Some data suggests Global Cooling started in 2006

Guest essay by David Archibald’

Many good things come to an end and that includes the Modern Warm Period. Mild winters and early springs are now spoken of in the past tense. The peak of the Modern Warm Period was 2006 as shown by the oceanic lead indicator, the Gulf Stream, also called the North Atlantic Current. From Professor Humlum’s site, Figure 1 following shows the Argo data from a transect south of Iceland from 2004:

image

Figure 1: North Atlantic Current temperature 0 – 800 metres depth 2004 – 2018

The North Atlantic Current has cooled by 1.0°C to date since the peak in 2006. Figure 2 following incorporates data from the same region back to 1955:

image

Figure 2: North Atlantic Heat Content Anomaly 1955 – 2017

This figure shows that the North Atlantic Current has to date lost half the heat content it gained from the early 1980s.

image

Figure 3: Central England Temperature 1659 – 2017

This is the longest thermometer record on the planet with nearly 360 years of data. There is not much evidence for the Modern Warm Period on this graph with temperatures of the late 20th century only slightly above those of early 18th century, 300 years ago. The running average from Figure 2 is plotted in red (data courtesy of Professor Humlum). It is evident that the heat content from the North Atlantic Current caused the milder winters of recent memory. The R2 of the relationship is 0.3935.

What caused the Modern Warm Period to begin with? Cliver noted in the 1998 that “During the past ~120 years, Earth’s surface temperature is correlated with both decadal averages and solar cycle minimum values of the geomagnetic aa index. The correlation with aa minimum values suggests the existence of a long-term (low-frequency) component of solar irradiance that underlies the 11-year cyclic component.”

The aa Index starts in 1868 as shown by Figure 4:

image

Figure 4: aa Index 1868 – 2018

The end of the Little Ice Age is evident in 1900 as that was the year that aa Index started rising until the 1950s. From the 1950s there was a slight uptrend culminating in the peak of 2003. The aa Index then plunged back to levels characteristic of the Little Ice Age. The end of the Modern Warm Period was in 2009 at the Solar Cycle 24/25 minimum.

There is a lag between the aa Index and temperature of the atmosphere due to the damping effect of the thermal inertia of the oceans. Plotting the aa Index against the NOAA Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly, peak correlation occurs with a lag of six years as shown by Figure 5:

image

Figure 5: aa Index plotted against Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly lagged six years 1880 – 1995

The aa Index during the first half of Solar Cycle 24 averaged 13.1. The three years up to 2018 were higher at an average of 20.6. According to the relationship shown by Figure 5, the pulse of heat from the higher aa Index of the last three years will cause higher temperatures out to 2023.

So far in 2018 the aa Index has averaged 13.0 and should continue to weaken into the Solar Cycle 24/24 minimum expected in 2020. From the beginning of the aa Index record in 1868 to the end of the Little Ice Age in 1900, the aa Index averaged 15.4. It averaged 20.9 for the Modern Warm Period. For the Modern Warm Period not to be over, the aa Index would have to average over 20.0. That eventuality has a low probability given the way the Sun is behaving.


David Archibald’s latest book is American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare

Advertisements

180 thoughts on “Some data suggests Global Cooling started in 2006

  1. “The R2 of the relationship is 0.3935.”
    Four significant figures for something that, at best, explains less than 40% of the variance in the independent-variable is unwarranted. It looks impressive, but doesn’t really mean much. A bit like carrying pi out to 4 significant figures to calculate the circumference of a bicycle tire when the diameter is only known to the nearest foot.

  2. I count 20 significant cooling trends in the 250 years graphed in Figure 2.
    I remain unconvinced (and I’m a skeptic).

  3. Both the aa-index [which by the way is wrongly calibrated by being 2 to 3 units too low before 1957] and solar activity have generally declined the last half century while temperatures have risen, so the relationship that is claimed has not held up the last half century. Therefore the conclusion is likely spurious.

    • Maybe even a 30-year average is too short for climate trends. 30 years is close to a “generation”, or a short-time memory span in the illiterate.

