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).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Connolley says:
“Human emissions are much greater than the natural net flux.”
Wrong, like many things Connolley claims. The IPCC’s own numbers show that the annual human CO2 contribution is only ≈3% of the total. The annual net increase is only around half of that, meaning the biosphere is growing; the planet is greening from more CO2. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the planet itself – the ultimate Authority – is falsifying the CO2=CAGW nonsense being spread by self-serving vested interests. And Connolley is carrying their water.
The natural trend line from the LIA is indistinguishable between pre- and post-industrial CO2 levels. The obvious conclusion is that human emitted CO2 has such a minuscule effect that it is unmeasurable. Connolley cannot accept that because he is infected with incurable cognitive dissonance; Orwell’s “doublethink”. As Leo Tolstoy pointed out:
That describes the blinkered William Connolley, who cannot comprehend why the planet isn’t doing what he wants it to. Instead of accepting reality, Connolley wants to create a hysterical panic in order to destroy Western civilization to ‘save the planet’. As if the planet needs saving. It is doing just fine, and it will outlast everyone with no problem.
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
~Prof Richard Lindzen
William M. Connolley says:
February 12, 2012 at 8:50 am
“1-in-32: you’re mistaking emissions for net fluxes. Natural emissions are large, but so is the natural drawdown. Natural fluxes are nearly in balance. Human emissions are much greater than the natural net flux.”
Mr. Connolley:
You are correct in what you wrote. With that stated, the next question becomes, how sensitive is climate to additional CO2. There is a very wide range in the models projections. The 3.2C figure is derived from an average of 1.1 – 6.7C net change in temperature projected by the various models.
The potential effect on surface temperatures is so wide that the credibility of stated 3.2C is just laughable. Who knows with any certainty which model is the correct one? Each model has a certainty range that is over 90%….so by effect, averaging creates more uncertainty does it not?
The main thrust of additional CO2 levels in the atmosphere should be the resulting lowering PH of the oceans. Yes, some crustacians benifit from the lower PH, but on balance this is a very tricky issue as other crustaceans do NOT benifit. The lowering PH is a chemical reaction derived from well established experiments that are verifiable.
The sensitivity extremes are the result of various model runs, of which none are verifiable.
Why do you rest your hat on a non-verifiable mechanism….yet ignore basic Chemistry?
> “Human emissions are much greater than the natural net flux.” Wrong, like many things Connolley claims. The IPCC’s own numbers show that the annual human CO2 contribution is only ≈3% of the total
You’re hopeless. Firstly (trivia) those are EIA numbers, like they say they are, not IPCC.
More importantly, you haven’t understood the meaning of “net flux”. “net” means the difference between emission (sources) and absorption (sinks). The figures you’re pointing to are sources. For the human contribution, sources are all (just about). For the natural contribution, the sinks are important.
There is a helpful picture at http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-4_738.jpg that might help you understand. Or http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html will provide some numbers.
In reply to William Connelley’s comment:
“February 12, 2012 at 8:50 am
> one carbon dioxide molecule of human origin there are 32 of natural origin in a total of 88,000 other molecules
Standard nonsense I’m afraid.”
I am curious how CO2 has become a poison, a pollutant within your group’s paradigm.
We are carbon based life forms. Plants eat CO2. Life would not exist on this planet without CO2. For most of the time life has existing on this planet atmospheric CO2 has been above 1000 ppm.
Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to raise the level of CO2 to 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm to reduce growing times and increase yield. C3 plants lose roughly 50% of their absorbed water due to the current low level of CO2. They are gasping for CO2. When CO2 is increased C3 plants produce less stomata, reducing their water loss due to transpiration. The reduction in water loss leaves more water at the plant roots which increases the efficiency of the nitrogen fixing microbes.
Increased atmospheric CO2 and increasing the planet’s temperature causes the biosphere to expand. During the glacial phase atmospheric CO2 dropped to 180 ppm. C3 plants die at around 150 ppm. When the planet is colder there is less precipitation and C3 plants lose more water due increased transpiration. Due to the reduction in precipitation and increased plant water loss the Amazon rainforest was reduced by 50% (changed to savanna) at the coldest part of the last glacial period.
The size of the largest animals is an indication of the productivity of the biosphere. The biosphere expansions and is more productive when the planet is warmer and CO2 is at 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.
Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers). Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.
The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne’s Africa Research Unit in Germany.
“Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is completely different from having a bit more tiny grass,” said Kröpelin, who has studied the region for two decades
In 2008 Kröpelin—not involved in the new satellite research—visited Western Sahara, a disputed territory controlled by Morocco. “The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years,” Kröpelin said. “They have never seen so much grazing land.”
“Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,” he said.
“Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back,” he said. “The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-4N6FNPR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133437266&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=602850a304857db4767613a021735d61
Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies
But increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP rice.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-3YVDBGF-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8cc247ae000aaa315c905159f39f5d97
Neogene and Quaternary history of vegetation, climate, and plant diversity in Amazonia
Based on simplified considerations of precipitation changes and evaporation we estimate that LGM rainfall may have been reduced by values of ca. 45(±10%); Amazonian and Cordilleran lakes dried up; dry rain forest was locally replaced by savanna, savanna forest, or cerrado-type vegetation; dry rain forest, savanna forest, and pure savanna was locally replaced by extensive semi-desert dune formations (lower Rio Branco area in present-day central Amazonia). The present-day centers of higher rainfall (>2500 mm) surrounded by areas of lower rainfall, are refuge areas of the very wet rain forest and of the very high plant diversity (300 plant species per 0.1 ha), and they should have been that equally, or more, during the dry climate intervals (plant diversity of drier forests is in the order of 100–150 species per 0.1 ha). Both extinction and speciation in isolation under precipitation and temperature stress may have taken place in these refugia…
> You are correct in what you wrote.
Thank you. Do tell that Smokey, won’t you?
> With that stated, the next question becomes, how sensative is climate to additional CO2. There is a very wide range in the models projections. The 3.2C figure is derived from an average of 1.1 – 6.7C net change in temperature projected by the various models
What 3.2C figure? The IPCC quote for climate sensitivty I’m familiar with is “Analysis of models together with constraints from observations suggest that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate value of about 3°C. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C.” (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-4-5.html). That isn’t a model average, obviously: it is a judgement based on a range of models and some observations. If you gave a source for your 3.2 oC value I could be more sure.
> Who knows with any certainty which model is the correct one?
We don’t (though as I’ve noted above, the best-guess value isn’t from a model average). The wrong answer to that uncertainty is to say “and so it must be on the low side”. The more uncertainty there is the more dangerous proceeding on a business-as-usual approach.
Connolley says:
“…those are EIA numbers, like they say they are, not IPCC.”
Connolley is hopeless, and his reading comprehension is abysmal. He seems to have completely missed the word “annual” in my comment. And when he stated that the IPCC was not the source of the chart I posted, he paid no attention to: “Source: Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis” in the graph.
Connolley sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest. By not censoring comments, WUWT keeps him honest, an unfamiliar concept to one who craves censoring the comments of everyone with a different point of view than his.
And William Astley makes the central point: “I am curious how CO2 has become a poison, a pollutant within your group’s paradigm.”
CO2 is harmless at current and projected levels. The biosphere is starved of CO2. More is better, not worse. And despite constant requests over the past few years, not one person has been able to provide a credible, testable, empirical example, per the scientific method, of any global harm due to the rise in CO2. The reason is that the rise in CO2 is harmless. It is still a tiny trace gas, essential to all life. Every alarmist prediction demonizing “carbon” has been a false alarm, no exceptions.
CO2 is not ‘poison’, and it is certainly not a “pollutant”. We are made of carbon. The CO2 scare is pseudo-scientific nonsense promoted by self-serving charlatans for their own greedy purposes. The scientific method shows that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. And where’s that runaway global warming, anyway? As the planet itself is making clear, that was always just a baseless scare tactic.
William Astley says: We are carbon based life forms. Plants eat CO2. Life would not exist on this planet without CO2. For most of the time life has (been) existing on this planet atmospheric CO2 has been above 1000 ppm.
THEY will ignore such truths. Put their finger to the fire and THEY will deny the heat.
Great post here.
Smokey says:
February 12, 2012 at 9:18 am
quotes Leo Tolstoy: “ . . . woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of . . .”
In explaining Earth science concepts, I have used a slightly changed version of this. Namely, Our understanding of Earth is like a large tapestry with some parts unfinished. If a person is going to add (or subtract) a thread, that person should look at the rest of the work to determine if it fits. When it doesn’t, there is a lot of rearranging to do.
