The past solar cycle was 20% less than the two prior cycles. The current cycle is proving much longer than any in recent decades and longer cycles usually are associated with lowered solar activity. As we have indicated most projections for the next cycle(s) are for a continued decline (See Lund Forecasts Cycle 24). Quiet cycles historically have been associated with widespread global cooling.

David Archibold in Energy & Environment reports on what quiet cycles 24 and 25 might mean for temperatures. Here is the abstract. 

Projections of weak solar maxima for solar cycles 24 and 25 are correlated with the terrestrial climate response to solar cycles over the last three hundred years, derived from a review of the literature. Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to 2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.

For see full story on climatepolice.com link

In a May 10, 2007 weblog posting Roger Pielke Sr. notes that the 2007 IPCC Statement for Policymakers (SPM) makes the following findings: (1) “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995 -2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850)” [based on “The average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface temperature.”].  and (2) “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures…”

This claim, which is repeated throughout the media reports on the IPCC report, however, is disingenuous. Other analyses of global heat system changes do not support the claim of continued warming of the climate system. 

Rogers points out these include (1) since the middle of 2003, the upper ocean has not warmed (2) since about 2002, there has been NO statistically significant global average warming in the lower and middle troposphere and (3) since about 1995, there has been NO statistically significant cooling in the stratosphere. Each of trhese are in conflict with IPCC statements and model based projections.
See Roger’s full weblog here

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology. In the 1970s, he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing.”

When asked if he would rank the factors the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list? Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor. Eight hundredths of one percent ia absorbed by carbon dioxide. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years. See full story here

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology. In the 1970s, he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing.”

When asked if he would rank the factors the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list? Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor. Eight hundredths of one percent ia absorbed by carbon dioxide. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years. See full story here

Ian Overton interviewed Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former Director of the International Arctic Research Center, on April 23, 2007.

EIR: Many people in Alaska and elsewhere are saying that local and global warming are the result of increased local and global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and so on, because the winters are warmer, permafrost is melting, and so on. I’ve noticed that newspapers are warning this will cause serious problems for Alaska’s economy. And a number of people are becoming quite worried about this. Does the warming in Alaska actually have anything to do with local or global industrial emissions?

Dr. Akasofu: ... any serious climatologist will agree, there are two components: one is natural components, the other is man-made components. Our main effort here, is to identify natural components. How much [are] natural components [involved] in natural climate change? My point, my position is, that until we identify natural components, and subtract that from present temperature rise, for example, we cannot tell very much, how much the man-made effects will be....Even just in the last 100 years there was an increase from 1910 to 1940; then temperature began to decrease from 1940 to 1975, when CO2 began to increase in 1940! Then temperature began to increase again from 1975. And no one can explain the temperature rise from 1910 to 1940, or explain the decrease from 1940 to 1975. My point is, that until we understand the increase from 1910 to 1940, we just cannot say the increase from 1975 to the present is entirely from the greenhouse effect.
See full interview here Arctic_Climate_Expert.pdf

Ian Overton interviewed Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former Director of the International Arctic Research Center, on April 23, 2007.

EIR: Many people in Alaska and elsewhere are saying that local and global warming are the result of increased local and global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and so on, because the winters are warmer, permafrost is melting, and so on. I’ve noticed that newspapers are warning this will cause serious problems for Alaska’s economy. And a number of people are becoming quite worried about this. Does the warming in Alaska actually have anything to do with local or global industrial emissions?

Dr. Akasofu: ... any serious climatologist will agree, there are two components: one is natural components, the other is man-made components. Our main effort here, is to identify natural components. How much [are] natural components [involved] in natural climate change? My point, my position is, that until we identify natural components, and subtract that from present temperature rise, for example, there was an increase from 1910 to 1940; then temperature began to decrease from 1940 to 1975, when CO2 began to increase in 1940! Then temperature began to increase again from 1975. And no one can explain the temperature rise from 1910 to 1940, or explain the decrease from 1940 to 1975. My point is, that until we understand the increase from 1910 to 1940, we just cannot say the increase from 1975 to the present is entirely from the greenhouse effect.
See full interview here Arctic_Climate_Expert.pdf

Chris Landsea of NOAA has presented at the Annual AMS and elsewhere recently papers on hurricanes and climate change, and whether the recent upsurge in activity is due to global warming or changes in the way we monitor hurricanes. Landsea’s argument, in contrast to the likes of Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Judith Curry and others, is that observers missed so many storms during the pre-satellite era that a re-analysis of past data might explain why hurricanes seem to have become more common and destructive in the last 30 years.

We missed so many past storms, in fact, that Landsea’s research suggests historical Atlantic storm totals should be inflated by 3.2 named storms a year between the period of 1900-1965, and 1 storm between 1966 and 2002, to match the modern era. He has now published this work in the American Geophysical Union’s peer-reviewed EOS Transactions. See full blog story here

Chris Landsea of NOAA has presented at the Annual AMS and elsewhere recently papers on hurricanes and climate change, and whether the recent upsurge in activity is due to global warming or changes in the way we monitor hurricanes. Landsea’s argument, in contrast to the likes of Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Judith Curry and others, is that observers missed so many storms during the pre-satellite era that a re-analysis of past data might explain why hurricanes seem to have become more common and destructive in the last 30 years.

We missed so many past storms, in fact, that Landsea’s research suggests historical Atlantic storm totals should be inflated by 3.2 named storms a year between the period of 1900-1965, and 1 storm between 1966 and 2002, to match the modern era. He has now published this work in the American Geophysical Union’s peer-reviewed EOS Transactions. See full blog story here