Quantifying the Solar Cycle 24 Temperature Decline

Guest post by David Archibald

Three wise Norwegians – Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum – have just published a paper entitled “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24”. It is available online here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

The authors have found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes by 0.21°C per year of solar cycle length. The biggest response found in the temperature series they examined was Svalbard at 1.09°C per year of solar cycle length. The authors also credit me with the discovery of a new branch of science. On page 6 they state.” Archibald (2008) was the first to realize that the length of the previous sunspot cycle (PSCL) has a predictive power for the temperature in the next sunspot cycle, if the raw (unsmoothed) value for the SCL is used.” I have decided to name this new branch of science “solarclimatology”. It is similar to Svensmark’s cosmoclimatology but much more readily quantifiable.

What we use solarclimatology for is to predict future climate. Professor Solheim and his co-authors have done that for Solar Cycle 24 which takes us out to 2026. Using Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram, we can go beyond that to about 2040: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/

The green corona emissions point to Solar Cycle 24 being 17 years long, and thus 4.5 years longer than Solar Cycle 23. Using the relationship found by Solheim and his co-authors, that means that the 0.63°C decline for the Northern Hemisphere over Solar Cycle 24 will be followed by a further 0.95°C over Solar Cycle 25. That is graphically indicated thusly, using Figure 19 from the Solheim et al paper:

image

The last time we witnessed temperatures anything like that was in the decade 1690 – 1700. Crop failures caused by cold killed off 10% of the populations of France, Norway and Sweden, 20% of the population of Estonia and one third of the population of Finland.

As noted above, Svalbard’s relationship is 1.09°C per year of solar cycle length. That means that it is headed for a total temperature fall of 8.2°C. The agricultural output of Svalbard and the rest of the island of Spitsbergen won’t be affected though, because there isn’t any. The biggest effect will on some of the World’s most productive agricultural lands. The solar cycle length – temperature relationship for some localities in the northeast US is 0.7°C degrees per year, which is a good proxy for the latitude of the US – Canadian border and thus the North American grain belt. Newman in 1980 found that the Corn Belt shifted 144 km per 1.0°C change in temperature. With the temperature falling 5.2°C, the Corn Belt will shift 750 km south to the Sun Belt, as shown following:

image

The outlook for Canadian agriculture is somewhat more dire. I expect Canadian agriculture will be reduced to trapping beavers, as in the 17th Century.

The current cold conditions in Europe resulted in more than 300 souls departing this mortal coil, and has discomforted some millions. Solheim and his co-authors note “As seen in figures 6 and 7, the Norwegian and Europe60 average temperatures have already started to decline towards the predicted SC24 values”.

References:

Newman, J. E. (1980). Climate change impacts on the growing season of the North American Corn Belt. Biometeorology, 7 (2), 128-142. Supplement to International Journal of Biometeorology, 24 (December, 1980).

About these ads

210 thoughts on “Quantifying the Solar Cycle 24 Temperature Decline

  1. Just like with the warming predictions of the warmist crowd, it will be interesting to see if this cooling prediction comes true.

  2. I agree that the Sun is the primary driver of Earth’s climate but your projections are just as baseless and useless as the AGW crowd’s. Stick to the science and drop the doom and gloom! Let’s wait until Solar Cycle 24 has obviously peaked before guesstamating SC25 trend. You may be completely correct, but I doubt it, just as I’m skeptical of the AGW rants.

    Bill

  3. DA has been right about nearly prediction he made since 3 years ago on this site except the decline in global temperature for cycle 24 (I think it was 4C (if it was 0.4C he may be correct).

  4. And our EPA will probably still be retaining the ethanol mandate, increasing CAFE standards, and maintaining huge tax credits for the purchase of electric cars. DOE and EPA will probably still be putting roadblocks in the path of shale drilling and OCS development while Australia will still be collecting the carbon tax. Why? Because the IPCC will still be claiming that the severe and sustained drop in temperatures is a temporary aberration and catastrophic warming will come roaring back at any moment. Above all, the billions of dollars in government grants to warmist scientists would have to be maintained to advance the new premise that greenhouse gasses are causing the “temporary” pause in catastrophic global warming. The gravy train must be maintained at all costs…

  5. That’s it. I’m off!
    I am packing my bags and will see out my days in the warm sun of Australia where my daughter can look after me.

    England is going to be a little uncomfortable if it has to rely on siezed frozen windturbines.

  6. The current cold conditions are of 1980’s vintage which MIGHT indicate a drop of about 0.4 °C. That’s the difference in recorded and modified temperatures from UK Met Off 2006 to end 2011.

    4 years 0.1°C/ yr. Yeh I know it’s rubbish, isn’t it.

  7. I love the way that if you add in the 2011 numbers it makes these predictions look even more ridiculous than they obviously are. Kudos for producing a testable prediction though!

  8. Same question as to the catastrophic warmists: at what divergence between your predictions and measurable data will you concede your hypothesis is wrong?
    Climate strikes me as being a pretty poor candidate for catastrophe compared to all the others and even though I think cooling is probably a bigger threat than warming, I can’t see us returning to an ice-age in less than decades. Take the catastrophe out of climate – we’ll get a lot more science done.

  9. As the AGW crowd long ago discovered, “gloom and doom sells”. If “the Archibald theory” should capture news and entertainment media attention, I foresee torches and pitchforks in the future for solar plant operators, a trash-burning pit in the yard of every politically correct homeowner, a federal buy-back program to get hybrid and electric vehicles off our roads and a federal tax credit for purchasing the new breed of coal-burning Sootmobiles.

  10. Maybe these future cold predictions helps explain why a CBC show I watched last night called ‘Doc Zone’, with the episode title “Life Below Zero”, In the Windows Media Center guide write up said, “How Canadians could be affected by global warming.”, yet when I watched it, there was no mention of global warming or climate change in any way, shape or form (which would have made me sad, but instead the show ended up inspiring me :-) ).

    http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/life-below-zero.html

  11. English is not my native language, but I humbly suggest ‘helioclimatology’ instead of ‘solarclimatology’.

  12. Some sites I have visited have suggested the shift can happen quickly.
    So my concern would be how fast grain production (food) could shift South.

  13. The Danube has frozen over!

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/09/european-cold-snap-freezes-danube-blocks-ships-in-port/

    It’s frozen in six countries. Not that our tv channels are covering the events in snowed under Europe, barely a mention of the deep freeze conditions. Except Ireland, chilly and a bit drizzly, but no snow.

    And Russia is pulling back on fuel exports to Europe because of greater demands for it at home:

    http://oilandenergyinvestor.com/2012/02/energy-crisis-looming-in-the-european-deep-freeze/

    If this is really where we are heading then the AGW global warming nonsense has to be destroyed and sensible measures taken to ensure reliable production of energy, enough of the tax payers being ripped off by wind and solar fraud promoted by our governments.

  14. The “Corn Belt Shifts to Sun Belt” graphic is a bit silly. Agriculture depends on soils and terrain as much as temperature. Southern Missouri and Arkansas terrain is very much different from Iowa and Minnesota (Minnesota is the state partially obscured by the “Iow” label), and even under the most favorable conditions could never produce corn like their northern neighbors.

  15. The corn breeders during the 70’s and 80’s worked on developing strains of corn that would produce with fewer heat units, thus speeding the northward push of the corn belt, especially in Canada.
    Let us hope that the big corn companies are keeping their bases covered and still have some skills and knowledge to work on growing corn in lower heat units. Hopefully the university research departments have continued development. But even if anyone is working on it, can they ramp up selective breeding fast enough? Maybe this is where some of those government dollars need to be going instead of helping the rich buy politically correct electric cars.

  16. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    February 11, 2012 at 6:39 am

    Irregardless of the mechanism explanation, the shoe fits as far as the cooling goes. It was in the Literature all along, and now it’s in the daily news right in front of our faces. The very same writings tell us that, eventually, the cooling cycle will have run it’s course, leaving only the hard numbers as to how long/how deep and what can we do to ride out the storm.
    Being prepared is never fearmongering.

  17. Svalbard is an outlier. Should it be taken at face value? Cf. WUWT, 13 May 2010 shows clearly unsuitable siting of the weather station. Perhaps the researchers have appropriately adjusted the data? Son of a gun, I’d better go read the paper. : > )

  18. Some of the same non quantified climatic forces that limit climate flux may not reach their tripping point.Instead of finding the gross temperatures swings indicated there is a chance excess energy now wasted may “cover” for the above accounted projections.
    In the same vein the solar input in the northern grain belt may have enough excess energy that a decrease will mean anything to crops.

    just a guess.

  19. If the predictions of cooling come true, it may help educate those terrified of global warming. There is something to be feared more than predictions of a warmer planet: a cooler one.

  20. Myrrh says:
    February 11, 2012 at 6:50 am
    Hang in there, Joe B’s suggestion of a cold latter half of Feb and March look like they may be setting up with the drop of the arctic air mass in the Central US. I hate Alberta Clippers!

  21. @Gary Mount February 11, 2012 at 6:31 am
    *****
    Maybe these future cold predictions helps explain why a CBC show I watched last night called ‘Doc Zone’, with the episode title “Life Below Zero”, In the Windows Media Center guide write up said, “How Canadians could be affected by global warming.”, yet when I watched it, there was no mention of global warming or climate change in any way, shape or form (which would have made me sad, but instead the show ended up inspiring me :-) ).

    http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/life-below-zero.html

    *****
    Gary’s comment reminds me of my recent CBC listening. The program (http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Radio/1447825254/ID=2194749707) was about giant jellyfish, but there were two references to “climate change” (or was it “global warming”?) that were never taken up again.
    The theme of the program ended up being that “science” stories get repeated endlessly and that no one ever goes back and checks the underlying information. It sounded to me just like the discussion of “climate”.
    IanM

  22. Sigh, and this laymen says: Looks like the universal Murphy’s Law strikes once again.
    The ‘experts’ scream “the globe is over-warming, we’re all doomed!!!”
    When freezing to death is what we’ll get…

  23. rbateman says:
    February 11, 2012 at 7:06 am
    Irregardless of the mechanism explanation, the shoe fits as far as the cooling goes.
    Hi Robert
    Long time, no see, hope you’re well.
    Agree, cooling is on the way, whatever is counted the SSN-wise. I’ve got here 3 different variables and all three show downhill from now on.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fc.htm

  24. Whenever I look at HADCET I notice that recent years are missing intermittent really cold years until 2007.

    The LIA period had years almost as warm as the last 15, but in between were really cold.

    For example, the two warmest winters were 1834 and 1869.
    1830,1831 and 1838 were 4-5C colder.
    1870 was 3.8C colder than 1869 and 1871 was 4.4C colder.

    2007 hit 6.4C for the winter, and then 2009/10/11 were 3.5,2.4 and 3.1.

  25. Interesting, BUT like any other theory, we’ll have to wait for the real world data to play out to see if the prediction is true.

  26. Mr.Archibald, I applaud your recognition for helping to bring into the forefront of some scientists minds the importance of solar cycle length with respect to Earth’s temperature. Nothing I say below can or should detract from that recognition. Late in Cycle23, cycle length became a hot topic and many people recognized as I did [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2064374/posts?page=101#101] in summer 2008: “Global temperatures have been shown to be strongly correlated with solar cycle length. A cycle that is 4 months longer can be expected to yield a temperature lower by 0.1C .The previous five cycles, from 1944 to 1996, had a cycle length of 125mo – shorter (and therefore hotter) than the average cycle of the last 200 years, which was about 133mo.Given that this cycle has been about 22 months longer than the previous 5 cycles, we should expect that this is putting into place at present, a -0.55C difference from the last couple decades. See: http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html for the study.” In other posts I specifically mentioned the five year or so lag time for the temperature change.

    This work of Lassen was done in the early 90s. It is recognized and referenced by Svensmark here: hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/quarknet/article2.pdf “A strong indication of a link between long term variations in solar activity and Earth’s climate was found in 1991 by Friis-Christensen and Lassen[3,4] who showed … solar cycle length … [was correlated with] temperature.”

    Whenever you are given kudos by scientists such as Solheim et al, I believe you would do yourself a great service to point out that others before you such as Lassen deserve the credit for the insight, and that you are a disciple who is spreading word of their important though not-well-recognized work.

    I believe, as well as hope, cycle length DOES prove in the next decades to be determinative of Earth’s temperature. It sure would be nice for man to stop destroying our technological prowess in the name of saving Earth from a phantom menace. I also hope for the sake of the agriculture, that the estimate of 0.2-.3C sensitivity per cycle-year is much closer to truth than 1.1C/yr! Unfortunately, it is likely that sufficient data will not be available to convince many until well after IPCC5.

  27. Damn, living in Finland is going to be gnarly… Lucky for us we have one nuclear power plant on the way and two more commissioned already :P

  28. Danj writes “And our EPA will probably still be retaining the ethanol mandate”

    Can I, once again, plead for a differentiation between “corn” ethanol, and “cellulose” ethanol. They are completely different things. I know there is no production of cellulose ethanol at present, but, hopefully, this will change in 2013.

  29. Warmer is simply NOT SCARY , COLDER is VERY SCARY (history repeats itself). CO2 is not a problem it is a benefit to humanity.

  30. I just read an old article from the IPCC in the late 1980’s about how the globe would warm 2.9 degrees C by 2020. (32 years) So far it’s up 0.55 and there has been no warming since 1998 based on satellite temperatures. Draw your own conclusions.

  31. Scafetta vs. Archibald — very different projections. Archibald sees plunging temperatures, Scafetta sees temps just bumping along in a narrow range, no real increase or decrease over time. Both devote much of their waking hours on understanding the sun’s influence on climate.

    A third solar expert, Judith Lean, expects that solar influences aren’t that strong and she has publicly predicted that in a year or so, temps will climb again, and will continue climbing in a stair step fashion — up when a solar cycle is getting warmer, flat when the 11 year cycle is in its decline.

    So we have three very different on the record projections from three scientists with expertise. Now all we have to do is wait a few years…..this is one of the few instances in which I wish time could fly by.

  32. Myrrh @ 6:50am – “If this is really where we are heading then the AGW global warming nonsense has to be destroyed and sensible measures taken to ensure reliable production of energy,”

    Oh, don’t worry about it Myrrh – the EU has it well figured out. They are going to use windmills to heat Europe! They don’t need to burn anything at all! Those Neanderthals that used to inhabit that land were such primitives. The EU bureaucrats are so much smarter than they were!

  33. The late Carl Sagan believed in global warming and said so in a book, A Path Where No Man Thought. The book was more about nuclear winter then climate. However, he also stated, trying to alter CO2, especially to the down side could have catastrophic results.

  34. I read the book over Christmas

    During the little ice age famines and the constant threat of famine seems to have been the norm. Farming methods it would appear were unchanged from the medieval warm period until the beginning of the industrial revolution. New crops and farming methods led to an increase in the food supply. New crops being such things as potatoes, turnips, peas and beans which would grow in cooler wet conditions. Another LIA should not be a disaster.

