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:
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:
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).
I have seen far too predictions of disaster in my life to believe any of this. What about Barry Goldwater, Silent Spring, Limits To Growth, the great invisible comet Kahutec, Y2K, Al Gore wins the election (you thought Global Warming was a train wreck) … and more.
So take it all with a grain of salt and look for the fallacy, deliberate or accidental, imbedded in the theory. In the article I found this.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf
It
should be remarked that SC22 for a long time was listed in NGDC (2011)
with a length of 9.6 or 9.7 yr, which was used in other analysis (Archibald,
2008; Thejll, 2009). According to earlier lists (Thejll, 2009) May 1996, which
is the mathematical minimum for SC93 (typo), was in the beginning used, while
a consensus among solar scientists moved the minimum to September 1996,
which made SC22 longer (10.0 yr) and SC23 shorter (12.2 yr). This difference
in definition of SCL from the original by Waldmeier (1939) may explain the observations outside the confidence range.
So, besides being happy that somebody else’s fingers are thumbs as well as my own, it seems when a SC begins and ends is a judgement call. If you start in the wrong place, with the wrong data, you end up even wronger.
On the WUWT Solar Reference page you can see in Leif Svalgaard’s detail that SCs do overlap by quite a bit. Svalgaard also has a pdf to correct earlier sun spot records (The Long-term Variation of Solar Activity) so how sun spots are counted has changed twice since 1840. Previous to that there was no set way to count them and given the optics available numbers under 25 were probably quite often missed. That would make it impossible to tell when a cycle actually ended.
What this means is our base line for predicting SC intensity and duration is quite short and the eleven year average is quite approximate. If we use the year 1996 then we would have Solar min in 2007 and again in 2018 so nothing is long or short or even seriously out of line.
It just so happens that 2018 is when the angular momentum of the Solar System is at a low similar to 1900. http://www.landscheidt.info
Even so the World did not drive off a cliff in 1900 so why should it do so now? I can see a long flat spot similar to 1900 – 1940 and that would just about be enough to bring us back to ‘average’, whatever that may be.
noaaprogramer: Your comment on “heavier snow run offs” from Canada. OK, chicken or egg?
The snow will RUN off, as long as we have seasons. Heavier snow = more global warming, or colder winters. PROBLEM? Self induced, look at this report: http://history.nd.gov/hp/PDFinfo/11_Souris_River_Study_Unit.pdf Page, 10. I’ve many time seen a poster outside of (primarily document service offices at engineering companies I’ve worked at) which says: “Lack of Planning on your part DOES NOT constitute an automatic emergency on MY part!”.
Sorry to be so UNSYMPATHETIC, but this problem was created LONG AGO by people DESIRING to live in a “flood plain”.
I haven’t paid for it yet, and was INSANELY told when I inquired, that BECAUSE I DO NOT LIVE IN A FLOOD PLAIN I cannot get flood insurance! However, please note I CHECKED when I bought MY HOUSE 23 years ago. (Nearest creek, 3/4 mile away, down hill about 80′, and the flood plain associated NOT where I’m located. However in the flood plain of that creek? About 300 LUXURY houses. Want to BED how many have FLOOD INSURANCE?)
William M. Connolley (February 11, 2012 at 8:36 am) asked:
“Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years?”
Musings about future temperatures are a side-excursion from the main task at hand, which is investing the tedious effort necessary to develop an understanding of nature. With certainty, the paper overlooks universals of solar-terrestrial spatiotemporal relations (can be proven empirically), but there is one graph in the paper that is a very useful clue to file away for synthesis with floods of other empirical observations from countless sources.
A peripheral point: It would be grossly incorrect to assume audience uniformity.
Vukcevic: Not to hijack the thread, but the Danube River freezing now has inspired for me to look for records of such occurrence. I see it froze in 1985, but have not been able to discover any other history about when it has frozen. If you know of some, Please link me to such records, or give me a brief rundown (if the moderator here will kindly permit).
David L. Hagen (February 11, 2012 at 10:07 am) wrote of lags.
David, see the animations here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/a-japanese-puzzle/#comment-882297
There are multiple drive axes (the gyres). A universal can only be in the rate of change. For example, think of an item floating & sailing on the ocean. It’s basin looping rate will depend on configuration (hull shape, sail profile, etc.). Watch the animations noting the variation in rates by altitude. The surface water moves slower. A floating/sailing object moves at an intermediate rate. Something submersed a bit in the water moves slower than the surface. Overall picture: THERE CAN BE NO UNIVERSAL GLOBAL CORRELATION WITH THE ABSOLUTES, only with the rate of change. Regards.
