occur in the US, Britain and New Zealand.

Meanwhile, we have a report by Sue Neales that the size of our grain harvest remains in doubt following severe frosts in southern NSW killing large areas of early…

View original post 294 more words


Maurice Newman, Aussie PM Abbott’s most senior advisor, on the dangers of global cooling

August 14, 2014

Interesting speculation that, if we’re heading toward a period of global cooling, the various efforts to combat anthropogenic global warming have positioned us badly to deal with it. While we should be skeptical of any claims predicting this or that crisis, I do think a cooling scenario more likely than catastrophic warming. If it comes about, then the Warmists will have done much more harm than good.

Watts Up With That?

Story submitted by Eric Worrall

“WHAT if David Archibald’s book The Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short turns out to be right? What if the past 50 years of peace, cheap energy, abundant food, global economic growth and population explosion have been due to a temporary climate phenomenon?”

This is the first paragraph of Maurice Newman’s latest attack on the world’s infatuation with global warming.

View original post 225 more words


New study suggests a temperature drop of up to 1°C by 2020 due to low solar activity

June 14, 2014

Well, if this plays out as predicted, it would be an “inconvenient truth” for the Warmist Cult.

Watts Up With That?

sc24 and historyFrom the HockeySchtick:  A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds long solar cycles predict lower temperatures during the following solar cycle. A lag of 11 years [the average solar cycle length] is found to provide maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature. On the basis of the long sunspot cycle of the last solar cycle 23, the authors predict an average temperature decrease of 1C over the current solar cycle 24 from 2009-2020 for certain locations.

Highlights

► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle.
► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations.
► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase.
► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.

View original post 1,839 more words


(Video) Concerned environmentalists can’t figure out if it’s “global warming” or “global cooling”

May 26, 2014
"We're still here!"

“We’re still here!”

So, PJTV’s Michelle Fields went out among the people in Washington, D.C., to find out what self-described “environmentalists” thought about global warming… or, maybe, global cooling. Or maybe both at the same time. Either way, most were sure government should do something about it. Whatever “it” is.

Just do something!

Actually, I agree with the last person’s mother: they can’t even accurately predict the weather a week out, so why take seriously predictions for a century from now?

But, government should do something!

PS: That 97% consensus among scientists that catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is real that one person mentioned? It’s bunk.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Global warming headline of the year

February 28, 2012

And it’s only February:

Yes, so powerful is the effect of a trace gas that serves mainly as plant food, that it can make the world cooler while simultaneously causing dangerous warming. Call it a one-stop shop for natural disasters, all of which can be reliably blamed on Mankind, and the only solution to which is greater governmental control (1) over our economies and daily lives.

Next up: man-caused climate change causes sun to rise in West and Barack Obama to become a fan of the free market.

Global warming — is there nothing it can’t do?

And is there any way the climate alarmists could make themselves look more fatuous and desperate? Why, yes, there is.

Hat-tip to  WUWT, which notes the headline has since changed, probably out of embarrassment. And here’s a link to the original Georgia Tech press release, which climate-hysteric “journalists” predictably screwed up.

Footnote:
(1) Especially by transnational bureaucracies answerable to no one and supported by global taxes. Winning!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Hard times in the Church of Global Warming

January 31, 2012

Today’s a busy day, but I wanted to share three stories that, taken together, almost make one feel sorry for those who cling bitterly to their faith in the fraud that is anthropogenic global warming …er… dangerous man-caused climate change …no, wait… extreme weather events that are really our fault whatever they want to call it, this week.

First, yet another prediction of DOOM falls flat. Among the various disasters sure to befall us as we pump CO2 (aka, “plant food”) into the atmosphere and Earth takes her revenge in the best Hollywood manner was supposed to be an increase in violent hurricanes.

There’s a small problem: it ain’t happening.

What was learned
The four researchers’ reconstructed record of intense hurricanes revealed that the frequency of these “high-magnitude” events “peaked near 6 storms per century between 2800 and 2300 years ago.” Thereafter, it suggests that they were “relatively rare” with “about 0-3 storms per century occurring between 1900 and 1600 years ago,” after which they state that these super-storms exhibited a marked decline, which “began around 600 years ago” and has persisted through the present with “below average frequency over the last 150 years when compared to the preceding five millennia.”

What it means
It is instructive to note that over the past century and a half of ever-increasing fossil fuel utilization and atmospheric CO2 buildup, the frequency of the most intense category of hurricanes in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico has been lower than it was over the prior five millennia, which speaks volumes about the climate-alarmist claim that continued anthropogenic CO2 emissions will lead to more frequent super cyclones and hurricanes.

Dontcha just hate it when empirical evidence gets in the way of perfectly good religious dogma scientific theory? Granted, this study was only in Florida, but, also in fairness, Florida is one of the places alarmists claimed would be worst-hit by AGW-caused super-storms. Certainly, this is worth testing elsewhere to see if the results hold up.

But wait, there’s more!

Far from the Earth becoming a steam bath thanks to Man’s folly, we may well be headed toward another Little Ice Age, such as that which plagued us from the mid-17th to the mid-19th centuries, when the Hudson and the Thames would freeze-over in winter. Apparently, the sun just won’t cooperate:

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.

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.

