AGU: Link found between cold European winters and solar activity

“Skaters can only do this race every 10 or 11 years because that’s when the rivers freeze up,” Sirocko said. “I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”

Skaters take to frozen-over canals in the Netherlands in Feb. 2012. (Credit: De Vries)
From the American Geophysical Union

WASHINGTON – Scientists have long suspected that the Sun’s 11-year cycle influences climate of certain regions on Earth. Yet records of average, seasonal temperatures do not date back far enough to confirm any patterns. Now, armed with a unique proxy, an international team of researchers show that unusually cold winters in Central Europe are related to low solar activity – when sunspot numbers are minimal. The freezing of Germany’s largest river, the Rhine, is the key.

Although the Earth’s surface overall continues to warm, the new analysis has revealed a correlation between periods of low activity of the Sun and of some cooling – on a limited, regional scale in Central Europe, along the Rhine.

“The advantage with studying the Rhine is because it’s a very simple measurement,” said Frank Sirocko lead author of a paper on the study and professor of Sedimentology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Geosciences of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. “Freezing is special in that it’s like an on-off mode. Either there is ice or there is no ice.”

From the early 19th through mid-20th centuries, riverboat men used the Rhine for cargo transport. And so docks along the river have annual records of when ice clogged the waterway and stymied shipping. The scientists used these easily-accessible documents, as well as additional historical accounts, to determine the number of freezing episodes since 1780.

Sirocko and his colleagues found that between 1780 and 1963, the Rhine froze in multiple places 14 different times. The sheer size of the river means it takes extremely cold temperatures to freeze over making freezing episodes a good proxy for very cold winters in the region, Sirocko said.

Mapping the freezing episodes against the solar activity’s 11-year cycle – a cycle of the Sun’s varying magnetic strength and thus total radiation output – Sirocko and his colleagues determined that ten of the fourteen freezes occurred during years around when the Sun had minimal sunspots. Using statistical methods, the scientists calculated that there is a 99 percent chance that extremely cold Central European winters and low solar activity are inherently linked.

“We provide, for the first time, statistically robust evidence that the succession of cold winters during the last 230 years in Central Europe has a common cause,” Sirocko said.

With the new paper, Sirocko and his colleagues have added to the research linking solar variability with climate, said Thomas Crowley, Director of the Scottish Alliance for Geoscience, Environment, and Society, who was not involved with the study.

“There is some suspension of belief in this link,” Crowley said, “and this study tilts the argument more towards thinking there really is something to this link. If you have more statistical evidence to support this explanation, one is more likely to say it’s true.”

The study, conducted by researchers at Johannes Gutenberg and the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, Switzerland, is set to be published August 25 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

When sunspot numbers are down, the Sun emits less ultraviolet radiation. Less radiation means less heating of Earth’s atmosphere, which sparks a change in the circulation patterns of the two lowest atmospheric levels, the troposphere and stratosphere. Such changes lead to climatic phenomena such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, a pattern of atmospheric pressure variations that influences wind patterns in the North Atlantic and weather behavior in regions in and around Europe.

“Due to this indirect effect, the solar cycle does not impact hemispherically averaged temperatures, but only leads to regional temperature anomalies,” said Stephan Pfahl, a co-author of the study who is now at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich.

The authors show that this change in atmospheric circulation leads to cooling in parts of Central Europe but warming in other European countries, such as Iceland. So, sunspots don’t necessarily cool the entire globe – their cooling effect is more localized, Sirocko said.

In fact, studies have suggested that the extremely cold European winters of 2010 and 2011 were the result of the North Atlantic Oscillation, which Sirocko and his team now link to the low solar activity during that time.

The 2010 and 2011 European winters were so cold that they resulted in record lows for the month of November in certain countries. Some who dispute the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change argue that this two-year period shows that Earth’s climate is not getting any warmer. But climate is a complex system, Sirocko said. And a short-term, localized dip in temperatures only temporarily masks the effects of a warming world.

“Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has [at least] five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.”

Moreover, the researchers also point out that, despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is increasing and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine River has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change.

To establish a more complete record of past temperature dips, the researchers are looking to other proxies, such as the spread of disease and migratory habits.

“Disease can be transported by insects and rats, but during a strong freezing year that is not likely,” said Sirocko. “Also, Romans used the Rhine to defend against the Germanics, but as soon as the river froze people could move across it. The freezing of the Rhine is very important on historical timescales.”

