David Archibald, polymath, makes a bold prediction that temperatures are about to dive sharply (in the decadal sense). He took the forgotten correlation that as solar cycles lengthen and weaken, the world gets cooler. He refined it into a predictive tool, tested it and published in 2007. His paper has been expanded on recently by Prof Solheim in Norway, who predicts a 1.5°C drop in Central Norway over the next ten years.
Our knowledge of they solar dynamo is improving, and David adds the predicted solar activity ’til 2040 to the analysis. Normal solar cycles are 11 years long, but the current one (cycle 24) is shaping up to be 17 years (unusually long), and using historical data from the US, David predicts a 2.1°C decline over Solar Cycle 24 followed by a further 2.8°C over Solar Cycle 25. That adds up to a whopping 4.9°C fall in temperate latitudes over the next 20 years. We can only hope he’s wrong. As David says ” The center of the Corn Belt, now in Iowa, will move south to Kansas.”
He also predicts continuing drought in Africa for another 14 years, with droughts likely in South America too.
If he’s right, it’s awful and excellent at the same time. Cold hurts, but wouldn’t it be something if we understood our climate well enough to plan ahead?
See his post below for all the details…
– Jo
———————————————
Just how much cooler will it get?
Friis-Christensen and Lassen found the relationship between solar cycle length and temperature in 1991. In 1996, Butler and Johnson applied that theory to the 200 years of temperature data at Armagh, Northern Ireland and found a relationship of 0.4°C per extra year of solar cycle length. I showed that Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory could be used as a predictive tool in 2007. My methodology was copied by Professor Solheim in an article for a Norwegian astronomical magazine. His work predicts a 1.5°C decline, on average, in Norwegian temperatures over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23.
Professor Solheim has a paper in press that credits me with the discovery of the use of Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to predict climate. In the meantime, he has published a paper predicting a 6°C decline for Svalbard, on the island of Spitzbergen, in winter over Solar Cycle 24. At the moment, Professor Solheim and his co-authors have the field to themselves.
…
This is a figure from the paper in press, predicting a 1.5°C decline for Dombaas in central southern Norway. In 2010, temperatures already fell to the range predicted by the paper.
…
Also from that paper, the predicted decline in global temperature of 1.0°C will take us back to temperatures last seen in the mid-19th Century. All the warming of the 20th Century will be wiped out. This prediction is at the 95% confidence level.
….
Professor Solheim and his co-authors have confirmed that solar cycle length is the main determinant of climate, in the correlations over the last few hundred years. So it seems if we want to predict climate, we have to predict solar cycle length. The length of a solar cycle is negatively correlated with its amplitude: the lower the amplitude, the longer the cycle. There are plenty of exceptions though. For example, Solar Cycle 23 was relatively strong with a peak sunspot number of 120, but longer than average at 12.5 years.
We can now predict solar cycle length even before the first sunspots of that cycle have become visible. From Altrock, R.C., 2010, “The Progress of Solar Cycle 24 at High Latitudes”:
“Cycle 24 began its migration at a rate 40% slower than the previous two solar cycles, thus indicating the possibility of a peculiar cycle. However, the onset of the “Rush to the Poles” of polar crown prominences and their associated coronal emission, which has been a precursor to solar maximum in recent cycles (cf. Altrock 2003), has just been identified in the northern hemisphere. Peculiarly, this “rush” is leisurely, at only 50% of the rate in the previous two cycles.”
If Solar Cycle 24 is progressing at 60% of the rate of the previous two cycles, which averaged ten years long, then it is likely to be 16.6 years long. This is supported by examining Altrock’s green corona diagram from mid-2011 above. In the previous three cycles, solar minimum occurred when the bounding line of major activity (blue) intersects 10° latitude (red). For Solar Cycle 24, that occurs in 2026, making it 17 years long.
For humanity, that is going to be something quite significant, because it will make Solar Cycle 24 four years longer than Solar Cycle 23. With a temperature – solar cycle length relationship for the North-eastern US of 0.7°C per year of solar cycle length, temperatures over Solar Cycle 25 starting in 2026 will be 2.8°C colder than over Solar Cycle 24, which in turn is going to be 2.1°C colder than Solar Cycle 23.
The total temperature shift will be 4.9°C for the major agricultural belt that stretches from New England to the Rockies straddling the US – Canadian border. At the latitude of the US-Canadian border, a 1.0°C change in temperature shifts growing conditions 140 km – in this case, towards the Gulf of Mexico. The centre of the Corn Belt, now in Iowa, will move to Kansas.
Similar effects will be seen in China, Russia, Ukraine, Western Europe and South America. Colder tends to be drier, so there will also be a drought effect on top of the shorter growing seasons.
…
For completeness in predicting temperature, let’s also calculate the contribution from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. We can do that by dividing the whole atmospheric carbon dioxide heating effect, as calculated by the Modtran software maintained by the University of Chicago, by the relative contribution by 20 ppm increment.
…
That enables us to generate this graph of climate to 2040. The blue line is the predicted annual average temperature. The red line is that less the contribution from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The higher atmospheric carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions have increased crop yields by 15%, so it is not completely useless.
…
The last time we saw solar cycles as long as Solar Cycle 25 is projected to be was in the Maunder Minimum. Solar Cycles weren’t seen at the time due to a lack of sunspots. They are inferred from cycles in C14.
…
The last time the World had a significant cooling event was in the 1970s. That resulted in some research of what would happen to agricultural productivity in the event of cooling. Above is a map from some of that research showing the thermal limit to wheat growing in Canada as the stippled line and what that would shrink to in the event of a one degree decline in temperature. A 2.1°C decline is predicted over Solar Cycle 24 and a further 2.8°C over Solar Cycle 25. The prognosis for Canadian agriculture is not good.
…
The prognosis for other continents isn’t good either. Early in the 20th Century, it was noticed that there is a strong relationship between sunspot activity and the level of Lake Victoria in East Africa. Then the relationship broke down for 40 years before resuming in the 1970s. Parts of East Africa are currently in drought. Our prognosis of solar activity suggests that will continue for at least another fourteen years.
….
Colder is drier in South America too. The Parana River is the second largest river in South America and enters the Atlantic between Paraguay and Brazil. There are historical records of people being able to walk across it at times in the 16th century. Two Argentinian researchers found a relationship between sunspot number and Parana River streamflow. That relationship and our prediction of solar activity point to a long drought coming for central South America.
David Archibald
His new site about the development of North and Western Australia: http://www.durackdevelopment.com
David Archibald has also posted on WUWT: “The Message in the Dye 3 Data“ and yesterday with First Estimate of Solar Cycle 25 Amplitude – may be the smallest in over 300 years.
Considering we’re about due for an Ice Age, surely we should be doing everything we can to keep the planet warm or to make it warmer?
21
I’d like an ice age! Not to hot!
05
If we move into the next glacial period expect 100 years of war, starvation and genocide as the inhabitants are forced to migrate south enmasse or die.
40
That’s inhabitants of the North.
00
Hmm!
Maybe that’s the problem. Too many people living in the North.
Little known fact number umpteen.
90% of the Earth’s population live North of the Equator.
Tony.
20
And with droughts in Africa and South America, guess where they’ll all want to come….
20
herein lies the problem, you actually believe that – we can do f**k all because we a tiny animal living on this huge planet.
40
Next we will have governments making a tax to fund projects to make the earth hotter!!!!!!
Politicians need to stay away from things like Climate that simply can not be controlled.
40
Nature controls climate, because the cooler it gets near the mesospause it regulates the distance between it and the tropopause, and a thermostat is activated to increase the Suns rays.
This regulation is caused by the density of mass, between the two thermo switches.
Gentlemen, get used to it, we live in a fridge.
In the future, some scientist might prove me wrong.
00
No Markus, you’re wrong, it’s the high priests of the Church of Climatology who have power over nature –
Penance for New “Sin”
“He explains that, “people with money to burn can buy indulgences just like in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. In that religion priests sold indulgences to souls burdened with guilt over their sins. Even today, when Roman indulgences are not generally for sale — at least not for money — forgiveness is only assured to those who complete the required tasks that earn the indulgence. The green movement has absorbed these faux religious elements, and for each one has its own ersatz affectation. Whatever it may mean, raping the earth is not ecologically sound or morally attractive. But if you must rape Mother Earth, then be sure to visit the Green Dragon and pay a sum of money to cleanse your guilt, until next time. Forgiveness for sins is only a carbon offset away.”
“It is possible to calculate the extent of one’s sins online,” Wanliss points out. “According to TerraPass, over the past three years my weekly driving has resulted in about 5224 pounds of CO2 a year, and for a mere $29.95 I can buy an indulgence that will offset the environmental impact of my reckless, indeed sacrilegious, lifestyle. These ‘carbon offsets’ will do as little for the salvation of the world as papal indulgences would for my soul. But for people with a desperate spiritual hunger it is a panacea and penance they are eager to embrace, and an incredible gift to give — it promises guilt free living and a purpose driven life. If only it were true. Go ahead, say the Gore-like business barons, pay the toll at our gate, and this year ‘Give the gift of green.’”
http://religiousleftexposed.com/home/2010/05/climategate-the-green-dragon-and-the-end-of-christianity.html
00
When I said “Climate simply can not be controlled” I meant humans 😉
00
Janama. IHMO, this is one of the greatest puzzles future historians will ponder over when looking back at what appears to be a form of collective pseudo-scientific madness that has taken hold over the last thirty years or so. What I describe as the science-fiction comic book fantasy that Man can either control the climate or limit rises or falls in overall temperatures to some specified but largely imagined “ideal” or “safe” level!
10
Not if they are social historians.
Back in the 1950’s childrens’ comics were very popular. One of the “heros” was Dan Dare (in The Eagle, I think). He was a spaceman, who fought a series of space battles with a race of green men called the Mekon.
One of the Mekon’s major weapons was technology that could control the climate, and while the regular folk on earth suffered wild swings in the weather, Dan Dare fought to save humanity, and eventually (of course) emerged victorious.
A large number of today’s leading climate scientists grew up in the ’50s. Coincidence?
00
Rereke! The green men were never vanquished. Dan Dare failed. Now they have their own ‘Green Parties’ all over the world. Where are you when we really need you Dan?
00
Agree with that Janama, despite all the hype we really can’t make the world hotter.
00
Janama and Kinkykeith. No, I don’t think we can do f all to change our climate.
And as for the new trolls. I understand trolls like dark cold caves to live in, so I can see why you would want another ice age. Maybe you should return to yours?
10
Madjak
You can try to fight orbital mechanics if you like ot try to crate a radiation shield for the Earth next time it passes through our Galaxies radiation belt but the history (in Ice Cores) shows periodicity that should make anyone think.
Maybe 1,000 or 5,000 years tops before we go into the next big freeze.
Just science.
10
Kinkykieth,
That would be cheaper than the 36 trillion slated for agw! Maybe we could go with that?
00
We can avoid an ice age by reopening the Isthmus of Panama which closed three million years ago.
00
Hi Bananabeender
interesting idea but the very fact that it was closed off 3 million years ago probably eliminates this idea.
The last 4 cycles have been about 80 to 100 thousand years each and so well outside any possible influence from Panama.
Probably Milankovic cycles, I think there is a 26,000 year orbital precession cycle at work.
00
1.25 to 0.7 My ago.
Before then ice age periodicity was 41 ky.
This tells a lot about the real reason for the end of ice ages and modern polar weather!
Nothing to do with CO2.
00
We need a greater number, and more frequent, Conferences of the Parties – they don’t need to agree anything, in fact they should be prevented from agreeing anything – but we need to get more carbon into the atmosphere, and as we have all been told, flying to exotic locations is a very good way of doing that.
00
David, I agree that we are heading into cooling, and that it is going to last a long time, but I want to be sure about a few things:
You and others have been at this a long time. I would imagine your work(s) have been challenged by other papers? And these challenges have been answered, or the answer is in the works.
I only ask because the usual suspects will be along to dis this piece, by quoting the work of people who are used to fudging the data in order to prop up CAGW. Of course everyone on their side Knows that the most powerful source of heat energy in the solar system, has little effect on the climate *gag*.
4.9C is a LOT. Just out of curiousity (anyone can answer this, even the small potatos crowd, ie, mattb and co.), how much did temperatures drop, from the MWP into the depths of the LIA?
Did anyone else notice what the UK Met said recently? They seem to think the coming cooling will last 90 years. I thought that rather odd…
00
Unless O2 and all the other variables change – temperatures could drop more than happened after the MWP – maybe up to 5.1C if O2 is not produced in the the cycle. While the sun shines – should be replaced by – When it rains – plant as much as you can (mainly for residential)!
00
My work hasn’t been challenged. Now Professor Solheim et al have used my methodology to start producing papers. See this 6 degree C decline predicted for Svalbard in winter:http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.3256.pdf
10
Your work doesn’t need to be challenged. It’s based on a flawed paper.
As Lassen said in 1999:
(Where is the link to the 1999 paper?)
(When you post a significant quote.The source for it should be posted with it) CTS
02
Tristan,
Why? Give us the reason, not just the opinion. Why did Lassen say that? This is so typical of the way a warming-fan argues. So-and-so said it therefore it’s true. Do you understand why Lassen said that, or are just quote mining for statements that support your preconcieved conclusion.
Jo
20
When the person who originally voiced the opinion then says that they no longer think their original opinion is correct, I think you are entitled to give some weight to it.
But you don’t have to Jo!
00
Because when he revisited his 1991 paper in 1999 he found that the solar cycle and temperature had diverged?
Besides which, FC&L(91) had arithmetic errors corrected by Laut(03) so using the original study as any sort of building block is quite silly.
Not just any old so-and-so. The very so-and-so who co-authored the paper being referenced. One might call him the ideal so-and-so!
cf. Lord So-and-so the 3rd said it therefore it’s true.
A) It’s not quote mining, it’s from the abstract of the updated paper.
B) Archibald is ‘paper mining’. As opposed to actual research, he selects one 20 yr old study from among many more recent ones including an update by one of the original study’s authors.
But hey, believe the “polymath” and let’s find a wager we can agree on. I’m looking forward to a big 40th b’day present 😉
00
That is funny! Jo made the mistake of asking somone who was prepared to do the research. Well done.
00
It sure as hell wan’t you doing the research, was it John!
