From the HockeySchtick: A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds long solar cycles predict lower temperatures during the following solar cycle. A lag of 11 years [the average solar cycle length] is found to provide maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature. On the basis of the long sunspot cycle of the last solar cycle 23, the authors predict an average temperature decrease of 1C over the current solar cycle 24 from 2009-2020 for certain locations.
Highlights
► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle.
► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations.
► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase.
► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.
The authors also find “solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase” and “For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution [to the temperature increase of the past 150 years]. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.”
A co-author of the paper is geoscientist Dr. Ole Humlum, who demonstrated in a prior paper that CO2 levels lag temperature on a short-term basis and that CO2 is not the driver of global temperature.
The paper:
The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24
Jan-Erik Solheim Kjell Stordahl Ole Humlumc DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.008
Abstract
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
from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 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.
1. Introduction
The question of a possible relation between solar activity and the Earth’s climate has received considerable attention during the last 200 years. Periods with many sunspots and faculae correspond with periods with higher irradiance in the visual spectrum and even stronger response in the ultraviolet, which acts on the ozone level. It is also proposed that galactic cosmic rays can act as cloud condensation nuclei, which may link variations in the cloud coverage to solar activity, since more cosmic rays penetrate the Earth’s magnetic field when the solar activity is low. A review of possible connections between the Sun and the Earth’s climate is given by Gray and et al. (2010).
Based on strong correlation between the production rate of the cosmogenic nucleids 14C and 10Be and proxies for sea ice drift, Bond et al. (2001) concluded that extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy output on decadal to millennial timescales generate a strong climate response in the North Atlantic deep water (NADW). This affects the global thermohaline circulation and the global climate. The possible sun–ocean–climate connection may be detectable in temperature series from the North Atlantic region. Since the ocean with its large heat capacity can store and transport huge amounts of heat, a time lag between solar activity and air temperature increase is expected. An observed time lag gives us an opportunity for forecasting, which is the rationale for the present investigation.
Comparing sunspot numbers with the Northern Hemisphere land temperature anomaly, Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) noticed a similar behavior of temperature and sunspot numbers from 1861 to 1990, but it seemed that the sunspot number R appeared to lag the temperature anomaly. They found a much better correlation between the solar cycle length (SCL) and the temperature anomaly. In their study they used a smoothed mean value for the SCL with five solar cycles weighted 1-2-2-2-1. They correlated the temperature during the central sunspot cycle of the filter with this smoothed weighted mean value for SCL. The reason for choosing this type of filter was that it has traditionally been used to describe long time trends in solar activity. However, it is surprising that the temperature was not smoothed the same way. In a follow up paper Reichel et al. (2001) concluded that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed SCL and the cycle mean temperature anomaly for the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature in the 20th century at the 99% significance level. This suggests that there may exist a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.
The length of a solar cycle is determined as the time from the appearance of the first spot in a cycle at high solar latitude, to the disappearance of the last spot in the same cycle near the solar equator. However, before the last spot in a cycle disappears, the first spot in the next cycle appears at high latitude, and there is normally a two years overlap. The time of the minimum is defined as the central time of overlap between the two cycles (Waldmeier, 1939), and the length of a cycle can be measured between successive minima or maxima. A recent description of how the time of minimum is calculated is given by NGDC (2011): “When observations permit, a date selected as either a cycle minimum or maximum is based in part on an average of the times extremes are reached in the monthly mean sunspot number, in the smoothed monthly mean sunspot number, and in the monthly mean number of spot groups alone. Two more measures are used at time of sunspot minimum: the number of spotless days and the frequency of occurrence of old and new cycle spot groups.”
It was for a long time thought that the appearance of a solar cycle was a random event, which means that each cycle length and amplitude were independent of the previous. However, Dicke (1978) showed that an internal chronometer has to exist inside the Sun, which after a number of short cycles, reset the cycle length so the average length of 11.2 years is kept. Richards et al. (2009) analyzed the length of cycles 1610–2000 using median trace analyses of the cycle lengths and power spectrum analyses of the O–C residuals of the dates of sunspot maxima and minima. They identified a period of 188±38 years. They also found a correspondence between long cycles and minima of number of spots. Their study suggests that the length of sunspot cycles should increase gradually over the next
. accompanied by a gradual decrease in the number of sunspots.
