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.
Rosco says:
February 13, 2012 at 1:39 am
The “greenhouse effect” as postulated does not exist and backradiation cannot heat the Earth’s surface as described – the turbulent convecting air and water evaporation act to reduce the surface temperature.
“The “greenhouse effect” as postulated”? How is it postulated?
Did it ever cross your mind that back radiation increases the tendency toward evaporation and convection?
Paul Vaughan
Good question .
I used the hadcrut3 MAAT Global annual and 3 yr running average temperature chart for my analysis and comparisons and hence for my conclusuions . With respect to the PDO , I understand what it means . Surely if there is a spatial pattern of more colder water in the Pacific north east than in the Pacific north west and central Pacific it is going to have an impact on the temperatures in North America . PDO is an after effect of the Enso cycle which in turn may be a delayed effect of the previous solar cycle . North American climate impacts Europe as the atmosphere moves from west to east over the Atlantic . All these form part of the global bigger picture
@Pamela Gray (February 13, 2012 at 6:59 am)
Would you rather there be no thinking at all? And no discussion of anything? The purpose of some posts is to provoke discussion. This would be one of them.
Andres Valencia says:
February 13, 2012 at 7:34 am
…………………
Re: Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc
Not convinced by some of his solar science reasoning, see comment at the end of this web-page:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
as quoted by Pal Brekke at Santa Fe conference (November 2011)
Henry@Vukcevic
Maybe Gates is gone on leave/ Who knows? Perhaps he and A.Physicist went to together.
William M. Connolley says:
February 13, 2012 at 8:11 am
> 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
“The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it ”
I used “exactly” and the reference uses “uneqivocally” but I think we can assume the meaning is the same.
Given your history at Wiki (and the fact you edited this very item just last month) your response is a little strange if not downright dishonest.
“The “greenhouse effect” as postulated”? How is it postulated?
henry@MartinGAtkins
Basically it was Hansens’ idea
He postulated it, and wrote numerous papers,
all of which I have found wanting. (lack of scientific proof)
better read me
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
and leave the rest behind.
The distinguished sun researcher Judith Lean forecasts a 0.14 C higher GMT in 2014
compared to 2011…. She took every cycle quoted above into account……
……Lets see then in 2014, which of all mentioned forecasters is the real distinguished
forecaster and better solar observer and solar expert……
JS
Whatever happens, it’s all our fault… and GWB’s.
“Natural cycles will always dwarf any minor warming from manmade greenhouse gases.”
extra ordinary claims about the future demand a little proof.
na.. no need to be sceptical when you have it all explained.
>>> Yet, with all that they stated a 90% probability 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.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Errrm, that is wikipedia, not IPCC (remember, this sub-thread began with “the IPCC Bible says…” and I was carefully quoting IPCC). What you have there is a rough paraphrase of what the IPCC said: you can, just like me, follow the links if you want to know exactly what IPCC actually said.
More importantly, “The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it ” is a very different statement to “they stated a 90% probability that they know exactly what is going to happen in the future”. You’ve got the “degree of certainty” right, but you’ve got “what were they certain about” completely wrong.
The statement you quote from wiki is about climate change up to now, and attribution thereof. It says nothing about the future.
To those responding to troll(s) on this thread. Please remember that Climate Science(tm) is a billion dollar a year industry, and the recipients of this largess are simply defending their stash. So don’t be too harsh… Also remember, “Green greed is good”…
Paul Vaughan says:
February 13, 2012 at 7:39 am
Volker Doormann (February 13, 2012 at 1:56 am) wrote:
“It is well known from literature that the main frequency of the sun spots is 11.196 years^-1 or 0.0893176 Kp. This frequency is not involved in the spectrum of the global climate frequencies.
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.”
… Earth has no stationary internal ~11 year cycle.
I do not speak of an Earth cycle; I speak of a cycle on the SUN and its frequency of 1/11.196 years and the correlation between REAL SUN SPOT FREQUENCY and TERRESTRIAL CLIMATE.
Rest snipped.
V.