01
Tristan, you still don’t get it. The universe does not change because anyone “says so”. Who cares if it’s in the abstract? we can quote opinions in abstracts that blow your theory away, but that’s the point – any opinion is only as good as its reasoning and it’s evidence. OK, even IF there are arithmetic errors in FC – when DA and Prof S use a technique, an idea, a method, how do “errors” nearly 20 years ago in arithmetic affect their new calculations with their new data now? That would be Not, eh?
And if the “solar cycle and temperatures” (a vague description) have diverged, there might be a good reason. We know that since 1980 75% of surface stations have disappeared from records, and nearly 90% of the ones left have had concrete or air conditioners, or such like, placed next to them. I have my concerns about any conclusions drawn from the last 20 years of official surface statistics.
As per the bet, would you be prepared to buy the Oz now and put them in escrow in an allocated account at the Perth Mint? Don’t take this the wrong way, but we have concerns that you’d have trouble buying 30 oz in 2022. — Jo
20
“And if the “solar cycle and temperatures” (a vague description) have diverged, there might be a good reason.”
Lassen ’91 is a pretty famous paper claiming a solar link to global temperature. It’s all the more famous because what appeared to be a good correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature in ’91 subsequently broke down. It did break down. There’s no wriggle room. It catastrophically broke down. I don’t really understand how you can write on the topic and not be familiar with the paper.
To put it in perspective the Lassen prediction for present global temperature, given the length of the last solar cycle, would be that global temperatures should be near 1900 levels. Clearly they are not. It’s that wrong.
“We know that since 1980 75% of surface stations have disappeared from records, and nearly 90% of the ones left have had concrete or air conditioners, or such like, placed next to them. I have my concerns about any conclusions drawn from the last 20 years of official surface statistics.”
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say you have concerns about about conclusions drawn from ANY period of official surface data? For the last 20 years just look at the satellite record. We’ve warmed since 1990. Evidentially then we have not returned to 1900 levels.
I remember David Archibald made a failed prediction of sharp cooling for May 2009. These predictions of large drops are unfeasible. I don’t have a clue why anyone takes them makes them let alone takes them seriously.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=197
00
The point is, the connection between solar activity (whichever way you measure it) and temp breaks down in ~1980. Ignoring this and trying to predict future temps from solar activity alone is a fool’s errand.
Allow me to reassure you.
Of course not. I don’t want any more of my money in long-term investments. I’m not going to constrain my ability to spend my own money to satisfy your concerns. A legal document will have to suffice.
00
Link to Lassen’s 1999 paper.
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr99-9.pdf
00
Hi Otter
The things you mention MWP and LIA and 90 years seem to be about minor perturbations.
The big freeze has a cycle in the order of 90,000 years; huge ice fields form over much of the planet and of course the oceans drop dramatically.
Tasmania will be under ice but we will be able to walk to New Guinea.
00
Looking at this from a new point of view.
300 million years ago O2 rose rapidly to nearly 35% and CO2 dropped to nearly present day concentrations. The temperature was nearly equivalent to today. Since then to the current period (Present) O2 has risen and fallen nearly a mirror image of temerature. More O2 = higher temperature. Currently less O2 is in the atmossphere than of concentrations of the past and temperature is dropping. Along the same lines – the Mobile Marine ectoterms have increased along with the number of marine genera. Plants and animals are becoming the indicators of temperature. When there is increase in O2 – the result is an increase of life. Amazing! The current levels of O2 are falling – due to mankind! Unfortunately this has nothing to do with CO2 and fossil fuels etc. Increase CO2 to aid the total biological system and O2 levels will increase (mainly plants) and temperatures will rise again to prevent this impending cold period. I have the graphs but not the links – maybe I can email to CTS!
Basically we are in for a cold spell unless CO2 concentrations increase and land management improves – eg more crops everywhere!
We have to get more O2 into the system ASAP – and you can’t do that with a tax – only with photosynthesis and CO2 – which equals O2 – which equals temperature increase and species survival and diversification.
Have to go back to true environmentalism – not politics and flimflam!
00
This next ice age is to do with the sun, our planets distance from it and the orientation to it.
More CO2 won’t and can’t change the temperature.
20
Well that makes sense Dave. Just burn more fossil fuel to cool the planet. Who would have thought it?
00
How about people just start leaving our planet alone?
00
Been away for some time but let me ask you again John….Where is the “Hotspot”. Until you show it your constant CO2 theory is still garbage.
10
Agree with you Dave, what goes up can also go down – faster. Its a pity we have such smart scientists who dont have the wisdom to prepare Australia for all climate variations? A sure recipe for failure as we have already seen with floods and fires killing good people.
Also real smart to increase the cost of generating power when you need it the most – lazy science in my view – should have invented the cheap renewable energy Bob promised.
00
Elsewhere in the blog world, there are earnest discussions of Mayan Doomsday in 2012, new institutional education initiatives to indoctrinate even young children to global warming hysteria in schools, the existential anguish of American conservatives over the failure of the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan to properly oust Obama from the world stage, and of course the philosophical implications of the great Lady Gaga vs. Madonna debate. In truth, everyone is just doubling down on their own favorite dogmatic belief now. It is called incompetence, and it is rampant everywhere. It just means the “experts” have failed the public, and the public is scared, hence uncertain, hence lemming-headed over any attractive idea forcefully pronounced. Runaway global cooling is just as much garbage as is runaway global warming (I have shown there is no carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, and more, that the stable Standard Atmosphere model rules the actual temperatures here, but the “lukewarm” greenhouse believers like Jo Nova and Chris Monckton have also doubled down, on incompetent refusal of the definitive facts), and you should be ashamed to be taking it seriously.
01
Harry,
Your blog is great and I will often refer to it – but Venus and Earth? To obtain a conclusion that JoNova et al accepting the IPCC CO2 effect is a big jump! The overall CO2 influence factor on temperature I am in total agreeance with – but the biological influences have to be evaluated separately when comparing Venus and Earth? This is simply a seperate piece by David Archibald – whom I agree with on some points.
It’s not all about the atmosphere!
00
“Runaway global cooling is just as much garbage as is runaway global warming (I have shown there is no carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, and more, that the stable Standard Atmosphere model rules the actual temperatures”
Cowed they did not Harry, unlike you, they acted like cowards.
00
Harry, I think that one of the important messages from your Venus/Earth comparison is precisely that the Sun and the distance from it is the main determinant of atmospheric temperatures at a given pressure. Now if the Sun reduces its output (which is what is being proposed here) then by your own logic (which I agree with) atmospheric temperatures will fall at those same pressure levels, given that the distance between the planet and the Sun is not going to change significantly. Neither Jo or David has mentioned any “runaway” effect here, just a logical outcome from reduced energy from the Sun, a prediction David and others are making on the basis of a number of indicators that have historical correlation.
Even though David does include a CO2 effect (which you and I disagree with) it is a very minor effect according to him and therefore can be ignored compared to the elephant in the room otherwise known as the Sun.
20
Harry,
That ice ages occur is a well established fact, this gives us cause for concern that the runaway global cooling can happen. The runaway global warming has never happened, and is unlikely to ever happen until our sun changes into a new type of sun. Cooling however can happen very quickly in a couple of decades even.
This point in time I would add a new name for what may occur over the next few decades for the west has abandoned the lessons of the past and has not stored grain and fuel as mandated.
Survival of the fittest maybe the next catch phrase you hear after CAGW dies.
10
Evening all.
For once, I hope the alarmists are remotely right!
We need to invest in gold, social capital and warm socks.
Cheers,
Speedy.
00
A prediction! 4.9 degrees for the mid latitudes over the next 20 years.
Lets talk about it again in 10 years time and see how its progressing…
00
The chart above shows 1.5 in 20 years, old-man-beater. Archibald’s position is that this is over TWO cycles, which is more than 20 years, though I agree it seems too much of a drop.
Even the Met office, as I noted, said something to the effect of 90 years.
00
Oh hey, btw, old-man-beater: your god hansen predicted a certain highway would be under water ‘in 20 years,’ 23 years ago. It is Still at the same height above sea level as it was in 1988.
Let’s talk about it again in 10 years; time, and see how it is progressing…
10
You are on tender ground, son.
00
I agree, I am pushing it, and I apologize to all Decent people who read here. I shall behave!
Err, but while I have your attention… could you give a few warnings to the hansenists?
00
Sure thing John! Don’t bother to write.
00
But Johnny, it’s the great moral challenge of the week.
More evidence that those who deny that the climate changes were dead wrong!
The time to act is now!
What we need is a massive authoritarian global response to this issue led by the UN and that’s going to cost big money!
We’ll need to raise taxes.
00
“”A prediction! 4.9 degrees for the mid latitudes over the next 20 years.””
You cannot predict, nothing more than a biased wit.
00
Well John, we’ve endured your Luddite warmies unsubstantiated (flawed models) predictions of rampant runaway warming, NY under water, ocean bouillabaisse, etc., for so many years now and none of which has remotely come to fruition. Like the Mayans, you have failed to predict your CAGW religion’s demise … 10, 9, 8, …
00
Correcting myself on one point:
4.9 C seems a bit much. The very first thought I had was the ‘new iceage’ scare from many of these same ‘man-made’ global warming scientists, in the 70s.
I DO believe things are going to get cooler. But will it be another cooling like the one we climbed out of in the 80s, or will it be something closer to the LIA?
Chances areFair bet, we won’t be getting proper numbers from hansenis adjusticus and co.00
To clarify your point about the Met Office’s position, their most recent report of Jan 24 states:
Somebody’s got to be wrong. But at least we have definite predictions.
00
Has the Met Office got any predictions right? The Met Office predictions have been so bad (had to support the AGW outcome) that predictions based on a coin toss had better chances of success.
20
The next one will go all the way to the bottom like existed 18,000 years ago.
New York was under 1500 metres of ice then and of course nobody lived there.
00
I’m glad a cooling of 4.9 degrees in 20 years seems a bit much to you otter! I’d wonder about your sanity if you thought it was likely.
00
I have no doubts at all about yours, brooksie. No respect, either.
..with apologies to God, of course.
00
Do us a favor please Jo,
Can you calculate mesosphere temp,
With a postive heat flux at TOA
And a negative heat flux at the Tropopause?
00
We do have the recent prediction by one of the Greens Chief Chicken Littles, Christine Milne, that we are still on track for a 4.0C rise by 2050 on the way to over 6.0c by 2100. She’s fully supported by Our Climate Commissioner Professor Tim “there’ll be endless drought and even if it did rain the ground will be so hot there’d be no run-off” Flannery and he’s still being paid $180,000 taxpayers money annually by Julia Gillard for his part-time scare-mongering, so be afraid, be very afraid!!
00
Perhaps Tim Flannery could apply to become an honourary American.
“From the campaign trail in Florida on Wednesday, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich told supporters that earlier in his career he introduced something called the Northwest Ordinance for Space. He acknowledged that it was the “weirdest thing” he’s ever done, but today he says he stands by what it called for.
“I think the number is 13,000 — when we have 13,000 Americans living on the moon, they can petition to become a state,” recalled Gingrich.
The crowd in Cocoa, Florida responded with both laughter and applause.
“By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” Gingrich added. “We will have commercial near-Earth activities that include science, tourism and manufacturing.”
http://rt.com/usa/news/gingrich-moon-florida-space-795/
00
Jo,
I’ll get somebody else to do the,
Negative heat flux at mesospause
Positive heat flux at tropopause.
00
The last few interglacials have been spaced anywhere from 100,000 to 80,000 years apart and suggestions have been made of control by elements of solar orbital mechanics or possibly Earths orbit periodically intersecting galactic radiation trails.
Whatever the cause it seems to be so regular we should be making plans for the next snap freeze.
This is not another pointless scare like AGW, this is real.
10
KK,
I am not in disagreement but i find this rather funny, we are warming the planet with CO2 (just how much is debateble) and we are scorned upon so if an ice age hits will we be allowed to warm the planet?
00
Hi Crackar
If only our capacity to “warm” the planet was real: we can’t do anything.
The only possible way out for us is to gassify Governmentium and make it a part of the atmosphere.
Its saving feature is its high molecular weight which would increase the density of air, push up pressure and maybe save us?
Not 🙂
It looks like at some stage of the earth’s progress, a lot of people are going to be crammed into the tropics for 70,000 years during the next ice age.
00
The Earth’s repetitive glaciations (60,000 years)and attendant periods of GLOBAL WARMING (20,000 years) are a matter of geological record. They were not man made in the past and the next one won’t be either.
Too many people have an inflated opinion of the quantity of heat created by the current world population. It is an irrelevance.
10
KK,
It may not turn out as bad as surmised –
“Between 1400 AD and 1814, the last time it happened, the River Thames in London froze over 26 times. And when it froze solidly, Londoners made the most of it, and the “Frost Fairs” developed.
The tidal, somewhat salty Thames is a deep, fast-flowing river today, but before the Old London Bridge was demolished in 1831, the river’s waters were pooled slightly behind the medieval arches, which probably helped the ice take hold.
It was also the time known as the “Little Ice Age”, when winters were colder and more severe than they have been since 1800 or so.
The huge, medieval bridge, with houses and shops above the numerous archways, is shown in the background of the woodcut to the right of this text, depicted during the Frost Fair of 1683.
The text accompanying the woodcut says:
An Exact and lively Mapp or Representation of Boothes and all the variety of Showes and Humours on the ICE of the River of THAMES by LONDON During that memorable Frost in the 35th yeare of the Reigne of his sacred Maj King Charles the 2nd
The embankments had not yet been built, either, and so the River Thames was wider, shallower, and probably a little slower….”
http://www.webhistoryofengland.com/?p=613
00
Hi Kevin
Nice to hear from you, but I was not referring to the “LIA’ that was just a blip.
It is probably no coincidence that Neanderthal man was pushed down towards Spain by the advancing ice and ended their days on Earth about 30,000 years back.
The last full glaciation ended about 18,000 years ago and full ice melt was in progress 12,000 years ago. This caused the oceans to rise 119 metres.
The Oxygen proxy temperature records show that this periodic phenomena goes back about 390,000 years and has very distinct profile of cooling and heating that is hard to deny.
Short warm interglacial followed by a long cold freeze.
00
KK,
“That adds up to a whopping 4.9°C fall in temperate latitudes over the next 20 years.” JN
What sort of effect would that lowering of temperature have in temperate latitudes in terms of ice and sea level changes?