It wasn’t, however, the Rhine that first got Sirocko to thinking about the connection between freezing rivers and sunspot activity. In fact, it was a 125-mile ice-skating race he attended over 20 years ago in the Netherlands that sparked the scientist’s idea.

“Skaters can only do this race every 10 or 11 years because that’s when the rivers freeze up,” Sirocko said. “I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”

###

Title:

“Solar influence on winter severity in central Europe”

Abstract:

The last two winters in central Europe were unusually cold in comparison to the years before. Meteorological data, mainly from the last 50 years, and modelling studies have suggested that both solar activity and El Niño strength may influence such central European winter coldness. To investigate the mechanisms behind this in a statistically robust way and to test which of the two factors was more important during the last 230 years back into the Little Ice Age, we use historical reports of freezing of the river Rhine. The historical data show that 10 of the 14 freeze years occurred close to sunspot minima and only one during a year of moderate El Niño. This solar influence is underpinned by corresponding atmospheric circulation anomalies in reanalysis data covering the

period 1871 to 2008. Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.

Authors:

Frank Sirocko and Heiko Brunck: Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz;

Stephan Pfahl: Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.

==============================================================

I hope to have a copy of the paper soon – Anthony

UPDATE: Dr. Leif Svalgaard provides the paper, as did the AGU press agent Kate Ramsayer per my emailed request, along with a copyright admonishment. Thank you both. Figure 6a and 6b are interesting:

From the paper:

In agreement with the 20th Century Reanalysis central European temperature observations from the CRUTEM3 dataset [Brohan et al., 2006] from winters directly following a sunspot minimum are also significantly lower than the average temperature during the remaining winter seasons (Fig. 6a). The relation between cold winter conditions and sunspot activity is thus not specific to rivers alone (which could also be affected by a number of additional factors, for example warm water from the numerous powerplants constructed along the river). The strong variations of the time series in Fig. 6a, which are largely independent of the sunspot cycle, show the important role of internal, stochastic variability of the atmosphere for European winter temperatures. The relation shown above holds true only for central European temperatures. When the CRUTEM3 winter temperature data are averaged over the whole Northern Hemisphere, no relation to the solar minima is found.

This suggests a regional circulation pattern effect, as the authors state connected to figure 5a and 5b:

To identify the atmospheric circulation anomalies in the North Atlantic and European region associated with cold winters during solar minima, Fig. 5a shows the difference in the geopotential height fields at 500 hPa (Z500) between the winters directly following a year with a sunspot minimum and the remainder of the period 1871 to 2008, obtained from the 20th Century Reanalysis dataset [Compo et al., 1996]. A strong, statistically significant positive anomaly occurs over the eastern North Atlantic in the region of Iceland, while negative anomalies are found over the Iberian peninsula and over north-eastern Europe (the latter being not significant). These Z500 anomalies are associated with an enhanced northerly flow and cold air advection from the Arctic and Scandinavia

towards central Europe, leading to significantly negative temperature anomalies over England, France and western Germany (Fig. 5b). The centre of the cooling is in the region of southern England, the Benelux countries and western Germany down to middle Rhine area. Eastern and southern Germany are not effected as much as the above region. Accordingly, it is only the Rhine and possible some Dutch rivers that provide the possibility to reconstruct this specific temperature anomaly pattern, which corresponds to an anomalously negative NAO and a preference for blockings over the eastern North Atlantic.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
308 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Entropic man
August 27, 2012 4:07 am

HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 11:59 pm
If you give me the data I may be able to prove this conclusively by doing a statistical analysis
———————–
You can get tabulated data through this page.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
I think downloadable digital data are also available from the same website.