==========================
About enthalpy and energy: I see the term “heat content of the atmosphere” and similar things. Yet, if I look up “heat” I find
“. . . the thermodynamic definition of heat requires it to be in transfer . . .” That doesn’t sound like “content” to me.
Also in this comment section, in CAPS, no less – I see “WHY IS NO ONE DOING A ATMOSPHERIC ENERGY BALANCED BASED ON THE ENTHALPY PER CUBIC FOOT OR METER? But, when I look up enthalpy, I find: “The total enthalpy, H, of a system cannot be measured directly.”
Those trained or experienced in thermodynamic systems may not be bothered by such confusion. I do agree that average atmospheric temperature leaves much to be desired. Likewise for the suggested alternative.
“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..”
You mean to say it actually cooled down after the longer SC20 ?
We could put the shoe on the other foot, and see what follows short cycles, like SC3 [and] SC19.
“The green corona emissions point to Solar Cycle 24 being 17 years long,”
At 2-3yrs longer than any cycle in the last 400yrs, is that really likely ?
The near future? :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100136/Europes-rivers-lakes-seas-iced-bitter-Siberian-cold-leads-temperatures-40C.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Ulric Lyons says:
February 12, 2012 at 11:26 am
typo: SC3 and SC19.
I noticed that William has some really long comments on the mechanism for the -1.09C slope for the Svalbard data with respect to solar cycle length. Does anyone have an elevator explanation of the mechanism? Without that, then this is just another convoluted theory trying to explain a correlation.
I am looking for the cause because as others I know suggest that without a mechanism, it is all numerology.
John M Reynolds
I have a simple rule.
Anyone who claims that more human produced/released CO2 [to the theoretical limit imposed by our ability to find and burn (bio)hydrocarbons before the next technological leap] will result in any sort of calamity has vested interests.
Monetary or mental or both.
Whether they realise it, or not.
Camburn says: “You are correct in what you wrote.”
Connolley replied: “Thank you. Do tell that Smokey, won’t you?”
It should be noted that Camburn was referencing Connolley’s comment to a different comment by another poster – yet one more example of Connolley’s reading comprehension and/or basic lack of probity. Also, I was correct in what I originally wrote, mentioning “annual” twice. Connolley simply set up a strawman and then argued with it.
Camburn followed his comment with: “Why do you rest your hat on a non-verifiable mechanism….yet ignore basic Chemistry?”
Good question. The alarmist crowd also ignores the scientific method, the null hypothesis, scientific skepticism, and Occam’s Razor. The reason is obvious. Those rigorous requirements and parameters deconstruct their CO2=CAGW conjecture. In other words, the alarmist side has lost the scientific argument. The planet agrees: if the rise in CO2 caused additional warming of 1.5°C or more, the trend line from the LIA would be clearly accelerating. But it isn’t. And if we add in 2010 – 2012, it adds an exclamation point to what the planet is telling us.
David Archibald says:
February 11, 2012 at 5:48 pm
There isn’t much available in English on what happened in Finland in the 17th and 18th
Centuries with respect to climate and population. I think you could do the Finnish people a great service by going through the Finnish language records on those things in order to get an understanding of what is going to happen.
——-
Well yes there was famine in the 1690-1700, but it was the subsequent Great Nordic WAR
that went on for 20 years that killed a quarter or more of the male population in sweden and Finland. So you cant attribute all of the dead to the lousy wheater.
//Lars
Smokey says:
February 12, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Ref to William Connolley: First time I have read something that he posted that was correct. I had to make note of that….ya know?
Where I live, on a rock bang on the middle of the Med sea, we have not seen winter like this EVER. And this record-cold winter follows three cold winters in a four-year span. Meanwhile we have had no heatwaves since July 1998. So, statistically, our micro-climate has cooled. Having been following the AGW debate for many years I can safely say that what is happening here is occuring in a consistent way in many parts of the world. I just hope David Archibald is wrong, but I think he’s got it right.
Smokey
“The planet agrees: if the rise in CO2 caused additional warming of 1.5°C or more, the trend line from the LIA would be clearly accelerating.”
no. the theory looks at TOTAL forcing, not just the forcing from C02. Further, there are time scales associated with the response. Let’s see If I can explain.
Get in your car: from a dead stop, punch the accelerator to the floor. do you instantly see the full effect of the power? no. The full effect ( the full equalibrium response) takes time to be realized.
Inertia baby. Over time your car goes faster. when you reach your top speed you can then
understand the effect of the forcing. Same with the climate. Some effects show up in short time scales ( know as fast responses) other responses take more time, decades, centuries.
