When will it start cooling?

Guest post by David Archibald

My papers and those of Jan-Erik Solheim et al predict a significant cooling over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. Solheim’s model predicts that Solar Cycle 24, for the northern hemisphere, will be 0.9º C cooler than Solar Cycle 23. It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.

So when will it cool? As Nir Shaviv and others have noted, the biggest calorimeter on the plant is the oceans. My work on sea level response to solar activity (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/) found that the breakover between sea level rise and sea level fall is a sunspot amplitude of 40:

clip_image002

As this graph from SIDC shows, the current solar amplitude is about 60 in the run-up to solar maximum, expected in May 2013:

clip_image004

The two remaining variables in our quest are the timing of the sunspot number fall below 40 and the length of Solar Cycle 24. So far, Solar Cycle 24 is shaping up almost exactly like Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum:

clip_image006

The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has reached the level at which solar maximum occurs. It usually spends a year at this level before heading back down again:

clip_image008

Similarly, the solar polar field strength (from the Wilcox Solar Observatory) suggest that solar maximum may be up to a year away:

clip_image010

Notwithstanding that solar maximum, as predicted from heliocentric current sheet tilt angle and solar polar field strength, is still a little way off, if Solar Cycle 24 continues to shape up like Solar Cycle 5, sunspot amplitude will fall below 40 from mid-2013. Altrock’s green corona emissions diagramme (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/) suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be 17 years long, ending in 2026. That leaves twelve and a half years of cooling from mid-2013.

From all that, for Solheim’s predicted temperature decline of 0.9º C over the whole of Solar Cycle 24 to be achieved, the decline from mid-2013 will be 1.2º C on average over the then remaining twelve and a half years of the cycle. No doubt the cooling will be back-loaded, making the further decline predicted over Solar Cycle 25 relative to Solar Cycle 24 more readily achievable.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Trevor

Thanks for the update David, clear and concise as usual. Gee it will be interesting to see how this pans out, and if it does where the warmist crowd will run.

Jeff M

So you are saying any time now? Does this mean likley weasily seen lower values in 2013 or are we looking at 2015+ before the global averages befgin to drop? Waht are teh oveans doing? Last I heard to total heat content of the Pacific was significantly down and could be linked to the drought conditions in much of North America.

Ian W

“the decline from mid-2013 will be 1.2º C on average over the then remaining twelve and a half years of the cycle.”
What will be the effect of a 1.2º C drop in temperatures on the ‘grow line’ for food crops? Cold tends to be dry so more drought hitting grain and it looks like the Northern plain states may even get frost before the end of the month after the supposed ‘hottest July on record’ which won’t improve the soy harvest.
Its probably a good time to increase the long term food storage.

wayne Job

The ocean page is showing that the oceans are not hot. The only warm water is gathered around very northern climes, much of it impinging on the arctic.
This is not a good place for warm water to expect a long life. The temperature of the ocean off the West Coast of USA is cool to say the least. Australia is suffering a very cold winter even in tropical and sub tropical areas. I think the cooling has already started and it is only fudged thermometers that is saying different.

Altrock’s green corona emissions diagramme… suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be 17 years long, ending in 2026.
In his presentation at the SPD meeting in June 2012, Altrock suggests:
“the maximum smoothed sunspot number in the northern hemisphere ALREADY OCCURRED at 2011.6 ± 0.3” making cycle 24 short.

Roger Carr

Our generation has known a warm, giving Sun, but the next generation will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.” — David Archibald – March, 2008

(International Conference on Climate Change – Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States)

Bloke down the pub

From the perspective of here in the UK, this year has already been cooling.

So far, Solar Cycle 24 is shaping up almost exactly like Solar Cycle 5
Solar cycle 5 is VERY uncertain http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png so ‘almost exactly’ is not really applicable [and SC5 was not 17 years long]. SC24 may look more like cycle 14 http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png

It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.
Or rather, that the prediction is already rapidly proving wrong.

