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)
There you go again; either erecting a strawman or not understanding what is taking place …
Which is it?
You ppl have to be made to understand the EM nature of certain molecules, is all I can say. To continue to deny it is, well, insanity.
Pure and simple.
.
jaypan (February 13, 2012 at 7:43 am) wrote:
“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.””
There are no signs whatsoever that the situation is improving. Quite the opposite. Whether by naive ignorance or malicious deception, central agencies currently appear to be dictating to the public that the abstract theoretical truth about solar-terrestrial-climate relations is a purely elastic commodity that need not accommodate the reality of geophysical data. For example, see the following 2 articles:
1. http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/
2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/
The “uniform 0.1K” solar-terrestrial-climate narrative, strictly inadmissible under geophysical data on the basis of absolute logic, is beyond creepy. Trust obliterated. If Dr. Curry cannot see this with ease, I would suggest (very cordially) that she strive to improve her functional numeracy.
Regards.
@Volker Doormann (February 13, 2012 at 10:13 am)
some misunderstanding
Are there some references that I can better understand how CME events (x-ray, solar wind) affects the energy balance on the earth? How does this energy get converted to electromagnetic energy, then eventually to heat?
HenryP says: February 13, 2012 at 8:21 am
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.
____________________
Allan@Henry, wake up and read what I wrote.
Hint: CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales.
____________________
kwik says: February 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm
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.”
Kwik: I don’t understand when you mention “This post” like that?
Where does “this post” suggest we should be “looking for a CO2 lag” ?
Allan@Kwik
Quote and Hint:
“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 releases dissolved CO2?
MartinGAtkins says
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.
henry@Martin
The atmosphere is a shield. There are massive absorptions going on, all the time, O3 being the leader of the pack (20-25%), leading to re-radiation (deflection) of sunlight, leading to cooling. More CO2 also leads to cooling, e.g. absorptions at 2 and 4 um. CH4 also cools the atmosphere, at between 2.2. and 2.4.
Try to understand what I say in the footnote here.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
As Stephen has also suggested, (I think), a small change in the UV output of the sun, could affect the manufacturing of ozone, in the upper atmosphere, which could result in more (or less) light being thundered into the (SH) oceans, as my results for the past 4 decades clearly show:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Just so we all be clear/ ///addendum to my previous post:
that little bit of ozone in the upper atmosphere is responsible for shielding us from 20-25% of all incoming sunlight, and note that it is the sunlight of the lowest wavelengths, i.e. the highest energy.
So, obviously, if the ozone hole is bigger or smaller, it will affect the amount of energy being slammed into the (SH) oceans.
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/
That post is broken, as I’ve explained before. The clue is in the edit summary linked to: “happily, all that has to go – el rego isn’t an RS”. If you’re interested in the details, see the talk page.
She was thrilled with Kruger wild life, today was down the Cullinan at 750m below surface, then high up the viewing platform.
henry@Vukcevic
I’m glad she likes it here! whay country are you (she) from?
Pity we are a bit near to the ozone hole here, …. in South Africa,
she better take care….
use lots of sun tan lotion – OR rather stay out of the sun, if that is possible.
Geomagnetic storm around midnight
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
followed by two 6+ magnitude earthquakes
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.php
within 1.5 hours of each other in different parts of the Pacific, a very rare event in itself (2 x M6+) and the first M6 eqs in last 7 days. Most worrying is the Honshu one, since it is nearly a year since the big one and it was assumed that the area may have settled for a while.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm
Yes there should be some very slight cooling until about 2028, but the long-term ~1000 year cycle has yet to reach a maximum, not that it looks like being much to worry about.
There have clearly been alternating periods of long term warming and cooling in the vicinity of 500 years each between: Roman warming, Dark Ages cooling, Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age, 21st or 22nd century warming. There is some indication of this cycle before Roman times also I believe.
We can still detect this long term trend in recorded data for the period since 1900 for example. To do so, we need to compensate for shorter periods of the order of 30 years of warming and cooling, as well as shorter solar cycles.
All this can be done effectively using the concepts of derivatives and second derivatives in calculus. By calculating a 30 year trend every month on a moving basis we can firstly obtain a plot of the rate of change (gradient) and then we fit a logical “axis” trend to that plot. By taking this additional step we overcome “cherry picking” accusations because it makes very little difference whether the initial periods were 20, 30 or 40 years for example. The final trend line is similar.
