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.
Leif Svalgaard (13:28:44) :
I’m having fun yanking Tamino’s chain with some of Easterbrook’s data.
Good luck with that ;<). I read his blog on occasion and it amazes me how illogical and circuitous his logic is, ie. he just switched position in that thread from regional values to “global” values depending on whether it fits with the data he needs to disprove.
Regarding posts about La Niña signals, ocean temps in Monterey Bay are the coldest they’ve been in at least a few years. About 52-53 farenheit the last few days. I had been getting used to relatively balmy wintertime water temps(55-57), but not anymore. Usually the water doesn’t get really cold here until March-April, when the west coast high pressure gradient causes deepwater upwelling. If this keeps up, spring 2009 Santa Cruz surfing could be brutal. Really bad spring upwelling can see the water drop to the upper/mid 40s. Numb digits.
Clarification: the coldest DECEMBER ocean temps in the last few years.
maksimovich (13:42:47) :
“the sun has to remain in the equation to provide slow longer term background changes.”
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/fainteart
I( don’t think we were discussing THOSE background changes on the time scale of billions of years, but rather if there were any on a time scale of centuries that are large enough to have any effect.
Leif,
Looks like you tugged too hard on that chain.
maksimovitch,
I’ve formed the impression that the oceans behave pretty much as they please and dominate atmospheric temperatures when the various oceanic cycles combine with each other and/or solar changes.
Thus I’m not sure that near bottom ocean temperatures tell us very much since they could vary independently of or negatively with SSTs and atmospheric temperatures.
Can you clarify what you think your link tells us ?
Leif,
I was referring to Earth’s atmosphere as regards background changes, not background changes in the sun.
I think the sun contributes more than 10% to observed Earthly atmospheric temperature changes but I respect your position and would not seek to persuade you. I am content to see what future observations tell us now that the matter is under intense scrutiny with much improved satellite sensors.
If the sun were not a factor I would have expected the recent spell of neutral PDO combined with the postulated CO2 forcing to have caused a bigger bounce back over recent months especially since any CO2 forcing has been suppressed for 10 years now. It didn’t happen and the N. Hemisphere winter seems to be pushing the numbers down again now with a new La Nina developing and cycle 24 still not really evident.
The planet informs and we conform.
Leif Svalgaard (13:00:13) :
Any system as complex as the climate has internal oscillations.
Maybe, but such oscillations must have some kind of physical explanation, or else it is just astrology, voodoo or whatever you want to call it.
The best argument against planetary alignments modulating solar activity, is that the physical link does not seem to be there…..hence references to astrology. Explaining solar activity of climate variations as just ‘internal oscillations’ is on par with astrology unless there is an underlying physical explanation.
Sorry, I meant:…. solar activity or climate variations …
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned Henrik Svensmark’s work in this discussion.
@Bob Sykes (06:21:53) :
To my knowledge the population growth has be at the upper end of forecasts in the past.
I don’t think the current projections take into account the rapid population growth in the islamic world that is rather independant on development and personal income. So, as the islamic portion of the world population increases rapidly over time, the population growth will pick up again, irrespective of stagnating growth elsewhere.
More evidence of La Nina’s return.
link
Where’s Mary (no it isn’t) Hinge, if you’ll pardon the expression?
There is a theory of resonance between planets formed by Percy Seymour an astronomer. The moon for example resonates with the sea this process has brought the tides as we know them over a very long period of time not one circuit. Basically the ‘canals’ on the sun have a frequency and the planets resonate modifying the movement thus affecting solar activity. As we know when something resonates the affect is greatly amplified. The centre of mass of the solar system also plays a part here. The mass of Jupiter too is strong enough to pull the sun three degrees (varying) in its direction.
There was work by a man called Nelson who worked for the army in radio communications and he set up two frequencies to avoid disturbance by solar activity he could predict when to change his signal from the planets. No one has proved him wrong.
The next minimum is over a century away. The next cold patch is sooner than that. 2009 will be cool/cold but 2010 will have the warmista up in arms again. It will not be until after 2011 that we see a real cooling trend.
What a swamp that tamino site is.
It beggars my belief Leif. I hope you wiped your shoes as you left.
Has anyone got a source for long-term precip.- temperature data from a north African source. I’m intrigued by the greening of the Sahel.
Pamela, what triggers the ‘cold’ – ‘warm’ flips?
This will only motivate the alarmists to implement their agenda ASAP. Once it’s irrefutable that global cooling has occured, they’ll claim victory by saying that their CO2 reductions saved the planet.