      • A warm AMO is normal during a solar minimum.
        Solar minimum occurs every 11 years. The AMO has a [quasi-] period of 60-70 years…
        So your claim cannot be correct.

        • The Gleissberg Minimum was mostly in the late 1800’s while the AMO was warm.
          The Gleissberg Minimum consisted of the five cycles 12-16 with cycle 14 {max in 1905] being the lowest. The AMO was generally cold [blue] during that time:
          http://www.leif.org/research/AMO-SN-Not.png
          but more precisely: there is no correlation between the AMO and the sunspot number that should be evident to everybody.

      • That’s the second time I seen someone blag that the Gleissberg Minimum was only in the 20th century, Javier tried that on too. But this is the very first time I have seen the claim that it was five solar cycles long. It’s nonsense, it ended at SC 14, and the weather and climatic influence of the minimum was only apparent in cycles 12 and 13. You just make stuff up as you please. And you never once admit where you have been proved wrong.
        “but more precisely: there is no correlation between the AMO and the sunspot number that should be evident to everybody.”
        Because it’s to do with solar wind conditions and not sunspot number.

      • “The solar wind varies with the solar cycle.”
        More drivel, the solar wind strength was anti-phase with solar cycles during the last cold AMO phase. The solar wind was very fast and high pressure through the early to mid 1970’s. You don’t debate honestly, you engage in continual obfuscations.

        • the solar wind strength was anti-phase with solar cycles during the last cold AMO phase.
          The solar wind speed [your ‘strength’ is undefined] is always high during the declining phase of every solar cycle. Magnetic field is high at solar maximum. No ‘antiphase’ anywhere.
          last cold AMO phase
          More correct would be that there is no cuasal correlation between solar wind and AMO.

    • I couldn’t agree more with this comment. the relationship between the sun and the temperatures appear to be inversely correlated, as temps have increased in the last decade, at the time when the Gulf Stream has decreased. There are other factors going on that need to be considered, my opinion is that the heat is being stored for much longer and then released.

      • The Gulf stream has not decreased, North Atlantic and Arctic warming is normal during a solar minimum.

  4. Figure 2 appears to indicate Central England temperature accurate to (at least) tenths of a degree. Ridiculous.

    • Those look like annual averages to me. Would you have them rounded to the nearest degree?

      • As so many others have asked on this site (which is probably more scientifically rigorous than most other general sites), I would at least like to see error bars.
        Hypothetically, a +/- 1 degree error bar makes Figure 2 look somewhat less interesting.
        Using 12 years of data to claim “cooling started in 2006” is just silly (and, again I’m a severe skeptic of CAGW, or whatever we’re calling it this week).

    • They are averages, not individual measurements. You can’t ‘measure’ temperature on an annual basis with a thermometer. As such, the avg temp to a 10th of a degree is not an indication of either accuracy or precision, it is a byproduct of the math.
      ex – average 10 whole numbers [ 25,30,75, 83, 14, 97, 105, 46, 51, 21]/10 = 54.7

      • One can carry the decimal point out as far as one wants, but the calibration of the instrument determines the precision of the measurement, and its error. In this case, since the temps are given as whole numbers, the average would be 54.7°C ±0.5°C.

      • In order to determine the total potential error, wouldn’t we need to also know the error of each reading?
        is the 25 actually 25 or is it 25+/-5 ?
        is the 30 actually 30 or is it 30+/-2 ?
        etc.

      • DC Cowboy:
        I actually have 4 problems, including 1 self-inflicted:
        1) I misidentified the chart I’m concerned about as Fig 2; it’s actually fig 3 – Central England Temperatures 1659-2017 (my bad)
        2) The chart starts in 1659 – my understanding is mercury & alcohol thermometers were not invented until the early 1700’s (ie different technology concatenated to make a continuous temperature record?)
        3) I understand Mosher’s point about “averages” of individual numbers; however, unless there was one and only one temperature measurement for each period (highly unlikely), we’re really talking averages of averages. That’s a problem.
        4) Just by eyeball, 90%+ of the roughly 4,296 data points (358 years x 12 months = 4,296) fall within the 8-10 degree band – each 1/10th degree may represent a 5% error (larger in narrower-band periods).
        Error bars, error bars, error bars: not a silver bullet answer, but the reader at least has an idea what they’re working with, and yea, error bars can be difficult to produce, especially with different technologies & presumably, many different thermometers.

