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.
Smokey wrote, “Isn’t it nice for Connolley that Anthony runs a censorship-free site?”
That’s certainly not true — I’m one of those banned, & of course there are others.
REPLY: I count 214 comments (including this one) that come under your various alter egos of “Eric Blair”, “Erinome”, and “JeffG” Since September 2011 at your originating IP address in the Pacific Northwest.
How you count that as “banned” must only be in your mind, whoever you are today. But do take note, our site policy specifically says that shape shifting is a no-no. So please explain why you deserve continued access when you go to great lengths to post under a series of fake names. Or would it be simpler to say your last name ryhmes with apple? – Anthony
Mark Adams says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:35 am
Has anyone noticed that the Solar Flux has dropped to below 100? Could SC24 be waning?
No, weak cycles have shown erratic behaviour during their maximum years, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
[Link corrected to match 12:24 entry, Robt]
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
Pamela, matt v., Richard, Paul, and Matti V.
A follow up to my comment @ur momisugly 12:06
Fill a bathtub with very cold water –add blue dye. Add salt if you want to make it somewhat more dense. Float a piece of thin plywood (even cardboard will work) on top of the cold water. Pour hot water –add red dye — on top of the floating piece so as to NOT mix the two layers. Carefully remove the separator. Next. Use a pail or large cooking pot to lift water (the hot/red) from one end of the bathtub. Note that the cold/blue water will follow the path of the pail, moving upward, and help to fill the void.
On the west coasts of continents winds act as the pail in the above experiment. The majority of the wind is generated in the massive subtropical high pressure (STHP) zones. The rotating Earth helps position the winds so they move the surface waters of the ocean (along these coasts) away from the land. What is underneath comes up, cold, and nutrient laden. Here are two links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_transport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling
Phil says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:53 am
“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 2006.2
On the whole a very good comment, but I disagree with the above. You have the sign the wrong way round. The `09/10 El Nino was due a falling SW trend from early `09, you can see the same pattern with the `97/98 El Nino with the SW speed falling from late `96:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
matt:
“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 .”
unfortunately the climate is responding as theory predicts. Theory does not predict that the earth will warm monotonically with zero lag from the forcing. Note this study, where the author plays around with lags. The lag in the climate system to the forcing of C02 is on the order of decades and centuries. Further, the climate is driven by MORE than C02 forcing. It is driven by the sum of all forcings. If C02 goes up and solar forcing goes down, you have to understand the net.
If C02 forcing goes up, and internal forcing ( natural variability ) goes down, you have to understand the net. Its the sum of ALL forcing that you have to look at and THEN you have to understand the lags in the system. There isnt just one lag. the responses evolves in various time domains. As I said, the theory predicts that you can and will have cooling regimes in an otherwise
long term upward trend. Cooling regimes are not unexpected. No cooling regime can overturn basic radiation physics. However, if the current one continues or deepens, you can expect climate science to pay more attention to : clouds: aerosols and natural variability. In the end C02 and GHgs may play less of a role than our best science says, but it will play a role.
Vuk.
Your charts have never made a bit of sense to me. still dont. Suggest you work on them to make them understandable. Like do a small write up
1. data
2. methods
3. results.
Otherwise I dont have time to decipher what you think is clear.
Bare minimum dude. I told tallbloke the same thing. I dont mind your crazy Ideas, but dear god
present them in a way that allows me to understand what you did. To replicate what you did.
Otherwise, dont expect me to bother
The additional energy getting into the oceans intensifies the ITCZ and the additional convective uplift along the ITCZ causes stronger anticyclonic downwelling on either side to consolidate the widening of the Tropics.
Stephen, the problem here is that its not obvious how this process gets more heat (energy) into the oceans. In fact I’d say it would result in less heat getting into the oceans. Because it will decrease the heat entering the oceans in the tropics (as the study I linked to above shows).that is within the ITCZ.
Are you arguing the ocean heat gain is in the subtropical anticyclonic zones?
