New study suggests a temperature drop of up to 1°C by 2020 due to low solar activity

sc24 and historyFrom 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 View the MathML source 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 View the MathML source. 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, 1992Hoyt 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).

The relation between the smoothed SCL and temperature worked well as long as SCL decreased as shown inFig. 1. But when the short cycle SC22 was finished Thejll and Lassen (2000) reported a developing inconsistency. In order to explain the high temperatures at the turn of the millennium, the not yet finished SC23 had to be shorter than 8 years, which was very unlikely, since there had never been observed two such short cycles in a row (see Fig. 1). They concluded that the type of solar forcing described with this SCL model had ceased to dominate the temperature change. Since the final length of SC23 became 12.2 years, the discrepancy became even bigger.
Full-size image (18 K)
Fig. 1.

Length of solar cycles (inverted) 1680–2009. The last point refers to SC23 which is 12.2 years long. The gradual decrease in solar cycle length 1850–2000 is indicated with a straight line.

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
1 1 vote
Article Rating
144 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Wilde
June 14, 2014 7:06 pm

Carla asked:
“What would a incremental increase in Earth’s rotation rate, have on the tropospheric height between the equator and poles have?”
Probably some, but how much relative to the ozone distribution in the stratosphere ?
Given that the presence of that ozone is the cause of a tropopause in the first place I would not give a large weight to a tiny change in rotation speed.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 14, 2014 7:09 pm

From Willis Eschenbach onJune 14, 2014 at 5:30 pm

Actually, in the dataset that it appears that they used (they don’t actually specify but this agrees completely with Fig. 1), the shortest cycle was 1610.

I wanted to see what the data sources were due to the early SSN data. Table didn’t say, so I took a shot and backed up the URL.
Directory shows last modification date of sunspot.maxmin.tbl was 18-Jun-1997. So it was already nearly fifteen years old when used for the paper, if this is that information. I couldn’t find any files related to it so still don’t know the sources. Given the changes to historical solar data and the different reconstructions in just recent years, and without verifiable sources, I wouldn’t touch it.
This file appears to be forgotten, along with some others, lost on the server, orphaned. In the directory view, if you click on “docs” you’ll find identical copies. Doesn’t look like anyone is paying attention.

Pamela Gray
June 14, 2014 7:47 pm

Steven, you know that the height of the troposphere is governed from below. The mechanism is well known and models can accurately predict increased or decreased height based on preceding conditions. How do you reconcile your speculative top down mechanism with the known bottom up mechanism?
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/tropo.html

Stephen Wilde
June 14, 2014 8:14 pm

Pamela,
Without the temperature inversion at the tropopause caused by ozone heating convection would often continue rising beyong the current level of the tropopause because uplift continues adiabatically once an air parcel leaves the surface.
Once detached from the ground a warmed parcel of air will keep rising without addition of more energy until stopped by an inversion layer or the force of gravity.
It is true that convection is initiated from below and the warmer the surface the stronger the uplift and the more it will push the tropopause up but on Earth the ozone created temperature inversion is the limiting factor as you can see from the spreading out of storm cloud anvils.
Those clouds would have gone even higher but the ‘lid’ provided by the temperature inversion forces energy sideways instead.
So it is ozone in the stratosphere that creates the tropopause but convection from below helps to determine its height regionally. Stronger convection and greater height being above the equator.

Stephen Wilde
June 14, 2014 8:29 pm

Also, Pamela, the temperature of the stratosphere affects tropopause height just as much as the surface temperature beneath it.
More ozone warms the stratosphere which forces the tropopause height downward against the upward force of convective uplift.
So, to my mind the balance of the ozone destruction process within the stratosphere at differing heights and latitudes is critical to the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
What seems to happen for climate change is that an acive sun leads to a colder stratosphere above the poles relative to that above the equator with more positive polar vortices and more poleward zonal jets whiich decreases global cloudiness to allow a warming system.
The opposite for a quiet sun.
That scenario fits observations very well.

george e. smith
June 14, 2014 8:32 pm

“””””…..latecommer2014 says:
June 13, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Speaking of lag time, I often wonder how much of today’s CO2 is a result of the medieval warm period . The lag numbers are close (600 – 800 yrs ago) but I have found no studies based on this possibility……”””””
Well that “possibility” has been posted here countless times, as a direct result of MY personal studies of the matter.
Those “studies” consist of reading papers, on ice core data, including AlGore book graphs, and noting a roughly 800 year lag from Temp change to CO2 change, suggested by those proxy data, and then applying common sense, that 800 years ago was the MLP. And guess what; the LIA followed the MWP.

george e. smith
June 14, 2014 8:41 pm

“””””…..Carla says:
June 14, 2014 at 5:57 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
June 14, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Changes in solar activity levels appear to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so as to change global cloudiness and affect the proportion of solar energy that enters the oceans to drive the climate system.
———————————————————————-
What would a incremental increase in Earth’s rotation rate, have on the tropospheric height between the equator and poles have?……””””””
Well in the time frame of the recent rate of adding leap seconds, the precision of atomic clocks, has increased by several orders of magnitude, making short term rotation rates easier to measure.
But if you look at how seldom, leap seconds are added, you can conclude that the effect on earth climate would be about as much as flushing your toilet twice would have on next month’s surfing contest in Hawaii.

jmorpuss
June 14, 2014 9:16 pm

Stephen and pamela
Gravity is weak electromagnetism at work and convection is a weak conduction process. The Tropopause is a layer of strong conduction and moves air towards the poles. What holds it in place is electromagnetic oscillation. As positive and negative ions form by either gaining or loosing an electron . Positive charge ions (aerosols) are drawn to the strong negative charged core and negative charge is repelled away from the surface we call this negative charge heat and the driver for conduction. Look up how radio waves propagate and you’ll get the picture.