    • Well yes, the warming of the late 20th century was so slight (but got so many people upset) that if we didn’t have instruments we wouldn’t have been aware of it at all. The UAH temperature is only 0.2 degrees C higher than its long term average. And that is over 40 years. Thankfully the MET office provides the CET data to 0.1 degree. If we didn’t have that precision, we would not have known that the warming had happened.

      • “archibaldperth March 4, 2018 at 3:08 pm
        Well yes, the warming of the late 20th century was so slight (but got so many people upset) that if we didn’t have instruments we wouldn’t have been aware of it at all. The UAH temperature is only 0.2 degrees C higher than its long term average. And that is over 40 years. Thankfully the MET office provides the CET data to 0.1 degree. If we didn’t have that precision, we would not have known that the warming had happened”

        Ignoring, of course, that precision without accuracy is useless.
        Which is one reason Javert,above, asks for error bounds. Of what use is 0.1° precision when accuracy is plus or minus 1.0° to 2.0°, at best.

  5. The Northern Atlantic and Europe is just one part of the world. I know you guys have just had a very cold winter, but in NZ where I live we’ve just had a really hot summer; so what makes recent trends in your part of the world more significant than recent trends in mine. To me at least so far it all just looks like weather.
    As for the solar minimum stuff, I remain sceptical about the proposed mechanism. It’ll be very interesting to watch what happens over the next decade as the minimum progresses; assuming that the sun doesn’t change its mind about having a minimum and unexpectedly burst back into activity. But right now I think it is too early to be drawing conclusions.

      • We just experienced the coolest summer I can remember in at least three decades in north Queensland, and lower than ‘normal’ humidity.
        March-April 2016 and summer 2017 were terrible, but 1998 was worse.

      • It isn’t only there. All of the Southern Hemipshere land masses have been mainly average to slightly below average through the entire summer. With the exception of NZ benefitting from warmed ocean waters and favorable surface winds.

      • My tomato crop has been non-existant. Nothing. Nada. No tomatoes. Did I say there were no tomatoes? No tomatoes at all. Nothing in the way of a tomato crop. The tomato plants themselves look healthy enough. They stare at me and I stare at them. Doesn’t make any difference. No tomatoes. Tomorrow I will go off in seach of clays to add to my too-sandy soil. I have hear rumours of a deposit of black montmorillic clays 150 km south of Perth. A desperate man will go to any lengths. Otherwise I am contemplating mounting an expedition to an iron ore mining region 500 km northeast of here to get some nice high-iron clays.

      • archibaldperth – March 4, 2018 at 3:40 am

        The tomato plants themselves look healthy enough.

        Archibald, a “healthy” looking tomato plant doesn’t mean it will produce tomatoes.
        1st of all, it has to be a “blooming” tomato plant to do that, ….. and 2nd’ly, the “bloom” of the “blooming” tomato plant has to be cross-pollinated before the fruit will develop.

      • @ archibaldperth…try using grow bags, and countersink the growbags partway into the ground. That way you can build the entire soil so that everything is there at the beginning, just add water. Grow bags are highly efficient water users when used as described.

      • archibaldperth,
        If you haven’t add calcium (garden lime, egg shells, oyster shells, etc., whatever you have available).

      • @ zazove, temp is but part of the picture, the real story was low humidity and deep blue sky. I was getting cracked lips and bleading nose in Dec, Jan and Feb, due to dry cooler air from blocking highs.
        This NEVER happens in summer in NQ during my lifetime, except for this 2017-2018 summer. This is memorable.
        With March we finally got persistent humid northerly and rain … thank goodness.