00
Not being alarmist are we KK? Surely not.
00
There really is nothing personal in this, it’s just the way lyrics are told;
In the land of the free, they coward and scorned, with a big red dragon, to ward of the horns.
Markus Fitzhenry.
00
cowed ? or cowered?
00
”Gingerella, come get your shoe!”
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-day-shame-20120126-1qjt1.html
00
Jo
Another option would be to run the bet in a less binary manner. We each give our median estimates, and if temp falls at the midpoint of our estimates it’s square. For every 0.01C deviation towards either of our guesses however it’s 100g gold equiv owed, capped at 1kg.
ie if your median estimate is say, +0.00, and mine is +0.18, then if in 2022 it was +0.09 it’s all square, +0.13 would mean you owed me 400g equiv and -0.01 would mean I owed you the full 1kg.
00
Well, that wasn’t a very elegant back-peddle from your original offer, was it.
I am very disappointed, I thought we were going to have some fun there, for a while.
00
& I s’pose all bets are off if the globe experiences a bit of abnormal volcanism?
00
Its a matter of finding something as objective as is humanly possible. Say you use GISS temperature data. What if GISS change the way they compute their temperature? The bet would have to be cancelled.
Maybe you can make up your own composite index of temperatures from a few dozen rural weather stations, with agreed rules on what happens if any stations cease operating or have gaps in their record. Too hard for me.
00
“Too hard for me.”
Indeed.
00
Reply to Kieth H., in the first comment:
The CAGW phenomenon seems to have a lot in common with the Colonial “Salem Witch Trials”.
No etiology was ever pinned down (to my knowledge), but some type of collective madness gripped the populace, not unlike today.
Rest assured that John Brookes and MattB and Tristan will continue to insist that the Earth is warming, as the glaciers march across their driveways … …
Regards,
Mark H.
00
This is hilarious in light of the new high temperature record in the Arctic for 2011. Seriously you guys are such cheeky little funsters aren’t you? Glaciers across the driveway might take a while I suspect given that most of them are in rapid retreat.
That river in Egypt you guys inhabit seems to be silting up rather badly.
00
Just out of curiousity, temp, can you give us an idea of what record highs in the Artic were like during, say, the Holocene Climate Optimum?
00
Didn’t I just read that record low temperatures in the arctic were being blamed for the development of an ozone hole similar to the antarctic?
Apparently it’s OK for one group of researchers to have record highs, while another has record lows, depending on what scare they are pedaling.
Perhaps it’s a height thing, & one lot were wearing their carpetbaggers high healed riding boots.
00
Must be from that temp measurement point near the airport.
00
Temp,
As usual, an incorrect and unsubstantiated claim! Perhaps you can show some data from a source that can’t be “adjusted ” by Hansen and his minions? Right now, the world’s average temperature is dropping and so are the oceans’ heat content.
Here is a news flash for you. Your masters at the CRU and NASA are saying that the warming stopped 15 years ago and that we are looking at a cooling cycle. The Met Office, renowned for its failed global warming and ” barbeque summer” predictions is spinning the news to say that “Global Warming” will limit the temp increase to a number so statistically small that it falls within the error bars. NASA and the CRU are basing there predictions of global cooling based upon SOLAR CYCLES!
Perhaps you and your cheerleading research partner, John Brooks, can click on the following link to do some scholarly due diligence and afterwards comment on the validity of the article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
I will be standing by with a shoehorn to pry your foot from your mouth and my foot from your ass! 😉
00
Of course, this is Stephen Schneider’s revenge.
He went right through the 1970’s trying to warn us about global cooling, and nobody took any notice.
Perhaps he was right all along?
00
A stopped clock is right twice a day. Schneider predected everything, so he has to be right about something.
I have more respect for Ehrlich, who stuck to his guns (still is) and consistently predicts the wrong things. Since being always wrong is just as useful (when you are aware of it) as being always right, we should consider Ehrlich a valuable resource. He always supports theories that prove wrong.
Schneider, on the other hand, was about as useful as a “magic 8-ball”.
00
Might be a good idea to check out what Leif Svalgaard is saying over at WUWT:
[January 25, 2012]
“the sunspot number is artificially too high [inflated] by 20% after 1945.”
Leif seems to have some “clout” in this field, and it doesn’t look like he concurs with Archibald’s conclusions.
00
It may get hotter, it may get colder, it may stay the same. We do not know because we do not understand anything about what is happening inside the sun. We have a few centuries of data on a few parameters we can measure. If these are a reflection of the internal processes of the sun then these charts may hold some ability to forecast future climate.
I hope so.. I would like to see the temperature drop a few degrees.
00
If this turns out to be the way things happen, at least I can now recommend a place to deport all climate scientists. A place in central Norway named Dombass!
How sweet is that?: “Mr. Hansen, where do you live now Dombass?”
00
this $4million-plus study refutes Archibald!!! LOL.
27 Jan: SMH: David Stringer, AP: UK ranks top risks posed by climate change
Coastlines, working patterns and even the country’s most famous meal are under threat from climate change, Britain says in its first-ever national assessment of the likely risks…
In a gloomy forecast for Britain’s environment department, a panel of independent analysts predicted as many as 5900 more people could die as a result of hotter summers – but also claimed there will be a sharp reduction in deaths currently due to cold weather by the 2050s…
Infrastructure and businesses will be badly affected by more frequent floods, with the cost of damage likely to rise from £1.3 billion to as much as £12 billion by the 2080s, if adequate preparations aren’t taken.
By the 2050s, between 27 million and 59 million people in Britain are likely to be living in areas suffering problems with water supplies, the report claims…
Analysts predict an increase in the overheating of workplaces, which would harm businesses by reducing employee productivity and increasing energy bills, because of a greater reliance on air conditioning.
Without alteration work, sewers will overflow more frequently and spill pollution into seas and rivers, while heavier rainfall is likely to cause frequent damage to roads, railway tracks and bridges.
The report also warned that Britain’s stocks of cod – a key component of the nation’s beloved fish and chips – will dwindle, but should be replaced by more plentiful numbers of fish such as plaice and sole.
However, the study also points out possible benefits to Britain. It notes that there will likely be better yields for crops of wheat, sugar beet and potatoes, that the melting of Arctic sea ice will open quicker shipping routes and that warmer temperatures will make the UK a more attractive tourist destination…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/uk-ranks-top-risks-posed-by-climate-change-20120127-1qk4p.html
00
folks, this is why the public needs CONTROL over what happens to their SUPER/PENSION FUNDS:
25 Jan: SMH: Paddy Manning: Funds using climate risks in asset decisions
SUPERANNUATION funds, including the $42 billion industry fund AustralianSuper, are beginning to factor climate risks into investment decisions, according to a report by actuarial firm Mercer.
The report surveyed 12 pension funds around the world, with a combined $US2 trillion ($1.9 trillion) in assets, to identify what follow-up actions they had taken since Mercer found last February that climate could account for 10 per cent of typical portfolio risk and that funds should invest 40 per cent of their portfolio into so-called ”climate-sensitive assets”.
Of the 12 funds, including AustralianSuper and VicSuper, Mercer found: more than half had decided to include climate change considerations in future risk management and/or strategic asset allocation processes; half had changed or planned to change their asset allocations and; 80 per cent had or would increase their engagement on climate change with companies and policy makers…
The Guardian reported last Thursday a high-profile coalition of investors, politicians and scientists wrote an open letter to the Bank of England governor Sir Mervyn King, warning that the huge reserves of coal, oil and gas held by stock exchange-listed companies were ”sub-prime” assets that were potentially mispriced and posed a systemic risk to economic stability…
http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-funds/funds-using-climate-risks-in-asset-decisions-20120124-1qfnn.html
00
here’s the DEFRA study!!!
DEFRA: Summary of the Key Findings from the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2012
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=Summary_of_Key_Findings.pdf
00
The dog fight of politics, make us blind.
Markus Fitzhenry.
00
I wouldn’t be making too much of these predictions or the alarmists might hear and jump ship once again. Hot or cold it doesn’t matter to them. They can get as much mileage from either scenario and the politicians as much revenue from either.
On the basis that things climate wise are a bit more complex than warmists or freezists seem to realise the skeptical response should be pull the other one mate. In the mean time keep those lovely, hopefully increasingly efficient, coal fired power plants roaring along …just in case.
00
Jo,
Snip if already posted
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/26/what-in-the-world-is-going-on-with-global-temperatures/
00
I’d say this falls into the courageous predictions category. Courageous in the Sir Humphrey sense that is!
00
Question is Temp.
Do you have the courage to admit you are wrong?
00
David Archibald is speaking in Parliament House, Canberra on 15 February which has been organised by Craig Kelly, MHR for Hughes NSW. If anyone wants to attend, contact Craig Kelly. It will be 11.00 am to 12.30 am, in Room 1R3.
00
Well, if nothing else it appears that global warming fears have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin. Thank goodness the Green Labor Party got the carbon tax implemented in time and with so much legislative barb wire that it will almost be impossible to untangle it without sending the Aussie taxpayer broke (sarcasm). Any chance we can pack Juliar, Bob and Tony Abbott off to Antarctica on an extended diplomatic mission of goodwill to experience global warming firsthand?
00
Ice Age cometh. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Heard it all before.
(You are invited to post a thoughtful counterpoint to Dr. Archibald’s provocative presentation) CTS
00
What would you know. All you do is cut and paste.
00
Yeah, no way it can get cooler for as long as there are clouds and rain, eh Ross?
Everyone knows clouds suck heat out of the sun until the water vapour becomes so energised it rockets down to earth as rain and heats everything up.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/#comment-939424
00
Dude, I’m really pissed you stole my thunder there and I had a perfect trap set waiting for him to come up with support for that claim. If you’d have waited we might have caught JB and Matty in the same bait.
Thanks for that…..
00
My sincerest apologies Mark D, if I inadvertently upset your plans.
However, in my defense I would point out the following:
1) – I had no way of knowing you were setting up a “trap” – such is the nature of blogs;
2) – I posted my comment twelve hours after Ross had posted his nonsense and you had challenged him, with no reply forthcoming;
3) – Do you really think somebody so dumb as to post: –
– REALLY needs needs to be “trapped” into anything?
After all what could he possibly have added to make himself look even more foolish; and
4) – Even Matty is not that ignorant – not sure about JB though.
.
But then JB doesn’t need any help in making a fool of himself.
In that field he is something of an expert.
00
MV, you make excellent points. Save your apology for another day. I withdraw my pissedness.
With regard to Matty, one has to ask; if he is as smart as you suggest, why wouldn’t he comment to correct the error? Could it be that warmists cannot bring themselves to correct each other?
That could be a revelation……
00
Hammer. Nail. Head.
00
I’ll co-author a cloud paper with Dr Roy Spencer. Perhaps that will convince the ones who are too wayward with the science.
He makes far more sense then some of the stuff here – why even http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/17/thanks-and-apologies/ can sometimes make more sense and stand up for good science.
See if I’ve got some time to refute some of DA’s assertions about the cooling hypothesis.
00
Is it possible Ross was under the shower with the hot tap on?
He does seem to get confused easily.
00
Appeal tp pit, argument by dismissal, appeal to authority. Ross, I intentionally avoided using the Latin names for the fallacies as I didn’t want to overwhelm you.
Yep, my good deed for the day, check that one off my to do list!
00
Jo – Sorry to be O/T but I was researching for a talk I was giving yesterday and only just became aware that the wonderful Noor van Andel had passed away last April. Did you know?
You posted his paper back in February 2011
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/the-oceans-clouds-and-cosmic-rays-drive-the-climate-not-co2/
A lovely tribute is here
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/climategate-berichten/~3/xLNmD66psgA/
I hope the translation works
What a great loss at such an early age.
00
Hi Retired Dave
I must have been overseas early in 2011 and somehow missed Noor Van Andels post and papers.
Have printed off all I could get ready to read.
It looks really interesting.
Thanks for the links.
🙂
00
David A’s work is interesting. I didnt notice error bars and confidence levels. His 4.9 degrees prediction is based on imprecise data. To quote a figure to 0.1 degrees precision many years in the future is “courageous”. It is typical of climate science to quote unwarranted precision on results based on combining various uncertain measures. All participants in the debate should do better.
00
Sorry David and Others.
I did follow your paper but as usual got caught up in something else in my posts, namely the next big ice age due to orbital issues rather than your work on possibly less threatening cold snaps from Solar output variations.
🙂
00
The global warming “debate.” It continues unabated. Fossil-fuel , mining, conservative politicians and pundits, and misguided and ill-informed bloggers are telling us “No problem, don’t do anything. Keep burning fossil fuels, impose no Gillard Tax, no costs. Just dig and import more oil.
My Aussie bullshit meter is flashing red. (Ross.I have been approving many of your comments lately.Including this one.It passes Akismet.But lands in the pending bin.Maybe the blog software has its own hidden “Aussie bullshit meter” in it?) CTS
We see daily here climate sensitivity estimates too high, too low, or it’s all the sun, or it’s galactic cosmic rays or atmospheric pressure (a new novel theory that is bulldust) or cattle paddock albedo or some supposed mini-ice age calculation, or launch into a typical diatribe about emails from the climate research unit. Attempts to argue why gets this world no where. Posts like this and indulging in same is a daily attack on all scientists that disagree with you. Government offices and funding is a wild unproven conspiracy that it is all lies. It is bucket throwing sh*t and has NO part in the Australian fair go and egalitarian society. It all should be sent to the trash-bin.
Proselytizing cuts both ways — insisting climate sensitivity is high, or it’s not the sun or cosmic rays, or a diatribe about the character assassination of honest climate scientists. We need solutions and it’s about time the walls of enclave around all and sundry should fall down.
Until that happens – when an “East and West” experience of tearing down the walls of hostility and separation happens – we will continue to fight each until the last breath whilst our lovely planet may be under the real threat thought to be non-existent. Sitting on our stone benches debating whether we should chop down the last tree on Easter Island may well be closer to the truth.
Inspired by Open Mind and edited.
00
Ross,
you say here, my bolds added:
If the problem was so dire, then why are Governments NOT doing everything they can to stop those emissions.
Hey! How easy is to just shut down those coal fired power plants? Just pass legislation. That will stop those emissions cold.
Instead, the ONLY thing they are doing is passing legislation to raise money from those same emissions, something that patently will do nothing to actually lower those emissions to the level required, zero, as your side so desperately says.
