New study suggests a temperature drop of up to 1°C by 2020 due to low solar activity

sc24 and historyFrom the HockeySchtick:  A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds long solar cycles predict lower temperatures during the following solar cycle. A lag of 11 years [the average solar cycle length] is found to provide maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature. On the basis of the long sunspot cycle of the last solar cycle 23, the authors predict an average temperature decrease of 1C over the current solar cycle 24 from 2009-2020 for certain locations.

Highlights

► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle.

► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations.

► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase.

► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.

The authors also find “solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase” and “For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution [to the temperature increase of the past 150 years]. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.”

A co-author of the paper is geoscientist Dr. Ole Humlum, who demonstrated in a prior paper that CO2 levels lag temperature on a short-term basis and that CO2 is not the driver of global temperature. 

The paper:

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

Jan-Erik Solheim Kjell Stordahl Ole Humlumc DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.008


Abstract

Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least View the MathML source from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.


 

1. Introduction

The question of a possible relation between solar activity and the Earth’s climate has received considerable attention during the last 200 years. Periods with many sunspots and faculae correspond with periods with higher irradiance in the visual spectrum and even stronger response in the ultraviolet, which acts on the ozone level. It is also proposed that galactic cosmic rays can act as cloud condensation nuclei, which may link variations in the cloud coverage to solar activity, since more cosmic rays penetrate the Earth’s magnetic field when the solar activity is low. A review of possible connections between the Sun and the Earth’s climate is given by Gray and et al. (2010).

Based on strong correlation between the production rate of the cosmogenic nucleids 14C and 10Be and proxies for sea ice drift, Bond et al. (2001) concluded that extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy output on decadal to millennial timescales generate a strong climate response in the North Atlantic deep water (NADW). This affects the global thermohaline circulation and the global climate. The possible sun–ocean–climate connection may be detectable in temperature series from the North Atlantic region. Since the ocean with its large heat capacity can store and transport huge amounts of heat, a time lag between solar activity and air temperature increase is expected. An observed time lag gives us an opportunity for forecasting, which is the rationale for the present investigation.

Comparing sunspot numbers with the Northern Hemisphere land temperature anomaly, Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) noticed a similar behavior of temperature and sunspot numbers from 1861 to 1990, but it seemed that the sunspot number R appeared to lag the temperature anomaly. They found a much better correlation between the solar cycle length (SCL) and the temperature anomaly. In their study they used a smoothed mean value for the SCL with five solar cycles weighted 1-2-2-2-1. They correlated the temperature during the central sunspot cycle of the filter with this smoothed weighted mean value for SCL. The reason for choosing this type of filter was that it has traditionally been used to describe long time trends in solar activity. However, it is surprising that the temperature was not smoothed the same way. In a follow up paper Reichel et al. (2001) concluded that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed SCL and the cycle mean temperature anomaly for the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature in the 20th century at the 99% significance level. This suggests that there may exist a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.

The length of a solar cycle is determined as the time from the appearance of the first spot in a cycle at high solar latitude, to the disappearance of the last spot in the same cycle near the solar equator. However, before the last spot in a cycle disappears, the first spot in the next cycle appears at high latitude, and there is normally a two years overlap. The time of the minimum is defined as the central time of overlap between the two cycles (Waldmeier, 1939), and the length of a cycle can be measured between successive minima or maxima. A recent description of how the time of minimum is calculated is given by NGDC (2011): “When observations permit, a date selected as either a cycle minimum or maximum is based in part on an average of the times extremes are reached in the monthly mean sunspot number, in the smoothed monthly mean sunspot number, and in the monthly mean number of spot groups alone. Two more measures are used at time of sunspot minimum: the number of spotless days and the frequency of occurrence of old and new cycle spot groups.”

It was for a long time thought that the appearance of a solar cycle was a random event, which means that each cycle length and amplitude were independent of the previous. However, Dicke (1978) showed that an internal chronometer has to exist inside the Sun, which after a number of short cycles, reset the cycle length so the average length of 11.2 years is kept. Richards et al. (2009) analyzed the length of cycles 1610–2000 using median trace analyses of the cycle lengths and power spectrum analyses of the O–C residuals of the dates of sunspot maxima and minima. They identified a period of 188±38 years. They also found a correspondence between long cycles and minima of number of spots. Their study suggests that the length of sunspot cycles should increase gradually over the next View the MathML source. accompanied by a gradual decrease in the number of sunspots.

