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.

If we combine the data we can expect soon a significant increase in cosmic radiation. We’ll see how the climate will respond after 11 years of high GCR (2006-2017).
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/image-390.png
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-latest.gif
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/solar-radiation-peaks-magnetic-field-b.gif
I wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
I hope to be wrong – I am getting old, and tire of the cold…
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 16, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Oh Lighten up Willis, are you out of your vulcan mind?
I’m just teasing you 🙂
Sparks says:
June 17, 2014 at 10:24 am
I see newspaper stories all the time about people who were “just teasing” the lions and grizzly bears at the zoo … “teasing” me is an equally bad idea.
And on the web, where it’s very hard to tell is someone is serious or not, it’s a really dumb move. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth whether it’s serious or not, because nobody likes to be fooled … is that what you want people to remember about you, a bad taste in the mouth?
… Oh, wait, I forgot that you’re just a random anonymous internet popup, so you don’t care if you leave a bad taste in peoples mouths because nobody knows it was you …
Pick another way to amuse yourself, that one is a loser, particularly when you are unwilling to sign your own name to it.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 17, 2014 at 10:57 am
I’m actually a serious REAL person who is stretched thin at the moment tho who makes the effort to interact and discuss with people about subjects we’re mutually interested in.
It’s not my fault that we’re not personally acquainted, when have you ever asked me for any personal details about myself, just because I’m reserved, it does not mean that I’m insincere. yes I am bit quirky at times why should that annoy you?
I’m not an “anonymous pop-up” or what ever you mean by that, I’ve had an online presence for over 20 years, I’ve made a living developing this technology, and I enjoy it.. from reading books about this technology as a kid to enjoying it now as an adult by poking self-confessed grizzly bears with a big stick, You can beat it.
So take my advice, lighten up and I’ll speak to you Tomato Willis.
All the best 🙂
Sparks says:
June 17, 2014 at 12:20 pm
Not on the internet you’re not. Real people have names, and thus have to stand behind their words. Here, you are a random anonymous popup.
Let me see if I have this right. You’re not an anonymous random internet popup who can deny his words at any time, and disappear and never have to take responsibility for what he has said.
Instead you’re a long-time anonymous random internet popup who can deny his words at any time, and disappear and never have to take responsibility for what he has said.
OK, I think I’ve got it.
I have a long-time rule, Sparks, or whatever your name is. I never, ever take advice on morality, ethics, or lightening up from a man who is unwilling to sign his own opinions and stand behind them. Sorry, but that’s the price you pay for not having what it takes to own your own words.
Since you obviously think so little of your opinions that you are unwilling to sign them, and you can walk away and disown them without loss or consequence … why on earth should I rate your ideas any higher than you do?
Finally, when a man says “Do X and I’ll speak to you”, generally, that’s a clue that I should stop doing X, or else he might actually make good on his threat …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 17, 2014 at 1:25 pm
If you continue the aggressive behaviour towards me Willis I will continue to roll up paper balls at the back of the class to hit you with.
Willis,
For what reason do you need to know details about myself? I’m not a public figure, if there is anything that you would like to know about me you should try asking!
I have thick skin so to speak, your insults don’t bother me, I appreciate your candid replies tho.
Sparks says:
June 17, 2014 at 2:42 pm
Dear heavens, my writing must be getting really bad. Let me set your mind at ease. I have absolutely no desire to know a single detail about you. Please, I beg you, do not tell me any details. Is that clear?
I’m just pointing out that when you are a random anonymous internet popup, you give up your right to lecture me on ethics and morals. I don’t take advice from people who are unwilling to sign their name to their words, I just point and laugh. If you want your words taken seriously, first you have to take them seriously enough to sign them.
But I don’t want details, Sparks. I’m just letting you know, that’s the price you have to pay if you want to be anonymous. If a woman/child/man/Turing test like you chooses to be anonymous, your word regarding ethics or morality carry no weight, for all of the obvious reasons. For all we know, you’re a precocious 14-year-old posting when Mom’s back is turned.
w.
It’s simple Sparks. I’m not anybody either. Yet I use my real name, first and last.
Lots of people read WUWT. I don’t flatter myself that all that many people pay all that much attention to my comments. But because of the number of people who read, I don’t spout off lightly. I think carefully about what I’m ready to say for the record and stand by it. In other words, it imposes a certain amount of personal responsibility. I can just disappear from WUWT whenever I want to, but the internet has a long memory, and my name will be with me forever. Because of the personal responsibility involved, people can therefore take me seriously when I say something, in the sense that I’m serious enough about what I’m saying to stand by my words openly.
