Do Latest Solar Studies Confirm Upcoming Global Cooling?

Guest post by Matti Vooro

English: Solar Cycle Prediction (Updated 2011/...
Image via Wikipedia

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

192 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 20, 2012 5:25 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:34 pm
There was a small error that has been corrected that makes no visible difference between the two data sets. The NINO3.4 data has only 8 months recorded in the starting year of 1982 and I had assumed 12. It is also impossible (as far as I can see) to align the date labels accurately in excel using 27 day data because excel does not allow fractions in the number of categories tick marks field.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nino3.4_anom_sw1.png
Any fool can see there is no correlation, but lets make sure the graph is correct so that you have absolutely no complaints. You can download the spreadsheet data from
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nino_omni.xls
Now plot the data for yourself and tell me where I am wrong.

February 20, 2012 6:16 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm
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 have already said you dont like the HadSST NINO3.4 raw temperature data so we will need to start with 1982 and the NINO3.4 anomaly data. There is no falling solar wind trend (rising on the inverted data) in 86, 94, 04, 06. Just wishful thinking I think. There is also no falling trend before the 1983, 2003, 2005 and 2007 El Nino’s.
The is also no rising solar wind trend (falling on the inverted data) before the 83-86, 88-90, 95-97, 98-02, 05, 07-09 and 10-11 La Nina periods. All La Nina periods do not show a rising solar wind beforehand. There is also complete disconnects around 94 and 03 showing large spikes in the solar wind without any noticeable change in the ENSO state.
So you can only cherry pick the 98 and 2010 El Nino and at a stretch 92, the rest is just wishful thinking. I have circled some of the dubious areas in the following diagram.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nino3.4_anom_sw2.png

February 20, 2012 6:53 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:01 pm
OK Geoff, now lets look at La Nina episodes,
The correct way to analyze the data is to move the inverted OMNI record forward in relation to the NINO3.4 anomaly data and check for any fit.
I have done so for 1 & 2 years, and the fit is not good. Like I said earlier it doesn’t matter how you manipulate the data the correlation is very poor.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nino3.4_anom_sw_shift1.png
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nino3.4_anom_sw_shift2.png

February 20, 2012 7:06 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm
“Any fool can see there is no correlation, but lets make sure the graph is correct so that you have absolutely no complaints.”
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw1.png
I can see straight away from the big El Nino`s you are around 8 months out off sync in that graph too, so any fool can see that you can`t put a graph together. You will not acknowledge or comment on any detail of my analysis (such as in my last comment), and you continue solely with your meme that there is no correlation, based on your duff graphs. You are wasting my time.

February 20, 2012 7:29 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:06 pm
I can see straight away from the big El Nino`s you are around 8 months out off sync in that graph too, so any fool can see that you can`t put a graph together. You will not acknowledge or comment on any detail of my analysis (such as in my last comment), and you continue solely with your meme that there is no correlation, based on your duff graphs. You are wasting my time.
I have given you the spreadsheet, show me where I am wrong. I told you it is not possible to align the date labels accurately (which is of little importance). The relationship between the two sets of data is plotted correctly.
I have already shown via the shifted data there is NO correlation. Give up Ulric or provide a graph of your own proving me wrong. It might also pay if you read back where I dealt with your comments. Weak comments are all that you have displayed, no data what so ever, try writing a paper using comments only.

February 20, 2012 7:49 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:16 pm
“There is no falling solar wind trend (rising on the inverted data) in 86, 94, 04, 06. Just wishful thinking I think. There is also no falling trend before the 1983, 2003, 2005 and 2007 El Nino’s.”
1986, falling, rises very sharply and falls again: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_28090.gif
1994 and 2004, very large falls: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
2006 is back up thread in a comment to Phil.
1983 is Pinatubo as explained.
2003 actually goes -ve at May due to the SW rising, then falls from then producing Nino conditions.
2005 spiky, but a very good falling trend.
2007 (Jan) is the end of the 2006 El Nino, 2007 finishes on a sharp rise in SW speed producing a La Nina.
“The is also no rising solar wind trend (falling on the inverted data) before the 83-86, 88-90, 95-97, 98-02, 05, 07-09 and 10-11 La Nina periods.”
Now don`t start moving the goalposts on the duration of the La Nina periods:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
“The correct way to analyze the data is to move the inverted OMNI record forward..”
Now that`s you stretching the bow as you put it, is that your get out clause for yet three more duff graphs. How many years are you out on this one ?
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw_shift2.png

February 20, 2012 7:54 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:29 pm
“The relationship between the two sets of data is plotted correctly.”
Complete rubbish, you have not provided one graph with the two plots aligned correctly.

