Archibald: Solar Based Climate Forecast to 2050

Guest post by David Archibald

When I started out in climate science in 2005, the climate people ignored the solar physics community. A casual perusal of the literature though indicated that the difference in climate outcome from Dikpati’s (NASA) estimate for Solar Cycle 24 amplitude of 190 and Clilverd’s (British Antarctic Survey) estimate of 42 amounted to 2.0°C for the mid-latitudes.

Since then, the prognostications of astute scientists with respect to Solar Cycle 24 amplitude have come to pass. Some commentators though are over-reaching and predicting a recurrence of the Maunder Minimum. We now have the tools to predict climate out to the mid-21st Century with a fair degree of confidence, and a repeat of the Maunder Minimum is unlikely. A de Vries Cycle repeat of the Dalton Minimum is what is in prospect up to the early 2030s and then a return to normal conditions of solar activity, and normal climate.

The three tools we have to predict climate on a multi-decadal basis are the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide and Ed Fix’s solar cycle prediction. Let’s start with the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, first proposed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991. This is the relationship for Hanover, New Hampshire:

The relationship established for Hanover is a 0.7°C change in temperature for each year of solar cycle length. Solar Cycle 23 was three years longer than Solar Cycle 22, and thus the average annual temperature for Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.1°C lower over Solar Cycle 24 than it had been over Solar Cycle 23. Why did I pick Hanover? Governor Lynch recently vetoed New Hampshire leaving the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of Oslo University replicated this methodology for ten Norwegian temperature records, and thus this methodology is confirmed as valid:

These ten Norwegian temperature records all confirm a solar cycle length – temperature relationship, and predict that temperatures of these stations will be about 1.5°C colder over the next ten years than they have been over the last ten years.

The second tool to use is the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was approximately 290 ppm. It is currently 390 ppm. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provides half the heating effect to date. By the time we get to the current concentration, each additional 100 ppm provides a further 0.1°C of heating. We are currently adding 2 ppm to the atmosphere each year so carbon dioxide will provide further heating of 0.1°C every 50 years. That said, the temperature fall over the next 22 years should result in a higher rate of carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans. The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide is shown by this graph, using data derived from the Modtran site at the University of Chicago:

 

Lastly, to put a multi-decadal climate forecast together, we need a prediction of solar cycle length that comes with a very good hindcast match. This is provided by Ed Fix’s long ephemeris simulation. This simulation is described in Ed Fix’s paper which is included in an Elsevier volume edited by Don Easterbrook, “Evidence-Based Climate Science”, due out in September. You can put advance orders in for it now:

This is a window of Ed Fix’s simulation:

 

The green line is the solar cycle record from 1914 to 2010, with alternate cycles reversed. Solar Cycles 19 to 23 are annotated. The red lines is the model output, from which the lengths of individual solar cycles in the mid-21st Century can be calculated.

Combining all the above tools, this is the climate forecast for Hanover, New Hampshire, which is a good proxy for what is going to happen along the US-Canadian border:

Solar Cycles 24 to 27 are annotated. For the next thirty years odd, temperatures will be at mid-19th Century levels. With the two year decrease in the length of Solar Cycle 26 from 25, temperatures will rise by 1.4°C by mid-century to late 20th Century levels.

By then, anthropogenic carbon dioxide will be providing a very welcome 0.2°C to the temperature.

The graph shows that quantified solar effects dwarf the quantified anthropogenic carbon dioxide effect.

David Archibald

12th July 2011

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Does black carbon / “soot” emission factor into any changes in albedo at the poles or on mountaintops and can it cause genuinely largescale changes in temperature or local flooding etc.?

Interesting view on projected climate over the next 25 years.

Ian Bryce

David, send this to Julia Gillard and all her Cronies. Maybe the Liberal party as well.

