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
What then is a `real `peer reviewed journal? How naive can people get? Many controversial papers get through because they are reviewed by people of the same persuasion who belong to the same prayer wheel circle of which IPCC is a good example. Morner is an extremely well-informed scientist with a wealth of experience that most warmistas lack.
Being born in 1956 and fighting the beast, I likely won’t still be around to see this if it happens. On one hand this lucky for me, I guess, but on the other hand it sure would be interesting to watch.
Mortality sucks. I want to live long enough to learn about everything that happens from now on. 🙂
Here is Mazzarella’s 2008 paper: Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth’s Rotation and Climate Adriano Mazzarella, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008, 2, 181-184
Note particularly Fig. 7 that shows an inverse relationship between Length Of Day (LOD) and sea surface temperature (SST) etc. with R=0.97.
Decadal variations in geophysical processes and asymmetries in the solar motion about the Solar System’s barycentre Nikolay Sidorenkov, Ian Wilson, and Anatoly Khlystov, Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 12, EGU2010-9559, 2010
See Nikolay Sidorenkov’s book: The Interaction Between Earth’s Rotation and Geophysical Processes
For an analysis of Dutch winter scenes including those during the Little Ice Age, see:
Les scènes hivernales dans la peinture du Siècle d’or hollandais Alexis Metzger et Martine Tabeaud
Here is Scafetta’s 2010 review on causes of Climate including solar: Climate Change and its Causes, Nicola Scafetta
David L. Hagen says:
July 6, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Here is Mazzarella’s 2008 paper […] Note particularly Fig. 7 that shows an inverse relationship between Length Of Day (LOD) and sea surface temperature (SST) etc. with R=0.97.
All his data sets have been heavily smoothed and then correlated. This drives up the R-value to become nonsense.
NASA/JPL-Université Paris Diderot – Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris find air temperature varies with Length of Day:
NASA Study Goes to Earth’s Core for Climate Insights
Dickey, Jean O., Steven L. Marcus, Olivier de Viron, 2011: Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth. J. Climate, 24, 569–574. doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3500.1
RE: David Hagen, Note particularly Fig. 7 that shows an inverse relationship between Length Of Day (LOD) and sea surface temperature (SST) etc. with R=0.97.
Note particularly not to confuse Corellation with Causation.
In this case, Causation probably exists, but the reverse of what is intended by the paper! Higher SST implies expanded water and expanded average radius and higher angular moment of inertia. Therefore, higher SST will CAUSE the rotational speed to slow down — by a leap second or two per year.
We are talking about a 4 millisecond in range in the length of the day over the entire 20th century (see his Fig. 3). This is 1 part in 20 million.
Who here believes that a change in the rotation rate of the Earth by 1/10,000,000 can have any measurable, let alone significant, effect on global circulation patterns?
Did skepticism take an extended vacation this week?
John Whitman :
It forecasts fish catches due to changes in sea temperatures; for example: it is a well know fact that when along the SA coasts sea water is cold there is a good time for anchovy catches; then LOD relates to changes in TEMPERATURES. What is worth mentioning is that this study comes from the same IPCC´s UN and it has a very practical and down to earth method which perfectly works for fishermen all over the world. If fishermen were to rely on IPCC forecasts would inmediately abandon its use; then IPCC´s well promoted Global Warming or, worse, undefined “climate change” has no practical use whatsoever but to fool those who naively believe in it.
This humble LOD based graph without any publicity at all, deprived of fanatics and “Gurus”, without any banks sponsoring it, works, and there you can see how temperatures will be, up to the year 2100.
David L. Hagen says:
July 6, 2011 at 5:14 pm
NASA/JPL-Université Paris Diderot – Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris find air temperature varies with Length of Day
And they have cause and effect reversed of some of the other ‘papers’ you quote.