      • @ archibaldperth, …. plant a couple rocks at the roots of your tomatoes and they will keep the roots “warm” during those cool/cold nights in Australia.

    • Instead of spring here in the Mojave Desert of Palmdale, CA we are now having winter, which was supposed to be in December. Freezing temps to 25 F when normally that is Nov-Dec temps. Little higher elevations all had snow yesterday. Temps depend on the ocean cycle here. In El Nino years, rains come in September, and in this La Nina winter we got rains starting in mid February. It looks like the temp minima shifted by 3 months as well.

    • ‘But right now I think it is too early to be drawing conclusions.’
      The land of the long white cloud has had summer snow two years in a row, doesn’t sound normal.
      The collapse of the subtropical ridge is the root cause of this anomaly, a meandering jet stream is playing havoc with the weather in midlatitude through blocking highs. This is a global cooling signal.

    • Because we’re ‘eurocentric’ dang it.
      As far as the solar minimum ‘stuff’, it is pure conjecture on David’s part. Hopefully Leif will come on the thread and offer an opinion. Not sure if he will tho

    • Ian – Jan was a record high in NZ but Feb is back to normal average. I am expecting March to be average also. We had a hot blob in the Tasman Sea. Its all but gone. NZ temperatures are about SST and wind direction. Global SST looks very cool right now.
      Regards
      M

  6. David I fear that without links to the actual data used, this is interesting but merely anecdotal … and the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.
    Not too late to cure this and turn your analysis into something worthwhile by posting links to each of the datasets so we can determine if you’ve made any errors.
    Best to you,
    w.

    • Interesting graph Bartemis. However, there clearly are two different populations visible in the data, one ending in 1994, characterized by large swings in the data, and the later one which is much smoother data. Probably shouldn’t run a trend line through two separate populations unless there is clear idea why.

    • TLS stands for lower stratosphere which is strongly effected by O3 concentration (Clough & Iacono). If you go to the same source that you used and look at the higher stratosphere data you’ll see it shows a fairly steady decline of ~0.5K/decade.

      • Sounds like a play on the Groucho Marx routine:

        Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.

        Cherry pick much?

  7. If the solar minimum that to all intents and purposes caused the L.I.A. it would be foolish to ignore the solar minimum that seems to be paralleling its progress and ignoring it as irrelevant. I do feel sorry for all those that think that warming and cooling periods are not caused by the sun. Interruptions to our climate are occasionally caused by volcanoes and major interruptions by large meteorites and comets striking the Earth, but normal climate variation is by our only heater the sun.

  8. Central England Temp..
    I recorded the film ‘The Land Girls’ just t’other day.
    Not watched properly yet, just edited it to take out the adverts, but one scene said soooo much.
    The Farmer in the film had previously bemoaned ‘The Ministry’ (now called DEFRA) and then scene was of his son and one of the girls ploughing a green pasture field.
    The guy was a picture of pure broken-hearted sadness.
    And we all know what native North Americans think/thought about ploughs.
    See your temp graph at the top here – see it ramp up after WW2?
    CET encompasses THE most intensively farmed bit of dirt on this planet.
    Hence 10 tonnes per acre wheat yield.
    (Why does anyone else bother with their paltry 1 or 2 tons per acre – not because they are Starving Hungry perchance?)
    There is your twitching thermometer.
    It is, with a bit of thought and a clear eye, possible and easy to see the damage…
    Look at a landscape. Look at lots of different landscapes.
    What do you see?
    Asses the one you’re currently looking at, is it Male or Female?
    With practice you’ll know exactly what I mean.
    Which one would you prefer to live in? Which one will sustain you?

