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."
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? So, a bit like finding
a fiver after losing a fifty: better than nothing but not a net increase
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.
 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.
 "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 might if it were to happen.
It is also nothing like the Maunder minimum yet. It would need to fall
by another factor of two or so. The present sunspot cycle 24 is about as
strong as typical cycles 12-16 which cover from 1880 through 1930.
Sunspot cycles 18,19,21 and 22 were unusually strong compared to the
historical record which goes back to 1750. The lower solar maximum
activity is mainly to frustrate owners of new H-alpha telescopes.
It is ironic that this claim should come hot on the heals of a CME that
made auroras visible from the South of England - hardly a "quiet" sun.
The Express only exists to promote wilful ignorance in its readers.
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.
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.
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.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:53:17 +0100, Nightjar <"cpb"@ wrote:
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.
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
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
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Havn't been to the Rutherford since the late 60's; but this has long
been one of my suspicions.
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.
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
Nobody has proven, or disproven, anything to do with climate change. All
that anybody can do is propose a hypothesis, make predictions based upon
that hypothesis and sit back to see whether the predictions come true.
So far, models based upon the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming
have failed to come anywhere near predicting what happens in real life.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.