An autocorrelation study by Solanki et al. (2002) showed that the length of a solar cycle is a good predictor for the maximum sunspot number in the next cycle, in the sense that short cycles predict high Rmax and long cycles predict small Rmax. They explain this with the solar dynamo having a memory of the previous cycle’s length.
Assuming a relation between the sunspot number and global temperature, the secular periodic change of SCL may then correlate with the global temperature, and as long as we are on the ascending (or descending) branches of the 188 year period, we may predict a warmer (or cooler) climate.
It was also demonstrated (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1992, Hoyt and Schatten, 1993 and Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995) that the correlation between SCL and climate probably has been in operation for centuries. A statistical study of 69 tree rings sets, covering more than 594 years, and SCL demonstrated that wider tree-rings (better growth conditions) were associated with shorter sunspot cycles (Zhou and Butler, 1998).
…
5. Conclusions
Significant linear relations are found between the average air temperature in a solar cycle and the length of the previous solar cycle (PSCL) for 12 out of 13 meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic. For nine of these stations no autocorrelation on the 5% significance level was found in the residuals. For four stations the autocorrelation test was undetermined, but the significance of the PSCL relations allowed for 95% confidence level in forecasting for three of these stations. Significant relations are also found for temperatures averaged for Norway, 60 European stations temperature anomaly, and for the HadCRUT3N temperature anomaly. Temperatures for Norway and the average of 60 European stations showed indifferent or no autocorrelations in the residuals. The HadCRUT3N series showed significant autocorrelations in the residuals.
For the average temperatures of Norway and the 60 European stations, the solar contribution to the temperature variations in the period investigated is of the order 40%. An even higher contribution (63–72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard. This is higher than the 7% attributed to the Sun for the global temperature rise in AR4 (IPCC, 2007). About 50% of the HadCRUT3N temperature variations since 1850 may be attributed solar activity. However, this conclusion is more uncertain because of the strong autocorrelations found in the residuals.
The significant linear relations indicate a connection between solar activity and temperature variations for the locations and areas investigated. A regression forecast model based on the relation between PSCL and the average air temperature is used to forecast the temperature in the newly started solar cycle 24. This forecast model benefits, as opposed to the majority of other regression models with explanatory variables, to use an explanatory variable–the solar cycle length–nearly without uncertainty. Usually the explanatory variables have to be forecasted, which of cause induce significant additional forecasting uncertainties.
Our forecast indicates an annual average temperature drop of 0.9 °C in the Northern Hemisphere during solar cycle 24. For the measuring stations south of 75N, the temperature decline is of the order 1.0–1.8 °C and may already have already started. For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5 °C is forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months (Solheim et al., 2011).
Arctic amplification due to feedbacks because of changes in snow and ice cover has increased the temperature north of 70N a factor 3 more than below 60N (Moritz et al., 2002). An Arctic cooling may relate to a global cooling in the same way, resulting in a smaller global cooling, about 0.3–0.5 °C in SC24.
Our study has concentrated on an effect with lag once solar cycle in order to make a model for prediction. Since solar forcing on climate is present on many timescales, we do not claim that our result gives a complete picture of the Sun’s forcing on our planet’s climate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

ANY cooling would be big news. We’ve been promised it’s just around the corner for years and years (and years) with its attendant apocalyptic consequences. But even with the conjunction of signs in the Sun and Natural Cycles, the inconvenient truth is that we’re still waiting
It’s odd that a solar cycle is considered to be ~11 years when it takes ~22 years for the magnetic fields of the Sun to complete a cycle.
I can understand the confusion in the 1600’s based on counting the sunspots.
Oh wait – this is climatology.
Where the mean temperature deviation is calculated by first fabricating a mean based on a bundle of biases and prejudices, using the forged mean to calculate the deviation and then calling it an anomaly.