By the way, who said the following just last month (that’s right, 2012)?
“Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. But the eventual conviction of these people in the court of public opinion will do little to ease the burdens that will have been created for today’s young people and future generations.“
“The science is clear. Unless we restore the planet’s energy balance and stabilize climate, by rapidly reducing fossil fuel emissions, we will leave today’s young people a rapidly deteriorating climate system with consequences that will out of their control.”
The answer here.
(Mr. Connolley may wish to update the wikipedia climate page to include this statement, preferably at the top of the article).
William M. Connolley says:
February 13, 2012 at 4:24 am
Notice how cunningly they hid “There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system” in plain sight?
What’s cunning is that that or a similar statement was not carried forward to the Summary for Policymakers. (Unless I missed it.) Also, that statement is a gross understatement of what they actually said deeper into the WGI report at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-6-3.html:
“Key Uncertainties:
Confidence in attributing some climate change phenomena to anthropogenic influences is currently limited by uncertainties in radiative forcing, as well as uncertainties in feedbacks and in observations.
Attribution at scales smaller than continental and over time scales of less than 50 years is limited by larger climate variability on smaller scales, by uncertainties in the small-scale details of external forcing and the response simulated by models, as well as uncertainties in simulation of internal variability on small scales, including in relation to modes of variability.
There is less confidence in understanding of forced changes in precipitation and surface pressure than there is of temperature.
The range of attribution statements is limited by the absence of formal detection and attribution studies, or their very limited number, for some phenomena (e.g., some types of extreme events).
Incomplete global data sets for extremes analysis and model uncertainties still restrict the regions and types of detection studies of extremes that can be performed.
Despite improved understanding, uncertainties in model-simulated internal climate variability limit some aspects of attribution studies. For example, there are apparent discrepancies between estimates of ocean heat content variability from models and observations.
Lack of studies quantifying the contributions of anthropogenic forcing to ocean heat content increase or glacier melting together with the open part of the sea level budget for 1961 to 2003 are among the uncertainties in quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to sea level rise.”
But in the Summary for Policymakers, we find statements like this:
“Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
What’s most cunning of all is that the Summary for Policymakers says one thing (e.g., “strengthening confidence in near-term projections”) while the body of the report suggests the opposite (e.g., “attribution at scales smaller than continental and over time scales of less than 50 years is limited.”)
> who said
Sounds like Hansen to me. I know he is your favourite demon, but wiki tends to prefer to report the scientific consensus, rather than one person’s view. If you’re interested in what that larger view is, someone has already helpfully provided a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
“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..”
El Nino episodes are due to weakening trade winds leading to a fall in Ekman pumping of the cold Humboldt current below = a lack of upwelling. Now I don`t see the trade winds being governed by solar activity 9yrs previous.
William M. Connolley says:
February 13, 2012 at 10:02 am
“Errrm, that is wikipedia, not IPCC…”
Do you mean “Errrm, that is Me, not IPCC…” ??
William M. Connolley says:
February 13, 2012 at 10:02 am
>>> Yet, with all that they stated a 90% probability 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.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Errrm, that is wikipedia, not IPCC (remember, this sub-thread began with “the IPCC Bible says…” and I was carefully quoting IPCC). What you have there is a rough paraphrase of what the IPCC said: you can, just like me, follow the links if you want to know exactly what IPCC actually said.
More importantly, “The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it ” is a very different statement to “they stated a 90% probability that they know exactly what is going to happen in the future”. You’ve got the “degree of certainty” right, but you’ve got “what were they certain about” completely wrong.
The statement you quote from wiki is about climate change up to now, and attribution thereof. It says nothing about the future.
Yes, the Wiki article directly specifies the IPCC in the references. I assumed you already knew that and may have made those attributions personally.
Sadly, your words are somewhat confusing. I think we all know what the intent of the IPPC statements were and that they specified “very likely” in the document. In addition, if you attribute something as unequivocal and/or 90% probability based on specified historic activities and those activities are not changed, then the 90% attribution will obviously carry “in the future”. That is the ONLY logical conclusion from the IPCC statements and clearly was the way they have been interpreted by many govts. Your denial of this is quite interesting.
steven mosher says:
February 13, 2012 at 9:53 am
…extra ordinary claims about the future demand a little proof.