An autocorrelation study by Solanki et al. (2002) showed that the length of a solar cycle is a good predictor for the maximum sunspot number in the next cycle, in the sense that short cycles predict high Rmax and long cycles predict small Rmax. They explain this with the solar dynamo having a memory of the previous cycle’s length.

Assuming a relation between the sunspot number and global temperature, the secular periodic change of SCL may then correlate with the global temperature, and as long as we are on the ascending (or descending) branches of the 188 year period, we may predict a warmer (or cooler) climate.

It was also demonstrated (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1992Hoyt and Schatten, 1993 and Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995) that the correlation between SCL and climate probably has been in operation for centuries. A statistical study of 69 tree rings sets, covering more than 594 years, and SCL demonstrated that wider tree-rings (better growth conditions) were associated with shorter sunspot cycles (Zhou and Butler, 1998).

The relation between the smoothed SCL and temperature worked well as long as SCL decreased as shown inFig. 1. But when the short cycle SC22 was finished Thejll and Lassen (2000) reported a developing inconsistency. In order to explain the high temperatures at the turn of the millennium, the not yet finished SC23 had to be shorter than 8 years, which was very unlikely, since there had never been observed two such short cycles in a row (see Fig. 1). They concluded that the type of solar forcing described with this SCL model had ceased to dominate the temperature change. Since the final length of SC23 became 12.2 years, the discrepancy became even bigger.
Full-size image (18 K)
Fig. 1.

Length of solar cycles (inverted) 1680–2009. The last point refers to SC23 which is 12.2 years long. The gradual decrease in solar cycle length 1850–2000 is indicated with a straight line.

5. Conclusions

Significant linear relations are found between the average air temperature in a solar cycle and the length of the previous solar cycle (PSCL) for 12 out of 13 meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic. For nine of these stations no autocorrelation on the 5% significance level was found in the residuals. For four stations the autocorrelation test was undetermined, but the significance of the PSCL relations allowed for 95% confidence level in forecasting for three of these stations. Significant relations are also found for temperatures averaged for Norway, 60 European stations temperature anomaly, and for the HadCRUT3N temperature anomaly. Temperatures for Norway and the average of 60 European stations showed indifferent or no autocorrelations in the residuals. The HadCRUT3N series showed significant autocorrelations in the residuals.

For the average temperatures of Norway and the 60 European stations, the solar contribution to the temperature variations in the period investigated is of the order 40%. An even higher contribution (63–72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard. This is higher than the 7% attributed to the Sun for the global temperature rise in AR4 (IPCC, 2007). About 50% of the HadCRUT3N temperature variations since 1850 may be attributed solar activity. However, this conclusion is more uncertain because of the strong autocorrelations found in the residuals.

The significant linear relations indicate a connection between solar activity and temperature variations for the locations and areas investigated. A regression forecast model based on the relation between PSCL and the average air temperature is used to forecast the temperature in the newly started solar cycle 24. This forecast model benefits, as opposed to the majority of other regression models with explanatory variables, to use an explanatory variable–the solar cycle length–nearly without uncertainty. Usually the explanatory variables have to be forecasted, which of cause induce significant additional forecasting uncertainties.

Our forecast indicates an annual average temperature drop of 0.9 °C in the Northern Hemisphere during solar cycle 24. For the measuring stations south of 75N, the temperature decline is of the order 1.0–1.8 °C and may already have already started. For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5 °C is forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months (Solheim et al., 2011).

Arctic amplification due to feedbacks because of changes in snow and ice cover has increased the temperature north of 70N a factor 3 more than below 60N (Moritz et al., 2002). An Arctic cooling may relate to a global cooling in the same way, resulting in a smaller global cooling, about 0.3–0.5 °C in SC24.

Our study has concentrated on an effect with lag once solar cycle in order to make a model for prediction. Since solar forcing on climate is present on many timescales, we do not claim that our result gives a complete picture of the Sun’s forcing on our planet’s climate.

1 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

144 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kim
June 13, 2014 7:26 pm

Dang, I wanted a big clue to mechanism. Maybe it’s in the hemispherical asymmetry of the sunspots.
========

Rob
June 13, 2014 7:37 pm

It’s what many Meteorologist/Climatologist have been waiting for. Thanks BO!