When your side actually starts to close those coal fired power plants, then THAT will send the required message to the public that there really may be something to worry about.
Until they actually do that, then what they have done (impose a cost on those emissions) is a patently obvious cynical attempt to make people think that they are doing something.
Man, just shut ’em down if the problem is so dire.
No, that would amount to sheer and absolute political suicide.
It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.
It’s just about the money!
Tony.
00
Ross James
IF the planet was indeed warming, and IF that warming was going to produce the alleged catastrophes of hotter weather, droughts, food shortages, rising sea levels, millions of climate refugees etc, then the intelligent thing for people and nations to do would be:
1) – Build more baseload power stations (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, whatever):
To power the air conditioning so we can continue to work and survive, provide refrigeration to stop our food from spoiling, power the pumps we would need for expanded irrigation projects, and even power desal plants if necessary to provide the water, plus many other things.
2) – Build more dams:
To increase our capacity to store vital water when it does rain.
3) – Increase our infrastructure so that we can cope with all the refugees:
These “millions” of refugees will homes, food, water, clothing, transport, power etc.
4)- Wherever possible, increase our food-growing capacity.
5) – As nations, practice a bit of conservatism in spending, and accumulate capital tackle the problems that will come – such as building seawalls as an example.
.
But IF, Ross James, IF the world is indeed cooling, as all the observed data shows that is at the moment, and we instead face the known, bleak outlook of a cooler climate with reduced growing seasons, drought, hunger, starvation, THEN the intelligent thing to do would be:
1) – Build more baseload power stations (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, whatever):
To power the air conditioning so we can continue to work and survive, provide heating for greenhouses maximise food production, power the pumps we would need for expanded irrigation projects, and even power desal plants if necessary to provide the water, plus many other things.
2) – Build more dams:
To increase our capacity to store vital water when it does rain.
3) – Increase our infrastructure so that we can cope with all the refugees:
These “millions” of refugees will homes, food, water, clothing, transport, power etc.
4)- Wherever possible, increase our food-growing capacity.
5) – As nations, practice a bit of conservatism in spending, and accumulate capital tackle the problems that will come – such as building vast greenhouses as an example.
.
However, because of people JUST LIKE YOU whether it is getting warmer or cooler, we are going into it with:
1) – Windmills instead of useable power.
2) – No new dams.
3) – Crumbling infrastructure – money directed into windmills and “Clean Energy Future Funds” “halls for schools” and subsidised solar panels and home insulation and a hundred other crazy, useless, “feel good” projects.
4) – 30% and growing of the world’s surplus (exportable) food supply now diverted to the production of biofuels while people starve.
5) – Nations that have bankrupted themselves on, amongst other things, the Great Green Dream.
.
Regardless now whether it gets warmer or cooler, when the dying starts in earnest, as it will and must now, the carnage is going to rest fairly and squarely at the feet of people JUST LIKE YOU, Ross James.
.
And you have the unmitigated gall to come here and throw a hissy-fit because some of us disagree with you and your ultimately genocidal demands?
Ditto for the rest of you trolls.
10
Well said MV, Bravo!-
In the face of adversity, people with a mindset like Ross tend to panic and run directly into the path of the oncoming freight train. This stems from the deluded belief that they have analytically arrived at a solution to a percieved threat merely by, in their minds, accurately identifying it. The fact that they may be incorrect in the first place or that their prescribed actions are often incredibly poor solutions (even in the unlikely event that they have accurately identified the threat initially), fails to penetrate the cone of silence in which their headspace resides.
And yes, that is an ad hominem, and I make no apologies for it.
The solutions prescribed by MV are the progressive, adaptive response of intelligent individuals, who are keeping open all possible eventualities, realising that fully elucidating such a complex and ill-understood system as our planetary climate is difficult or impossible at our current state of knowledge.
A prudent, pragmatic, unbiased and all-encompassing suite of approaches (as skeletally outlined by MV in his post above) is a far more appropriate and intelligent response than the pathetic excuses for “solutions” suggested by our scientists and politicians, whose pie-in-the-sky “get-rich-quick” schemes and nonsensical Luddite “Green” approaches are regressive rather than progressive, and more importantly lacking in practical understanding of how society optimally operates and how it must remain functional at its maximal economic and sociopolitical level in order to adapt to any given situation as it arises.
Weakening the economic foundations of Western civilisation is stupidity personified, and will only make us LESS able to adapt and LESS likely to find appropriate technological solutions to the issue, even if the threat you perceive is real (as unlikely as I believe that may be).
00
A little off the main topic, I know but it is relevant to the original comment from Ross.
memoryvault makes some telling points, but by far one of the most telling is where he says this:
He adds after that … so that we can cope with all the refugees:
What needs to be done, and done pdq is to increase infrastructure to cope with ALL of us.
For a number of years now, Governments have failed, and failed most comprehensively to construct meaningful power plants to cope with increasing demand. That demand is not increasing from an increase in consumption, only part of the story, but from an ever increasing population, all the while, older plants closing down unreplaced with new ones. I mean, what Government in their right mind is going to propose a new large scale coal fired power plant.
Only two States in Australia have enough power to cope with demand, Victoria, and Queensland.
NSW has equal supply for their demand.
Queensland exports power to NSW.
Victoria exports power to NSW.
Victoria exports power to Tasmania.
Victoria exports power to SA.
SA is almost at the critical stage themselves. Incidentally, this State, SA has the highest amount of Wind Power in all Australia, and they pay considerably rate (wholesale) for their power, so you can see what Wind power costs right there.
NSW has reached the situation where they will ‘run out’ of power some time in 2014 as per the following diagram at the link.
NSW Demand Master
Without new ‘real’ power plants, the Country will, quite literally, grind to a halt.
Victoria faces a major problem when the desal Plant comes on line as the power required to run that is equal to the total power output of Hazelwood.
It’s no good constructing piddlingly useless boutique power plants using the wind and the Sun.
Australia need REAL power and it needs it sooner, rather than later, and plants of the large scale nature are years from proposal to delivering power.
Source for power supply demand data.
This is the most recent data from the Federal Government.
Tony.
00
Tony, I had a quick look at the report and noticed a couple of things.
1. Apparently we have 47.5% of the world’s uranium resources. Wow.
2. A 240 MW expansion of a coal fired power station cost $245m and at 206 MW wind farm cost $750m. Must be green energy. Costs 3 times as much to produce less power, and I am sure you will point out that the 206 MW is not really 206 MW in the real world.
Thanks for the link.
00
Aha!
I have encountered a minor glitch.
I was hoping that the link I had linked to in that Australian Energy Report would open up at the page I wished it to, and in Preview, it did just that.
However, coming back later, after shutting the computer down, all that link takes me to is the top of that (huge) pdf document, so it doesn’t take readers to the desired page.
This is an important thing to see, so take that link above that says ‘Source for power etc’, and when you arrive there, scroll down to page 20, and just see the position the States are when comparing demand with supply. It’s not very pretty.
Once those older plants reach their use by dates, and considering the average age for a large scale coal fired power plant is 50 years, and most of them are nearly there now, and with NO State constructing large scale power of any sort, then you guess what’s going to happen.
Power rationing, and as much as the average person scoffs at me and calls me scaremonger for even suggesting it, believe me when I say that new large scale plants are at least 5 years from thought bubble to delivering power if all the ducks line up first time around, and with nothing realistic being planned, you tell me what will happen.
Solar Power and Wind power CANNOT, and I’ll repeat that, CAN NOT EVER, supply large scale power 24/7/365.
Governments either bite the bullet and construct new large scale coal fired power plants, just like they are doing in China, and just like I mentioned in an earlier Post here at Joanne’s site, or power rationing, and then power cuts are in store for all of us.
Ross, until you are aware of the consequences of what you are calling for, then you can rabbit on all you like, about whatever you like.
Greens have this clueless dream, but for the rest of us, their dream is a bloody nightmare.
Tony.
00
It’s clear that the perfect storm of economic ruin is coming, where electricity demand outstrips supply and the government’s own glossy paper just confirms it. Yet no action forthcoming, and eliminating coal which provides 75% of a diminishing resource. It does seem inevitable we are in for some really hard times, dependent as we are on computer systems which are in turn dependent on provision of constant electricity supply.
Just one example, I can’t see a patient in a blackout because all our patient data is on computer, drug dosages, personal details, medical history,billing, etc. And vaccines spoil in half an hour in modern vaccination fridges during a blackout if we are not there in business hours, necessitating throwing out thousands of dollars of tax payer funded vaccines. Preview of coming events!
00
This may seem like my trying to extend this comment a little, but I couldn’t help myself from making this observation.
Those from that side of this so called closed debate never seem to have an answer for this, and they always avoid attempting to answer.
So, come on guys, at least try. I won’t bite.
Not much!
Oh, and Winston, I think most of the major hospitals have taken steps to ensure that they always have adequate power for the major areas that require absolutely for power to be always available. Most of them have UPS. (an Uninterruptible Power Supply)
This unit senses any cut in power supply, and automatically, and instantaneously runs up (in the main) large (mainly) diesel engines to drive a generator to supply essential power. Units like this are usually around the size of a large (rail or truck) pallet.
Tony.
00
Tony, looking at page 22 I see stats for Generation Capacity and Capacity Utilisation. The Capacity Utilisation is a little over 52%, does that mean that we could produce almost double the amount of power with the current power plants?
00
Hi Tony,
As a former sparky, I’ve learnt much from your posts and comments, and I thank you for teaching me.
I think that your frustration is due to the fact that the other side simply cannot refute your arguments. The other side will never address your arguments because they can’t refute them. So they must ignore them.
As an OT question, can you point me to information relating to how the windmills come online? By that I mean, there is circuitry which defines when the windmill is producing power, ie., when it is online, and when it is offline. Is this controlled by the suppliers or is it counted as so small that it’s like random fluctuations? I.e., as when all street lights turn on and off. (And yes, before any warmists complain, I am aware that the street lights are controlled by local area light sensors.)
P.S. I’m sure you remember the Frank Sinatra song “High Hopes”. Tony, please keep ramming away at that billion kilowatt dam.
00
Aha! Truthseeker,
you’ve latched onto something that requires careful explanation for a correct understanding, and I hope you don’t mind if I take some time to attempt to explain it.
Capacity Factor is worked out by the industry standard maths:
I am often flamed for expressing such low CF for Solar and Wind Power, and in every case, I use the theoretical maximums for these and these are always higher than actual generation for consumption. The flamers usually mention that they have Natural gas fired plants as low as perhaps single figure CF, and some large coal fired plants as low as 50%, and they say that this is not really much better than Solar or Wind.
This is a gross misunderstanding of what that data really means here.
Large scale coal fired power runs at its maximum generation while ever the generators are running. Large scale plants have down time, usually one generator at a time for carefully planned maintenance. So, the calculation is for 24 hours a day, and 365 days a year, so any down time lowers that CF as you can see. Most of those large scale coal fired plants hum along between 75 and 87% CF, with some of the newer ones even higher, and in fact one of the generators at the plant at Stanwell holds a World record for 1073 days of continuous operation, so that’s 100% from that one generator for almost 3 years.
Some (older usually) large scale coal fired plants are used as spinning reserve, in other words turning and burning but not actually delivering power until they are needed when one of those other plants has maintenance, and this spinning reserve plant comes on line to deliver large amounts of power. So this spinning reserve plant has a low CF, often quoted to me as indicative of ALL coal fired power. Then they take the overall total CF for ALL coal fired power plants, and that can sometimes be as low as 65%, and then they say that renewables can actually equal that. Add together smaller plants that only run part of the time, and those spinning reserve and load following plants, and that does lower the overall CF, but in that mix you might have plants only delivering power for some periods of time on some days of the year. What needs to be realised here is that while ever a large scale coal fired turbine/generator is running it is delivering all of its power all of the time.
The same applies for Natural gas fired power, plants that actually can run up at a moments notice to supply power. These plants are mainly used for those dedicated Peaking Power times when extra power is required on top of the Base load requirement, mainly a couple of hours in the AM, and from 4PM till around 10PM.
Because these plants only run for short periods of time, then their CF is understandably low, even though while ever they are running they are supplying their full power, because the CF is calculated for 24 hours and the full days of the year.
Hence, some NG plants can actually have their CF in single figures.
Now, where that Government Paper mentions we are only using 52% of Capacity, they have worked out how much power is delivered from everywhere by every plant, and then saying that it’s only 52%. You’re not going to run EVERY plant of every type in the country 24/7/365.
See how it’s a clever thing to say, somehow intimating that we actually do have enough power to cover every contingency.
It’s a diversion latched onto by anti fossil fuel people to say that surely we can do without all that power if we are only utilising them at 52% of their total capacity.
It’s a furphy of the highest order, and they’re relying on people misunderstanding what is being said, or not being able to work it out, naturally.
So, even though it may say that we are only running at that 52% of Capacity, there’s no way they are going to run all of those plants all of the time.
You buy a car and use it for when it is needed to do what you ask it to do. You don’t buy that car, turn the engine on in the showroom, and then tap it out to max revs, and leave it at that level 24/7/365 for the life of the car, no matter if you’re driving it or it’s in the garage.
See how that CF can be used as a thing to make a point you want it to make.
The single best CF of any power plant of any type is Nuclear Power, and that is consistently at around 92.5%, and maintenance is so carefully scheduled that in the Summer months the CF for the whole US fleet of nuclear power is up around 96%.
There was a case at the Diablo Canyon Plant where one unit with a Nameplate Capacity of 1110MW, and that’s ONE HUGE generator ran at 102% for a whole 12 month recording period. Non stop 24/7/365 at Max revs for 365 days.
That was because the usual 18 month refuel period when the reactor is shut down fell before and then after the recording period of the full 12 months.
So, when those Greens try to flame me with low CF for some fossil fuel plants, they in fact do not understand what they are reading, and they use what they read as a weapon.
Water off a duck’s back here.
Once it’s correctly explained, I usually never see any further comments from them. If there is a further comment, it’s along the lines that I’m only manipulating the data to support a political point I’m trying to make.
In the case of this Government data, they’re relying on their green supporters to read that and then say that we have enough power so there’s no need to construct any more of them. It’s a fallacy.
As is patently obvious, we ARE running out of electrical power, and for gross political purposes, we are being told that everything is hunky dory OK.
