Don sent me his AGU paper for publication and discussion here on WUWT, and I’m happy to oblige – Anthony
Abstracts of American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San Francisco Dec., 2008
Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by Glacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium
Easterbrook, Don J., Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225,
Global, cyclic, decadal, climate patterns can be traced over the past millennium in glacier fluctuations, oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic observations. The recurring climate cycles clearly show that natural climatic warming and cooling have occurred many times, long before increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well known examples of such climate changes, but in addition, at least 23 periods of climatic warming and cooling have occurred in the past 500 years. Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years). Two cycles of global warming and two of global cooling have occurred during the past century, and the global cooling that has occurred since 1998 is exactly in phase with the long term pattern. Global cooling occurred from 1880 to ~1915; global warming occurred from ~1915 to ~1945; global cooling occurred from ~1945-1977;, global warming occurred from 1977 to 1998; and global cooling has occurred since 1998. All of these global climate changes show exceptionally good correlation with solar variation since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago.
The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode.
Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and sun spot activity over the past century show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. The announcement by NASA that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and coincides with recent solar variations. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct. “Global warming” (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over!
Figure 1. Solar irradiance, global climate change, and glacial advances. Click to enlarge
The real question now is not trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 as a means of stopping global warming, but rather (1) how can we best prepare to cope with the 30 years of global cooling that is coming, (2) how cold will it get, and (3) how can we cope with the cooling during a time of exponential population increase? In 1998 when I first predicted a 30-year cooling trend during the first part of this century, I used a very conservative estimate for the depth of cooling, i.e., the 30-years of global cooling that we experienced from ~1945 to 1977. However, also likely are several other possibilities (1) the much deeper cooling that occurred during the 1880 to ~1915 cool period, (2) the still deeper cooling that took place from about 1790 to 1820 during the Dalton sunspot minimum, and (3) the drastic cooling that occurred from 1650 to 1700 during the Maunder sunspot minimum. Figure 2 shows an estimate of what each of these might look like on a projected global climate curve. The top curve is based on the 1945-1977 cool period and the 1977-1998 warm period. The curve beneath is based on the 1890-1915 cool period and 1915-1945 warm period. The bottom curve is what we might expect from a Dalton or Maunder cool period. Only time will tell where we’re headed, but any of the curves are plausible. The sun’s recent behavior suggests we are likely heading for a deeper global cooling than the 1945-1977 cool period and ought to be looking ahead to cope with it.
Figure 2. Global temperature variation 1900 to 2008 with projections to 2100. Click to enlarge.
The good news is that global warming (i.e., the 1977-1998 warming) is over and atmospheric CO2 is not a vital issue. The bad news is that cold conditions kill more people than warm conditions, so we are in for bigger problems than we might have experienced if global warming had continued. Mortality data from 1979-2002 death certificate records show twice as many deaths directly from extreme cold than for deaths from extreme heat, 8 times as many deaths as those from floods, and 30 times as many as from hurricanes. The number of deaths indirectly related to cold is many times worse.
Depending on how cold the present 30-year cooling period gets, in addition to the higher death rates, we will have to contend with diminished growing seasons and increasing crop failures with food shortages in third world countries, increasing energy demands, changing environments, increasing medical costs from diseases (especially flu), increasing transportation costs and interruptions, and many other ramifications associated with colder climate. The degree to which we may be prepared to cope with these problems may be significantly affected by how much money we waste chasing the CO2 fantasy.
All of these problems will be exacerbated by the soaring human population. The current world population of about 6 ½ billion people is projected to increase by almost 50% during the next 30 years of global cooling (Figure 2). The problems associated with the global cooling would be bad enough at current population levels. Think what they will be with the added demands from an additional three billion people, especially if we have uselessly spent trillions of dollars needlessly trying to reduce atmospheric CO2, leaving insufficient funds to cope with the real problems.
Figure 3. Global population.