Bloke down the pub
According to the Met Office the UK has been cooling since the year 2000. Our temperature anomaly is now the same as during the 1730’s
tonyb

Alexandre

Some 0.9ºC cooling until 2026?
That’s a bold prediction. I wish all the media gives full attention to it and follow the results over that period. That would definetely show who knows the science around here…

F. Guimaraes

The solar polar field strength
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
shows that the last 3 reversals occurred on approx. 1980, 1990 and 2000, with a periodicity of ~ 10 years between them, and the inclination of the curve of the polar field with time pretty much defined the rate at which the field would evolve (up or down) into the next period- it’s a straight line at the point of reversal.
The reversal of cycle-24 has not occurred yet and we are nearly 13 years after the last one and the rate of change of the polar field is decreasing (on the average) with time, while in the previous cycles it showed a tendency to increase when approaching the point of reversal.
This seems to suggest that we could have to wait a lot more for the reversal to occur (if it occurs) and, similarly to what happened in the previous cycles, we would be entering a period when the polar field would stay for a long time close to zero after the reversal.
This sounds like a grand minimum of Maunder type to me, which would also be in agreement with the initial predictions/suggestions of the original Livingston-Penn paper, which put a deadline, so to speak, in 2015 after which the sunspots would not be observed for some time.

F. Guimaraes

The Livingston-Penn paper I was referring to is the “unpublished” one,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf

Thanks, very interesting!
Habibullo Abdussamatov has predicted the temperature fall for around 2014.

I wouldn’t put much money on any individual cycle to cause either warming or cooling. Earth has its own faint magnetic cycles with similar ones found in the N. hemisphere temperature records:
Earth…. 85, 50, 35, 28
Arctic… 82, 54, 32, 25
– AMO…- -, 64, 35, 22-26
– CET…. 90, 55, 35, 28
The assembly of the CET cycles is at the peak, so cooling in near future appears to be inevitable. Here is what the extrapolation (with sunspot cycles superimposed) suggests for the near future:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm

Allan MacRae

Good timing. I wrote the following yesterday.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/10/oxburghs-climate-madness/#comment-1056398
[excerpt]
I (we) also predicted in a separate 2002 article that global cooling would return by about 2020 to 2030.
There has been no net global warming for 10-15 years.
I suggest that natural global cooling is imminent, and is a far greater threat to humanity and the environment than global warming ever was.
I see little evidence that this threat of global cooling is recognized, or that any sensible plans are being developed to adapt to it.
Hope I’m wrong about global cooling, but I like our track record to date.
_________
This earlier post summarizes my serious concerns about imminent global cooling.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/missing-the-missing-summer/#comment-958620
[excerpts]
… In 2003 I wrote that global cooling would resume by about 2020 to 2030.

So what happens if I’m wrong? There is some modest (NOT catastrophic) warming, and the majority of humanity actually benefits. History shows that humanity and the environment benefit during warm periods.
And what happens if I’m right? That depends how much global cooling occurs. If cooling is moderate, more early frosts will reduce the grain harvest locally – not a huge problem. If global cooling is severe, frequent and widespread early frosts will significantly reduce the grain harvest, driving up food prices and having a major negative impact on humanity, and particularly the poor.
All in all, I’d prefer to be wrong. I could live with that – and so could many other people.
In the meantime, our politicians continue to obsess about mythical catastrophic manmade global warming (CAGW), despite the fact that there has been NO net global warming for ~10-15 years.
Should severe global cooling occur, humanity will be woefully unprepared.

DirkH

Thanks a lot, good to see someone stick his neck out and dare a prediction. So I have some time to get prepared.

Jeff M says:
Last I heard to total heat content of the Pacific was significantly down and could be linked to the drought conditions in much of North America.
see my posts:
hansen-is-just-wrong – 1
and
hansen-is-just-wrong – 2

beng

Answer — right now. Summer is already on decline — mid-fifties this morning for the first time.

