Guest post by Matti Vooro
I fully support the findings of Jan –Erik Solheim , Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum and their very recent paper called The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24 dated February 2012. The abstract reads:
Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.
Before finding the above paper on WUWT, I had recently done a similar and slightly different analysis.
I took the Annual sunspot numbers for each year since 1900 and noted the solar maximums and solar minimums. I also noted all the years around the solar maximums that had sunspot numbers over say 60-70. These solar active periods around the solar maximums can last as many as 3-5 years . Then I lagged the data by 9 years. Then I looked at the global temperature anomalies Hadcrut3gl for the all the actual years and noted the associated and lagged sunspot numbers. I then added and noted the El Nino active years using the ONI index.
I discovered that global temperatures were rising during the years around the lagged solar active period around the solar maximum and they were down during the period around the lagged solar minimum. Also there were El Ninos at the beginning or during the lagged active sun or solar active or maximum period. In another words the sun really affects the atmosphere not in the same cycle but during the next cycle or about 9 years later . It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic. The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe. It reappears as warm upwelling along the South American west coast [and other upwelling locations] and ultimately contributes to the warming of the EL Nino area Pacific waters and modifies the PDO spatial patterns or warming to put more warmer water along the west coast of North America .
Similar event happens in the Atlantic as indicated by the AMO. The longer solar cycles means fewer solar active periods or maximums and less heating 9 years later. A series of short solar cycles in a row will cause more frequent heating and the PDO and AMO will both turn positive or warm simultaneously causing what we now refer to as global warming. The extended global cooling happens when there are series of longer solar cycles with lower maximums. Co2 seems to have little or negligible effect on these large natural cycles. Natural cycles will always dwarf any minor warming from manmade greenhouse gases.
Thus our long term climate is all in the cycles of sun lagged about 9 [ 9-11]years later in its effect and interacting with the oceans which then in turn affect our atmosphere 9-11 year later.
Since we are now in the equivalent lagged year[2012-9=2003] and will next experience the solar effects of the decline of solar cycle #23 [the solar period of 2000 to 2008 ], we can expect cooler weather for at least 6 years plus another nine years after the next warming effect of the solar active period of cycle #24 [ maximum around 2013 to 2014.] So I see no significant warming for 20 years at least [2030 earliest]. This is what ocean cycles like PDO predict and what the 60 year climate cycle predicts but now we may possibly have one of many hypothesis of how the sun does all this.
The El Nino around 2009-2010 was the effect of the last solar maximum of cycle #23 [around 200-2001].
This brief article was meant to continue the debate about the exact mechanism of how our sun affects our global climate It does not answer all the questions and may pose others.
Related articles
- Solar Cycle 24 Length and Its Consequences (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Ap Index, Neutrons and Climate (wattsupwiththat.com)
- First Estimate of Solar Cycle 25 Amplitude – may be the smallest in over 300 years (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The quiet sun is getting a lot of attention. What are its effect on us? (fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com)
- New paper suggests sun may be headed for a Maunder minimum (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
William Connoley writes: Notice how cunningly they hid “There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system” in plain sight?
That is so incredibly hypocritical. There is ZERO expression of doubt in the public pronouncements of the IPCC. You guys think you know it all, you tell the world that climate science is settled and you come here, trying to destroy ànything that may cast doubt on your little religion.
Don’t you understand that we’re trying to do the job that you guys won’t or can’t do, either because of your incompetence or ideology.
matt v says
There are even some recent studies that suggest that winters in Northern Europe and ASIA have been cooling for several decades . I have found that they have been declining since 1998 like in North America.
Henry@matt v
winters have been getting colder in the southern hemisphere (South Africa) as well…
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
William C:
The IPCC’s problem is that they have so dishonest and so utterly unscientific, particularly in their Summary for Policymakers, that they have lost all credibility, and no sensible person wants to waste time reading their political screed. That disdain also applies to their fellow-travellers. For example, I never read wiki on climate issues.
There is only one practical and just solution for the IPCC – abolish it!
