Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...solar-activity

They also warned that it is potentially much more dangerous than global
warming, as food crops are better able to adapt to rising temperatures
than to falling ones.

--
Colin Bignell

Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

I think *global* cooling goes a bit far given the report includes:

'Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This
researchshows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are
likely to be larger than the global effect. This study shows that the
sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have
impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions
about adapting to climate change for the decades to come." '

Or as the authors put it in their abstract at
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15...comms8535.html

"Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future
decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected
anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar
irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic
Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface
climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two
experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in
a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder
Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional
structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic
Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and
the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet
irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures
over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of
the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of
greenhouse gas concentrations."




--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 25/06/2015 10:30, Robin wrote:
Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

I think *global* cooling goes a bit far given the report includes:

'Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This
researchshows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are
likely to be larger than the global effect. This study shows that the
sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have
impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions
about adapting to climate change for the decades to come." '...

The prediction is for global temperatures to fall by 0.1C. That is
global cooling.


--
Colin Bignell

On 25/06/2015 10:30, Robin wrote:
Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

I think *global* cooling goes a bit far given the report includes:

'Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This
researchshows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are
likely to be larger than the global effect. This study shows that the
sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have
impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions
about adapting to climate change for the decades to come." '...

The prediction is for global temperatures to fall by 0.1C. That is
global cooling.

Is that not a prediction for global temperatures to be lower by c 0.1C
*relative to the increases predicted* otherwise? That is, global
tempertatures rise but not so much as without the solar radiation
effects. If not what does the paper mean when it talks about the
"relative annual global" temperature change[1]? So, a bit like finding
a fiver after losing a fifty: better than nothing but not a net increase
in wealth.

And even the European winter surface temperatures are still be predicted
to increase overall, albeit by 0.4 to 0.8C (c. 30 percent) less than
without the solar effect[2].

[1] or more precisely
"As a result of the decrease in solar irradiance, both experiments show
widespread cooling with respect to CTRL-8.5 (Fig. 2). The relative
annual global mean near-surface temperature change for the period
2050–2099 is a cooling of 0.13 and 0.12?°C for EXPT-A and EXPT-B,
respectively. This offsets or delays the global warming trend by ~2
years and is small compared with the modelled global warming. This is
consistent with other recently published results3, 4, 5, 6, 7, which
indicate that any change in global mean temperature due to a future
prolonged solar minimum would do little to substantially offset or delay
the warming due to projected increases in long-lived greenhouse gases. A
comparison of forcings and responses can be found in ref. 20. In some of
these studies, potential for regional variation is indicated4, 6, 7, and
we now explore this in more detail in our experiments.

[2] "Examining the European response in more detail, average temperature
changes for a northern European region are shown in Fig. 5. Relative to
the historical period (1971–2000), RCP4.5 and CTRL-8.5 show substantial
warming with a mean difference for 2050–2099 of 4.1?°C and 6.6?°C,
respectively. EXPT-A and EXPT-B follow the same trajectory as CTRL-8.5,
but with a reduced warming. Relative to CTRL-8.5, we find decreases in
regional temperature for 2050–2099 of 0.4?°C (EXPT-A) and nearly 0.8?°C
(EXPT-B). This regional cooling is therefore a notable fraction, ~30%
for EXPT-B, of the difference between the temperature changes for
CTRL-8.5 and RCP4.5."

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 25/06/2015 15:00, Robin wrote:
On 25/06/2015 10:30, Robin wrote:
Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

I think *global* cooling goes a bit far given the report includes:

'Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This
researchshows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are
likely to be larger than the global effect. This study shows that the
sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have
impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions
about adapting to climate change for the decades to come." '...

The prediction is for global temperatures to fall by 0.1C. That is
global cooling.

Is that not a prediction for global temperatures to be lower by c 0.1C
*relative to the increases predicted* otherwise?...

The wording of the article is 'The latest study, published in Nature
Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall
cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.' That appears to be a fairly clear
statement that global temperatures are expected to decrease by 0.1C from
what they are now.