It isn’t.
Tony.
00
MaxL,
large scale coal fired plants run all the time, barring maintenance. These supply the absolute Base Load requirement, and that’s 60 to 65% of every Watt of Power being generated in Australia, and that power is required 24/7/365.
Natural Gas plants are mainly utilised for Peaking Power times, and are run up as needed and turned off when the Peak finishes.
Wind plants are running and delivering their power while ever those blades are rotating, so they cannot be utilised for a Base Load requirement, and because those times are variable, they also cannot be relied upon to cover Peak Power. They just add some boutique amounts of power here and there. As they come on line supplying large amounts of power, the grid controllers don’t just turn off other plants, because, as soon as the wind drops, then that power is gone, so they NEED Demand plus a percentage ALL the time.
I do have a ‘basic’ Post on Wind Power from August of 2009, and be aware, even I have learned more since then. This is just a basic explanation in a manner to explain it to the average person.
The Limitations Of Renewable Power (Part 3)
Tony.
00
Doesn’t help general practice much though, unfortunately, Tony- I do around 8000 consults per year, multiply that by the number of full time GPs in Australia- if 5-10% of the time we are down due to power outages- where do you think these consultations will occur?- at the friendly public hospital ED, already over-run at the best of times though it already may be. I’m sure hospitals are covered as far as power blackouts are concerned, but GP practices are not as they are largely private entities- none of which, in my experience, have back up power or generators to cover outages and they have all (bar a tiny minority) been forced to computerise or perish under accreditation guidelines, especially also having been given the ‘stick’ of Medicare remuneration delays by remaining “off-line” for those who do not wish to embrace the Brave New World of computerisation. And this is just my little insignificant corner of the world, businesses of all kinds would suffer without reliable power. Pick a business type and I’m sure we all would not have to strain too many neurones to see where interruption in power supply will bring many to a standstill, cause waste and compromise efficiency across a broad range of industries and vocations. I don’t understand how any government charged with the welfare of it’s people and the economy in which they attempt top prosper can justify this egregious dereliction of duty in allowing this potential catastrophe to occur, while trumpeting simultaneously what a terrific job they are doing in providing a framework for a modern progressive society. It is almost laughable how far dissociated from reality these people are.
00
Thanks Tony,
So I take it that just like the climate, nobody has any control over these infernal windmills.
Kind of hypocritical really. Those who claim that humans can control or influence the climate, resort to pushing a technology that nobody can control.
00
Tony, thank you for that clear and detailed explanation, although mathematically Capacity Utilisation must be the actual power generated as a percentage of the theoretical maximum as defined by your formula.
I notice that this capacity utilisation value reported is for all plants and it not separated by power generation type. I wonder if the number substantially changes from one type to another. Taking Hydro power out of the equation, the other “renewables” generate about 5% of the total power although some of them still involve burning stuff. I guess CO2 from burning biological matter is not as evil as the CO2 from burning coal …
The “future power generation projects” seem to talk about providing another 5% of the total picture. Not really solving the underlying requirement.
00
Newsflash for Ross…. Your side lost the debate.
It’s basically over but for the mopping up operations at the UN and in Canberra. In the US, China, India and the entire developing the world the climate change policy debate has lost priority over reality.
00
They lost the science, and that will be the debate, from now on.
00
Thanks for the “profundity.”
Ad hominem
Straw Man
It is sad enough that you are looking in a mirror but even worse is that you walk away and promptly forget what you look like!
Complex question
Reductio ad absurdum
Non sequitur, Circulus in demonstrando, ad hominem
Non sequitur
Non sequitur, Post hoc ergo hoc, circulus in demenstrando, straw man.
Non sequitur, dicto simpliciter,
Non sequitur, Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Red herring, Argumentum ad misericordiam , argument by emotive language, argument by scenario
Non sequitur,
Argument by personal charmargument by emotive language, bad analogyNon sequitur.
Ross, you are the first person I have ever encountered who claims to have an edited open mind. A definite contradiction in terms that is as about as logical as your entire diatribe!
00
Come on Eddy your making this up as you go along.
Some of your own recent Ad Homs are classic.
Oils aren’t oils.
00
The truth hurts, doesn’t it, Ross. Maybe you will do a little research on logic and rhetoric before you post any more of your mind numbing drivel.
Non sequitur. Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself?
00
I think, Eddy, that Ross was stating that he was inspired by some diatribe (bovine diarrhoea?) from Tamino. Couldn’t think of anything original apparently.
Must have experienced the first “hot flush” methinks.
Mod: I’ll understand if that last sentence is [snipped].
00
In fairness to Ross I must view your post, Mark, rationally, logically and objectively.
I did some research and could find no fallacy to describe being overly generous, which you were. The closest I could get was charity. They did , however, have a picture of Tamino standing next to a blowout well spewing H2S (hydrogen sulfide) gas. This could be construed as “poisoning the well”, but that is just my opinion.
Gosh, can’t we all just get beyond the indisputable fact that Ross has never expressed an intelligent thought in all the many and myriad comments he has made? Can’t we all just hold hands and sing songs in hope of a miracle occurring? Come on, bro, let’s raise our game!
You have committed a very serious fallacy here. Just because one has never witnessed a miracle (e.g. The parting of the Red Sea, walking on water, global warming, etc.) doesn’t mean that it can’t happen! Just think about how bad you would feel if a “hot flush” (i.e. enough blood rushing to his brain in a torrent powerful enough to enable him to construct a grammatically correct sentence fragment) [occurred]? You really don’t want that on your conscience, do you?
Fortunately, Jo is magnanimous and tolerant! After all, I am still allowed to post here! Right, Jo?! 😉
There you have it, fairness and democracy in action! Never let it be said that Eddy Aruda discriminates against the mentally
feeble (Ross)challenged! As my comments demonstrate, I am willing to respectfully challenge even those on my side of the argument!Hat tip to the logicians on the hockey team!
00
Eddy:
Muchos gracias for your “peer review” of my comment!
00
Ross James: “Keep burning fossil fuels, impose no Gillard Tax, no costs.”
Strewth! I’ll pay for that any day. Sign me up.
Hi Eddy,
I think you might have missed a Pathetic Fallacy, “Fossil-fuel , mining, conservative politicians and pundits, and misguided and ill-informed bloggers are telling us …”
Unfortunately I think you may as well have said it all in idioglossia. Ross seems to have no concept of logic.
00
Thanks, I had to look up idioglossia! I try to learn something new everyday and now I can tick that one off on my to do list. Have a great weekend!
00
You’ve summed it up nicely Ross. Like the smoker with the chronic cough who isn’t sure if its hay fever, dust mites, a cold, or whatever. They only thing they are sure of is that its not smoking that is causing the cough. And if it is smoking that is causing the cough, then they’ll just have to smoke more, because sometimes that is the only thing that settles the cough down.
00
Who do you really think you are. You are the mite in my eyes, fool.
00
Except, John, that cigarette smoke serves no useful purpose to the human body whatsoever and so can be dispensed with without cost to the smoker, other than the discomfiture of weathering the withdrawal symptoms. Coal and oil are absolutely essential to the provision of food, services, health care, transportation, economic growth, standards of living, etc etc- all of which in your sheltered, leftoid universe is trivial, but to those who suffer ill health, are frail, are elderly, are malnourished, are invalided, are breathing(!)… these are the essentials of survival and prosperity. I heard your whinge that you are underpaid relative to other professions in your eyes- well with an attitude like yours toward prosperity, I would think you deserve very little in your direction, since your whole raison d’etre seems to be to deprive others of the self same prosperity.
00
John Brookes
January 27, 2012 at 6:39 pm ·
Appeal to false authority
Non sequitur, Circulus in demonstrando, fallacy of the general rule, Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
00
The knowledge of the structure of logic, is the first tool, we should give to our children minds.
00
“Proselytizing cuts both ways — insisting climate sensitivity is high, or it’s not the sun or cosmic rays, or a diatribe about the character assassination of honest climate scientists. We need solutions and it’s about time the walls of enclave around all and sundry should fall down.”
You do not call yourself a scientist, if you so biased that it completely blinds you to truth of fact. There is nothing to proselytise in science, nothing at all. You really are a disgrace to your profession. And right now I really don’t care if you end up being lampooned.
And let me tell you something smart****, if you keep pushing crap into the face of my fellow Australians, I will hold you up to ridicule in front of you peers.
There has been enough destruction enough in our society, over the rubbish the greens have been trying to push down out throats, and it is going to stop. Bob Brown is delusional, in fact they all are, and we are going to prove it. Them have harmed my countrymen greatly.
You tell me what peace has been over our lands during the last 3 – 4 years. One lesson that will be learned from all of this is the disgusting manner in which climate scientists appealed to authority as their reasoning. Academics my bum. Idiots like you cause disquiet amongst men.
I do do want children being taught incorrect paths of reasoning. Lefto academia, like you, have infiltrated learning, and they are the greatest pollution facing us. I want my brothers children, free of the rhetoric that’s been feed up to them lately.
I want them taught to think for themselves, so they can solve the great mysteries of the universe, and have freedom of thought to love mankind.
Damn you and your entitlement.
Markus Fitzhenry.
00
As long as you’re compiling a list, let’s not forget the 31,487 American scientists — including 9,029 with PhDs (e.g., Edward Teller) — who have signed on to the skeptical Petition Project, in agreement with this published review article demonstrating that the science behind CAGW is, at the least, mistaken.
And, today, we can add 16 more scientists who wrote a scathing editorial (in today’s Wall Street Journal) on the pathetic state of “climate science” and its hysterical demands that we get rid of cheap energy, no matter the cost to civilization.
And, what is your “contribution”? After being chided by the moderators for your juvenile taunt at #29, and promising to produce a “refutation” at #29.2.1.1.3, what you actually come up with is:
and a bunch of cut and paste (edited, of course!) from Tamino (one of those “ill-informed bloggers”).
Wow, are we impressed.
Are you delusional enough to think that this is what you are enabling with this ill-tempered, logic-free rant?
00
O/T but it’s way beyond time for our policy-makers to be held accountable for making policy based on the Flanneries of this world:
27 Jan: Australian: Hedley Thomas: Wivenhoe dam perator omitted key flood evidence
THE operator of Wivenhoe Dam omitted key official documents from its comprehensive major public report that purports to describe in minute detail its performance during the devastating floods last January.
The documents not in the 1180-page report, which SEQWater released publicly in early March and gave to the Floods Commission of Inquiry, indicate SEQWater used the wrong strategy on the weekend of January 8-9.
The omission of the documents is expected to be examined when the inquiry reconvenes for at least six days of public hearings amid concerns and allegations of a cover-up.
The Australian can reveal that a crucial situation report, authored by lead flood engineer Robert Ayre at 5.53pm on January 8 last year, and subsequent relevant technical situation reports (TSRs) were omitted from SEQWater’s major report, titled “Report on the Operation of Somerset Dam and Wivenhoe Dam”…
The revelations came as Premier Anna Bligh denied there was any conflict over the appointment of Dan Spiller, the former director of operations for Queensland’s WaterGrid, to a senior new job advising her on the floods inquiry…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/elections/wivenhoe-dam-perator-omitted-key-flood-evidence/story-fnbsqt8f-1226254733730
00
Richard North @ EUReferendum has a great summary of the Brisbane floods of 2011 and the dire effect of the green agenda.
Links to links to links, it’s all there:
What they would prefer us not to know
00
Quite clearly we need a new tax to fund a team of reputable scientists to design a method by which we can control sun spots.
What is so difficult about that?
00
[snip ahh lionel… lets not go there.]
00
.
We don’t need any scientists – a (Solar) Emissions Trading Scheme should fix it.
Somebody get onto The Goracle pronto – he knows all about setting up such things.
00
Maybe Al would like to accompany the climate scientists as they fly off in Virgin Galactic “ship B” to install the first new sunspot.
00
I must admit to being very skeptical that such a precipitous drop of such magnitude will occur, albeit that I agree that the direct and indirect solar driver, to my understanding, is the prime cause of fluctuations and changes in distribution in global temperature, confounded and vitiated sometimes by the PDO and ENSO fluctuations. These internal planetary oscillations seem to me to vary the lag times in producing the appropriate temperature distributions of the various layers of the atmosphere, as well as fluctuations in ocean currents, jet stream direction and latitude, etc.
I get the sense that we are about to find out just how insignificant CO2 is as a climate driver, when the entire 150 year,gentle 0.7C rise in temperature is erased in under a decade, that should be the stake in the heart of the Climate Change ethos- that’s my uneducated 2c worth, anyway- Dalton, not Maunder……..I hope!
00
Ooops! Should read..” These internal planetary oscillations seem to me to vary the lag times in solar driven fluctuations in temperature distributions of the various layers of the atmosphere, as well as in ocean currents, jet stream direction and latitude, etc.”
00
(Re•duc•tion•ism
noun
1. The practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon, esp. a mental, social, or biological phenomenon, in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, esp. when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation
Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents
[Wiki] )
That is the wiki on reducto, some simplifications do lead to greater understanding, imagine trying to teach kids the Science of Atmospheric without relating it to their understandings.
I have previously posted a little ditty, hopefully something like that can be taught to kids, so they understand more. And frankly some of those lyrics that have been deposited by me, have also helped some of the greatest minds in the fields to understand the wrongness of the greenhouse paradigm.
The art. Roger tattersall posted on Baron Fourier nailed it for me. When I thought about the N&K principle, it clicked immediately. He did not distinguish the manner of mass, between its different composition, in the crust of the Earth.
Casting off greenhouse, I quickly saw the relationship of refrigeration when Rog posted that graph about the temperature through out the atmosphere as stratified, Then looking back Fouriers observations, it was obvious Co2 meant very little to heat distribution in a straight line within the Earth.
I then imagined the greenhouse, as the glass only, and hence a new perspective. But what mechanism drove our system. Clearly not a greenhouse, as its hotter at TOA. Then it struck, refrigeration heat pump. Thermostats, condensers and evaporators, when logically applied to the natural systems of atmosphere, it gelled, like a bolt from Heaven.
To to be sure, I’m not sure it wasn’t. Roger Tattersall, was the reason for my limited understandings.
Markus Fitzhenry.
00
I have to be skeptical on this.Because the projected drop in temperature in just the next 28 years will be about 5C.