June 13, 2014 7:40 pm

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=humlum
This link goes to the source for this current post, not the Humlum “co2 lags temp” post?

Transport by Zeppelin
June 13, 2014 7:43 pm

This article begins – “A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.
but looking at the link to the paper it states –
Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 267–284
2012, not today ?
WTF
I see scepticle science rebutted this paper (corectly or otherwise) back in December 2012
what gives?

Nick Stokes
June 13, 2014 8:23 pm

There was a post about this paper at WUWT here.

Box of Rocks
June 13, 2014 8:29 pm

Oh phuleeze.
Science, we don’t need no stinkin’ science!
Can we run a bet on when the first freeze is???

latecommer2014
June 13, 2014 8:46 pm

Speaking of lag time, I often wonder how much of today’s CO2 is a result of the medieval warm period . The lag numbers are close (600 – 800 yrs ago) but I have found no studies based on this possibility

Paul Westhaver
June 13, 2014 8:55 pm

Its the sun stupid.

ossqss
June 13, 2014 9:13 pm

Sniffing places that have minimal direct local human influece on readings?
The Sun is the only real true player in the end, no?

Pamela Gray
June 13, 2014 9:14 pm

I don’t quite get this post. It’s an old one. Did it have legs and get into another journal?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 13, 2014 9:20 pm

“New study suggests a temperature drop of up to 1°C by 2020 due to low solar activity”
Burn the heretic!
Kill it with fire!
For Great Justice!

Alan Robertson
June 13, 2014 9:33 pm

The sun has nothing to do with it. Nothing. The temperature drop will be because of fearless leader’s visionary mandates.

June 13, 2014 9:46 pm

“Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 267–284
2012, not today ?
WTF”

My apologies – for some odd reason this paper came up today on my RSS feed from the Journal of Atmospheric & Solar-Terrestrial Physics, which in the past only feeds new articles published online the same day, therefore I incorrectly assumed that it was published today. The original post has been updated to reflect the publication in 2012. The Feedly RSS reader service I use was hacked a couple of days ago so perhaps this had something to do with the erroneous RSS feed.
My apologies for the erroneous date of publication.

June 13, 2014 10:04 pm

For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5 °C is forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months (Solheim et al., 2011).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Well at least the paper makes a bold and hence falsifiable prediction. 3.5 degrees between now and 2020 ought to start making itself visible in the temperature record in just a few years if the prediction is accurate. So kudos to them for putting something specific in their paper instead of just a bunch have hand waving that could be interpreted to mean almost anything.
That said, I for one just cannot envision a physical mechanism that would enable this result. Absent a physical driver, this is at most just a correlation.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 13, 2014 10:12 pm

Nick Stokes said June 13, 2014 at 8:23 pm:

There was a post about this paper at WUWT here.

NO. That article started by mentioning the paper called “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24” that was dated February 2012 and parked at arxiv.org, then the guest poster went on about his similar study.

Nick Stokes
June 13, 2014 10:31 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 13, 2014 at 10:12 pm
“NO. That article started by mentioning the paper called “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24? that was dated February 2012 and parked at arxiv.org.”

Same title, same authors. Same abstract, as written in the post.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 13, 2014 10:54 pm

From Nick Stokes on June 13, 2014 at 10:31 pm:

Same title, same authors. Same abstract, as written in the post.

You had said:

There was a post about this paper at WUWT here.

Article says:

I fully support the findings of Jan –Erik Solheim , Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum and their very recent paper called The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24 dated February 2012. The abstract reads:
[abstract]
Before finding the above paper on WUWT, I had recently done a similar and slightly different analysis.

And the paper was never mentioned again.
So the article was “I support what they said, I did something like that and here is what I got.”
Thus it wasn’t about the solar paper, it was about what the guy had done.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 13, 2014 11:05 pm

A post that actually discussed this solar paper a bit was by David Archibald, Quantifying the Solar Cycle 24 Temperature Decline.