Michael Schaefer

To quote the article:
“For the next thirty years odd, temperatures will be at mid-19th Century levels. With the two year decrease in the length of Solar Cycle 26 from 25, temperatures will rise by 1.4°C by mid-century to late 20th Century levels.”
…and then substracting 2 degrees Celsius again to correct the heat-island-effect of misplaced thermometers will STILL make for a Maunder Minimum.
Brrrrrrr…

steptoe fan

Incredible, fascinating and just far too logical.
the warmers will never get it !

pat

Hmmm.
(I go into deep thought)

Fascinating. And borne out by real data.

Jim Butler

And we know Ed’s model accurately predicts solar cycles how?
JimB

Richard S Courtney

David Archibald:
Thankyou. You provide an interesting hypothesis derived from empirical data that provides a possible method to predict future local annual temperatures. This is useful
(a) because people live in localities and not globally,
and
(b) because it provides a large number of possible predictions (i.e. each locality has a unique prediction of future annual temperatures) that can each be assessed within a decade.
So, your method is real science.
However, you don’t state a mechanism by which solar cycle length affects climate so every warmist will say you must be wrong whether or not your method provides correct predictions (sigh).
Richard

TimC

Fascinating! While this shows the 1950 to 1970 New Hampshire temperatures reduced by only 1°C (when all the concerns arose over the world entering a new ice age) it forecasts a reduction of a whopping 3°C over the next 4 years, at most. Brrr – the CO2 warming will be welcome indeed!
And hopefully by mid-century humankind will be well on the way to having CO2 sequestration technology robustly sorted out, so we can target CO2 levels to whatever the politicians can then agree on.

This prediction will fail because it doesn’t take account of the release of stored heat from the ocean. The more than averagely active Sun pumped excess energy into the oceans from around 1934 to 2003 (aided by a terrestrial amplification of solar variation caused by change in cloud cover).
This excess accumulation of ocean heat content has been coming back out of the ocean since the cloud increased again in 1999 (Palle et al project Earthshine) and the sun started going quiet in 2004. It will help support surface temperatures globally for quite some time during any protracted solar minimum which may occur. However, the outlook for the northern latitudes will include cold snaps in the winters as loops in the jet stream caused by blocking highs over Greenland will pull frigid arctic air down into northern Europe, Russia and Canada. These blocking high’s are a feature of the phase of the Arctic oscillation we are heading into over the next few decades.
All this means that David Archibalds prediction for the Canadian US border may turn out correct, but for different reasons than those he proposes. If the lowered temperature does come to pass, it is likely to be because of exceptionally cold winters rather than a general lowering of temperature throughout the year. This means the effects on agriculture may not be as bad as he fears. Though the growing season will likely be shortened by cold spring weather, the generally high sunshine hour summers will offset this to some extent.
Time will tell.

It would be useful to see Ed Fix’es exact formula, so his prediction curve can be reproduced (and possibly back extrapolated) before 1914.
My formula has somewhat different forecast but it backtracks 400 years to the start of Maunder min.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm

JOHN DOUGLAS

I think Mr Rossi has just done for the 0.2 degree rise due to CO2.
Much more important, what will lower temperatures do for crop yields?

steveta_uk

Just from eyeball correlation, it looks like the Norwegian results are much better from the coastal sites and noisier inland, which I guess adds further weight to the “it’s the sea, stupid” argument.

I am waiting to see if Ed Fix’s paper stands up to peer review?

Temperature scale of the top graph mis-spells Celsius. Sorry to be picky.

H.R.

“The three tools we have to predict climate on a multi-decadal basis are the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide and Ed Fix’s solar cycle prediction.”
Where are the clouds?
Send in the clouds.