February 20, 2012 8:10 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Complete rubbish, you have not provided one graph with the two plots aligned correctly.
Put up or shut up. Show me where I am wrong. All you have displayed is an ignorance of excel and a desperation to falsify the data because it proves your statements incorrect.
You have the data, plot it your way.

February 20, 2012 9:18 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm
I have included plot dates from both sets of data that clearly show the alignment is good. The compared data is in different bucket sizes, NINO3.4 is 12 buckets per year and the OMNI data is 13-14 buckets per year making the comparison process more difficult but none the less it is accurate, data accuracy should be within 2 weeks. If you had any understanding of excel you would recognize this along with the difficulties of displaying an accurate date label.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22images/nino3.4_anom_sw1.png
So I will now wait for you to agree the data is plotted correctly in relation to each other. If not you must show me clearly where it is wrong.

February 20, 2012 9:20 pm
February 21, 2012 3:35 am

Geoff Sharp says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:10 pm
“Put up or shut up. Show me where I am wrong. All you have displayed is an ignorance of excel and a desperation to falsify the data because it proves your statements incorrect.”
You can check the alignment easiest at the peak of the `97/98 El Nino. As said earlier, the peak is late `97, exactly when the SW speed is lowest. Not one of your graphs align correctly, your latest attempt is another sad failure: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw1.png
And as you think there is no falling trend in SW speed in `94 and 04`, I am clearly talking to a complete idiot and refuse to continue this discussion: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:49 pm
correction:
1983 is El Chichon as explained.

February 21, 2012 5:42 am

Ulric Lyons says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:35 am
You can check the alignment easiest at the peak of the `97/98 El Nino. As said earlier, the peak is late `97, exactly when the SW speed is lowest.
I am clearly talking to a complete idiot and refuse to continue this discussion:

You have obviously not worked with Microsoft excel and experienced some of the inherent downfalls that exist with this product. The Reynolds data I used has been corrupted when performing a zero decimal function on the date column, which looks to have rounded upward instead of removing the decimals, thus explaining the small time shift error with the NINO3.4 data. Once corrected it returns the data back to the original point of 24 hours ago.
You can spit the dummy and take your bat, but in essence nothing has changed, you are disputing fractions as the overall picture is not changed. But I expect you to take this opportunity to point score instead of resolving the scientific method. I will prepare the amended graphs which will be little changed that continue to show solar wind speed has no correlation with ENSO.

February 21, 2012 6:55 am

Geoff Sharp says:
February 21, 2012 at 5:42 am
“..you are disputing fractions..”
Some 8 months out of sync is not a fraction: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw1.png
“I will prepare the amended graphs..”
Don`t bother, I`m fed up of all your duff graphs, I`ll do my own thanks, and stop wasting my time.

February 21, 2012 3:05 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
February 21, 2012 at 6:55 am
Some 8 months out of sync is not a fraction
I apologize for being caught out by an inconsistency with excel. As stated the decimal function rounded up the values in the NINO3.4 date column. The data I was cross checking was corrupted.
The amended graph continues to show a non correlation between NINO3.4 anom and OMNI solar wind speed and is practically the same as the previous comparisons. You have shown no ability or willingness to provide a proper comparison between the 2 data sets which I have attempted to do in good faith, albeit it with a few hiccups along the way. I believe the latest version is accurate and I provide the spreadsheet and graph for anyone that might like to use or check, in the interest of furthering our climate knowledge.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_swind.xls
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw3.png

February 26, 2012 12:51 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Considering that you are convinced that there is correlation between the size of solar cycles and your power wave: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/powerwave3.png
I would seek a range of alternative appraisals.

February 27, 2012 11:10 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
February 26, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Considering that you are convinced that there is correlation between the size of solar cycles and your power wave: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/powerwave3.png
I would seek a range of alternative appraisals.

So I will take it by your lack of criticism and refusal to supply your own data, that the amended solar wind speed vs NINO3.4 graph is correct. This should finish any claims on correlation.
I can see you, like Leif has no understanding of the two basic principles of the powerwave. We are not permitted to discuss this theory on WUWT. Have a read of the following article which may help you understand the theory (not holding too many hopes).
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/218

March 13, 2012 11:48 am

We should see at least a 0.15 deg F drop in temperature per year up to 2030.

1 6 7 8