(vukcevic take note)
RiHo08:
>>Judging by the locations of current corn & grain production in USA & Canada, movement of the temperature belt southward hopefully is accompanied by a southward shift in jet stream guided rain and snow.
Very good point. Have you ever flown over the Nebraska Sand Hills? The extent of these old, stabilized dunes is shocking. Its an ancient mini-Sahara in the middle of the U.S. There are also extensive stabilized dunes in Oklahoma and in Colorado on the eastern slope and plains. Only a thin veneer of topsoil and plants cover the sand. I am betting that these old features would return to blowing sand and dust once the ice begins to re-grow in the mountains and higher latitudes.
“I have seen far too predictions of disaster in my life to believe any of this. What about Barry Goldwater, Silent Spring, Limits To Growth, the great invisible comet Kahutec, Y2K, Al Gore wins the election (you thought Global Warming was a train wreck) … and more.”
I’ve never been one to believe calamitous prognostications, but for some reason this one seems at least credible. One effect of getting older has been a changing sense of time. 1700 just doesn’t seem that long ago to me anymore. What are we talking about? 3 long human lifetimes. My aunt MAry who died a few years ago at the age of 102, knew people who’d fought in the civl war.
If it could happen then, it could happen now. Just saying.
The plot shows a good correlation when temperature movements are within a certain range. There is no data shown to support a temperature shift as rapid as the prediction.
William M. Connolley says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:33 am
You should get out of the notion that the published-on date of science papers is also the written-on date. Many documents take months or years to write. A document published in December 1990 can and will very likely contain data analyzed in the 1980’s with data collected decades earlier, and referencing papers written who knows when. Further, the IPCC was formed in 1988. Is it your suggestion they published nothing between 1988 and 1990? No articles? No reports? Nothing?
It’s no wonder you found it so easy to censure articles at wikipedia – you have a built-in bias about all things climate.
I see some commenters think this is a bit of fear-mongering – a bit akin to the favoured warmists’ business —, but with the other, or opposite outcome.
I happen to think that any warming that happens on a “Global Scale” without the help of The Sun; can be – nothing more, nothing less – than “Energy Creation” – or, maybe a miss-understanding of the various temperature data. –
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, if the Earth gets warmer, I blame the Sun – and if the Earth gets cooler — I’ll take up sheep shearing and knitting as it is precious little else I can do.
60, 200, 100,000 year cycles have peaked
1,050 year cycle will peak end of this century
Bering Straight reduced circulation, uplift since last Inter Glacial ?
Could quicken and deepen the soon to come Ice Age !
Neapolitan says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:08 am
“When, then, will the hoped for cooling get underway? Isn’t time running out?”
Did you miss this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/02/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-goes-negative-2/
—————————
For what it is worth, time only ran out in courts wherein it was measured with a water clock and litigants had to make their case before their water ran out. Or, they could plead for more water (water = time).
http://www.internetnavigator.com/heliaia/encyclopedia.htm
Therein lies the climate prediction problem. In the recent addition of Dr. Scafetta’s forecast page, if one follows the link back to his original art-work it is clear that the projected temperature becomes really interesting only after 2035, when my time will have run out.
In reply to William M. Connolley’s comment:
“February 11, 2012 at 8:36 am
Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years? If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong. Do you think these wise Norwegians, or the author of this post, will be interested?”
Yes. Based on the paleoclimatic record and the mechanisms the planet is about to cool and then abruptly cool. 75% of the late 20th century warming was due to the mechanism “electroscavenging” which is caused by solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions which explains why planetary cloud cover is reduced during the period when there was warming and which explains why the warming plateaued. A scientific hypothesis must explain the all the observations. I am curious what your group’s response will be to cooling followed by abrupt cooling. Do you every wonder what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle, Dansgard-Oesgher events, Heinrich events, and interglacial terminations?
Will, you and your Realclimate cohorts need a brief on the mechanisms and the observations. When a theory is not supported by observations, the scientific methodology requires the theory to be modified or replaced rather than ignore or hide the observations.
