Guest post by David Archibald
The first prediction of the current climatic minimum was made by Hubbert Lamb in 1970 in a report (Weiss and Lamb) for the German Navy. He did it by making a reconstructed record of the average frequency of south-westerly surface winds in England since 1340. Quoting Lamb “We sense a cycle or periodicity of close to 200 years in length.” and “There may be a valuable indication of the origin of this apparent 200 year recurrence tendency, in that the sharp declines of the south-westerly wind indicated in the late 1300s, 1560s, 1740s-1770s and now, in each case fell at about the end of a sequence of sunspot cycles which built up to periods of exceptionally great solar disturbance (around 1360-80, the 1570s, the 1770s, the 1950s and more recently). The frequency maxima of the south-westerly wind, and evidence of warm climate periods in Europe sustained over several decades, all bear a similar relationship to these variations of the Sun’s activity.”
Following is Figure 11.6 from Lamb’s 1988 book “Weather, Climate and Human Affairs”:
The frequency of the southwest wind at London is shown by the solid line. A tentative forecast (broken line) is made simply by moving the whole curve 200 years to the right, i.e. the forecast implied by accepting the apparent 200 year recurring oscillation shown by the series.
The most successful prediction of the current minimum, in terms of lead time and detail, was made by two researchers in the US later that decade. Using tree ring data from redwoods in Kings Canyon in California, in 1979 Libby and Pandolfi forecast that, “by running this function into the future we have made a prediction of the climate to be expected in King’s Canyon; the prediction is that the climate will continue to deteriorate on the average, but that after our present cooling-off of more than the average decay in climate, there will be a temporary warming up followed by a greater rate of cooling-off.”
In a Los Angeles Times interview, Libby and Pandolfi gave a more detailed forecast:
“The forecast is for continued cool weather all over the Earth through the mid-1980s, with a global warming trend setting in thereafter for the rest of the century – followed by a severe cold snap that might well last through the first half of the 21st century.”
“Both the isotope record and the thermometer record show neat agreement for the cold decades at the ends of the 17th and 18th centuries, when temperatures fell by 1-10th to 2-10ths of a degree.”
“More recently, the world has enjoyed an agricultural boom during the past 70 years or so. The Earth’s annual average temperature has risen by about 1 to 1½ degrees, about as much of an increase as the decrease during the Little Ice Ages, during this interval.
When she and Pandolfi project their curves into the future, they show lower average temperatures from now thorugh the mid-1980s. “Then,” Dr. Libby added, “we see a warming trend (by about a quarter of 1 degree Fahrenheit) globally to around the year 2000. And then it will get really cold – if we believe our projections. This has to be tested.”
How cold? “Easily one or two degrees,” she replied, “and maybe even three or four degrees.”
The remarkable thing about the Libby and Pandolfi prediction is that they got the fine detail right, up to the current day, which gives a lot of credence to their projection for the next fifty years.
In 2003, two solar physicists, Schatten and Tobiska, published a paper which included the following prediction: “The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”
The next prediction of the current minimum was made by Clilverd et al in 2006 using low-frequency solar oscillations:
Clilverd predicted that Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would have amplitudes similar to that of Solar Cycles 5 and 6 of the Dalton Minimum before a return to more normal levels mid-century.
A Finnish tree ring study (http://lustiag.pp.fi/holocene_trends1000_INQUA.pdf) followed in 2007 – Timonen et al. This is a portion of a figure from that study showing a forecast cold period starting about 2015 that is deeper and broader than any cold period in the previous 500 years:
Summary
Libby and Pandolfi provided timely warning of the current cooling more than thirty years ago, through the proper use of tree ring data. Given the enormous societal and financial consequences of that cooling, it would be good application of climate research funds to have a number of groups replicate and update the Libby and Pandolfi work.
References
Clilverd. M.A., Clarke, E., Ulich, T., Rishbeth, H. and Jarvis, M.J., 2006 “predicting Solar Cycle 24 and beyond” Space Weather, Vol. 4, So9005, doi:10.1029/2005SW000207
Libby, L.M. and Pandolfi, L.J. 1979, Tree Thermometers and Commodities: Historic Climate Indicators, Environment International Vol 2, pp 317-333
Schatten, K.H. and W.K.Tobiska 2003, Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 35 (3), 6.03
Timonen, M., Helema, S., Holopainen, J., Ogurtsov, M., Eronen, M., Lindholm, M., Merilainen, J and Mielikainen, K. 2007 “Climate patterns in Northern Fennoscandinavia during the Last Millenium” Xvii INQUA Congress
Weiss, I. and Lamb, H.H. 1970 ‘Die Zunahme der Wellenhohen in jungster Ziet in den Operationsgebieten der Bundesmarine, ihre vermutliche Ursachen and ihre voraussichtliche weitere Entwicklung, Fachlich Mitteilungen, Nr. 160, Porz-Wahn, Geophysikalisher Bertungsdiesnt der Bundeswehr.
izen:
Please try harder. Your history of posts on WUWT shows you are capable of better trolling than your post at May 21, 2012 at 5:59 am.
