Guest Post by Ric Werme
Nils-Axel Mörner, best known for his career of studying sea level and sea level records, reported in the April 2011 issue of the journal Energy & Environment that:
At around 2040-2050 we will be in a new major Solar Minimum. It is to be expected that we will then have a new “Little Ice Age” over the Arctic and NW Europe. The past Solar Minima were linked to a general speeding-up of the Earth’s rate of rotation. This affected the surface currents and southward penetration of Arctic water in the North Atlantic causing “Little Ice Ages” over northwestern Europe and the Arctic.
At the time I thought this was a bit of a reach, and still do, but it fits in well with:
- today’s earlier post, Study: solar activity lull increases chances of cold UK winters
- discussions at ICCC #6 about more coming cold winters and realizing that some people were quite familiar with the paper, e.g. Nicola Scafetta but some were not (I gave Bill Gray my copy) and
- a “flurry” of reports from the southern hemisphere and July skiing in the northern hemisphere.
Mörner claims
During the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Solar Minima, Arctic water was forced southwards all the way down to Mid-Portugal and the adjacent land areas experienced “Little Ice Ages” (Mörner, 1995, 2010). At the same time, however, the Gibraltar and NW Africa experienced warm events. This North-South opposed climate conditions are well understood in terms of differential distribution of current flow-masses along the northern and southern branches, respectively, of the Gulf Stream (Mörner, 1995, 2010).
While he mentions Svensmark’s “brilliant new theory,” Mörner refers to changes in the Earth’s rotation rate due to changes in the solar wind. I have a lot of trouble with that. I’m more comfortable with changing rates due to build up of seasonal snow and ice at high latitudes. Nevertheless, Mörner explains:
Due to the changes in rotation, the oceanic surface current system is forced to respond (Figure 1). As a function of this, the Gulf Stream alters its main distribution of water along the northern and southern branches, and simultaneously cold Arctic water can, at the speeding-up phases of Solar Minima, penetrate far down along the west coasts of Europe creating Little Ice Age environmental conditions (Figure 2).
Note this is a regional change, any global effects will like be much milder.
As for the timing of all this:
The date of the New Solar Minimum has been assigned at around 2040 by Mörner et al. (2003), at 2030-2040 by Harrara (2010), at 2042 ±11 by Abdassamatov (2010) and at 2030-2040 by Scafetta (2010), implying a fairly congruent picture despite somewhat different ways of transferring past signals into future predictions.
The onset of the associated cooling has been given at 2010 by Easterbrook (2010) and Herrara (2010), and at “approximately 2014” by Abdassamatov (2010). Easterbrook (2010) backs up his claim that the cooling has already commenced by geological observations facts.
At any rate, from a Solar-Terrestrial point of view, we will, by the middle of this century, be in a New Solar Minimum and in a New Little Ice Age. This conclusion is completely opposite to the scenarios presented by IPCC (2001, 2007) as illustrated in Figure 3. With “the Sun in the centre”, no other conclusion can be drawn, however.
While the official home for the article is at Energy & Environment, a non pay-walled version is at eike-klima-energie.eu
H/t to David L. Hagen
A G Foster says:
July 6, 2011 at 7:19 am
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that LOD has no impact on climate. If there were a significant change to the LOD, say decreasing to 12 hours or increasing to 48 hours, then this would have an impact on circulation patterns. I was just saying that the change we are looking at is on the order of a second or less.
As a “warmist”, I welcome that “skeptics” are predicting cooling. If, in decadal timescales, it doesn’t happen, will you all accept you are wrong? If it does happen, in decadal timescales, AGW is wrong and scientists will, I feel sure, admit it. Following which, the politicians will have to follow suit.
John
In other words, the article is junk but parts of it might fit in well with sowing confusion amoung the public.
Jerry from Boston says:
July 6, 2011 at 8:35 am
“I think Nils should stick to sea levels analysis –……….”
========================================================
Agreed. For those not familiar, here’s a must read. http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html
The Conservation of Angular Momentum is an even stronger physical law than Cconservation of Mass-Energy. It is the heart of quantum mechanics.
If the earth’s rotation is faster in a colder period, it can only be because the moment of inertia about the axis of rotation has changed. Solar wind cannot accomplish this. Only redistribution of the earth’s mass can change it’s moment of inertia.
Changes in the Earth’s rotation would be expected if the polar ice caps grew larger, keeping more mass near the center of rotation and speeding up the spin. How this connects with solar wind, I do not see, except for the cosmic wind/solar wind competition.
– – – – – – –
John B,
That is contrarily consistent with the below.