John Finn

David
Your prediction for the next 10 years or so seems to be based on the fact that SC23 was longer than SC22 so temperatures over SC24 will be cooler. In fact this is more or less exactly ehat you assert here:
The relationship established for Hanover is a 0.7°C change in temperature for each year of solar cycle length. Solar Cycle 23 was three years longer than Solar Cycle 22, and thus the average annual temperature for Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.1°C lower over Solar Cycle 24 than it had been over Solar Cycle 23.
Using the same methodology we would, then, expect temperatures over Solar Cycle 21 to be lower than over Solar Cycle 20 because Solar Cycle 20 was longer than Solar Cycle 19. SC19 was 10 years and 5 months long while SC20 was 11 years 7 months long, i.e. ~1.2 years longer. This corrresponds to a drop in temperature of 0.84 deg C.
However, no such drop in temperature was observed at Hanover or at any of the Norwegian stations. It is, of course, possible that an anomalous warming effect offset the solar cooling effect in Hanover and Norway but this seems unlikely since it is well recognised that most of the Northern Hemisphere began warming just as SC20 was ending and SC21 beginning, i.e. in ~1976. In fact, the stations you have selected were the ones possibly least affected by the warming which began in the mid-1970s. So, in answer to this question in your post.
Why did I pick Hanover?
Because it best fits your dodgy predictions, perhaps?

Roger Knights

tallbloke says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:26 am
This prediction will fail because it doesn’t take account of the release of stored heat from the ocean.

When that happens the sea level will drop. Awkward for the CaCa Crew.

With the L&P hypothesis on disappearing sunspots, svensmarks theory of increased cloudiness, drops in ocean temps, increased snowcover, sea level drop along with cold pdo, more prevalent and stronger la ninas, possibly more volcanic eruptions i reckon the drop will be along the curve and not stepped but to a deeper level – with the rise taking a lot longer to come up. As tallbloke says the oceans will need time after the sun has gets higher sunspot cycles to recover their warmth.

Lawrie Ayres

As Tallbloke says “Time will tell”. I am concerned that the major academies and orgs like CSIRO have totally ignored any possibility of cooling whatever the cause. Thus their predictions are predicated on a false premise and are guaranteed to fail with very real adverse consequences.

tallbloke says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:26 am
…. it doesn’t take account of the release of stored heat from the ocean.
I agree about stored heat content from the ocean. It is by far the largest source of the latent energy accumulated during past decades. In specific case of the Nordic countries and the wider North Atlantic climate , the stored energy is carried by the Atlantic currents and it is released in the North Atlantic and the Nordic seas. These events result in climatic process known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), currently in its negative phase, with more details and some graphic illustrations, as described here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
(comment from Dr. Judith Curry on her blog ‘looks good’)

Roger Longstaff

An interesting hypothesis. The author deserves credit for predicticting a significant temperature change over the next few years (in the same way that Einstein predicted the bending of starlight and the orbit of Mercury). If the prediction proves to be accurate then the hypothesis will be elevated to the status of a theory worthy of serious consideration. A good example of the scientific method IMHO.

Jit

’tis somewhat unrealistic to expect a cliff edge drop of 3 degrees in temperatures. Perhaps the solar climatologists should have used solar cycle length to predict temperature trends, not absolute temperatures.
As to the solar cycle forecast to mid-century, I have no faith in it. As always it’s easy to fit a nice curve to existing data – but the next question is, how good is it at predicting the future? Generally the answer is not very good.

David…could you provide further references for the graph of CO2 ppmv per unit temperature? The only solid relationship I know is that of ppmv and the extra Watts/square metre calculated at some height in the atmosphere (wherever -19 degrees C occurs). The consensus figure for a doubling to 560 ppmv is 3.7 Watts. Varying factors, known as Lambda are used to derive a surface temperature – ranging from 0.8 to 0.4 in IPCC working groups (with IPCC preferring 0.8). That gives a range of 1.5 to 3 degrees C, with the lower figure still five times your Chicago-graph’s 0.2 for the next 200 ppmv. Clearly, it is not an easy matter to translate from the ‘radiative forcing’ at such altitude to a heating effect at the surface – as water vapour, aerosols and clouds all intervene.
I actually agree and think that Lambda is much lower than 0.4….if as low as 0.1 the expected rise by 560ppmv would be 0.37 C. Where does your estimate come from?

Jack Simmons

tallbloke,
Could you provide some references on the heat content of oceans?
Thank you.