Hi Steven:
No one can have a proof of the future, but we can make an attempt to forecast it on the basis of historic data:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
I’ve used 55, 70 & 90 year periods from the CET oscillations, you can test it giving you ‘a little proof.’.
@HenryP.
She was trilled with Kruger wild life, today was down the Cullinan at 750m below surface, then high up the viewing platform.
> Do you mean “Errrm, that is Me, not IPCC…” ??
Why don’t you check before you snark?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&diff=467842942&oldid=467097086
STEVE MOSHER
Valid Observation
The evidence in my opinion has been staring us in the face for the last decade. The CO2 levels are rising and at their highest level in modern times and global temperatures have been flat and declining for now 10-14 years .The reduced sun activity , SST’S, AMO, PDO ,AO are in their mode indicating cooling . So who is dwarfing who? What more evidence are we looking for? maybe my use of the term ‘have always ‘ is stretching things a bit Steve, but currently I think it is true and even some of the AGW scientists have accepted this. M. LATIF, a German climate modeler even wrote about it as far back as 2008 that natural variabilty would prevail for the next decade . He even admitted that you could have two such decades.
> Why don’t you check before you snark?
Just wanted to say: William, We are impressed you are willing to come here to the talk, thank you.
Has anyone noticed that the Solar Flux has dropped to below 100? Could SC24 be waning?
I’ve studied this extensively, and I feel you are on the right track but have the wrong mechanism in mind…magnetic activity, from the AA/AP Index values, to the IMF (Interplanetary Magnetic Field). Cosmic Rays correlate to the mechanism that alters the atmospheric state but their effect is overstated based on that correlation.
There are many various atmospheric circulation cells over numerous ocean basins (example, the Hadley Cell) that basically act as heat pumps/distributors, but are also affected by upper atmospheric processes such as the QBO, and the Solar Wind. These “cells” modulate the tropical/global configuration of cloud cover, much of the GLAAM/tropical wind budget, and in turn, ENSO. But that is not all.
The AO/AAO indices also are driven by the same mechanisms that alter atmospheric circulation…(Sun and QBO). The -AO allows sustainable tropical convection via a cooler upper atmosphere over the tropics, more cloud cover over the tropics/mid latitudes, less clouds/wind over the arctic. The -AO that developed in JAN allowed the current MJO wave to sustain, and cooled the globe via these mechanisms.
It all ties back to the magnetic sun and IMF. In looking at the AP index one can see the correlation to the PDO, AMO, and AO/NAO. It is because large scale atmospheric circulation is modulated by this aspect of solar activity.
The IMF directional value dominates the PDO and AMO. Whenever it flips south, the PDO changes phase, whenever it flips north, the AMO changes phase…the Hale cycle.
ENSO is also driven by the Sun, and lags the AP index by 6.5 years. The El Nino of 2009-10 looks just like the AP index spike in 2003, the AP index plummeted in 2006.
The year 2013 or 2014 will see the drop on global temps truly begin by this mechanism. The Sun’s poles will also flip in 2013, and our Sun’s “wobble” as noted in SIM theory will end in 2013. The AMO will flip in 2013. It is all coming together.
Pamela, matt v., Richard, Paul
I think “what we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”
The post does have serious errors of simple facts:
“. . . ocean conveyor . . .” water “. . . reappears as warm upwelling along the South American west coast.”
A few are a bit more complicated and debated (by some):
— “extra solar radiation around solar maximums”
— “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.”
I’m not even sure what the last quote means. The next one up is disputed, recently (Feb. 8) here on WUWT. This first item (above) is just flat-out wrong. Pamela could have pointed out the parts her teacher instincts objected to.
The others are right, also. Open discussion is good. Alternative interpretations of unsettled issues are useful. But . . .
“If You’re Gonna Play in Texas (You Gotta Have a Fiddle in the Band)”