August 27, 2012 7:59 am

Geoff Sharp says:
August 26, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Why don’t you simply show a graph of the SC24 SIDC values less the Waldmeier factor.
As it does not matter if you decrease the new or increase the old by the same factor, you can see from what I already showed: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24-overlap.png that the smoothed yearly values [blue and black curves] are at the same level now for both cycles.
If you want to further improve the accuracy so that the pre 1945 cycles can be compared you would also allow a deduction for the recent SIDC trend of more splitting of groups (as you have observed), along with an allowance for the increased speck ratio, and a small allowance for the difference in technology.
These are all included in the ~20% factor: 16% for the weighting, 4% for the group splitting, and there is no increased speck ratio [on the contrary, the specks are disappearing] and there is no allowance needed for technology as Thomas Friedly observing with Wolf’s original standard 8 cm telescope demonstrates.
But even just allowing for Waldmeier anyone can see SC5 is so far a better match.
Here is a comparison of Wolf’s numbers for SC5, Wolfer’s for SC14 [both corrected for the Waldmeier jump], and SIDC SC24: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Nobody informed me or anybody about a 100 year weather cycle.
Because there isn’t any. There may be a 60-yr PDO cycle
note that by 1920 people were not so much concerned as surprised by the disappearing arctic ice.
The Earth was warming in the 1st half of the 20th century [not cooling as you claim]

August 27, 2012 10:53 am

Geoff Sharp says:
August 26, 2012 at 9:59 pm
But even just allowing for Waldmeier anyone can see SC5 is so far a better match.
Considering the great uncertainty in SC5, the best that can be said is that there is no firm evidence for any difference between cycles 5, 14, 24, all ~100 years apart.
Here is a comparison of Wolf’s numbers for SC5, Wolfer’s for SC14 [both corrected for the Waldmeier jump], and SIDC SC24: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png

August 27, 2012 11:23 am

Leif says
Nobody informed me or anybody about a 100 year weather cycle.
Because there isn’t any. There may be a 60-yr PDO cycle
The Earth was warming in the 1st half of the 20th century [not cooling as you claim]
Henry@Leif
You just admitted to V that there is a 100 year solar cycle and we know from observing the ozone concentration that this solar cycle appears to be affecting the ozone levels subsequently causing the relevant 100 year weather cycle, consisting of 50 years of cooling and 50 years of warming, like an a-c wave. Arnold may have gotten the mechanism wrong, – what did he know about ozone? – but his observations linking the solar cycle to the nile floods are very much correct.
In fact, it appears that you want to deny my results, here, i.e.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
which shows that the energy input into earth is falling from 1995. We discussed this earlier, how much colder it got since 2000 in places like Dublin, Anchorage and Kimberley. These poor tomatoes people in Anchorage still believe that they can still carry farming. Don’t you think it is criminal of you not to tell them it will get a lot worse?
Obviously if you admit that energy-in is falling, then why not accept that it will take a few decades for ice to come back after a warming period, as clearly, happened in 1920.
So my question to you is: do you accept or do you deny that total energy input into earth has been falling since 1995?

August 27, 2012 11:40 am

HenryP says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:23 am
You just admitted to V that there is a 100 year solar cycle
Of course, but that does not mean that there is a 100-yr climate cycle. Observations show there is not, but rather a 60-yr cycle.
So my question to you is: do you accept or do you deny that total energy input into earth has been falling since 1995?
In 1995 total energy input was 1361.1 W/m2, in 2012 [so far] 1361.5 W/m2. Judge for yourself.

August 27, 2012 12:16 pm

Henry@Leif
Clearly, there is some lag between the 50 + and 50 – of the ca. 100-105 year energy-in cycle causing (what looks like) the 60 year PDO,
The results you quote are for TSI above the atmosphere, not at sea level. So you ignored my argument that the solar cycle must be affecting ozone levels.
So my question to you is: do you accept (my results) or do you deny that total energy input into earth has been falling since 1995?

August 27, 2012 12:33 pm

HenryP says:
August 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Clearly, there is some lag between the 50 + and 50 – of the ca. 100-105 year energy-in cycle causing (what looks like) the 60 year PDO
A lag does not change a 100-year cycle into a 60-yr cycle…
So you ignored my argument that the solar cycle must be affecting ozone levels.
Ozone absorbs radiation, so lower solar activity with lower ozone should absorb less radiation, meaning that more radiation will reach the surface.
So my question to you is: do you accept (my results) or do you deny that total energy input into earth has been falling since 1995?
Obviously, your claim does not hold up. What the final amount of energy input is depends much more on the albedo and cloud cover. People claim [see a recent WUWT post] that clouds have decreased, so based on that one would expect more input.

August 27, 2012 12:36 pm

Henry says
:::
Remember PDO is like energy-out
Cycles of energy in (from above) are not exactly the same as energy out (from inside earth= ambient)

August 27, 2012 1:13 pm

HenryP says:
August 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Remember PDO is like energy-out
what goes in comes out.