Charles Nelson
June 13, 2014 11:10 pm

Well I’m glad we got that sorted out!

jmorpuss
June 13, 2014 11:40 pm

Here is a good visual on how the planets revolve around the sun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex283trHBgE&feature=youtube_gdata_player or are you a flat Earther ?.I see a strong plasma line when Earth gets out in front of the Sun and a strong bombardment when we pass through the Suns tail . When we get out in front we create a eclipse and are drawn closer (Hot) period and as we are on the opposite side as we pass through the tail we get pushed away (cooler) this process happens every 11 years.

June 13, 2014 11:47 pm

Analysis presented is a bit misleading and numerically not entirely convincing. Interaction of solar and terrestrial cycles is next to impossible to disentangle, but a combination of two gives an absolutely clear output .
Question of underlining physical mechanism (with all intermediary stages) is unlikely to be unlocked at any time soon.
What it can be said, is that on the decadal time scale result of the combine variability is about + or – 0.1C ( also postulated by Dr. S) and on the multidecadal scale + or – 0.3C.
Neither of two is going to produce catastrophic warming or cooling. I would suggest that for either of two ‘possible scenarios’ variability in the Earth’s parameters on (multi) millennial time scale bare sole responsibility.

June 13, 2014 11:55 pm

I see two problems: 1. They’re already beginning to run out of time for their predicted temperature drop for solar cycle 24. We’re already halfway through. 2. The AMO is also turning and if there is a temperature drop, it must be attributed correctly. We might have to wait until 2030 before understanding well the turn of the AMO.

ren
June 14, 2014 1:02 am

Polar vortex during winter accelerates thanks a temperature gradient in the the zone of the ozone. Any changes to ozone under the influence of solar activity affect the speed of the vortex. Weak vortex is one of the main causes of cool.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t10_sh_f00.gif
The temperature gradient between the center and the shore of vortex at a height of 30 km exceeds 30 degrees C. Vortex name is misleading, since the polar vortex expands in the direction of the troposphere. Changes in ozone are visible after around a week after the change in the magnetic activity of the sun. When solar activity increases vortex accelerates.

Editor
June 14, 2014 1:10 am

I’m sorry, but I don’t find this study credible. For starters, they say:

An even higher contribution (63–72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard.

I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that the temperatures in the Faroe Islands is 60%-70% ruled by the length of the previous solar cycle from 11 years ago. There’s nothing I’ve ever seen that has that kind of clear relationship. I would be astounded if this finding holds up.
Finally, I am inherently suspicious of the claim that there is NO effect from the varying intensity of the ~11-year sunspot/magnetic/solar wind/cosmic ray cycle … but on the other hand there is some big effect from the varying length of the cycles.
Among other problems, if there were a detectable relationship between temperature and say cosmic rays, the units would be degrees per 10^6 neutrons, or something like that. But if the variable is cycle length in years, then we end up with units of degrees per year …
Finally, they say:
• A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle.
I don’t understand how this is supposed to work. So … we’re going along in this solar cycle, and it’s cold because the previous solar cycle was short. But then we pass solar minimum (maximum?) and we’re into a new cycle. And suddenly, it’s much warmer, because the last solar cycle (which ended say a year ago) was longer … and somehow, that’s supposed to affect the temperature, not for the 11 years during which the sun was stronger, but during the next 11 years … riiight …
But if so … where is the extra energy coming from to make the globe warmer?
Now, in general, it is true that longer solar cycles tend to be stronger cycles. So, you could claim that the extra energy comes from the extra strength of the longer cycles.
But that just brings us back where we started, to the claim that the earth is responding to the strength of the solar cycle, not the length of the cycle … and the authors have specifically disowned that claim in favor of the idea that it’s affected by length, not strength.
In any case, I haven’t seen anything new in the parts of the study quoted above. If I can get hold of the original, I’ll look at their methods, if I can stomach it. Anyone who cites Christensen/Lassen is not to be trusted …
Before reading it, I’ll bet right now that they’re using Gleissberg’s 1-2-2-2-1 filter or some other bizarre smoothing, that they’ve given correlation results based on smoothed data, and that they haven’t adjusted for either autocorrelation or the number of trials …
Regards to all,
w.

JJM Gommers
June 14, 2014 1:20 am

Despite old news(2012) there is a lot of interesting things in it. First the timeframe, 2020, from 2015 on the temperature should start to drop since solar maximum is now passing.
If this would turn out to be true, correlation, what’s the cause?

1 2 3 6