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.
Ulric Lyons says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:43 am
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.
How often did the AO go negative from 1980 -2000?
Do you have a website that logs all your predictions so we can check, date stamped blog or similar? In the past all you have provided is words, like now when asked what mechanism you used for the forecast (Ceres?)
matt v. says:
February 15, 2012 at 6:51 am
“…the biggest El NINO on record 1n 1878.”
It`s right on a big aa index drop: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AAIndex_files/image003.png
Geoff Sharp says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:01 pm
“How often did the AO go negative from 1980 -2000?”
You should concede that it did go negative last summer rather than throw a pointless question at me. Spot the trends: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25973.gif
“Do you have a website that logs all your predictions so we can check, date stamped blog or similar? In the past all you have provided is words, like now when asked what mechanism you used for the forecast (Ceres?)”
What we have in common is that we both agree on solar solar forcing. You subscribe purely to UV variation and completely disregard the solar wind, and I subscribe to the solar wind but do not completely dismiss effects of UV but do not see it as at all dominant. The other pivotal difference is that you merely provide hypothesis for the powers of UV but with no correlative data, and I am always providing the data relevant to the period in discussion to back my claims up, be that ENSO or the AO. I brought up the subject of my astronomically based forecasts as proof that these are solar forced events, as you also engage in this sphere of research so I thought you would appreciate that. If you are doubting that I have made such specific forecasts, well of course I can back them up, but you don`t get to see how I am doing it just now. I mean sheesh, I am not going to say cooling late Jan, bad in the 2nd week of Feb from a year back based on tea leaves !
Urich Lyons
The dips in the aa index seem to take place about the same time as solar minimums . I don’t know if there is a connection if any with the 1877/78 El Nino There was a solar minimum in 1878
Ulric Lyons says:
February 15, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:01 pm
“How often did the AO go negative from 1980 -2000?”
————————
You should concede that it did go negative last summer rather than throw a pointless question at me. Spot the trends: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25973.gif
Summer is not important as the polar vortex is only mainly affected in winter. The following NAO winter graph (very similar to AO) tells the story.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/winter_nao.png
UV was comparatively high during 1980-2000 so the polar vortex was mainly undisturbed. Solar wind went all over the place during this period.
What we have in common is that we both agree on solar solar forcing. You subscribe purely to UV variation and completely disregard the solar wind, and I subscribe to the solar wind but do not completely dismiss effects of UV but do not see it as at all dominant.
I do not purely subscribe to UV forcing, it is one factor involved IMHO. The PDO being the largest factor. The solar wind (total) is involved in UV forcing but only plays a small role during times of auroral activity. You have not shown a correlation or mechanism between the solar wind speed and ENSO/AO etc, and by using speed only, miss many of the other functions available (density, Bz etc). You might be better off looking at the Kp index or Ap index if looking for atmospheric connections. If so proper documentation of the results is required rather than suggesting eye balling. If you need help to plot the data, just send it to me.
Your weather predictions are meaningless unless they are documented. Start a free wordpress account and start logging them, so you can be tested.
matt v. says:
February 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“The dips in the aa index seem to take place about the same time as solar minimums .”
Typically around a couple of years after minimum, and also at maximum, which is usually not so deep.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:05 pm
“Summer is not important as the polar vortex is only mainly affected in winter.”
Leaving aside the vortex, you will actually find that AO is important in summer if you look at CET.
Anyway this point started with you claiming the QBO kept the AO positive all last year, which it patently did not, so maybe we should just leave it at that before you dig yourself in more dead ends.
“You have not shown a correlation or mechanism between the solar wind speed and ENSO/AO etc,”
If you are having so much trouble with eye-balling the correlation, I`ll have to present you a graph then, but as you have insisted that “the solar wind does not change enough through the solar cycle”, its hard to hold much hope that you will make any sense of it.
Ulric Lyons says:
February 15, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:05 pm
“Summer is not important as the polar vortex is only mainly affected in winter.”
Leaving aside the vortex, you will actually find that AO is important in summer if you look at CET.
Anyway this point started with you claiming the QBO kept the AO positive all last year, which it patently did not, so maybe we should just leave it at that before you dig yourself in more dead ends.
