- Mark Lawson
Who has noticed that the period 2014-2015 keeps on turning up in the debate on greenhouse science? For that is when greenhouse proponents say the long-delayed global warming apocalypse will start happening. In addition, that general date has turned up in forecasts made by an arch sceptic, and two researchers in the US have forecast that sunspot activity will cease entirely by 2014.
As the two sides do not agree on anything else at all this is odd – odd enough to be worth exploring.
One group to point at the 2015 date is led by Noel Keenlyside of the Leibnitz Institute of Marine Science in the German city of Kiel. As reported in the journal Nature (letters, May 1) Keenlyside and colleagues added the affect of climate cycles to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models to forecast that global temperatures will remain stable or perhaps even dip down for the next few years, before heading up. The paper does not give a date for the expected kick up in temperatures but in a subsequent interview with the Daily Telegraph in the UK Keenlyside stated that the earth will start to warm again in 2015.
Keenlyside was forecasting from his research into the powerful Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMO) climate cycle which, he says, has a global effect and will weaken to its long term mean. He also emphasises that his work in no way contradicts that of the IPCC – he is merely adding climate cycles on top of the panel’s predictions – but his work seem to have horrified the hardliners. There have been internet reports that prominent scientists have tried to challenge the Keenlyside team to bets on temperature trends. However, other climate cycles seem to be following the AMO lead. In April, NASA announced that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode – a switch that will not be discussed here but may also result in significant cooling.
More recently, another group observing the sun has also come up with the date 2014 but for quite different reasons. As has been noted a few times in the media, the sun has gone quiet – too quiet – with the next solar cycle so far not putting in an appearance. Scientists have known for a very long time that the earth has a distinct 11-year cycle. At its height, indicated by lots of sunspots, the sun is very active giving off lots of flares and solar storms which affect satellites. At the bottom of the cycle there are few or no spots, and a marked lack of activity.
The last cycle was officially declared over by NASA in March 2006 with one group at the space agency putting out a release confidently forecasting that the next cycle would be 20 to 50 per cent stronger than the old.
The sun responded to this piece of scientific hubris by going quiet. A few spots from the new cycle have been sighted, as well as a few spots from the old – scientists can tell which spots the cycle belongs to by their magnetic polarity – but very little has happened.
At the time of writing the sun is still spot free. NASA solar physicist David Hathaway points out, quite rightly, that the sun’s behaviour is within major statistical limits – just. The average solar cycle lasts 131 months plus or minus 14 months and the current cycle – the quiet period counts as part of the old cycle – has lasted nearly 143 months. The solar cycle went quiet for years at the beginning of last century before restarting, Hathaway notes, so nothing out of the ordinary has happened – at least, not yet.
Another group at the US National Solar Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, William Livingston and Matthew Penn, believe that there may be a deeper process at work. Sunspots are highly magnetic regions that are somewhat cooler than the rest of the sun’s surface (they appear dark compared to the rest of the sun, but if seen separately would appear very bright) and the two researchers have been tracking both the temperature and magnetic strength of the spots. They found that the spots have been warming up and becoming less magnetic. An average of the trend is a straight line going down which hits the bottom of the graph at 2014. They have concluded that, although sun spots may appear briefly from time to time in the next few years, they will disappear by 2014.
This conclusion is in a paper submitted to the journal Science three years ago but rejected in peer review. With the sun now so quiet the paper has been resurrected from a filing cabinet in the observatory and circulated informally. Dr Livingston told me (by phone from his office in Tucson) that the paper had been rejected on the grounds that it was a purely statistical argument so it would be better to wait and see what happened, and he considered that a fair point. They are now waiting “for the right moment” to resubmit.
But what happens after 2014? Dr Livingston says that as they are using a purely statistical argument, without any theory to back it, they do not know. All they know is that the trend reaches zero in 2014. Conventional theory on the sun’s inner workings never forecast anything like this – in fact, forecast the exact opposite – but has been revised to say that the sun will restart some time next year.
