Quantifying the Solar Cycle 24 Temperature Decline

Guest post by David Archibald

Three wise Norwegians – Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum – have just published a paper entitled “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24”. It is available online here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

The authors have found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes by 0.21°C per year of solar cycle length. The biggest response found in the temperature series they examined was Svalbard at 1.09°C per year of solar cycle length. The authors also credit me with the discovery of a new branch of science. On page 6 they state.” Archibald (2008) was the first to realize that the length of the previous sunspot cycle (PSCL) has a predictive power for the temperature in the next sunspot cycle, if the raw (unsmoothed) value for the SCL is used.” I have decided to name this new branch of science “solarclimatology”. It is similar to Svensmark’s cosmoclimatology but much more readily quantifiable.

What we use solarclimatology for is to predict future climate. Professor Solheim and his co-authors have done that for Solar Cycle 24 which takes us out to 2026. Using Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram, we can go beyond that to about 2040: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/

The green corona emissions point to Solar Cycle 24 being 17 years long, and thus 4.5 years longer than Solar Cycle 23. Using the relationship found by Solheim and his co-authors, that means that the 0.63°C decline for the Northern Hemisphere over Solar Cycle 24 will be followed by a further 0.95°C over Solar Cycle 25. That is graphically indicated thusly, using Figure 19 from the Solheim et al paper:

image

The last time we witnessed temperatures anything like that was in the decade 1690 – 1700. Crop failures caused by cold killed off 10% of the populations of France, Norway and Sweden, 20% of the population of Estonia and one third of the population of Finland.

As noted above, Svalbard’s relationship is 1.09°C per year of solar cycle length. That means that it is headed for a total temperature fall of 8.2°C. The agricultural output of Svalbard and the rest of the island of Spitsbergen won’t be affected though, because there isn’t any. The biggest effect will on some of the World’s most productive agricultural lands. The solar cycle length – temperature relationship for some localities in the northeast US is 0.7°C degrees per year, which is a good proxy for the latitude of the US – Canadian border and thus the North American grain belt. Newman in 1980 found that the Corn Belt shifted 144 km per 1.0°C change in temperature. With the temperature falling 5.2°C, the Corn Belt will shift 750 km south to the Sun Belt, as shown following:

image

The outlook for Canadian agriculture is somewhat more dire. I expect Canadian agriculture will be reduced to trapping beavers, as in the 17th Century.

The current cold conditions in Europe resulted in more than 300 souls departing this mortal coil, and has discomforted some millions. Solheim and his co-authors note “As seen in figures 6 and 7, the Norwegian and Europe60 average temperatures have already started to decline towards the predicted SC24 values”.

References:

Newman, J. E. (1980). Climate change impacts on the growing season of the North American Corn Belt. Biometeorology, 7 (2), 128-142. Supplement to International Journal of Biometeorology, 24 (December, 1980).

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
AaronC

Just like with the warming predictions of the warmist crowd, it will be interesting to see if this cooling prediction comes true.

Bill Yarber

I agree that the Sun is the primary driver of Earth’s climate but your projections are just as baseless and useless as the AGW crowd’s. Stick to the science and drop the doom and gloom! Let’s wait until Solar Cycle 24 has obviously peaked before guesstamating SC25 trend. You may be completely correct, but I doubt it, just as I’m skeptical of the AGW rants.
Bill

Rogelio

DA has been right about nearly prediction he made since 3 years ago on this site except the decline in global temperature for cycle 24 (I think it was 4C (if it was 0.4C he may be correct).

John Brookes
Girma

David
We should never be scaremongers like them.
Please.

Danj

And our EPA will probably still be retaining the ethanol mandate, increasing CAFE standards, and maintaining huge tax credits for the purchase of electric cars. DOE and EPA will probably still be putting roadblocks in the path of shale drilling and OCS development while Australia will still be collecting the carbon tax. Why? Because the IPCC will still be claiming that the severe and sustained drop in temperatures is a temporary aberration and catastrophic warming will come roaring back at any moment. Above all, the billions of dollars in government grants to warmist scientists would have to be maintained to advance the new premise that greenhouse gasses are causing the “temporary” pause in catastrophic global warming. The gravy train must be maintained at all costs…

Colin Porter

That’s it. I’m off!
I am packing my bags and will see out my days in the warm sun of Australia where my daughter can look after me.
England is going to be a little uncomfortable if it has to rely on siezed frozen windturbines.

Dan [NO]

Humlum is the man behind the very informative website http://www.climate4you.com

Cold and colder… I’m moving South with the corn.

Stephen Richards

The current cold conditions are of 1980’s vintage which MIGHT indicate a drop of about 0.4 °C. That’s the difference in recorded and modified temperatures from UK Met Off 2006 to end 2011.
4 years 0.1°C/ yr. Yeh I know it’s rubbish, isn’t it.

