Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian astronomers about a decade or so ago:
They also warned that it is potentially much more dangerous than global warming, as food crops are better able to adapt to rising temperatures than to falling ones.
I think *global* cooling goes a bit far given the report includes:
'Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This researchshows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are likely to be larger than the global effect. This study shows that the sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions about adapting to climate change for the decades to come." '
Or as the authors put it in their abstract at
"Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations."
The prediction is for global temperatures to fall by 0.1C. That is global cooling.
Is that not a prediction for global temperatures to be lower by c 0.1C
*relative to the increases predicted* otherwise? That is, global tempertatures rise but not so much as without the solar radiation effects. If not what does the paper mean when it talks about the "relative annual global" temperature change[1]? So, a bit like finding a fiver after losing a fifty: better than nothing but not a net increase in wealth.And even the European winter surface temperatures are still be predicted to increase overall, albeit by 0.4 to 0.8C (c. 30 percent) less than without the solar effect[2].
[1] or more precisely "As a result of the decrease in solar irradiance, both experiments show widespread cooling with respect to CTRL-8.5 (Fig. 2). The relative annual global mean near-surface temperature change for the period 2050?2099 is a cooling of 0.13 and 0.12??C for EXPT-A and EXPT-B, respectively. This offsets or delays the global warming trend by ~2 years and is small compared with the modelled global warming. This is consistent with other recently published results3, 4, 5, 6, 7, which indicate that any change in global mean temperature due to a future prolonged solar minimum would do little to substantially offset or delay the warming due to projected increases in long-lived greenhouse gases. A comparison of forcings and responses can be found in ref. 20. In some of these studies, potential for regional variation is indicated4, 6, 7, and we now explore this in more detail in our experiments. [2] "Examining the European response in more detail, average temperature changes for a northern European region are shown in Fig. 5. Relative to the historical period (1971?2000), RCP4.5 and CTRL-8.5 show substantial warming with a mean difference for 2050?2099 of 4.1??C and 6.6??C, respectively. EXPT-A and EXPT-B follow the same trajectory as CTRL-8.5, but with a reduced warming. Relative to CTRL-8.5, we find decreases in regional temperature for 2050?2099 of 0.4??C (EXPT-A) and nearly 0.8??C (EXPT-B). This regional cooling is therefore a notable fraction, ~30% for EXPT-B, of the difference between the temperature changes for CTRL-8.5 and RCP4.5."
The wording of the article is 'The latest study, published in Nature Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.' That appears to be a fairly clear statement that global temperatures are expected to decrease by 0.1C from what they are now.
I think the main issue is not the research, but the way it's been interpreted by the Daily Express. The article also cites the Met Office:
"A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming."
I wouldn't use the story to inform my views, beyond 'weather happens'.
It's an article in the Express about weather. How likely is it that they correctly reported what the study said?
From the paper in Nature Robin linked to :
The relative annual global mean near-surface temperature change for the period 2050?2099 is a cooling of 0.13 and 0.12?°C for EXPT-A and EXPT-B, respectively. This offsets or delays the global warming trend by ~2 years and is small compared with the modelled global warming.
Relative, not absolute.
Or 'whether' it happens as they think it might :-)
Which is why I quoted (twice) from the source material, not from what Nathan Rao wrote for the Express. But if you prefer his interpretation of Nature to mine or your own reading of the source materuial so be it. I'm done.
What you are quoting from is back pedalling by people who, at the turn of the century were telling us that global temperatures were going to continue to rise, which they have not. However, Russian astronomers were, at the same time, telling us they wouldn't and that a cooling cycle would begin around 2012. I prefer to go with the people who have, so far, fairly accurately predicted what was going to happen and their suggestion is that we can expect serious cooling over the next 30-50 years, possibly longer.
Russia seems to breed scientists that are not constrained by western dogma (there's a surprise).
When I worked at British Gas, a senior colleague was working with Russia on designing their high-pressure grid (the UK one being the envy of the world). He reported that their scientists were convinced the crust of the Earth was supported on a layer of methane ...
Coincidentally I've just watched the old Dr Who series Inferno, which has a slightly deranged scientist drilling through the crust to find the gas underneath it. As one might guess, this doesn't go terribly well.
Actually, ask the Pakistanis about global Warming and I bet they will agree its real right now.
When you think of it though, if you are putting more energy in from captured energy, but less from the Sun, the issue will be weather extremes. Ie the energy levels have to be disipated and equalised, and on a rotating body you are going to get a huge amount of mixing, hence more severe highs and lows. The other interesting thing of course is that if we are indeed removing more Oxygen than we can replace no matter how much cooler the sun gets, the trapped energy will increase. The two main dangers are climate extremes and rising sea level. Brian
Just think of all those wind turbines using grid electricity to de-ice.
What a rag that is, according to them the Three horsemen of the apocalypse are dropping by in our local this weekend!..
Tis true I tells ye;!...
On 25/06/2015 17:04, Jethro_uk wrote: ...
Not sure about that, but it is certainly suggested that, if you go deep enough, there is a point at which you will only find gas, without any oil deposits. Any oil that used to exist having been converted to gas by thermal cracking.
It wasn't just Russia - western scientists were also predicting cooling before the current global warming theory got popular.
It was probably some 10-15 years ago that a scientist at Rutherford labs told me you could now only get funding to prove that there is global warming. There had been research teams which were still doing their research with open minds, but found their projects were no longer worthy of funding. When politics interferes with research in this way, the output from the research is liable to invalid. Global warming is very attactive to politicians - it provides them with another excuse to control our lives, which they love to do.
Having said that, there *should* be global warming - after all, we are still coming out of the last ice age, and we're some way off reaching the expected inter-glacial maximum temperatures. However, it's not a nice smooth curve, and fluctuates with things like the medievil warm period, and the little ice age a few hundred years later.
Havn't been to the Rutherford since the late 60's; but this has long been one of my suspicions.
+1.Not to mention the Roman warm period. What other reason would the Latins have to settle in Northumberland and Cumbria? For the farming rather than the minerals (OK there was iron ore too).
Why do so few people realise this?
And, of course, if you really want to see the end of Western civilisation as we know it, just wait until the next lot of glaciers cover London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, New York.
My guess is that in a few thousand years time we will be pumping out carbon dioxide and spreading laser printer toner all over the ice-caps in an attempt to reverse them.
Well indeed. The current interglacial will have ended by then, and the two incontrovertible facts of geography (large land mass at the south pole, north pole water but surrounded by land) will reassert themselves -> g l a c i e r s.
i understood that the research disproving GW was funded by hydrocarbon companies ...
steve
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.