    • math fail – doncha just love acre feet, specially when driving a keyboard.
      Make that 10 tonnes per *hectare*

    • Gee, Peta, I don’t get to Central England all that often.
      How ’bout answering some (lots) of those questions…

    • “Peta of Newark March 4, 2018 at 1:41 am
      Central England Temp..
      I recorded the film ‘The Land Girls’ just t’other day.
      Not watched properly yet, just edited it to take out the adverts, but one scene said soooo much.
      The Farmer in the film had previously bemoaned ‘The Ministry’ (now called DEFRA) and then scene was of his son and one of the girls ploughing a green pasture field.
      The guy was a picture of pure broken-hearted sadness.
      And we all know what native North Americans think/thought about ploughs.
      …”

      There are different tribes across North America, before Columbus, there were many tribes.
      Just as a number of tribes focused nearly exclusively on hunting-gathering, quite a few tribes included substantive agriculture.
      While ploughs/plows were not used by Native Americans, digging sticks were common.
      • East Coast tribes raised the three sisters, squash, corn, beans; and shared their produce with early settlers in New England and Virginia.
      • The three sisters were raised by tribes across America; e.g. ancient Anastasi occupants of the cliff dwellings grew these crops.
      • Even the fearsome Apaches were well known for their orchards and sheep herds before being driven off of their lands.
      Native Americans burned grasslands to drive small game into nets, and controlling woodlands. They also control burned portions of woodlands to form meadows, pastures and croplands; along with transplanting berry bushes and preferred food plants into suitable environments.
      Native Americans were/are disgusted with the allegedly civilized man’s wanton destruction of forests, land and wildlife.
      Western immigrants seized lands and cleared those lands, but only utilized a portion of the timber; selling what they didn’t use or burning it. Western man treated wildlife the same, slaughtering all wildlife, eating some and selling or wasting the rest.
      Americans did the same to the bison, all to crush the Lakota, Cheyenne and other plains tribes.
      In spite of misstated quotes taken out of context, Native Americans were not against shaping the land to their needs.

  9. 16 degrees cooler here this year than last year for the same time. (Just got the gas bill) I should go through all my bills to see what it’s been doing since 2006.

  10. Certainly in the UK annual temps have been tracking sidewards since 2006. After a steady rise between 1975-2005. Since 2006 winters have slightly warmed but this has been balanced out with slightly cooler summers. During the months of August and November mean temps have fallen since 2006.

    • A further note.
      Since 2002 the date for the first snow of winter has been trending earlier in my local area in N Lincs England. Which ties in with the slight cooling been seen in November.

  11. Global cooling since 2006? Oh, come on. Is that cooling hiding in the oceans too?
    Global cooling has been predicted by some skeptics since the early 2000’s. We have to be skeptical of skeptics too.

    • Anyone who is absolutely positive they know what the future will be like is almost always wrong. They could get lucky, but it’s on the same level as guessing all six lottery numbers. It does happen, but don’t bet on it.

      • We are talking about a natural system which appears chaotic.
        There are three choices: global warming, global cooling, or perhaps the plateau in temperatures will never end.
        My money is on global cooling because the signs are everywhere and if you don’t believe me then go back to the early 13th century and see for yourself.

      • Some knowledge about the future can be inferred from the past. Forecasting, as any other activity, is the subject of studies, and a golden rule has been established, that can be resumed in “be conservative.” Predictions of important cooling or important warming are likely to be wrong, and the most probable outcome is that the moderate warming observed for the past 120 years (with periods of warming and cooling) is likely to continue for the next few decades.
        We can also say that sooner or later global warming will end, and that sooner or later the interglacial will come to an end, but the uncertainty about the timing is really high. The probability is higher that we won’t live when any of that happens.

      • if you don’t believe me then go back to the early 13th century and see for yourself.

        What makes the 13th century a good analog of the 21st century? I would think the 11th century makes a better analog because of the ~ 1000-year cycle, but even then it might not be a good analog as we know some conditions are very different.

      • Oh, I would bet a modest amount that climate and temperatures will not stay static for the rest of the century. Oops, forgot that I won’t be alive to see that. Does anyone know a seer that can consistently predict the temperate, within a degree or two, a few hours from now?

    • Just shows that sometimes bunkum can be useful. Alternative facts: they don’t need to be true they just need to exist to create doubt amongst the ill-educated.