With the sun being quiet for a surprisingly long time, plenty of commentators are pointing to the possibility of a Maunder Minimum – a period from 1645 to 1715 with very few sunspots which is associated with a series of bitter winters known as the Little Ice Age. Although it is widely acknowledged that there must be some link between the sun’s activity and climate, the nature of the link and its effectiveness is hotly debated. The IPCC models, the ruling orthodoxy, gives star billing to the effect of industrial gases in the atmosphere and places solar variations in the also ran category. However, as we shall see those models have proved largely useless for forecasting – in the short term, at least – and there are no rival climate theories. The sceptics largely decline to forecast, pointing out, with some justification as it turns out, that there is as yet no means of forecasting what the sun will do.
One sceptic who is prepared to make a forecast, and who also points to the date of 2015, is professional UK weather forecaster Piers Corbyn. The bulk of scientists have little time for Corbyn, who is a strong advocate of the link between solar activity and climate. Greenhouse proponents, in particular, detest him. For as well as stridently denouncing the IPCC whenever he can, he also appeared on the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. However, he does have a track record as a weather forecaster and, for whatever reason, is saying the same things as the Keenlyside team, at least for the next few years. He forecasts that global temperatures will decline until 2015, and then kick up briefly, before declining again.
Whatever you may make of all this forecasting, a major problem remains working out what is happening right now, for the centres that track global climate say different things. There are five sites that I know of. Anyone who can think of others can message me on mlawson@afr.com.au. Of those five, three are instrument centres – relying on networks of ground stations and ships for temperature readings – and two are centres that use satellites to track temperatures. They are listed below, along with links to the data used in the graphs at the end of the article.
Hadley - Generally regarded as the most authoritative of the instrument centres. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology site links to the temperature tracks on the Hadley site. It is a part of the University of East Anglica in the UK and associated with the UK Meteorological Office, which are both IPCC bastions. The graphs use HADCrutv3.
GISS – Goddard Institute of Space Studies. A part of NASA. The director of this instrument centre is arch greenhouse spruiker Professor James Hansen. Greenhouse proponents always quote this centre’s temperatures for the annual results from this site are mysteriously higher than the others. Data for the graphs is here.
NOAA – National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Owned by the US Department of Commerce it is an instrument centre. Link for data here.
UAH – University of Alabama in Huntsville. A satellite centre run through the Earth System Science Centre. Director Dr John Christie is sometimes cited as a greenhouse agnostic, although he has contributed to several IPCC reports. The centre has shown temperatures trending down for years. Link here.
RSS – Remote Satellite Services. The site for this centre makes little sense to the laymen but from the graphs presented by scientists who have dealt with it, RSS surface temperature results are broadly similar to that of the UAH. I could not find any public access data for surface temperatures.
There are two graphs, produced using Excel. One is for temperature readings from four of the sites from January 2007 up to August and the other is for Hadley, as the mostly widely accepted, from 2001. As the IPCC third report was released in 2001 and the fourth report was released in February 2007, this should give us some idea of the forecasting success of the models. An interesting point in all of this is that NOAA and Hadley more or less agree (the difference is probably a difference in the base line the two sites use) but GISS shows a somewhat warmer world and the satellite results are markedly cooler than the others. However, none of the centres can point to anything but failure for the IPCC. There is still time for actual temperatures to bounce back to somewhere within the model forecasts but in the short term, at least, and on the only test that really matters for computer models – forecasting what was not known at the time of the report – the models have generally failed.
Given the track record of the existing models, and instead of generally rejecting the proposal that temperatures will remain subdued until 2015, greenhouse proponents should embrace the forecast – it is likely to be more accurate than any of the others made to date, particularly given the lack of solar activity. And we should all hurry towards 2014-2015 as fast as we can, to find out what happens.
This article By Mark S. Lawson is originallly posted under a Creative commons copyright and I reproduce it uder the terms of that licence it is sourced from here
Filed under: AGW, sceptical writing | Tagged: Mark S. Lawson
First of all, Iain, thanks for a great article, and a great discussion topic.