Why are there cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with Dansgard-Oesgher events? Perhaps the sun has some thing to do with what is observed? HInt, the forcing function is not North Atlantic drift current.
If you are interested I can explain the mechanisms in detail.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml
On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events
The oxygen isotope record from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core was reanalyzed in the frequency and time domains. The prominent 1470-year spectral peak, which has been associated with the occurrence of Dansgaard-Oeschger interstadial events, is solely caused by Dansgaard-Oeschger events 5, 6, and 7. This result emphasizes the nonstationary character of the oxygen isotope time series. Nevertheless, a fundamental pacing period of ∼1470 years seems to control the timing of the onset of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A trapezoidal time series model is introduced which provides a template for the pacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Statistical analysis indicates only a ≤3% probability that the number of matches between observed and template-derived onsets of Dansgaard-Oeschger events between 13 and 46 kyr B.P. resulted by chance. During this interval the spacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger onsets varied by ±20% around the fundamental 1470-year period and multiples thereof. The pacing seems unaffected by variations in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation, suggesting that the thermohaline circulation was not the primary controlling factor of the pacing period.
Have you ever wonder what causes the polar see-saw? Hint it is not ocean currents, there is no lag observed in the mechanism.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent.
There is correlation at 95% significant of GCR and planetary cloud cover up until the period when solar wind bursts start to increase (2001).
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov
We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper, by solar wind burst and the process electroscavenging where by increases in the global electric circuit remove cloud forming ions.
The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.
Will, do you and your extreme AGW cohorts take responsibility for the food to biofuel fiasco?
The biofuel fiasco is a direct result of the smugly promoted the extreme AGW paradigm.
The alarmists’ fantasy paradigm amplified verges on madness. Billions of tax payer dollars are requested to fund a world bureaucracy to transfer trillions of dollars of tax payer dollars to corrupt third world companies and governments. A carbon monitoring bureau, a biofuel world trading corporation, a carbon off set world trading bureau, and so on. A single example of this madness is the massive AWG driven program to convert food to biofuels.
The problem with biofuels is the amount of transportation energy required would require roughly six times the total amount of the current agricultural land to produce. Biofuel production requires significant fossil energy inputs. Agricultural production itself produces significant greenhouse gases. The biofuel concept is part of a fairytale. We live in the real world not in a fairytale.
Skepticism and scientific analysis is the foundation of the development of practical environmental policy.
http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/NewsReleases/Biodiesel%20Energy%20Balance_v2a.pdf
Vast amounts of agricultural land are being diverted from crops for human consumption to biofuel The immediate consequence of this is a dramatic increase in the cost of basic food such as a 140% increase in the price of corn. Due to limited amounts of agricultural land vast regions of virgin forest are being cut down for biofuel production. The problems associate with this practice will become acute as all major Western governments have mandate a percentage of biofuel.
Analysis of the total energy input to produce ethanol from corn show that 29% more fossil fuel input energy is require to produce one energy unit of ethanol. If the fuel input to harvest the corn, to produce the fertilizer, and to boil the water off to distill ethanol/water from 8% ethanol to 99.5% ethanol (three distillation processes) to produce 99.5% ethanol for use in an automobile, produces more green house gas than is produced than the production consumption of conventional gasoline. The cost of corn based ethanol is more than five times the production cost of gasoline, excluding taxes and subsides. Rather than subsiding the production of corn based ethanol the same money can be used to preserve and increase rainforest. The loss of rainforest is the largest cause of the increase in CO2.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
The Clean Energy Scam
The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol–ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled from plant matter–in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase in renewable fuels over the next decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel mandates and subsidies, and Brazil's filling stations no longer even offer plain gasoline. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.
But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it's dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline.
Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.'s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn't exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402
Biofuels 'crime against humanity'
Massive production of biofuels is "a crime against humanity" because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. "Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity," UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural subsidies and to stop supporting only programs aimed at debt reduction. He says agriculture should also be subsidised in regions where it ensures the survival of local populations. Meanwhile, in response to a call by the IMF and World Bank over the weekend to a food crisis that is stoking violence and political instability, German Foreign Minister Peer Steinbrueck gave his tacit backing.
http://news.yahoo.com/prime-indonesian-jungle-cleared-palm-oil-065556710.html
Prime Indonesian jungle to be cleared for palm oil
Their former hero recently gave a palm oil company a permit to develop land in one of the few places on earth where orangutans, tigers and bears still can be found living side-by-side — violating Indonesia's new moratorium on concessions in primary forests and peatlands.