Stephen Wilde

I agree with tallkbloke in general terms but am not so sure that even his comments cover all the oceanic variables.
A recent paper suggests that more solar energy than previously thought gets past the top 700 metres of ocean and gets advected into the thermohaline circulation (THC) which is 1000 to 1500 years long.
Therefore we have to consider horizontal temperature variations along the entire route of the THC with the effects coming out 1000 to 1500 years after the solar variations that induced those same temperature discontinuities.
So we may now be getting the benefit of warmth injected into the THC around 1000AD with the cooler ocean waters from the LIA still to come to the surface thereby (depending on timing) offsetting or supplementing whatever the sun might be doing at that time.
Mind you I do think that now that the role of CO2 is looking minor if not insignificant we are getting back on the right track by looking more closely at solar and oceanic variations.

Ian W

The amplitude of Ed Fix’s graph (which only goes back a very short way) would appear to be sunspot counts if this is the case then his graph is seriously at odds with Livingston and Penn forecasts and the other recent forecasts of ‘something wrong with the Sun’. While it is nice to see something based on actual observation, I feel the ‘forecast’ is based on ‘a model’ which is fitted against the few consistent solar cycles in the last century and the assumptions that the cycle length effect in the last few cycles will repeat even with a quiet sun and that the next cycle will be more active. Neither the model nor the assumption appear to have any justification.
What if the Sun goes into the mode of the late 1600’s as L&Ps observations seem to indicate may be the case? What if the cycle length during that mode does not stay in a nice tidy Hale cycle?
The observations show that it is highly probable that it will get colder because of the length of the last cycle. The forecast of future cycles does not seem to be soundly based due to current observations of Solar activity..

tango

the oceans will take up all the heat no problems , look into the cold cycles for australia we are heading into a very cold winter look at all the records being broken . I think all caused by the sun minium cycle

Tony McGough

I do like these gently reasoned pieces of analysis.
But it is tricky to relate the logarithmic impact of increased CO2 on the temperature to the histogram provided. Do all the blobs since the Industrial Revolution add up to 0.2 Centigrade perhaps?

wayne Job

Tallbloke, I understand your theory as to the ocean heat bank but that is depleting rapidly by melting ice in the Arctic. The sun now in quite mode and apparently increased cloud cover is not being topped up as shown by the cooling oceans. The lag to warm the oceans will be much longer than the heat dump occurring now. Ten to twenty years longer I fear than this study shows, and the effect on high latitude farming may be profound as it was in the past.

Richard S Courtney

Moderators:
My comment posted at July 13, 2011 at 1:04 am is labelled as still awaiting moderation after about an hour, but a comment from tallbloke that was posted at at July 13, 2011 at 1:26 am (i.e. more than 20 minutes after mine) appeared almost immediately.
I do not see how my post transgresses the blog rules so I wonder if I am being subjected to special moderation. If so, then I would be gratefulto be told why.
Respectfully
Richard
[Reply: Nothing nefarious. Tallbloke is a moderator, so his comments appear when he posts them. It would be helpful if mods approved the comments previously awaiting moderation at the same time they post their comments (hint ☺). ~dbs, mod.]

If anything, few scientists give much credit to the Sun with regard to impact on Earth’s climate. To me it is as clear as day that the changing solar activity has had a historical impact. What has clouded many scientists minds is that rising CO2 levels will overwhelm all other influences. In geological history there is no correlation between rising CO2 levels and temperature so why should there be any in the future. Archibald does us all a great service.

Chris Wright

Interesting, but I seriously doubt that anyone can predict future climate, whether sceptics or true believers. And, as previously pointed out, what about clouds?
However, I think it is quite likely that the next decades will be dominated by global cooling rather than global warming.
The basic greenhouse warming mechanism is well understood (and predicts very small future warming). But, as far as I’m aware, the best historical record (the ice cores) provides absolutely no evidence of greenhouse warming, and there is no sign of any claimed positive feedback (warmer oceans releasing more CO2 and CO2 causing more warming). This is probably due to powerful negative feedback effects, maybe linked to cloud formation.
But if so, it’s bad news. It implies that even if we massively increased our CO2 emissions it would do virtually nothing to reduce the cooling.
As I said, no one can accurately predict the future climate. But I have a horrible feeling that our children will look back at the 20th century as a kind of golden age when the climate was pleasently warm….
Chris

RockyRoad

JOHN DOUGLAS says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:43 am

I think Mr Rossi has just done for the 0.2 degree rise due to CO2.
Much more important, what will lower temperatures do for crop yields?