Global temperature has cooled since the high it had in 1998. Colder global temperature is global cooling; it is NOT global warming.
And we have been warming from the Little Ice Age for centuries. So, of course, recent global temperatures are among the highest for centuries. This is like climbing over a hill: when you reach the top and start down the other side then all your next few steps are among the highest you have made, but you are not climbing up.
I am sure that the concepts of warming vs cooling and up vs down are within your intellectual capability if you try.
Richard
Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2012 at 6:28 am
“I know. To be more specific what is required is warming of the stratosphere towards the poles relative to the temperature at the same height over the equator.”
Not with a SSW, it`s only between one pole and the equator, and the warming goes lower down at the pole.
“and now with the less active sun that cooling has stopped and there may now be some warming.”
It does not look so: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
David Archibald says
….groups replicate and update the Libby and Pandolfi work.
Henry says
no need. we can do it a lot simpler.Just replicate my work.
I sampled 9 weather stations in South Africa and essentially I got the same results as reported here:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
(45 weather stations)
Maxima could be falling now by about 0.2 degrees C per annum
Earth’s energy store (oceans, vegetation, hydrological cycles, weather etc.) will be exhausted soon,
after which average temps. will fall as well, quite dramatically.
seeing that we are already cooling since 1994/5
I am afraid this is bad news.
Barry Center says:
May 21, 2012 at 4:38 am
“– can you elaberate on the theory behind your “analogues”?.
I have no idea what is meant here.”
Sure, and it is very based on observations rather than theory. Short term temperature deviations are correlated to heliocentric planetary configurations, then previous occasions when very similar configurations have occurred become analogues. For example the 1962/3 winter has analogues in winter 1783/4, 1602, and 829 and 1010 when the Nile froze. A slightly looser example happened in mid 2004, giving a very hard S.H. winter and noticeably taking a notch out of global temperatures. It is clear to me that it is due to short term angular relationships, rather than any solar barycenter/tidal effects.
izen says:
May 21, 2012 at 5:59 am
The prediction in 1979 that it would cool until the mid/late 80s, then warm by ~0.3degC, the cool from 2000 is … Well, rubbish….Each decade since 1979 has been warmer than the last by at least 0.13degC
To add to what Richard said, see the following graphs from 2002 for 6 data sets. It shows the last decade and the thing to note is that the last 5 years of the past decade is, for the most part, cooler than the first 5 years of the decade. So it has been cooling for the past decade, despite starting off warm.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/plot/uah/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend/plot/wti/from:2002/plot/wti/from:2002/trend
On mechanisms which may cause cyclicity in the global climate? Easy! The solar system is full of big lumps of rock (and gas) going around the sun in regular orbits. And the solar system goes around the galactic centre on a geological time scale.
tonyb says:
May 21, 2012 at 1:37 am
Mosh was just having a little dig I reckon – which is fine of course, but sometimes the most basic of analysis can reveal the most interesting information – not seeing the wood for the trees and all that.
anecdotal evidence of which you speak is indeed vital – but in keeping with past (and present – if we are talking CRU’s data!) weather/climate records, they must be tempered with a degree (excuse the pun) of common sense. I mean, for example, would someone who was writing a diary have potentially exaggerated their observations for appropriate artistic effect?
anyway – I hope you enjoyed your day in Exeter.
regards
Kev
Ulric, see here:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited.
This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming
since 1996.”
Link has changed, see here:
http://88.167.97.19/albums/files/TMTisFree/Documents/Climate/Recent_Stratospheric_Temperature_Observed_from_Satellite_Measurements_5_53.pdf
kevinuk
Samuel Pepys certainly embellished his diaries. The very dry 14th Century chroniclers at Exeter Cathedral certainly didn’t 🙂
tonyb
if it gets very much colder, we may have to burn politicians and bureaucrats to keep warm. 🙁
I was stopped in a layby ‘somewhere in central Austria’ in late July 2009, having a hot cup of coffee because it was so bloody cold, when another motorcyclist rolled in (I was the first British biker he had seen since leaving Calais). He’d only just got away from the hotel (this was about mid day), because they’d been snowed in.