The polar vortex has little influence over summer temps, the jet streams are far less effective but do come into contention occasionally, we have seen that twice here this summer. You are stretching the bow again if you consider the small dips into negative last year as anything substantial.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/AO.png
There are also other factors that influence the vortices. The southern vortex is generally not disturbed by planetary waves but still experiences a modulation , also the QBO is a general influence over planetary waves but sometimes the planetary waves override the QBO. Read Baldwin et al where they clearly describe this phenomenon.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/qbo_baldwin.pdf
If you are having so much trouble with eye-balling the correlation, I`ll have to present you a graph then, but as you have insisted that “the solar wind does not change enough through the solar cycle”, its hard to hold much hope that you will make any sense of it.
I have already provided the graph that shows no correlation.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/enso_sw.png
No comment re your wordpress blog?
Ulric Lyons says:
(I)… do not completely dismiss effects of UV but do not see it as at all dominant.
Henry@Ulric
Again I want to say that the difference in the UV from the sun could affect the manufacturing process of ozone in the upper atmosphere. In its turn, the ozone layer is responsible for the deflection of 20-25% of all incoming sunlight, mostly of the short wavelength (UV) type (high energy).
My results I gathered so far, witnessed by increasing maxima, that occur during the day (light)
as reported recently here,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/do-underwater-volcanoes-have-an-effect-on-enso/#comment-893299
seem to suggest that, during the past 3-4 decades, more heat from the sun is coming in, by whichever mechanism, i.e. more intense sunshine, and/or less clouds and /or less ozone.
If you think it is (increasing) solar wind that also contributes to this, (as well) , then how would that (mechanism) work? Does it perhaps prevent cloud formation, or does it push / attract clouds more towards the poles?
seem to suggest that
Geoff Sharp says:
February 15, 2012 at 6:49 pm
“The polar vortex has little influence over summer temps, the jet streams are far less effective but do come into contention occasionally, we have seen that twice here this summer. You are stretching the bow again if you consider the small dips into negative last year as anything substantial.”
The AO regularly has an effect on summer temperatures, and a VERY large influence on rainfall. If it were not for the moderately negative AO last summer we would have probably had the driest year for a 80 or more years. On BBC radio 4 this morning, it was announced that the UK could face its worst drought since 1976 this year. I know when it will rain or not, do you ? Study the data and take a lesson on how observation triumphs over presumption.
“I have already provided the graph that shows no correlation.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/enso_sw.png”
Your plot is junk, your ENSO line is running some months late. The plot is far too small for serious study, and you should have inverted one of the traces.
HenryP says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:37 pm
“If you think it is (increasing) solar wind that also contributes to this, (as well) , then how would that (mechanism) work? Does it perhaps prevent cloud formation, or does it push / attract clouds more towards the poles?”
It appears that increased solar wind speed lowers polar pressure and forces polar oscillators positive. John Daly referenced a study that was done on CME impacts and the AAO which confirmed this.
Ulric Lyons says:
February 16, 2012 at 4:36 am
The AO regularly has an effect on summer temperatures, and a VERY large influence on rainfall. If it were not for the moderately negative AO last summer we would have probably had the driest year for a 80 or more years. On BBC radio 4 this morning, it was announced that the UK could face its worst drought since 1976 this year. I know when it will rain or not, do you ? Study the data and take a lesson on how observation triumphs over presumption.
Once again you are stretching the bow. We are talking about Arctic frigid air moving down from the pole, rainfall is not the issue. The AAO also has a big effect on Australian rainfall with a positive AAO causing more rain on the east coast. The AAO has been positive and along with the double La Nina for the last 2 summers has provided much flooding with many dead. But the control factor is the movement of cold air from polar regions brought about by jet stream changes which still has been occurring here with a positive AAO, but on a reduced basis. There are pressure pattern changes in both hemispheres over the past few years that is producing a contorted jet stream independent of the vortex positions, but a neg AO tends to enhance the jet stream movements even further…so I think you are teaching me to suck eggs.
Your plot is junk, your ENSO line is running some months late. The plot is far too small for serious study, and you should have inverted one of the traces.