And if it isn’t Mr. Rossi’s invention, there are several other similar but competing approaches so the probability of it happening is practically assured. We may be forced to burn carbon-based fuels in the future just to keep our planet more hospitable and productive even those such methods of energy production will soon be deemed archaic.

Ulric Lyons

Ed Fix has SC24 maximum at 2020, only a very strong cycle could rise this early, and with a proposed length of 8yrs (2017-2025) SC24 would be off the Friis-Christensen and Lassen chart on higher temperature. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/archibald_2050_fig1.png?w=640&h=409

Ulric Lyons

correction: SC25 would be off the Friis-Christensen and Lassen chart on higher temperature.

I am on the record as (Steve Mosher says ‘a voice in the wilderness’) ‘going on’ about the geomagnetic field. I had also a personal disagreement with Dr. Hathaway about my formula ( http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm ), time did tell who was right, so here is another quote from Dr. Hathaway’s paper :
In conclusion, this study has shown that solar/geomagnetic cycle forcing is embedded in the annual mean temperatures at Armagh Observatory, Northern Ireland. Removal of this effect, however, does not fully explain, especially, the rapid rise in temperatures now being experienced,(I agree with, my bold)
this possibly being a strong indication that humankind is contributing to climatic change. …. ‘possibly being a strong indication’ …..looks like he is not totally committed to the CO2 case, but hey, he still has a job to do.

Richard111

Interesting stuff, thank you. But this layman is still baffled as to how that first 20 parts per million of CO2 causes any sort of global warming. Surely after all these years there must be tutorials that a layman can understand. Anybody have a link or two, please?

Hu McCulloch

Very interesting — But is your regression directly of temperature on years, or of years on temperature and then inverted? The correlation will be there either way, but the slopes will differ by a factor of R2 = .53. Although cycle length has a lot of measurement error, solar activity is clearly exogenous, so the former would be preferable IMHO. But eyeball inspection suggests you did the latter.
The Hanover USHCN site has a nice long, complete record. Anthony at http://surfacestations.org/USHCN_sites.htm only gives it a 4 because of a builiding within 10m, but the photos on the gallery suggest this is not a dominating factor.

pofarmer

“So we may now be getting the benefit of warmth injected into the THC around 1000AD with the cooler ocean waters from the LIA still to come to the surface thereby (depending on timing) offsetting or supplementing whatever the sun might be doing at that time.”
That’s just a little disconcerting. Talk about some wild weather events.

Dave Springer

The accuracy of the solar cycle length to temperature doesn’t look very good and the number of data points is small. There are many same length cycles where temperature in one cycle is near the minimum and temperature in another cycle is near the maximum. I’m not saying there’s no causal connection but it is apparent there are other factors in play that are stronger and cause the relationship to be inverse. It’s a bias at best not a rule. The rule, if there is one, appears to be cumulative solar activity over a number of cycles rather than just the length of individual cycles.

Ralph

>>Vuk
>>I agree about stored heat content from the ocean. It is by far the
>>largest source of the latent energy accumulated during past decades.
Decades?
The North Sea varies by a whole 10oc between winter and summer. Now I presume that reflects the upper levels of the sea, while the lower levels stay more constant, but even so, 10oc per year is a huge temperature difference. How certain are you that the oceans can store energy for decades, rather than just a few years?
.