Parl Vaughan posted on this subject some time ago. LOD, SOI, and sea surface temperature go hand-in-hand with GLAAM, Global Average Angular Momentum. The obvious explanation is that easterly winds blowing along the equator subtract from the earth’s angular momentum and increase the LOD. Also these winds are associated with the La Nina phase of the SOI, so sea surface temperatures are cool. When the winds drop (El Nino) the earth’s rotation speeds up again. There may be external influences acting to synchronize the ocean cycles (I believe there are), but these LOD changes are well explained by conservation of angular momentum.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/18/solar-terrestrial-coincidence/
Pamela Gray says:
July 6, 2011 at 6:27 am
Pamela – OT… You were looking for ‘real’ huckleberry wine, in a comment to another post.
Try these folks, up near FlatHead Lake MT.
http://www.flatheadlakewinery.com/Huckleberry.htm
I sampled a bottle of theirs a few years back and really liked it… but haven’t been back that way since. Your comment had me wracking the ‘wheres and whens’ of my random access memory. It seems to get more random every year… MtK
Robert Stevenson says:
July 6, 2011 at 8:38 am
“I predict just as homo sapiens from Africa replaced Neandertal man in Europe after the last ice age…… homo superiorensis from Africa will do the same to etc after the next ice age.”
Both senarios are most unlikely. Ice ages take a while to start and give plenty of time adapt or to move south to warmer climes if you are an adventurous type. If this is not the case, how did Neanderthal DNA get into the modern gene pool???
I would not worry australian PM Gillian Gillard will save the world buy destroying australia with a carbon tax this sunday 10th our time she will address australia on all TV channels to tell us how she will destroy us please if you can log onto our TV channels 10 .9.8.2 please please please log onto these channels we need the world to help discredit our left wing fascist labour goverment thank you we need all your help
Stephen Rasey says:
“Did skepticism take an extended vacation this week?”
At last! Somebody here with some common sense!
Tenuc – Ice ages take a while to start – wrong – check your facts – Ice Ages normally start in a couple of years from the norm. Look at now – world cooling – sun going on strike – all we need is a big volcano to erupt. Bingo. Albedo effect. Forget you ‘ little Ice Age ‘ . It’s the big one that’s coming. Every 11,500 years. Guess how long since the last.
Paul says:
July 7, 2011 at 4:29 am
It’s the big one that’s coming….
Though you are looking for fun, that would be too much. We sincerely expect your guesses are wrong.. 🙂
Mark Wilson,
“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.”
No Mark, the angular momentum of the Earth does not need to change. In fact, the principle agent that is diminishing the Earth’s angular momentum is the tidal drag of the moon. The main point is that angular momentum is the product of 2 terms – mass and angular velocity. All that needs to happen to reduce the Earth’s angular velocity is to move some mass further from the centre of rotation, even though the total angular momentum would not have changed at all. It is a fact that small variations in the height of the atmosphere at low lattidudes could transfer sufficient mass along the axis of rotation to alter the angular velocity of the planet to some extent. The only question is whether changes in solar wind could have that effect.
R. Gates says:
July 6, 2011 at 11:19 am
We’ve got 40% more CO2 now than we did during the last “Little Ice Age”.
That’s a wild speculation.
Mark Wilson says:
July 6, 2011 at 11:37 am
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?
Absolutely! (but see the more recent post of UAH temperatures)
G. Karst said “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.
No, I said that if warming stops, really stops, scientists will stop supporting the idea of AGW, even those who currently support it. Scientists should be driven by the data.
Yes, skeptics are not scientists, in the main, because most people aren’t scientists.
We must distinguish between angular momentum and moment of inertia. Mark Wilson meant to say moment of inertia, which is reversibly variable according to the planets current shape, while the angular momentum transferred to the moon through tidal friction is irreversible. It is true that angular momentum may be transferred reversibly between the lithosphere, hydropshpere and atmosphere, but the sum of their momentum added to that of the moon, is constant. The earth can only slow down due to tidal friction, but it speeds up and slows down all the time due to fortnightly zonal tides, the jet stream and other atmospherica phenomenon (seasonal and interannual), melting grounded ice, and probably core/mantel coupling (plus a host of minor contributors).
The abstract to Mazarella’s piece remains nonsense, and is unfortunate: LOD has no short term effect on climate–it is affected by climate. Neither could SST affect LOD without an equivalent and readily observal sea level change, and of course there is none. Thermal heating of the deep ocean is a potential, long term contributor to sea level rise, but with LOD holding steady in spite of tidal deceleration, we have added evidence for little sea level rise.