August 27, 2012 6:38 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 7:59 am
These are all included in the ~20% factor: 16% for the weighting, 4% for the group splitting, and there is no increased speck ratio [on the contrary, the specks are disappearing] and there is no allowance needed for technology as Thomas Friedly observing with Wolf’s original standard 8 cm telescope demonstrates.
You chop and change to suit your situation. I have seen you quote 25%, 22% 20% and now 16% for the Waldmeier factor. The extra group splitting is a recent phenomenon and outside of the Waldmeier factor. The speck ratio is increasing not decreasing, this is simply seen in my count. I very accurately filter out all groups that do not contain at least a spot size of 2, then I use the SIDC values for the remainder. The higher the speck ratio the further the LSC moves away from the SIDC count. The gap between the two counts is rising as the cycle progresses which is mainly attributed to the speck ratio.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/lsc_sidc.png
To get near SC14 the current cycle over the next year will need to see several monthly peaks above 90. Good luck on that one.

August 27, 2012 7:54 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm
You chop and change to suit your situation. I have seen you quote 25%, 22% 20%
The values 20% and up are various determinations of the combined effect, as you would know if you had followed the various methods. The spread of values is an indication of the robustness of the claim.
and now 16% for the Waldmeier factor.
I and Marco at Locarno have now carefully evaluated the effect [over almost a year] only from the weighting and that is 16+/-2%. The rest is from using Waldmeier’s group classification introduced in the 1940s.
The extra group splitting is a recent phenomenon and outside of the Waldmeier factor.
No, the group influence goes all the way back to Waldmeier. Here are some drawings of Cortesi’s from 1981 where you can see the effect in action:
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/1981/loc-d19810412.JPG
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/1981/loc-d19810930.JPG
also note the large number of ‘specks’
The speck ratio is increasing not decreasing, this is simply seen in my count.
Your count is not valid science [based on a false premise], so what you think you see is not relevant. The very careful analysis by SIDC shows that there is a widening deficit of small spots: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Lefevre.pdf
To get near SC14 the current cycle over the next year will need to see several monthly peaks above 90. Good luck on that one.
We are already at SC14 level, and have already had some peaks near and above 90: e.g. Oct, 2011 at 88 and Nov. 2011 at 96.7. Luck has nothing to do with facts.

August 27, 2012 8:17 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm
The extra group splitting is a recent phenomenon and outside of the Waldmeier factor.
Figure 9 in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Kopecky-1980.pdf shows how the group number in the Zurich data jumped up over that of other observatories from 1945 on, showing the effect of Waldmeier’s new classification of groups.

August 27, 2012 8:34 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm
The extra group splitting is a recent phenomenon and outside of the Waldmeier factor.
No, in fact, Kopecky et al [page 269, left column] in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Kopecky-1980.pdf specifically note that “according to Zelenka (1979a), the introduction of group classification with regard to their morphological evolution by Waldmeier and Brunner, has led to increased estimates of g [number of groups] in comparison with Wolfer’s estimates”

August 27, 2012 9:12 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 8:34 pm
I am quite aware of the group classification introduced by Waldmeier. The recent trend is a higher incidence of hiving off specks that surround a group etc. Your many answers show your need to reinforce your weak rhetoric. The method of counting sunspots via the LSC is sound, down to the very pixel and is performed everyday since July 2009. The data that is building is solid and refutes your different universe claim.
When you need a higher deduction from the recent sunspot record so you can persuade us all the TSI values are eternally flat, you will quote a higher value for the Waldmeier factor. This is not science.
We are already at SC14 level, and have already had some peaks near and above 90: e.g. Oct, 2011 at 88 and Nov. 2011 at 96.7. Luck has nothing to do with facts.
Once again you try to confuse. You will need quite a few more months above 90 with the Waldmeier factor taken off too match SC14. Once again good luck.