Of course, you could remove the artificially induced trend in the surface temperature anomaly but then you would be 2 time series beyond the original surface temperature series (where the 2 subtraction operations – one to create the anomaly and one to remove the artificially induced trend leads to a loss in precision which amplifies the noise.)
And then there’s the automated cooking and cooling of the raw temperature…
But I digress..
Village Idiot:
There is an obvious typographical error in your post at June 14, 2014 at 1:27 am which says in total
I assume you intended to discuss reality so meant to write
ANY WARMING would be big news. We’ve been promised it’s just around the corner for years and years (and years) with its attendant apocalyptic consequences. But even with the conjunction of signs in the Sun and Natural Cycles, the inconvenient truth is that we’re still waiting.
Richard
A cooling of one degree? No problem – Gavin and Mike can “adjust” that away; piece of cake.
Willis,
And suddenly, it’s much warmer, because the last solar cycle (which ended say a year ago) was longer
If I understand the paper correctly that sentence should read:
And suddenly, it’s much warmer, because the last solar cycle (which ended say a year ago) was
longershorter.Taking the CET annual data. If you do a trend line for the maximum temperature between 1920 and 1988 it is flat. If you do a trend line for 1990 to 2013 it is flat.
The minimum trend line between 1920 and 1988 shows a slight cooling and between 1988 and 2013 it shows a cooling.
Changing the period data by a year can make a big difference in the trend.
Where’s Leif?
Willis said
Were is the extra energy comming from to warm the planet
Willis have you ever calculated how many Hirashema bombs are released 24/7 by our wireless com’s and remote sensing. You know things like TV, the mobile phone network , radio ,radar, and many other things is were that extra energy is coming from. Temperature = electric potential at work . Why should the electronics industry be allowed to abuse the atmosphere as part of their own infrastructure?
Cycle 23 was a long cycle, and the cycle 24 will be even longer.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png
In reply to:
Transport by Zeppelin says:
June 13, 2014 at 7:43 pm
This article begins – “A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. but looking at the link to the paper it states – Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 267–284 2012, not today ?
WTF
I see skeptical science rebutted this paper (correctly or otherwise) back in December 2012
William:
We are re-looking at that paper to see if its prediction of high latitude cooling is correct or incorrect.
There is now observed cooling both poles.
Predicted first significant higher than average summer ice in the Arctic.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
Summer high latitude temperatures are again significantly lower than average.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
There is significantly more Antarctic sea ice for all months of the years (record Antarctic sea ice and record amounts for all months of the year than any other time in the 30 year record (two sigma higher than the 30 year average.)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Does Skeptical Science have an explanation for the sudden cooling of both poles of the planet? What could cause simultaneous cooling of both poles?
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 14, 2014 at 1:10 am
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Shorter solar cycles are stronger, longer ones are weaker.
William Astley
Us see the temperature above 80 degrees N. It can be seen that increase occurs in winter, in January and February. This is due to disruption of the polar vortex.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
In reply to:
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 14, 2014 at 1:10 am
I’m sorry, but I don’t find this study credible. For starters, they say:
An even higher contribution (63–72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard.
I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that the temperatures in the Faroe Islands is 60%-70% ruled by the length of the previous solar cycle from 11 years ago. There’s nothing I’ve ever seen that has that kind of clear relationship. I would be astounded if this finding holds up.
Finally, I am inherently suspicious of the claim that there is NO effect from the varying intensity of the ~11-year sunspot/magnetic/solar wind/cosmic ray cycle … but on the other hand there is some big effect from the varying length of the cycles.
William:
There are cycles of high latitude warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. There is smoking gun evidence that solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary climate. The question is not if there is an effect, but rather how the solar magnetic changes cause the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet.
As I noted in past posts solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. Solar wind bursts are produced by sunspots and by low latitude coronal holes. So if there are low latitude coronal holes on the surface of the sun late in the solar cycle the solar wind bursts remove the ions that are produce by the cosmic rays (cosmic rays CR or galactic cosmic rays GCR, are high speed protons that create ions in the earth’s atmosphere, GCR/CR are partially blocked by the solar heliosphere and by the earth’s magnetic field.) which makes it appear that the solar magnetic cycle changes does not modulate planetary clouds.