  35. “If this is really where we are heading then the AGW global warming nonsense has to be destroyed and sensible measures taken to ensure reliable production of energy, enough of the tax payers being ripped off by wind and solar fraud promoted by our governments”

    But there is no reason to suppose the politicians really care….a decent bad winter will get rid of some 25 thousand people in the UK. Most will be old or chronically ill. That is a whole load of money saved….healthcare costs…pension…
    Why assume political stupidity when political malice explains their actions better ?
    What reason have you, or anyone got for assuming the politicians are too thick to know how to do things ?
    We are now in the “green” era of politics, and there is one thing that greens and politicians agree on…there are too many people.
    Work it out…..

  36. I have been a proponent of the solar cycle length (or better solar cycle frequency) as an indicator of solar activity, ever since I learned about it. The more I looked into it, the more plausible it seemed. The correlation between the solar cycle frequency (f = 1/scl) and global temperatures is surprisingly good, considering that there must be other factors affecting the temperatures.

  37. Solar Cycle 24 started in January, 2008, a bit over four years ago, meaning that we’re only 18 months or so from the middle of the cycle. Yet 2010 was the warmest year globally on record, and 2011 was the warmest La Nina year ever. When, then, will the hoped for cooling get underway? Isn’t time running out?

  38. Bill Yarber “Let’s wait until Solar Cycle 24 has obviously peaked before guesstamating SC25 trend”:

    Bill, about a dozen years ago, helioseismology started to come of age. If you are not involved in solar science at all, you will find it hard to believe that we can now actually “see” the movement of large scale currents on the order of 100,000 miles below the “surface” of the Sun. It is becoming well established that those currents reveal the future development of sunspots. Using this, solar science can predict future solar cycles. Russian and Scandinavian scientists seem (to me) to be at the forefront of understanding in this field. It is not Archibald, but those scientists who have been predicting the long cycle lengths for the next four decades or so. I believe Archibald stands on very strong grounds when floating predictions of sharply cooler temperatures in the upcoming decades as a result of these two lines of evidence (helioseismology and cycle length temperature correlation), and that poo-poohing this as mere with “guesstimate” is improper.

  39. Bill> I just read an old article from the IPCC in the late 1980′s

    No you didn’t. The first IPCC report was in 1990.

    > about how the globe would warm 2.9 degrees C by 2020. (32 years)

    And the 1990 report didn’t say that. You can read it if you like: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

    It projected a rise of ~0.3 oC/decade over the next century, with an uncertainty range of 0.2-0.5. It continued:

    “This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century”

    Its a good idea to quote your references, so people can check your misreadings.

  40. Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years? If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong. Do you think these wise Norwegians, or the author of this post, will be interested?

  41. Neapolitan – slight correction: Solar Cycle 23 ended in Dec 2008. Cycle 24 began in January 2009, not ’08.

  42. Jim Cripwell 7:49 am

    I have no problem with cellulose ethanol since it doesn’t contribute to huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico each summer. I do oppose a government mandate for its usage, however…

  43. AFPhys-

    Funny that you mentioned Neanderthals surviving cold weather just fine… [SNIP: Sorry, that really is off-topic and we don't want to encourage a discussion in that direction. -REP]

  44. A few years back I started to look at spectral analysis methods to see if it could give some insight
    on future temperatures.

    The following graphs use the HadCRUT3gl data set, & have three filtering methods:
    MOV
    Forward-reverse low pass (2 pole Chev) or MATLAB “filtfilt”
    Fourier Convolution filter.

    with a 10, 20 & 50 yr (0.1, 0.05, & 0.02 freq.) cut-off. The 50 yr. has incorrect legends indicating a 20 yr (0,05) instead of 50 yr. (0.02) that are in process of being corrected.

    http://www.4shared.com/photo/XWqpz_GL/HadCRUT3gl-2011-10yr.html?refurl=d1url

    http://www.4shared.com/photo/GZ2f6K-9/HadCRUT3gl-2011-20yr.html?refurl=d1url

    http://www.4shared.com/photo/9T1DPKK5/HadCRUT3gl-2011-50yr.html?refurl=d1url

    That being said, the 10 yr & 20 yr. (0.1 & 0.05) plots show a definite downtrend in the past
    8-10 years, while the 50 plot shows a plateau. It takes a lot to “move” that 50 yr. line,
    so it looks like a Union suit might be a good investment.

    Below is a graph showing the updated HadCRUT3 spectral analysis.

    http://www.4shared.com/photo/-ZyTzDOf/HadCRUT3gl-2011-PSD-10yr.html?refurl=d1url

    showing the “energy” level of the various freq. These show strength of the 50-60 yr, 20 yr. & 8-10 yr cycles. It would be nice to have longer records, to see if there were lower freq. in the 200-1000 yr region.

  45. Connolley shows his ignorance:

    “Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years?”

    Abrupt 27°F change in temperature. Connolley is wrong as usual. He can donate his $1,000 to Lord Monckton, who is more honest and ethical than Connolley, doubled and squared.

  46. Extrapolating from points on a graph is not predicting. You might want to call it “forecasting,” because that reminds of the weathermen.

    To make a scientific prediction, you have to begin with at least one well-confirmed physical hypothesis. Nothing that you present counts as a well-confirmed hypothesis.

    I am not saying that your work is uninteresting. You have a very interesting hunch. But it is not yet science.

  47. Judging by the locations of current corn & grain production in USA & Canada, movement of the temperature belt southward hopefully is accompanied by a southward shift in jet stream guided rain and snow. Bad things would happen if the corn belt were in a now dry belt and the Ogallala Aquifer has been all used up to water cattle. We will need another “green revolution” for rapidly growing, cold tolerant corn and grains instead of long season high yield crops. All within the realm of time and technology. We will need to build more dams to hold the waters of the Missouri, Red, and MIssissippi Rivers for agricultural sustenance. The Great Lakes will have a shorter shipping season. And, as for the Great Northwest Passage, through the Arctic Ocean; No Go. As man can survive living in the tundra of the Arctic as well the forests of the Equator, we’re pretty adaptable. Now when our sun begins to die and becomes a giant red sun enveloping earth, maybe that will be the time for us to move along to another solar system.

  48. 300 is on the low end. Closer to twice that. Last reports from European news agencies has the official toll at 590.

  49. Neopolitan writes “When, then, will the hoped for cooling get underway? Isn’t time running out?”

    I, for one, dont believe there is going to be any sort of rapid global cooling; as suggested by this paper. If we look at about the only bit of historey we have, the Maunder minimum, sunspots started disappearing around 1645. The really cold winters centered around 1685; 40 years later. We are still seeing sunspots. If Livingston and Penn are right, then sunspots will start disappearing somewhere around 2020 to 2025. If history repeats itself, then we should not expect really cold temperatures until around the 2060’s. Just a guess on my part.

  50. The above article at page 4 states, “For updated NH-land series from the
    4 HadCRU Centre, serial correlation in residuals could not be removed (Thejll,
    2009).”

    What does this mean or imply? Please ignore if you consider this going OT.

  51. Danj says:
    February 11, 2012 at 5:42 am
    “And our EPA will probably still be retaining the ethanol mandate, increasing CAFE standards, and maintaining huge tax credits for the purchase of electric cars.”

    Even if one were to buy the AGW claims, why would we want electric cars? 53% of that electricity to recharge cars is produced with coal. Makes no sense whatsoever.

  52. Hope this is wrong as it changes the “freeze in the dark” scenario to “freeze in the dark while starving”. All we need are a few volcano eruptions to top it all off.

  53. Hmm. The corn-based Cahokia culture in modern day IL collapsed in the late 13th century about when the cold summers began in Europe. Its demise is blamed on soil collapse, but some late frosts and cold summers would cause the corn crop to fail.

    TX, OK, and AR has enough fallow farmland to take up the slack. Much of AR’s farmland now grows rice – and is irrigated. It will be fine for corn.

    Corn requires heat and moisture. In TX and OK, due to moisture needs, we plant corn in March and it tassles in June. If it does not rain in May, then its a lost cause.

    For the corn belt to shift South, rain must fall reliably in July and August, because we will plant in April/May. Given the latitude in TX, I am not sure that will occur. Summer rain is driven by the cap of dry air off the Mexican highlands and then high pressure systems.

    The TX panhandle grows a lot of corn today. They plant in May like in IA. But, with the climate shift, they will have to stop growing corn. Ditto much of the other high plains irrigated sites.

  54. For readers without time to squander, Figure 3’s “North Atlantic” panel (p.9) summarizes the whole paper. (Station locations are mapped in Figure 2 on p.8)

    Solheim, J.-E.; Stordahl, K.; & Humlum, O. (2012). The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/quantifying-the-solar-cycle-24-temperature-decline/

    It appears that the authors have not yet had time to interpret this carefully, but I applaud them for sharing without delay.

  55. I predicted global cooling in a 2002 article, excerpted below – see the last sentence. Timing was based on my (then) ~17 years of research, the Gleissberg Cycle and a phone conversation with paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson. If the PDO cycle is a better timing indicator, then cooling could happen sooner.

    I do not know if cooling will be moderate or severe, but i believe there is a ~40% probability of severe cooling, sufficient to harm the grain harvest.

    I am a professional engineer, and we, as a profession, really hate to be wrong. When we are seriously wrong, bad thing happen to good people, When I write a prediction in an article, it is because I believe it has a high probability of being correct (imnsho). I don’t do this for money, and I don’t do it for fun.

    “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future”
    ( attributed to many )

    Prediction is also hard on the ego, when one is wrong. That is why so many people are reluctant to do it.

    Regards, Allan

    Excerpt:

    Kyoto Hot Air Can’t Replace Fossil Fuels
    Allan M.R. MacRae
    Calgary Herald
    September 1, 2002

    The Kyoto Accord on climate change is probably the most poorly crafted piece of legislative incompetence in recent times.

    First, the science of climate change, the treaty’s fundamental foundation, is not even remotely settled. There is even strong evidence that human activity is not causing serious global warming.

    The world has been a lot warmer and cooler in the past, long before we ever started burning fossil fuels. From about 900 to 1300 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, the Earth was warmer than it is today.

    Temperatures are now recovering from the Little Ice Age that occurred from about 1300 to 1900, when the world was significantly cooler. Cold temperatures are known to have caused great misery — crop failures and starvation were common. Also, Kyoto activists’ wild claims of more extreme weather events in response to global warming are simply unsupported by science. Contrary to pro-Kyoto rhetoric, history confirms that human society does far better in warm periods than in cooler times.

    Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.

    Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.

    Only since 1975 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming.

    If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.

  56. This complements David Stockwell’s Solar Accumulation theory. He predicts a Pi/2 (90 deg) or cycle length/4 lag between solar forcing and ocean temperatures. See:

    Key evidence for the accumulative model of high solar infuence on global temperature, David R.B. Stockwell 4 August 23, 2011

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0032v1.pdf

    Accumulation of Solar Irradiance Anomaly as a Mechanism for Global Temperature Dynamics
    David R.B. Stockwell viXra:1108.0020 9 Aug 2011

    On the Dynamics of Global Temperature David R.B. Stockwell 1 Aug 2011
    viXra:1108.0004 1 Aug 2011

    Archibald had previously referred to
    See also Ed Fix’s solar cycle length model (that Archibald referred to WUWT July 13, 2011)

    The Relationship of Sunspots to Gravitational Stresses on the Sun: Results of a Proof of Concept Simulation. Ed Fix
    Evidence-Based Climate Science By Don Easterbrook p 335

  57. Dixon says:
    “…Take the catastrophe out of climate – we’ll get a lot more science done.”
    But at what point do we attempt to start some engineering? For example, how many 100-year, spring-time floods should be experienced in Minot, North Dakota before we try to engineer the run-off of heavier snow melts in Canada? Already Minot has required the rebuilding of homes on higher ground, but we can’t so easily move the agricultural grainfields to higher ground.

  58. Theo Goodwin says: February 11, 2012 at 9:27 am
    Extrapolating from points on a graph is not predicting. You might want to call it “forecasting,” because that reminds of the weathermen.
    Correct, I use forecast.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fc.htm

    Forecast, as I understand it, is projection (or extrapolation) of the past data into the future, and does not allow subjective judgment, i.e. the opinion is irrelevant.
    Prediction is based on judgment after balancing of all available and relevant information is taken into account, i.e. it is an opinion.

  59. Dr. Archibald,

    it appears that you have not taken into account the effect that the extra CO2 will have on your falling temperature prediction. If you are right about the effects of the length of the cycle to temps, then we may get some cooling, but I am putting my money on not as drastic as you imply.

  60. Unbiased research has demonstrated that change to the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has had no significant influence on average global temperature. Google ‘sunspot “time integral”’ and follow the links to discover what has and why warming stopped.

    Average global temperatures have been flat for a decade while, since 2001, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 24% of the increase from 1800 to 2001.

  61. I have seen far too predictions of disaster in my life to believe any of this. What about Barry Goldwater, Silent Spring, Limits To Growth, the great invisible comet Kahutec, Y2K, Al Gore wins the election (you thought Global Warming was a train wreck) … and more.
    So take it all with a grain of salt and look for the fallacy, deliberate or accidental, imbedded in the theory. In the article I found this.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

    It
    should be remarked that SC22 for a long time was listed in NGDC (2011)
    with a length of 9.6 or 9.7 yr, which was used in other analysis (Archibald,
    2008; Thejll, 2009). According to earlier lists (Thejll, 2009) May 1996, which
    is the mathematical minimum for SC93 (typo), was in the beginning used, while
    a consensus among solar scientists moved the minimum to September 1996,
    which made SC22 longer (10.0 yr) and SC23 shorter (12.2 yr). This difference
    in definition of SCL from the original by Waldmeier (1939) may explain the observations outside the confidence range.

    So, besides being happy that somebody else’s fingers are thumbs as well as my own, it seems when a SC begins and ends is a judgement call. If you start in the wrong place, with the wrong data, you end up even wronger.
    On the WUWT Solar Reference page you can see in Leif Svalgaard’s detail that SCs do overlap by quite a bit. Svalgaard also has a pdf to correct earlier sun spot records (The Long-term Variation of Solar Activity) so how sun spots are counted has changed twice since 1840. Previous to that there was no set way to count them and given the optics available numbers under 25 were probably quite often missed. That would make it impossible to tell when a cycle actually ended.
    What this means is our base line for predicting SC intensity and duration is quite short and the eleven year average is quite approximate. If we use the year 1996 then we would have Solar min in 2007 and again in 2018 so nothing is long or short or even seriously out of line.
    It just so happens that 2018 is when the angular momentum of the Solar System is at a low similar to 1900. http://www.landscheidt.info
    Even so the World did not drive off a cliff in 1900 so why should it do so now? I can see a long flat spot similar to 1900 – 1940 and that would just about be enough to bring us back to ‘average’, whatever that may be.

