Consensus on Man-Made Global Warming is Facing Inconvenient Challenge

January 29, 2012

Check link for pics and graphs

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

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.

A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

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.

More...

* Hotter summers 'may kill 5,900 every year', warns first national risk assessment of climate change

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.

The world average temperature from 1997 to 2012

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

World solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

Four hundred years of sunspot observations

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...l#ixzz1krPcwyUa

January 29, 2012

So if that's the case than why do we have this?

NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year On Record

And here's a link to that says something a little different:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120119152353.htm

My reason for accepting Global warming or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with politics! Not sure what yours is, but it seems to me it's political minded? I could be wrong, than I apologize. For me this issue should not have anything to do with which party backs whatever.

January 29, 2012

My reason for accepting Global warming or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with politics! Not sure what yours is, but it seems to me it's political minded? I could be wrong, than I apologize.

January 29, 2012

Politically yes,liberals in general embrace all things environmental.

Yes I agree that Democrats in general embrace it, disagree that liberals do. But if they hadn't embraced it I bet Republicans would've. What I see is whatever one party doesn't embrace the other jumps right on it. And by the way there are many in the republican party that embrace global warming.

January 29, 2012

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Politically yes,liberals in general embrace all things environmental.

Yes I agree that Democrats in general embrace it, disagree that liberals do. But if they hadn't embraced it I bet Republicans would've. What I see is whatever one party doesn't embrace the other jumps right on it. And by the way there are many in the republican party that embrace global warming.

Haven't found a liberal yet that doesn't.Possibly there are some.

I doubt that the republican party would just because the democratic party didn't.I would not expect all from one party to agree on every issue.So far as I know all democrats believe or claim to in man made global warming.Until it hits them in their convenience,then watch the extensive use of the so called limited fuel reserves and the cars they drive and the homes they live in.

If you do not believe in man made global warming listen to Obama,that means you want dirty water and dirty air.As if those that do not swallow the global warming don't breath the same air and drink the same water.

January 29, 2012

That article is incorrect about almost everything, except this:

Quote:

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

Trouble is, people have a short memory. As PK posted, last year was the 9th warmest year since records began. That's not cooling. It's also a complete lie that warming 'stopped in 1997'.

Posted yet again, because it seems to keep being needed:

January 30, 2012

That article is incorrect about almost everything, except this:

You saying the article is incorrect does not make it so.

We have always had weather fluctuations. I am sure we disagree in area's on this but as we get closer and closer to the end of this earth I suspect we will see a whole lot more.

I think somewhere it says that among other things we can anticipate and I don't think when that was foretold Christ was thinking of oil reserves or that puny man would be in charge.

If we were to have a recurrence that is referred to in MN as "the night without end" in this day and age the global warming fanatics would be screaming from the rooftops.That was 1965.Thankfully we have not gone thru another night quite like that.

Our neighbor was a pastor of a Evangelical Free church .I am remember talking to him the morning after everything went crazy and he declared Christ's coming was right around the corner because of diverse weather conditions.I disagreed with him then and still believe we will face much of this in coming years,more the closer to the end. I didn't think then it meant next year,simply that we have been told this will take place more and more.I really have my doubts if puny,fallible man will halt that progression no matter how many electric cars he drives.

I do not think we should be dumping garbage,polluting the lakes with whatever,but I will never believe the weather is because of oil. We could cease to use oil and as God has said,"There will be diverse weather conditions"

January 30, 2012

Exactly Bravus. That's why I'm saying if we take sides per politics, than we are all very shortsighted. we than tend to look through spinning eyes. And that goes for both sides. Its funny how all that believe that global warming is a fact, they have to be liberal? Very short sightedness is all I can say.

And Bonnie, I can say the exact opposite! I know as many if not all, conservative's as you would like to call them, believing in global warming. So again we get down to it being a political issue to where it should not be. that's where I see people taking there stands.

January 30, 2012

Originally Posted By: Bravus

That article is incorrect about almost everything, except this:

You saying the article is incorrect does not make it so.

Correct. Me saying so does not make it so. Reality makes it so.

January 30, 2012

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

January 30, 2012

The most interesting thing I read in the originalarticle explains the story of Hans Brinker and the Silver Skates, and gives me a time frame in which it may have been written.

January 30, 2012

Exactly Bravus. That's why I'm saying if we take sides per politics, than we are all very shortsighted. we than tend to look through spinning eyes. And that goes for both sides. Its funny how all that believe that global warming is a fact, they have to be liberal? Very short sightedness is all I can say.

January 31, 2012

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/30...imate+Progress)

January 31, 2012

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/30...imate+Progress)

January 31, 2012

I wonder if the alarmists & GanGreens can turn those survival sunshades into winter parkas ??

January 31, 2012

I wonder if the alarmists & GanGreens can turn those survival sunshades into winter parkas ??

