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.

1 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

144 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 15, 2014 5:41 am

it has been cooling significantly in Alaska, at a rate of -0.55K per decade since 1998 (Average of ten weather stations).
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
That is almost one whole degree C since 1998.

June 15, 2014 5:46 am

Alan McIntire says:…depending on whether the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields are aligned or 180 degrees out of alignment.
calculations show: on decadal scale: + 0.1 C warming when in phase, – 0.1 C when out of phase, building up to ~ + 0.3 C or – 0.3 C approximately every 30 or so years ( AMO semi-cycle )

June 15, 2014 6:13 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
June 14, 2014 at 6:41 pm
“Dang … is nothing sacred? Now I find that in fact there is no relationship between cycle length and cycle strength …”
The solar cycle lengths that you have indicated on you chart:comment image?w=840
seem to bear no resemblance to the real cycle lengths:
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/sdb/ydb/indices_flux_raw/sunspot.maxmin.tbl
E.g. the cycle centered at 1705 is 14yrs long not 11.5, and the one at 1778 is 9.2yrs and not 13.6yrs long. They all appear to be incorrect on your plot.
A big problem with the paper here is the long solar cycle at 1705, according to their theory it should be cooling through the following cycle, which is not the case.

June 15, 2014 6:18 am

@vukcevik
nice graph there on precipitation
note my results for rainfall in Potchefstroom (South Africa)
(average in mm/yr)
1927-1950 611.7
1951-1971 587
1972-1995 596.1
1996-2013 641.2
(100% correlation on hyperbolic binomial)
predicted
1904-1927 ca. 587
2017-2039 ca. 596

June 15, 2014 6:28 am

Willis, I see what you have done, you have use the the maximum date for each cycle, but plotted that against the cycle length of the following cycle.comment image?w=840

June 15, 2014 6:59 am

Stephen Wilde says:
“It was only one short sharp cycle amongst many much longer cycles. It has already been noted that a single cycle has little effect on its own.”
No the previous cycle was fairly short too (1685), and the shortness runs contrary to typical ideas regarding the length of cycles versus the strength. And are you proposing that the weaker SC20 on its own is irrelevant ?

June 15, 2014 8:12 am

Ulric,
Where are you getting data for solar cycle lengths prior to cycle 1 ?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 15, 2014 10:19 am

From Ulric Lyons on June 15, 2014 at 6:13 am:

The solar cycle lengths that you have indicated on you chart:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/sunspot-count-vs-cycle-length.jpg?w=840
seem to bear no resemblance to the real cycle lengths:
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/sdb/ydb/indices_flux_raw/sunspot.maxmin.tbl
E.g. the cycle centered at 1705 is 14yrs long not 11.5, and the one at 1778 is 9.2yrs and not 13.6yrs long. They all appear to be incorrect on your plot.

If you look at my relevant previous comments, you’ll see why you should stop using that old table. My most previous comment links to the new version, which is basically taking the SIDC yearly numbers and picking the highs and lows of the yearly means.
At SIDC (now WDC-SILSO), click on “Yearly mean total sunspot number [1700 – now]” “Info” to see:

(NB: in early years in particular before 1749, the means are computed on only a fraction of the days in each year because on many days, no observation is available).

Use at your own risk, incomplete data, educated guess. Note 1700-1748 are whole numbers, later they report tenths.
Thus the “cycle centered at 1705” is a loss as there is no minimum given before 1705 thus the cycle length is missing an endpoint, and that’s in a questionable range anyway.

June 15, 2014 11:09 am

This claim doesn’t hold out for Central England temperatures. The first long cycle in Maunder was 1675 (maximum), during the following cycle it was not colder. The first long cycle in Dalton was SC4, it was not colder during SC5. The Gleissberg minimum starts in SC12 (not a long cycle), but during SC13 it was not colder.
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/sdb/ydb/indices_flux_raw/sunspot.maxmin.tbl

Editor
June 15, 2014 12:10 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
June 15, 2014 at 6:13 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
June 14, 2014 at 6:41 pm

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

The solar cycle lengths that you have indicated on you chart:comment image?w=840
seem to bear no resemblance to the real cycle lengths:

Thanks for checking my work, Ulric. Indeed, they were off a year, as you pointed out in a later comment. Moving too fast. The conclusion doesn’t change. There is a non-significant trend in the direction of shorter = stronger, but with a p-value of 0.15, it’s still just as meaningless.
I’ve changed the graph, the new figure is below.

w.

Editor
June 15, 2014 12:16 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 15, 2014 at 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.

Thanks for that, KD, good find. Unfortunately, they can’t be using that dataset, because it is annual, and their periods are to the nearest month (or at least to the nearest tenth of a year.)
Best regards, and thanks for the search,
w.

June 15, 2014 2:13 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
June 15, 2014 at 12:10 pm:
“Thanks for checking my work, Ulric. Indeed, they were off a year, as you pointed out in a later comment. Moving too fast. The conclusion doesn’t change. There is a non-significant trend in the direction of shorter = stronger, but with a p-value of 0.15, it’s still just as meaningless.
I’ve changed the graph, the new figure is below.”
Sorry Willis, but you have posted the original chart again. Still moving too fast.

June 15, 2014 4:21 pm

Willis, looking at your graph makes me wonder if this cycle is going to be the equivalent of the 1778 cycle, with the next cycle likely to be a long one.

June 15, 2014 4:51 pm

@Willis, OK I see you have changed the original plot.