I doubt it will be published. AGU is fully vested in AGW-“science”…
How come a schmuck like me could look at these graphs back in the early 2000’s and clearly see we were about to go into a cold spell, yet Nobel Prize winners who invented the Internet couldn’t? One has to be blind not to see the cycles. My guess is Al Snore and his crew could see the cycles too, but they have an agenda that they want to get through and know most people are sheep, so they just disregard it.
Good graphics – First report in a long time that has reported on periodic solar changes.
I will get it printed and to my congressman!
Request permission to publish this on http://www.freerepublic.com
Though primarily a political and news analysis web forum, It will reach an additional few million (well – hundreds of thousands per week) more readers over at Free Republic.
So, we are in a warm period due to high solar output, nearly as warm as the Medieval Climatic Optimum. Easterbrook’s projection shows a very minor fluctuation downwards, but we still are in a warm period. Predictions of mass starvation seem unwarranted.
So, my question is, Does anyone think a downward cooling on the order of the Sporer or Maunder Minima is in the cards?
By the way, Easterbrook is using either the UN’s high or medium population projection. The medium projection assumes that all countries, including Europe, China and Japan, have fertility levels at the replacement level, and population growth is driven by the very young Third World age structure. It is more likely that fertility levels in the developed countries will remain well below replacement levels and that those in the Third World, which are now rapidly falling, will continue to fall. In that case, the total world population should peak around 8 billion, or a little less, around 2030 and fall slowly throughout the remainder of the century. No need to promote Ehrlich’s dementia. Read Julian Simon (RIP).
“The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035. ”
When was this prediction made?
One of the advantages to having an analysis of climate by a geologist such as Don Easterbrook is that a geologist has a better grasp of the time frame within which climate operates.
The evidence of the PDO is extensive, as is that of glacial fluctuations in the PNW. What is truly amazing to me is that the clique of paleoclimate “experts”, whose knowledge appears solely limited to certain sub-alpine tree-ring collections, could ignore such well documented climate data.
When I was an undergraduate, my paleo prof told an interesting story one day during lecture. He said the typical undergrad knows a little bit about many things in science, but as his studies progress he learns more and more about less and less until finally, when he is awarded a Ph.D., he knows an awful lot about practically nothing.
This appears to be what has happened in the climate field. We have people who, while they have a great deal of knowledge about computer programming, and perhaps even have some training in the physics and chemistry of climate systems, are ignoring a vast sea of empirical observations that contradict the results of their climate models.
The vast amounts of research moneys that have been placed in the hands of the the modelers have been successful in creating ever more complex programs on bigger and better computers, but the models still fail to account for the real data (which many of the modelers dismiss as noise).
Thanks, Dr. Easterbrook, I have followed your work for many years (my first earth science project was a study of the glaciation of the Fraser Valley). Thanks also to Anthony for giving greater distribution of Dr. Easterbrook’s analysis.
Don Easterbrook wrote:
(1) how can we best prepare to cope with the 30 years of global cooling that is coming…
I think that should be “20 years of global cooling that is coming”, as the paper indicates that we are 10 years into a 30 year period of global cooling.
Ooops! Close tag!
This is an excellent paper and I feel hits the real issue squarely on the head. Having written and published this paper on this informative blog – Keep Up the great Work Anthony! – do you have any plan to submet it to mass communications, Don? I believe the Washington Post, CNN and The NY Times have all done some alternative AGW articles lately. Fox is always open. Are you going to try these channels as well as scientific journals?
Thanks,
Dave
Where do Easterbrook’s numbers for solar irradiance come from?
I think that if a protracted period of cooling does continue then this will cause global population to naturally decline. Historically speaking warming periods have led to population increases and cooling periods- with the corresponding decline in agricultural output and economic prosperity- have led to decreases in global populations. Or at least a stalling of the increase in population.
Don,
the Pacific Decadel Oscillation(PDO) has switched into cool mode. Does the Atlantic Multidecadel Oscillation (AMO) automatically follow? I ask because I have seen several statistical regression analysis which indicates the AMO has significant influence on the earths temperature
Cold=drought=famine. John Steinbeck´s “Grapes of Wrath” scenario.