Daniel H

Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of Oslo University replicated this methodology for ten Norwegian temperature records, and thus this methodology is confirmed as valid

There’s something wrong with his chart for Oslo (which is the only one I checked, the other chart’s might be off too). The x-axis is the length of the solar cycle in years, from 9.0 to 13.5 years. The y-axis is the average temperature for the city during the following solar cycle. For example, the red dot with the circle around it (on the far left), represents the average temperature during solar cycle 23 (from 1996-2008). The dot aligns with 9.6 on the x-axis because solar cycle 22 was about 9.6 years long, and the short length of cycle 22 is hypothesized to have influenced the average temperature during solar cycle 23, making it warmer.
Oslo has 3 dots that align with 9.6 on the x-axis while the other cities have only 1 dot aligned with 9.6 on the x-axis (which can only be for solar cycle 22). At first glance this makes sense since Oslo’s temperature record begins at 1816. However, it is clear that there have only been 2 solar cycles of length less than 10.0 between 1800 and 2011. So why does Oslo show 3 dots? Further scrutiny reveals that, over the same time period, there were 6 solar cycles in the range of 11.0 to 11.9 years and yet Oslo clearly shows only 4 dots in that range, not 6. What is going on here?

Mr. Alex

I am always sceptical of DA’s predictions…

Richard S Courtney

Richard111:
At July 13, 2011 at 5:11 am you ask;
“Interesting stuff, thank you. But this layman is still baffled as to how that first 20 parts per million of CO2 causes any sort of global warming. Surely after all these years there must be tutorials that a layman can understand. Anybody have a link or two, please?”
The best explanation for Laymen that I know is provided by Jo Nova at
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/
Simplisticly, what happens is as follows.
The Earth’s surface is heated by the Sun and the heated surface loses this heat. One of the ways the surface loses heat is to emit heat radiation (i.e. infra red radiation, IR). This IR is energy.
Some of the IR from the surface passes through the atmosphere to space. But CO2 in the air absorbs some of the IR from the surface and re-emits it as radiation in random directions. So, half the re-emitted energy goes up and half goes downwards. The re-emitted energy that goes downwards is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and heats it some more. Hence, the effect of CO2 in the air is to increase the Earth’s surface temperature by ‘catching’ some of the energy from the surface and ‘recirculating’ some of the energy it ‘catches’ back to the surface: i.e.
The Sun heats the surface by giving it energy,
The surface loses the energy from the Sun,
CO2 in the air returns some of the energy lost from the surface back to the surface.
Hence, the surface is inhibited in its ability to lose the heat it gets from the Sun so is hotter than it would be without CO2 in the air.
The effect declines logarithmically because as each increment of CO2 is added to the air there is less IR from the surface available for additional CO2 to absorb.
An analogy for this logarithmic effect is paper over the inside of the glass in a window to a room. Light (i.e. radiated energy) enters the room through the glass. A sheet of paper covering the glass absorbs some of the light from outside so prevents its entering the room (as CO2 absorbs some IR from the Earth’s surface and prevents it entering space). A second sheet of paper absorbs additional light so even less light enters the room. Consider that each sheet of paper absorbs half the light that falls on it, then the first sheet absorbs half the light that passes through the glass but the second sheet absorbs a quarter of the light that passes through the glass. When 10 sheets cover the glass then an eleventh sheet makes little difference to how much light enters the room.
Similarly, the first 20 ppm of CO2 in the air absorbs much IR from the Earth’s surface (just as the first sheet of paper absorbs much of the light from through the glass). But the hundredth 20 ppm of CO2 absorbs little IR from the Earth’s surface (just as the hundredth sheet of paper absorbs little of the light from through the glass).
Of course, all of this ignores the other ways that heat is lost from the surface (i.e. evaporation and conduction) and ignores other ways that heat is inhibited from entering and leaving the surface (e.g. effects of clouds). And it ignores water vapour which is by far the most effective greenhouse gas (it absorbs over the entire IR spectrum but CO2 only absorbs the IR from the surface over two narrow bands of wavelength). And it ignores several other important factors.
But I said the explanation is simplistic.
I hope this helps.
Richard

Richard S Courtney

Richard111:
I should have mentioned that the link I provided is based on a peer reviewed paper published by David Archbald who wrote the above article.
The explanation in my post is my own.
Sorry for the unintended omission.
Richard

