Nils-Axel Mörner: Arctic Environment by the Middle of this Century

Guest Post by Ric Werme

Gulf Stream flow forced to the south  by rotational acceleration
Figure 7. At around 2040-2050 the extrapolated cyclic behavior of the observed solar variability predicts a new Solar Minimum with return to Little Ice Age climatic conditions.

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:

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

160 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 7, 2011 8:33 pm

David L. Hagen says:
July 7, 2011 at 7:57 pm
salt water is a VERY good absorber of electromagnetic radiation – about inversely proportional to frequency.
The solar wind is not electromagnetic radiation…

July 7, 2011 8:38 pm

David L. Hagen says:
July 7, 2011 at 7:57 pm
variations in LOD would be a good long term proxy for changes in average global “temperature”, winds, icecaps etc.
Nobody contests that. The nonsense is that changes in LOD cause the climate effects. It is the other way around [which nobody should doubt]. And to top off the nonsense is the notion that the solar wind controls the LOD.

Paul Vaughan
July 7, 2011 9:14 pm

THIS IS IMPORTANT:
A G Foster wrote (July 7, 2011 at 10:45 am) “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. […] –AGF”
tallbloke take note.
Everyone:
Hydrology is a function of absolutes, not “anomalies”.

rbateman
July 7, 2011 9:18 pm

A 40% increase of a trace gas that is an order of magnitude or more below the next most prevalent Greenhouse Gas is not going to make a splash in the equation, any more than the gravity of Mars (as it approaches perihelion) is going to outdo the tug of the moon on the tides.
For that, you need some sort of as yet undiscovered physics, which is nowhere in evidence, either measured or implicated by observation. The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Cores do not implicate CO2 as a driver of Ice Ages or Interglacials, they do just the opposite. For that matter, there is no historical literature correlation to even mount a good suspicion. Dang, that’s about as close to absolute zero as it gets.
You got a “what if” with CO2.

Paul Vaughan
July 8, 2011 5:24 am

David L. Hagen, thanks for the list of article links to sort through.
Do you see any problems with Morner’s figure 2?

G. Karst
July 8, 2011 7:36 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 7, 2011 at 8:33 pm
The solar wind is not electromagnetic radiation…

While I agree with this fact, it should also be noted that sea water is a most excellent absorber of particle radiation also. Only the elusive neutrino really escapes its clutches. Water – is truly an amazing substance, both in the atmosphere and in Earth’s natural reservoirs. GK

matt v.
July 8, 2011 10:04 am

Further information that I posted earlier about possible other causes of ice age climate
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=48906

John Marshall
July 9, 2011 4:17 am

I am not happy with positive changes to the rotational rate of the earth since rotation decays due to tidal friction. But an increase of ice mass at the south pole will reduce the rate of rotational decay. (Which I suppose can be counted as a positive movement).

July 9, 2011 7:08 pm

Using a 179yr analogue, I would say the worst of it is from 2014 to 2024.

Gridley
July 12, 2011 9:53 am

I do believe Mörner is mistaking correlation and causation, much as AGW proponents have done for many years. I also think it is a very easy mistake to make. It illustrates how complex a mechanism the climate really is. Like a machine with a million moving parts, every new viewpoint reveals a part of the mystery without providing a conclusion, only more questions.
One should also not assume there is a single answer to the puzzle. The reality is that there are likely many different drivers of Earth’s climate, some connected and some independent, each with its own corresponding cycle. This will make almost any actual causal relationship seem imperfect, as at times some cycles will cancel out others.
At one time, it seemed reasonable to infer an AGW-like causation from the correlation between temperature and CO2, though now we know that it is more often temperature which drives CO2. A causal relationship of LOD to changes in climate is likewise possible, but is more likely the opposite of what this article suggests.
The correlation between solar activity and climate appears even stronger than the CO2 correlation, and certainly Earth’s atmospheric temperature cannot affect solar activity, nor can any other terrestrial aspect, therefore the direction of causation seems obvious. Yet, without knowing the mechanism, this cannot be claimed with certainty. It is equally possible that a common factor is affecting both properties independently. That does not mean we should not search for such a mechanism.
I believe that the search for the engine of Earth’s climate is crucial, and that no honest effort to that end should be scorned. However we should also cautious about jumping too quickly to conclusions which could strand us on yet another dead end path, as happened with AGW.

1 5 6 7