Prime Indonesian jungle to be cleared for palm oil
Their former hero recently gave a palm oil company a permit to develop land in one of the few places on earth where orangutans, tigers and bears still can be found living side-by-side — violating Indonesia's new moratorium on concessions in primary forests and peatlands.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402
Biofuels 'crime against humanity'
Massive production of biofuels is "a crime against humanity" because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. "Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity," UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural
.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 11, 2012 at 10:09 am
Scientific prediction must begin with well confirmed physical hypotheses. It is the “well confirmed” part that makes the “projection” into a prediction which is objective science.
“Forecast” is a media invention to help the feelings of people who do not have the well confirmed physical hypotheses used for prediction. We don’t want our weathermen to be more embarrassed than they are already. Making a forecast means simply that you were very careful in looking at all the data before stating your hunch.
Nonscientific prediction is anyone’s wild guess.
For the basics on scientific prediction, read Carl G. Hempel’s “Philosophy of Natural Science” which you can get used for $15 from Amazon in the US.
Ok two things dominate the temperature cycle, 1) PDO and AMO 2) Atmospheric circulation – related to #1. These two items far out weight the simple TSI variation. If there is any effect from the sun it is in the side “effects” (speculation from here) of the solar cycle like UV variation and flares/CME. The latter maybe the most effect since there is a connection between the ionosphere and the tropical thunderstorm zone in the troposphere.
“Canadian agriculture will be reduced to trapping beavers”
More of a sport really than agriculture. Even with the cold, the fur-less variant doesn’t appear to have hurt demand any.
Max;
>>I’m rather sure that running it for NH or SH would show (for example with this cold EUROPE winter and WARM North American winter) a net balance.
Interesting point. Here is another one: Does the concept of a global mean temperature make any sense? I’ve been thinking about this, and it seems to me that a global temperature and global temperature anomalies are just theoretical constructs that we tend to talk about as if they are real. This gets AGW proponents and skeptics alike into all kinds of logical errors. You could, for example, warm things ever so slightly in the equatorial regions while cooling them in the mid to high latitudes and end up with an ice age without any change in the global (mean) temperature.
In fact, you could have less temperature variability in the tropics than the high latitudes because there is more surface area on the globe between, say, 10 degrees north and 10 degrees south latitude than there is between, say, 60 degrees and 70 degrees north, and 60 and 70 degrees south. The fact that there is more ocean surface in the southern latitudes, and more land surface in the northern latitudes would also influence your means.
There are at least a few scientists with better credentials than mine who think the idea of a global temperature is bogus: (See the following links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm and here: http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/27/german-climate-professor-slams-climate-religion/)
In reply to William M. Connolley’s comment:
“February 11, 2012 at 8:36 am
Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense about rapid temperature falls over the next few years? If so, I have $1k that says you’re wrong. Do you think these wise Norwegians, or the author of this post, will be interested?”
You must of missed these papers.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
See section 5a) Modulation of the global electrical circuit in this review paper, by solar wind bursts and the process electroscavenging. Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. As the electroscavenging mechanism removes ions even when GCR is high, electroscavenging can make it appear that GCR does not modulate planetary cloud if the electroscavenging mechanism is not taken into account.
The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html
Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000
All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.
Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov
We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
AFPhys says: February 11, 2012 at 10:42 am
……..
Quick googling in serbian found following years: 822, 1408, 1460, 1558, 1846, 1938/9, 1956 and winter of 1984/5. That doesn’t mean that the list is either accurate or complete.
Further in reply to William Connolley.
You appear to be out of the loop. Are you aware of Livingston and Penn’s finding that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is linearly declining with time?
Solar cycle 24 appears to be an interruption rather than a slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle. It appears solar cycle 24 will be a lead into a Dansgaard-Oesgher event .
There are multiple cycles in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with cosmogenic isotopes changes. All researchers agree the cosmogenic istopes are modulated by solar magnetic cycle changes. The question is how does the solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary climate.
