Polar amplification works both ways

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.

image

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.

image

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
185 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
crosspatch
December 17, 2011 10:21 pm

Some of the pay for publication journals are quite good. For example, if you are published in an Elsevier journal and want to make it open access they charge the author $3000 but it STILL goes through the same peer review process as their regular subscription articles (and appears in the same subscription journals).

December 17, 2011 10:30 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
December 17, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Another flood of misunderstandings:
Leif Svalgaard (December 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm)

I go to the trouble of providing you with the requested explanation and this is the thanks I get….
The best example of an unsupported claim is your “uniform 0.1K” solar-terrestrial narrative, which is mercilessly razed by observational data. Trust obliterated.
I’m not fishing for your trust. Just trying to teach you something.

Pamela Gray
December 18, 2011 6:02 pm

Paul Vaughan says:
December 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm
“Yes, we all know the atmosphere & ocean drive the seasons Pamela. (/sarc)”
Paul, bad form, bad form. Yours was a catty strawman argument that made no sense in response to my comment. We all know that it ISN’T the Sun, nor the atmosphere or oceans that causes the seasons. And I certainly hope you understand it is the tilt of the Earth that causes various seasonal conditions depending on your latitude/longitude/altitude. But what does that have to do with reading a research article with a discerning eye and discussing anomaly trend drivers?

u.k.(us)
December 18, 2011 6:30 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“Most people stick with the classical explanation.”
==================
Ummm, till death ?
Or until observations make you part 🙂
Thanks for all the info, everyone.

December 18, 2011 6:54 pm

Pamela Gray says:
December 18, 2011 at 6:02 pm
And I certainly hope you understand it is the tilt of the Earth that causes various seasonal conditions depending on your latitude/longitude/altitude
As well as the glaciations.
u.k.(us) says:
December 18, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Or until observations make you part 🙂
Never believe an observation unless it has been validated by theory, and vice versa…

December 18, 2011 6:57 pm

Never believe an observation unless it has been validated by theory, and vice versa…
Tell that to the high temp superconductivity guys.
You can take this dictum too far.

u.k.(us)
December 18, 2011 7:53 pm

Dennis Ray Wingo says:
December 18, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Never believe an observation unless it has been validated by theory, and vice versa…
Tell that to the high temp superconductivity guys.
You can take this dictum too far.
==================
List your website.
Show me your video’s , high temp superconductivity .
Ya got a link,
Or don’t ya.

December 18, 2011 8:19 pm

http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Quotations/Eddington.html
“It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory” 🙂

Agile Aspect
December 19, 2011 11:03 am

I vaguely remember someone describing polar vortexes in a post and was wondering if recent bounce in the DMI temperature of the Arctic was related sudden stratospheric warming (not sure if the surface temperature would bounce) and if the blocking high pressure on the West coast might also related to the break up of the Arctic vortex?
I’m assuming the vortex broke up – I don’t know how to check on the status of the vortex.
I did check the vortex page and tried to read the Google book link but it’s virtually impossible to read on my netbook (not to mention I have 60 new posts and over 1000 comments and I’m traveling.)

Agile Aspect
December 19, 2011 11:34 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:19 pm
http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Quotations/Eddington.html
“It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory” 🙂
;—————————————————————————————————————–
Another counter example is Planck’s numerology and the development of quantum mechanics (where we still don’t understand the causation behind how electronic transitions occur or why the electron doesn’t spiral into the nucleus – not to mention the apparent ubiquitous presence of perpetual motion at the atomic level. ) We can make model predictions with incredible precision without knowing the anything about the causation if we follow the rules which were derived from observations.

1 6 7 8