What this yellow line (at the foot of my Home page http://climate-change-theory.com ) . indicates is that around 1915 the rate of increase was about 0.06 deg.C per decade, but it has now declined to about 0.05 deg.C per decade. There is a reasonable probability that this yellow line will slope down more, heading for zero maybe within 200 years or so. That would indicate a long term maximum in the trend of only about 0.7 to 1.0 deg.C above the current trend, though there could be shorter-term superimposed maxima and minima maybe up to a degree above the trend. However, 500 years of cooling should follow.
So, How many people are you prepared to kill because you are not prepared to supply a clean form of energy.
HenryP
“I hope they don’t do that.
Not a good idea, nuclear energy.”
Henry@PaulC
I have given you the alternatives for nuclear:
from 1 -5
1 being the worst option, 5 being the best option.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/nuclear-energy-not-save-and-sound
(nuclear is not an alternative, e.g. are you willing to go and clean up the mess in Chernobyl (the cement casting does not hold – they need money as well)
Geoff Sharp says:
February 13, 2012 at 7:55 pm
“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.”
My astronomically based forecast for this winter (made late 2010) clearly stated that the main outbreaks of Arctic air would be from late Jan to early March, with the UK seeing hard cold in the second week of Feb, particularly from the 9th of Feb. And as you know late Jan is when the AO went significantly negative. I know solar factors must be responsible, otherwise this, and my continual forecasts for temperature deviations would not succeed so often.
Now can you show me any meaningful change in UV from mid to late Jan 2012 that correlates to the change in Arctic pressure ?
This solar study seems to have ferreted out some odd people who are quoting IPCC stuff, my reading of the IPCC stuff gives me the impression that they do not believe that the sun is our sole heat giver. This Bill Connolley person seems to imaging that all sunshine iminates from the IPCC.
The wheels of AGW are falling off, Bill it is obvious how far you have fallen, for rather than tend your flock you come here as a troll, sad really, but if at all possible it is time for you to take stock and have a good slow long look around.
mddwave says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:16 pm
How does this energy get converted to electromagnetic energy, then eventually to heat?
There is nothing wrong with the Wiki to give you an overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_%28electromagnetic_radiation%29
Ulric Lyons says:
February 14, 2012 at 4:52 am
Now can you show me any meaningful change in UV from mid to late Jan 2012 that correlates to the change in Arctic pressure ?
I gave you real world measurements (not based on Ceres) of QBO, zonal winds, strat temps, strat ozone, polar vortex heights and jet stream positions for late Jan early Feb, did you not go to my last referenced link.
As far as ozone is concerned it is not as simple as you imply. As per Haigh the ozone levels above 45km increase during low solar and decrease below 45km. There is a steady state of this position but is subject to mixing from below via planetary waves that ultimately disturb the vortex in the north (not south) once the waves are allowed to flow. This mixing shows up at the pole after transport which is seen in the ozone levels I referenced. The QBO was in westerly mode since Jan last year and persisted to about Jan this year, this is what maintained the positive AO for that period. What precise mechanism did you use for your Jan prediction?
Ulric Lyons says:
February 14, 2012 at 4:52 am
Now can you show me any meaningful change in UV from mid to late Jan 2012 that correlates to the change in Arctic pressure ?
I gave you real world measurements (not based on Ceres) of QBO, zonal winds, strat temps, strat ozone, polar vortex heights and jet stream positions for late Jan early Feb, did you not go to my last referenced link.
As far as ozone is concerned it is not as simple as you imply. As per Haigh the ozone levels above 45km increase during low solar and decrease below 45km. There is a steady state of this position but is subject to mixing from below via planetary waves that ultimately disturb the vortex in the north (not south) once the waves are allowed to flow. This mixing shows up at the pole after transport which is seen in the ozone levels I referenced. The QBO was in westerly mode since Jan last year and persisted to about Jan this year, this is what maintained the positive AO for that period. What precise mechanism did you use for your Jan prediction?
Seeing that the comments are nearly winding down , I want to thank all those bloggers who took the time to read this post and offer constructive comments and suggestions . Like I said at the very start , my purpose for writing this post was to steer the debate away from just looking at the impact of CO2 levels on global climate which I still blieve is minor when compared to the impact of natural variables and to focus more on the more likey mechanism for the solar to ocean to atmosphere transfer of solar energy and especially consider the possibilty of lag times of approximately 9 years between the solar event and the time the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere will be affected [ all the way to the Arctic] . The nine years is the approximate time it may take the oceans to receive , move and transfer the heat energy from the equator region to the higher latitudes and release it through El Nino events including 4-6 months for the atmosphere to move the heat around the globe . I may have used poor choice of words in my post and many of the bloggers correctly picked it up. I think the 1998 EL Nino ,in my opinion ,was the 9 year lagged impact of the solar max and activity of the years 1988-1992 and the 2010 EL nino was the lagged impact of the solar max and activity of the years 1999 to 2002.
