Overall, for us, this winter has been crazily mild.  While, we did have one spell in December that was cold enough to brown much of the ground vegetation that normally stays green in this part of the country, it has been much warmer than normal for most of the season.

Still, it’s not normal to have daffodils in January, but we have the first blossom of the year – and the forecast is for temperatures above 60°F (15.5°C) for the week ahead.

So is winter over?  Where is all the cold weather? Is this global warming?

Winter’s probably not over here.  Typically, our snowiest month is February, followed by March, and we’ve even had snow in April, though some years we don’t get any snow at all. Last year, on February 9th, we had nearly a foot, and that was the second snow of the week.

On the other hand, spring-like conditions in early February 2008 led to a tornado outbreak that killed 13 in Arkansas (55 in southern US) with widespread damage and power outages.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see more big storms or winter weather in the next month, this year.

While it’s been unusually warm here,the reverse is true in other places.  Alaska has seen some brutally cold weather, worse than normal, and very heavy snow in places.  Sea ice in the Bering Sea is moving south much earlier than normal – and it’s moving fast, threatening to halt the snow-crap harvesting at the peak of the season.  Very cold temperatures and strong winds are pushing the ice south at 10 to 15 miles a day, 5 times the normal rate, threatening $8 million worth of crap pots and other gear already in the water.

In my view, our warmer weather and the colder weather in Alaska are just regional climate variations, not global warming or cooling, not a direct manifestation of climate change, though change is coming – it always is.

Globally,  temperatures have been relatively stable over the last decade.

While warming alarmists tout the decade as the warmest on record, “relatively stable” for more than 10 years isn’t warming.

As I’ve said in previous posts, my view is that we are on the verge of a significant drop in global temperature.  When it starts, if it starts, is anyone’s guess.  The loss of heat may have already begun in the waters of the world, without yet being felt in the weather.

One ominous prediction, though, says that the coming cold may move the geographical center of the corn producing region of North America from Iowa south into Kansas.

I’d rather have global warming.

What has the weather been like recently for you?

I’m running another test of the settings of the plugin to send posts to facebook.

The figure provided with this test is a trend of satellite determined temperature variation for the lower atmosphere of the entire planet.  The figure is published monthly.  The temperature variation (or anomaly) is plotted as a temperature departure from the average value from January 1981 to December 2010.

The high peaks of the running 13 month average at 1998 and 2009 occurred from periods with strong El Ninos.  The drop at the end of the figure corresponds to La Nina periods

Cooling 3.5 degrees Celsius by 2020.

A new Norwegian study predicts that the annual mean temperature in Svalbard will drop 3.5°C over the period of 2009 to 2020 and mean winter temperature will drop 6°C.  The study is based on solar activity and the duration of solar cycles.  While the study is specific to Norway, if this actually occurs, temperatures will also drop significantly in other areas.

Cooling ‘til 2068?

A recent Chinese study of Tibetan tree rings indicates that there is nothing abnormal about the current climate conditions. The research team determined that several different natural cycles – 2-3 years, 100 years, 199 years, 800 years, and 1,324 years – combined to produce the climate history seen in the varying tree ring properties from the Tibetan Plateau.

The study indicate that temperatures have peaked and predicts that they will drop until 2068 AD, rising again after that.

The studies are two of a number of studies that run counter to the anthropogenic global warming theory so prominent in today’s media.

Global warming or global cooling?

If I had a choice, I’d prefer warming.

(I’d also prefer that governments not waste money in futile efforts that aren’t going to make a significant difference.  If we’re going to spend money like that, let’s do something worthwhile – like eradicating malaria or making sure more people in the world have clean water, something that would make a real difference instead of lining the pockets of bureaucrats or eco-snobs.)

In the last couple of days, hundreds of news articles have been reporting on the strange behavior of the sun.

Three new scientific papers released simultaneously June 14th suggest that our sun’s magnetic activity and sunspot cycle may be going somewhat dormant for a while – possibly several decades – resulting in a period of global cooling. The results were announced at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.

I’ve been following and writing about the unusual behavior of the sun for quite a while.  I check the status of solar activity and sunspots on a regular basis, sometimes daily.  It’s just a quick check, just to monitor the disparity between what’s been predicted and what is actually occurring.

On March 29, 2009 – a little over 2 years ago – I wrote, “A number of scientists are projecting that global warming is over, for now, and that global average temperatures will be dropping for the next 20 to 30 years.”   Last December, writing about what an extended lull in solar activity might mean, I said, “Bottom line – it’s going to get colder.”

I don’t want to be right on this.

During the Dalton Minimum, a period of low solar activity lasting from about 1790 to 1830, frigid winters and cold summers resulted in massive crop failures, famine and death.  The Maunder Minimum, from about 1645 to 1715, also corresponded to a period of low solar activity and coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age.

