Guest post by David Archibald
When I started out in climate science in 2005, the prevailing view in the sceptic community was that carbon dioxide-caused global warming was real but it wouldn’t be anything as bad as it was painted by the AGW crowd. Sceptics generally thought that climate was a random walk and at that stage we hadn’t quantified the carbon dioxide heating effect. Roy Spencer’s paper finding negative feedbacks from warming was at that stage two years off. At the time, I thought that climate was controlled by the Sun and set out to find the relationship. The relationship had been found by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991, and I extended their work to use solar cycle length as a predictive tool.
Now has come the first paper from Northern Hemisphere scientists to use solar cycle length to predict climate. Three Norwegian researchers, led by Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the University of Oslo, have just published a paper entitled “Solar Activity and Svalbard Temperatures”. It is available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
What these eminent scientists are predicting is significant: “We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5°C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009–‐20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6°C.”
A 6°C temperature decrease in under ten years from the present day! This is significant at two levels. Firstly, it is going to get really cold very soon. This predicted cooling is calculated to have a 95% confidence level. Secondly, it gives the sceptic community a climate forecast that is based on physical evidence, with a statistician signing off. When the predictions of these three wise Norwegian are borne out, that is going to be a big thing.
Figure 3 from the Solheim paper is above. Forecasts for SC24 temperatures based on length of SC23 are given with 95% confidence intervals (diamonds with bars) for the year and winter temperatures. Temperatures over the rest of the decade will return to the early 20th Century.
This figure is from Willis Eschenbach’s post of 12th May, 2010. Location of Svalbard is marked by a snowflake and the North Pole is shown as a red star.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your statistics!
It’s like a breath of fresh air to see some calm science in relation to the climate, even with a quoted confidence level and the reasons for it.
What a change from the hysterical screaming that “The Sky Is Falling and you better believe it or you’re an evil heretical denier paid by Big Oil!!!” we constantly get from the “experts”.
Something I have always found strange is that any increase in ice in the Antarctic is dismissed as just being sea ice, but a reduction in sea ice in the Arctic is seen as critical. What is the difference?
David, good find. I love it when scientists actually make falsifiable predictions.
All the best,
w.
David with his observation of solar cycles has been a voice in the wilderness for years. It is pleasing for us and must be heartening for him to have some support. Well done David.
I have notice a 10-12 year lag in some other things. I believe Vukcevic has noticed the same. This would seem to fit a 10 year lag from lower latitude influence migrating to the arctic.
Still … 6 degrees is pretty damned cold. That puts things back to 1900 or so.
I think you would also see any decrease in the Antarctic being suddenly “critical” too. Basically the way it works is any warming anywhere is “catastrophic global warming” and any cooling anywhere is local weather.
Especially as more ice seems to cause more problems than less ice.
“A Russian fishing vessel with 32 people on board has issued a mayday call, after taking on water close to the Antarctic ice shelf.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16204229
Willis, how can this be a good find as long as you over at tallbloke states that the Svalbard temperature series is crap? And here at WUWT as well (you know…) Making falsifiable predicitons when the basis is crap?
A general note: The fact that Polar Amplification works both ways can also be seen by plotting the trends in the zonal mean temperature anomalies (average temperature anomalies per latitude band) for the warming period of 1976-2010 and the cooling period of 1944-1976:
http://i54.tinypic.com/ruzbxh.jpg
And with the early warming period of 1917-1944 added:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2v8j1gg.jpg
The graphs are from the post “Notes On Polar Amplification”:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/notes-on-polar-amplification/
Real research based on real time observations. Good work and not a model in sight.
Bad news for us earthlings if it works out to be correct. i will commend this paper to my ‘friends’ at Chris Huhne’s department because they think it is getting warmer because the IPCC say so.
“A 6°C temperature decrease in under ten years from the present day! This is significant at two levels. Firstly, it is going to get really cold very soon”.
6°C has always being quoted as the temp that initiates a full blown ice age. This prediction is not good.
11,500 years. An Ice Age is over due.
Long live Norway!!!
The very truth the Sun provokes the climate change on the Earth , but only it need know how.Numerous scientists are mistaken creating the predictions on base of previous happenings.
It need know the root cause of these phenomena.The science didn’t decipher one and ramble through numerous measurements.I have a solution, if any is interesting in this domain.
Nikola
The importance of this prediction is that it is testable within a short period of time and therefore the prediction is particularly useful.
Furthermore, the location of Svalbard is of importance. According to AGW most warming should be towards the poles. Svalbard is located within the Arctic circle and should therefore be one of the places on Earth where the effects of greenhouse warming is most felt. If natyral variabilty (due possibly to sun cycles) can overcome the greenhouse effect, it will partly demonstrate the weak sensitivity (if any sensitivity) to CO2.
We will have to wait a few years probably at least 5 before we can see whether the prediction is on course. It will be interesting and if it turns out correct, it will be a blow toi any treaties which are meant to come in effect circa 2020.
Dr. Archibald analysis should not be entirely accepted or dismissed.
– Solheim et al. (page4, Fig.2) “The strongest cyclic variations have periods 62‐68, 26, and 15‐17 years.”
These are also periods found in the much longer CET records as it can be seen in this graph http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spectra.gif ( last graph from http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm )
– According to the Arctic’s four centuries long geomagnetic profile there is as yet not entirely understood apparent correlation to the solar activity, which is more likely to be the cause than the precession of the Moon’s orbital nodes.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP-SSN.htm
See also alternative article with alternative interpretation by the same authors on the same research. (Received 16 June 2011)
http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/11IdentifyingNaturalContributionsToLateHoloceneClimateChange%20%20HumlumEtAl%20%20GlobalAndPlanetaryChange%201012pdf.pdf
to the one Dr. Archibald quotes:
Submitted to Advances in Meteorology Sept. 14 2011
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.3256.pdf
“When the predictions of these three wise Norwegian are borne out, that is going to be a big thing.” – Yes, no reason to wait for the actual data. Their predictions will be borne out! No doubt about it! Global cooling is coming because this non-reviewed paper on the arXiv said it would get colder in Svalbard!
1. Cold in Svalbard doesn’t mean in will be cold everywhere on the planet, does it?
2. Are thjere any other inputs to predictions other than solar cycle length?
3. Would the AMO going negative impact on this??
Dirty pool, asking the Warmists to produce a projection vetted by a professional statistician! You know there just aren’t that many senile statisticians still around for them to recruit. And they’re even harder to pin down and comprehend than pre-senile ones.
Real Science, with the data and mathematics to back it up!
What a breath of fresh air, and chilly air at that!
please tell this to australians PM Gillard she is hell bent on destroying australia with a $26 carbon tax GOD HELP US
My only issue is the statement “when the predictions….”. It should really say “if the predictions…”. But I do agree that testable predictions are what science is all about.
URGENT let AW kniw!
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/and-the-leaks-go-on/
The real test of scientists is what they say if is actually falsified. Some ad hoc hypothesis like “The cooling is indeed there but it hid somewhere in the depths”