That would be an incredible drop based on a singular parameter of the solar cycle.That seems too easy to be making such a bold prediction on.
I can agree that there will be some cooling ahead.But that is because it is due based on the 30 some year cycle that has been known and observed for years now.It was going to cool down anyway despite what the sun is doing.
00
Sunset and others,
The 4.9 degree C drop is for the US-Canadian border. It gets less the closer you get the equator. Solheim et al are predicting a 6 degree C decline in winter temperatures at Svalbard over Solar Cycle 24: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.3256.pdf
00
Dr Archibald,
I think you, Roy Spencer, Habibullo Abdussamatov [PDF], and Henrik Svensmark should all write a paper with your own collective prediction of the next 30 years of global climate. There are two main reasons for this:
☀- Sun positive forcing (Abdussamatov,Archibald) plus cloud negative forcing (Spencer,Svensmark) should cover most of the temperature change.
☀- It would have better political impact due to the involvement of authors from multiple notable nations, plus the different backgrounds and skill sets would join together three technically distinct groups (Engineering, astrophysics, atmospheric science) in the subsequent criticisms.
If you can get Lindzen to stave off his retirement for another year you could add his CERES analysis and call it the “SALSA 2012” paper, which ought to…(groan) spice up the debate a bit…
00
We don’t need another hero, we don’t need to know the way home, all we want is life beyond the thunderdome.
Markus Fitzhenry.
00
Good suggestion, Andrew
There does seem to be a predeliction in Climate Science to look at the multivariate climate system as being guided by one all powerful “forcing”, namely CO2 in the case of the catastropharians. Whereas, the much more likely scenario is that direct and indirect solar influences predominate but are then modified by various atmospheric factors ( like clouds, GH gas composition, humidity, jet stream direction and position, etc), and mitigated or enhanced (depending on direction) subsequently by ocean heat content, phase changes in the hydrological cycle, fluctuations in ocean currents, etc.
By broadening the focus, and appreciating that it is the interaction of multiple forces of varying intensity, then we will hopefully, finally see CO2 being consigned to it’s proper place as a more negligible climate influence. By isolating what I believe are the two predominant influences in the sun and clouds, you would I think be much closer to the truth than by theorising about only one factor in isolation- something we can glean from the glaring mistake of the Warmista zealots in their narrow focus on CO2 as the only legitimate overriding climate driver.
00
David – I think the 4.9 C drop is overstating the magnitude. If you look at the CET the magnitude there was much less than that for the low solar cycles during the Maunder. US-Canada border will be more than the CET saw admittedly due to the moderating effect of the Atlantic on the CET.
My hypothesis is the pSCL linear link to temperature breaks down for the very long solar cycles. As I recall FC&L and Butler & Johnson 1996 don’t include the Maunder period in their analysis, so you can’t see this breakdown from their papers. I saw it when extending B&J 1996 back in time to model CET, which works fine all the way back to the Maunder. But if you use the B&J 1996 relationship for the Maunder you’ll calculate an expected temperature 4-5 C lower than seen in the CET data.
This isn’t to disagree with your argument, as I fully agree for the same reasons. It won’t be fun. However the magnitude for SC25 will probably not be quite so deep for the reason I mention.
00
Thank you for your reply.
My skepticism stems from the fact that the event 300 years ago was embedded in 300+ years of global cooling trend.Thus a significant solar change that favors a cooling trend can be magnified. But the projected sharp cooling in the near future is within a global warming trend of at least a couple centuries long.That would mean the setting for the cooling is going to be against the tide of a couple centuries warming trend.
How do you know that the projected sharp cooling will be able to significantly overcome the underlying warming trend dominance? The one that has been running for at least 160 years.
I think that the projected sharp cooling in the next 30 years will be weaker than the one of 300 years ago despite the similar solar cycle length similarities of both time frames.
I think the reason why the cooling trend from the 1940’s to the 1970’s was weaker.Because it was going against the several short solar cycles that favors warming.The one weaker cycle (20) that came in the 1960’s was the reason why it suddenly got colder.
Did I miss something here?
00
David,
Could you put that it terms of global temp anomaly so we can compare it to IPPC predictions
And what would you say to a layperson who was skeptical that the Earth will respond so rapidly to solar cycle forcing for the same reason that water vapour feedback must be negative. Really complex nonlinear systems maintain their conditions by the use of negative feedback cycles. You’d might expect the Earth’s climate to respond to less energy from the sun with less water evaporation, less clouds, more transparent atmosphere, lower albedo. Maybe, there are are other moderating feedbacks which will ameliorate the cooling rate as well, such as fewer thunderstorms to pump heat to the top of the troposphere?
00
Not entirely O/T…
The admirable Tim Flannery has been mentioned a few times in this thread. And why not, he’s so lovably easy to make fun of. Let’s make it even easier…
I thoroughly recommend “The Weather Makers Re-Examined”, a fairly recent book by Dr D Weston Allen which forensically examines more or less line by line that wonderful 2005 catalogue of mythology. Will make you the darling of any cocktail conversation! Seduce CAGWarmers with your wit and erudition! Finally drive, with insouciant panache, the stake through the fluttering heart of our Climate Change Commissioner!
Get it direct from the publisher: http://www.irenicpublications.com.au
Statement of financial interest: I did actually buy the book. A bloody good read! Apart from that – nil.
00
hmmm!
26 Jan: Reuters: COLUMN-Uncertainty stalks climate science-Gerard Wynn
(The author is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own.)
If public interest in climate change can be measured by political speeches, the issue has fallen on hard times haunted by uncertainty in the science and a continuing economic downturn which demands attention…
What do we actually know for sure about climate change?…
Scientists argue risk is greater on the upside: the lower bound of warming has barely changed at an expected further 2 degrees Celsius warming this century, but the upper bound has if anything risen with scientific understanding, and is more open at 4 degrees or more.
But there’s the problem: it’s impossible to forecast just how much warming there will be because of complex, so-called feedback effects.
For example, climate change may itself alter cloud formation in a way which adds yet more warming, or less, scientists aren’t quite sure. And there are other feedback and non-linear effects (“tipping points”) which are poorly understood.
Even bigger uncertainties lurk behind the impact of warming: the question of when and where climate change will become dangerous, and to whom…
To communicate risk better, governments and scientists must explicitly explain observed and future climate impacts for example from hazardous weather events (hurricanes, heatwaves and floods), where evidence has grown for a climate change fingerprint.
For example, in India it is “clearly seen” that there are fewer rain days and when it does rain it’s heavier – risking flash flooding and damage to infrastructure and crop yields – say scientists at Britain’s Metoffice Hadley Centre…
But it’s not enough just to make climate change real: the uncertainties need to be spelled out, if not resolved, and especially those elusive feedback effects which account for the wide range in estimated warming this century.
Meanwhile a resurgence in political interest will depend not only on a more coherent explanation of the science but timing.
Obama’s reluctance to use words like “climate change” and “carbon emissions” also reflects a weakened position in Congress and a resurgence of conservative voters.
Re-election may embolden him to push the climate agenda once more, especially if impacts themselves intervene as arguably they did in a drought and heatwave in Texas last year. (Editing by Keiron Henderson)
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5E8CP3ZV20120126?sp=true
00
27 Jan: WSJ: No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy..
Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:…
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant…ETC
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
00
What is telling is that AGW, CC, whatever, hardly seems to be getting a mention in the US election. Also, a UK paper is reporting that “punter” interest is fading fast.
00
You cant predict C…..P!!!! BS! Nada You CANT perdict the future it is statstical.
00
Well said memoryvault @ 33.2.
I would add that that the thinking of CAGW believers seems so politically and emotionally shackled as a result of pseudoscientific brainwashing, they either conveniently “forget” or refuse to acknowledge that all plant and animal life has a history of adapting to change, or becoming extinct if they can’t: there are always more benefits than drawbacks from any warming: that increasing esential CO2 has a positive effect on plant life and that benefits for animal life naturally follow: that during the next few years there will probably be sources of energy found, invented or developed that we have not even dreamed of yet: that the gross waste of money on more dodgy computer modelling, and forcing useless, destructive wind energy, carbon tax and carbon credit scams on people is substantially setting back the development of new technologies.
Their gloom and doom mentality is not only depressing but unfounded. Why they subject themselves and their families to such a miserable view of humanity and the world is completely beyond me! As the sayings go- “Get a life”, “Wake up and live”!
00
KinkyKeith @ 10-40am
“The big freeze has a cycle in the order of 90,000 years; huge ice fields form over much of the planet and of course the oceans drop dramatically.
Tasmania will be under ice but we will be able to walk to New Guinea.”
Hi KinkyKeith. Reminded me of a hike I undertook on Cradle Mountain in Tasmania when I was much younger and fitter. I walked above Dove Lake and other smaller glacial lakes up to the very distinct border on the north face of Cradle showing the extent and height of the last glaciation. The whole area is very interesting and shows the glacial scarring in the valleys and elsewhere. I think we do tend to forget that Ice Ages could be considered “normal” and that we are lucky enough to be living in an inter-glacial period.
Interesting to note that Cradle Mountain is a Nunatak. Readers may find interest in the following from Wikipedia.
“The Wisconsin Glacial Episode was the most recent major advance of the North American Laurentide ice sheet.[1] Globally, this advance is known as the last glacial period. The Wisconsin glaciation extended from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago, between the Eemian interglacial and the current interglacial. The maximum ice extent occurred approximately 21,000 years ago during the last glacial maximum, also known as the Late Wisconsin in North America.
A nunatak (from Inuit nunataq) is an exposed, often rocky element of a ridge, mountain, or peak not covered with ice or snow within (or at the edge of) an ice field or glacier. The term is typically used in areas where a permanent ice sheet is present. Nunataks present readily identifiable landmark reference points in glaciers or ice caps and are often named.”
00
Only ever been to Hobart and never hiked there.
The rest, The Wisconsin Glaciation must be the last big one.
Fascinating stuff.
00
If this indeed comes to pass, we are going to need to find some way to feed our Canadian friends. We need to start thinking now about what steps we can take in the face of a major cold climate event that comes on in a generational time scale. How are we going to deal with the increased power requirements from having to keep people warm? How are we going to feed people in the face of shorter growing seasons? How do we deal with countries who might be driven to the point of desperate acts? Now might be a good time to start developing a contingency plan.
00
As memoryvault posted earlier:
1) – Build more baseload power stations (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, whatever):
To power the air conditioning so we can continue to work and survive, provide refrigeration to stop our food from spoiling, power the pumps we would need for expanded irrigation projects, and even power desal plants if necessary to provide the water, plus many other things.
2) – Build more dams:
To increase our capacity to store vital water when it does rain.
3) – Increase our infrastructure so that we can cope with all the refugees:
These “millions” of refugees will homes, food, water, clothing, transport, power etc.
4)- Wherever possible, increase our food-growing capacity.
5) – As nations, practice a bit of conservatism in spending, and accumulate capital tackle the problems that will come – such as building seawalls as an example.
00
As a member of the Rio+20 Panel on Global Sustainability, formerly Agenda 21, Kevin Rudd will be putting forth his plan on what needs to be done to keep global warming below a 2 degree celcius rise.
Kevin Rudd needs to be informed of the error of his ways.
Here is part of his speech to the UN General Assembly, Sep 2011.
http://foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/2011/kr_sp_110922.html
“As a key input to Rio+20, the UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability must develop a clear framework for integrating the three pillars of sustainable development: economic growth, social equity, and the environmental sustainability.
The Panel must also face the reality that human activity is beginning to push ecosystems towards the limits of what they can sustainably bear — against what have been called our “planetary boundaries”.
The planet ultimately can only bear so much.
Scientists tell us there are limits beyond which we should not venture in climate change, biodiversity loss, stratospheric ozone depletion, chemical pollution, ocean acidification, and depletion of fresh water reserves. So not just atmospheric limits, but the oceans as well.
Hundreds of millions of people rely on oceans and coasts for their food and livelihoods.
Marine ecosystems around the world are in decline.
Fish stocks are diminishing.
Coral reefs are feeling immense strain.
We need action to achieve a sustainable, prosperous marine economy — a “Blue Economy”.
Next year at Rio the international community has the opportunity to act decisively to protect a planet under stress.
Just as we need to take effective global action on climate change.
On this difficult but vital road, we have made a start.
Two years ago at Copenhagen, we agreed in the Copenhagen Accord for the first time on a limit of 2 degrees Celsius global warming, on commitments from both developed and developing economies, and on the need for a global system of measurement, reporting and verification.”
00
UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel On Global Sustainability [photo of panel]
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/pages/gsp
00
Hi Kevin
Yes High level.
looked at the photo – there’s KRUDD and the boss of South Africa which is currently going nowhere and doing nothing for its people.
A week or two in New York sure beats trying to run SA.
00
KRudd : “I object to this lineup! These other people look nothing like me!”
00
What that bloke wearing ear muffs for?
00
Shut your guts, Fitzhenry, that’s my dad.
00
http://farmwars.info/?p=7592
Agenda21, “More education increases the threat to sustainability.”
00
Look beyond the oceans, for there you will see, your brother, for they are yee.
Markus Fitzhenry.
00
┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ –Look to La Luna.
└(ಠ_ಠ )┐ –You Cannot Match my Speed.
┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ –Fatality is the key
00
I’m not sure what that was Andrew but it was interesting.
00
It was supposed to be a reply-in-kind to markus, whose bizarre and unrelated poetic interjection reminded me of the mysterious character Reptile in the old video game Mortal Kombat, who would occasionally appear and drop cryptic clues on how to get a hidden bonus.
00
Just keep an eye on La Luna, on that big fatality is the key bus, as it veers around the corner and heads straight towards you.
00
The hierogliphics + indicate a Roswell crash.
00
What Archibald has done is to identify a temperature change in New Hampshire that correlates (and is considered the result of) sunspot activity. His projections appear reasonable, though there is enough scatter to see that less could happen (or more, but recent life tends to be less dramatic than more). What he doesn’t mention is the relationship between the climatic changes in New Hampshire and that of other parts of the world and of the world as a whole.
If I knew how to stick GISTemp graphs on here I could show the difference between NH and the world and its regions, but I’ll have to rely on the reader to go to the official sites. What you must realise, though, is that NASA/Hansen give you different scales! Take what ever temperature profiles you want, and then (PhotoShop for me) squish them onto the same scale and you’ll see that where you consider is important to what you think will happen.