I’d rather have global warming.

Other factors could mitigate or exacerbate the effect of this solar slumber.  It is already being suggested that anthropogenic global warming – warming caused by human carbon emissions – for example, could mitigate how cold it gets.  It is also being suggested by some that , rather cooling, this might merely temper the impact of global warming.

Unfortunately, I think that society will come to learn that anthropogenic global warming has already done all that it do.

A couple of things come to mind that could cause this to be worse – increased volcanic activity and the shifting of major ocean currents from their warm phase to the cold phase.  As we’ve seen in recent news reports, volcanic activity seems to be on the rise.  As well, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a cyclic thermal phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean that lasts several decades, is shifting out of its warm phase into its cold phase.

I really do not want to be right on this.

_______

The image below is a composite of the solar sunspot predictions from 4 years ago and the actual results as of December 2010.  The red lines are smoothed high and low predicted values from 2007.  The blue lines are actual monthly results and smoothed monthly results from December 2010.

This month’s weather has been very cruel in parts of the United States. A long-standing record for the number of April tornados has been broken – with a great many lives lost – and with the current North American temperature conditions, more may be coming in the next few weeks.

Tornados occur every year in North America, usually in the spring, starting in the southern part of the central United States and moving northward as the season progresses.  However, tornados have occurred in every month of the year and in every state of the United States – though not unknown in other parts of the world, by far the largest percentage of tornados occur in the USA, which averages about 1,200 tornados a year.

While there is a lot known about tornados and the conditions from which they tend to develop, there is still a lot unknown and, perhaps, some aspects that will forever be unknowable.

Strong winds, strong wind shear (significant differences in speed and direction of wind, varying with height), an unstable atmosphere and abundant low-level humidly are all contributors to the formation of tornadoes.  Wind shear, “the kind which develops when cold and warm air masses ‘collide’”¹ is the key.

Active tornado seasons in the U.S. are almost always due to unusually COOL air persisting over the Midwest and Ohio Valley longer than it normally does as we transition into spring. ¹

Lately, I’ve been watching and reading weather predictions from a new meteorological consulting firm, WeatherBell Analytics LLC, where Joe Bastardi, formerly of AccuWeather, said on April 2oth:

While the next 5 days sees another moderate outbreak of severe weather this weekend ( and the snow again on the northern side) its next week another lawyers, guns and money outbreak takes place. We are liable to see another 100 to 200 tornadoes before the month is out, making it the most active April ever. My reasoning for this is based on the major, and progressive, trough that swings into the plains early next week, and is leading a major crushing of the eastern ridge that will then take us into a May much like 2008 temp and precip wise.

It’s natural for people to want to find a reason when something bad happens and, all too often lately, the favorite culprit of anything bad in nature is climate change (aka global warming).  However, tornadoes are one feature of nature that is not predicted by global warming theory.  If anything, a warming globe would reduce the frequency of tornadoes.

It is well known that strong to violent tornado activity in the U.S. has decreased markedly since statistics began in the 1950s, which has also been a period of average warming. So, if anything, global warming causes FEWER tornado outbreaks…not more. In other words, more violent tornadoes would, if anything, be a sign of “global cooling”, not “global warming”.¹

The ever improving weather knowledge of forecasters and meteorologists doubtlessly gave sufficient warning that saved many lives this month.

With every passing day, it seems, more precise digital tools emerge to clarify the inner heart of a storm cell in rampage. And yet, for all that solid information, the natural world can still seem murky, unpredictable and downright scary when it roars into full-throated chaos.

Tornadoes in particular, researchers say, straddle the line between the known and the profoundly unknowable.²

__________

¹ MORE Tornadoes from Global Warming? That’s a Joke, Right? – Dr. Roy Spencer
² Predicting Tornadoes: It’s Still a Guessing Game – The New York Times

Solar activity continues to tend far lower than normal in a number of different parameters.

See more comics from Calamities of Nature

Whether it’s weather or climate – it’s all in the accuracy of the models and the accuracy model assumptions and data that the models are fed.

If the assumptions and/or data are off, what can be said about the results?

By most indicators, the Sun is not behaving as expected at this point in the solar cycle – and it hasn’t been for quite a while.  The most visible indicator of solar activity – the number of sunspots – is far lower than normal.  Over the last few days, the Sun’s surface facing Earth has been spotless.

We are currently in Solar Cycle 24.

The figure on the right, above, is a composite of historical monthly sunspot numbers as of early December from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center superimposed over the same figure from March 2007.  The red lines represent the 2007  predicted maximum and minimum monthly sunspot counts.  The current average monthly count, which should be ramping up to the cycle’s maximum, is far below what was anticipated.

