Guest post by David Archibald
A large part of the US is currently in drought. A recent paper by Springer et al – “Solar forcing of Holocene droughts in a stalagmite record from West Virginia in east central North America” – analysed the Sr/Ca ratios and C13 values in a Holocene stalagmite from east-central North America. Their work “demonstrates solar forcing of droughts in east-central North America on multiple time scales. Droughts typically occur during solar minima when SST in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are comparatively cool. These SST anomalies cause migration of the jet stream away from east-central NA, yielding decreased meridional moisture transport and reduced convergence over east-central NA.”
Futhermore: “The 210-year period coherency in the BCC-002 Sr/Ca andd13C time series is evidence that the de Vries solar irradiance cycle has significant effects upon moisture levels in east-central NA.”
So, to predict the onset of de Vries cycle droughts in North America, all we have to know is when the last de Vries cycle started. That was in 1798 at the beginning of the Dalton Minimum. 210 years after 1798 makes 2008, which happens to be the end of Solar Cycle 23 and the beginning of Solar Cycle 24. Solar activity has been quite weak since 2008, so everything is happening on schedule.
That is shown in the following figure of the annual average temperature of Providence, Rhode Island:
The periods of the Dalton Minimum (Solar Cycles 5 and 6) and the current Eddy Minimum (Solar Cycles 23 and 24) are shown as blocks. Gleissberg maxima and minima from a paper by Peristykh and Damon are shown as down-facing red arrows and up-facing blue arrows respectively. The next Gleissberg maximum should be around 2043, which agrees with a projection of solar activity by Fix (2011, in press).
Separate to the de Vries cycle-based projection of climate, the onset of a cold period is confirmed by application of Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory, shown above on the temperature record of Providence, Rhode Island.
Drought has an obvious agricultural impact, but this will be compounded by lower average temperatures and a shorter growing season.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797) stated that “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Whether or not we are aware of previous de Vries cycle events, we are going to experience them and their consequences anyway, but knowing means that should not be a surprise.
Links to papers cited:
http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~kite/SpringerEtAl2008GRLpaper.pdf
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/BinWang07-d/PeristykhDamon03-Gleissbergin14C.pdf
ClimateForAll says:
April 18, 2011 at 1:44 am
[snip]
1410-1500 ? cold (Sporer minimum)
1510-1600 107 warm
1610-1700 61 cold (Maunder minimum)
1710-1800 114 warm
So what does this tell us about the Little Ice Age.
Look at the drought map of the US again. La Nina is known to cause those areas to be hotter than normal and drier than normal. The ENSO page has some information about that. La Nina years are also known to be more active hurricane years in the Atlantic. It just so happens that the main areas under a drought are the ones that hurricanes love to go toward. Although hurricanes do a lot of damage, they also do a lot of good. (It has also been my experience with hurricanes that the air smells cleaner after they pass. So in addition to being drought busters, hurricanes are air cleaners too.)
The drought in the US south and south-east is a standard La Nina impact.
This La Nina has acted exactly as the impact maps predicted with extremely wet conditions in the greater Indonesia and Indian Ocean areas, extreme lack of rain and cloud at the International dateline, cold south-east Asia, very cold north-west North America (the snow still has not melted), wet in equatorial South America, wet on the west-coast of Africa, drought in the US south and south-east.
Still another month of these conditions to go.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/impacts/cold.gif
Well that explains why we had a near record drought in south central Texas in 2008-2009 and are in a drought again now. La Nina is the usual suspect.
Drought begets drought (and wet begets wet). Every frontal system for the last few months traversing Texas/Oklahoma doesn’t develop significant rain until it passes into wetter, drought-free areas to the north or east.
Rainfall is very often a balancing, regional/local act between rising and descending air. Dry land produces relatively dry surface air that is heavy & promotes subsidence, and then that provides wet, adjacent regions (w/lighter, more humid air) with energy for uplift and rainfall.
Wade says:
April 18, 2011 at 5:29 am
“Look at the drought map of the US again. La Nina is known to cause those areas to be hotter than normal and drier than normal. The ENSO page has some information about that. La Nina years are also known to be more active hurricane years in the Atlantic. It just so happens that the main areas under a drought are the ones that hurricanes love to go toward. Although hurricanes do a lot of damage, they also do a lot of good. (It has also been my experience with hurricanes that the air smells cleaner after they pass. So in addition to being drought busters, hurricanes are air cleaners too.)”