Read this excerpt from a WSJ article by Lindzen and note the date – June 11, 2001.
The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations’ Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty — far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge…
Fit six solar cycles within one cycle of the PDO, Procrustes helps. Each alternating cooling and warming phase has three solar cycles. Solar cycles alternate the shape of the peak of cosmic rays from sharp to pointed, leaving two types of one shape and one of the other in each phase of the PDO.
Leif Svalgaard calls this a second order effect, but it is a clockwork mechanism for a solar-ocean connection, if the cycles fit, and if the shape of the peak of cosmic rays has effects on climate.
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
============
When thinking that the Sun might sustain the climate on Earth, it helps to have at hand precise figures of Total Solar Irradiance. A ‘constant’ according to the IPCC that varies from > 1,366.5 to < 1,365.0 Wm2 from 1981 to 2009.
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age:
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian Joint Project Astrometria
"The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease."
See http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
"The Sun Defines the Climate", Abdussamatov 2009, is also available at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm
See also "SL-200 Solar Limbograph" (permanently mounted onboard the International Space Station), at http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/1_eng.html
This is the instrument used by Abdussamatov to measure TSI.
re 7:33, more likely, both phenomena, cloud variability and shapes of peaks, are responding to the same cause.
========
Clouds and rainfall are what are making the difference from one cycle to the next.
Correcton to my 4:21am post
This post, by inference, suggests we should be looking for a CO2-after-T lag of about 11 years, similar to the period of one sunspot cycle. We have adequate CO2 data at Mauna Loa back to ~1958, so perhaps someone has the time to look for this postulated lag.
Volker Doormann (February 13, 2012 at 1:56 am) wrote:
“But if we take the shift of the sun spots as a frequency shift from the main frequency, then we can see a weak correlation between the frequency shift pattern and the global temperature.”
As I have explained to you before, Earth has no stationary internal ~11 year cycle. You’re making the same mistake the solar scientists make when they study differential solar rotation. More fundamental care (in the mathematical sense) needs to be exercised in selecting markers & metrics. Rather than phase-deviations from such an ARTIFICIAL clock, consider the simple time rate of change of cycle length; harmonics & beats with Earth’s internal cycles, whatever those internal cycles may be (including dominants like the day & year), are then easily generalized. Mother Earth has her own cycles; she’s not always equally receptive to father sun’s advances.
Judith Curry’s conclusion about latest sun-related developments is this:
“The IPCC has framed the climate change problem in the context of anthropogenic forcing, and national funding has followed suit. There has been far too little emphasis on understanding the sun and solar-climate interactions, I see a few signs that this situation is improving.”
William M. Connolley says:
February 13, 2012 at 4:24 am
> the IPCC Bible says we understand all the climate…
You must have been reading the Apocrypha. The Authorised Version (aka AR4 WGI; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-1.html) says:
“In the six years since the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR), significant progress has been made in understanding past and recent climate change and in projecting future changes. These advances have arisen from large amounts of new data, more sophisticated analyses of data, improvements in the understanding and simulation of physical processes in climate models and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges in model results. The increased confidence in climate science provided by these developments is evident in this Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.
While this report provides new and important policy-relevant information on the scientific understanding of climate change, the complexity of the climate system and the multiple interactions that determine its behaviour impose limitations on our ability to understand fully the future course of Earth’s global climate. There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change. Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings between climate and biogeochemical cycles. The areas of science covered in this report continue to undergo rapid progress and it should be recognised that the present assessment reflects scientific understanding based on the peer-reviewed literature available in mid-2006.”
Notice how cunningly they hid “There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system” in plain sight?
Well, they missed a couple of things. You know, the unknown unknowns as well as a few known unknowns. Yet, with all that they stated a 90% probability that they know exactly what is going to happen in the future. One might ponder on that for awhile.
Speaking of the 90% number I’ve been wondering why you haven’t been giving people 10-1 odds with your proposed bets? Seems only fair … or aren’t you confident in the IPCC claims?