And, I welcome the IPCC AGWers predicting warming even if in decadal timescales it is not happening. In a similar vein, I welcome a lack of a reduction in the disturbing high level of uncertainty that that IPCC AGWers use to claim it can warm significantly by CO2.
John
KEV-IN UK
You make some interesting points about the possible existence of time lag factors between solar change s, ocean SSTchanges and atmopheric temperature changes . What this lag factor is, no one , to the best of my understanding has documented this with any accuarcy or proven the exact mechanism.
I find it still interesting that during the Maunder minimum between say 1650-1700 when there were no sunspots and theUK temperatures were cooling that both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were actually warming rather than cooling as shown by these two tree ring reconstructions of AMO and PDO. So I think the cooling of the atmosphere back then was perhaps caused by factors other than the lack of sun spot activity and the oceans were doing their normal warming cycle which ultimately warmed up our climate by 1750.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-index.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/biondi2001/biondi2001.html
Leif Svalgaard July 6, 2011 at 7:02 am
“Mörner refers to changes in the Earth’s rotation rate due to changes in the solar wind
It is highly unlikely that there is such a connection.”
Given that LOD varies, Climate varies and Solar parameters vary, what do you propose as the cause and consequence, and how would you statistically validate that?
Morner’s model may be testable by computer simulation of atmospheric & ocean flows with LOD. e.g., see the 2009 dissertation:
Ensemble Simulations of Atmospheric Angular Momentum and its Influence on the Earth’s Rotation by Timo Winkelnkemper.
Winkelnkemper includes “solar” (but not the indirect solar impacts such as solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays influencing clouds.
Some other papers that look interesting, see:
Papers on global warming and Earth’s rotation, Posted by Ari Jokimäki on May 25, 2011 e.g.
A. Mazzarella, “The 60-year solar modulation of global air temperature: the Earth’s rotation and atmospheric circulation connection”, Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 88, Numbers 3-4, 193-199, DOI: 10.1007/s00704-005-0219-z
The Sun’s Role in Regulating the Earth’s Climate Dynamics Richard Mackey, Energy & Environment, V.20, N.1 – 2 / January 2009
John Whitman says:
July 6, 2011 at 9:30 am
UN´s FAO found a reliable source for forecasting fish catches (the results of a study undertaken under contract to FAO by Professor Leonid B. Klyashtorin of the Federal Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography, Moscow, Russian Federation) based in the LOD :
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
See graph in page 50:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
Classic Environmental Nut cases. You just have to see the picture!
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/week_in_photos_YmnY7D9X7yKaVu6HFFqL4J?photo_num=46
David L. Hagen says:
July 6, 2011 at 10:35 am
Given that LOD varies, Climate varies and Solar parameters vary, what do you propose as the cause and consequence, and how would you statistically validate that?
That things very does not mean that one is causing the others. For the specific item here, it is clear that the LOD varies because of circulation of air and water that change the moment of inertia of the system. The solar wind energy input is many, many, many orders of magnitude smaller than that of the direct solar radiation. The papers you reference do not specifically calculate the results of solar wind influence on LOD.
Interesting conjecture, but it is just that. Also, why do so many insist on taking extreme positions on these things in that everything must solar related? We’ve got 40% more CO2 now than we did during the last “Little Ice Age”. It isn’t all the sun, or all CO2, or all the oceans, or all aerosols, or all volcanoes, but rather a mixture of forcings that go into making up the complex and chaotic climate.
Kev-in-Uk says:
July 6, 2011 at 9:23 am
To put it in simplified terms. The sun heats the earth more at the equator than at the poles. Through a variety of mechanisms, this causes air and water to move from the equator towards the poles. Because the earth is spinning, this poleward movement is twisted, resulting in things like the jet stream and ocean currents. If the earth was spinning faster, the twisting would be more pronounced. If it was spinning slower, it would be less pronounced. Thus the location and strength of these various currents and flows is at least partly dependant on the speed of the earth’s rotation. Changing the LOD by a few mS, or even a few hundred mS is not going to be enough to noticebly change these patterns.
John B says:
July 6, 2011 at 9:42 am
If on decadal timescales, the earth fails to warm, would you be willing to admit that you are wrong?
Tom Davidson says:
July 6, 2011 at 10:01 am
If there were some mechanism that could transfer the energy of the solar wind to the angular momentum of the earth, then it could affect the LOD. However I can’t think of any such mechanism. Even if there were, the energy in the solar wind is so small compared to the energy stored in the earth’s angular momentum that it would take billions of years to have a noticeable impact.