Anybody wanting to guess the number of dead attributable to a relatively mild NYC January?

JPY

I love the way that if you add in the 2011 numbers it makes these predictions look even more ridiculous than they obviously are. Kudos for producing a testable prediction though!

Ade

Extended winter wheat and bison required

Dixon

Same question as to the catastrophic warmists: at what divergence between your predictions and measurable data will you concede your hypothesis is wrong?
Climate strikes me as being a pretty poor candidate for catastrophe compared to all the others and even though I think cooling is probably a bigger threat than warming, I can’t see us returning to an ice-age in less than decades. Take the catastrophe out of climate – we’ll get a lot more science done.

Claude Harvey

As the AGW crowd long ago discovered, “gloom and doom sells”. If “the Archibald theory” should capture news and entertainment media attention, I foresee torches and pitchforks in the future for solar plant operators, a trash-burning pit in the yard of every politically correct homeowner, a federal buy-back program to get hybrid and electric vehicles off our roads and a federal tax credit for purchasing the new breed of coal-burning Sootmobiles.

Gary Mount

Maybe these future cold predictions helps explain why a CBC show I watched last night called ‘Doc Zone’, with the episode title “Life Below Zero”, In the Windows Media Center guide write up said, “How Canadians could be affected by global warming.”, yet when I watched it, there was no mention of global warming or climate change in any way, shape or form (which would have made me sad, but instead the show ended up inspiring me 🙂 ).
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/life-below-zero.html

Jos Verhulst

English is not my native language, but I humbly suggest ‘helioclimatology’ instead of ‘solarclimatology’.

GMC

Some sites I have visited have suggested the shift can happen quickly.
So my concern would be how fast grain production (food) could shift South.

Myrrh

The Danube has frozen over!
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/09/european-cold-snap-freezes-danube-blocks-ships-in-port/
It’s frozen in six countries. Not that our tv channels are covering the events in snowed under Europe, barely a mention of the deep freeze conditions. Except Ireland, chilly and a bit drizzly, but no snow.
And Russia is pulling back on fuel exports to Europe because of greater demands for it at home:
http://oilandenergyinvestor.com/2012/02/energy-crisis-looming-in-the-european-deep-freeze/
If this is really where we are heading then the AGW global warming nonsense has to be destroyed and sensible measures taken to ensure reliable production of energy, enough of the tax payers being ripped off by wind and solar fraud promoted by our governments.

The “Corn Belt Shifts to Sun Belt” graphic is a bit silly. Agriculture depends on soils and terrain as much as temperature. Southern Missouri and Arkansas terrain is very much different from Iowa and Minnesota (Minnesota is the state partially obscured by the “Iow” label), and even under the most favorable conditions could never produce corn like their northern neighbors.

jack morrow

A model and forecasts I hope fail. This is a bad moment in time to confront terrible weather too.

Ed MacAulay

The corn breeders during the 70’s and 80’s worked on developing strains of corn that would produce with fewer heat units, thus speeding the northward push of the corn belt, especially in Canada.
Let us hope that the big corn companies are keeping their bases covered and still have some skills and knowledge to work on growing corn in lower heat units. Hopefully the university research departments have continued development. But even if anyone is working on it, can they ramp up selective breeding fast enough? Maybe this is where some of those government dollars need to be going instead of helping the rich buy politically correct electric cars.

rbateman

M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 11, 2012 at 6:39 am
Irregardless of the mechanism explanation, the shoe fits as far as the cooling goes. It was in the Literature all along, and now it’s in the daily news right in front of our faces. The very same writings tell us that, eventually, the cooling cycle will have run it’s course, leaving only the hard numbers as to how long/how deep and what can we do to ride out the storm.
Being prepared is never fearmongering.

John Slayton

Svalbard is an outlier. Should it be taken at face value? Cf. WUWT, 13 May 2010 shows clearly unsuitable siting of the weather station. Perhaps the researchers have appropriately adjusted the data? Son of a gun, I’d better go read the paper. : > )

bruce

Some of the same non quantified climatic forces that limit climate flux may not reach their tripping point.Instead of finding the gross temperatures swings indicated there is a chance excess energy now wasted may “cover” for the above accounted projections.
In the same vein the solar input in the northern grain belt may have enough excess energy that a decrease will mean anything to crops.
just a guess.

Former Forecaster

If the predictions of cooling come true, it may help educate those terrified of global warming. There is something to be feared more than predictions of a warmer planet: a cooler one.

wsbriggs

Myrrh says:
February 11, 2012 at 6:50 am
Hang in there, Joe B’s suggestion of a cold latter half of Feb and March look like they may be setting up with the drop of the arctic air mass in the Central US. I hate Alberta Clippers!