F. Guimaraes

@climatereason says:August 13, 2012 at 4:35 am
“According to the Met Office the UK has been cooling since the year 2000. Our temperature anomaly is now the same as during the 1730′s”
The analysis of Artic seaice extent of the Met Office seems more reliable than the NOAA analysis in my opinion:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png
It shows a coherent prompt response of the ice extent to solar radiation in the last 30 years, which is also coherent with the increased snowfall in Alaska since 2008. The graph of NOAA simply shows nothing. (or, possibly, some political bias mixed with the data… )

David Archibald says:
It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.
Leif Svalgaard says
Or rather, that the prediction is already rapidly proving wrong.
Henry says
No, rather, it already started cooling, as observed from the drop in energy coming through the atmosphere.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
There is something wrong with the people doing the measuring (“hide the decline – my job depends on it!”) or with the results of the measurements themselves. Old story. 3M’s. It is either the man, the method or the machine.

beng says:
August 13, 2012 at 5:45 am
> Answer — right now. Summer is already on decline — mid-fifties this morning for the first time.
In New England, I look for the first wonderful Canadian air mass around mid August. Hasn’t happened yet. This year and past years aren’t anomalous, and we can still roast on Labor Day.

F. Guimaraes

There has been a spike in the solar radiation since mid 2011, that’s what I think is causing a little delay in the cooling trend. How long the delay will last depends on the exact character of the present grand minimum. If it reveal itself as a Dalton type the delay could last a little longer, if it’s a Maunder-type the cooling should be pronounced and start more quickly. The observation of solar radiation in the next year or so will bring the answer to this definition.
Thanks David, for your very interesting post.

A friend of mine bought a snow blower a year and a half ago, after the brutal winter. I don’t think he got to use it this last winter.
I just bought a new air conditioner for my house, so the cooling should start in 3 … 2 … 1 …

I’ve commented for about the last year, that melting arctic ice would expose more warm waters that originated in the tropics to frigid polar sky’s and would make an effective cooling system, similar in design to an automotive cooling system that’s thermostatically controlled.

AnonyMoose

“biggest calorimeter on the plant is the oceans”
You might want to fix that typo to make reuse of the text more pleasant.

Reblogged this on evilincandescentbulb and commented:
Question: Shall prospects of global cooling be considered a disaster too?
Answer: Note: Nikola Scafetta believes that, “The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040.” Scafetta’s forecast is based upon, ‘physical mechanisms’ and ‘the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators,’ such as for examples, ENSO effects and solar activity. Qing-Bin Lu believes that, “a long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades.” Humanity will adapt and global cooling need not necessarily be considered a disaster for everyone. Even so there will be many challenges, as for example, Canadian wheat production. And, there always is the possibility of disaster. Walter Starck noted that if only humans really were able to heat the globe, “and it helps to prevent another ice age, this would be the most fortunate thing that has happened to our species since we barely escaped extinction from an especially cold period during the last ice age some 75,000 years ago.”
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/answer-key-to/

highflight56433

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:29 am
It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.
Or rather, that the prediction is already rapidly proving wrong.
However, we keep getting the word that UHI temps have polluted the average temperature change, and are not a measurement to which we depend to make. In the last century having had a more active sun followed by an increase in global temp, would we not expect that if Mr. sunshine takes a nap that there would follow over time less warming/more cooling?
Furthermore, in reading news from outside the US mainstream media that ignores anything like what happen last winter in SE Europe etc. And as another mentioned happening in Australia, S. Africa, etc. Maybe the old timers in Alaska fishing industry who claim last winter Bering Sea ice was more than they had ever seen should be a consideration as well. Just these little examples that are outside the “lab” that have real time effects on life.
All the “experts” have a scattering of reasons for their “but” arguing. BUT … so do the folks who experience changes in weather where they live a life time. Do the local lakes freeze over in winter? Nope… did they 60 years ago yep. Simple real life observations. BUT… 🙂

Jose

According to “tonyb”…
“According to the Met Office the UK has been cooling since the year 2000. Our temperature anomaly is now the same as during the 1730′s”
According to the Met Office:
CET average temperature in the 1730s: 9.86
CET average temperature since 2000: 10.26
CET average temperature for 2011: 10.70, the second warmest on record after 2006.
Which UK does “tonyb” live in?