This topic, or near enough, has been my life’s ‘hobby’ (perhaps obsession ?), for over 40 years now, and as discussed in the previous topic, I am, and hopefully without too much ego, consider myself as a communications expert, on high frequencies, and have experimented in the field for over 40 years, ever since being a kid. It was not only my hobby, but also later, my career in High Frequency Communications in the RAAF. The Solar Cycle, being one of the most important factors of that life.
I hope to add something to this discussion from that perspective & experience ? I hope you will indulge me ? I hope it doesn’t become too long winded, and put you all to sleep ?
In the following ‘perhaps diatribe’ (to some ?), I hope to shine a light, on the apparent lack of knowledge, experience, and alarmist views, put forward by these ’supposed’ experts, in regards to this topic, and shed some real world facts on you ?
To begin this saga ?
“The Sun is abut 4.5 billion years old now. It is about 300 degrees hotter and about 6% greater in radius than when it was first born.”
http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/solarweek/DISCUSSION/howold.html
Neither here nor there, but interesting a point to remember, when beginning this discussion.
As the sun has been around ‘forever’. it has gone through cycles of warming and cooling, over that substantial time, and, from all evidence and what I have read, will do so for another couple of billion years yet.
Over that period of time, sunspot cycles have appeared on a regular basis, reaching minimum and maximum numbers. The only major climate catastrophe, it appears we have seen over that period of time, has been the ice age, which all seem to agree, appears to have been caused by an ‘impact event’. So where is the ‘empirical evidence’, to support these doomsday sayers, of the causal relationship of sunspot number count, to global climate patterns ?
There isn’t any !
Even the supposed experts agree, that the correlation has not been proven. Don’t you just love these ‘alarmist’ PhD’s, when they come out with these, supposed, research backed, outlandish statements ? For the majority of the time, we get sucked in by them, as most of us, are not privy to the science, or have done any research to gain that knowledge. Hence, we feel WE HAVE TO believe them ?
Ok, to the facts !
“….who has noticed that the period 2014-2015 keeps on turning up in the debate on greenhouse science? ”
The time, mentioned in this extract, appears to be, (most scientists agree), the approximate date of the next solar cycle PEAK. So far, there is NO PROVEN correlation, to the link between solar peaks, (and minimums), and global weather patterns. Rather that going into ten pages of dribble about this, why don’t we just take this statement, as mentioned in your article, on it’s merits ?
It is just conjecture, and theory, and cannot be proven one way or the other. But don’t you just love the extreme views, that have arisen, especially now, when the world’s eyes, and ears, are being tuned into the Global Warming debate ?
“Scientists have known for a very long time that the earth has a distinct 11-year cycle.”
This is also conjecture. As mentioned in a previous posting, all research shows, that like everything else in nature, is not able to be predicted, or box-scored. There is nothing distinct about it. The length varies, from anything as low as 8 years, to has high as perhaps 14 years.
“The last cycle was officially declared over by NASA in March 2006″
This statement, especially coming from a trusted & supposed expert source, such as NASA, is also pure conjecture at best. The fact is, no one knows when the cycle is (has) ended, until a sunspot, showing that the new cycle has begun, has been regularly seen. That appears to be now. 2008. So, the NASA conclusion of 2006 has just exited stage left ?
“They have concluded that, although sun spots may appear briefly from time to time in the next few years, they will disappear by 2014. This conclusion is in a paper submitted to the journal Science three years ago but rejected in peer review.”