August 27, 2012 9:27 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 9:12 pm
I am quite aware of the group classification introduced by Waldmeier.
Your comments are then disingenuous if you already knew that Waldmeier classification leads to higher group counts.
Your many answers show your need to reinforce your weak rhetoric.
On the contrary, they are meant to educate you.
The method of counting sunspots via the LSC is sound, down to the very pixel and is performed everyday since July 2009.
Any counting method is what it is. The false premise is that LSC is how Wolf would have counted.
When you need a higher deduction from the recent sunspot record so you can persuade us all the TSI values are eternally flat, you will quote a higher value for the Waldmeier factor.
The Waldmeier factor is determined from the data and cannot be monkeyed with.
Once again you try to confuse. You will need quite a few more months above 90
there are still about 100 months left, so watch for them. And already now, SC14 and SC24 are at the same level, which was also Wolf’s level for SC5, as I showed here: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png which BTW is incompatible with your claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles.”
with the Waldmeier factor taken off too match SC14.
You must realize that increasing the old or reducing the new by the same factor has the same result. If not, then what are you doing here?

August 27, 2012 10:06 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 9:27 pm
You must realize that increasing the old or reducing the new by the same factor has the same result. If not, then what are you doing here?
I am trying to compare apples with apples. Something you seem incapable of and seem only capable of creating confusion. My facts stand.

August 27, 2012 10:13 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 10:06 pm
My facts stand.
If new is 15 and old is 10 and the factor is 1.5, then increasing the old by that factor makes it also 15, so is comparable with new. Decreasing the new by 1.5 makes it 10, so is again comparable with old. In both cases it is apples and apples. Are you still confused?

August 27, 2012 11:00 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 10:13 pm
If new is 15 and old is 10 and the factor is 1.5, then increasing the old by that factor makes it also 15, so is comparable with new. Decreasing the new by 1.5 makes it 10, so is again comparable with old. In both cases it is apples and apples. Are you still confused?
You are the one confused. If SC14 reached monthly peaks of above 90 without the Waldmeier factor included it means the SC14 values would have been higher if counted today. So therefore if comparing today’s actual published SIDC count the actual count will need to be higher than 90 to equal the SC14 value.
So reaching a SIDC value of 90 today is not as high as a 90 during SC14….Are you clear on this?

August 27, 2012 11:17 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:00 pm
You are the one confused. If SC14 reached monthly peaks of above 90 without the Waldmeier factor included it means the SC14 values would have been higher if counted today.
You seem to be catching on: In order to compare SC14 with SC24 today, one must apply the Waldmeier factor to the older values [that is SC14]. Only then can SC14 be compared to SC24. This is what you can see here [as I have shown repeatedly]: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png from which you can see that SC24 is tracking SC14 quite nicely. I see no reason it should not continue to do so. It even tracks Wolf’s numbers for SC5 [with the same factor applied]. Apples to apples to apples, throughout.

August 27, 2012 11:57 pm

Leif says
Ozone absorbs radiation, so lower solar activity with lower ozone should absorb less radiation, meaning that more radiation will reach the surface.
Henry says
I am stunned. Either you are confusing issues or you are completely ignorant / uninformed of the facts as to what the ozone really does. Assuming the latter, I will give another lesson on that today, also for the benefit of others:
If you really want to understand what happens in the atmosphere, this rough graph / representation (on a cloudless day) is very important:
http://albums.24.com/DisplayImage.aspx?id=cb274da9-f8a1-44cf-bb0e-4ae906f3fd9d&t=o
Notice the spectrum of oxygen /ozone on the left hand side and note (on the top, incoming solar) that the ozone part cuts a lot of the incoming radiation of below o.3 um. It is the white area between the red line and the red marked area. Eyeballing, it looks easily like perhaps 15-20% of all incoming solar energy. It does this by absorption and subsequent re-radiation.
I mention energy, because as we all know, heating water with a beam of visible light (like a torch) does not really work all that well. However, the UV light ( O3), will cause an enormous difference in the amount of incoming energy that is being slammed into our oceans. Increasing ozone means less energy into the oceans.
Leif says:A lag does not change a 100-year cycle into a 60-yr cycle…
Henry says: Remember PDO is like energy-out
Leif says: what goes in comes out.
Henry says
Yes, but the PDO does not see the 50 plus and 50 minus of incoming energy of the 100-105 year cycle. It only sees one phase.
And there is some lag. Like for instance, I said that the energy-in turned negative on us in 1995, but it seems most data sets, including my own, show that the mean average temps on earth peaked a couple of years later, around 1998 or 1999.
As I have told you before with the arctic ice, it took 2 decades from 1900 to only start melting, similar to today, and a further 2 decades of the cooling period to grow back the ice to “normal” levels.
Obviously earth has its own energy-out cycles…..try to separate your thinking into cycles of energy-in and energy-out. I am quite happy if they say the PDO is about 60. There must be some lag on both sides of the 50 year energy-in cycle.
I hope this helps those who are looking for some real perspective on the whole global warming issue.