John

It wouldn’t surprise me if it doesn’t cool, or cools very little and for a short period of time. If the amount of warming we get from CO2, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, and methane is toward the low end of projections — perhaps even close to Richard Lindzen’s projections — we are still in a warming world. Unless the solar influence is quite a bit larger than most of the solar community think, then to me it would make sense that cooling due to the current solar cycle might not be enough to cool the earth, but might be enough to cancel warming for a few years, everything else equal. That may be what we have been seeing the last few years.
Everything else may not be equal. Real data is the only thing that matters to me at this point. We haven’t seen warming for about 15 years. Arctic sea ice is now lower than during the previous low period, 2007. Chinese sulfate emissions have been steadily increasing. The PDO switched modes about 15 years go. Lots of moving parts. I don’t want to prejudge, let’s just see what happens going forward.

aaron

Leif, could the solar cycle be forward skewed; can the tail drag out?

cooling in Alaska, Anchorage, is worrying. Check my tables.

Doug Proctor

The cooling of 0.9C: global, global land, continental USA, mid-central-north United States?
The ratios of regions to global is economically and socially of greatest signficance. The multiplier going up in the Arctic is 3.5 to 5.0 X the alleged global rate right now; the cooling should be of a similar nature.
Your earlier work was focused on New Haven, New Hampshire, I believe, invovling a 2.4C drop (I could be mistaken in the detail) locally. Globally it was much less. Is this the 0.9C you are writing about?

TRM

David Archibald, HenryP & Leif Svalgaard:
Thanks. I always enjoy these reasoned discussions. You all provide some food for thought.
Cheers and may it be the temp you want where you are for water or snow skiing.

Michael Schaefer

I say cooling is on it’s way already.
“The Summer That Wasn’t” – here in Germany.
I know, I know – Weather is not Climate. Tell me about it when I mount snow tires on my car in September…

Jimbo

Let’s hope it doesn’t start cooling soon as it would be devastating for the poor frogs whose decline was previously blamed on global warming.

BBC, Roger Black, 12 August 2012
More changeable temperatures, a consequence of global warming, may be helping to abet the threat that a lethal fungal disease poses to frogs……………..
On its own, the fungus fared better in cooler conditions, and when the temperature changes were regular.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19199197

Thank you, David Archibald, always enjoy your writings.
K.R. Frank

Lawrence beatty

Now I know this may sound daft but if any cooling due to low sunspot activity is taking place then surely it’s to do with Svensgard’s extra cloud cover; but is this actually happening?
Also if it is and average cloud cover increases doesn’t this too trap heat thus initially making the world warmer or sustaining in a more even temperature which is what the satellite data has been showing over the last 12 years a kind of levelling. Of course the key to this is whether according to still yet unproved theory a quite sun increases cloud cover. If cloud cover has increased I would then suggest heat trapping until a critical point is reached where the oceans lose their heat due to lack of shortwave heating and eventually the heat drains although heat loss was slowed down due to those very same clouds that prevent or slow ocean heating. And surely if all this tripe I’m suggesting were true then there could be a very long (relative to our human impatience) stalemate heating budget situation where less is going in but less is also going out.
But hey what do I know.
It could turn out that the warmist and the coolists don’t know what the hell they are talking about

aaron says:
August 13, 2012 at 7:55 am
Leif, could the solar cycle be forward skewed; can the tail drag out?
Cycle 5 is very ill-defined [not enough observation] and the large ‘opening spike’ is likely not real. The general rule is that for low cycles, the rise time is long, and the ‘tail’ is correspondingly short. So cycle 24 is not going to be 17 years long. More like 12 or 13. So only 9 years to go. The North Pole is reversing polarity right now and the South Pole perhaps in a year or so. Here is a recent talk about polar field reversals http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf The text for each slide is here http://www.leif.org/research/Talking_Points_for_Asymmetric_Reversals.pdf

Allen

When will we have the data to test this hypothesis? Do we have to wait until 2050?