This is also conjecture, on a massive level. No wonder it was rejected in peer review ? The people that have come up with this conclusion, have totally disregarded all recorded history, in regards to the solar cycle. It is an alarmist’s view, that cannot be substantiated in FACT. Actually, the reverse is true. For millions of years, the solar cycle, (variable in length), has come and gone. There have been ‘peaks’ and ‘troughs’ over that massive period of time, and to say that there will be no sunspots again, is just insanity. To prove that wrong, as stated, it appears that the first sunspot has been observed for the new cycle right now, in the last few weeks. So, there goes that theory right out the window. The year 2014, (a date derived again purely from conjecture, but based on past averages of the length of solar cycles), is when the next solar peak is supposed to occur. So, to say that all sunspots will disappear, by that time, is like saying the sun won’t shine tomorrow ?
“But what happens after 2014?”
So, what happens after 2014 huh ? For my money, NOTHING ! There will be another solar peak, with solar indices, ranging from 250 to 300 every day, and communications, on frequencies from DC to dark, including satellite, will all be interrupted, as has happened since radio was invented, and Marconi threw on the big radio switch ?
I can understand where the argument, correlation, or link has been derived between weather and sunspot cycles though. The following may explain this :
The Earth’s atmosphere is made up of many layers. The D layer, closest to the ground, and only apparent in daylight hours, (disperses at sunset), the E layer, slightly above, as detailed below. The F layer, which splits into F1 & F2 layer during daylight hours above that.
“The E layer is the middle layer, 90 km to 120 km above the surface of the Earth.
The E layer or sporadic E-layer. Sporadic E propagation is characterized by small clouds of intense ionization, which can support radio wave reflections from 25 – 225 MHz.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere#E_layer
During the cycle, irregardless at what point, the sun sometimes lets out large, quick bursts of radiation. This has the effect of ‘ionising’ portions of the E layer of the atmosphere. These portions, have been tagged, and are known, as ‘Ionised Clouds”. These form small pockets of ionised atmosphere, that have the effect of refracting signals from the earth. In layman’s terms, ever tuned on the telly, and noticed long distance signals coming from a distant television station somewhere ? Notice how the quality of that distant picture changes ? That is the cloud’s effect. It is random in size, moves and changes. It can be here one minute, and quite literally gone the next. This is where, I feel, the misunderstanding has come about, in comparing sunspot activity to weather. The term ‘cloud’ me thinks, has caused this misunderstanding. Look at the quote. Look at the agreed distance of the height above ground the E layer is ? No where near the Earth’s weather systems. The only link, is that, relying on empirical documented evidence, it appears, that these clouds, also called sometimes referred to as inversion layers, appear more often than not, around times of equinox’, longest day etc, and develop quite regularly throughout our southern hemispheric summer. They generally peak about Xmas, and being a junky on this stuff, it is great fun to try and see, if we can shoot a vhf signal at these unseen clouds, or layers, and see how far we can get, distance wise. Me personally, on 144 mhz, nearly to Hawaii. That is almost a world record. Maybe one day, if I live that long, I may crack it ?
So, in summary, hopefully I haven’t put you all to sleep, take a deep breath everybody. Mother Nature being what she it, will make up her own mind as to the whens and whys ? We just have to make certain, that with our own greed and misunderstanding or ignorance, we don’t stuff up the atmosphere any more, but throwing chemicals into the atmosphere, that may block the sun entirely. That is my main concern ??
David
Why thank you David for your detailed comment My late father was a wireless fitter in the RAF and he used to tell me stuff like your comment about radio signals.
But i certainly agree that there is no need to panic when it comes to the climate.
If there is a single thing that I am certain of it is that the AGW panic merchants are totally deluded. If the theory of AGW is correct then there is not the political will or ability to enact their prescription, and if they are wrong (and I argue that they are) then the prescription the suggest is pointless. The climate may change and if it does then the only sensible response is to work out how to make the most of the new paradigm all of this talk about being able to change or control the climate is nonsense.
Touche !
C’mon guys and gals, I didn’t mean to kill the topic ????????
Sorry Iain.
No worries David this blog does not yet get that much traffic so debate here may sometimes be sporadic, but keep trying
.
Don’t get down on yourself Iain. It is getting PLENTY of interest. More than someone else we both know ? Meow, scratch scratch ?