In a paper published March 2006, David Archibald predicted that Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would be very much like Solar Cycle 5 and 6 – the Dalton Minimum.  Nearly two years into Cycle 24, the pattern he predicted appears to be developing.

So what was the Dalton Minimum and what might a similar period mean for the modern world?

Bottom line – it’s going to get colder.

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity that lasted from about 1790 to 1830 in which global temperatures were also lower than average. If we are entering into a similar “modern” minimum and the correlation of colder global temperatures hold true, global “warming” may stop and global temperatures may drop through the end of the minimum.

By many indicators, global temperatures appear to have been relatively stable for nearly a decade – or more – already, except for perturbations caused by climate features such as the Arctic Oscillation, El Nino, and La Nina.

Some scientists believe that the recent warming that has been seen is simply a natural recovery from the cold period of the Little Ice Age, which may have resulted from several low solar activity periods. If that is the case, even if temperature were to drop over the next couple of decades, the overall trend, since the end of the Little Ice Age, may be maintained, temperatures may drop for the next 20 to 30 years.

Previous related posts:

• The Sun Has Lost Its Spots, January 31, 2009
• It’s going to get frosty, March 19, 2009
• The Sun Has Lost Its Spots – Part 2, April 6, 2009
• The Sun has found some spots – May 1, 2009
• The Sun has lost its spots – part 3 – June 28, 2009
• 700 blank days and counting – August 27, 2009
• The Sun has lost its spots – part 4. – September 17, 1010

The sun isn’t as completely spotless as it was a year ago, but spotless days are still occurring – and, according to a new study discussed in Science, sunspots may soon disappear for decades.

Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun’s face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth. (Say Goodbye to Sunspots? by Phil Beradelli, September 14, 2010, ScienceNOW)

The study is also discussed in a Financial Post article by Lawrence Solomon:

And that would not be good – far more people suffer and die as a result of cold than of heat.  Extended periods of cold would have an adverse affect on crops. Frigid winters and cold summers during the Dalton Minimum, which lasted from about 1790 to 1830, resulted in massive crop failures, famine and death.  The Maunder Minimum, also known as the Little Ice Age, lasted for about 70 years, from about 1645 to 1715, and “was marked by bitter cold, widespread crop failures, and severe human privation.”¹ The Dalton and Maunder Minimum were periods of low solar activity and low sunspot count.

The sun has not fully escaped the solar minimum between solar cycles 23 and 24.  A typical solar minimum will see 486 days without sunspots.  Since 2004, there has been 809 blank days, 41 so far in 2010, and the most recent just in the past week.  If scientists were to use the telescopes of the Dalton or Maunder Minimum, the number of blank days would likely be quite a bit higher and many of the recent sunspots would not have been counted.

What do you think about the possibility of a colder future?

Of course, some may say that for long term forecasting, one would have just as much fortune depending upon the Old Farmer’s Almanac.  Ironically, though, sunspots are taken into consideration in the Old Farmer’s Almanac forecasts.

We employ three scientific disciplines to make our long-range predictions: solar science, the study of sunspots and other solar activity; climatology, the study of prevailing weather patterns; and meteorology, the study of the atmosphere. We predict weather trends and events by comparing solar patterns and historical weather conditions with current solar activity.

¹ from a 2008 Livingston and Penn paper

In Australia, climate change initiatives have been delayed until at least 2013.  Despite that, the Federal Climate Change Department is not considering any cutbacks or layoffs.

TAXPAYERS will fork out $90 million a year to keep more than 400 public servants employed within the Federal Climate Change Department – despite most of them now having nothing to do until 2013.

More than 60 of them are classified as senior executive staff on salaries between $168,000 and $298,000 a year. Their salary bill alone will cost an estimated $12 million every year.

A further $8 million will also be paid in rent for plush offices at Canberra’s Constitution Place until 2012, where it is believed 500 new computers will be delivered this week.

It can be revealed that despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s decision on Tuesday to suspend the failed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until at least 2013, the department has ruled out plans to cut back staff.

Read the full Herald Sun article – Kevin Rudd’s Department of Hot Air costing taxpayers $90m

From Fox News:

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. But in the last three months, as global warming has gone from a scientific near-certitude to the subject of satire, Gore — the public face of global warming — has been mum on the topic.

The former vice president apparently finds it inconvenient even to answer calls to testify before the U.S. Senate. You can call him Al . . . but he won’t call back.

On Tuesday, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe — a prominent skeptic of global warming theory and the Republican leader of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee — issued a request for Gore to come testify on global warming. In an interview with FoxNews.com, Inhofe said he wants Gore to appear because "it will be interesting to ask him on what science he based his movie," a film the senator considers "science fiction."