Re; Mike @ur momisugly July 6, 2011 at 9:46 am
“In other words, the article is junk but parts of it might fit in well with sowing confusion amoung the public.”
No, there is no confusion here, just honest debate and discussion. We are trying to understand something.
The “other side” of this debate long ago decided they knew everything and open discussion and honest debate ended in favor of propaganda and agenda.
Which one more closely resembles the scientific method to you?
“” Mörner refers to changes in the Earth’s rotation rate due to changes in the solar wind. I have a lot of trouble with that. “”
~
Yeah, me too.
More solar activity warmer earth, faster rotation, due to less ice at poles and Earth’s ability to produce electric currents ,magnetic field as water is much better conductor than ice is..
More ice at earths poles less conductivity because ice is not a good conductor. I had a tech article on this posted on another site..
More ice change in eccentricity more elliptical orbit hmm every thing slows down.
Gotta run
Once again, you sneak in the false implication that all “scientists” agree with AGW. Some do… however, many notable scientists DO NOT! To add further insult, you imply that skeptics are not scientists. Perhaps it is time for you to move your comments over to a site, with your “kind” of scientists. Here we are mainly concerned with the scientific method, NOT your pseudo- scientific superstars. GK
Enneagram says:
July 6, 2011 at 10:40 am
UN´s FAO found a reliable source for forecasting fish catches (the results of a study undertaken under contract to FAO by Professor Leonid B. Klyashtorin of the Federal Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography, Moscow, Russian Federation) based in the LOD :
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
See graph in page 50:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
– – – –
Enneagram,
Thanks for your comment.
I very very briefly looked at the abstract, conclusion and certain LOD parts of the paper you referenced. Based on my brief view it appears that the paper does not say that changes in the ACI (Atmospheric Circulation Index) are caused by LOD. It seems to says ACI varies in somewhat the same way with similar periodicity.
Do you get from the paper that LOD of the very small amounts they talk about causes the significant observed changes in the ACI?
John
I fully expect you to become a very angry AGW sceptic some day.
I think the term” ice age” referring to the period of the Maunder Minimum needs clarification. Using the UK Central England temperature data, the average of all winter [dec/jan/feb] seasonal temperature values during most[41 years] of Maunder Minimum period [1660-1700] was 3 deg C. The maximum winter temperature was 6.3 deg C and the minimum was -1.2 deg C. The winter CET temperature for 2011 was 3.1 deg C and for 2010 it was 2.43 deg C. During the Maunder minimum about 50% or 22 winters were warmer than the recent CET 2010 winter temperature of 2.43 C. So it was not ice age all the time.
By these numbers UK is already having “ice age” like winters now but the solar sunspots number is around 40+, not zero but increasing. So ice age level kind of temperatures can happen during non ice age periods and the cause may not be zero sunspot activity but possibly other factors as well.
Another example; the coldest year for UK/CE was 1740 at 6.84 deg C. The winter temperature was
-0.4 C or the 2ND coldest winter on record. This was at solar cycle with the 1738 annual sunspot number at 111, 1739 @ur momisugly 101 and 1740@ur momisugly 73, a very active solar cycle and hardly supportive of coldest “ice age” temperature in UK
Ironically earth quakes are said not to influence global climate yet are strong enough to influence earth rotational speed which then can affect world climate by effecting the ocean circulations. But of course it is easier to blame man.
matt v said:
“the coldest year for UK/CE was 1740 at 6.84 deg C. The winter temperature was
-0.4 C or the 2ND coldest winter on record. This was at solar cycle with the 1738 annual sunspot number at 111, 1739 @ur momisugly 101 and 1740@ur momisugly 73, a very active solar cycle and hardly supportive of coldest “ice age” temperature in UK”
It is necessary to take into account the ocean cycles which can either be supplementing or offsetting the solar effect.
Also the greater meridionality of the jets with changing longitudinal positions for the various loops in the jet will cause very different seasons regionally from on year to another.So it is quite possible for a south westerly wind to penetrate into UK and Europe in a proportion of winter seasons despite a negative AO, AMO and a quiet sun.
The opposite also applies as perhaps for the example given in 1740.
@unPC
“Warming, cooling, it’s all the same. Liberals will use anything that comes to hand to justify an increase in government power: http://historyhalf.com/the-global-warming-agenda/ ”
I am not an American but I think you are being unfair to liberals. When Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the power of “the military-industrial complex” I doubt if he had liberals in mind. If you look at the history of the world in recent decades you can find plenty of examples of right-wing politicians in different countries who increased state power.
The important thing is to hold our politicians to account so that they do not get too powerful irrespective of whether they are on the right, left or centre of the political spectrum.
Roy