August 28, 2012 12:12 am

It seems I lost some extra information during posting
here is my previous post again:
Leif says
Ozone absorbs radiation, so lower solar activity with lower ozone should absorb less radiation, meaning that more radiation will reach the surface.
Henry says
I am stunned. Either you are confusing issues or you are completely ignorant / uninformed of the facts as to what the ozone really does. Assuming the latter, I will give another lesson on that today, also for the benefit of others:
If you really want to understand what happens in the atmosphere, this rough graph / representation (on a cloudless day) is very important:
http://albums.24.com/DisplayImage.aspx?id=cb274da9-f8a1-44cf-bb0e-4ae906f3fd9d&t=o
Notice the spectrum of oxygen /ozone on the left hand side and note (on the top, incoming solar) that the ozone part cuts a lot of the incoming radiation of below o.3 um. It is the white area between the red line and the red marked area. Eyeballing, it looks easily like perhaps 15-20% of all incoming solar energy. It does this by absorption and subsequent re-radiation.
I mention energy, because as we all know, heating water with a beam of visible light (like a torch) does not really work all that well. However, the UV light ( O3), will cause an enormous difference in the amount of incoming energy that is being slammed into our oceans. Increasing ozone means less energy into the oceans.
Leif says:A lag does not change a 100-year cycle into a 60-yr cycle…
Henry says: Remember PDO is like energy-out
Leif says: what goes in comes out.
Henry says
Yes, but the PDO does not see the 50 plus and 50 minus of incoming energy of the 100-105 year cycle. It only sees one phase.
And there is some lag. Like for instance, I said that the energy-in turned negative on us in 1995, but it seems most data sets, including my own, show that the mean average temps on earth peaked a couple of years later, around 1998 or 1999.
As I have told you before with the arctic ice, it took 2 decades from 1900 to only start melting, similar to today, and a further 2 decades of the cooling period to grow back the ice to “normal” levels.
Obviously earth has its own energy-out cycles…..try to separate your thinking into cycles of energy-in and energy-out. I am quite happy if they say the PDO is about 60. There must be some lag on both sides of the 50 year energy-in cycle.
I hope this helps those who are looking for some real perspective on the whole global warming issue.

August 28, 2012 12:12 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:17 pm
This is what you can see here [as I have shown repeatedly]: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png from which you can see that SC24 is tracking SC14 quite nicely.
So in your example the SIDC SC24 future figures will need to have several peaks of around 130 to match SC14, like I said good luck.
This month looks to be heading down from the poor result recorded last month.
It even tracks Wolf’s numbers for SC5 [with the same factor applied]. Apples to apples to apples, throughout.
This statement makes no sense. SC5 and SC14 are both pre Waldmeier and have different heights so they cannot be the same unless you are comparing initial ramp ups. If SC24 has already peaked like some are suggesting you will have to give up on SC14. Correct?

August 28, 2012 12:21 am

I am a bit puzzled about what is happening. For some reason this portion of my writing is blocked out when I post it:
I mention energy, because as we all know, heating water with a beam of visible light (like a torch) does not really work all that well. However, the UV light ( O3), will cause an enormous difference in the amount of incoming energy that is being slammed into our oceans. Increasing ozone means less energy into the oceans.

August 28, 2012 12:25 am

And again it cuts out SAME portion. THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED TO ME BEFORE.
I mention energy, because as we all know, heating water with a beam of visible light (like a torch) does not really work all that well. However, the UV light ( O3), will cause an enormous difference in the amount of incoming energy that is being slammed into our oceans. Increasing ozone means less energy into the oceans.

Carter
August 28, 2012 4:43 am

Whoops, but if you actually read it!
‘The authors show that this change in atmospheric circulation leads to cooling in parts of Central Europe but warming in other European countries, such as Iceland…Sirocko said’
‘despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is INCREASING and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine River has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from CLIMATE CHANGE’
So it actually supports climate change! Shot in the foot comes to mind!

1 6 7 8 9 10 13