Gore has yet to respond, but that didn’t prevent him from causing a stir at Apple’s shareholder meeting Thursday. According to CNET, Gore was seated in the first row while several stockholders bashed his high-profile views on climate change. One reportedly said Gore "has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted."

Read the Fox News article:  You Can Call Him Al … But Al Won’t Call You Back

Meeting in closed sessions in Bali, Environment and Climate ministers from several countries are insisting on a review of the performance of the IPCC and it’s head, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.  According to a UK Telegraph article,  the minister’s main concern is over Dr. Pachauri’s response to errors discovered in the 2007 IPCC assessment report on climate.

Environment and Climate ministers meeting in closed session in Bali last night insisted that an independent review should be carried out following the publicising of mistakes in its last report, and a row surrounding Dr Pachauri’s robust response to his critics. If his management is found to be at fault his position could become untenable.

Participants in the unprecedented meeting – held at the annual assembly of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Governing Council in Bali – were sworn to secrecy over the decision and it is only expected to be announced after its detailed scope and composition have been worked out by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organisation, the two UN agencies that oversee the IPCC’s work.

The ministers – led by Hillary Benn, the Environment Secretary,and his counterparts from Germany,. Norway, Algeria and Antigua and Barbuda – refused to allow Dr Pachauri to decide who would carry out the review, insisting it must be completely and demonstrably independent of the IPCC.

Read the full Telegraph article: IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry.

Forbes India has an account of how a retired geologist took apart the alarmist climate claims of a Nobel Prize winning organization.

Hell Breaks Loose
Raina vividly remembers the day the report was released. “It is surprising that even on the day when this document was released by the minister, a lot of press asked me questions but nobody bothered to put them in the papers because probably at that time they thought this fellow knows nothing… yeh to mantriji ne kar diya,” he says. He was partially correct. Not many took the statement too seriously in the beginning, except for some stray critics writing in the media. But the one man who took immediate note of it and reacted bitterly was R. K. Pachauri, chairman of IPCC.

Read the Forbes India article: V K Raina: The Man Who Came In From The Cold

From KUSI News, San Diego, a special report:

Part one:

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

A report in Newsweek, Iceberg Ahead, looks at the current state of climate science and politics… and how things got to this point.

What went wrong? Part of the blame lies, of course, with those who obstructed the efforts of the IPCC and the individual scientists, including bloggers who tried to sandbag scientists with spurious FOIA requests, and the perpetrators (as yet unknown) of the hack at the Climatic Research Unit. Part of the blame also falls on the climate scientists themselves. Many of them—including perhaps Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC head—may have stepped too far over the line from science to advocacy, undermining their own credibility. Some scientists, as a result, are now calling for a change in tone from antagonism to reconciliation. Climate science, they say, needs to open its books and be more tolerant of scrutiny from the outside. Its institutions—notably the IPCC—need to go about their business with greater transparency. "The circle-the-wagons mentality has backfired," says Judith Curry, head of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

Read more: Iceberg Ahead – Climate scientists who play fast and loose with the facts are imperiling not just their profession but the planet.

The Netherlands’ largest daily newspaper, Der Telegraf, has totally vindicated the country’s most prominent global warming skeptic in an article titled, "Henk Tennekes – He was right after all (English translation)."

The director of the Netherlands Meteorological Institute, KNMI, until the early 1990s, Tennekes’ very vocal skepticism of the climate science from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change resulted in his forced resignation.

Tennekes continues to be very critical of the IPCC and the climate science of today:

“Why does the IPCC ignore the oceans? The top 2½ meters of all sea-water contain as much heat as
the total amount of heat in the atmosphere. Why has the topmost kilometre of the oceans turned
colder during the last five years?

We don’t know. Until we understand what is happening with the heat in the oceans, the models
which aim to predict the climate are totally useless.”

Read more:"Henk Tennekes – He was right after all (English translation)."

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli turned up the heat on global warming yesterday.

On behalf of the state, Cuccinelli filed a petition asking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its December finding that global warming poses a threat to people.

Cuccinelli also filed a petition with the federal appeals court in Washington seeking a court review of the EPA finding.

read more:  Va. challenges EPA’s stance on global warming

The last several months have been a very interesting time for those who monitor climate change issues.  Finally, problems with  the “settled science” of climate change are hitting main stream media outlets.  A concise Wall Street Journal editorial chronicles the majority of the most significant issues identified so far.

It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

Read the rest at the Wall Street Journal: The Continuing Climate Meltdown.

The Great Climate Change Retreat

UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chie1f

Nature editor quits ‘Climategate’ review panel

IPCC ex-chairman Robert Watson calls for review of climate change mistakes

Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda.

Scientists are saying that temperature records around the world have been compromised, according to UK Times Online article (from The Sunday Times).

 

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

Read the rest of the Times Online article:  World may not be warming, say scientists