Every time there’s a drought here I hope for a hurricane to hit the Gulf Coast and push rain bands 150 miles inland to Austin. Hurricane rain bands don’t often make it this far inland so it’s doubly unlikely but one can always hope. La Nina years are almost always drought years and El Nino brings flooding. One drought-busting downpour about 4 years ago brought 19 inches of rain in 24 hours. Ya gotta love Texas. If you don’t like the weather one day just wait cause it’ll change. Just the other day we had almost 50F change from daytime high temp to nightime low (89F/42). Forty degree day/night difference aren’t unusual at all and neither are less than 10 degree swings. I’m just glad that ass kicking tornado outbreak in NC wasn’t around here. The storm system began here a few days earlier. Lots of thunder/lightning but only about a half inch of very badly needed rainfall. I don’t think we’ve had more than a few inches altogether so far this year. Very very dry.
I am going to have to disagree with your hypothesis. The sited study is for West Virginia, yet West Virginia has no drought impacts currently on your drought map so I see that study actually not supporting your hypothesis of a solar link to current drought patterns.
Current drought patterns are firmly established in the south central US – I think you need a different hypothesis to explain this. I think it is also important to consider the record snows on the west coast (Sierra Nevadas) , near record snows in the Northeast (Boston, NYC etc) & heavier than normal snows in most of the north & central Rockies (see http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/snotelanom/basinswen.html ) & develop a hypothesis that explains all those observations across North America. I have some ideas on this association but nothing I have had time to research to make a statement of the linkages here.
The mindset of Western countries in the last 25 years has been much worse than merely forgetting the past. We have been inventing a new past designed to suit the purposes of the ruling class. It’s not just Mike’s Nature Trick; the same fantastic retrofit occurs in all areas of science and culture.
The mindset of Western countries in the last 25 years has been much worse than merely forgetting the past. We have been inventing a new past designed to suit the purposes of the ruling class. It’s not just Mike’s Nature Trick; the same fantastic retrofit occurs in all areas of science and culture.
Andrew Russell says:
April 17, 2011 at 9:25 pm
/spellin puleece mode on
That’s pedant not pendant.
All I know is that much of the Southern Central Plains has just experienced the driest continuous 4 months since the beginnings of the Dust Bowl in the 1920’s.
The final result of this current drought (which is apparent and obvious) won’t be pretty.
One can travel around the wheat growing areas of western Kansas, for instance, and see that most of the shelter belts have been ripped out as farmers try to plant every square foot available to them, largely in response to Congressional/USDA crop subsidy edicts.
Many farmers even drill their wheat out a foot or so into the edges of dirt country roads to increase their planted acreage.
Others have switched their fields to corn in order to capitalize on the food- as- fuel markets, even though corn is a much less productive crop in their region.
Wheat crops took an ominous turn for the worse in Oklahoma 2 yrs ago.
Now, I have never seen so much wheat look so poor at this time of year.
Perhaps our nation will be spared the coming famines, for surely the poorest food- importing nations will not be spared.
Leif, is paleoclimate data capable of showing a 30 year warming like now?
Does paleoclimate data show the current warming?
Alexander Feht says:
April 17, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Dependence of the Earth’s climate on the Solar activity and Solar cycles has been demonstrated in so many ways and so many times that any reasonable person would at least allow such a possibility.
But there is such a dependence, all of 0.1 degree. This has been observed by many, claimed be many more, and expected and explained theoretically.
aaron says:
April 18, 2011 at 6:44 am
Leif, is paleoclimate data capable of showing a 30 year warming like now?
The authors of the paper that Archibald cites would not state what they did in paragraph 63 if the data is not capable of showing what they claim.
David, When I read your article I nearly choked up my breakfast, I laughed so hard. The current drought monitor map you posted shows drought in the southern areas of the US. But Providence RI is in the North East. And the data you gave for Providence is temperature, not precipitation. The current map you posted does not show RI having drought conditions. In that area, Precipitation and warmth normally go hand in hand, not the other way around… in other words, rain up there brings the heat.
Next, it is well known that the current US drought conditions in the Southern US is related to the current La Nina. In fact, up in New England, ENSO also plays a role on weather. El Nino years tend to be warmer and wetter and La Nina years the opposite. If anything, you might try to find a solar / ENSO link like Landscheit… you already have the little arrow to data scheme that he used to use.
That’s not an answer. I’ve seen many more over-statements in papers. Note, the statements is that it is “not in accord” with paleo data. It does not say this nullifies the hypothesis. This is an offhand remark of no value.
Further to Luther and others commenting on dust bowl conditions, I can recall reading in a National Geographic in the mid 60s that the Great Plains (or related area) was regarded as semi-desert by those on the Oregon trail, land unsuitable for growing anything. Only a change of climate (precis of NG’s words) brought enough rain into the region to make agriculture feasible. Are we now seeing a reversal of that climate change and reversion to semi-desert conditions???
IanM
aaron says:
April 18, 2011 at 7:42 am
Note, the statements is that it is “not in accord” with paleo data. It does not say this nullifies the hypothesis.
In most of science when the data is not in accord with the hypothesis, that is normally seen as falsification of the hypothesis.