One thing I never q
In the recent decadal warming, thta has now ended, you can see the shift in climate regions here Since 1990 through 2006:
http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
It nicely brackets the 1998 El Nino spike. It is a good resource to figure shifts in reverse in North American agricultural productivity depending on the degree of shift toward cooling. In 16 years of warming there was a 1 degree shift equivalent to a hardiness zone change of about 1.5 degrees latitude at the 30th parallel; 2.0 degrees latitude at the 35th Parallel, and 2.5 -3.0 degrees latitude at about the 40th parallel (with wider shifts inland and narrower toward the coasts.
In Georgia, for instance saw a rise of total farm output over this period by more than 40% — from an index of about 1.25 in 1990 to almost 1.85 in 2004. Iowa saw a rise from about 3.9 to 5.1, a rise of over 30 %. See: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/AgProductivity/table03.xls
It would be expected to see the same fall in productivity over a similar period of cooling and climate zones shifting northward again. However, since that rise required structural adjustments that limited the realization of increased natural productivity below its potential gains (capitalized inputs have to be acquired to exploit the potential gains) the loss of natural productivity from cooling will be felt much more sharply and the economic dislocation harsher, because nothing puts a floor on annual productivity loss similar to the structural cap on productivity gain .
Under the scenario of a cooling similar to 1945-1977, the Easterbrook projection shows a continued upward trend in global temperature anomalies over the next century. What is driving this?
Reality settles in.
That certainly covers a lot of ground.
One attack on this study will be that it’s based on mere historical trends rather than magical computer simulations.
Hey, what happened to Global Warming?
Gio-
Now that’s a study that addresses the real issue here: Exactly what will be the depth of this cooling phase and what we will do about it.
I say we have already arrived at a 1880-1915 state and are flirting now with a Manunder/Dalton. If you look at the SOHO EIT and Stereo Behind right now you can see sunspot 1009 area and the place that formed ahead of it bracketed by a big piece of coronal hole just ahead and the polar cap hole below. Clearly, forces are at work sapping SC24 hard, and they are not playing nice.
If I could come up with the data, I’d like to see the % of Solar Area covered by coronal hole. To see whether it is on the increase or wane. Seems like it is increasing.
‘Bob Sykes (06:21:53) :
So, my question is, Does anyone think a downward cooling on the order of the Sporer or Maunder Minima is in the cards?’
I for one believe we have a 50-50 chance of reaching a Dalton.
A 25% chance of reaching a Maunder.
The progression and comparison I have on this page:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin.htm
How do I tell the difference between a Dalton & a Maunder?
The Dalton pattern will spend 2009 in limbo, 2010 in a very slightly raised plateau from bottom, but the Maunder will make for a ramp year, then fall back to bottom and sit there lifeless for several years, marking out the shoulders of rise, fall and a daring spike to maxima that is totally isolated.
Taking a gander at Easterbrooks progression, it only takes 2 decades to hit glacially numbing cold. All that is needed is a comatose Sun.
To improve the paper, I would have added sections explaining each of the forcings mentioned, with scientific study references. The ocean oscillations and solar irradiance needs more than just correlations but also mechanism theories. There are lots of cyclic things that can occur together but do not have a mechanism that demonstrates plausible cause and effect. For example, people always (or should) winterize before winter sets in. That does not mean that doing so causes winter to set in. Without a plausible and standard scientific treatment to the subject this is an opinion paper, not a scientific review of the literature with corresponding mega analysis.
Jason (07:25:20) :
Where do Easterbrook’s numbers for solar irradiance come from?
Jason hits this on its head. The increase in TSI in the first half of the 20th century didn’t happen, so if you want to ascribe the wiggles to solar activity, then the higher temps in the last half of the 20th century must be due to other causes. E.g. AGW, which is why the AGW crowd loves the solar connection. There is good evidence now that TSI during the Maunder Minimum was no lower than today [right now], so the solar connection is not so obvious.
It is a pity that Easterbrook hitches his wagon to the Sun, as that weakens his otherwise good case.
oops, meant meta analysis