  62. noaaprogramer: Your comment on “heavier snow run offs” from Canada. OK, chicken or egg?

    The snow will RUN off, as long as we have seasons. Heavier snow = more global warming, or colder winters. PROBLEM? Self induced, look at this report: http://history.nd.gov/hp/PDFinfo/11_Souris_River_Study_Unit.pdf Page, 10. I’ve many time seen a poster outside of (primarily document service offices at engineering companies I’ve worked at) which says: “Lack of Planning on your part DOES NOT constitute an automatic emergency on MY part!”.

    Sorry to be so UNSYMPATHETIC, but this problem was created LONG AGO by people DESIRING to live in a “flood plain”.

    I haven’t paid for it yet, and was INSANELY told when I inquired, that BECAUSE I DO NOT LIVE IN A FLOOD PLAIN I cannot get flood insurance! However, please note I CHECKED when I bought MY HOUSE 23 years ago. (Nearest creek, 3/4 mile away, down hill about 80′, and the flood plain associated NOT where I’m located. However in the flood plain of that creek? About 300 LUXURY houses. Want to BED how many have FLOOD INSURANCE?)

  63. William M. Connolley (February 11, 2012 at 8:36 am) asked:
    “Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years?”

    Musings about future temperatures are a side-excursion from the main task at hand, which is investing the tedious effort necessary to develop an understanding of nature. With certainty, the paper overlooks universals of solar-terrestrial spatiotemporal relations (can be proven empirically), but there is one graph in the paper that is a very useful clue to file away for synthesis with floods of other empirical observations from countless sources.

    A peripheral point: It would be grossly incorrect to assume audience uniformity.

  64. Vukcevic: Not to hijack the thread, but the Danube River freezing now has inspired for me to look for records of such occurrence. I see it froze in 1985, but have not been able to discover any other history about when it has frozen. If you know of some, Please link me to such records, or give me a brief rundown (if the moderator here will kindly permit).

  65. David L. Hagen (February 11, 2012 at 10:07 am) wrote of lags.

    David, see the animations here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/a-japanese-puzzle/#comment-882297

    There are multiple drive axes (the gyres). A universal can only be in the rate of change. For example, think of an item floating & sailing on the ocean. It’s basin looping rate will depend on configuration (hull shape, sail profile, etc.). Watch the animations noting the variation in rates by altitude. The surface water moves slower. A floating/sailing object moves at an intermediate rate. Something submersed a bit in the water moves slower than the surface. Overall picture: THERE CAN BE NO UNIVERSAL GLOBAL CORRELATION WITH THE ABSOLUTES, only with the rate of change. Regards.

    (vukcevic take note)

  66. RiHo08:

    >>Judging by the locations of current corn & grain production in USA & Canada, movement of the temperature belt southward hopefully is accompanied by a southward shift in jet stream guided rain and snow.

    Very good point. Have you ever flown over the Nebraska Sand Hills? The extent of these old, stabilized dunes is shocking. Its an ancient mini-Sahara in the middle of the U.S. There are also extensive stabilized dunes in Oklahoma and in Colorado on the eastern slope and plains. Only a thin veneer of topsoil and plants cover the sand. I am betting that these old features would return to blowing sand and dust once the ice begins to re-grow in the mountains and higher latitudes.

  67. “I have seen far too predictions of disaster in my life to believe any of this. What about Barry Goldwater, Silent Spring, Limits To Growth, the great invisible comet Kahutec, Y2K, Al Gore wins the election (you thought Global Warming was a train wreck) … and more.”

    I’ve never been one to believe calamitous prognostications, but for some reason this one seems at least credible. One effect of getting older has been a changing sense of time. 1700 just doesn’t seem that long ago to me anymore. What are we talking about? 3 long human lifetimes. My aunt MAry who died a few years ago at the age of 102, knew people who’d fought in the civl war.

    If it could happen then, it could happen now. Just saying.

  68. The plot shows a good correlation when temperature movements are within a certain range. There is no data shown to support a temperature shift as rapid as the prediction.

  69. William M. Connolley says:
    February 11, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Bill> I just read an old article from the IPCC in the late 1980′s

    No you didn’t. The first IPCC report was in 1990.

    You should get out of the notion that the published-on date of science papers is also the written-on date. Many documents take months or years to write. A document published in December 1990 can and will very likely contain data analyzed in the 1980’s with data collected decades earlier, and referencing papers written who knows when. Further, the IPCC was formed in 1988. Is it your suggestion they published nothing between 1988 and 1990? No articles? No reports? Nothing?

    Adaptive Options and Policy Implications of Sea Level Rise and other Coastal Impacts of Global Climate Change
    Report of the Coastal Zone Management Subgroup of the IPCC Response Strategies Working Group. 1989
    Available from Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management Directorate General, Rijkswaterstaat, Tidel Waters Division, P.O. Box 20907, 2500 EX The Hague, The Netherlands

    It’s no wonder you found it so easy to censure articles at wikipedia – you have a built-in bias about all things climate.

  70. I see some commenters think this is a bit of fear-mongering – a bit akin to the favoured warmists’ business —, but with the other, or opposite outcome.

    I happen to think that any warming that happens on a “Global Scale” without the help of The Sun; can be – nothing more, nothing less – than “Energy Creation” – or, maybe a miss-understanding of the various temperature data. –

    Therefore, as far as I am concerned, if the Earth gets warmer, I blame the Sun – and if the Earth gets cooler — I’ll take up sheep shearing and knitting as it is precious little else I can do.

  71. 60, 200, 100,000 year cycles have peaked
    1,050 year cycle will peak end of this century

    Bering Straight reduced circulation, uplift since last Inter Glacial ?
    Could quicken and deepen the soon to come Ice Age !

  72. Neapolitan says:
    February 11, 2012 at 8:08 am
    “When, then, will the hoped for cooling get underway? Isn’t time running out?

    Did you miss this:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/02/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-goes-negative-2/

    —————————
    For what it is worth, time only ran out in courts wherein it was measured with a water clock and litigants had to make their case before their water ran out. Or, they could plead for more water (water = time).

    http://www.internetnavigator.com/heliaia/encyclopedia.htm

    Therein lies the climate prediction problem. In the recent addition of Dr. Scafetta’s forecast page, if one follows the link back to his original art-work it is clear that the projected temperature becomes really interesting only after 2035, when my time will have run out.

  73. In reply to William M. Connolley’s comment:
    “February 11, 2012 at 8:36 am

    Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years? If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong. Do you think these wise Norwegians, or the author of this post, will be interested?”

    Yes. Based on the paleoclimatic record and the mechanisms the planet is about to cool and then abruptly cool. 75% of the late 20th century warming was due to the mechanism “electroscavenging” which is caused by solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions which explains why planetary cloud cover is reduced during the period when there was warming and which explains why the warming plateaued. A scientific hypothesis must explain the all the observations. I am curious what your group’s response will be to cooling followed by abrupt cooling. Do you every wonder what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle, Dansgard-Oesgher events, Heinrich events, and interglacial terminations?

    Will, you and your Realclimate cohorts need a brief on the mechanisms and the observations. When a theory is not supported by observations, the scientific methodology requires the theory to be modified or replaced rather than ignore or hide the observations.

    Why are there cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with Dansgard-Oesgher events? Perhaps the sun has some thing to do with what is observed? HInt, the forcing function is not North Atlantic drift current.

    If you are interested I can explain the mechanisms in detail.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml

    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf

    Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml

    On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events
    The oxygen isotope record from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core was reanalyzed in the frequency and time domains. The prominent 1470-year spectral peak, which has been associated with the occurrence of Dansgaard-Oeschger interstadial events, is solely caused by Dansgaard-Oeschger events 5, 6, and 7. This result emphasizes the nonstationary character of the oxygen isotope time series. Nevertheless, a fundamental pacing period of ∼1470 years seems to control the timing of the onset of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A trapezoidal time series model is introduced which provides a template for the pacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Statistical analysis indicates only a ≤3% probability that the number of matches between observed and template-derived onsets of Dansgaard-Oeschger events between 13 and 46 kyr B.P. resulted by chance. During this interval the spacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger onsets varied by ±20% around the fundamental 1470-year period and multiples thereof. The pacing seems unaffected by variations in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation, suggesting that the thermohaline circulation was not the primary controlling factor of the pacing period.

    Have you ever wonder what causes the polar see-saw? Hint it is not ocean currents, there is no lag observed in the mechanism.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1

    The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays

    Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent.

    There is correlation at 95% significant of GCR and planetary cloud cover up until the period when solar wind bursts start to increase (2001).

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov
    We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

    In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

    See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper, by solar wind burst and the process electroscavenging where by increases in the global electric circuit remove cloud forming ions.

    The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.

    Will, do you and your extreme AGW cohorts take responsibility for the food to biofuel fiasco?

    The biofuel fiasco is a direct result of the smugly promoted the extreme AGW paradigm.

    The alarmists’ fantasy paradigm amplified verges on madness. Billions of tax payer dollars are requested to fund a world bureaucracy to transfer trillions of dollars of tax payer dollars to corrupt third world companies and governments. A carbon monitoring bureau, a biofuel world trading corporation, a carbon off set world trading bureau, and so on. A single example of this madness is the massive AWG driven program to convert food to biofuels.

    The problem with biofuels is the amount of transportation energy required would require roughly six times the total amount of the current agricultural land to produce. Biofuel production requires significant fossil energy inputs. Agricultural production itself produces significant greenhouse gases. The biofuel concept is part of a fairytale. We live in the real world not in a fairytale.

    Skepticism and scientific analysis is the foundation of the development of practical environmental policy.

    http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/NewsReleases/Biodiesel%20Energy%20Balance_v2a.pdf

    Vast amounts of agricultural land are being diverted from crops for human consumption to biofuel The immediate consequence of this is a dramatic increase in the cost of basic food such as a 140% increase in the price of corn. Due to limited amounts of agricultural land vast regions of virgin forest are being cut down for biofuel production. The problems associate with this practice will become acute as all major Western governments have mandate a percentage of biofuel.

    Analysis of the total energy input to produce ethanol from corn show that 29% more fossil fuel input energy is require to produce one energy unit of ethanol. If the fuel input to harvest the corn, to produce the fertilizer, and to boil the water off to distill ethanol/water from 8% ethanol to 99.5% ethanol (three distillation processes) to produce 99.5% ethanol for use in an automobile, produces more green house gas than is produced than the production consumption of conventional gasoline. The cost of corn based ethanol is more than five times the production cost of gasoline, excluding taxes and subsides. Rather than subsiding the production of corn based ethanol the same money can be used to preserve and increase rainforest. The loss of rainforest is the largest cause of the increase in CO2.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html

    The Clean Energy Scam
    The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol–ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled from plant matter–in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase in renewable fuels over the next decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel mandates and subsidies, and Brazil's filling stations no longer even offer plain gasoline. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.

    But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it's dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline.

    Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.'s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn't exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402

    Biofuels 'crime against humanity'

    Massive production of biofuels is "a crime against humanity" because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. "Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity," UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural subsidies and to stop supporting only programs aimed at debt reduction. He says agriculture should also be subsidised in regions where it ensures the survival of local populations. Meanwhile, in response to a call by the IMF and World Bank over the weekend to a food crisis that is stoking violence and political instability, German Foreign Minister Peer Steinbrueck gave his tacit backing.

    http://news.yahoo.com/prime-indonesian-jungle-cleared-palm-oil-065556710.html

    Prime Indonesian jungle to be cleared for palm oil
    Their former hero recently gave a palm oil company a permit to develop land in one of the few places on earth where orangutans, tigers and bears still can be found living side-by-side — violating Indonesia's new moratorium on concessions in primary forests and peatlands.

    Prime Indonesian jungle to be cleared for palm oil
    Their former hero recently gave a palm oil company a permit to develop land in one of the few places on earth where orangutans, tigers and bears still can be found living side-by-side — violating Indonesia's new moratorium on concessions in primary forests and peatlands.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402

    Biofuels 'crime against humanity'
    Massive production of biofuels is "a crime against humanity" because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. "Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity," UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural
    .

  74. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    February 11, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Scientific prediction must begin with well confirmed physical hypotheses. It is the “well confirmed” part that makes the “projection” into a prediction which is objective science.

    “Forecast” is a media invention to help the feelings of people who do not have the well confirmed physical hypotheses used for prediction. We don’t want our weathermen to be more embarrassed than they are already. Making a forecast means simply that you were very careful in looking at all the data before stating your hunch.

    Nonscientific prediction is anyone’s wild guess.

    For the basics on scientific prediction, read Carl G. Hempel’s “Philosophy of Natural Science” which you can get used for $15 from Amazon in the US.

  75. Ok two things dominate the temperature cycle, 1) PDO and AMO 2) Atmospheric circulation – related to #1. These two items far out weight the simple TSI variation. If there is any effect from the sun it is in the side “effects” (speculation from here) of the solar cycle like UV variation and flares/CME. The latter maybe the most effect since there is a connection between the ionosphere and the tropical thunderstorm zone in the troposphere.

  76. “Canadian agriculture will be reduced to trapping beavers”

    More of a sport really than agriculture. Even with the cold, the fur-less variant doesn’t appear to have hurt demand any.

  77. Max;
    >>I’m rather sure that running it for NH or SH would show (for example with this cold EUROPE winter and WARM North American winter) a net balance.

    Interesting point. Here is another one: Does the concept of a global mean temperature make any sense? I’ve been thinking about this, and it seems to me that a global temperature and global temperature anomalies are just theoretical constructs that we tend to talk about as if they are real. This gets AGW proponents and skeptics alike into all kinds of logical errors. You could, for example, warm things ever so slightly in the equatorial regions while cooling them in the mid to high latitudes and end up with an ice age without any change in the global (mean) temperature.

    In fact, you could have less temperature variability in the tropics than the high latitudes because there is more surface area on the globe between, say, 10 degrees north and 10 degrees south latitude than there is between, say, 60 degrees and 70 degrees north, and 60 and 70 degrees south. The fact that there is more ocean surface in the southern latitudes, and more land surface in the northern latitudes would also influence your means.

    There are at least a few scientists with better credentials than mine who think the idea of a global temperature is bogus: (See the following links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm and here: http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/27/german-climate-professor-slams-climate-religion/)

  78. In reply to William M. Connolley’s comment:
    “February 11, 2012 at 8:36 am

    Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years? If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong. Do you think these wise Norwegians, or the author of this post, will be interested?”

    You must of missed these papers.

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

    See section 5a) Modulation of the global electrical circuit in this review paper, by solar wind bursts and the process electroscavenging. Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. As the electroscavenging mechanism removes ions even when GCR is high, electroscavenging can make it appear that GCR does not modulate planetary cloud if the electroscavenging mechanism is not taken into account.