Hanover, New Hampshire, is a good match for New Hampshire. If you group the northern, central US you’ll see that the match is less good, but pretty good. In short, his claim that what happens in Hanover happens in the prairie belt is reasonable, though a little less. Sucking up the contiguous continental US, there is less impact in the gross than there is in the Hanover detail. Distance makes the heart a little warmer, it appears.
Same with the US vs the northern hemisphere and then the world. Subdued, is the result.
The end-result is that whatever happens in Hanover happens less around the world. The temperature from climatic changes impacts land masses in the northern hemisphere more than anywhere else. It is the way the world redistributes initially differentially distributed solar energy.
Hanover may get colder by 2 to 5C, according to Archibald. The world, if truly in the grip of a low sunspot period Dalton period, will go down 1 to 2 degrees. During the Dalton the temperature worldwide went down something like 0.4C, although the continental US was might cold. Considering that the world has already risen 0.9C since the Dalton/early 1800s, a return to the Dalton would more like be a drop worldwide of 0.4 from today, which would bring us back not to the 1820s but the 1945 period. Which wasn’t bad. If Archibald’s more extreme prediction is that the Maunder Period is reproduced, then we would have something to worry about. At least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Despite all the rhetoric about global warming, none of us have any personal experience with disaster in the last 60 years. We’d be unable to identify a 0.6C of warming since the 60s. A Dalton cold drop at this time is unlikely to have the same impact as its namesake, and certainly won’t affect the world, or large parts of it, to even half of what happens in Hanover.
I don’t know why Archibald continues to discuss Hanover without extending his temperature trends of Hanover to the rest of the world. Once previously I mentioned it and he just got miffed.
00
That’s the kind of framing of Archibald’s work we need in order to compare it to the usual climate discourse. It would be interesting to know if Archibald would agree with numbers like Doug’s.
I wonder about that. With the Earth’s population peaking at 9 billion sometime in the next decade or two, and the productivity returns on the last agricultural revolution slowing, plus the world’s financial system in a difficult spot, it might be an unfortunate time to for global temperatures drop by 1c in a decade. That’s about 10 times the speed of the last century of climate evolution.
00
If your Maurice Strong, the word “unfortunate” should be replaced with the word “fortuitous”!
00
Good point about the impact of smaller changes on a more populous world. However, where we see poor crops, it is now in the dry places, like Africa. They should improve relative to the Ukraine, Scotland, Iceland and the Northern US/central Canada, where historical famines occurred with cold weather. As the North is technologically more savvy this time, though, the famine/loss of food will affect that part of the world that routinely wastes something like 40% of the food it brings in (Canada data, anyway). The North, I’m sure, will be fine. The question is what cooling temperatures would have on the non-technological world. Again, the famines are in the non-techie world.
As NGOs report, almost all famine today is not resource caused, but conflict caused. Like the Sudan. Despite all the billions more, we also seem to be feeding the world sufficiently to produce more people. If starvation today were actually significant, one would think that the starving would not be able to feed more every day.
I stick with my point about a Dalton-type drop not having the same impact this time around. A temp drop from a “dangerous” level as Hansen/Gore says it is, will bring us down less on a temperature scale than before. And, again, what happens in Hanover, like Vegas, tends to stay in Hanover.
00
Climate scientists actually believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.
They called it a Hot House when it was hotter on the outside. Man could not survive the direct heat on the moon without atmosphere, what made them think the earth could be hotter with atmosphere?
As wrong, as the consensus in Galileo’s time.
The atmosphere protects us by cooling the heat from the Sun, not warming it.
Markus Fitzhenry.
00
Your Moon facts will create a lot of hot air Markus.
00
In the Newcastle Herald today: Debate rises on sea levels as McCloy brings in experts
For anyone interested Mr Archibald is coming up here to Newcastle next week, along with Profs Carter and Plimer. They are helping a local developer who was knocked back by the local council because of supposed sea level rises in the distant future.
They are doing a free information night at Belmont 16 Footers on Tuesday.
00
OT – would you believe that this week’s edition of the ABC Organic Gardener Magazine has an article on designing your garden for climate change!!
here
00
They have been AGW supporters from day 1.
Also all the Botanic Gardens and National Parks are implementing Climate Change Strategies across Australia. Even on Norfolk Island (where they have been told by the sea level will rise 700mm by 2070?) their PLAN is amazing – total removal of all Eucalyptus plantations because of increased fire risk?
But their big one is:
Investigate opportunities for the park to participate and capitalise on future carbon trading schemes.
It’s not about the money????
How much is the government spending on these strategies? Maybe they should have a look at the weed control on Norfolk Island National Park – it’s pretty grim. Get back to environmental principles instead of the CO2 garbage!
00
Did Tim Flannery base his climate change predictions on a “model of current conditions using the equations of motion and laws of physics?”
http://www..gov.au/house/news/magazine/38/38/_better.htm
“…Forecasters have traditionally based their predictions on statistics gathered over time. Essentially, they collect observations about past or present conditions that influence weather, and use those observations to predict meteorological conditions into the future. The flaw with this ‘statistical method’ is that it assumes previous weather and climate patterns will be reliable indicators as to what might be expected in the future.
Climate change, however, has rendered this method almost useless, as the bureau’s acting chief climatologist Michael Coughlan told the committee.
“By characterising the climate of the past and understanding again where you are now, you can go back to that record and extract similar occurrences of conditions like we have now,” Dr Coughlan said. “If one can find those similar conditions in the past they can use that history of how the climate evolved from those conditions to forecast conditions.
“The problem we are experiencing now is we are seeing a very unstable climate regime or, to use the statistical term, non-stationary climate…. In other words we are experiencing climatic conditions that are not well represented in the past. That then compromises our statistically based forecast.”
CSIRO told the inquiry the existing seasonal forecasts for Australia have “reached the summit of their ability”, while the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry described the inaccuracy of current long-term meteorological forecasting as one of the great barriers to its wider adoption for decision-making among farmers.
“Current long-term meteorological forecasts are primarily based on averages taken from historical climate data,” the department’s submission said. “In light of the international scientific consensus that human activity is increasing atmospheric carbon emissions and enhancing global warming, scientists widely acknowledge that historical climate records are no longer adequate predictors of future climate.”
The alternative, emerging forecasting method into which research and development investment is increasingly being directed is what scientists term ‘dynamical modelling’. Here, forecasters model current conditions using the equations of motion and laws of physics to predict future conditions…”
00
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/news/magazine/38/38_better.htm
00
I’m always skeptical of simple relationships when we are talking complex systems. There are a number of problems with the David Archibald / Friis-Christensen and Lassen / Butler and Johnson / Solheim hypotheses:
1) We have a coefficient used to connect solar cycle length with some sort of average temperature — as we move around the planet the coefficient seems varies with location without any obvious logic
2) a lot of the process used to establish the coefficient is dependent on extrapolations and proxies when we run out of the instrumental data
3) After the coefficient is obtained then comes the guesswork to predict the next couple of solar cycles to establish the drop in temperature for the specific location such as Hanover NH
4) Then the next big leap is to consider Hanover NH to be a proxy for most of North America
5) The projected NA temperature is used to map wheat fields and predict droughts
Sorry this smacks of equally bogus logic as that of the “mafia” of Hansen MBH, Jones, Schneider et al, etc.,
Some fundamental issues:
a) If the “solar cycle” length (aka 1/2 of Hale cycle of solar magnetic reversals) is about 10 years we need at least 10 cycles to have reasonable confidence in the baseline length and the statistics of the variations — otherwise we are computing with noise
b) quasi reliable ground level temperature data only goes back a bit over 100 years
c) even better temperature data from satellites only goes back about 2 cycles
d) everything outside of the above is obtained from proxies of temperature (e.g. isotope ratios, types of foraminifera and / or proxies of solar cycles (e.g. Auroras)
that’s the bad news
the good news is that:
a) we do have satellites that are watching the sun (e.g. magnetic activity, sunspots, corona, total solar irradiance) and the earth (e.g. cloudiness, upper atmosphere and tropospheric temperature, reflected solar radiation, atmospheric emissivity, etc.) and whose data is being carefully scrutinized for internal consistency and bridging (handing over from one satellite to the successor) consistency
b) we are able to extract solar cycles directly from variations in the production of C14 and Be10 (produced by cosmic rays [monitored directly at ground level and by neutrons as a direct proxy]) and found to be varying inversely with the amplitude of solar activity with good correlations — luckily the C14 is stored in nice annual archives by trees (tree rings) and the Be10 is archived by annual bands in ice cores
c) most of the above exists for cycle 23 and it and better is in place for cycle 24
d) Now all we need is about 100 years of good data and if we haven’t been frozen out by the next ice age we might be able to make a realistic assessment of the connections between solar this and climate that — after that we can assess the effect if any of humans
So let’s just sit back and work on developing the best instrumentation and its calibration and then collect the data
10
I would disagree with this statement. Obviously, Archibald, et al could be wrong.
But it’s a risky prediction and that makes Archibald’s hypothesis real science. He’s offering up an explanation that can be transparently, unambiguously and quickly be tested. Well, as quickly as solar cycles unfold.
Compare that to the CAGW crowd who see easy confirmations of their theory everywhere they look, while never offering any testable risky predictions they’ll stand by. In fact, they publicly pose their theory as “Climate Change” and those who offer a skeptical critique of it as “in denial of climate change.” A tautology defended with by a strawman… that’s bogus logic.
—Karl Popper
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
00
No — A useful risky prediction is something testable but it must also be fundamentally based on a model, of the subset of the universe in question, which has some simplicity to it — i.e. the underlying variables if not from first principles need to be accessible.
Thus while the Keplerian heliocentric elliptical model of the solar system was more elegant than the Copernican heliocentric model which still needed the Ptolemaic cycles and epicycles to predict the locations of the planets for a given time — it still didn’t provide a simple model of how it all worked. That next step which enables us to fly the Voyager Mission took Newton who distilled the solar system down to the masses of the planets and the mass of the sun and the distances — all of the rest was then just a matter of advancing the clock.
Archibald is still mucking with cycles and epicycles — there is nothing fundamental here — let’s see something like the following:
Thnh = 275+ 11*sin (6*d/365) + 27*(cos (d/178099))^2
where Thnh is the daily mean temperature at Hanover NH in degrees K
and d is the number of days since January 1, 1800
and the trig functions are in radians
That would be routinely testable even if not based on first principles
00
You say “So let’s just sit back and work on developing the best instrumentation and its calibration and then collect the data”.
Sorry but we can’t do that. We have an urgent need to raise vast funds of money to offset the harm that a small trace gas that we contribute only a small fraction too in the Atmosphere is going to catastrophically cause; heat waves, cold snaps, confused Clown Fish, mental disorders, rain, floods, hail, electrical storms, magnetic storms, Planetary pole reversals, FOI refusals, poor science, acidic oceans, higher sea levels and death threats just to name a few.
So there won’t be any funds left for those minor trivial things like heating, cooling, cooking, working, farming, mining & lighting just to name a few.
/sarc
00
Could not find http://www.durackdevelopment.com/index2.cgi
00
Tom, you are right, the link works if we drop the ‘index2.cgi’ part, so I’ve fixed it. Thanks.
http://www.durackdevelopment.com/
Jo
00
Science tip;
It is the force of pressure on mass in the mesosphere, from changes to height of the tropopause, that acts as a natural regulator for the thermostat of the mesospause, that determines radiation, and therefor, heat.
The heat stratification of the earths surface is uniform, regardless of its composition, as are, the oceans and atmosphere.
Markus Fitzhenry.
00
What CO2 heating effect? It is a poor absorber of IR and according to Le Chatelier increasing CO2 reduces heating in the atmosphere as increasing it reduces the amount of water vapor that can be held in it.
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition, 1/7th the absorber of IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 80 times as many molecules captures 560 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
The Two Minute Conservative at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com for political analysis, science and humor. Daily on Kindle.
00
Science tip:
An decrease of atmospheric mass cools, a increase of atmospheric mass warms.
It is not the composition of atmosphere, but gravitational pressure on its mass, that determines heat at the earths surface, and thermodynamic lapse rates.
Lapse rates are due, partly, to the topology of earths surface, and convection through the atmospheric heat pipes.
00
For purity of science, can we please refer to trace gases in our atmosphere, by their correct name. That is;
Atmospheric regulation gasses. Please, no more GHG.
00
The truth is, we are in an ice age. We are enjoying an interglacial and are at the tail end of it. Temperatures peaked thousands of years ago. We could see the ice return in as little as a generation or two or it may be a few thousand years but the ice will almost certainly return.
Until the tectonic plates move far enough to allow the free flow of ocean water we will be in an ice age. Considering the fact that the plates move as fast as fingernails grow it could be a while before that happens.
As soon as the ecoloons figure that one out they will use it as a pretext to usurp our freedom. Can’t you just see Steven Schnieder’s likeness etched into Mt. Rushmore? Now that is a nightmare I couldn’t wake up from! I would rather run a marathon with a pebble in each shoe!
00
The interglacial is stabilised by biofeedback from phytoplankton. The Milankovitch cycle will make it colder from 1500 years’ time.
00
Fascinating! Please provide a link if you can and in the meantime I will google what I can. Thanks.
00
It’s my own; IPCC aerosol optical physics is wrong. I noticed it at the same time as a highly experienced US cloud physicist. His work was submitted for publication but nearly 2 years’ later has not appeared in peer-reviewed form.
I wonder why? Is it because he shows the climate models use double real optical depth for the low level clouds that contribute most cloud albedo, thereby supposedly the vast over-estimation of GHG-AGW from the imaginary ‘back radiation’? Even the algorithms used to process satellite albedo data are wrong.
It’s because >40% of these clouds have much higher optical depth than present theory predicts. Correct this and it explains palaeoclimate also much recent warming, a side effect of Arctic melting; a natural cycle similar to what happens in Antarctica at the end of ice ages.
There, deep sea warming starts ~2 ky before any major CO2 increase. The 2.88 W/m^2 claimed by the IPCC as the GHG-GW warming from then to the pre-industrial modern era is easily explicable by a ~3.5% fall in average cloud albedo at constant cloud area.
There could be some GHG-GW but now there is a plausible alternative explanation, the IPCC’s case is very weak. Since 1997, when it was first realised that CO2 increase is a lagging indicator, its science has degenerated into fraud.
