Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA
scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
-
Met Office releases new figures which show no
warming in 15 years
By David Rose
Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global
warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature
data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be
heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost
fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000
measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met
Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms
that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of
many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists
yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of
energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand
minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a
shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with
high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what
scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in
sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers
are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th
Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University
of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the
sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a
great deal weaker still.
According to a paper issued last week by the
Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking
place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton
minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John
Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new
solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer
Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice
Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that
the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on
climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is
likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global
temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings
suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years
would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse
gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other
solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler
than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center
for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a
long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It
may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the
need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of
the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same
computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in
global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without
interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about
to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an
overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years
2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
So far there is no sign of any of this
happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still
valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains
groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’
he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in
North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office
climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or
start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will
eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the
current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model
attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to
conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model
itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent
climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology,
said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact
difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to
accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to
the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she
said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors
other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the
60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in
terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the
past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’
back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to
flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian
Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles
difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2
– caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun –
which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very
interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to
determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was
caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world
temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’
effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the
pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If
we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to
become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for
some scientists could be very serious.’
How many millions have the liberals made off this scam?