    The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html

    Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000

    All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

    If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

    Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

    We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

    In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

  79. AFPhys says: February 11, 2012 at 10:42 am
    ……..
    Quick googling in serbian found following years: 822, 1408, 1460, 1558, 1846, 1938/9, 1956 and winter of 1984/5. That doesn’t mean that the list is either accurate or complete.

  80. Further in reply to William Connolley.

    You appear to be out of the loop. Are you aware of Livingston and Penn’s finding that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is linearly declining with time?

    Solar cycle 24 appears to be an interruption rather than a slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle. It appears solar cycle 24 will be a lead into a Dansgaard-Oesgher event .

    There are multiple cycles in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with cosmogenic isotopes changes. All researchers agree the cosmogenic istopes are modulated by solar magnetic cycle changes. The question is how does the solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary climate.

    The change 3C average drop in arctic temperatures and 6C drop in the winter would be due to a reduction in high altitude clouds. An increase in ions results in an increase in low altitude clouds and a reduction in high altitude clouds. The net affect (albedo less GWG warming of the water vapour/ice particles in the clouds) is for low altitude clouds to cool and high latitude clouds to warm. (See my comment above concerning the mechanism electroscavenging whereby solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. The late 20th century warming was caused by solar wind bursts which removed cloud forming ions.)

    There very regular cycles of warming and cooling (1500 year cycle with 95% confidence the cycle is maintained to better than 12% over at least the last 23 cycles) which are too regular to be caused by an internal planet based mechanism. As there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with the planetary temperature changes it is obvious the driver is solar cycle changes.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml

    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf

    Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

    Svensmark has an interesting paper that analyzes the record of the cyclic climate changes using ice sheet bore hole temperatures comparing the Antarctic to the Greenland Ice sheet temperature. The affect on temperature due to an increase in planetary cloud is opposite for the Greenland Ice sheet as compared to the Antarctic ice sheet. The albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is greater than clouds so an increase in clouds over the ice sheet causes an increase in temperature due greenhouse effect of greater moisture above the ice sheet.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1

    The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays

    Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml

    On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events
    The oxygen isotope record from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core was reanalyzed in the frequency and time domains. The prominent 1470-year spectral peak, which has been associated with the occurrence of Dansgaard-Oeschger interstadial events, is solely caused by Dansgaard-Oeschger events 5, 6, and 7. This result emphasizes the nonstationary character of the oxygen isotope time series. Nevertheless, a fundamental pacing period of ∼1470 years seems to control the timing of the onset of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A trapezoidal time series model is introduced which provides a template for the pacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Statistical analysis indicates only a ≤3% probability that the number of matches between observed and template-derived onsets of Dansgaard-Oeschger events between 13 and 46 kyr B.P. resulted by chance. During this interval the spacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger onsets varied by ±20% around the fundamental 1470-year period and multiples thereof. The pacing seems unaffected by variations in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation, suggesting that the thermohaline circulation was not the primary controlling factor of the pacing period.

  81. William M. Connolley says:
    February 11, 2012 at 8:36 am

    Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years? If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong. Do you think these wise Norwegians, or the author of this post, will be interested?

    As a geologist, I believe the past is the key to the future (but if you have a crystal ball, by all means, look into it and report what you see).

    I remember reading about one palynologist that studied soils in the Alps that had a record of glacial and interglacial transitions–she found that switching from temperate zone pollen to pollen indicative of Ice Age temperatures took as little as two to three years.

    Then there was a geologist that looked at some of the sediments in several lakes somewhere in the UK to see what they indicated, and his conclusion (again, based on pollen transitions) was that the temperature swing from interglacial to glacial was as little as 8 months!

    Of couse, these are people that are willing to grab a shovel and a microscope, do some digging (literally) and look at the geologic record, which is far better than poking around rearranging model algorithms on a computer all day long.

    Can we expect extreme temperature swings in the next few years? Maybe. Have they happened in the past? Certainly.

  82. AFPhys says:
    February 11, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Vukcevic: Not to hijack the thread, but the Danube River freezing now has inspired for me to look for records of such occurrence. I see it froze in 1985, but have not been able to discover any other history about when it has frozen. If you know of some, Please link me to such records, or give me a brief rundown …

    See: ‘A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events’, by James A. Masurek (2010) http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/weather.pdf (11.9 MB)
    The chronology covers weather events from the years 0 to 1900 A.D. It contains references to many instances of the Danube and many other European rivers freezing over during the 2000 year-interval it covers.

  83. @William (February 11, 2012 at 11:35 am)

    To prepare for deeper multivariate awareness of multidecadal variations, please familiarize yourself with the following:

    Mursula, K.; & Zieger, B. (2001). Long-term north-south asymmetry in solar wind speed inferred from geomagnetic activity: a new type of century-scale solar oscillation? Geophysical Research Letters 28(1), 95-98.

    http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/MursulaAndZieger2001.pdf

    Presentation of the main findings of the paper (which aren’t effectively made clear by the authors) can be visually simplified by at least an order of magnitude using observational data.

    (Further comment several months from now.)

  84. As I said in the last thread on snow, the cooling effect od longer cycles is felt mainly on the upper latitudes of the N Hemisphere.

    But that is what people in the N or Europe and America want to know. An average of world temperatures saying the ‘world is warming’ is of absolutely no use to a barge captain stuck in ice floes on the Rhine, or Balkan villages under 4m of snow.

    If these so-called ‘scientists’ want to help, instead of hinder, they need to bring out regional climate models – preferably ones that indicate cooling in N Europe (because that is what we have experienced for the last 3 years.)

    .

  85. John says:
    February 11, 2012 at 8:04 am
    ////////////////////////////
    One can see some force in your argument. However, is this why our politicians keep on importing people into the UK? Surely it cannot be to get more money since most of them are on benefit or working in the black economy.

  86. nemo says:
    February 11, 2012 at 9:36 am
    ////////////////////////////////////////////
    Yes, but these are only the directly related deaths (and I do not think that it includes motoring accidents that probably would not otherwise have happened).

    There are many more (by a couple of orders of magnitude) of indirectly related deaths. For example, here in the UK a cold winter is usually considered to increase the winter death toll by 15,000 to as much as 40,000, The UK is the worst in Europe for this mainly because of our poor housing stock, damp climate, and low pension income.

  87. William says:
    February 11, 2012 at 11:35 am
    /////////////////////////////////////
    Whichever side of the science you sit on, there is an extremely strong case that the response to the perceived threat is wrong and a strong case that some of the response could rightly be classified as a crime against humanity. Whilst I am sceptical of the thread, I really can’t understand how we have got the response so very wrong.

  88. Max Hugoson says:
    February 11, 2012 at 10:23 am
    First to post this:

    http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2012/02/bitter-cold-grips-europe.html

    Nothing but WEATHER, really…just weather..

    WHY IS NO ONE DOING A ATMOSPHERIC ENERGY BALANCED BASED ON THE ENTHALPY PER CUBIC FOOT OR METER?

    I’m rather sure that running it for NH or SH would show (for example with this cold EUROPE winter and WARM North American winter) a net balance.

    The reason that nobody is “doing an atmospheric energy balance based on the enthalpy per cubic foot/meter” is that there are surprisingly few people who actually understand enthalpy. Unsurprisingly, it is climate ‘scientists’ that seem to have the least grasp of this. Repeatedly telling them that ‘atmospheric temperature does NOT equal atmospheric heat content’ does not work they go straight back to using temperature.

    The claim of AGW is that the Earth’s energy balance is being affected by absorption of outgoing infrared by carbon dioxide and other so called green house gases leading to rising temperatures. Yet as stated above – atmospheric temperature is not a metric for atmospheric heat content. As an example (used before): A Louisiana bayou in the afternoon just after a thundershower the air temperature is 25C (~77F) the humidity is 100% with mist slowly burning off in the sun. At the same time over in the Arizona desert the temperature is 38C (~100F) and almost zero humidity. The energy content of the air in the bayou at 25C is ~76.8 kJ/Kg but the energy of the Arizona air at 38C is ~38.2 kJ/Kg only half that of the cooler Louisiana air.

    As posted in WUWT the paper: doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1
    Surface Water Vapor Pressure and Temperature Trends in North America during 1948-2010

    Shows that relative humidity has been dropping 0.5% per decade for the last 62 years.

    So what do we find people discussing? The statistics of temperature measurement error, how Stevenson screened weather measurements have been poorly sited etc etc. Almost no-one points out that the wrong metric is being argued over. The aphorism of the drunk looking for his keys under a lamppost despite having dropped them some way away describes precisely what the climate ‘scientists’ are doing. They are measuring atmospheric temperature as it’s easy to measure and they have records like CET that go back a long way. The fact that atmospheric temperature is not the correct metric is of no interest to people who claim that they can use trees like thermometers. But that does not excuse everyone else joining them under their lamppost. They should be told -bluntly- that they are using the incorrect metric to measure the Earth system’s heat content. This would normally be something done at initial ‘peer review’ – but we all know what has happened to that in climatology. There seem to be so many areas where the metrics of climatology follow what is easy to measure and what is the simplest way of measuring rather than what should be measured and what methodology should be used; yet nobody is picking them up on these areas instead the arguments center on the statistics used when fudging those incorrect metrics.

    /rant

  89. Ian W says:
    February 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    I agree with you 100%. Mechanical temperature is NOT a measure of heat.

  90. William at 2/11/11:35, 8:36 a.m. and 12:12 p.m.
    Excellent discussion and wonderful links. Re the latter, I have downloaded all I could and will try to find the JGR(2009) paper free somewhere. Again, thank you! BTW, so interesting to see that S. Rahmstorf accepts the 1470-year cycle hypothesis. Some of these fellows seem to exhibit multiple-personality disorder.

  91. Ian W says:
    February 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    The reason that nobody is “doing an atmospheric energy balance based on the enthalpy per cubic foot/meter” is that there are surprisingly few people who actually understand enthalpy.
    Enthalpy is not heat nor energy.
    “Another useful state variable is enthalpy, defined as the sum of the internal energy and the product of pressure and volume. In other words, H = U + PV. The justification for defining this variable is really only a matter of convenience, because we often find that the sum U + PV occurs in thermodynamic equations. This isn’t surprising, because the work done by a quantity of gas depends on the product of pressure times volume. When a gas expands quasi-statically at constant pressure, the incremental work δW done on the boundary is PdV, so from the energy equation dU = δQ – δW we have δQ = dU + PdV. Noting that, at constant pressure, dH = dU + PdV, it follows that δQ = dH for this process. This explains why enthalpy is often a convenient state variable, especially in open systems. Obviously enthalpy has units of energy, but it doesn’t necessarily have a direct physical interpretation as a quantity of heat. In other words, enthalpy is not any specific form of energy, it is just a defined variable that often simplifies the calculations in the solution of practical thermodynamic problems.”

  92. > If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong

    No-one? [Disclaimer: you need to be a real person] What about the author of this fine post – does he actually believe in the 0.8 oC temperature drop “predicted” by the graph?

    > Adaptive Options and Policy Implications of Sea Level Rise and other Coastal Impacts of Global Climate Change Report of the Coastal Zone Management Subgroup of the IPCC Response Strategies Working Group. 1989

    Nice try, but no cigar. The “1989” there is the date of the workshop, not the date of publication (“Publisher: [S.l.] : Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [1990]“). Here’s a full ref, which you somehow omitted: http://siris-libraries.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?&profile=all&source=~!silibraries&uri=full=3100001~!397666~!0 to give.

  93. William M. Connolley says:
    February 11, 2012 at 8:33 am
    It projected a rise of ~0.3 oC/decade over the next century, with an uncertainty range of 0.2-0.5.

    In order that no one can accuse me of cherrypicking a data set, I will use the average of the four as follows:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1980/plot/wti/from:1990/trend

    #Time series (wti) from 1979 to 2012
    #Selected data from 1990
    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0157919 per year

    This is about 0.16/decade so it is lower than the lowest number of the range at 0.2/decade. So should we still be worried about CATASTROPHIC AGW?

  94. Hello L.B.K.

    I thought it odd also that Rahmstorf states that the observational evidence clearly supports the assertion that the 1470 year cycle is caused by an external forcing function and does not connect the past changes with solar magnetic cycle changes.

    If find it also ironic that Alley, one of the discoverers of abrupt climate change has also jumped on the extreme AGW band wagon. Based on the data and the mechanisms it appears that we are about to experience a Bond event or possibly a Heinrich event. I would have assumed Alley would be interested in what caused the past abrupt climate change events.

    The Antarctic ice sheet proxy data masks abrupt climate change due to the polar see-saw (see Svensmark’s attached paper that explains how an increase in planetary clouds causes the Greenland ice sheet to cool and the Antarctic ice sheet to warm which is called the polar see-saw.) so when the researchers at first did not believe the observational evidence of extremely fast abrupt climate change found in the Greenland Ice sheet data was correct. They therefore drilled as second Greenland Ice sheet core which confirmed there are regular abrupt climate change events at which time there is concurrent cosmogenic isotope changes.

    There must be group blindness or paradigm acceptance by the extreme AGW promoters. It seems obvious that the planet is about to abruptly cool based on the what has happened in the past. Solar cycle 24 appears to be an interruption rather than a slow down of the magnetic cycle.

    It is interesting that the Dansgaard/Oescheger events which have a characteristic period of 1470 years have continued throughout the Holocene interglacial period. As there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with all of the Dansgaard/Oescheger events (also referred to a Bond events named after Gerald Bond who tracked 23 of the cycles) and the Heinrich events it is obvious a specific solar cycle change is causing what is observed.

    It is obvious if one looks at the past Greenland Ice Sheet temperature data and the cycles of warming and cooling that the planet is about to abruptly cool.

    ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM

    http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/teaching/CClittell/readings/Jan31_Overpeck_and_Cole_2006.pdf

    What do we mean by abrupt change? Alley et al. (2), in a seminal paper arising from a U.S. National Academy of Sciences report (5), followed on the original definition of abrupt change (6): an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Others have defined it simply as a large change within less than 30 years (7) or as a transition in the climate system whose duration is fast relative to the duration of the preceding or subsequent state (8).

    Further analysis of diverse records has distinguished two types of millennial events (13). Dansgaard/Oeschger (D/O) events are alternations between warm (interstadial) and cold (stadial) states that recur approximately every 1500 years, although this rhythm is variable. Heinrich events are intervals of extreme cold contemporaneous with intervals of ice-rafted detritus in the northern North Atlantic (24–26); these recur irregularly on the order of ca. 10,000 years apart and are typically followed by the warmest D/O interstadials.