(h/t the ever-readable Delingpole)

The Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (1), as you may know, have been two of the chief centers for climate alarmism, constantly pushing a message of impending DOOM!!, unless we all submit now to a transnational bureaucracy that will tax and control us all the way to Salvation. Naturally, since the report came from the Met, they feel obliged to explain that it really means nothing and that the power of CO2-induced warming will overwhelm the influence of the sun (2).

So, does this mean AGW is now good, since it will keep us from freezing our tootsies off? I’m so confused…

Finally, a group of 16 (real) scientists co-authored an essay in the Wall Street Journal arguing that while there is no need to panic over global warming, we should decry the corruption of science in the name of “consensus” and, yes, profit:

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

(…)

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Be sure to read the whole thing.

And the next time you find yourself pitying a disconsolate global-warming cultist, forget it. Laugh and point, instead; it’s much more fun.

Footnotes:
(1) The CRU was also at the center of the Climategate and Climategate II scandals. How anyone can take them seriously after that is beyond me.
(2) Of course, this is the same crowd that claimed our children and grandchildren would not know what snow is, only to see Europe soon thereafter blanketed with record snowfalls. So we know what their predictions are worth.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Blame mankind

May 30, 2010

The New Scientist is an interesting magazine, but it’s been in the pocket of the global-warming alarmists for as long as I can remember. Now, not content to point the finger at modern industrial society (for a problem that doesn’t exist), they argue that ancient hunter-gatherers in North America brought on global cooling by wiping out woolly mammoths.

You see, the only things keeping us from freezing were their mammoth farts:

When hunters arrived in North America and drove mammoths and other large mammals to extinction, the methane balance of the atmosphere could have changed as a result, triggering the global cool spell that followed. The large grazing animals would have produced copious amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from their digestive systems. They vanished about 13,000 years ago.

Felisa Smith at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque has calculated that when these animals were around they would have emitted 9.6 megatonnes of methane annually. Ice core records show atmospheric methane levels plunged from about 700 parts per billion to just 500 ppb at the time of their extinction. Disappearance of methane emissions from the extinct species is a possible cause, Smith says (Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo877).

“It is conceivable that this drop in methane contributed to the Younger Dryas cooling episode,” says Smith. This would mean humans have been changing global climate since well before the dawn of civilisation.

Note the equivocations used to reach the conclusion: “could have,” “calculated,” “possible,” and “conceivable.” All guesswork and estimates used to make the reader think it’s not just possible, but probable that man adversely changed his climate through his foolishness – with implications for the modern day, of course.  Bear in mind, no one was around to accurately measure mammoth flatulence, nor even the population of the mammoths, themselves. So Ms. Smith’s estimate of the methane output is based on assumptions, ever subject to error.

More importantly, to assume that, because the temperature drop followed the disappearance of the mammoths, the two must be related by cause and effect is to make the logical error of post hoc ergo propter hoc, “because B comes after A, A must have caused B.” It’s possible also that dropping temperatures combined with the slaughter wrought by early North Americans lead to the demise of the mammoths, as opposed to the other way round. Perhaps even an outside factor was responsible for the temperature drop, and the mammoths had nothing to do with it. Who knows?

I dont know

The point isn’t to pick on Ms. Smith, who, we can assume, is a competent researcher simply positing a theory based on the results of her study. Instead, the problem lies with the journalist’s presentation, which is slanted in a way to influence the reader to think this is the most likely and reasonable explanation – and by extension toward acceptance of the theory of modern anthropogenic global warming. No criticism of Ms. Smith’s thesis is offered, nor any alternate explanation for the Younger Dryas cooling.

That’s not journalism. That’s advocacy.

(via Instapundit)


Satellite data suggests global cooling

October 21, 2009

From MIT’s Energy & Environment journal, via the NCASI site:

Study: model in good agreement with satellite temperature data – suggest cooling

CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the satellite data shows a statistically significant cooling trend for the past 12 to 13 years, with it not being possible to reject a flat trend (0 slope) for between 16 and 23 years. This is a length of time at which disagreement with climate models can no longer be attributed to simple LTP. On the other hand, studies cited herein have documented a 50–70 year cycle of climate oscillations overlaid on a simple linear warming trend since the mid-1800s and have used this model to forecast cooling beginning between 2001 and 2010, a prediction that seems to be upheld by the satellite and ocean heat content data. Other studies made this same prediction of transition to cooling based on solar activity indices or from ocean circulation regime changes. In contrast, the climate models predict the recent flat to cooling trend only as a rare stochastic event. The linear warming trend in these models that is obtained by subtracting the 60–70 yr cycle, while unexplained at present, is clearly inconsistent with climate model predictions because it begins too soon (before greenhouse gases were elevated) and does not accelerate as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate. This model and the empirical evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to climate model accuracy.

My interpretation: More evidence that climate change is driven by the sun, probably as it regulates the influence of cosmic rays in the formation of clouds, not by anything anthropogenic. This is another example of why the alarmists and enviro-statists are desperate to sign a new climate treaty at Copenhagen and pass a cap-and-trade bill through Congress before the growing mass of evidence against Man-made global warming overwhelms them. Their “scientific case”  is rife with fraud and the Earth makes a mockery of them.

Unfortunately, their clownishness may cost us all dearly.

(via Watt’s Up With That?)