Henry@jose
Now, can you bring me the calibration certificate of the thermometer that they used in 1730?

daveburton

MiCro says (on August 13, 2012 at 6:52 am), “I’ve commented for about the last year, that melting arctic ice would expose more warm waters that originated in the tropics to frigid polar sky’s and would make an effective cooling system, similar in design to an automotive cooling system that’s thermostatically controlled.”
Now that is one of the more interesting comments I’ve read in a while.
What you’re describing is a “negative feedback” mechanism. One of the alarmists’ major arguments for an unstable climate (high “climate sensitivity” to “forcings”) is that reduced albedo of the sea from melting arctic ice would cause increased absorption of sunlight (a “positive feedback”), and accelerated global warming. But does that make sense?
If we ask, “what part of the globe should that cause to warm?” the answer is obviously, “the part with the reduced albedo, of course – i.e., the Arctic Ocean.” But, will reduced ice cover really warm the thus-exposed water? Reduced albedo works both ways: it reduces emission as well as absorption, and a layer of ice insulates the water below, preventing the agitation that transports heat to and from the surface.
Does someone here know the answer to this question: what are the heat flows for open Arctic Ocean water during the summer (which is mostly daytime)? Does heat gained from absorption of sunlight exceed heat lost from longwave radiation emitted? Or are ocean currents, moving water from warmer latitudes, the only reason that Arctic Ocean water ever warms at all, even in the summer?
In other words, is reduction of Arctic sea ice in a warmer world a net positive feedback mechanism (due to increased sunlight absorption), or a net negative feedback mechanism (due to increased radiative heat loss, per MiCro’s observation)?

Matt

Or maybe the prediction is wrong 🙂

David Larsen

The warmist crowd can move back into their caves.

Edim

It kinda already started, but the real thing (very rapid cooling) will start when the solar cycle starts declining (after 2014/2015). By 2020 we will have 30 years of no warming.

Here is a clear and fair comparison of SC24, SC14 and SC5.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC24-14-5.htm

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2012 at 10:18 am
Here is a clear and fair comparison of SC24, SC14 and SC5.
Since we know very little about SC5 [not enough observations], it is impossible to make a ‘fair’ comparison.

MikeP

DaveBurton, Clouds will complicate the feedbacks for the Arctic just as they do elsewhere. More open water means more evaporation which means potentially more clouds which means less sunlight reaching the ocean surface. Or more open water means more evaporation which means more rain in the summer and more snow in early winter which means less overall clouds and more sunlight reaching the ocean surface. This kind of handwaving has already been used to justify greater NH snowfall in the recent past. However, I believe that the reality is complex enough that I don’t think one can simply stare at the ceiling and say exactly what will happen. We need to know a lot more than we already do.

daveburton says:
August 13, 2012 at 9:45 am
” One of the alarmists’ major arguments for an unstable climate (high “climate sensitivity” to “forcings”) is that reduced albedo of the sea from melting arctic ice would cause increased absorption of sunlight (a “positive feedback”), and accelerated global warming. ”
You might enjoy this paper:
http://sun.iwu.edu/~gpouch/Climate/RawData/WaterAlbedo001.pdf
Basically, above 70-80 degrees Lat, a lot of the incoming solar energy gets reflected, not absorbed by water. You can see this as glare on wet surfaces.
I don’t know how to quantify whether the feedback is positive or negative in the long run, but I suspect it’s a lot more difficult to answer than what the warmest would have us believe.

Jeff L

David,
“Solheim’s model predicts that Solar Cycle 24, for the northern hemisphere, will be 0.9º C cooler than Solar Cycle 23. It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.”
1) What is the standard deviation on the 0.9° C reduction forecast. Obviously the r^2 isn’t 1, so there are some error bars. Are we currently within those error bars ?
2) At what point in time do you consider the forecast to be a bust ? The reality might be more complicated – just as temps aren’t just about CO2, they may not also be just about the sun & these complications could lead to a bust in forecast – which isn’t the end of the world – just a good learning opportunity to try to develop a better model, which is in contrast to those chanting the CO2 mantra – there is no desire on that side of the argument to improve the model – just a desire to use their current model to control people’s behaviors.
Looking fwd to your thoughts on these 2 questions.