    Cold-climate abrupt change occurs with a characteristic timescale of appro.1500 years, a feature that must be explained by any proposed mechanism. North Atlantic and the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) records exhibit a period of approx.1470 years (64, 65). However, the adjacent ice core isotope record from the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) site exhibits periods closer to 1670 and 1130–1330 years, which is in agreement with the independently dated record from Hulu Cave (49, 66). Time series studies generally converge on a picture of a noisy climate system paced by a regular, perhaps external, forcing, with the sensitivity of the system to the forcing varying depending on background conditions or stochastic variability [e.g., (67– 69)]. Solar forcing, although subtle, is the leading candidate for external forcing and has been found to be consistent with either a 1450–1470–year period (70, 71) or the 1667- and 1130-year periods (66).

    The roots of modern paleoclimatology have origins in studies of late Holocene climate variability in, and around, the eastern North Atlantic. The so-called Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Ages are etched into both the climate change literature and popular imagination. We now know that parts of Earth were nearly as warm as the mid-twentieth century between AD1000 to 1100 and that this generally warmer period was followed by colder temperatures at least in the Northern Hemisphere before giving way to the unprecedented global warming of the twentieth century (76–79).

    http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html

  95. “I have no problem with cellulose ethanol since it doesn’t contribute to huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico each summer. I do oppose a government mandate for its usage, however…” Especially since nobody can make it? It has become a hidden gas tax. Blend in unicorns or face a fine.

  96. Me, I prefer to watch from the sidelines and observe as money moves, i.e. follow the money. A good start would be a world register of energy ownership, patents etc. If you find the Al Gore mates are quietly buying up “dirty rotten stinking” (insert favorite nasty “green” term) coalfields (or any future energy) all around the world its a good indication the profiteers see a way for them and theirs in a cooling world rather than in a warming world – a real climate shift.

  97. > So should we still be worried about CATASTROPHIC AGW?

    Personally, I would say it is unlikely; the IPCC would agree with me (or rather, its the other way round: I agree with them). But you miss several points: the minor one, is that shouldn’t be read as a prediction-to-now. The important one is that I was refuting a claim by “Bill” that “I just read an old article from the IPCC in the late 1980′s about how the globe would warm 2.9 degrees C by 2020. (32 years)”. Which is wrong on two counts: the trivial one, that IPCC ’90 was in… 1990, not late 1989. The important one is that the IPCC didn’t, and never has, predicted 2.9 degrees C warming by 2020.

    It is a bit of a shame “Bill” doesn’t give his source; presumably he can, since he has only just read whatever it was that he read.

  98. Thanks, David, for a nice clear post explaining how the sun is the real driver of climate. I find it interesting that there are lots of different projections for a cooler climate regimen over the next few decades. This from Timo Niroma, the respected Finnish climatologist, fits well with your prediction…

    A 2000-year historical perspective

    http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html#200years

    “…If we take the Schove estimates of the maximum magnitudes (R(M)) from the period 1500-1750 and the measurements from 1750, we get (the rounding for exact centuries done only to make the general picture clear):

    1410-1500 ? cold (Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 107 warm
    1610-1700 61 cold (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 114 warm
    1810-1900 95 cold (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 151 warm
    2010-2100 ? cold?”

  99. Very quick significant falls in temperatures are recorded in ice cores so there is evidence quick decreases can and did happen. No confidence in a temperature change over the next few years of a magnitude decrease in 0.8c or an increase of 0.8c. The small changes of the sun on the Earth’s sudden internal shifts are generally not known, with the mechanism(s) not confirmed.

    Anyone notice that after two ongoing La Ninas this may actually be the sign of the great Pacific ocean shift occuring again. If so then a third La Nina may also be following with a global temperature drop of around 0.3c instead of the 0.3c increase during the last one after the mid-1970’s . Therefore there likely won’t be a 0.8c decline, but a 0.3c drop could be possible.

  100. Again we have the typical rantings of a sophist. at

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    As usual, good old Leif misses the whole point of Ian W’s post so that he can spend his time nit-picking over the details of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in an open system. Why not just accept the fact that Ian W is right in that, when it comes to the heating of the atmosphere, we should be talking about the heat content of the atmosphere and not the temperature.

    Ian Wilson [I am not Ian W]

  101. William M. Connolley says:
    February 11, 2012 at 8:36 am

    Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years? If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong. Do you think these wise Norwegians, or the author of this post, will be interested?

    Hie thee to Intrade and click on Markets –> Climate & Weather –> Global Temperatures. Or click here: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventGroupId=7620 There you will find bets available on:

    Will Global Average Temperatures for 2012-2014 be AMONG FIVE warmest on record? (3 Markets)
    Will 2019 be a warmer year than 2009? (1 Market)
    Will 2019 be 0.2 degrees celsius warmer than 2009? (1 Market)
    Will Global Average Temperature for 2010-2014 exceed 2005-2009 by 0.1 degree C? (1 Market)
    Monthly Global Temperature Anomalies 2012 (12 Markets)
    Annual Global Temperature Anomaly for 2012 (Jan-Dec) (Please read rules) (17 Markets)
    Global Temperature Anomaly for Dec-Jan-Feb (Please read rules) (3 Markets)

    If you don’t like those, you can suggest new ones to the site–they’re open to suggestions.

  102. Not really a new prediction.. Don Easterbrook has been saying we could have a cold change to the climate at about this time.. for the next several decades or so.

  103. Ian W says:
    February 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    /////////////////////////
    I thought that it was universally accepted by sceptics that air temperature data is the wrong metric and does not reveal what is happening to the energy budget.

    I have never understood why climate ‘scientists’ do not at the very least take steps to correct thius fundamental error when compiling land based data sets. Of course, depending upon whether there is the appropriate humidity data, it may be impossible to compile a past history and one would have to start afresh with new data starting at the present time. That has draw backs since one would need at least 15 years worth of data to even begin to draw some tentative conclusions.

    Presently the only meaningful data sets are ocean temps since they do record changes in heat content. And of course, the thermal heat content of the ocean in any case swamps that of the atmosphere and ocean data is not polluted by UHI.

    In my opinion analysis should be be based solely upon ocean temps.

  104. Thanks David Archibald – obviously an intriguing post.

    As an aside, could I support those above who say that countering extreme warming doom with extreme cooling doom doesn’t seem very constructive. I don’t believe enough is known about the climate as a whole to make *any* specific predictions, and while AGW gets the lions share of the money and attention, we won’t be advancing our real knowledge of climate very far or very fast.

    Also, are there now different ‘schools’ of climate prediction emerging based on geography? AGW from Euro-USA; geo- & helio-cooling from Scandinavia & Russia; and BAU from the Far East? I just note this from the whereabouts of the scientists with different predictions – it may be wrong or coincidence.

    Final observation: many learned writers on this blog (indeed, this thread) can point to many sources showing past climatic variation (icecores, etc – see William @February 11 at 2:21pm).
    Given this, how in blazes did climate scientists fall for the Hockey Stick for so long?!? (OK, rhetorical question, I know, but shouldn’t a lot of people be hanging their heads in shame?).

  105. William M. Connolley says:
    February 11, 2012 at 2:27 pm
    that shouldn’t be read as a prediction-to-now

    Fair enough. However if the rise has been only 0.16/decade since 1990, at some point it has to rise faster to even reach the lowest IPCC projection/prediction of 0.2/decade. As Phil Jones said in the BBC interview about two years ago, the fastest rise for any longer period at any time in the previous century was only 0.166/decade.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    Since the IPCC agrees that the increase in temperature due to CO2 is logarithmic, I see no reason to assume that the increase in temperature this century would exceed this value at any time. Would it therefore seem reasonable to NOT spend any extra money on carbon capture, etc until such a time as the temperature increase actually reaches 0.2/decade starting with 1990?

  106. AFPhys says:
    February 11, 2012 at 7:46 am
    Yes, the theory first came from Friis-Christensen and Lassen in the early 90s, though I think Lassen recanted late that decade. It was figure 5 in a 1996 paper on the Armagh record by Butler and Johnson that set me off. There was very little scatter about their line of best fit, and so I realised that it is a great predictive tool and you can apply it to individual station records. It is easy enough for high school students to do. Once you set the template up in Excel, you can do a station in about 15 minutes – graphs and all. So I published a few papers and I thought that this methodology would be copied quickly. It is such an easy way to build your publication record. But nothing happened until Professor Solheim took it on, so I am very grateful to him and his co-authors. Very, very grateful.

    Without this methodolgy, we would be looking into the rear view mirror. Now we can see forward for up to one and a half cycle lengths. And even longer than that using Ed Fix’s solar model. I am very happy that it is all coming together. And Altrock’s green corona diagramme – I love it all.

    And just as there isn’t much scatter around that line of best fit of Butler and Johnson’s figure 5, this methodology is very precise. The predicted coolings are going to happen. Professor Solheim and his co-authors did their statistics very carefully. It may take a while for that to sink in generally, but nothing is going to stop these predicted coolings from happening.

    I am well aware that my contribution to the advancement of science and pushing back the darkness was to realise that you can look forward if you have an estimate of solar cycle length. Finally, wishing and hoping isn’t going to make things better. We should be grateful that we now know what Nature has in store for us instead of wondering each year why the wheat crop was killed by an unseasonal frost again.

  107. Tero-Petri Ruoko says:
    February 11, 2012 at 7:47 am
    There isn’t much available in English on what happened in Finland in the 17th and 18th Centuries with respect to climate and population. I think you could do the Finnish people a great service by going through the Finnish language records on those things in order to get an understanding of what is going to happen.

  108. In reply to Ninderthana’s comment:
    February 11, 2012 at 4:21 pm
    William says:
    February 11, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    It is interesting that the Dansgaard/Oescheger events which have a characteristic period of 1470 years have continued throughout the Holocene interglacial period.

    The next Dansgaard Oescherger event is not in 150 years. We are currently experiencing the start of Dansgaar/Oescheger event. Cooling will start winter 2012/2013. It appears likely this Dansgaard/Oescheger event will be very strong cooling period which is called a Heinrich event. The last Heinrich events were the 8200 year ago abrupt cooling and the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling 12800 years ago. Interglacials of course end abruptly not gradually.

    During the interglacial period the Dansgaar Oesheger events are called Bond events. The last Bond event was roughly 1400 to 1500 years ago. (See this paper.)

    There are cosmogenic isotope changes at the all of Dansgaar Oesheger events. Changes to the solar magnetic cycle cause the abrupt cooling of the planet. The mechanism is quite interesting.

    http://biogeochemistry.org/biblio/Cacho_et_al_99_Paleoceanography.pdf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event

    Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years throughout the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified, primarily from fluctuations in ice-rafted debris. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a magnitude of perhaps 15–20% of the glacial-interglacial temperature change.

    Gerard C. Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, was the lead author of the paper published in 1997 that postulated the theory of 1,470-year climate cycles in the Holocene, mainly based on petrologic tracers of drift ice in the North Atlantic.[1][2]
    The existence of climatic changes, possibly on a quasi-1,500 year cycle, is well established for the last glacial period from ice cores. Less well established is the continuation of these cycles into the holocene. Bond et al. (1997) argue for a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years in the North Atlantic region, and that their results imply a variation in Holocene climate in this region. In their view, many if not most of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events of the last ice age, conform to a 1,500-year pattern, as do some climate events of later eras, like the Little Ice Age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, and the start of the Younger Dryas.

    List of Bond events
    Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal; some correspond to periods of cooling, others are coincident with aridification in some regions.
    • ≈1,400 BP (Bond event 1)
    • ≈2,800 BP (Bond event 2) — correlates with an early 1st millennium BC drought in the Eastern Mediterranean, possibly triggering the collapse of Late Bronze Age cultures.[9][10]
    • ≈4,200 BP (Bond event 3) — correlates also with the collapse of the Akkadian Empire and the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.[11][12]
    • ≈5,900 BP (Bond event 4) — correlates with the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, and the arrival of nomadic pastoralists in the Middle East.[5]
    • ≈8,100 BP (Bond event 5)
    • ≈9,400 BP (Bond event 6) — correlates with the Erdalen event of glacier activity in Norway,[13] as well as with a cold event in China.[14]
    • ≈10,300 BP (Bond event 7)
    • ≈11,100 BP (Bond event 8) — coincides with the transition from the Younger Dryas to the boreal.[15]

  109. mwhite says:
    February 11, 2012 at 8:03 am
    Wrong. Brian Fagan is a technical illiterate. In several of his books he refers to arrowheads weighing a kilo. He has no understanding of the physical world, and therefore seemingly no curiosity about it.

  110. Neapolitan says:
    February 11, 2012 at 8:08 am
    No, Solar Cycle 24 started in December 2008 and as it will be finishing in 2026, we still have 14 years to go.

  111. AFPhys says:
    February 11, 2012 at 8:13 am
    Agreed. It seems that what is going to happen to a solar cycle is determined at its inception at the peak of the previous cycle. With Altrock’s green corona diagramme we are seeing the next solar cycle even before the first sunspots appear near solar minimum.

  112. William M. Connolley says:
    February 11, 2012 at 8:36 am

    “Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years? If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong. Do you think these wise Norwegians, or the author of this post, will be interested?”

    Well, I am from Norway, and I certainly don’t believe a word of what you are writing.

  113. Jay Curtis says:
    February 11, 2012 at 10:56 am
    There are a couple of things I forgot to put into this post. One is that it will get stormier (predicted by Hubbert Lamb in the 1970s). The other is that the temperature differential between the Arctic and Antarctic will reduce which in turn will move the Intertropical Convergencen Zone south, that in turn means that monsoonal rains won’t reach as far north as they do now.

  114. willie Connolley~ you were complaining about another solar scientist on your blog just in the past few days. I was wondering, have you written an article about him for Wiki yet?

    ~Otter

  115. Although there are abrupt cosmogenic isotopes changes at each of the 23, 1470 year cycle abrupt cooling events and geomagnetic excursions at the Heinrich abrupt cooling events, there was an urban myth spread that an abrupt stoppage of the North Atlantic drift current caused the 1470 year cyclic abrupt climate change events and the more sever Heinrich events.

    As the paper below notes, a complete stoppage of the North Atlantic Drift current would result in cooling of Europe in the winter of roughly 2 to 3C. This a factor of five less than a Heinrich event cooling. The last Heinrich event, the Younger Dryas 12900 years before present (BP) abrupt cooling event at which time the planet when from interglacial warm back to glacial cooled, with 70% of the cooling occuring in less than 10 years occurred a 1000 years after Lake Agassiz drained into the Atlantic. (i.e. An interruption to the North Atlantic Drift current did not cause the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event.)

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf

    In conclusion, while OHT warms winters on both sides of the North Atlantic Ocean by a few degC, the much larger temperature difference across the ocean, and that between the maritime areas of north-western Europe and western North America, are explained by the interaction between the atmospheric circulation and seasonal storage and release of heat by the ocean. Stationary waves greatly strengthen the temperature contrast across the North Atlantic and are themselves heavily influenced by the net effect of orography. In contrast, transport of heat by the ocean has a minor influence on the wintertime zonal asymmetries of temperature. Even in the zonal mean, OHT has a small effect compared to those of seasonal heat storage and release by the ocean and atmospheric heat transport. In retrospect these conclusions may seem obvious, but we are unaware of any published explanation of why winters in western Europe are mild that does not invoke poleward heat transport by the ocean as an important influence that augments its maritime climate.