Its is asserted that an increase in planetary clouds is causing the observed cooling of both poles. Any other explanation?
For comparison, let us see the year 2003 (high magnetic activity of the sun).
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
In reply to:
Village Idiot says:
June 14, 2014 at 1:27 am
ANY cooling would be big news. We’ve been promised it’s just around the corner for years and years (and years) with its attendant apocalyptic consequences. But even with the conjunction of signs in the Sun and Natural Cycles, the inconvenient truth is that we’re still waiting
William:
The wait is over. There is now observed cooling of both poles. The cooling will increase. We are going to experience the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.
Due to the climate wars the general media has ignored the fact that the signature of the warming in the last 30 years does not match the signature of warming predicted by the AGW theory. The AGW theory predicted that the most amount of warming on the planet should occur at high altitudes in the tropical troposphere. This high altitude warming (due to the increase in atmospheric CO2) if it had occurred would have resulted in more water vapor in the atmosphere at higher levels which would have amplified the CO2 warming. The long wave radiation due to the high altitude warming would then warm the tropics.
There is no observed high altitude tropic hot spot. This assertion is supported by the fact that the tropic region surface did not warm. i.e. The predicted tropical hot spot causes the tropics to warm.
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
The observed warming in the last 30 years is almost all high latitude warming which does not match the signature of AGW warming. As the tropics has the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space, the tropics should have warmed the most due to AGW.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 16 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)
I see a lot of older papers being used as references. With Leif’s panel on sunspot counting corrections, are those papers using the old sun spot numbers still valid?
I believe the findings of above paper will probably be found to be valid within the time frame specified of 6 more years. There are indications of gradual cooling everywhere (NH and SH winters, Increased polar ice, ect) This will transform to actual global mean surface temperature drop of lets say about 0.4C by 2020. LOL
Paul Homewood said on June 14, 2014 at 2:19 am:
Here in the US it’s Flag Day. He is helping out some well-funded fellow US high energy and astrophysics colleagues who will paint The Stars and Stripes on the Moon. Thankfully they only need red and blue lasers, the white parts are already done.
In the spirit of unity under the banner of science, they’ll help the Brits do the Union Jack at the next Queen’s Jubilee.
Willis says
“Now, in general, it is true that longer solar cycles tend to be stronger cycles. So, you could claim that the extra energy comes from the extra strength of the longer cycles.”
Longer cycles are weaker, the sunspot cycle is a proxy and not a good one for attempting to correlate with energy output, mainly because when the Sunspot count goes to zero, it has no relative information about the the strength of the SUNs magnetic field when the count is at zero. But you can be sure that the suns magnetic field and TSI do not drop to the same value everytime the SSN drops to 0. Converting the SSN record to solar cycle length gets rid of the zeros and converts the longer period of low or zero SSN to a value that is more relative to energy output but you must flip the SSL data to see the correlation with temperature.
A prediction who’s results will be known before the authors die?
If one looks at lots of comparisons, some will correlate well, just by chance. The conclusions of this paper may turn out to be valid, but it’s too soon to say. In 5 or 10 years if the paper’s prediction turn out to be accurate, then I will be more persuaded
However, Dicke (1978) showed that an internal chronometer has to exist inside the Sun, which after a number of short cycles, reset the cycle length so the average length of 11.2 years is kept.
=============
why does it have to exist within the Sun? perhaps the planets orbiting the sun provide the time-keeping mechanism?
Agree or not, this illustrates that studies even in a journal can be made in support of a conclusion. (PS, Didn’t we just see a slight decline in the US over the last decade in a reliable temp set and is there some physical certainty that a measurable decline by 2020 is impossible?)
Willis writes:
“Now, in general, it is true that longer solar cycles tend to be stronger cycles.”
No shorter cycles tend to be stronger.
I submitted a post but it hasn’t turned up. Is there a problem ?
[nope, don’t see it in here . . mod]