If so, any evidence? It might show up in the ARGO data, but unfortunately the dataset is probably too short.
john F. hultquist
Thank you for your helpful comments . I was thinking of the ocean conveyor belt and upwelling areas shown in Prof Gray’s paper called CLIMATE CHANGE : DRIVEN BY THE OCEANS NOT HUMAN ACTIVITY [fig 20 and 14] . If the upwelling in the lower PACIFIC is warmer or cooler due to chnging input of water into the coveyor could this not affect ENSO that develops later at the equator ? maybe my words are not that clear . I will have to work at that.
I dont know what your question is about the PDO . PDO is a spatial pattern and an after effect of the ENSO cycle as I explained earlier .
Ulric Lyons:
I actually disagree with that assertion, as there is no continuity for most ENSO events seen previously, such as the El Nino of 2002-03 and 2006-07 which were both moderate. The SW speed seems to correlate better to the state of the AO/NAO on the graph you post, but that should manifest differently in many cases depending on the configuration of the QBO and the extent of the SW speed drop/increase, since spacial wind reversals at high altitudes are what the solar mechanism would operate through.
Allan MacRae says:
February 13, 2012 at 7:37 am
“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.”
I dont understand when you mention “This post” like that?
Where does “this post” suggest we should be “looking for a CO2 lag” ?
William M. Connolley says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:14 am
“Why don’t you check before you snark?”
Regarding Wikipedia; I would never, EVER read ANYTHING regarding climate there.
If there are any new readers here, wondering why I wouldnt read anything regarding climate on wikipedia, this should give you a hint;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/
steven mosher says:
February 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Bare minimum dude. I told tallbloke the same thing. I dont mind your crazy Ideas, but dear god
present them in a way that allows me to understand what you did. To replicate what you did.
Otherwise, dont expect me to bother
Mosh, you miss the point: by being obscure enough, the crazy ideas cannot fall victim to inconvenient falsification.
steven mosher says:
February 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm
……..
Hi Steven
Here is another crazy idea:
the rising trend in the CET is directly proportional to the winter cloudiness.
On the page:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
it is just simple matter of reconstructing the CET from its 2 strongest summer and 2 strongest winter components (spring and autumn contain all four).
Why spring and summer:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm
the 300 year summer CET data shows oscillating but no rising trend, while winters oscillate often at different rate but this time with a rising trend.
Summers are warmed by sunshine and cooled by clouds but in long term they even out so no rising trend either due to the solar activity (with high summer insolation at 52 N) or the CO2.
Winters are opposite, clear skies allow night temperatures to fall drastically, more then offsetting any sunshine hours which are naturally greatly reduced anyway, due to the seasonal factor (low winter insolation at 52 N).
Hey, more winter cloud warmer the long term CET. Simple.
steven mosher says: February 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm
1. data
2. methods
3. results.
Sorry Steven, I got sidetracked in my last post. One crazy dude did just that, with lot more than bare minimum, and it still shows onset of cooling in the North Atlantic.
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/64/12/35/PDF/NorthAtlanticOscillations-I.pdf
@Phil says:
February 13, 2012 at 2:27 pm
“Ulric Lyons:
I actually disagree with that assertion, as there is no continuity for most ENSO events seen previously, such as the El Nino of 2002-03 and 2006-07 which were both moderate.”
Yes you have picked up the two weakest examples, and like you note they were both moderate El Nino episodes.
2002 does not have a falling trend, but the levels are low:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_1810.gif
2006 does have a slight falling trend albeit weak:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_1986.gif
The other two earlier examples of lack of good correlation have a logical explanation, El Chichon and Pinatubo, even M. Mann has suggested an El Nino response to the cooling effect of such eruptions. If you care to do a tally, I think you will find the argument overall in favour of what I am saying despite what you have noted. Also look at the reverse, La Nina episodes occurring at rising trends in SW speed. Earlier SW data: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_23114.gif
And yes I agree, the rate of increase or decrease is important, but so is the duration and in which season it occurs, especially with respect to ENSO.