    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2006/4/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/1

    The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth by Richard Seager

    For many years, the leading theory for what caused the Younger Dryas was a release of water from glacial Lake Agassiz, a huge, ice-dammed lake that was once situated near Lake Superior. This sudden outwash of glacial meltwater flooded into the North Atlantic, it was said, lowering the salinity and density of surface waters enough to prevent them from sinking, thus switching off the conveyor.

    The North Atlantic Drift then ceased flowing north, and, consequently, the northward transport of heat in the ocean diminished. The North Atlantic region was then plunged back into near-glacial conditions. Or so the prevailing reasoning went.
    Recently, however, evidence has emerged that the Younger Dryas began long before the breach that allowed freshwater to flood the North Atlantic. What is more, the temperature changes induced by a shutdown in the conveyor are too small to explain what went on during the Younger Dryas. Some climatologists appeal to a large expansion in sea ice to explain the severe winter cooling. I agree that something of this sort probably happened, but it’s not at all clear to me how stopping the Atlantic conveyor could cause a sufficient redistribution of heat to bring on this vast a change.

  116. William says:
    February 11, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    If the Dark Ages was the last Dansgaard/Oesheger event and they are 1,470 years apart, then we are due for one now.

  117. Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 11, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Mursula, K.; & Zieger, B. (2001). Long-term north-south asymmetry in solar wind speed inferred from geomagnetic activity: a new type of century-scale solar oscillation?
    There is no such asymmetry: http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual-Comment.pdf

    As I said, they were not clear. And I can add that your contribution clarifies little. I’m not surprised that you are unable to take their Figure 3 middle panel further, as you don’t use the right methods for such jobs. Don’t waste anymore of my time.

  118. cui bono says:
    February 11, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    The statistics in the Solheim et al paper are bullet proof. Therefore temperature will end up within the range of their error bar.

  119. William (February 11, 2012 at 6:33 pm) wrote:
    “Some climatologists appeal to a large expansion in sea ice to explain the severe winter cooling. I agree that something of this sort probably happened, but it’s not at all clear to me how stopping the Atlantic conveyor could cause a sufficient redistribution of heat to bring on this vast a change.”

    I don’t usually do theory. More interested in hard numbers. But I’ll venture off usual pattern to suggest that this makes sense based on my observations of winter ice patterns while sea kayaking inlets of coastal British Columbia, Canada (called fiords or fjords elsewhere, but called inlets here).

    I can tell you with absolute certainty that it works like a hard (and I mean HARD) switch. A layer of fresh water at the salt water surface in winter results in an absolutely hard QUALITATIVE dynamics change. It is a much, MUCH stronger contrast than day & night.

    Thanks for the interesting notes.

  120. William M. Connolley says:
    February 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    > If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong
    No-one? [Disclaimer: you need to be a real person] What about the author of this fine post – does he actually believe in the 0.8 oC temperature drop “predicted” by the graph?

    Hello William,
    In principle I will take your bet, but I must ask you to state what you are betting very clearly and unambiguously. then I guess I would like Anthony to provide a way of holding the stakes. I would suggest checks from each of us to the other, with one to be released and one destroyed when the bet is decided.I will accept that your check will not bounce if you will do the same for me.
    Murray

  121. David Archibald – has anyone looked into the rate of change from min to max or max to min of the soar cycle as a better correlate than the cycle length? I tried to do this several years ago, but had only graphs to eyeball and am not very good at maths, but I was left with the feeling that rate of change might be better than length per se, especially for some low peak but short cycles.

  122. “The statistics in the Solheim et al paper are bullet proof.”

    I wasn’t going to say anything, but this is too far over the top. As with all climate studies, the assumptions are untenable given our current understanding of the climate system, so statistical inference is a waste of time. At this infantile stage of understanding, we need to focus all guns on data exploration; it is our only hope of avoiding paradoxical interpretation of statistical inference. With a firm handle on all major sources of complex variance, meaningful climate statistical inference will be possible in the future, but for the present (& the foreseeable future) climate statistical inference is nothing more than a culturally-enforced hazard to the well-being of society & civilization.

    Sincerely.

  123. Data exploration and statistical inference differ FUNDAMENTALLY.
    It’s not sensible to conflate the two.

  124. murrayv says:
    February 11, 2012 at 7:27 pm
    Not that I know of. We haven’t tired of the existing methodology yet which works with a lot of precision.

  125. Sunspots influence low-level clouds which then influence average global temperature. A licensed engineer’s assessment of what has been and is going on is available. A wider lower solar cycle can have the same influence on climate as a narrow high one. The sunspot time-integral exploits this to, with ocean cycles, calculate average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy as demonstrated in detail in the pdf made public 11/24/11 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The derived simple equation that does this also accurately (std dev less than 0.1C) predicts temperatures since 1990. Change to the amount of atmospheric CO2 has no significant influence.

  126. mwhite writes: “New crops and farming methods led to an increase in the food supply. New crops being such things as potatoes, turnips, peas and beans which would grow in cooler wet conditions. Another LIA should not be a disaster.”
    My impression is that a huge portion of our modern increase in food production has been corn and the trickle down of cheap corn into everything else from HFCS to beef and pork, so I think your “new crops” are probably not a significant factor in our food production bubble.
    It is also difficult to understate how much cooler weather affects yield, but as a farmer with a physicist for a daddy, I can help by pointing out that less energy in is less energy out in foodstuffs, no matter the crop. And the adjustment, I don’t imagine, will be smooth. Farmers are stubborn, and often behind the curve. Go ahead, try to tell a cotton farmer to plant corn, and a corn farmer to plant rye. What we need is Al Gore to organize a farm equipment exchange progra. . . no? why don’t need cotton gins in Alberta?
    Another factor to consider is that a huge portion of our cheap food today is based on (relatively) cheap petrol for making fertilizer. How is that going to work if we’re burning more petrol to heat our homes? And then it will also cost more to run the farm equipment. And all for lower production because it is cloudier and/or cooler. We’ll be fine? We who? Maybe the farmers. . .

  127. Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Ian W says:
    February 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    The reason that nobody is “doing an atmospheric energy balance based on the enthalpy per cubic foot/meter” is that there are surprisingly few people who actually understand enthalpy.

    Enthalpy is not heat nor energy.
    ;————————————————————————————————————-
    False.

    It’s heat (or energy.)

    Enthalpy is thermodynamic potential which is used for processes which release or absorb heat under conditions of constant pressure.

    All the thermodynamic potentials are Legendre transformations of the the internal energy.

    If the internal energy is in Joules, then enthalpy is in Joules.

    Under some experimental conditions, it’s the only heat which can be measured.

  128. In reply to the Realclimate “bet”.

    William M. Connolley says:
    February 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    > If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong

    I suppose it will be obvious if there is a rapid climate change event “Ricky”, of the cooling type that there were a number of fundamental mistakes made in AR4. It appears everyone has forgotten that there are cyclic “Rickies” of the cooling type in the paleoclimatic record. Stop and take amount to look at paleoclimatic record.

    Based on the paleo record and my understanding of the mechanisms we will not need to wait much longer to see the first sign that there is a significant problem.

    There is a lag of 5 years +/- 1 for the ocean surface temperature to reach equilibrium in response to a step forcing change based on analysis of forcing changes due to SO2 cooling caused by volcanic eruption. The observed 10 to 12 year delay in Arctic cooling, (See paper linked to below) from the initiation of the interruption of the solar cycle to the cooling of the arctic is interesting and is to do to a different issue than thermal lag. The authors of the paper are predicting a 3C average cooling with 6C cooling in the winter. (Applies to the entire Arctic?)

    The reason for the 10 to 12 year delay in cooling is the same reason why there is correlation of ocean level to solar magnetic cycle progression (high when the cycle is high and low when the cycle is low). There will be (assuming I understand the mechanisms) during this solar cycle interruption be an anomalously large drop in sea level. (Anomalous as the drop in sea level will be significantly more than can be explained by thermal contraction or by increased ice sheet mass. There are in the paleo record past anomalous significant unexplained large changes in sea level.)

    I am curious what the Realclimate et al and the IPCC’s response would be to unequivocal significant cooling. Which group accepts responsibility for the food to biofuel fiasco? (See my comment above.) Obviously abrupt cooling with no preparation will be more than a PR problem. If the planet abruptly cools are we allies? What is the backup plan?

    If the planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the forcing (negative feedback, planetary clouds in the tropics increase or decreasing to resist the change) then there is a very, very, large forcing function that is causing the cyclic changes in planetary temperature in the paleoclimatic record.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

    We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256

    Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures

    The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. The relations between the length of a solar cycle and the mean temperature in the following cycle, is used to model Svalbard annual mean temperature, and seasonal temperature variations. Residuals from the annual and winter models show no autocorrelations on the 5 per cent level, which indicates that no additional parameters are needed to explain the temperature variations with 95 per cent significance. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity.

    Additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5±2 oC from solar Cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 oC.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

    Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary
    Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times,

    Initial evidence from the GRIP ice core evidence (Dansgaard et al., 1993; Taylor et al. 1993) indicated that the Eemian (My comment last interglacial period) was punctuated by many short-lived cold events, as shown by variations in electrical conductivity (a proxy for windblown dust, with more dust indicating colder, more arid conditions) and stable oxygen isotopes (a proxy for air temperature) of the ice were used by these workers infer the climatic conditions during the Eemian. The cold events seemed to last a few thousand years, and the magnitude of cooling was similar to the difference between glacial and interglacial conditions; a very dramatic contrast in climate. Furthermore, the shifts between these warm and cold periods seemed to be extremely rapid, possibly occurring over a few decades or less.

    http://www.news.wisc.edu/9557

    Glacial records depict ice age climate in synch worldwide

    “During the last two times in Earth’s history when glaciation occurred in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods,” says Kaplan.

    The results address a major debate in the scientific community, according to Singer and Kaplan, because they seem to undermine a widely held idea that global redistribution of heat through the oceans is the primary mechanism that drove major climate shifts of the past.
    The implications of the new work, say the authors of the study, support a different hypothesis: that rapid cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere synchronized climate change around the globe during each of the last two glacial epochs.

    “Because the Earth is oriented in space in such a way that the hemispheres are out of phase in terms of the amount of solar radiation they receive, it is surprising to find that the climate in the Southern Hemisphere cooled off repeatedly during a period when it received its largest dose of solar radiation,” says Singer. “Moreover, this rapid synchronization of atmospheric temperature between the polar hemispheres appears to have occurred during both of the last major ice ages that gripped the Earth.”

  129. William says:

    Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years throughout the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified, primarily from fluctuations in ice-rafted debris. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a magnitude of perhaps 15–20% of the glacial-interglacial temperature change.

    That is the whole point of my blog post at:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/1470-year-do-events-transition-from.html

    [Which I independently discovered before April 2007 [the date stamp on the graph posted on the blog]

    According to this plot the last substantial warming [I am not talking about the cooling part of the DO/Bond event] began in about ~ 700 AD – producing the medieval warm period. This means that the next warming event will begin in roughly ~ 700 + 1470 = 2170 A.D. However, given the +/- 500 year error in the length of the Bond events, this can only be a very rough guestimate.

  130. “The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.”

    Now this prediction is much better for humanity – in that we will have more time to prepare for severe cooling. Perhaps by then the phony global warming crisis will be fully discredited, and we will, as a society, no longer be led by scoundrels and imbeciles.

    I guess that makes me an optimist. :-)

    Regards, Allan

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf

    http://www.ccsenet.org/apr Applied Physics Research Vol. 4, No. 1; February 2012
    178
    ISSN 1916-9639 E-ISSN 1916-9647
    Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to
    Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age
    Habibullo I. Abdussamatov
    Pulkovo Observatory of the RAS Pulkovskoye shosse 65, St. Petersburg, 196140, Russia Email: abduss@gao.spb.ru

    Received: September 22, 2011 Accepted: October 9, 2011 Published: February 1, 2012 doi:10.5539/apr.v4n1p178 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v4n1p178

    Abstract
    Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state. Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.

  131. I just never forget that the same people who screamed Ice age in the 70’s are the same people who now tell us were burning up. How hard will it be to go back to screaming ice age? Im sick of sky is falling theory. If its going to get colder then we will adjust and survive just the same way we would if it got warmer. My prediction is that at the end of another 100 yrs the world climate, if you can possibly measure such a thing will gain or lose its 1 degree no matter how much we fret about it.

  132. Hmm, i don’t think a 1.7 degree drop represents an ice age, rather its a bit nippy age. The point is that the Maunder minimum was ushered in with very little warning so temperature swings of this magnitude do happen. Personally, I am a little more comforted by a scenario that doesn’t involve quite so much human input, we always have rather a high opinion of ourselves. Well, we shall see and it won’t take very long either, just so long as nobody tries to talk about the missing cold.

  133. Roger Knights> Hie thee to Intrade

    Good thought; thanks. Unfortunately all the bets there seem to be about how warm it might be; I can’t see anyone offering rapid cooling to bet against.

    I see the post author has been here answering some Q’s, but hasn’t taken up my offer.

    murrayv> In principle I will take your bet, but I must ask you to state what you are betting very clearly and unambiguously

    Oh good. Lets try to work this out via email, since I suspect there will be much tedious back-n-forth, and then we can report back here. I don’t know your address; I’m wmconnolley(at)gmail.com.

  134. I look at history and archeology and take a good slow long look around, the last time the coldening appeared we were in the stone age. This time around and regardless of the warmanistas there will be a this time around, we are some what better placed.

    The warmanistas have placed us in a more precarious position than would otherwise
    have been, but being as we are a very adaptive mob we shall overcome both them and the climate. I do believe we were instructed to go forth and subdue the world, this is an instruction to make the world user friendly. The greens and the warmies have made planning for the future hard.

    Coal gas and oil futures would at this time be prudent and will probably ensure your children’s future. I am getting old now and have seen the scams of the past, I have lived a lot of history and seen the revisions, we are living in a strange time of wierding of past and future.

    Global warming per sec does not appear to be occurring, the sun had some severe tantrums in the twentieth century, but now seems to be sulking, the temperature regardless of the AGW mob seems to follow the suns moods. There are some people with cold fannies at the moment that may whole heartedly agree.

    The window of opportunity to change the direction of wayward governments is getting closer as the earth refuses to follow orders. I can not forsee global warming, for it is not possible with a quite sun, but I have grand children and I want them to have power and heating at a reasonable cost.