Slightly OT (or maybe not), the March 2009 issue of Sky & Telescope is running an article entitled, “The Sun & Global Warming”. The tagline in the ad reads, “Is an increase in solar luminosity heating up our planet?”. I’d be interested in Leif’s take on this… as one of the more balanced popular periodicals, I’m keeping my fingers crossed for an interesting read.
MACKEY, R., 2007. Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate. Journal
of Coastal Research, SI 50 (Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium), 955 – 968. Gold Coast,
Australia, ISSN 0749.0208
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
I’ve always thought the TSI was not the cause of global warming or cooling because it seems to only vary by .1% over time. I have yet to hear a discussion on the effects of all those sunspot flares and coronal mass ejections that hit earth during high sunspot years. They surely added a lot of extra energy to the atmosphere. Being a non-linear event, that energy must be almost impossible to measure, but I’m guessing that extra energy from sunpot activity is why sunpots and global temperatures track so well together.
@Fred Gams
“This will only motivate the alarmists to implement their agenda ASAP. Once it’s irrefutable that global cooling has occured, they’ll claim victory by saying that their CO2 reductions saved the planet.”
I can hear the interview playing now.
Interviewer: So as a result of your campaigning, temperatures are falling?
Campaigner: Yes! We won! Just like we said all along.
Interviewer: And trillions of pounds were spent?
Campaigner: A price worth paying!
Interviewer: And millions are dying from food shortages?
Campaigner: A price worth pay… what… no… I mean yes… I mean the oil companies must have killed them… or something. Yes, there’s a world wide consensus on that. You know that! You’re just denying that we won! What are your qualifications anyway! I’ve had enough of this. The media has been against us from the start! (Storms off)
Interviewer: OK… Well… we’ll just go now to a new documentary on how electric cars are responsible for accelerating the next Ice Age and why electro-magnetic off-sets should become compulsory and after that we’ll hear from the High Chief Scientist on his plans to support the willful destruction of fridges.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Lief Svalgaard and honor him as a scientist.
It does rather disturb me when he tries to demonstrate that the output of the Sun has been constant for over 200 years, when other data is not always in agreement.
Have any of you purchased an “Easy Bake Oven” for you daughter? How many watts/meter does that little light bulb put out, while cooking a cake for our little darling?
Something does not smell right….
Leif said:
“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…”
The oscillations of solar input to the earth (earth’s rotation and orbit) obviously cause the major “oscillations” of night/day and summer/winter. So the biggest driver for the earth is external. Then there are internal “oscillations” such as storage of heat in the deep ocean, biomass growth etc which modify the external influences. A few details to be worked out here… but in principle it seems pretty obvious that both types of oscillation need to be considered.
A little less TSI, a little less UV rays, a little less tilt, a less little wobble, a negative PDO, a little less heat in the golf stream, a negative NAO, a little less heat from under water volcanoes, a little more cloud cover, a little less warming from other unknown mechanisms, throw in a couple of surfaces volcanoes, add them all up in the same time frame and bingo, we have a winner.
Who is to say there is only one mechanism that causes all the cooling or all heating?
Who is to say that that mechanism is dominate all the time?
Who is arrogant enough to say man can control climate change?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (15:06:58) :
Maybe, but such oscillations must have some kind of physical explanation, or else it is just astrology, voodoo or whatever you want to call it.
Physics. A simple example is the coupled pendulums:
http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/explore/michaelspages/Coupled.htm
Try to play with some of the settings.
davidc (19:31:36) :
The oscillations of solar input to the earth (earth’s rotation and orbit) obviously cause the major “oscillations” of night/day and summer/winter. So the biggest driver for the earth is external.
By calculating ‘anomalies’. i,e. deviations from daily and yearly regular variations, those drivers are taken out of the system.
AndrewWH (14:51:45) :
Looks like you tugged too hard on that chain.
Doesn’t take much… And only after having enduring some abuse first.
Terry Ward (16:51:31) :
What a swamp that tamino site is.
It beggars my belief Leif. I hope you wiped your shoes as you left.
Smells pretty bad…
Steve Huntwork (19:20:14) :
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Leif Svalgaard and honor him as a scientist.
It does rather disturb me when he tries to demonstrate that the output of the Sun has been constant for over 200 years, when other data is not always in agreement.
What other data?
And the output has not been ‘constant’. Its variation is just much smaller than we [including me] used to think.