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.
Anecdotal cooling evidence from Colorado: The AGW alarmists told us that by now ski resorts would be suffering from global warming. I’ve lived in Breckenridge, CO since 2005 and haven’t seen any signs that (a) ski seasons are getting shorter (b) snowfall is decreasing or (c) temperatures are getting warmer. In fact, ski seasons are starting in October and lasting until June, resorts have been setting snowfall records (Beaver Creek just set a record for December snowfall and numerous resorts had record snow last season), and temperatures are downright frigid. I’m looking forward to many more powder days as global cooling continues!
Robert Bateman (09:58:16) :
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.
Most solar physicists believe that the interplanetary magnetic field comes out of coronal holes. If so, the IMF strength might be a measure of coronal hole area [assuming same basal field strength], thus suggesting that coronal holes are declining [if you subscribe to the idea that the IMF now is lower than lately].
Leif: I had something far simpler in mind than that. I was thinking that Coronal Holes compete with sunspot areas. That piece of coronal hole next to the spot that formed ahead of 1009 is what dampened down the whole string.
i.e. – the sequence in solar rotation direction is SC1009, spot ahead on Stereo Ahead, and when the whole thing reappears in Earth view we have plage- plage- hole.
If you hitch solar changes to ocean changes as the article does then there is no problem explaining all the past and present global temperature observations without involving CO2 at all.
Easterbrook confirms what I have been saying in published articles since April 2008.
For a relevant example see this link:
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1302
Woh,
Look at the newest Ocean SST map.
Negative PDO still in place but the developing La Nina trend just got much stronger over the past week.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.12.29.2008.gif
80% of La Ninas and El Ninos start developing in the early summer and peak around December. This one is starting to look like an atypical 20% one.
Robert Bateman (10:40:36) :
I was thinking that Coronal Holes compete with sunspot areas.
Coronal holes form from decaying sunspots, so rather than competing, sunspots feed coronal holes. There are a few exceptions to this: if an active region pops up in the middle of a coronal hole the region may temporarily close the hole, but soon the additional flux wins and the hole opens up again.
Oh great, another La Nina.
Stephen Wilde (10:43:35) :
what I have been saying:
“In my personal opinion it was criminal for the IPCC and the modellers to ignore all that on the basis of some nebulous concept termed Total Solar Irradiance.”
TSI is NOT ‘some nebulous concept’, it is a very precise measurement of the total solar output of radiant heat, which is what directly heats the Earth’s Surface [including some back-radiation from GHGs].
If you invoke PDO the way you do, you don’t need CO2 nor the Sun.
Bill,
Thanks for that heads up! I’ve been watching SSTs for a while too. I saw a faint La Nina signal in a daily satellite shot last week, but the last one I saw was Dec 22nd. This one is certainly more clear. La Nina is back….
Deadwood
Your comment is prioceless
“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.”
I correspond and work with a lot of scientists and am in awe of their depth of knowledge on ‘their’ subject but shocked how narrow that area of interest is. It perhaps illustrates why context and perspective is so often lacking in scientific works.
TonyB
Leif,
One also cannot ascribe the wiggles to CO2 either. Surely CO2 did not cause the Minimums and Optimums over the last 1000 years.
If it’s not the sun and not CO2, what is left?
Brent Buckner (07:17:30) :
Don Easterbrook wrote:
(1) how can we best prepare to cope with the 30 years of global cooling that is coming…?
Answer: Easy! Just pretend it’s getting warmer!
Bill Illis,
Holy bejesus!
At that rate, we’ll be in an ice age in about 9.5 months!
Any ocean experts here who can shed light as to what is going on here?
TonyB, Deadwood,
….on the other hand a consultant learns less and less about more and more until he knows practically nothing about almost everything.
There are people who can be described as ‘a goldmine of information’… and others who are ‘minefields of information’ (i.e. don’t get them started on a pet subject)
You mean the political movement of the late 20th Century? It was overwhelmed by Climate Realism.
Incidentally, the claimed regionalism of the Little Ice Age apparently covers the kind of large regions of North America and western Europe: “Striking ecosystem changes were recorded from a large suite of lakes from Arctic, alpine and temperate ecozones in North America and western Europe. Aquatic ecosystem changes across the circumpolar Arctic were found to occur in the late-19th and early 20th centuries.” Maybe these Little Ice Age “hemispheric” changes weren’t very regional.
Sorry, Leif.
When I wrote that I was under the impression that ‘Total Solar Irradiance’ was a general term covering all the different solar effects ‘in total’.
Nevertheless my point about the behaviour of others still seems to ring true.
Bob Sykes (06:21:53) :
‘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?’