[typo fixed, thanks – A]
Rosco says:
February 13, 2012 at 1:39 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
One can see a strong case that in broad terms that should be the null hypothesis position as to how the climate (in broad terms) functions.
It appears that in sufficient note is taken of the fact that the Earth is a water world and the unique qualities of water in relation to phase change and latent heat.
Andres Valencia says
This is the instrument used by Abdussamatov to measure TSI.
The value is 1361
there was an error
see my comments here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/jim-hansens-balance-problem-of-0-58-watts
Here’s where a very large proportion of the WUWT community can easily & dramatically improve conception…
“The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe.”
Just as with PDO, deeply rooted misconceptions have 99 lives.
To develop a better handle on ocean surface currents, watch the animations here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/a-japanese-puzzle/#comment-882297
–
Regards.
henry@Andres valencia
start reading here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/jim-hansens-balance-problem-of-0-58-watts/#comment-885067
Pamela Gray says:
February 13, 2012 at 6:59 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have not yet read the article so make no comment upon its quality.
However, I am tempted to disagree with what you say about its publication on WUWT.
In my experience, it is often the case that an article that I am not particularly impressed with (and I would not claim to be the all authorative judge) elicits the most interesting set of comments. Very often it is the debate that ensues in the comments provoked by the article, that are of interest and significance.
Accordingly I am all for open debate and do not seek to stiffle any one not even those who are regarded as trolls. I want to see and consider the full spectrum of views and articles.
Andres Valencia says:
February 13, 2012 at 7:34 am
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age:
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Except that there has been no such decrease. The measurements that Abdussamatov rely on [PMOD] has been shown [e.g. slide 31 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf and conclusion on slide 33: Observed data do not support a measureable TSI
trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008 ! ] to have uncompensated instrumental degradation.
> Yet, with all that they stated a 90% probability that they know exactly what is going to happen in the future
I think you’re making that up. Provide a quote with a URL, and I’ll answer.
> why you haven’t been giving people 10-1 odds
Well, people are certainly welcome to come back and suggest “I accept the bet, but only if given 10-1 odds”. But so far no-one seems very interested in taking up the bet under any conditions, which suggests they don’t really believe any of these “predictions” at all. Putting up actually money is a useful way of distinguishing people who are just mouth, from those who have substance.
> The IPCC’s problem is that they have so dishonest and so utterly unscientific
Not as far as I know; I notice that you give no specifics. I’m happy to defend them, though I suspect that doing so would derail this topic even further. Notice how Lindzen gives no specifics either.
> I never read wiki on climate issues
Be careful never to leave your walled garden or you might read things that upset your preconceptions.
Sober question for Matti Vooro:
I see the words “upcoming” & “global” in the title of the article.
Do you really think it’s sensible to extrapolate past empirical North Atlantic patterns (Solheim, Stordahl, & Humlum, 2012) to the future whole-globe under the assumption of qualitative stability?
Not looking for a debate – just interested in understanding your perspective.
Regards.
Allan Macrae says
We have adequate CO2 data at Mauna Loa back to ~1958, so perhaps
Henry@Allan
wake up! CO2 is not a factor, in climates, period.
except that it creates or stimulates more greenery (that every one wants?)
and this is causing some additional entrapment of heat
as I have proven
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
@Kim (February 13, 2012 at 7:33 am)
It was a needle so sharp they didn’t notice it piercing. It opened radially into an array of razors so sharp, they didn’t notice it slicing. The current status of their past abstract conception: dismembered. Their awareness of this: slowly dawning.
William M. Connolley
Now I have red some of your comments, I have to conclude that our old friend R. Gates is positively most reasonable fallow.
I wander where he’s gone to?
Gates, sorry for the typo: it should be fellow.
Pamela Gray
If you are so much wiser than the various authors noted in the article , why don’t you post your ideas on line in an article and let others also take a kick at it . It is easy to constantly post negative comments about others work and offer no better alternative ideas of their own . At least most bloggers offeralternative ideas of their own if they happen to disagree with the article .