David Archibald
June 14, 2014 9:26 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:09 pm
Kadaka, you are too kind. It appears that Mr Eschenbach is willfully spreading misinformation. Of course they (Solheim et al) didn’t use that old NASA table. It doesn’t include Solar Cycle 23. He created a strawman and then knocked it down. Regarding that old NASA table, I don’t believe any of it prior to about 1700. Sunspot records start from about 1640 and the sunspot activity died off in the Maunder Minimum. You can make a stab at solar cycles in the Maunder using C14 levels and that suggests cycles were about 18 years long. The particularly cold decade of the 1690s was associated with a Be10 spike indicating a solar cause. The Be10 spike may have been an overprinting of already low solar activity.

Editor
June 14, 2014 9:27 pm

jmorpuss says:
June 14, 2014 at 9:16 pm

Stephen and pamela
Gravity is weak electromagnetism at work …

BZZZZT! Next contestant, please …
w.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 14, 2014 10:07 pm

From David Archibald on June 14, 2014 at 9:26 pm:

Kadaka, you are too kind. It appears that Mr Eschenbach is willfully spreading misinformation.

Not a good accusation to make, not at all. Willis is a straight shooter. When you Google for info you find matches without context, that nevertheless look authoritative just from the address, and it is a NASA table. “Willfully” is excessive, this doesn’t override “reasonable doubt”.

jmorpuss
June 14, 2014 10:13 pm

Willis one to many Z’s there
Just saying I’m wrong means nothing except it’s your opinion . Try looking at some of Bob Tinsley’s work on cosmic ray’s and point charge. I think E=MC squared works no matter the size , it works at a nano level size as well as at a planetary size .

Editor
June 14, 2014 10:45 pm

David Archibald says:
June 14, 2014 at 9:26 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:09 pm
Kadaka, you are too kind. It appears that Mr Eschenbach is willfully spreading misinformation.

David, I checked the data in the table against the data they used. It appears that they used that data, and have extended it to simply include the most recent cycle.
As to “willfully spreading misinformation”, I try to avoid making such accusations as to motive. Heck, I often don’t know what my own motives are, and many folks report the same.
However, I can assure you of two things.
The first is, I never willfully spread misinformation. I do my utmost to tell the truth as I know it.
And the second is, a man who makes such an accusation against me without first asking me to explain what I’ve said is a man devoid of both courtesy and honor.

Of course they (Solheim et al) didn’t use that old NASA table. It doesn’t include Solar Cycle 23. He created a strawman and then knocked it down.

Here’s what I actually said, which of course you’ve neglected to quote:

Actually, in the dataset that it appears that they used (they don’t actually specify but this agrees completely with Fig. 1), …

If you’d asked, I would have explained that they said in the paper itself that they used the NOAA minmax data, viz:

NGDC solardata 2011 at /ftp://ftp.ngdc.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUM
BERS/INTERNATIONAL/maxmin/MAXMINS.

Unfortunately, the NGDC appears to have reorganized its dataset since then, so I couldn’t locate the latest version. So I used an earlier version, and I updated for the last cycle using their own number from Fig.1. More to the point, I clearly stated that it APPEARS that that was the data that they used. And as near as I can tell, it was.
So that’s the explanation, and if you’d evinced even a modicum of common decency, you would have asked for it before making your sleazy untrue accusation of willful misconduct. I did not erect a straw man. I used the numbers that they used, as best as I could tell. If you can show that they used different numbers, bring it on.

Regarding that old NASA table, I don’t believe any of it prior to about 1700.

And we should care why? Because of your willingness to make unsupported accusations?
David, let me request that you cut down on the accusations and that you increase the requests for explanations. Accusing an honest man of being deceptive hurts your reputation, not the other man’s. People know that I’m a jerk … but they also know that I’m an honest jerk. Next time, just ask for an explanation first.
w.

Editor
June 14, 2014 10:56 pm

jmorpuss says:
June 14, 2014 at 10:13 pm

Willis one to many Z’s there
Just saying I’m wrong means nothing except it’s your opinion .

Thanks, jmorpuss. No, it means that you’ve made an extraordinary claim, which is your bald assertion of your opinion that “Gravity is weak electromagnetism at work”, without the slightest attempt to back up said opinion with facts, citations, logic, math or anything at all.
In other words, the problem is not my opinion …
w.