Think it through. If it’s not worth standing openly by whatever you have to say with your real name, why is it worth it to speak at all? That’s how I view it anyway.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 17, 2014 at 3:39 pm
If you don’t know who I am or even don’t want to know, how does that make me anonymous, I’ve used “Sparks” for years and the e-mail addresses accounts etc are all linked to me. Is there a reason I should use my full name? or are you playing the authoritative troll here.
I’m a reasonable honest person, behind “Sparks” and for all of the obvious reasons I shall throw another paper ball at you.
🙂
Mark Bofill says:
June 17, 2014 at 4:16 pm
I do use my real name, the persona or pen name “Sparks” is the only one I have ever used, The name and opinion “Mark Bofill” is every bit anonymous to me as Willis Eschenbach is, I know who Anthony Watts is because I like his work and I enjoy the subjects and discussions here on his site, but do Know him? I would have to say no. Do I like him I’d say he’s not the worst looking guy I’ve ever met. lol
Mark Bofill says:
June 17, 2014 at 4:16 pm
I do use my real name, the persona or pen name “Sparks” is the only one I have ever used, The name and opinion of “Mark Bofill” is every bit anonymous to me as “Willis Eschenbach” is, I know who Anthony Watts is because I like his work and I enjoy the subjects and discussions here on his site, but do I Know him? I would have to say no. Do I like him? I would have to say that he’s not the worst looking guy I’ve ever met. lol
Ver 2.0
Sparks, if you want to be deliberately dense, knock yourself out. You can drop the persona or pen name ‘sparks’ anytime you want to, and nobody will trace it to you. I can’t drop my real name. Mark Bofill, Anthony Watts, and Willis Eschenbach are not anonymous references. We have telephones, residences, so on. A determined researcher would find it far easier to locate me than you, for example.
If you don’t believe in what you’re saying strongly enough to identify yourself, that’s your business. Pretending that a persona or pen name is no different from a real name is something I find offensive, frankly. You take no risk and assume no responsibility where I do, so spare me.
Mark Bofill,
It’s your problem not mine.
I am who I am and if you don’t like it you can take a long walk of a short plank.
Best regards ~Sparks
No Sparks, I neither like nor dislike … that you are who you are? Profound, that.
I’ve got about as much use for rodents like yourself as Willis apparently does. I’ve wasted enough time gabbing with you. Maybe I’ll pay attention to you again someday if you grow a pair of testicles.
Mark Bofill,
What’s your phone number Mark? I’ll ring you right now and we can discuss your insults.
RE the Bofill-Sparks Prize Fight.
The fight is over, Bofill wins by virtue of the fact that he stands behind his name where “Sparks” does not.
Future responses from either party on this fight in this thread go straight to the bit bucket.
Sparks says:
June 17, 2014 at 5:51 pm
Sparks, I neither like nor do I dislike who you are, because I have no idea who you are other than someone lacking the courage to stand behind your words. As Mark pointed out, he and I and Anthony have to live with what we write.
As a result, we can’t pull your tricks. You can insult anyone you want, and your friends and neighbors will neither know nor ever find out what you’ve said. You can lie about anything without consequence. So you can say any damn thing you want.
Honest men and women, those of us who do stand behind our words, don’t have your luxury of being able to disown what we say. Our friends and neighbors can read and comment about what we say. And our words can “come back to haunt us”, as they say, while your words never can. You can turn and run away from them any time you want.
I fear I can’t properly express my contempt for your actions. Not for the fact that you are posting anonymously. That’s fine if that’s what you want to do, and lots of folks do it. It’s a choice that everyone has to make, and if you choose to post anonymously, you choose the loss of credibility that goes with it. I have no problem with that or the folks that do it.
What is beneath contempt is your claim that posting anonymously is equal to taking responsibility for your words by signing them. That’s just insulting to the women and men who have the courage that you lack, and bravely doing so from the complete safety of your anonymity. Or as the Python said:
I guess poor Sir Robin should have taken a lesson from you, and been the bravest of the braaaave anonymice …
In any case, Sparks, you win. I don’t mind anonymity, although I’d prefer it if people were honest about who they are.
But your combination of anonymity, arrogance, ignorance, and immaturity is too much for me. I’m done with you.
w.