Nice statement from someone incapable of providing a plot. I have refined the plot to suit your requirements by stretching and more accurately aligning the datasets which were 2 months out. The overall outcome has not changed, the relationship is still very poor.
I have also provided an alternative view with the solar wind inverted which still show many areas of neg correlation. Your correlations are weak and without mechanisms, not a strong footing for the theory. I cant see any way of further manipulating the data that will improve your wiggle matching exercise.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/enso_sw.png
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/enso_sw_inv.png
Geoff Sharp says:
February 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm
“We are talking about Arctic frigid air moving down from the pole, rainfall is not the issue. The AAO also has a big effect on Australian rainfall. The AAO also has a big effect on Australian rainfall with a positive AAO causing more rain on the east coast.”
No we were talking about the AO going -ve last Summer, and you now are saying rainfall is not an issue for our summer but it is for yours.
With a +AAO you should have a more zonal jet stream, though it is splitting and spilling into E. Aus:
http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_250
“I have refined the plot to suit your requirements by stretching and more accurately aligning the datasets which were 2 months out.”
The ENSO plot is all wrong. You can`t have the 95/96 La Nina at 0.7 being the same range from neutral as the 97/98 Nino. Same again with scale of the 72 El Nino and the 73/76 La Nina. The dark background and fuzzy lines are wrecking my eyes, and the lack of ENSO neutral line and proper grid means I have to refer to decent graph to see where I am. Its a comedy of errors.
@Geoff Sharp
See the `97/98 El Nino rise through 97 and peak late 97, and fall rapidly through 98: http://i54.tinypic.com/2qltmol.jpg
Now see the solar wind speed bottom out exactly at the El Nino peak:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
You seem to be getting on for year out on your graph:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/enso_sw.png
Ulric Lyons says:
February 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Its a comedy of errors.
There is no point procrastinating because the data refuses to back up your statements. Whether you use actual HadSST ENSO 4.3 temperature or anomaly data sets the solar wind speed will not correlate. Get over it and move on or produce your own comparison graph proving me wrong.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 19, 2012 at 3:07 pm
“Get over it and move on or produce your own comparison graph proving me wrong.”
You have not proved me wrong with the graphs you have provided, but I have proved that your graphs are junk. And on the contrary, I have proved you wrong with the graph links in my last comment. Currently I am exploring the seasonal nature of the trade winds, particularly in January and July, and noting how that decides when ENSO peaks and neutral phases occur:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
and this a great help in explaining the occasional lack of good correlation between the SW speed changes, and changes in the ENSO index late in the year, such as I discussed with Phil back up the thread.
Ulric Lyons says:
February 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm
You have not proved me wrong with the graphs you have provided, but I have proved that your graphs are junk.
My graph is std HadSST ENSO 4.3 temp data and OMNI solar wind speed. You will need to put up or shut on this issue.
I will await your comparison graph. Failure to do so will display your normal tactics…all rhetoric and wild hand waving without a shred of evidence.
We are still waiting for your wordpress type website where your predictions can be logged and measured, or are you going to continue with your snake oil statements?
Ulric Lyons says:
February 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm
The ENSO plot is all wrong.
There are two ways of measuring ENSO 3.4 data. You can use the actual sea surface temperatures measured in the NINO3.4 area or alternatively the anomaly metrics over the same area. Both have their advantages and are closely linked, but neither show any correlation with solar wind speed data. I have shown you HadSST data for raw SST NINO3.4 which lets us compare data sets back to 1965, there is clearly no association.
You referenced the NINO3.4 Reynolds anomaly data displayed in a Bob Tisdale graph. The anomaly data only goes back to 1982 but it is also clear that there is no connection between solar wind speed and the NINO3.4 anomaly data. The same data mismatch is displayed that shows without doubt, that solar wind speed and ENSO have absolutely no relationship.
I have prepared another plot displaying the NINO3.4 anomaly data (same data Bob uses every month) that you referenced, and the OMNI solar wind speed data, and I have included all of your petty demands that you deem important.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nino3.4_anom_sw.png
Apart from the obvious mismatch the absence of the 11 year solar cycle is clearly evident. Solar wind speed is basically flat over multiple decades and shows no correlation with any climatic record. I have been reinforcing this point to you for a least 2 years.