Ian L. McQueen

@Gary Mount February 11, 2012 at 6:31 am
*****
Maybe these future cold predictions helps explain why a CBC show I watched last night called ‘Doc Zone’, with the episode title “Life Below Zero”, In the Windows Media Center guide write up said, “How Canadians could be affected by global warming.”, yet when I watched it, there was no mention of global warming or climate change in any way, shape or form (which would have made me sad, but instead the show ended up inspiring me 🙂 ).
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/life-below-zero.html
*****
Gary’s comment reminds me of my recent CBC listening. The program (http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Radio/1447825254/ID=2194749707) was about giant jellyfish, but there were two references to “climate change” (or was it “global warming”?) that were never taken up again.
The theme of the program ended up being that “science” stories get repeated endlessly and that no one ever goes back and checks the underlying information. It sounded to me just like the discussion of “climate”.
IanM

ldd

Sigh, and this laymen says: Looks like the universal Murphy’s Law strikes once again.
The ‘experts’ scream “the globe is over-warming, we’re all doomed!!!”
When freezing to death is what we’ll get…

rbateman says:
February 11, 2012 at 7:06 am
Irregardless of the mechanism explanation, the shoe fits as far as the cooling goes.
Hi Robert
Long time, no see, hope you’re well.
Agree, cooling is on the way, whatever is counted the SSN-wise. I’ve got here 3 different variables and all three show downhill from now on.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fc.htm

Bruce

Whenever I look at HADCET I notice that recent years are missing intermittent really cold years until 2007.
The LIA period had years almost as warm as the last 15, but in between were really cold.
For example, the two warmest winters were 1834 and 1869.
1830,1831 and 1838 were 4-5C colder.
1870 was 3.8C colder than 1869 and 1871 was 4.4C colder.
2007 hit 6.4C for the winter, and then 2009/10/11 were 3.5,2.4 and 3.1.

Bob Diaz

Interesting, BUT like any other theory, we’ll have to wait for the real world data to play out to see if the prediction is true.

Nerd

It’s going to be a long time.. like everything else to get things right.

AFPhys

Mr.Archibald, I applaud your recognition for helping to bring into the forefront of some scientists minds the importance of solar cycle length with respect to Earth’s temperature. Nothing I say below can or should detract from that recognition. Late in Cycle23, cycle length became a hot topic and many people recognized as I did [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2064374/posts?page=101#101] in summer 2008: “Global temperatures have been shown to be strongly correlated with solar cycle length. A cycle that is 4 months longer can be expected to yield a temperature lower by 0.1C .The previous five cycles, from 1944 to 1996, had a cycle length of 125mo – shorter (and therefore hotter) than the average cycle of the last 200 years, which was about 133mo.Given that this cycle has been about 22 months longer than the previous 5 cycles, we should expect that this is putting into place at present, a -0.55C difference from the last couple decades. See: http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html for the study.” In other posts I specifically mentioned the five year or so lag time for the temperature change.
This work of Lassen was done in the early 90s. It is recognized and referenced by Svensmark here: hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/quarknet/article2.pdf “A strong indication of a link between long term variations in solar activity and Earth’s climate was found in 1991 by Friis-Christensen and Lassen[3,4] who showed … solar cycle length … [was correlated with] temperature.”
Whenever you are given kudos by scientists such as Solheim et al, I believe you would do yourself a great service to point out that others before you such as Lassen deserve the credit for the insight, and that you are a disciple who is spreading word of their important though not-well-recognized work.
I believe, as well as hope, cycle length DOES prove in the next decades to be determinative of Earth’s temperature. It sure would be nice for man to stop destroying our technological prowess in the name of saving Earth from a phantom menace. I also hope for the sake of the agriculture, that the estimate of 0.2-.3C sensitivity per cycle-year is much closer to truth than 1.1C/yr! Unfortunately, it is likely that sufficient data will not be available to convince many until well after IPCC5.

Tero-Petri Ruoko

Damn, living in Finland is going to be gnarly… Lucky for us we have one nuclear power plant on the way and two more commissioned already 😛

John Slayton says: February 11, 2012 at 7:12 am
Svalbard is an outlier. Should it be taken at face value?
Sometimes Svalgaard is too.
However, there are some interesting aspects to the Arctic’s behaviour.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EAA.htm

Danj writes “And our EPA will probably still be retaining the ethanol mandate”
Can I, once again, plead for a differentiation between “corn” ethanol, and “cellulose” ethanol. They are completely different things. I know there is no production of cellulose ethanol at present, but, hopefully, this will change in 2013.

Sun Spot

Warmer is simply NOT SCARY , COLDER is VERY SCARY (history repeats itself). CO2 is not a problem it is a benefit to humanity.