The Common Purpose indoctrination of lefty politicians like our Prescott and Cameron,and I bet Rudd and Gillard, uses the fake IPCC science, hence so it seems Gillard’s delusion that ‘carbon is pollution’. The ‘science’ is bunkum because of 4 major physics’ errors.
00
???
The Milankovitch cycle is an ongoing cycle.The insolation changes at 65 degrees north over the centuries is what determines the summer temperatures at that latitude.It has been cooling for thousand’s of years now.It has already reached a point where new glaciers are developing in the last few centuries and staying alive in the short warm periods.
Look up Mt. Logan in Canada.Look up Fremont glacier in Wyoming.Heck there is even a ice cap that is now growing right near the equator!
The glaciers there are less than 2,000 and 350 years old.Except for fragments of 8,000 year old ice.There was no glacial ice at all on mt. Logan 2,000 years ago.That far north!
We are in what is called glacial autumn. It has been cooling for about 4,000 years now and the last 1,000 years is the COLDEST of the interglacial.The Insolation curve went negative 3,000 years ago at 65 degrees north.
We are not that far away from the point where glacial ice fields will significantly effect the climate and speed up the cooling trend.
The trend is ominous.The last FOUR warming trends in the interglacial is weaker from the Minoan to the modern warming we enjoy today.The modern warming we are in is feeble compared to the previous three warming trends.
The modern warming period maybe peaking now and about to start on a new centuries cooling trend.After all it has been warming for at least 330 years.If you start from the low temperature point in the LIA.That is about the rough average of a defined warming trend longevity during the Holocene.
The Milankovitch cycle is working and the effects is visible on the long term scale.
00
Physics and its fundamental relationship with nature is the most exciting academic sphere known to man. As we understand more, we are able to interact with nature in previously unimaginable ways. Recent understandings of atmosphere have increased our knowledge exponentially.
I have faith, that scientific establishments, will effect controls, limiting rhetoric and political interference. I think a more reasoned peer review, and journal structure, that weeds out bias, with rigor, will come to the fore.
Casting around, I can see the seeds being planted by academics who have been tinged during the great AGW fiasco. Many are tired, and can see their scientific professions being tainted, in the general public eye. Blogsters, like Judith Curry, are devoting more space the methodology needed to secure research integrity and scientific responsibility. But, I digress.
Eddy, mankind will never see another destructive ice age. If science, is free to wander, and not be confined in the strictures of politics, we can find the keys to open up our world. We will, in the near future, have mechanisms that can change our climate, for our benefit, both locally and totally.
We can’t just throw what ever we want at our atmosphere, we need to take care, as we rapidly develop technologies to sustain our population growth. But, we will never be kings of our destiny, unless we remove the shackles of fear, and develop our resources. It is us sceptics, who need to educate our green & political fellows, that science is the domain of scepticism and dogma must never enter. We must teach scientists that in the fields, egos are forboden.
00
The IPCC is to science as painting by numbers is to fine art. Hansen and others of a Marxist inclination assembled what they thought was good GHG science** in otherwise correct GCMs and using fudge factors based on poor cloud physics, created output which appeared to explain past climate history and predicted Sagan’s imaginary Venusian apocalypse here.
During the 1990s, they appeared to have been vindicated but unknown to them Arctic melting they thought was from CO2-AGW has another explanation. It’s from lower cloud albedo, now reversing, as shown by falling N. Atlantic OHC, the cause of most global OHC increase.
The key date is 1997 when it was shown CO2 rose after T at the end of ice ages. Instead of doing the correct thing and re-starting from different assumptions, temperatures were fiddled to pretend there was no MWP and the same CO2 climate sensitivity can be justified from present warming. The fall in N. Atlantic OHC proves this incorrect but the propaganda continues.
**Arrhenius’ incorrect idea that CO2 drove the end of ice ages by ‘imaginary ‘back radiation’, Tyndall’s measurement of CO2 IR warming, in reality an artefact caused by pressurisation of the closed system and CO2 expands more than air, Sagan did not consider a second optical process, Hansen didn’t realise that most of the 33 K he claims is present GHG warming is from meteorological lapse rate.
00
One gets the sense from MSM (washsington post, WSJ, ect.. even REuters now) that it is in fact pretty much over (AGW), I think current temp trends (-0.6C) will kill it entirely this year. You will soon see resignations and retirements and rulings against both UVA and UEA. I doubt that anyone will be arrested etc but they will be asked to leave. The whole scam will slowly fade into history….
00
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1knmpog4n
‘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……
But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century….
‘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’….
‘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.’’
No climate model can predict climate because the physics is broken and always has been. CO2-AGW could well be slightly negative.
00
I’ll stick to past history for my predictions:
~0.5c cooling to 2040
slight warming 2040-2070
slight cooling 2070-2100
yadda…yadda…
New Warm Period from 2200-2500
00
Any good climatologist worth his salt would respond with a study showing a cyclical event which allows CO2 to defy physics in two completely different ways every 30 years.
Long live the great CO2 God.
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/global-cooling-coming-archibald-uses-solar-and-surface-data-to-pred… This entry was posted on Sunday, January 29th, 2012 at 3:41 pm and is filed under Climate, Weather. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]
00
One small point: Please spell Dombaas correctly: It’s not Dombass, one of which you would have to be to make such an egregious error 😉
—–
Thanks. Fixed 🙂 Jo
00
Has this been linked yet?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
They talk about the next cooling phase etc but the best bit:
00
The real Solar Induced Climate Change Equation was worked out by Alex S Gaddes in his book ‘Tomorrow’s Weather'(1990) It provides an exact calculative mechanism for the forecast of ‘Dry’ Cycles, and therefor the ‘Wet’/Normal Periods between. Australia has just entered a One Solar Earth Year ‘Dry’ Cycle that has been affecting the planet progressively (30 degrees longitude/month with the orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field) since it initiated over China eleven months ago. This one year ‘Dry Cycle will be followed by a two year ‘Wet’/Normal Period (Australia 2013-14) and then a severe five year ‘Dry’ Cycle (Australia 2015-19.)The progress of the current one year ‘Dry’ Cycle can easily be ‘followed’ on the satellite Cloud Map.( the break-up of the monsoon cloud to the north and the shift South of the Southern Lows. A revised version of ‘Tomorrow’s Weather'(with ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055) is available as a free pdf from [email protected]
00
Jo Nova – very good presentastion. I think there is more to it than the Maunder like solar minimum. As I have noted elswhere, there seem to be solar shallow grand minima (like the Dalton) and Deep Grand Minima (like the Maunder) that alternate at intervals of 13 and 20 solar cycles. The middle of the last DGM was about 1680, the next one should be 33 cycles later or 363 years later at an average of 11 years per cycle, putting it at about 2040, consistent with your analysis. However there seem to be 60 year, 180 year and 1050 year cycles. All of them bottomed during the deepest years of the Maunder. We should see the 60 year cycle bottoming next near 2035, and the 180 year cycle bottoming next near 2030. However by 2040 we are about 70% of the way from the bottom to the top of the 1050 year cycle. If these cycles are real, this minimum will not be as cold as the Maunder, but will probably be colder than the Dalton. We should be entering a period of about 80 years where the temperature is below the average of the last 30 years, and then go into a couple of cycles warmer than the last 30 years, ending about 2300.
The next time the bottom of the 1050 year cycle and a DGM coincide will be near 2750. There is also the long cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum. From a little after 2300 to about 2750 climate will cycle around a long downslope into a long cold period, longer and deeper than the Maunder That could mark the beginning of the next true ice age.
00
Good comment Murray
00
The correct number for the Sunspot Cycle is 11.028148 years. As worked out by Alex S. Gaddes in the development of his ‘Ratios Principle'(‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ 1990.) See comment #70 above.
00
The ancient Greeks had a word for it “hubris”. The Bible Genesis chapter 11 v 1-9 records the earliest description of this human condition and the events which resulted in the Tower of Babel.
00
Dr. Leona Marshall Libby in 1979
00
Is this a sign of things to come?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096402/Rome-snow-Colosseum-closes-drivers-abandon-cars.html
00
The Solar Sunspot Cycle is a Constant,(11.028148 years.)This is the Solar Cycle that initiates droughts, along with other factors such as the Solar rotation rate compared with Earth’s of 27:1, and the Metonic Cycle of the Moon (18.61 years.)There is no way Archibald can predict a 14 year drought for Africa using ‘manufactured’ Cycles.
Where is his method, and where is the historical evidence of his method at work?
Alex S Gaddes discovered the hierarchy of ‘Dry’Cycles and an exact calculative method of predicting their onset and duration in his book ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (1990.)
‘Dry’ cycles (droughts) rotate westward with the Earth’s Magnetic field (30 degrees longitude/month) The current One Solar/Earth Year ‘Dry’ Cycle has reached Australia, (January 1, 2012) Australia is one of the last countries in the orbit to be affected. This will be followed by a Two Solar/Earth Year ‘Wet’/Normal Period (starting China next month reaching Australia 2013-14.)Then a severe Five Year ‘Dry’ Cycle (reaching Australia 2015-19) These same Cycles will affect Africa in their due course.(The current One Year ‘Dry’ is still in force over Africa.) An updated version of ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (with ‘Dry Cycle forecasts to 2055) is available as a free pdf from [email protected]
00
Don I’m a little confused. If a “dry cycle” has reached Australia this year, how do we explain the floods and above average rainfall in most parts of Australia?
00
Has there been above average rainfall in ‘most’ parts of Australia? Anyway, your question is a valid one. The vanguard of the approaching ‘Dry’ Cycle dissipated the first two potential Cyclones over the Coral Sea in late December. Since then, as the ‘Dry’ Cycle has moved across Australia from January 1, (30 degrees longitude/month with the westward orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field,)potential cyclones moving from the West have been broken up into storm cells and rain bands,that precipitated mainly out to sea, or on the East coast of Queensland and Northern NSW.It is noted there have been no Cyclones to make landfall since late December 2011. The recent heavy rains affecting Southeast Queensland and Northwest NSW were a result of the forcing South of the broken up Monsoon Cloud as the ‘Dry’ Cycle vanguard moved across the country. Now the vanguard of this Cycle has completed its path across Australia, there should be no further such rainfall ‘anomalies.’ Note the recent dissipation of the potential cyclone ‘Igor’ off Western Australia. Note also the pushing further South of the Southern Lows. Australia has eleven months to go of this ‘Dry’Cycle. The movement of this Cycle can be easily followed on the satellite ‘Cloud’ Maps.(Especially if you can get access to them back as far as December 2011.)
00
Thanx Don. I have your dads paper, must read it again when I have time.
According to BoM, we have had above average rainfall in most parts of Australia during the period of these last two La Niǹas (last 18 months) but if we take the last 12 months only then no, “most” parts did not have above average rainfall.
BoM
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=anomaly&period=18month&area=nat
00
2011 was a ‘Wet’/Normal Period for Australia,(between ‘Dry’ Cycles) exacerbated by the albedo effects of explosive volcanic activity in Mexico and South America.(Kempsey NSW and Victorian floods.)Also volcanic activity in Indonesia (Cyclone Yasi in Queensland.)
La Nina had nothing to do with it. El Nino/La Nina and AGW are dead. The BOM should be completely purged of their presence, but of course the entrenched protagonists will cling on until Hell (or Earth) freezes over. Yes, Colder and Drier, I agree with Archibald on that.
00
[…] can read his full post at Jo Nova’s blog HERE. This is important support for David […]
00
Interesting data for sure and add all the volcanic actively, you have a recipe for major temp drop’s for any given year.
00
Sorry, but I find Archibald extreme, too much for the data.
1) The solar data:cylce length, use the left side of the latitude pattern, rather than the right side, now your cycle ends about 2021, not 2026. This is very important, as Archibald uses cycle-length as a determinant of temperature drop as shown in Hanover, Conneticut, where the historical data is long. Five years less for Cycle 24 is less of a temperature drop, not 5C.
2) Archibald sees a Maunder-like ceassation of sunspots, not a Dalton-type. The pre-Dalton sunspot number is like the current one, 24, not the pre-Maunder drop to death.
3) Archibald hasn’t figured in the ratio of global-all-stations to Hanover or continental US land stations. This is why the Arctic can have a 3-5C rise (claimed) while the world has a 0.6C rise. So anything we get from land observations has to be reduced to reflect global.
I’ve brought this up before, so I’m ready for the brickbats.
Unless we have an even more reduced Cycle 25 than 24, I doubt that Maunder is a-coming. Even then it would be 22 years away, or 2036. If we got a 2C drop in the mid-west, we’d have a less than 0.6C drop globally. In other words, we’d go back to 1945.
Okay, we’d go back to 1920. Winters were darn cold back than, but we weren’t going into a deep freeze.
We have to realise that the temps of 2012 are the starting point for a solar induced drop.
I’m betting on a drop, but I’m seeing more like 0.4C by 2040, which may be 1.0C in the mid-west. Which will not kill everything, it will not be game over.
Back in pre-technology days, crops failed in Europe when early winters came on. The crops today are more prolific, we can get them off the fields in a hurry, and storage is not an issue. A shortened growing season for wheat will take us back to earlier decades of the last century.
Sorry.
00
The One Solar/Earth year ‘Dry’ Cycle predicted by Alex S. Gaddes in his work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather'(1990)has ended over the longitudes of New Zealand (Cyclone hits Samoa)and will end over the Australian East coast from Jan 1. (thirty degrees longitude/month with the Westward Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.) This will mean the return of cyclones forming in the Coral Sea this Summer and affecting the Australian East Coast. As the One Year ‘Dry’ Cycle ends progressively across the Australian Mainland, to its ultimate termination around 110 degrees East of Prime (Beijing)in early March 2013, further cyclone activity will return to Australia’s North. The final throes of this ‘Dry’ Cycle may be followed via the NASA Satellite Cloud Map (ie the consolidation of Monsoon cloud after it has been ‘fragmented’ over the one year course of the ‘Dry’ Cycle.
The longitudinal/rotating nature of these ‘Dry’ Cycles explains (among other things,) surface temperature variations and fluctuations in Arctic and Antarctic Ice volumes,(precipitation.)
As well as giving lie to the excesses of AGW, this work also exposes the forty year Fantasy of ENSO.
An updated version of ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (with ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055) is available as a free pdf from [email protected]
00