Phil says:
February 13, 2012 at 2:27 pm
“I actually disagree with that assertion, as there is no continuity for most ENSO events seen previously..”
A falling solar wind speed trend can be seen at El Nino episodes in 1965, 68, 69, 72, 76, 77, 86, 91, 94, 97, 04, 06*, and 09, that is a very large majority.
matt v. says:
February 13, 2012 at 1:42 pm
I dont know what your question is about the PDO . PDO is a spatial pattern and an after effect of the ENSO cycle as I explained earlier .
There is ample evidence that suggests this statement is wrong.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/12/pdo-enso-aleutian-low-or-some-of-each/
HenryP says:
February 13, 2012 at 9:19 am
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.
Your discussing absorption of incoming LWR. This is done at high altitude and is not a big player in warming of the lower troposphere due to transportation via convection. It would be like trying to boil water from the top down using a electric bar heater.
You would get a different outcome if you used the heater to warm the water from the bottom up.
Heating the water from the bottom up means the energy must travel through the body of water before surface convection and evaporation can dissipate the energy.
Radiative reflux is a part of the process, as I indicated to Rosco.
GEOFF SHARP
You bring up a good point
I still think that PDO represents a spatial pattern of SST anomalies in the North Pacific . Is it like an after affect of the Enso SIGNAL that lasts longer than the Enso signal ? There has been a lot of blogs and papers arguing bothsides of the coin and you sight one source that has one conclusion . If I get a chance I will research others who have stated that it is like an after effct of the ENSO cycle. Your point is accepted.
matt v. says:
February 13, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Thanks Matt, if you plot the two series it is also obvious that one can lead the other, but none can be said to be dominate.
I think there are times when the PDO is an after effect of ENSO, but I also think there are times when the reverse is true. The PDO has been leading ENSO recently and I think is responsible for the current back to back La Nina. The warm water in the NW pacific (KOE) is available for ENSO to use, during that time (cool PDO) the warm water which can be transported south encourages more and stronger La Nina and fewer and weaker El Nino.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/pdo_enso.png
Ulric Lyons says:
February 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Here is a plot of ENSO 4.3 and 27 day solar wind speed from 1965. Not exactly convincing.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/enso_sw.png
Geoff Sharp says:
February 13, 2012 at 6:29 pm
“Here is a plot of ENSO 4.3 and 27 day solar wind speed from 1965. Not exactly convincing.”
What is not convincing is that the roller-coaster ride of UV variation through each solar cycle matching anything in you care to mention, it makes no sense from square one. Now if you care to examine the precise expanded solar wind speed graphs that I provided above and not your squished up short one with no clear years scale on it, you can note a falling solar wind speed trend at El Nino episodes in 1965, 68, 69, 72, 76, 77, 86, 91, 94, 97, 04, 06*, and 09. Even on your own graph the opposite movement of ENSO and SW speed is well apparent in many places, so if you cannot recognise that, I would tend to assume you are deliberately attempting to obfuscate the issue, as it runs so contrary to your own pet theory.
Steve Mosher: “The lag in the climate system to the forcing of C02 is on the order of decades and centuries.”
Whoa, where does that come from. So now we need to wait decades and centuries to falsify AGW?!? We just shell out money without ever knowing if it made a difference? Why is it that the hurdles keep getting higher and further apart?
Ulric Lyons says:
February 13, 2012 at 7:15 pm
There is no need to get upset, I have merely provided the data, which does not lie. If you wish to draw your own conclusions you are free to do so, likewise are others now that the data is finally presented.
UV IS on a roller coaster, but there are times when it doesn’t make it up the slope, which is the important consideration. It is also important to consider that UV is one part of a proposed mechanism that breaks up the polar vortex and induces contorted jet streams (which is just about to hit Europe again). It is not the sole driver and relies on other components like the QBO and planetary waves, so one would not expect to see a clear correlation. I have provided a table of metrics captured during the so called “great winter freeze of 2012”, check it out you may learn something. Its at the end of the following article.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236