The change 3C average drop in arctic temperatures and 6C drop in the winter would be due to a reduction in high altitude clouds. An increase in ions results in an increase in low altitude clouds and a reduction in high altitude clouds. The net affect (albedo less GWG warming of the water vapour/ice particles in the clouds) is for low altitude clouds to cool and high latitude clouds to warm. (See my comment above concerning the mechanism electroscavenging whereby solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. The late 20th century warming was caused by solar wind bursts which removed cloud forming ions.)
There very regular cycles of warming and cooling (1500 year cycle with 95% confidence the cycle is maintained to better than 12% over at least the last 23 cycles) which are too regular to be caused by an internal planet based mechanism. As there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with the planetary temperature changes it is obvious the driver is solar cycle changes.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
Svensmark has an interesting paper that analyzes the record of the cyclic climate changes using ice sheet bore hole temperatures comparing the Antarctic to the Greenland Ice sheet temperature. The affect on temperature due to an increase in planetary cloud is opposite for the Greenland Ice sheet as compared to the Antarctic ice sheet. The albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is greater than clouds so an increase in clouds over the ice sheet causes an increase in temperature due greenhouse effect of greater moisture above the ice sheet.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml
On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events
The oxygen isotope record from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core was reanalyzed in the frequency and time domains. The prominent 1470-year spectral peak, which has been associated with the occurrence of Dansgaard-Oeschger interstadial events, is solely caused by Dansgaard-Oeschger events 5, 6, and 7. This result emphasizes the nonstationary character of the oxygen isotope time series. Nevertheless, a fundamental pacing period of ∼1470 years seems to control the timing of the onset of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A trapezoidal time series model is introduced which provides a template for the pacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Statistical analysis indicates only a ≤3% probability that the number of matches between observed and template-derived onsets of Dansgaard-Oeschger events between 13 and 46 kyr B.P. resulted by chance. During this interval the spacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger onsets varied by ±20% around the fundamental 1470-year period and multiples thereof. The pacing seems unaffected by variations in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation, suggesting that the thermohaline circulation was not the primary controlling factor of the pacing period.
William M. Connolley says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:36 am
As a geologist, I believe the past is the key to the future (but if you have a crystal ball, by all means, look into it and report what you see).
I remember reading about one palynologist that studied soils in the Alps that had a record of glacial and interglacial transitions–she found that switching from temperate zone pollen to pollen indicative of Ice Age temperatures took as little as two to three years.
Then there was a geologist that looked at some of the sediments in several lakes somewhere in the UK to see what they indicated, and his conclusion (again, based on pollen transitions) was that the temperature swing from interglacial to glacial was as little as 8 months!
Of couse, these are people that are willing to grab a shovel and a microscope, do some digging (literally) and look at the geologic record, which is far better than poking around rearranging model algorithms on a computer all day long.
Can we expect extreme temperature swings in the next few years? Maybe. Have they happened in the past? Certainly.
AFPhys says:
February 11, 2012 at 10:42 am
See: ‘A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events’, by James A. Masurek (2010) http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/weather.pdf (11.9 MB)
The chronology covers weather events from the years 0 to 1900 A.D. It contains references to many instances of the Danube and many other European rivers freezing over during the 2000 year-interval it covers.
@William Howard (February 11, 2012 at 11:35 am)
To prepare for deeper multivariate awareness of multidecadal variations, please familiarize yourself with the following:
Mursula, K.; & Zieger, B. (2001). Long-term north-south asymmetry in solar wind speed inferred from geomagnetic activity: a new type of century-scale solar oscillation? Geophysical Research Letters 28(1), 95-98.
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/MursulaAndZieger2001.pdf
Presentation of the main findings of the paper (which aren’t effectively made clear by the authors) can be visually simplified by at least an order of magnitude using observational data.
(Further comment several months from now.)
As I said in the last thread on snow, the cooling effect od longer cycles is felt mainly on the upper latitudes of the N Hemisphere.
But that is what people in the N or Europe and America want to know. An average of world temperatures saying the ‘world is warming’ is of absolutely no use to a barge captain stuck in ice floes on the Rhine, or Balkan villages under 4m of snow.
If these so-called ‘scientists’ want to help, instead of hinder, they need to bring out regional climate models – preferably ones that indicate cooling in N Europe (because that is what we have experienced for the last 3 years.)
.
John says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:04 am
////////////////////////////
One can see some force in your argument. However, is this why our politicians keep on importing people into the UK? Surely it cannot be to get more money since most of them are on benefit or working in the black economy.