Rob
June 15, 2014 6:07 pm

May you live in interesting times. This is going to get fun. And a statisticians delight!

ren
June 15, 2014 11:27 pm

Here is a link to the entire article in 2012.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417

ren
June 15, 2014 11:44 pm

In the comments section of this article interesting discussion.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/may-2014-satellite-measured-te/28507485

Michael Twomey
June 16, 2014 10:14 am

Willis, and many others, seem bothered by the lack of an 11-year temperature cycle and suggest that this makes a significant role for the sun unlikely. For example:
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 14, 2014 at 1:10 am
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.
This does not bother me, and it puzzles me that it bothers others.
May I suggest an analogy: Consider a single-piston engine. The position of the piston in the cylinder varies over cycles, but tells you nothing about the energy output of the engine. Rather, the cycle length is the relevant parameter. The shorter the piston cycles, the more energy output. But there is little (if any) correlation between the energy output and the beginning (bottom of the stroke), middle (top of the stroke) or end (bottom of the next stroke) of the piston cycle (this is probably more true in a multi-cylinder engine). If the engine is in a vehicle, you will also find little or no correlation between the cycle length and the speed of the vehicle. Rather, the correlation would be between cycle length and acceleration. On the other hand, many consecutive short cycles would likely be correlated with higher speed, and many longer cycles wwith lower.
This is how I conceive of the effects of solar cycles. The position in the cycle tells you nothing of the temperature or even warming/cooling. The shorter, higher energy output cycles cause warming but may not be correlated with warmth (as an accelerating car may be going slow or fast). But, put together a few short cycles and you will see a warming trend, and put together a few long ones, and you will see cooling. And the auto-correlation of cycles makes such strings of short and long cycles more common. The lag in temperature effect also makes perfect sense, as the cycle length does not affect temperature but rate of change of temperature.
Now, all that said, I do not have the time and no longer have the skills to do the statistics and see whether there is any evidence for this view. I leave that to others. But for starters, I would suggest looking for a correlation between the delta in mean temperatures between cycles N and N+1 and the length of cycle N. In some cases, short cycles will be followed by long and in some cases long will be followed by short. It might therefore be interesting to look only at consecutive cycles with both lengths > 11.5 (or both < 10.5).
Cheers,
Michael

June 16, 2014 6:12 pm

Willis Eschenbach,
There is a relationship between the length of solar cycle minimum and the length of solar maximum.
During a sunspot cycle from solar minimum to solar minimum for example.
The ‘intensity’ of the solar maximum sunspot number is currently being obscured by the observation itself, simply by removing the data from context, the sunspot number when averaged removes a very Important detail which is observed more clearly when observed during weaker solar cycles.
I’ll give you two guess to what this is. Hint: remember, we have had space craft observing the entire sun…

Editor
June 16, 2014 10:33 pm

Michael Twomey says:
June 16, 2014 at 10:14 am

Willis, and many others, seem bothered by the lack of an 11-year temperature cycle and suggest that this makes a significant role for the sun unlikely. For example:
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 14, 2014 at 1:10 am

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.

This does not bother me, and it puzzles me that it bothers others.
May I suggest an analogy: Consider a single-piston engine.

The sun is a source of energy. The piston engine uses energy. I don’t see the connection between the two, or why it would make any difference to the current question. I simply don’t think that it is a valid analogy.
w.

Editor
June 16, 2014 10:41 pm

Sparks says:
June 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Willis Eschenbach,
There is a relationship between the length of solar cycle minimum and the length of solar maximum.

Since you haven’t defined what you mean by either term, I fear that’s meaningless.

During a sunspot cycle from solar minimum to solar minimum for example.

Sorry, that doesn’t compute either.

The ‘intensity’ of the solar maximum sunspot number is currently being obscured by the observation itself, simply by removing the data from context, the sunspot number when averaged removes a very Important detail which is observed more clearly when observed during weaker solar cycles.

Nope, another complete miss. I don’t understand what you mean by the “intensity” of a number, or how it could be “obscured by the observation itself”. I don’t know what “very important detail” you’re talking about

I’ll give you two guess to what this is. Hint: remember, we have had space craft observing the entire sun…

After that totally impenetrable, obscure, and unclear buildup, I’ll give you one guess as to whether I care “what this is” …
w.
PS—I don’t respond well to that kind of pseudo-Socratic “guess what I know and you don’t know” kind of question. If you have a point to make, I don’t have time to faff around guessing what your oh-so-brilliant insights might me. Make your point as clearly and explicitly as possible, or I’m not interested.

ren
June 16, 2014 11:10 pm

Another one proof of the cycle of 22 years.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1538-4357/551/2/L189/Full/fg2.gif

ren
June 16, 2014 11:13 pm

The rapid recovery of cosmic-ray intensity following even-numbered cycles leads to the first half of a flat-topped peak, and the relatively sluggish rise of cosmic-ray intensity during the onset of the succeeding odd-numbered cycle further ensures a relatively long time at high cosmic-ray intensity. Conversely, the slow recovery of cosmic-ray intensity following odd-numbered solar cycles and the close correspondence between sunspot number increase and cosmic-ray decrease during the subsequent even-numbered cycle favors a more highly peaked cosmic-ray intensity maximum.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/551/2/L189/fulltext/

ren
June 17, 2014 12:37 am

You can therefore expect rapid growth of cosmic rays in the cycle 25.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/image-390.png

ren
June 17, 2014 2:08 am

BIG NEWS part IV: A huge leap understanding the mysterious 11 year solar delay.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-iv-a-huge-leap-understanding-the-mysterious-11-year-solar-delay/