Considering the comment of small solar changes of 0.1% being of little affect is hard to swallow. The sun is so massive relative to our position to it that one tenth of one percent change in solar output is a significant amount of energy when applied to the variable lengths of time in this discussion.
AGW zealotry is only about money and emotions. Can’t eat money…, but it will buy a cup of hot soup soonly (will also the price rise too). Low this morning is nine degrees below normal with plenty of frosty whiteness. But, that is just the weather that is killing the buds on my fruit trees. 🙂
Yes, La Nina, but also PDO!…
“It appears from the PDO and AMO charts that Texas experiences a long-term drought cycle when the PDO is in the cool (or negative phase) and the AMO is in the warm (or positive phase).”
http://www.texasconservation.org/page.php?page=trends
PDO has been negitive since last June, and AMO has be positive.
John (Finn)-The Sporer date-range looks a tad late.
@ur momisugly Ian L. McQueen
“the Great Plains (or related area) was regarded as semi-desert by those on the Oregon trail”
Could you get a specific reference (vs the general NG reference) ? – as that would be helpful to all.
The Oregon trail was most active in the mid 1800’s, when global temperatures were colder than now on pretty much any global temp data set you might find. In contrast, the dust bowl era may have been close to the same as today , temp-wise, depending on whose reconstruction you look at. So the question is do the very dry plains conditions signal anything about where we are heading global temp-wise or is plains precip uncorrelated with global temps? If any one has the data to make this cross-plot, it would probably be of interest to most readers.
izen says:
April 18, 2011 at 2:15 am
There is a further problem with the claim that the drought is within natural variation and is therefore nothing to do with any climate change. Climate change may not cause events that are outside the normal range, but it may alter the probability of such ‘normal’ variations. It introduces a probability bias, so that rather like weighted dice, its not the occurance of double sixes that raises suspiscions, they are a ‘natural’ result of throwing two dice, but if they are occuring more than 1/36 times then the bias is present.
Assuming you do have a weighted set of dice, you need a lot of data to detect that, depending on how much the weighting affects the probability of a given number. Let’s say a given set of dice is weighted to produce double sixes 1/18 of the time rather than 1/36 of the time. How many measurements would it require to conclude with better than 50% confidence that the dice are loaded? The answer (according to an online statistics calculator, which I hope I’ve used correctly) is 89 measurements.
And that’s a much simpler problem with much less variability than the actual climate. How many years of measurements are necessary to conclusively prove that the probability of drought in a given region has been impacted by climate change? I dare say it’s many times more than what we actually have.
I’m not arguing that temperature increases have no effect on drought in principle, just that our measurement set is not large enough to reject the null hypothesis that recent drought is within the range of natural variability. It’s true that we can’t reject the positive hypothesis either, but we need a whole lot more real observational science (versus unverified computer models) to be done before you can convince me we need drastic action to be taken.
In the 1819-1820 Long Expedition report, the southern High Plains (aka Dust Bowl) was described as being dry and suitable at best for grazing. In the late 1840s, the Abert and Marcy expeditions found more moist conditions. The 1850s through about 1865 were again very dry, with some increasing dampness into the mid 1870s, followed by droughts. The 1950s were drier (in terms of reported precipitation) than the 1930s for the southern plains and central Texas. Prior to the 1930s, precipitation in the area appears to have been more evenly distributed through out the year, before shifting to the current “seasonal” pattern in the 1910s-1930s.
Sources include the Long, Abert and Marcy reports (available from many libraries or on line), Cunfer’s “On the Great Plains”, Cleveland and Stahle “Texas Drought Record Reconstructed” as well as materials from Las Vegas, NM, Santa Fe, NM, Albuquerque, NM, the Dodge City, KS newspaper, the Tascosa, Texas newspaper, and other archival materials.
Very interesting post, and undoubtedly longer term solar cycles exist, but I think it should be kept in mind that this does not in any way remove the existence of forcings other than solar cycle, and indeed, solar forcings along do not account for 20th century warming, and these relatively new forcings (i.e. anthropogenic GH gases and related feedbacks), might actually now be the dominant over solar cycles. A quote from one of the papers sited in the post states:
“Unfortunately,
the required estimates of the solar irradiance at
the level of 1% are too high to explain the terrestrial
temperatures for a time period since mid-seventeen century
exclusively by solar forcing according to observations and
models provided by solar physics [Sofia et al., 1979; Sofia,
1998]. The difficulty of such ‘‘simplistic’’ approach was
emphasized again by Reid [1991] who noted that solar
variability might not be the only contributor to climate
change but ‘‘the growing atmospheric burden of greenhouse
gases may well have played an important role in the
immediate past’’.
So, yes, longer term solar cycles are quite interesting and worthy of note, but should not be seen as an “either/or” answer when put up against the possibility of anthropogenic factors in climate forcings.