--
Colin Bignell

On 25/06/2015 15:11, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 25/06/2015 15:00, Robin wrote:
On 25/06/2015 10:30, Robin wrote:
Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

I think *global* cooling goes a bit far given the report includes:

'Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This
researchshows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are
likely to be larger than the global effect. This study shows that the
sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have
impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions
about adapting to climate change for the decades to come." '...

The prediction is for global temperatures to fall by 0.1C. That is
global cooling.

Is that not a prediction for global temperatures to be lower by c 0.1C
*relative to the increases predicted* otherwise?...

The wording of the article is 'The latest study, published in Nature
Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall
cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.' That appears to be a fairly clear
statement that global temperatures are expected to decrease by 0.1C from
what they are now.


I think the main issue is not the research, but the way it's been
interpreted by the Daily Express. The article also cites the Met Office:

"A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase
the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United
States but wouldn't halt global warming."

I wouldn't use the story to inform my views, beyond 'weather happens'.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 25/06/2015 15:11, Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 25/06/2015 15:00, Robin wrote:
On 25/06/2015 10:30, Robin wrote:
Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

I think *global* cooling goes a bit far given the report includes:

'Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This
researchshows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are
likely to be larger than the global effect. This study shows that the
sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have
impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions
about adapting to climate change for the decades to come." '...

The prediction is for global temperatures to fall by 0.1C. That is
global cooling.

Is that not a prediction for global temperatures to be lower by c 0.1C
*relative to the increases predicted* otherwise?...

The wording of the article is 'The latest study, published in Nature
Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall
cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.' That appears to be a fairly clear
statement that global temperatures are expected to decrease by 0.1C from
what they are now.

It's an article in the Express about weather. How likely is it that they
correctly reported what the study said?

From the paper in Nature Robin linked to :

The relative annual global mean near-surface temperature change for the
period 2050€“2099 is a cooling of 0.13 and 0.12€‰Â°C for EXPT-A and EXPT-B,
respectively. This offsets or delays the global warming trend by ~2
years and is small compared with the modelled global warming.

Relative, not absolute.

On Thursday, 25 June 2015 15:48:37 UTC+1, RJH wrote:



I wouldn't use the story to inform my views, beyond 'weather happens'.

Or 'whether' it happens as they think it might :-)

On 25/06/2015 15:00, Robin wrote:
On 25/06/2015 10:30, Robin wrote:
Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

I think *global* cooling goes a bit far given the report includes:

'Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This
researchshows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum
are likely to be larger than the global effect. This study shows
that the sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it
could have impacts at a regional level that should be factored in
to decisions about adapting to climate change for the decades to
come." '...

The prediction is for global temperatures to fall by 0.1C. That is
global cooling.

Is that not a prediction for global temperatures to be lower by c
0.1C *relative to the increases predicted* otherwise?...

The wording of the article is 'The latest study, published in Nature
Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall
cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.' That appears to be a fairly clear
statement that global temperatures are expected to decrease by 0.1C
from what they are now.

Which is why I quoted (twice) from the source material, not from what
Nathan Rao wrote for the Express. But if you prefer his interpretation
of Nature to mine or your own reading of the source materuial so be it.
I'm done.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 25/06/2015 16:33, Robin wrote:
On 25/06/2015 15:00, Robin wrote:
On 25/06/2015 10:30, Robin wrote:
Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

I think *global* cooling goes a bit far given the report includes:

'Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This
researchshows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum
are likely to be larger than the global effect. This study shows
that the sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it
could have impacts at a regional level that should be factored in
to decisions about adapting to climate change for the decades to
come." '...

The prediction is for global temperatures to fall by 0.1C. That is
global cooling.

Is that not a prediction for global temperatures to be lower by c
0.1C *relative to the increases predicted* otherwise?...

The wording of the article is 'The latest study, published in Nature
Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall
cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.' That appears to be a fairly clear
statement that global temperatures are expected to decrease by 0.1C
from what they are now.

Which is why I quoted (twice) from the source material, not from what
Nathan Rao wrote for the Express. But if you prefer his interpretation
of Nature to mine or your own reading of the source materuial so be it.
I'm done.


What you are quoting from is back pedalling by people who, at the turn
of the century were telling us that global temperatures were going to
continue to rise, which they have not. However, Russian astronomers
were, at the same time, telling us they wouldn't and that a cooling
cycle would begin around 2012. I prefer to go with the people who have,
so far, fairly accurately predicted what was going to happen and their
suggestion is that we can expect serious cooling over the next 30-50
years, possibly longer.

--
Colin Bignell

On 25/06/2015 17:04, Jethro_uk wrote:

When I worked at British Gas, a senior colleague was working with Russia
on designing their high-pressure grid (the UK one being the envy of the
world). He reported that their scientists were convinced the crust of the
Earth was supported on a layer of methane ...

Coincidentally I've just watched the old Dr Who series Inferno, which
has a slightly deranged scientist drilling through the crust to find the
gas underneath it. As one might guess, this doesn't go terribly well.

Actually, ask the Pakistanis about global Warming and I bet they will agree
its real right now.

When you think of it though, if you are putting more energy in from captured
energy, but less from the Sun, the issue will be weather extremes. Ie the
energy levels have to be disipated and equalised, and on a rotating body you
are going to get a huge amount of mixing, hence more severe highs and lows.
The other interesting thing of course is that if we are indeed removing
more Oxygen than we can replace no matter how much cooler the sun gets, the
trapped energy will increase.
The two main dangers are climate extremes and rising sea level.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...

Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian astronomers
about a decade or so ago:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...solar-activity

They also warned that it is potentially much more dangerous than global
warming, as food crops are better able to adapt to rising temperatures
than to falling ones.

--
Colin Bignell

On 25/06/2015 09:14, wrote:

Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...solar-activity


They also warned that it is potentially much more dangerous than global
warming, as food crops are better able to adapt to rising temperatures
than to falling ones.


Just think of all those wind turbines using grid electricity to de-ice.

I think the main issue is not the research, but the way it's been
interpreted by the Daily Express.


What a rag that is, according to them the Three horsemen of the
apocalypse are dropping by in our local this weekend!..

Tis true I tells ye;!...


The article also cites the Met Office:

"A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase
the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United
States but wouldn't halt global warming."

I wouldn't use the story to inform my views, beyond 'weather happens'.


--
Tony Sayer

On 25/06/2015 17:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
....
Russia seems to breed scientists that are not constrained by western
dogma (there's a surprise).

When I worked at British Gas, a senior colleague was working with Russia
on designing their high-pressure grid (the UK one being the envy of the
world). He reported that their scientists were convinced the crust of the
Earth was supported on a layer of methane ...

Not sure about that, but it is certainly suggested that, if you go deep
enough, there is a point at which you will only find gas, without any
oil deposits. Any oil that used to exist having been converted to gas by
thermal cracking.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Jethro_uk writes:
Russia seems to breed scientists that are not constrained by western
dogma (there's a surprise).

When I worked at British Gas, a senior colleague was working with Russia
on designing their high-pressure grid (the UK one being the envy of the
world). He reported that their scientists were convinced the crust of the
Earth was supported on a layer of methane ...

It wasn't just Russia - western scientists were also predicting
cooling before the current global warming theory got popular.

It was probably some 10-15 years ago that a scientist at Rutherford
labs told me you could now only get funding to prove that there is
global warming. There had been research teams which were still doing
their research with open minds, but found their projects were no
longer worthy of funding. When politics interferes with research
in this way, the output from the research is liable to invalid.
Global warming is very attactive to politicians - it provides them
with another excuse to control our lives, which they love to do.

Having said that, there *should* be global warming - after all, we
are still coming out of the last ice age, and we're some way off
reaching the expected inter-glacial maximum temperatures. However,
it's not a nice smooth curve, and fluctuates with things like the
medievil warm period, and the little ice age a few hundred years
later.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 28/06/15 12:49, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
the
medievil warm period
^^^^^^^^
Spawn of Satan???


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 28/06/2015 12:49, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Jethro_uk writes:
Russia seems to breed scientists that are not constrained by western
dogma (there's a surprise).

When I worked at British Gas, a senior colleague was working with Russia
on designing their high-pressure grid (the UK one being the envy of the
world). He reported that their scientists were convinced the crust of the
Earth was supported on a layer of methane ...

It wasn't just Russia - western scientists were also predicting
cooling before the current global warming theory got popular.

It was probably some 10-15 years ago that a scientist at Rutherford
labs told me you could now only get funding to prove that there is
global warming. There had been research teams which were still doing
their research with open minds, but found their projects were no
longer worthy of funding. When politics interferes with research
in this way, the output from the research is liable to invalid.
Global warming is very attactive to politicians - it provides them
with another excuse to control our lives, which they love to do.

Havn't been to the Rutherford since the late 60's; but this has long
been one of my suspicions.


Having said that, there *should* be global warming - after all, we
are still coming out of the last ice age, and we're some way off
reaching the expected inter-glacial maximum temperatures. However,
it's not a nice smooth curve, and fluctuates with things like the
medievil warm period, and the little ice age a few hundred years
later.


+1.

Not to mention the Roman warm period. What other reason would the Latins
have to settle in Northumberland and Cumbria? For the farming rather
than the minerals (OK there was iron ore too).

Why do so few people realise this?

And, of course, if you really want to see the end of Western
civilisation as we know it, just wait until the next lot of glaciers
cover London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, New York.

My guess is that in a few thousand years time we will be pumping out
carbon dioxide and spreading laser printer toner all over the ice-caps
in an attempt to reverse them.

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:49:32 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:



It was probably some 10-15 years ago that a scientist at Rutherford labs
told me you could now only get funding to prove that there is global
warming. There had been research teams which were still doing their
research with open minds, but found their projects were no longer worthy
of funding. When politics interferes with research in this way, the
output from the research is liable to invalid. Global warming is very
attactive to politicians - it provides them with another excuse to
control our lives, which they love to do.


i understood that the research disproving GW was funded by hydrocarbon
companies ...


steve

On 28/06/2015 23:04, steve.n wrote:
....

i understood that the research disproving GW was funded by hydrocarbon
companies ...

Nobody has proven, or disproven, anything to do with climate change. All
that anybody can do is propose a hypothesis, make predictions based upon
that hypothesis and sit back to see whether the predictions come true.
So far, models based upon the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming
have failed to come anywhere near predicting what happens in real life.


--
Colin Bignell

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:49:32 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

It wasn't just Russia - western scientists were also predicting
cooling before the current global warming theory got popular.

So we keep being told but there is no trace of it in the scientific
literature of the time.

It was probably some 10-15 years ago that a scientist at Rutherford
labs told me you could now only get funding to prove that there is
global warming.

It must have been a lot more than 15 years ago if it was Rutherford
labs, they were merged with the Appleton Laboratory in the early 80s
to form RAL. The vast majority of research at RAL has absolutely
noting to do with global warming but receives funding none the less.

On 28/06/15 23:04, steve.n wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:49:32 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:



It was probably some 10-15 years ago that a scientist at Rutherford labs
told me you could now only get funding to prove that there is global
warming. There had been research teams which were still doing their
research with open minds, but found their projects were no longer worthy
of funding. When politics interferes with research in this way, the
output from the research is liable to invalid. Global warming is very
attactive to politicians - it provides them with another excuse to
control our lives, which they love to do.


i understood that the research disproving GW was funded by hydrocarbon
companies ...

No, you didn't understand it, that was what the watermelons told you.


steve



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 25/06/2015 15:48, RJH wrote:
On 25/06/2015 15:11, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 25/06/2015 15:00, Robin wrote:
On 25/06/2015 10:30, Robin wrote:
Now it seems, we have global cooling, as predicted by Russian
astronomers about a decade or so ago:

I think *global* cooling goes a bit far given the report includes:

'Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This
researchshows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are
likely to be larger than the global effect. This study shows that the
sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have
impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions
about adapting to climate change for the decades to come." '...

The prediction is for global temperatures to fall by 0.1C. That is
global cooling.

Is that not a prediction for global temperatures to be lower by c 0.1C
*relative to the increases predicted* otherwise?...

The wording of the article is 'The latest study, published in Nature
Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall
cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.' That appears to be a fairly clear
statement that global temperatures are expected to decrease by 0.1C from
what they are now.


I think the main issue is not the research, but the way it's been
interpreted by the Daily Express. The article also cites the Met Office:

"A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase
the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United
States but wouldn't halt global warming."

It might if it were to happen.

It is also nothing like the Maunder minimum yet. It would need to fall
by another factor of two or so. The present sunspot cycle 24 is about as
strong as typical cycles 12-16 which cover from 1880 through 1930.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/im...olor_Small.jpg

Sunspot cycles 18,19,21 and 22 were unusually strong compared to the
historical record which goes back to 1750. The lower solar maximum
activity is mainly to frustrate owners of new H-alpha telescopes.

It is ironic that this claim should come hot on the heals of a CME that
made auroras visible from the South of England - hardly a "quiet" sun.

I wouldn't use the story to inform my views, beyond 'weather happens'.

The Express only exists to promote wilful ignorance in its readers.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 25/06/2015 17:37, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Actually, ask the Pakistanis about global Warming and I bet they will agree
its real right now.

Unfortunately most Americans (and Express readers) will not.

When you think of it though, if you are putting more energy in from captured
energy, but less from the Sun, the issue will be weather extremes. Ie the
energy levels have to be disipated and equalised, and on a rotating body you
are going to get a huge amount of mixing, hence more severe highs and lows.

The effect of higher global temperatures is subtle. The main one that
you can be fairly sure of is that a warmer atmosphere will hold more
water vapour and as such be capable of supporting more powerful storms.

The UK could end up with a climate more typical of its high latitude if
the Atlanic conveyor (aka Gulf Stream) stalls or slows down. Global
warming means that the global *average* rises but not everywhere is
affected equally. A few unlucky places may actually get colder.

The other interesting thing of course is that if we are indeed removing
more Oxygen than we can replace no matter how much cooler the sun gets, the
trapped energy will increase.

It is the polyatomics mainly CO2, H2O and CH4 that trap heat. Diatomics
like O2 and N2 play no part as greenhouse gasses they are transparent.

The increase of CO2 has been measured now for many decades by the late
Dr Keeling at Scripps. You can even see the effect of diffusion from the
heavily industrialised north down to the south pole.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_...tration_trends

Dubya Bush had a damn good try at closing them down but in the end was
forced to give Dr Keeling the highest US science award in 2002.

Keeling's son went on to perfect a precise atomic ratio instrument O2:N2
which can measure the corresponding decrease in the oxygen concentration
(which requires nearly 5 sig fig measurements to see).

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

The record is now about 25 years long continuous monitoring.

The two main dangers are climate extremes and rising sea level.
Brian

It will take a few more direct storm hits on major US cities or their
grain belt becoming a dust bowl before Americans take AGW seriously.

Churchill famously said "you can always rely on the Americans to do the
right thing - but only after they have tried everything else".
(paraphrasing)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 30/06/15 10:26, Martin Brown wrote:
It will take a few more direct storm hits on major US cities or their
grain belt becoming a dust bowl before Americans take AGW seriously.

Sadly despite rising levels of CO2, global temperatures are not really
rising at an alarming rate, if at all, and as for super storms, the
last decade has been amongst the quietest on record.


Churchill famously said "you can always rely on the Americans to do the
right thing - but only after they have tried everything else".
(paraphrasing)

Reality will always win in the end. The question is, which reality will
it be?

Right now the reality seems to be that without positive feedback, for
which not only is there no evidence whatsoever, but rather the reverse
is the case, the effect of CO2 increase on global climate will be so
insignificant it will be dwarfed by other effects.

The panic in fact was simply a coincidence between the need for a theory
to justify state control of the energy industry, with a random period of
fairly unspectacular warming in the late 20th century...




--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.