The day I see "the money where their mouths are" is the day I will believe it is a true concern on their part and not some PC or money angle behind it.

Whether it is "the poor,global warming,the evil rich etc" the ones screeching the loudest are the ones most guilty.

Increase the sales of electric cars. If all the alarmists were driving them,think of the "pollution" that would be reduced.Scale down the size of their homes,reduce it to one and maybe only at a cost of a paltry million or two. Shut off all air conditioning except to the room you are using.Sell or destroy your SUV's. As president, live well but eliminate your separate,same destination trips at the cost of millions and a great deal of pollution.Take your dog with you or let it suffer at the White House with care givers.Not a private jet.

Eliminate the energy consumption for outlandish private parties.People like James Hansen that have such a public religious fervor about this can do much. Wonder about his energy consumption on the money he receives.Then of course we have Al Gore. If all those following the religion of the environment lived what they preached to others and actually believed what they were saying,our energy consumption would be reduced to acceptable levels.Like Obama and so many others"We are our brothers keeper" refers only to the other guy.

Those that keep crying about the poor,give at least as much percentage wise as the evil conservatives. I know of a couple of private small orphanages that some of us support that would greet Warren Buffet with open arms. He could live quite well on a mere 5 million a year and make such a difference in the lives of children that are unadoptable.Bet he has a stray home or two that could be converted to house many of these children.Hands on,not what he gives for tax deductions only.

If the liberals put as much energy into personal sacrifice and hands on what a better world this would be.

January 31, 2012

So, you've given up on debating the science, which is all that matters?

January 31, 2012

So, you've given up on debating the science, which is all that matters?

That is sad Bravus, it seems it only comes down to politics, which party backs which scientists. Truly incredible. Since neither party puts there money where there mouth is or vice-a-versa.

Still harping on Mr. Buffet, who actually did put his money where is mouth is. He wound up paying that tax that Bonnie asked him to pay and that wasn't good enough.

February 1, 2012

So, you've given up on debating the science, which is all that matters?

What science? The ones that agrees with your view or the many that agree with my view.

I do not believe that weather variations are caused by man.I especially do not believe people like Jim Hansen.

I think it was in the 70's we had a decade left.

February 1, 2012

Given that the photo of Hansen was a link to a completely different article, and that's the only thing you've responded to, I'm going to suggest that (unlike me) you're not even bothering to *read* any science that might challenge your position.

February 1, 2012

That is sad Bravus, it seems it only comes down to politics, which party backs which scientists. Truly incredible. Since neither party puts there money where there mouth is or vice-a-versa.

February 1, 2012

Given that the photo of Hansen was a link to a completely different article, and that's the only thing you've responded to, I'm going to suggest that (unlike me) you're not even bothering to *read* any science that might challenge your position.

Hansen is a pretty good portrait of false reporting

You can suggest as you wish.I have read many articles that says same.I have read many that say the opposite.

Because I disagree with you does not mean I have not read it.

Talked to some one that other day on our very mild winter here. This person said,"You know there must be something to this global warming". He couldn't remember any winter this warm.When I suggested that he do a little checking, he like you said,"The scientists said" I asked him if he ever did any checking the information on centuries past. No,he just assumed and that is what so many do,or accept that someone that appears very knowledgeable must be right.

I do not automatically believe everything a scientist says,regardless of issue. They certainly have contributed in countless ways to knowledge,but far to many times,next year or five years from now,the "findings" are completely reversed.

February 1, 2012

Correct. Me saying so does not make it so. Reality makes it so.

You declaring something a reality does not make it so either.

We have two different realities on many things.You are entitled to yours.

Many scientific studies get posted all the time.Many are refuted regularly.

Not to long ago I read a article written by some of these great educated minds.

It was not a recent find but dealing with a well preserved body millions of years old,thought to possibly be the missing link.

While I have no idea what was here in any form before creation week,but I believe the creation story. I don't believe God partially created humans in some form and they evolved to become what we are today.Experts will tell me differently.

February 1, 2012

We don't have different realities, we have different perceptions of reality. If climate change causes a tornado in your area, it will be a real tornado and your beliefs will not effect it.

February 1, 2012

We don't have different realities, we have different perceptions of reality. If climate change causes a tornado in your area, it will be a real tornado and your beliefs will not effect it.

As far as I know tornado's have always been a reality.Long before cars,oil exploration or any of that

Sign In

Consensus on Man-Made Global Warming is Facing Inconvenient Challenge

Recommended Posts

bonnie

phkrause

bonnie

phkrause

bonnie

Bravus

bonnie

phkrause

Bravus

Bravus

Dottie

bonnie

Bravus

bonnie

olger

bonnie

Bravus

phkrause

bonnie

Bravus

bonnie

bonnie

bonnie

Bravus

bonnie

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity