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
Archibald’s theory still suffers from the dog chasing its tail syndrome: If a long cycle predicts a weak cycle (which will be longer) then we have an infinite chain of ever weaker cycles and failure is guaranteed. Now, I’m a CO2 skeptic and ever desirous of a good story, but lets have one that does not contain a self-destruct mechanism. As for Ed Fix, we’re waiting…
It is my opinion that suggestions of cause and effect without plausible mechanisms clearly outlined as part of the post does a huge disservice to the debate. Until the subpar aspects of this post are corrected, I consider this post a fail.
Easterbrook’s new book “Evidence-Based Climate Science” is available for pdf preview and inspection as well as ordering with the publisher. Options include Ebook.
David Archibald
Thanks for your excellent cross disciplinary perspective.
The temperature-solar correlation by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) and by Jan-Erik Solheim might be improved by incorporating the Pacific Decadal Oscillation-temperature correlation detailed by Don Easterbrook e.g. see Fig. 7 in The Looming Threat of Global Cooling.. Similarly, Fig. 18 shows Easterbrook’s predictions.
I suggest combining those PDO-Temperature variations with the combination of Fix’s solar cycle with this improved solar-PDO-temperature correlation could refine the temperature predictions over the next few cycles.
PS Note WJR Alexander found the ~22 year Hale cycle driving the precipitation/flow records in Southern Africa. Fix’s model may refine Alexander’s model.
Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development W J R Alexander et al. J. South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Vol. 49 No. 2 June 2007 pp 32-44
Richard;
Here’s my fave mental model.
Imagine the atmosphere as present, but with no CO2. Suddenly, it’s added. Warmth radiating from the ground gets partly intercepted (about 8% of it) and re-radiated about, because it’s coming up in a frequency band that CO2 resonates to. Some (about half) gets back to the ground, and slightly warms it. Then it’s re-radiated, and 92% of the half of the 8% makes it out, leaving a small amount to recycle the next round.
The re-radiated heat had thus hung about on or near the ground for a little longer than it would have pre-CO2, and this “lag warming” is what is attributed to the CO2 “greenhouse” effect. The temp the ground now stabilizes at is slightly warmer than it was before.
Now, to complete the model demo, we remove all the CO2 in an instant. For about as long as the “lag”, the temp remains slightly elevated, but this time all the radiated heat gets out, and the temp falls back to what it was pre-CO2.
So in effect, the total heat added was the amount that could be bounced back towards the ground (about half the 8%, above) during the duration of the initial lag. A very short period, probably a few milliseconds. It is replenished as fast as it escapes, so creates a new “normal” or stable level.
The “logarithmic” issue described above is like a law of (very rapidly) diminishing returns. About half the theoretical total the CO2 could trap is handled by the first 20ppm, about 1/20 of current levels. We’re down to shaving tiny splinters off the last small splinter.
In reply to Richard111’s question why does the first 20 ppm of Co2 have the greatest warming effect and how does the CO2 greenhouse effect work.
CO2 absorbs a specific narrow band of frequencies of radiation. The initial concentration of CO2 absorbs and delays the transmission of those narrow bands of energy. The greenhouse molecule emits those bands of radiation in all directions up to space as well as down to the earth. The portion that is emitted down to earth delays the radiation reaching space.
The actual observed warming at higher concentrations of CO2 based on the paleo record supports the assertion that the greenhouse mechanism becomes saturated such that more and more CO2 has less and less affect on planetary temperature. In the past CO2 levels have been high when the planet was cold and low when the planet was warm. It is only in the last 1 million years that CO2 levels track with a 2000 year delay planetary temperature.
See this paper for details.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf
GREENHOUSE MOLECULES, THEIR SPECTRA AND FUNCTION IN THE ATMOSPHERE
Jack Barrett
The absorption values for the pre-industrial atmosphere add up to 86.9%, significantly lower than the combined value of 72.9%. This occurs because there is considerable overlap between the spectral bands of water vapour and those of the other GHGs. If the concentration of CO2 were to be doubled in the absence of the other GHGs the increase in absorption would be 1.5%. In the presence of the other GHGs the same doubling of concentration achieves an increase in absorption of only 0.5%, only one third of its effect if it were the only GHG present. Whether this overlap effect is properly built into models of the atmosphere gives rise to some scepticism.
The second figure (Norway) shows ellipses for the predicted temp change which accounts for regression residual. The first figure (Hannover) does not have this ellipse, but should.
Finally, in Fig 5, the predicted temperatures for Hannover, should show that uncertainty, somehow, perhaps as a shaded band around the orange line.
Just eyeballing Fig 1, that ellipse is probably about +/- 0.4 deg C, so the Fig 5 band ought to be +/- 0.4 deg C.
The other fault I have is that figure 1 and 2 perform the regression assuming that the data points are independent of each other. It assumes that Cycle N has no statistical bearing on Cycle N+1. I’m not ready to believe that without a regression plot that shows little correlation.
Good point, tallbloke.
With a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere isn’t it more likely infrared is absorbed by a CO2 molecule higher up in the atmosphere? What effect would this have on surface temperatures if any?
Climate should not be equated to temperature, ignoring hydrology. Seems to me that no WUWT commenters have yet realized that RATE OF CHANGE of solar cycle length GENERALIZES changes in beats even across UNKNOWN spatiotemporally-nonstationary terrestrial cycles.
Perhaps when followers have been conditioned for many years to expect complicated explanations, they cannot readily recognize simplicity that was overlooked by mentors from previous generations.
In a discussion where myth & truth are afforded equal status, is there even any point in volunteering grass-roots hours? The question is at least worth asking. Gravy-train riders have endless reasons for displaying collegiality. Those earning their own way: perhaps not so much.
As for these recurring nonsensical notions about lags:
Hydrology is a function of absolutes, not anomalies. Suggestion: Stop ignoring the annual cycle. Thinking solely in temperature anomalies is a fatal plague on sensible conceptualization.
Great to see the divergence of discussion here, as opposed to other places where only party lines may be considered.
Stephen Rasey wrote (July 13, 2011 at 7:02 am)
“The other fault I have is that figure 1 and 2 perform the regression assuming that the data points are independent of each other. It assumes that Cycle N has no statistical bearing on Cycle N+1.”
Refreshing to see a bold display of absolutely razing common sense, particularly in a thread where, yet again, we see PDO-temperature relations being pushed by people who don’t take the time to understand how PDO is calculated.
Brian H:
To avoid misunderstanding, I agree with your post at July 13, 2011 at 6:58 am, and I think your post agrees with my post at July 13, 2011 at 6:20 am.
I most certainly agree your paragraph that says;
“The “logarithmic” issue described above is like a law of (very rapidly) diminishing returns. About half the theoretical total the CO2 could trap is handled by the first 20ppm, about 1/20 of current levels. We’re down to shaving tiny splinters off the last small splinter.”
The way I usually put it to laymen is as follows:
The AGW hypothesis is that a trace atmospheric gas which is the very stuff of life itself may – if it increases its atmospheric concentration – become Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds. In fact, it’s worse than that. Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for every molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities so AGW suggests that a minute increase to the annual emission of this essential trace gas could cause Armageddon. Furthermore, in the geological past and during ice ages the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been more than ten times greater than it is now.
If you had never heard of AGW and somebody came in off the street and tried to sell it to you would you say, “Oh dear! Of course, we must change the economic activity of the entire world”?
Richard
@Peter Taylor
I understand that the higher values include expected water vapour forcing (H2O being a much stronger GHG than CO2). Of those 5 watts, most is from water vapour (anticipated/modelled).
Something missing from all discussions on the subject I have seen is the influence of average wind velocity. Sublimation and evaporation are strongly affected by wind velocity. If a cooler earth is windier (stronger overall temperature differences) the atmosphere will be better mixed and moister which increases temperature. If a warmer planet is (as we are often told) warmer at the poles, mostly, then the temperature difference is less and the planet might be less windy. This would reduce the amount of moisture in the air, reducing CO2-induced forcing from additional H2O.
Adrian Bejan (“Convection Heat Transfer” ISBN 0-471-27150-0) says the Earth works like a giant heat engine and vents heat more efficiently as it increases in surface temperature (see Ch 5.5 “Enclosures heated from below”). Ch 5.5.3 “Constructal Theory of Benard Convection” is also relevant.
The combination of increased CO2 and H2O in the real atmosphere indicates that additional heat will in fact be collected and it will be more efficiently transported to space resulting in a pretty constant temperature for a pretty wide range of CO2 concentrations. Even when CO2 reached 7000 ppm the global average temperature was only 24 C, and that was largely because of 21 degree Polar Oceans, not because it was boiling hot at the equator.
Main stream climate science suffers from a lack of understanding of heat transfer in moving fluids that can easily be provided by real experts like Bejan for whom the subject is too simple to bother much with.
Ian Bryce says:
July 13, 2011 at 12:17 am
I had lunch with a Liberal Party senator today. I will be speaking at the anti-carbon tax rally in Canberra on 16th August.
Jim Butler says:
July 13, 2011 at 12:49 am
Because the hindcast match is so good. I have played with the model live. I am very grateful to Ed Fix for having made this major advance in solar science.
Richard S Courtney says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:04 am
It doesn’t matter that we know the detail of how it works or not. It works. The FDA has approved cancer drugs without knowing how they work. It is only important that they work. My work has been replicated by other scientists. That is the gold standard.
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:26 am
Same answer as to Richard Courtney. It doesn’t matter how it works. The stats says it works. You are right in saying that most of the temperature decline will be from colder winters. The crop impact comes from them being longer. From http://www.virtualmetals.co.uk/pdf/ABNAC1106.pdf in discussing this year’s North American plantings – “the relative lateness of the seeding means higher risk of damage later this season, either through hot and dry summer weather or possible frost damage towards the end”
M.A.Vukcevic says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:37 am
Sorry Vuk, Ed Fix’s model has won the race to model solar behaviour. It has a lot of fine detail. That good hindcast match you see in the window above goes on for centuries.
JOHN DOUGLAS says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:43 am
When I started out in climate science, my dream was to make it to the US Senate. That happened on 10th June when I gave a lecture in a US Senate hearing room. But I gave a more interesting lecture the day before at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school for the CIA and State Department. That lecture is online at: http://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20110630_FourHorsemen.pdf In short, crop yields plummet and hundreds of millions of people die from starvation.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:48 am
Ed’s paper is in an Elsevier publication. It therefore follows that all that has been taken care of.
John Finn says:
July 13, 2011 at 2:03 am
I remember, I remember when I started out in this field and the warmers were constantly at Steve McIntyre to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. So I will make the same comment to you. If you don’t like my work, displace it in the literature by doing better stuff. There is no point in whining because your world view is being beaten up by reality.
Lawrie Ayres says:
July 13, 2011 at 2:12 am
The CSIRO has gone totally venal. I put out more work than the entire CSIRO climate staff on a budget of $120 million.
Peter Taylor says:
July 13, 2011 at 3:00 am
Peter, why not go to the one true source of climate data – Real Climate? They discuss my work here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/
I’ll give you a hint. Prior to the tipping point of myth and legend, all heating is the same. That is to say that the climate doesn’t care if it gets heating from the first 20 ppm or the 20 ppm between 300 ppm and 320 ppm. If Modtran tells you that the first 20 ppm provides half the wattage up to 300 ppm, then it provides half of the heating up to 300 ppm.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 13, 2011 at 3:10 am
We alll know that the oceans smear out heating events from the Sun and that is what makes the Earth so livable. But Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory works and it doesn’t matter if we know how it works or not. Game over.
Ian W says:
July 13, 2011 at 3:10 am
The reason for this post is that some people were going all Maunder Minimum. Ed Fix’s beautiful, beautiful model gives us confidence about the Sun for decades in advance, because the hindcast match goes back for centuries.
It is interesting that the solar cycle length hypothesis of Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) is still being used, given that Laut (2003) demonstrated that the analysis in Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) had serious data handling errors, and that Lassen himself co-authored a paper in 2000 that updated and re-analysed the data and concluded that “since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature. “. The flaws in Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) have been identified and discussed in the litterature, it really isn’t science to base an argument (even partially) on such a paper without mentioning the known flaws.
There is a good discussion of this paper at Skeptical Science here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm
Essentially correllation is not causation.
Laut, P. “Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol. 65, pp. 801-812, 2003
P. Thejll and K. Lassen, “Solar forcing of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature: New data”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 62, Issue 13, September 2000, Pages 1207-1213
as always, plenty of lip service to co2.
one may be brilliant in some area but hey- john wayne gacey was a terrific clown until you got to his basement.
you can build bridges all your life, but pay lip service to co2 and i’m not about to label you a bridge builder…lol
I would argue that the CO2 heating effect is not a simple tool for predicting future climate, even as one of several factors. The Beer’s Law relationship is good, but relates less than half the story.
One has to recognize that heating by CO2 would ramp up the atmosphere’s convectional heat engine and increase the rate of heat transfer to altitude. As the water vapor formed at the surface is not sensible heat, this effect would remove some heat form the assumed total.
Was Isaac Newton a failure because he couldn’t propose a mechanism by which the apple fell?
Does this take into account Usoskin’s “Lost Cycle of the 1800’s”?
http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/arlt2.pdf
Paul Vaughan (7:07) I for one cannot recognize simplicity in spatiotemporally-nonstationary terrestrial cycles.
Was that a spoof?
Pamela Gray says:
July 13, 2011 at 6:50 am
“It is my opinion that suggestions of cause and effect without plausible mechanisms clearly outlined as part of the post does a huge disservice to the debate. Until the subpar aspects of this post are corrected, I consider this post a fail.”
Pamela,
I think that you are being overly harsh and critical of this post. I agree that an official scientific paper should propose a mechanism in addition to trying to extract pasterns and correlations (possibly spurious) from disparate data (can we say bristle-cone pines?). On the other hand, there is room on these informal blogs for people to play with the data and look for interesting patterns that lead to discussion. Finding patterns is just a clue that says “dig here”. There is no guarantee of treasure at the location.
Anthony: “We now have the tools to predict climate out to the mid-21st Century with a fair degree of confidence”
Sorry Anthony, but I call BS on that statement. We can barely predict the weather 72 hours ahead and you expect me to have faith in a 40 year forecast? It’s not happening. And please don’t give me the old canard that “climate is not weather”, because that is BS too. Climate is the average of weather over a long period of time.
I understand that we know about the cyclical events such as the PDO, etc, but I have zero confidence in any climate forecasts. There are too many unknowns, too much chaos, and extremely limited computing power.
I am happy or you to publish any climate forecasts you wish to publish and let our children see if they are accurate in 40 years. I doubt either of us will be around for the truth.
If CO2’s effect on temperature is “logarithmic”….
….then CO2 levels have been too low
David Archibald says:
July 13, 2011 at 7:27 am
Sorry Vuk, Ed Fix’s model has won the race to model solar behaviour. It has a lot of fine detail. That good hindcast match you see in the window above goes on for centuries.
Hi Dr. Archibald
Not yet, not until we see some numbers!
1.
Anyone can draw a line around sunspot cycle, now even a simple pc program will do it if you give it few reference points, and will look nice, smooth and convincing, and the E. Fix’es line looks too good. On the other hand you can have half a dozen sinusoids and pc will synthesise it all together, but if numbers do not relate to factual known parameters again it’s just a ‘numerology’.
What is required is a formula to which this line works, to what the numbers are relating, planets, b… centre, comets, Parker spiral or what?
Next: how does it back extrapolates to the Maunder minimum.
SC24 does not look too convincing.
If it is in publishing, no reason why formula can’t be released. As a scientist you well know until is reproducible it isn’t science.
Till then it’s just proverbial ‘smoke and mirrors’.
2.
As far as my formula is concerned
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
it was published in Jan 2003, and its derivative for the Sun’s polar magnetic field is an absolute first and by far the best available:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
“…and then a return to normal conditions of solar activity, and normal climate.”
“Normal Climate?” What’s that, exactly? “Normal” when compared to what previous period of time?