Jay Curtis

“The three tools we have to predict climate on a multi-decadal basis are the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide and Ed Fix’s solar cycle prediction.”
Only three tools? With all of the variables involved in climate, are these sufficient to make multi-decadal predictions with any confidence? What about the effect of oscillations in the ocean climate system? Does increased vulcanism, on land and below the ocean, play any role in your model? How do you know that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, especially when there has been a continuing increase in CO2 with no apparent increase in temperature for the past decade?
Forgive me. I’m a novice when it comes to climate “science.” (My area of research as a graduate student was biofeedback.) However, it seems to me that you are making the same sort of mistakes that are made by all climate modelers.
Regards.
Jbird

henrythethird

I think that the CAGW believers will continue to mention the “hidden ocean heat”, the “heat in the pipeline”, the “CO2 is overriding the natural signals” for quite a while.
I’m waiting to see the panic from the climate scientists when the GISS temperature curve falls below “zero”.
Just ask them. Ask them if they can predict, with 95% certainty, that the temperature anomalies will NEVER fall below “zero” again.

William

In reply to Tailbloke’s comment:
“All this means that David Archibald’s prediction for the Canadian US border may turn out correct, but for different reasons than those he proposes. If the lowered temperature does come to pass, it is likely to be because of exceptionally cold winters rather than a general lowering of temperature throughout the year. This means the effects on agriculture may not be as bad as he fears. Though the growing season will likely be shortened by cold spring weather, the generally high sunshine hour summers will offset this to some extent.”
Crop Yield (Solar Cycle 24’s current affect on planetary temperature)
Crop yield is (summer 2010, summer 2011) significantly down due to very heavy snowfall, late spring, and a very, very, wet spring. As there has been a step change in weather, the question is what caused the step change and will the cause persist such that the step change in weather becomes a step change in climate.
The data that supports Archibald observation that planetary temperature tracks solar cycle length is interesting. The question is why? What is the mechanism? Anyone notice the record cold temperatures and snowfall in the Southern Hemisphere. As to predicting whether cycle 24 – using solar observations or extrapolating past cycles to the future – will be a precursor to a Dalton or Maunder minimum or to a Heinrich minimum, it is likely not possible now as Solar physicists only have detailed full spectrum solar observational data from the last 50 years.
There is in the paleo record a suite of very peculiar unexplained observations that coincide with the Heinrich events. The current observed increase in volcanic activity, increase in earthquakes, increase in precipitation, and fall in sea level also occurred (order of magnitude greater) during a Heinrich event. The question again is what is the mechanism? (i.e How is the sun changing to cause those specific observed changes?)
http://www.agcanada.com/Article.aspx?ID=38402
Pasta Makers Fret As U.S. Durum Area Hits 50-Yr. Low
The U.S. wheat industry is bracing for a tight supply of premium pasta wheat this year after the USDA projected durum acres this week to be the lowest in 50 years as heavy rains and flooding prevented planting.
However Canada is in a very similar situation and their supply was fairly tight last year because they had low acreage,” said Erica Olson, marketing specialist with the North Dakota Wheat Commission.
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2011/news_release.jsp?news=061411.jsp
Water woes pose dire prospects for Prairie crops: CWB
Winnipeg – Unrelenting rain across large areas of Western Canada will severely impact grain production and leave more than six million acres unseeded this year, the CWB announced today in its preliminary forecast. For the second year in a row, crop prospects are dismal on the Prairies.
“Many farmers in the wettest areas have planted next to nothing this spring, while others are watching their newly emerged crops drown,” said Bruce Burnett, CWB director of weather and market analysis, at the CWB’s annual grain industry briefing. “This is occurring at a time when grain prices are extremely high, adding insult to injury.”
In total, between six and eight million acres of farmland will go unseeded across the Prairies, according to the CWB. Wheat acres, only slightly larger than last year, will be the second-smallest since 1971 at 20.3 million acres, down 1.7 million acres from average.
Cold spring, dry fields lower 2009 crop prospects in Western Canada
“Cold weather across the Prairies this spring has had a detrimental effect on planting and early crop development in most growing regions,” said Bruce Burnett, CWB director of weather and market analysis, at the annual CWB grain industry briefing today. “In addition, soil moisture levels are dangerously low in parts of Alberta and western Saskatchewan, where dry conditions have persisted since last fall.”