  135. Predictions based on solid science are closer to the truth than rants about GHG’s and CAGW which are based on wishful thinking. Solar science has improved a lot in the past ten years and the predictions are based on past times of severe climate change related to known solar activity and sun spot cycles and since the sun supplies all the external heat to this planet it controls the climate.

  136. Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm
    Ian W says:
    February 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    The reason that nobody is “doing an atmospheric energy balance based on the enthalpy per cubic foot/meter” is that there are surprisingly few people who actually understand enthalpy.
    Enthalpy is not heat nor energy.
    “Another useful state variable is enthalpy, defined as the sum of the internal energy and the product of pressure and volume. In other words, H = U + PV. The justification for defining this variable is really only a matter of convenience, because we often find that the sum U + PV occurs in thermodynamic equations. This isn’t surprising, because the work done by a quantity of gas depends on the product of pressure times volume. When a gas expands quasi-statically at constant pressure, the incremental work δW done on the boundary is PdV, so from the energy equation dU = δQ – δW we have δQ = dU + PdV. Noting that, at constant pressure, dH = dU + PdV, it follows that δQ = dH for this process. This explains why enthalpy is often a convenient state variable, especially in open systems. Obviously enthalpy has units of energy, but it doesn’t necessarily have a direct physical interpretation as a quantity of heat. In other words, enthalpy is not any specific form of energy, it is just a defined variable that often simplifies the calculations in the solution of practical thermodynamic problems.”

    Leif, come away from that lamppost?

    Where in my post did I say that enthalpy ‘is a specific form of energy?’ you are using a strawman argument.

    I was pointing out that metrics for atmospheric heat content based solely on temperature are incorrect and that the enthalpy of the atmosphere at various levels of humidity have to be considered. If you take a day which starts cool and misty and almost 100% humidity then towards the afternoon the humidity has dropped significantly and the temperature has risen, it is possible that the ‘energy content’ of the air in kJ/Kg has actually dropped. Yet the crowd of climatologists under the lamppost are taking the minimum temperature of just after dawn and the maximum temperature in the afternoon and averaging them, then getting into heated debate on the time-of-day for measurements and the number of decimal places of precision the average temperature should be in; when the metric they are using air temperature is not measuring the variable that they claim to be concerned about atmospheric heat content..

    This is undergraduate level experimental design – what are you measuring, what metrics will you use, what methodologies will you use to obtain the metrics.

    In many cases humidity has been measured it should be used together with temperature so that the energy content of the air in kJ/Kg can be calculated and used as the correct metric for atmospheric energy. Then the best method of working out the diurnal atmospheric energy flux can be defined.

    If it is true that humidity globally has been reducing – then it might be that the slight rise in atmospheric temperature is solely due to that reduction and that there is no lost heat for Trenberth to search for.

  137. I just can’t imagine how Will Connolley and his band of merry CAGWrs would react if CO2 levels started levelling off and declining along with predicted global temperatures.

  138. > if CO2 levels started levelling off and declining

    CO2 increase comes from human emissions. Levels will only decline if we cut back emissions very heavily, which is unlikely. Again, if you really believe that CO2 levels will decline in the near future, I’ve got $1k that says you’re wrong. Care to put your money where your mouth is?

  139. I predict that Connolley will welch on his $1000 wager. He’s already been faded, and now he’s hedging. Predictable, from a devious propagadist censor with no ethics. Connolley is a coward, and looking for a way out.

  140. Smokey, you’re all words and no substance. I’ve offered $1k: are you prepared to accept or are you the coward you accuse me of being?

  141. No, Connoley, you are the coward. As I’ve stated here many times, I do not make predictions about the future; however, you did. And by your usual propaganda, everyone who declines your bet is a coward. But you have been faded, and now you tap dance, waver, and nitpick conditions to avoid losing. Either man up and take the bet as offered, or run off with your tail between your quivering hind legs. [Hint: Long Bets would resolve every cowardly quibble you could raise.]

  142. Wriggle matching is the lowest form of scientific reporting. Without mechanism u cannot rule out all the stupid reasons. I get up at 5:00 every day. Therefore I make the sun rise. U also cannot keep your bias at bay. This post is filled with bias and very little science. Epic epic fail.

  143. Smokey;

    The true faith is crumbling like week-old burnt toast. That’s why the Warmistas are here. Don’t allow Connolley to waste your time. Ignore him.

  144. > Either take the bet as offered

    What are you on about? No-one has offered to bet, unconditionally.

  145. The censorious tap dancing William Connolley says….

    “CO2 increase comes from human emissions. Levels will only decline if we cut back emissions very heavily,…..”

    Interesting theory. Do you have any serious replicable science to back it up?

    Do you ever consider that CO2 levels were dangerously LOW? And that recent increases are actually a positive?

    Or do only negative “doom and gloom” scenarios fit into your political agenda?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/influential-people-are-getting-the-message-gina-rinehart-explains-the-science-of-climate-change/

    “To get carbon dioxide, a plant food, into perspective, for every one carbon dioxide molecule of human origin there are 32 of natural origin in a total of 88,000 other molecules.

    It has yet to be shown that this one molecule in 88,000 drives climate change and there is only information to the contrary because no past climate changes (which were larger and more rapid than anything we measure today) were driven by carbon dioxide, certainly not human induced, and what we measure today is within variability.”

  146. Pamela Gray says:
    February 12, 2012 at 6:53 am

    However, if you get up three minutes later each day so that at:

    at 5:05 a.m. and the Sun rises
    at 6:08 a.m. the next day the Sun rises again
    at 7:11 a.m. the day after that and the Sun rises again
    at 7:14 a.m. the day after that and the Sun rises again
    at 7:17 a.m. the day after that and the Sun rises again ….. etc.

    Wiggle matching does have some meaning.Your observations may not
    tell you what type of mechanism is involved but it does allow you to
    speculate that there may be a logical mechanism involved.

  147. > one carbon dioxide molecule of human origin there are 32 of natural origin in a total of 88,000 other molecules

    Standard nonsense I’m afraid.

    1-in-88,000: O2 and N2 aren’t radiatively active in the infrared (because they are diatomic, not triatomic or more). Did you never wonder why methane, water vapour, CFC’s and CO2 are greenhouse gases, but O2 and N2 aren’t?

    1-in-32: you’re mistaking emissions for net fluxes. Natural emissions are large, but so is the natural drawdown. Natural fluxes are nearly in balance. Human emissions are much greater than the natural net flux. You need to drop the wacky way-out not-respectable “skepticism” and learn enough that you can be rationally skeptical.

  148. Pamela Gray (February 12, 2012 at 6:53 am) getting it backwards:
    “Wriggle matching is the lowest form of scientific reporting. Without mechanism u cannot rule out all the stupid reasons.”

    Great suggestion Pamela: Simply don’t check abstract conception of mechanisms against raw data? Skip the data and just do abstract theory, even in areas of deep unknowns?

    DATA, not abstract conceptions, have the final say on what mechanistic constructions of the imagination are admissible. The only sensible option is thorough & careful exploration of deep unknowns before abstract theorizing. Cute theoretical & inferential mechanisms seduce. Sober checks against real DATA are necessary to keep conceptually drunk abstraction on the leash of reality. For one prominent, staggering example, the “uniform 0.1K” solar-terrestrial-climate narrative that we see trumpeted here almost daily is strictly inadmissible under geophysical data. However, by repetition of the falsehood ad infinitum (whether by naive ignorance or malicious deception is immaterial since it’s intolerably 1+1=3 either way), some suckers have been conned into buying the smoking pile of dung. Great mechanism that is – for political purposes perhaps. Trust obliterated.

  149. Connolley says:

    “Human emissions are much greater than the natural net flux.”

    Wrong, like many things Connolley claims. The IPCC’s own numbers show that the annual human CO2 contribution is only ≈3% of the total. The annual net increase is only around half of that, meaning the biosphere is growing; the planet is greening from more CO2. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the planet itself – the ultimate Authority – is falsifying the CO2=CAGW nonsense being spread by self-serving vested interests. And Connolley is carrying their water.

    The natural trend line from the LIA is indistinguishable between pre- and post-industrial CO2 levels. The obvious conclusion is that human emitted CO2 has such a minuscule effect that it is unmeasurable. Connolley cannot accept that because he is infected with incurable cognitive dissonance; Orwell’s “doublethink”. As Leo Tolstoy pointed out:

    I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

    That describes the blinkered William Connolley, who cannot comprehend why the planet isn’t doing what he wants it to. Instead of accepting reality, Connolley wants to create a hysterical panic in order to destroy Western civilization to ‘save the planet’. As if the planet needs saving. It is doing just fine, and it will outlast everyone with no problem.

    “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
    ~Prof Richard Lindzen

  150. William M. Connolley says:
    February 12, 2012 at 8:50 am
    “1-in-32: you’re mistaking emissions for net fluxes. Natural emissions are large, but so is the natural drawdown. Natural fluxes are nearly in balance. Human emissions are much greater than the natural net flux.”

    Mr. Connolley:
    You are correct in what you wrote. With that stated, the next question becomes, how sensitive is climate to additional CO2. There is a very wide range in the models projections. The 3.2C figure is derived from an average of 1.1 – 6.7C net change in temperature projected by the various models.

    The potential effect on surface temperatures is so wide that the credibility of stated 3.2C is just laughable. Who knows with any certainty which model is the correct one? Each model has a certainty range that is over 90%….so by effect, averaging creates more uncertainty does it not?

    The main thrust of additional CO2 levels in the atmosphere should be the resulting lowering PH of the oceans. Yes, some crustacians benifit from the lower PH, but on balance this is a very tricky issue as other crustaceans do NOT benifit. The lowering PH is a chemical reaction derived from well established experiments that are verifiable.

    The sensitivity extremes are the result of various model runs, of which none are verifiable.

    Why do you rest your hat on a non-verifiable mechanism….yet ignore basic Chemistry?

  151. > “Human emissions are much greater than the natural net flux.” Wrong, like many things Connolley claims. The IPCC’s own numbers show that the annual human CO2 contribution is only ≈3% of the total

    You’re hopeless. Firstly (trivia) those are EIA numbers, like they say they are, not IPCC.

    More importantly, you haven’t understood the meaning of “net flux”. “net” means the difference between emission (sources) and absorption (sinks). The figures you’re pointing to are sources. For the human contribution, sources are all (just about). For the natural contribution, the sinks are important.

    There is a helpful picture at http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-4_738.jpg that might help you understand. Or http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html will provide some numbers.

  152. In reply to William Connelley’s comment:

    “February 12, 2012 at 8:50 am
    > one carbon dioxide molecule of human origin there are 32 of natural origin in a total of 88,000 other molecules

    Standard nonsense I’m afraid.”

    I am curious how CO2 has become a poison, a pollutant within your group’s paradigm.

    We are carbon based life forms. Plants eat CO2. Life would not exist on this planet without CO2. For most of the time life has existing on this planet atmospheric CO2 has been above 1000 ppm.

    Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to raise the level of CO2 to 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm to reduce growing times and increase yield. C3 plants lose roughly 50% of their absorbed water due to the current low level of CO2. They are gasping for CO2. When CO2 is increased C3 plants produce less stomata, reducing their water loss due to transpiration. The reduction in water loss leaves more water at the plant roots which increases the efficiency of the nitrogen fixing microbes.

    Increased atmospheric CO2 and increasing the planet’s temperature causes the biosphere to expand. During the glacial phase atmospheric CO2 dropped to 180 ppm. C3 plants die at around 150 ppm. When the planet is colder there is less precipitation and C3 plants lose more water due increased transpiration. Due to the reduction in precipitation and increased plant water loss the Amazon rainforest was reduced by 50% (changed to savanna) at the coldest part of the last glacial period.

    The size of the largest animals is an indication of the productivity of the biosphere. The biosphere expansions and is more productive when the planet is warmer and CO2 is at 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm

    Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments

    The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.

    Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

    The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers). Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.
    The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne’s Africa Research Unit in Germany.

    “Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is completely different from having a bit more tiny grass,” said Kröpelin, who has studied the region for two decades

    In 2008 Kröpelin—not involved in the new satellite research—visited Western Sahara, a disputed territory controlled by Morocco. “The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years,” Kröpelin said. “They have never seen so much grazing land.”
    “Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,” he said.
    “Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back,” he said. “The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-4N6FNPR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133437266&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=602850a304857db4767613a021735d61

    Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies

    But increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP rice.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-3YVDBGF-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8cc247ae000aaa315c905159f39f5d97

    Neogene and Quaternary history of vegetation, climate, and plant diversity in Amazonia

    Based on simplified considerations of precipitation changes and evaporation we estimate that LGM rainfall may have been reduced by values of ca. 45(±10%); Amazonian and Cordilleran lakes dried up; dry rain forest was locally replaced by savanna, savanna forest, or cerrado-type vegetation; dry rain forest, savanna forest, and pure savanna was locally replaced by extensive semi-desert dune formations (lower Rio Branco area in present-day central Amazonia). The present-day centers of higher rainfall (>2500 mm) surrounded by areas of lower rainfall, are refuge areas of the very wet rain forest and of the very high plant diversity (300 plant species per 0.1 ha), and they should have been that equally, or more, during the dry climate intervals (plant diversity of drier forests is in the order of 100–150 species per 0.1 ha). Both extinction and speciation in isolation under precipitation and temperature stress may have taken place in these refugia…

  153. > You are correct in what you wrote.

    Thank you. Do tell that Smokey, won’t you?

    > With that stated, the next question becomes, how sensative is climate to additional CO2. There is a very wide range in the models projections. The 3.2C figure is derived from an average of 1.1 – 6.7C net change in temperature projected by the various models

    What 3.2C figure? The IPCC quote for climate sensitivty I’m familiar with is “Analysis of models together with constraints from observations suggest that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate value of about 3°C. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C.” (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-4-5.html). That isn’t a model average, obviously: it is a judgement based on a range of models and some observations. If you gave a source for your 3.2 oC value I could be more sure.

    > Who knows with any certainty which model is the correct one?

    We don’t (though as I’ve noted above, the best-guess value isn’t from a model average). The wrong answer to that uncertainty is to say “and so it must be on the low side”. The more uncertainty there is the more dangerous proceeding on a business-as-usual approach.

  154. Connolley says:

    “…those are EIA numbers, like they say they are, not IPCC.”

    Connolley is hopeless, and his reading comprehension is abysmal. He seems to have completely missed the word “annual” in my comment. And when he stated that the IPCC was not the source of the chart I posted, he paid no attention to: “Source: Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis” in the graph.

    Connolley sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest. By not censoring comments, WUWT keeps him honest, an unfamiliar concept to one who craves censoring the comments of everyone with a different point of view than his.

    And William Astley makes the central point: “I am curious how CO2 has become a poison, a pollutant within your group’s paradigm.”