I think personally that at the moment the odds are less than 25%, however the longer the delay to cycle 24, the more those odds increase. I think you need PDO/AMO forcing, weak sun and maybe volcanoes as well to trigger such an event, however.
Other factors likely to increase probability: continued heavy early winter snowfall across Canada, Northern US and Europe for the next 5 years; a sustained year-on-year recovery of summer ice in the Arctic; a second and third winter/summer like the 2007/08 one in Alaska.
One thing I would say though under such circumstances: expect some deserts to turn into fertile lands. Rainfall in southern Spain and North Africa has been much heavier in the past two years, which clearly will have an effect on their desertification status. Crop cycles will move southward, not be wiped out, just as with increasing heat until recently wine crops in the UK have become much better. It’s up to mankind to adapt innovatively to that, not bleat that the world’s growing areas are wiped out.
Actually Leif the PDO doesn’t seem to quite do it on it’s own but I can live with a solar input of, say, 10% over extended periods of time with the effect amplified upwards or downwards by the net global effects of the oceans from time to time.
I think we would have a problem ascribing the overall warming from 1600 to date on the oceans alone so the sun has to remain in the equation to provide slow longer term background changes.
Pierre Gosselin (11:45:08) :
One also cannot ascribe the wiggles to CO2 either. Surely CO2 did not cause the Minimums and Optimums over the last 1000 years.
If it’s not the sun and not CO2, what is left?
Any system as complex as the climate has internal oscillations. One may ask: what caused the Sun to vary? The answer [the best we know it – although there are fringe ideas about astrology and galactic center and spiral arm traversals and electric storms from Jupiter, etc] is ‘internal oscillations’. People that cannot accept oscillations of the climate system seem happy to accept oscillations of the Sun. Go figure…
Stephen Wilde (12:26:52) :
the sun has to remain in the equation to provide slow longer term background changes.
It is now becoming clear that there are no background changes in the Sun’s output, so we cannot invoke such changes, but why do we have to? Can we say with confidence that we need an extra 10% from the Sun? This presupposes that we have the data otherwise explained to that accuracy or better, which we do not.
Glaciers and bitter cold seem to come from the North and extend southward, not on a global scale or the other way around. It now seems reasonable to say that when these flip, northern weather is significantly changed. A cold flip brings cold, a warm flip brings warmth. Since the various ocean cycles are not in synch at this moment, it is reasonable to guestimate that occasionally they flip together, just like my oft repeated example of bus windshield wipers. And there is more than just the two major ones. I can see very bitter cold, extensive glacier and sea ice growth, and significant advance into areas unseen by the present generations, and devastation to flora and fauna alike were this to happen. It would happen rapidly with precious little time to prepare, maybe a season or two of early warning for only those watching for it. The rest would be caught unaware of impending extreme danger. I can reasonably think that ocean currents alone would be the cause of such an event. Of course, the discussion would still go on about what causes ocean circulation and flips. And for those of you with a religious bent, what causes the cause.
I’m having fun yanking Tamino’s chain with some of Easterbrook’s data: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/the-other-anthropogenic-greenhouse-gas/#comment-25790
‘Leif Svalgaard (11:01:07) :
Coronal holes form from decaying sunspots, so rather than competing, sunspots feed coronal holes. There are a few exceptions to this: if an active region pops up in the middle of a coronal hole the region may temporarily close the hole, but soon the additional flux wins and the hole opens up again.’
If I am reading this right, the origin of those 2 trans-eqauatorial coronal holes formed out of the last of SC23 activity.
Is Coronal Hole theory and modeling something new, or is it well understood at this point?
I’m going to hazard a guess that those 2 trans-eq holes will close up when SC24 decides to ramp, otherwise they will hamper progression as the additional flux is going to win out.
Something like that.
“the sun has to remain in the equation to provide slow longer term background changes.”
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/faintearthparadox.jpg
“Actually Leif the PDO doesn’t seem to quite do it on it’s own”
Some might argue that the signals in geomagnetic activity have a comparitve signal to the PDO over similar time windows.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/geomagneticchange.jpg
Robert Bateman (13:30:53) :
If I am reading this right, the origin of those 2 trans-eqauatorial coronal holes formed out of the last of SC23 activity.
The hole that gives rise to the stream we are just about to enter the next couple of days has existed since July, 2004. It can be followed as the ‘.’s in the left hand side of
http://www.leif.org/research/spolar.txt
The modeling and theory is reasonably well understood.
Solar minimum is often characterized by the disappearance of long-lived coronal holes as they are disrupted by emerging active regions, but new holes quickly form as the flux is there to allow them to.
Steven G
The sun will drive it. It won’t get as warm though if there is a longer cooling period as observed in the 1800 or 1880 cool periods.