So, if your car hit a head wind and slowed, would you conclude that adding power didnt increase speed? if your path, first went up a hill and then down a hill would you conclude that adding power
didnt increase speed? no you wouldnt.
The theory isnt as simple as you would like. Tough.
steven mosher,
I agree in principle with everything you said. [Well, almost everything. AGW is not a scientific “theory”.]
But I have a question: are you saying that the almost completely flat temperatures over the past 15 years by known and unknown forcings are exactly balanced by rising CO2? That would be a heck of a balancing act, and old Bill Ockham would surely have a problem with that explanation.
The simplest explanation is almost always the best explanation. It is a much simpler explanation to say that CO2 simply doesn’t have as much of a warming effect as claimed, rather than erecting complicated “theories” that purport to explain natural variability.
William says:
February 11, 2012 at 9:03 pm
In reply to the Realclimate “bet”.
“I am curious what the Realclimate et al and the IPCC’s response would be to unequivocal significant cooling. Which group accepts responsibility for the food to biofuel fiasco? (See my comment above.) Obviously abrupt cooling with no preparation will be more than a PR problem. If the planet abruptly cools are we allies? What is the backup plan?”
Like hell we should be allies, they almost cost humanity its technology and progress! All pushers of the AGW trade should be sent to the polar zones to live and watch the marching of the ice. All of us realists can live in the more temperate zones and be comfortable.
Dale,
Exactly right. AGW is a monumental scam, predicated not on science, but on fleecing taxpayers, pillaging the West, and the accumulation of jack-booted political power.
If William takes a few minutes to view this, he will see the exact same kind of alarmists peddling the scare story of 25 years ago. Seen through the lens of the current climate scare/scam, it is very entertaining.
Some of the players are even the same, like the evil Stephen Schneider, who infamously wrote that it is A-OK to alarm the public with scare stories in order to move their agenda forward.
So no, we can never be allies. They are ravenous hyenas, and cannot be trusted, ever. They claim to be out to save the world, but truth be told, they are greedy, self-serving totalitarians. They are poisonous snakes that will bite us if we try to help them.
If the climate begins to cool, they won’t just go home. They will invent new calamities that we will be expected to pay for. They lie for money and power. They are lying now. And they would be the kind of ‘allies’ that will stab us in the back at the first opportunity. You can never, ever trust them.
There already is a mechanism. A very powerful one. The spinning Earth and the drag of the atmosphere creates the coreolis affect (tons of power right there). This sets up other conditions such as the trades and poleward atomspheric systems (add more power). Our own variable atmosphere and resulting water surface dictates the extent of oceanic penetration of shortwave radiation on short and long term scales (lots of power there). Oceanic and atmospheric teleconnections interact with each other on short and long term unbalanced oscillations. Then comes climate. Climate is the local weather confined by the regional temperature limits of address parameters. Then there is weather. Weather is primarily powerful atmospheric pressure systems (born of oceanic and atmospheric conditions that blow over land) that build and dissapate. And the whole thing is as leakly as an old radiator hose. Thank goodness the Sun is able to replenish what leaks out now and then.
Any other driver that is said to be more powerful than all this energy listed above has to be some kind of wiz-bang big deal. And no one, NO ONE, has been able to show that itty bitty changes in solar output, or itty bitty changes in CO2, has anywhere near the power that our own intrinsic variable system has.
William says:
February 11, 2012 at 11:35 am
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.
If we eliminate used oil from deep frying, rendered chicken parts, and fairy gas from switch grass we are left with ethanol. But let’s not rewrite history. Ethanol replaced methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). MTBE replaced tetraethyl lead (TEL). These were gasoline additives for a purpose that had to do with proper operation of the engine. Global warming did not start this fiasco, although once the link to gobs of other people’s money (OPM) became apparent the slats were blown off the corn crib.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_crib
Average global temperatures have been flat for over a decade while, since 2001, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 24% of the increase from 1800 to 2001.
All studies that claim that the temperature is still rising are either multi-year extrapolations using Global Climate models that can not possibly predict beyond a few days or simply regression analyses on prior measurements. Polynomial fits to data have no predictive value.
Yeah, I am little skeptical of such a radical drop in such a short time., Don’t get me wrong I see it as possible but… In the end I would much rather Global Warming than Global Cooling and I wish people would understand that.