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 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

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 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.

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.