    CO2 is harmless at current and projected levels. The biosphere is starved of CO2. More is better, not worse. And despite constant requests over the past few years, not one person has been able to provide a credible, testable, empirical example, per the scientific method, of any global harm due to the rise in CO2. The reason is that the rise in CO2 is harmless. It is still a tiny trace gas, essential to all life. Every alarmist prediction demonizing “carbon” has been a false alarm, no exceptions.

    CO2 is not ‘poison’, and it is certainly not a “pollutant”. We are made of carbon. The CO2 scare is pseudo-scientific nonsense promoted by self-serving charlatans for their own greedy purposes. The scientific method shows that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. And where’s that runaway global warming, anyway? As the planet itself is making clear, that was always just a baseless scare tactic.

  155. William Astley says: We are carbon based life forms. Plants eat CO2. Life would not exist on this planet without CO2. For most of the time life has (been) existing on this planet atmospheric CO2 has been above 1000 ppm.

    THEY will ignore such truths. Put their finger to the fire and THEY will deny the heat.

    Great post here.

  156. Smokey says:
    February 12, 2012 at 9:18 am
    quotes Leo Tolstoy: “ . . . woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of . . .”

    In explaining Earth science concepts, I have used a slightly changed version of this. Namely, Our understanding of Earth is like a large tapestry with some parts unfinished. If a person is going to add (or subtract) a thread, that person should look at the rest of the work to determine if it fits. When it doesn’t, there is a lot of rearranging to do.
    ==========================

    About enthalpy and energy: I see the term “heat content of the atmosphere” and similar things. Yet, if I look up “heat” I find
    “. . . the thermodynamic definition of heat requires it to be in transfer . . .” That doesn’t sound like “content” to me.
    Also in this comment section, in CAPS, no less – I see “WHY IS NO ONE DOING A ATMOSPHERIC ENERGY BALANCED BASED ON THE ENTHALPY PER CUBIC FOOT OR METER? But, when I look up enthalpy, I find: “The total enthalpy, H, of a system cannot be measured directly.”

    Those trained or experienced in thermodynamic systems may not be bothered by such confusion. I do agree that average atmospheric temperature leaves much to be desired. Likewise for the suggested alternative.

  157. “Archibald (2008) was the first to realize that the length of the previous sunspot cycle (PSCL) has a predictive power for the temperature in the next sunspot cycle..”

    You mean to say it actually cooled down after the longer SC20 ?
    We could put the shoe on the other foot, and see what follows short cycles, like SC3 [and] SC19.

    “The green corona emissions point to Solar Cycle 24 being 17 years long,”

    At 2-3yrs longer than any cycle in the last 400yrs, is that really likely ?

  158. I noticed that William has some really long comments on the mechanism for the -1.09C slope for the Svalbard data with respect to solar cycle length. Does anyone have an elevator explanation of the mechanism? Without that, then this is just another convoluted theory trying to explain a correlation.

    I am looking for the cause because as others I know suggest that without a mechanism, it is all numerology.

    John M Reynolds

  159. I have a simple rule.

    Anyone who claims that more human produced/released CO2 [to the theoretical limit imposed by our ability to find and burn (bio)hydrocarbons before the next technological leap] will result in any sort of calamity has vested interests.

    Monetary or mental or both.

    Whether they realise it, or not.

  160. Camburn says: “You are correct in what you wrote.”

    Connolley replied: “Thank you. Do tell that Smokey, won’t you?”

    It should be noted that Camburn was referencing Connolley’s comment to a different comment by another poster – yet one more example of Connolley’s reading comprehension and/or basic lack of probity. Also, I was correct in what I originally wrote, mentioning “annual” twice. Connolley simply set up a strawman and then argued with it.

    Camburn followed his comment with: “Why do you rest your hat on a non-verifiable mechanism….yet ignore basic Chemistry?”

    Good question. The alarmist crowd also ignores the scientific method, the null hypothesis, scientific skepticism, and Occam’s Razor. The reason is obvious. Those rigorous requirements and parameters deconstruct their CO2=CAGW conjecture. In other words, the alarmist side has lost the scientific argument. The planet agrees: if the rise in CO2 caused additional warming of 1.5°C or more, the trend line from the LIA would be clearly accelerating. But it isn’t. And if we add in 2010 – 2012, it adds an exclamation point to what the planet is telling us.

  161. David Archibald says:
    February 11, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    There isn’t much available in English on what happened in Finland in the 17th and 18th
    Centuries with respect to climate and population. I think you could do the Finnish people a great service by going through the Finnish language records on those things in order to get an understanding of what is going to happen.
    ——-

    Well yes there was famine in the 1690-1700, but it was the subsequent Great Nordic WAR
    that went on for 20 years that killed a quarter or more of the male population in sweden and Finland. So you cant attribute all of the dead to the lousy wheater.

    //Lars

  162. Smokey says:
    February 12, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Ref to William Connolley: First time I have read something that he posted that was correct. I had to make note of that….ya know?

  163. Where I live, on a rock bang on the middle of the Med sea, we have not seen winter like this EVER. And this record-cold winter follows three cold winters in a four-year span. Meanwhile we have had no heatwaves since July 1998. So, statistically, our micro-climate has cooled. Having been following the AGW debate for many years I can safely say that what is happening here is occuring in a consistent way in many parts of the world. I just hope David Archibald is wrong, but I think he’s got it right.

  164. Smokey

    “The planet agrees: if the rise in CO2 caused additional warming of 1.5°C or more, the trend line from the LIA would be clearly accelerating.”

    no. the theory looks at TOTAL forcing, not just the forcing from C02. Further, there are time scales associated with the response. Let’s see If I can explain.

    Get in your car: from a dead stop, punch the accelerator to the floor. do you instantly see the full effect of the power? no. The full effect ( the full equalibrium response) takes time to be realized.
    Inertia baby. Over time your car goes faster. when you reach your top speed you can then
    understand the effect of the forcing. Same with the climate. Some effects show up in short time scales ( know as fast responses) other responses take more time, decades, centuries.

    So, if your car hit a head wind and slowed, would you conclude that adding power didnt increase speed? if your path, first went up a hill and then down a hill would you conclude that adding power
    didnt increase speed? no you wouldnt.

    The theory isnt as simple as you would like. Tough.

  165. steven mosher,

    I agree in principle with everything you said. [Well, almost everything. AGW is not a scientific "theory".]

    But I have a question: are you saying that the almost completely flat temperatures over the past 15 years by known and unknown forcings are exactly balanced by rising CO2? That would be a heck of a balancing act, and old Bill Ockham would surely have a problem with that explanation.

    The simplest explanation is almost always the best explanation. It is a much simpler explanation to say that CO2 simply doesn’t have as much of a warming effect as claimed, rather than erecting complicated “theories” that purport to explain natural variability.

  166. William says:
    February 11, 2012 at 9:03 pm
    In reply to the Realclimate “bet”.

    “I am curious what the Realclimate et al and the IPCC’s response would be to unequivocal significant cooling. Which group accepts responsibility for the food to biofuel fiasco? (See my comment above.) Obviously abrupt cooling with no preparation will be more than a PR problem. If the planet abruptly cools are we allies? What is the backup plan?”

    Like hell we should be allies, they almost cost humanity its technology and progress! All pushers of the AGW trade should be sent to the polar zones to live and watch the marching of the ice. All of us realists can live in the more temperate zones and be comfortable.

  167. Dale,

    Exactly right. AGW is a monumental scam, predicated not on science, but on fleecing taxpayers, pillaging the West, and the accumulation of jack-booted political power.

    If William takes a few minutes to view this, he will see the exact same kind of alarmists peddling the scare story of 25 years ago. Seen through the lens of the current climate scare/scam, it is very entertaining.

    Some of the players are even the same, like the evil Stephen Schneider, who infamously wrote that it is A-OK to alarm the public with scare stories in order to move their agenda forward.

    So no, we can never be allies. They are ravenous hyenas, and cannot be trusted, ever. They claim to be out to save the world, but truth be told, they are greedy, self-serving totalitarians. They are poisonous snakes that will bite us if we try to help them.

    If the climate begins to cool, they won’t just go home. They will invent new calamities that we will be expected to pay for. They lie for money and power. They are lying now. And they would be the kind of ‘allies’ that will stab us in the back at the first opportunity. You can never, ever trust them.

  168. There already is a mechanism. A very powerful one. The spinning Earth and the drag of the atmosphere creates the coreolis affect (tons of power right there). This sets up other conditions such as the trades and poleward atomspheric systems (add more power). Our own variable atmosphere and resulting water surface dictates the extent of oceanic penetration of shortwave radiation on short and long term scales (lots of power there). Oceanic and atmospheric teleconnections interact with each other on short and long term unbalanced oscillations. Then comes climate. Climate is the local weather confined by the regional temperature limits of address parameters. Then there is weather. Weather is primarily powerful atmospheric pressure systems (born of oceanic and atmospheric conditions that blow over land) that build and dissapate. And the whole thing is as leakly as an old radiator hose. Thank goodness the Sun is able to replenish what leaks out now and then.

    Any other driver that is said to be more powerful than all this energy listed above has to be some kind of wiz-bang big deal. And no one, NO ONE, has been able to show that itty bitty changes in solar output, or itty bitty changes in CO2, has anywhere near the power that our own intrinsic variable system has.

  169. William says:
    February 11, 2012 at 11:35 am
    Will, do you and your extreme AGW cohorts take responsibility for the food to biofuel fiasco?

    The biofuel fiasco is a direct result of the smugly promoted the extreme AGW paradigm.

    If we eliminate used oil from deep frying, rendered chicken parts, and fairy gas from switch grass we are left with ethanol. But let’s not rewrite history. Ethanol replaced methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). MTBE replaced tetraethyl lead (TEL). These were gasoline additives for a purpose that had to do with proper operation of the engine. Global warming did not start this fiasco, although once the link to gobs of other people’s money (OPM) became apparent the slats were blown off the corn crib.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_crib

  170. Average global temperatures have been flat for over a decade while, since 2001, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 24% of the increase from 1800 to 2001.

    All studies that claim that the temperature is still rising are either multi-year extrapolations using Global Climate models that can not possibly predict beyond a few days or simply regression analyses on prior measurements. Polynomial fits to data have no predictive value.

  171. Yeah, I am little skeptical of such a radical drop in such a short time., Don’t get me wrong I see it as possible but… In the end I would much rather Global Warming than Global Cooling and I wish people would understand that.

  172. > William says: February 11, 2012 at 11:35 am Will, do you and your extreme AGW cohorts take responsibility for the food to biofuel fiasco?

    Certainly not. I haven’t advocated it, neither has RealClimate.

    In the US, corn ethanol is a boondoggle to the farming lobby from corrupt politicians. It has nothing to do with GW.

  173. @Pamela Gray (February 12, 2012 at 6:20 pm)

    I advise you to voluntarily open your eyes and erase the brainwashing.

    ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now
    ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/geofluids/atmosphere/aam/GGFC2010/AER/

    There will never be anything anyone can do or say that will make the “uniform 0.1K” solar-terrestrial-climate narrative admissible under the data.

    You may need to expand your functional numeracy to see that this is a matter of absolute logic. If so, I wish you efficient growth.

  174. *****
    William M. Connolley says:
    February 13, 2012 at 12:42 am

    William says: February 11, 2012 at 11:35 am Will, do you and your extreme AGW cohorts take responsibility for the food to biofuel fiasco?

    Certainly not. I haven’t advocated it, neither has RealClimate.

    In the US, corn ethanol is a boondoggle to the farming lobby from corrupt politicians. It has nothing to do with GW.
    *****

    Thanks for the Monday morning laugh! A classic example of psychological projection (for irony, look it up on Wikipedia).

    Of course the CAGW industry w/its $trillions in worldwide taxpayer support isn’t subject to corruption… Hahahahahahaha.

  175. I can’t find any reference to this paper in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. The linked-to pdf says it has been sent for ‘pre-publication’. Nor can I find a reference to it in the ‘in press’ section of the journal.

    Has this paper been actually been published as David Archibald says? Perhaps it is it awaiting publication?

    I’m assuming it hasn’t just been submitted for review?

  176. RockyRoad:
    I remember reading about one palynologist that studied soils in the Alps that had a record of glacial and interglacial transitions–she found that switching from temperate zone pollen to pollen indicative of Ice Age temperatures took as little as two to three years.

    Then there was a geologist that looked at some of the sediments in several lakes somewhere in the UK to see what they indicated, and his conclusion (again, based on pollen transitions) was that the temperature swing from interglacial to glacial was as little as 8 months!

    Can you point me to that information, or at least give me a little more info on it?

  177. I don’t know if Archibald or Solheim or Stordahl or Humlum are still monitoring this thread, but if so I’d like to see an answer to the following criticisms.

    The first is that the t_24 predicted temperature is nowhere properly defined in the paper. In this day and age we like things to be well defines so that they can be auditted!

    The second criticism is more serious. In trying to reverse engineer t_24, I calculated, for each row of Table 1 except the first, (t_24-t_23)/beta_PSCL. I believed that this should give me something close to the difference between the cycle lengths for Cycles 23 and 22, which is 2.2 years according to the paper, or 2.9 years if minimum of Cycle 22/23 is taken as May 1996 (traditional calculation) instead of September 1996 (“adjusted” calculation).

    Anyway, here are the figures I got: 3.8, 3.8, 3.8, 3.4, 3.3, 3.7, 4.5, 3.9, 3.2, 2.7, 3.2, 2.5, 4.0, 4.1. These don’t look like 2.2-2.9, and the last one predicts spectacular hemispheric cooling in HadCRUT3N. So what is going on? The paper talks about some secular linear trends, but I would expect these to decrease, rather than increase, the projected cooling in Cycle 24.

    Rich.

  178. The earth’s history is billions of years old. Using data collected over a few thousand years is much too short a time span to accuractly predict anything, and yet these gonifs are using data collected over a few years.

    The earth was born a molten ball. It will become a cold ball. Therefore the earth is cooling. Variations from this cycle are temporary. What is so hard to understand about that?

  179. I think we are caught in two potential temp swings. On the one hand global warming, however by how much, is real, regardless of the rising CO2. Remember, CO2 is increasing, but is anyone measuring the complete GHGs with the water vapor included? How do we know its all increasing?
    That brings me to the linear trend of temp increase of about 0.5 deg C per century. This appears to have been published in several studies (~0.46 deg C per century). Its been shown that CO2 lags the global temp rise. But over the long haul, the obvious and discernible effects of CO2 are still hidden. These effects could very well dampen the proposed cooling. One paper says CO2’s effect is a case of a piggyback ride on a much larger temp changing scenario which includes the solar cycle, planet position, on and on. It is really quite early in the game here to reliably say which will be the case. More factors are emerging every year that looks, well, very interesting.
    The instrumentation, if not fudged, is outstanding, I tend to believe the current or most recent readings vs. older ones. However, dots on a temp chart, even if moving upward, may not indicate global warming.

Comments are closed.