From the comments I noted that there was no agreed upon alternative mechanism posted of how the solar -ocean -amosphere link works or whether sun is the main climate maker even. Co2 levels were still suggested by some senior bloggers despite the evidence today of dropping global temperatures but rising CO2 LEVELS .Other lag times have been well documented by others like Bob Tisdale, M. A .Vukcevic and possibly others who have regularly crunched the numbers . Steve Mosher also noted the existence of several possible lag time . Based on my analysis and personal opinion I feel the risk of continued cooling for the next 20 years is more real than global warming as I see no injection of significant solar heat again until about nine years after the next solar maximum. So I see cooler weather prevailing until 203o .I welcome others writing down their concepts and posting them on WUWT . My concept may prove to be partly wrong or completely wrong but someone else reading it may come up with the correct one after reading sposts. like this The collective mind is better than a single opinion.
@ur momisugly Matti Vooro = matt v.
Thanks for the article. While some sour commenters regularly push for intellectual sterility, you’re a beacon of awareness that natural recombination’s key to survival. All the best.
A bit late perhaps but I do have a question. Let’s assume that the stations analysed in the Solheim paper do actually cool inover the next few years but the world as a whole continues to warm.
Do we assume that the sun’s role in climate change is simply one of shifting weather pattterns around because that is what I think is likely the case. I don’t believe the sun changes earth’s energy budget to any significant extent so it cannot be responsible for significant warming/cooling episodes. We all recognise that there is an increase of ~0.1% in solar output from solar min to solar max which might be responsible for a global temperature increase of ~0.1 K but that’s it.
JOHN FINN
Good observation. I think the sun actually does add energy to the planet and probably more than we currently recognize even . There is no better example than the biggest El NINO on record 1n 1878. The starting point was the solar cycle # 11 which ran from 1867- 1878. the most active period was from 1869-to 1972 with the max in 1870. Aproximately 9 years later in 1878 you have one of the bigest atmosphere temperature spikes in a very short period. The temperature anomaly [hadcrut 3gl]in 1876 was -0.471 and by 1878/1879 it was around -0.148 C. By 1887 it was down to again to -.461C. The Southern Hemisphere ocean temperatures started to go up in1874 and also peaked in 1878 and then went down . So clearly the solar cycle #11 put energy into the Pacific ocean between1869 and 1873 which started to raise the tempearture of the Southern Pacific Ocean and the ocean around the equator region starting in 1975 and atmosphere temperature peaked by 1978 through the release of the heat from the largest El NINO one record . The globaltemperature anomalies were at the lowest during the lagged minimums at the start and end of the cycle and the highest near the maximum ,In my mind the sun is not what moves the enrgy around but is the source of the enrgy. The oceans act as a heat sink and move this heat around and release it to the atmosphere through the El Nino events [ Iam talking about major climate events ] .It takes 4- 6 months for atmosphere to move this heat around the globe after the El Nino.
JOHN FINN
A typing error in my last post . The most active period for solar cycle #11 was from 1869–1872 not 1869-1972. Also I quoted the temperature anomalies hadcrut3gl for 1876 and 1878/1879 , these were HADSST2 OCEAN temperature anomlies for the Southern Hemisphere .
The comparable HADCRUT GLOBAL temperature anomalies for 1876 was -0.400 C and for 1878 was +0.028 C . [ big spike in temperatures when the solar sunspot number was only 3.4 ]By 1887 the atmosphere temperature spike [hadcrut3]was down to -0.386C
JOHN FINN
Here is another bit of information about the 1877/1878 super El Nino that I found on WUWT.
” The 1877-1878 EL Nino was the biggest event on record. The [temperature ]anomaly peaked at + 3.4 C in November 1877 and by February 1878, global temperatures had peaked to 0.364 C or 0.7 C above the background temperature of the time .”
The only source of so much heat into the Pacific Ocean , in my judgement was the sun during the previous solar max period of 1869-1872 The issue of Co2 was not an issue then nor is it now , to me at least .
Geoff Sharp says:
February 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm
“I gave you real world measurements (not based on Ceres) of QBO, zonal winds, strat temps, strat ozone, polar vortex heights and jet stream positions for late Jan early Feb, did you not go to my last referenced link.”
I asked for meaningful UV data.
Geoff Sharp says:
“The QBO was in westerly mode since Jan last year and persisted to about Jan this year, this is what maintained the positive AO for that period. What precise mechanism did you use for your Jan prediction?”
The AO was negative all summer, and can go negative any winter regardless of QBO and ENSO phase. I used the same method as I did for last winter of course, and I got the timing bang on then too.