Your weather predictions are based on solar wind speed…but until you log your predictions it is impossible to take you seriously, build the website, it is free and extremely easy.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:13 am
“There are two ways of measuring ENSO 3.4 data. You can use the actual sea surface temperatures measured in the NINO3.4 area or alternatively the anomaly metrics over the same area. Both have their advantages and are closely linked, but neither show any correlation with solar wind speed data.”
Yes it does, the fall and rise of the solar wind speed is a remarkable fit for the stronger El Nino`s in 97/98 and 09/10: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
and is in anti-phase trends with ENSO for most of the record.
“I have prepared another plot displaying the NINO3.4 anomaly data (same data Bob uses every month) that you referenced, and the OMNI solar wind speed data, and I have included all of your petty demands that you deem important.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nino3.4_anom_sw.png
Sadly it is running well out of sync again with ENSO shifted well ahead of the SW plot, and I really don`t know what to make of the year numbering at the top. You have 1982, 1990, 1997 and 2005 indicated twice. I am beginning to think you have lost the plot.
“Apart from the obvious mismatch the absence of the 11 year solar cycle is clearly evident. Solar wind speed is basically flat over multiple decades and shows no correlation with any climatic record. I have been reinforcing this point to you for a least 2 years.”
I`m not so sure about that: http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/07/SOLARWIND_files/image003.png
Geoff Sharp says:
February 19, 2012 at 7:38 pm
“..or are you going to continue with your snake oil statements?”
I have email evidence of my winter forecast from at least 8 months back, I told you earlier I can back it up.
Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:38 am
Yes it does, the fall and rise of the solar wind speed is a remarkable fit for the stronger El Nino`s in 97/98 and 09/10: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
and is in anti-phase trends with ENSO for most of the record.
Cherry picking at best. Most of the record shows no correlation.
Sadly it is running well out of sync again with ENSO shifted well ahead of the SW plot, and I really don`t know what to make of the year numbering at the top. You have 1982, 1990, 1997 and 2005 indicated twice. I am beginning to think you have lost the plot.
The data is solid and beyond question. It is also your referenced data. The double dates are just a function of excel because of the 27 day data. You will have to accept the data is correct and shows no correlation, or be judged a fool.
I have email evidence of my winter forecast from at least 8 months back, I told you earlier I can back it up.
Not nearly good enough, a proper record of all predictions is required. Build a website or be subject to future ridicule.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm
“Cherry picking at best.”
As I said to Phil above “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.” I was taking you through slowly event by event as you seem to be a bit slow to catch on.
“You will have to accept the data is correct and shows no correlation, or be judged a fool.”
As you continue to present graphs with the two plots chronologically misaligned, I can safely say that is your hat, you wear it. http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw.png
Geoff Sharp says:
February 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm
“Not nearly good enough, a proper record of all predictions is required.”
A dated email is more secure, unlike a wordpress page it cannot be edited. Besides, I have no intentions of giving away regular long range forecasts for free on a web page.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm
“The data is solid and beyond question. It is also your referenced data. The double dates are just a function of excel because of the 27 day data. You will have to accept the data is correct and shows no correlation, or be judged a fool.”
Clearly you are the fool as you have presented yet another graph with the two plots chronologically misaligned: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw.png
OK Geoff, now lets look at La Nina episodes, here is the plasma speed data with a proper time scale; http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_23114.gif
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
and you can get the dates for each La Nina episode here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Now we are looking for a rising trend in plasma speed during each La Nina episode. So that`s 1964: confirmed, 1967/8: confirmed, 1970/1: confirmed, 1973/5: confirmed, 1984/5: not quite so good early `85, 1988/9: confirmed, 1995/6: poor in late `95 http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_13070.gif , 1988/2000: confirmed, 2007/8: confirmed.
Also, roughly 2yrs from El Chichon and Pinatubo has a strong El Nino bias. And don`t forget the seasonal nature of ENSO, so one would not expect a perfect lock step correlation between the two phenomena. What we are looking for here is meaningful trends, which there are plenty.