But could there be a direct or inverse correlation between SST and LOD? Certainly, by either of at least two mechanisms, atmospheric coupling and ice melting. When grounded polar ice melts it slows the earth down and spreads cold freshwater over some portion of the ocean surface, lowering SST short term. If floating ice melts at the same time, SST will increase over a longer term due to decreased albedo, causing a delayed long term inverse correlation like that described by Mazarella.
The funny thing about LOD as that few of the supposed processes of GW should cause it to decrease, but it does anyway. Tidal friction causes a deceleration of 2.3ms/century. GIA causes an acceleration of about .6ms/century, leaving a deceleration of 1.7ms/century. But since the advent of the atomic clock, when earth rotation could be measured instantaneously, rotation has gone up and down but stayed nearly level over the long haul. The longer this goes one, the more difficult it becomes to ascribe it to core/mantle coupling rather than the ice mass balance of the globe. That is, the ice isn’t melting as fast as it’s growing, just like the sea level experts are trying to tell us. –AGF
John B: skeptics are not scientists
Now that statement begs a host of questions and observations. Let’s look at the Wiki definition of scientist and (for argument) engineers and scientific skepticism
So to be a scientist, one must use the scientific method. I note in passing there is no mention of “post-normal scientific method”.
Also in the definition of scientist, the activity to find solutions to practical problems seems to fall into the realm of the engineer. So when it comes to proposals to fight CAGW, engineers, not scientists, ought to be in the driver’s seats. [Question: what percent of the IPCC are engineers?]
Now let’s consider Scientific Skepticism, something that is “part of the scientific method”. “Sceience itself may be … thought of as an organized form of skepticism.” Can you be a scientist and not be a skeptic at the same time? If you are not a skeptic, you are only masquerading as a scientist.
To close the circle, indeed all scientific skeptics need not be scientists. Many, a great many, are people trained in engineering. Engineers must always be skeptical of their own work. To double check for errors, for it is drilled into them in training that errors cost time, money and sometimes lives. Engineers are always trying to find a better, easier, less costly way to deliver the solutions to problems that meet the needs of society.
If it takes an engineer to point out a error of a scientist, such as the Causation of LOD in Mörner above, that is skepticism at its best.
Stephen Rasey, Ph. D.
B.Sc. Geophysical Engineering
Ph. D. Mineral Economics (Operations Research)
Colorado School of Mines.
Edim says:
July 7, 2011 at 7:31 am
R. Gates says:
July 6, 2011 at 11:19 am
We’ve got 40% more CO2 now than we did during the last “Little Ice Age”.
That’s a wild speculation.
____
Hardly. Pretty much solid data right from the ice cores from both Greenland and Antarctica.
What was there around to produce CO2 in little ice ages and ice bound land? Lush growth feeding a large ecosystem all breathing out CO2?
@Stephen Fisher Rasey
You really shouldn’t cherry pick half a sentence. Your entire post was based around you quoting me saying “skeptics are not scientists”. But what I actually said was, “skeptics are not scientists, in the main, because most people aren’t scientists”. Completely different meaning.
@ur momisugly John B
Either way, you were implying the intersection of (scientists) and (skeptics) was an empty set. Whereas I was saying true scientists should be a wholy enclosed subset of skeptics.
If you had said, “Some skeptics are not scientists,…” I would agree, but it would be a statement of little value.
Leif et al.
I linked to those LOD papers to prompt some thinking, to show the range of issues being considered, and different cause versus effect proposals. Now to sort out the magnitude and validity of each.
I particularly find promising the inverse relationship between SST and LOD.
With time/frequency being our most accurate measurement system (at least parts per 10^16), I would think that variations in LOD would be a good long term proxy for changes in average global “temperature”, winds, icecaps etc.
Thanks Leif for the note on averaging vs R^2.
On Mick’s question above, – salt water is a VERY good absorber of electromagnetic radiation – about inversely proportional to frequency. Thus the NAVY’s use of very low frequency long wave pulses to communicate with submarines. Microwave Ground Penetrating Radar is very rapidly absorbed.