Thankfully it warmed up quite nicely that day, down into Italy, and on into Hungary (touched about 40 deg C), until about 11:00pm, when it went sub zero, and I had to stop and put layers of thermals on, and even the heated grips couldn’t cope on full,
July and August in Hungary last year was even worse. Thunder, lightning, torrential rain, landslides, floods, over 20 deg C cooler by day, and over 20 deg cooler by night (luckily I had taken a 4 season sleeping bag with me, and my tent held out), down to freezing. It was so bad, one day all of us on the site went to a local hot springs to warm up (that was absolute bliss!).
It was so cold all across Europe (for example it was so cold going down through the Ardennes, I stopped and made coffee in a rest area, and even with thermals on, I was getting colder, so got moving again fast), that insect life was notable by its absence, until getting into Hungary (and that disappeared after 3 days, when the cold weather caught up with me). In something like 1500 miles, I didn’t have to clean my visor, the windshield, or the headlight, once. On the way back (late August), the only day I had with reasonable insect life, was on a single nice day touring around Luxembourg.
If insect levels are going to keep being hammered like that, maybe we should all put some food out for the birds (I have this year, because round here, insect levels are very poor still)?
The fine detail? a quarter of a degree fahrenheit isn’t the same as .7 degrees Celsius.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/nasahathaways-updated-solar-cycle-prediction-smallest-in-100-years/#comment-974760
blogoriginator says: May 3, 2012 at 12:45 am
Can anybody tell me what kind of Global Temperature we’re facing in the next ten years?
____________________
History – 2002:
On 1 September 2002, I wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald:
” If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature [as I believe it is] rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
This conclusion was based on decades of study, and a phone call to Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton University Paleoclimatologist, who had studied natural warming and cooling cycles that he believed were related to the Gleissberg (Wolf) Cycle.
We were also aware of Hathaway’s now-failed prediction of SC24 peaking at Rmax ~160, and the prediction by NASA? that SC25 would be very weak.
At the time, I was (and still am) unsure if the warming and cooling cycle were better related to the PDO than the Gleissberg – If it is the PDO, global cooling could commence sooner, perhaps about now.
____________________
Update – 2012:
Recent information include the much-lower prediction of an Rmax of ~60 for SC24, and recent work, which I have scanned but not studied, on solar impacts on Earth’s climate.
Accordingly, I have little choice but to hold to my 2002 statement – the next natural global cooling period will commence by 2020-2030.
Caveat: It is possible we were “late” in this prediction, and that global cooling has already begun, but it is not yet serious or significant.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2012 at 2:32 am
So if the level of solar activity affects the global air circulation and consequent cloudiness then that would turn up in the tree ring data.
======
Agreed, the consistent point is that trees are not measuring temperature (except indirectly) and the climate science methodology of selecting trees that correlate with temperature as a means of “calibrating” the trees is statistically bogus. It shows a level of gross statistical incompetence or outright fraud or both.
Climate science shot itself in the foot by trying to hide the divergence problem. They assumed trees suddenly became an unreliable proxy for temperature because the trees were not showing what the climate scientists expected to see. Rather than question their assumptions and theories, they concluded that the fault was with the trees. That something had happened to the trees to make them unreliable thermometers.
While in point of fact the trees were never reliable thermometers. Instead the trees were showing sensitivity to climate change, ahead of the thermometers. For example, place a pot of water on the stove and turn on the heat. What trees are measuring is the setting on the stove, not the temperature of the pot of water.
After the pot of water is warm, turn off the heat. Again what the trees are measuring is that the heat has been turned off, long before the water cools. Had mainstream climate science seen the tree data in this light, then the divergence makes perfect sense.
The current leveling in temperatures was successfully predicted by the tree ring divergence. The trees are not measuring temperature, they are measuring the energy source that drives temperature. They are not the same.
Mainstream climate science completely failed to see this because they believed that tree rings were directly measuring temperature. Thus when the divergence occurred, they did not recognize the significance and incorrectly predicted accelerating increase in temperatures, while the trees were predicting the opposite.
The trees were correct, while the climate scientists were not.
Rastech says:
May 21, 2012 at 9:03 am
if it gets very much colder, we may have to burn politicians and bureaucrats to keep warm. 🙁
===
Good idea. Burning dung is a sustainable energy source, in line with UN policy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/#more-56210
Allan MacRae says: February 9, 2012 at 12:36 am
In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.
How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?
___________________________________________
This is a good start (regarding Nicola’s 10Feb2012 post).
…
I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections) ? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
Hope I am wrong,
@- Werner Brozek says:
“To add to what Richard said, see the following graphs from 2002 for 6 data sets. It shows the last decade and the thing to note is that the last 5 years of the past decade is, for the most part, cooler than the first 5 years of the decade. So it has been cooling for the past decade, despite starting off warm.”
Do you think a five year period is capable of showing a 0.07degC trend when the ENSO fluctuations cause variations of more than 0.2degC over a shorter period?!