Editor
June 14, 2014 10:59 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:01 pm

Willis said:

“Dang … is nothing sacred? Now I find that in fact there is no relationship between cycle length and cycle strength …Who knew ?”

Well I knew if one limits one’s consideration to sunspot numbers (taking size into account) because one gets a similar figure for less sunspots over a long period as for more sunspots over a shorter period.

Huh? I compared cycle length and cycle strength. You seem to be comparing total sunspots over a cycle, saying less per year for more years is the same as more per year for less years.
But that’s opposite to what I found. Your way is the way people claim it is, where shorter cycles have stronger peaks, and longer cycles have lower peaks.
I found no such relationship, so it’s not working the way you seem to think.
w.

jmorpuss
June 14, 2014 11:31 pm

Willis I always take something positive away from your posts but get lost when you start to reference models. You can always use make-up to dress up a model and make it look better then they really are . You may be trust worthy but the data you use may be corrupt . Mans been geoengineering the planet for ages whether it’s spraying the atmosphere or using Atlant techniques to seed clouds they all must corrupt the data you use to some extent .

Editor
June 14, 2014 11:38 pm

jmorpuss says:
June 14, 2014 at 11:31 pm

Willis I always take something positive away from your posts but get lost when you start to reference models.

Thanks, jmorpuss. Please quote my words if you expect a response. I have no idea what you mean by “when [ I ] start to reference models”. Where am I referencing models?
w.

ren
June 15, 2014 12:33 am

Current data are.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Nevertheless, satellites detected high sea ice concentrations over the Arctic as a whole. This contrasts with 2006, 2007, and 2012 when broad areas of low-concentration ice were observed.
As the melt season is underway in the Arctic, freeze up is in progress in the Antarctic. Sea ice extent for May averaged 12.03 million square kilometers (4.64 million square miles). This is 1.24 million square kilometers (478,800 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average for the month. Antarctic sea ice for May 2014 currently ranks as the highest May extent in the satellite record.

jmorpuss
June 15, 2014 1:16 am

Willis said
“Without the slightest attempt to back it up”
I’m trying to get my head around this at the moment http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 15, 2014 1:33 am

From Willis Eschenbach on June 14, 2014 at 10:45 pm:

If you’d asked, I would have explained that they said in the paper itself that they used the NOAA minmax data, viz:

NGDC solardata 2011 at /ftp://ftp.ngdc.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUM
BERS/INTERNATIONAL/maxmin/MAXMINS.

Unfortunately, the NGDC appears to have reorganized its dataset since then, so I couldn’t locate the latest version. (…)

Found it! Directory: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
Select “table_international-sunspot-numbers_yearly.txt”. Compare to “table_international-sunspot-numbers_monthly.txt”. Monthly starts at 1749. Yearly starts at 1700 but is whole numbers through 1748, yearly also has max/min years indicated.
New______ Old
Max_ Min_ Max___ Min
1750 1755 1750.3 1755.2
1761 1766 1761.5 1766.5
1769 1775 1769.7 1775.5
1778 1784 1778.4 1784.7
1787 1798 1788.1 1798.3
1804 1810 1805.2 1810.6
1816 1823 1816.4 1823.3
1830 1833 1829.9 1833.9
1837 1843 1837.2 1843.5
1848 1856 1848.1 1856.0
1860 1867 1860.1 1867.2
1870 1878 1870.6 1878.9
1883 1889 1883.9 1889.6
1893 1901 1894.1 1901.7
1905 1913 1907.0 1913.6
1917 1923 1917.6 1923.6
1928 1933 1928.4 1933.8
1937 1944 1937.4 1944.2
1947 1954 1947.5 1954.3
1957 1964 1957.9 1964.9
1968 1976 1968.9 1976.5
1979 1986 1979.9 1986.8
1989 1996 1989.6
2000

I don’t think the questionable numbers from the old table can be simply rounded off to match the new ones. New yearly means were the average of the monthly means through 1944 to the average of the daily means since 1945. Old numbers look like they came from running means of some sort. But I could add 0.5 to the new for alignment for comparisons.
Which means the old has a 1907.0 max where the new has a 1905.5 max. They’re different enough to not trust the old.

Stephen Wilde
June 15, 2014 4:03 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
June 14, 2014 at 10:59 pm
Well it is true that short cycles can have low peaks and long cycles have high peaks but I was suggesting total sunspots over the whole cycle taking into account sunspot sizes.
I’m sure I recall Leif saying that the totals came out much the same regardless of cycle length as part of his contention that there was only a minimal energy delivery variation between long and short or strong and weak cycles.

J Martin
June 15, 2014 4:31 am
June 15, 2014 5:19 am

A bit of a ‘surprise’ from the Swiss mountain’s (1800 m asl) precipitation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SwissData.htm

Alan McIntire
June 15, 2014 5:30 am

“kim says:
June 13, 2014 at 7:26 pm
Dang, I wanted a big clue to mechanism. Maybe it’s in the hemispherical asymmetry of the sunspots.”
The Earth ALSO has a magnetic field. I suspect that there may be slight differences in weather patters depending on whether the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields are aligned or 180 degrees out of alignment.