Bill

I just read an old article from the IPCC in the late 1980’s about how the globe would warm 2.9 degrees C by 2020. (32 years) So far it’s up 0.55 and there has been no warming since 1998 based on satellite temperatures. Draw your own conclusions.

John

Scafetta vs. Archibald — very different projections. Archibald sees plunging temperatures, Scafetta sees temps just bumping along in a narrow range, no real increase or decrease over time. Both devote much of their waking hours on understanding the sun’s influence on climate.
A third solar expert, Judith Lean, expects that solar influences aren’t that strong and she has publicly predicted that in a year or so, temps will climb again, and will continue climbing in a stair step fashion — up when a solar cycle is getting warmer, flat when the 11 year cycle is in its decline.
So we have three very different on the record projections from three scientists with expertise. Now all we have to do is wait a few years…..this is one of the few instances in which I wish time could fly by.

AFPhys

Myrrh @ 6:50am – “If this is really where we are heading then the AGW global warming nonsense has to be destroyed and sensible measures taken to ensure reliable production of energy,”
Oh, don’t worry about it Myrrh – the EU has it well figured out. They are going to use windmills to heat Europe! They don’t need to burn anything at all! Those Neanderthals that used to inhabit that land were such primitives. The EU bureaucrats are so much smarter than they were!

Bill

The late Carl Sagan believed in global warming and said so in a book, A Path Where No Man Thought. The book was more about nuclear winter then climate. However, he also stated, trying to alter CO2, especially to the down side could have catastrophic results.

DA apparently firmly disagrees with http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafettas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperature/#comment-890060
On the other hand, such people and their sycophants will claim victory no matter what happens.

mwhite

I read the book over Christmas
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Ice-Age-Climate-1300-1850/dp/0465022723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328974986&sr=8-1#_
During the little ice age famines and the constant threat of famine seems to have been the norm. Farming methods it would appear were unchanged from the medieval warm period until the beginning of the industrial revolution. New crops and farming methods led to an increase in the food supply. New crops being such things as potatoes, turnips, peas and beans which would grow in cooler wet conditions. Another LIA should not be a disaster.

John

“If this is really where we are heading then the AGW global warming nonsense has to be destroyed and sensible measures taken to ensure reliable production of energy, enough of the tax payers being ripped off by wind and solar fraud promoted by our governments”
But there is no reason to suppose the politicians really care….a decent bad winter will get rid of some 25 thousand people in the UK. Most will be old or chronically ill. That is a whole load of money saved….healthcare costs…pension…
Why assume political stupidity when political malice explains their actions better ?
What reason have you, or anyone got for assuming the politicians are too thick to know how to do things ?
We are now in the “green” era of politics, and there is one thing that greens and politicians agree on…there are too many people.
Work it out…..

Edim

I have been a proponent of the solar cycle length (or better solar cycle frequency) as an indicator of solar activity, ever since I learned about it. The more I looked into it, the more plausible it seemed. The correlation between the solar cycle frequency (f = 1/scl) and global temperatures is surprisingly good, considering that there must be other factors affecting the temperatures.

Solar Cycle 24 started in January, 2008, a bit over four years ago, meaning that we’re only 18 months or so from the middle of the cycle. Yet 2010 was the warmest year globally on record, and 2011 was the warmest La Nina year ever. When, then, will the hoped for cooling get underway? Isn’t time running out?

AFPhys

Bill Yarber “Let’s wait until Solar Cycle 24 has obviously peaked before guesstamating SC25 trend”:
Bill, about a dozen years ago, helioseismology started to come of age. If you are not involved in solar science at all, you will find it hard to believe that we can now actually “see” the movement of large scale currents on the order of 100,000 miles below the “surface” of the Sun. It is becoming well established that those currents reveal the future development of sunspots. Using this, solar science can predict future solar cycles. Russian and Scandinavian scientists seem (to me) to be at the forefront of understanding in this field. It is not Archibald, but those scientists who have been predicting the long cycle lengths for the next four decades or so. I believe Archibald stands on very strong grounds when floating predictions of sharply cooler temperatures in the upcoming decades as a result of these two lines of evidence (helioseismology and cycle length temperature correlation), and that poo-poohing this as mere with “guesstimate” is improper.

William M. Connolley

Bill> I just read an old article from the IPCC in the late 1980′s
No you didn’t. The first IPCC report was in 1990.
> about how the globe would warm 2.9 degrees C by 2020. (32 years)
And the 1990 report didn’t say that. You can read it if you like: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
It projected a rise of ~0.3 oC/decade over the next century, with an uncertainty range of 0.2-0.5. It continued:
“This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century”
Its a good idea to quote your references, so people can check your misreadings.