Both 1998 and part of the first half of the 2k decade were warmer El Nino conditions.
The most recent few years have been one of the longest and strongest cooler La Nina conditions.
I am sure that you would point out if I invoked the warming from an El Nino event as AGW.
It is just as wrong to invoke La Nina conditions as evidence of some imminent cooling trend, one without any physical justification, just a lot of hand-waving about past patterns!
The Texas weatherman has a good take on the difference between ENSO conditions, plotting them seperately is revealing…..
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/
DirkH (May 21, 2012 at 4:48 am) wrote:
“This looks enormously important.”
It is Dirk — it’s at least on par with the discovery of the quasibiennial oscillation (QBO).
May we all take a moment to feel a bit of humility in the face of nature’s beauty. Alarmists: Out of respect for our Mother Earth and our Father Sun, please join in.
Allan MacRae says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/premonitions-of-the-fall-in-temperature/#comment-990620
Henry says
Personally I think the climate is on this curve:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
Study this curve carefully and you will see that around 1994 temps went down (negative/decline) as correctly predicted by me here whereas the green line from the IPCC still wants us to believe that it goes the other way (positive/incline).
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
However my stats show that the decline in heat from the sun started in 1994/1995 so I am hoping that the Orssengo curve must go a little bit more to the left.
@Stephen Fisher Wilde (May 21, 2012 at 6:28 am)
Absolutes are not constrained in the same manner as differentials by the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.
“In automobiles and other wheeled vehicles, a differential allows the driving roadwheels to rotate at different speeds. This is necessary when the vehicle turns, making the wheel that is travelling around the outside of the turning curve roll farther and faster than the other. […] If the engine is running at a constant speed, the rotational speed of each driving wheel can vary, but the sum (or average) of the two wheels’ speeds can not change. An increase in the speed of one wheel must be balanced by an equal decrease in the speed of the other.
It may seem illogical that the speed of one input shaft can determine the speeds of two output shafts, which are allowed to vary. Logically, the number of inputs should be at least as great as the number of outputs. However, the system has another constraint. The ratio of the speeds of the two driving wheels equals the ratio of the radii of the paths around which the two wheels are rolling, which is determined by the track-width of the vehicle (the distance between the driving wheels) and the radius of the turn. Thus the system does not have one input and two independent outputs. It has two inputs and two outputs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_%28mechanical_device%29
If the absolutes are in lockstep with the solar cycle as you claim, you will be able to demonstrate this convincingly with a single graph and no words.
Regards.
theduke says:
200 years in the lifespan of the sun is little more than nothing in time. That the sun would be keeping such a schedule seems unlikely to me.
What about an 11-year cycle?
izen:
At May 21, 2012 at 11:03 am you ask Werner Brozek and – by implication – me;
I answer;
No, but so what? Your question has no relation to the issue which you raised and that Werner and I each answered.
You claimed the globed is warming and not cooling. And as evidence of that assertion you cited average decadal temperature anomalies saying at May 21, 2012 at 5:59 am
I pointed out that global temperature has not again risen to the high it had in 1998 so there has been global cooling (n.b. not warming) since then.
And Werner pointed out that the first half of the last ten year period was warmer than the second half: i.e. the most recent data indicates the globe is cooling.
So, the appropriate questions are to you and are;
Do you think a ten year period is capable of showing a 0.07degC trend when the ENSO fluctuations cause variations of more than 0.2degC over a shorter period?!Do you think a ten year period is capable of showing a 0.07degC trend when the ENSO fluctuations cause variations of more than 0.2degC over a similar period?!
Or are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?
Richard
theduke says:
May 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm
I’m with Pamela. Whenever I start hearing about 200-year cycles and such, my skeptic side starts to kick in…..
___________________________
You might try reading what Richard Feynman’s sister Dr. Joan Feynman has to say about her research on that.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/nilef-20070319.html
PAPER: http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/39770/1/06-1256.pdf
Yes it is “wiggle matching” but that is how we start our scientific journey. An apple bops us on the head and we take notice and try to figure out “WHY?”
So wiggle matching is a first step. Several scientists such as Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk Yung, (above) John Eddy, Alexandre Joukoff, physicist Richard Willson, and Henrik Svensmark to name just a few are working on the problem of how the sun varies and what effect it has on climate. The links attached to the name are brief articles of what is being done.
Is the “Jury In” of course not. Climate science is an infant science and that is why CAGW is so bad at this time. It stifles the creative thinking necessary for quick advancement.
Gail Combs:
I agree your post at May 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm. Indeed, I applaud it.
Please see my post above at May 21, 2012 at 4:21 am which says much the same as your post.
Richard
Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2012 at 8:35 am
More recent: http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/stratosphere_temperature_anomaly.jpg