    • What about the phrase “data suggests” did you not understand? What I’m seeing isn’t skepticism, but rather more a knee-jerk reaction.

    • There wasn’t a “1970s Cooling Period”. Any mid 20th century cooling ENDED in the 1970s.

  12. “Some data suggests Global Cooling started in 2006”
    Well done Watts – promoting another pile of tosh from Archibald.
    Piled on top of this from 2014. SMFH.
    https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/finnish3.jpg
    And earlier still
    ““My prediction is that this rate of cooling will accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum following the month of solar minimum sometime in
    2009.”
    Is this some kind of WUWT joke?

    • Hey if you don’t like the fact that we present articles here that you disagree with, then stay away. If we presented articles that only fit your worldview, the place would be boring, much like RealClimate’s echo-chamber of a few commenters. Presenting articles for criticism is just as important as presenting articles for accolades.

      • Kudos to you for putting your name above it but do you need to be such a willing lighting rod for this kind of stuff?
        There are plenty of interesting, informative posts, but some that drag it down and well out of the realms of credibility and the “end of the Modern Warm Period” meme is one of them. It seems nothing more than speculation based of hope.
        What do you think about it?

      • And I thank Anthony for puttting this post up. Six to eight years ago a comment on WUWT was to the effect that climate is controlled by the Sun’s magnetic flux – no need to worry about much else. It seemed to come from a warmer scientist – they are well funded, have plenty of time on their hands, some are smart and idle curiosity would get a few looking into what controls climate. The results would not be published of course. To paraphrase Mussolini, everything within the narrative, nothing outside the narrative, nothing against the narrative. So I finally got around to doing something about it. If the Sun’s magnetic flux controls climate, you don’t have to worry about what goes on under the hood – the effect of EUV on the NAO, the GCR flux, the F10.7 flux, any other flux apart from the magnetic flux. One thing I didn’t get to was the retreat of the glaciers which started in 1860 at about the time the aa Index started rising. The glaciers were responding to something. The graph of the North Atlantic Current temperature picks the Modern Warm Period pretty well – a multidecadal trend up, the peak and now what looks like a multidecadal trend down. The end of the Modern Warm Period is defined by going back to the sort of magnetic flux of the 19th century. Solar Cycle 24 hasn’t been weak. It started out with a lot of promise but the second half was a lot stronger. The way the solar polar field strength is going, Solar Cycle 25 will be a similar amplitude and thus much the same as the cycles of the 19th century. The major commercial and perhaps societal impact of this would be late spring frosts that kill of a crop and don’t allow time for replanting.

        • that climate is controlled by the Sun’s magnetic flux
          Except that the Sun’s magnetic flux does not show a variation consistent with the way the climate has varied, so that idea has [sadly] been falsified by the data.

  13. This correllation is most important … AMOC strenght vs. Solar magnetic activity strenght :
    https://static-sls.smf.aws.sanomacloud.net/tiede.fi/s3fs-public/styles/medium_main_image_no_upscale/public/discussion_comment_image/aurinko_vs_amoc.png
    AMOC means how fast in this picture red ring flows to clockwise direction :
    https://www.coastalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/CRO/2012-6/AMOC-2.jpg
    Of course if flow speed is stroger, then more heat transports to northern hemisphere. AMO-index is controlled by AMOC flow speed(solar controlled) and Gulf stream path / Gulf stream position (moon lunar standstill controlled)
    AMO is most important climate system in earth. Because it’s controlling UAH temperature :
    https://static-sls.smf.aws.sanomacloud.net/tiede.fi/s3fs-public/styles/medium_main_image_no_upscale/public/discussion_comment_image/amovs_uah.jpg

  14. The 2006 date is the approximate end of the warm phase of the PDO. When it went negative is when the pause got serious. This has not led to overall cooling because we still have the warm AMO. The AMO should turn cool around 2023. Until then, I expect the pause to continue outside of El Nino events. After that time we should see cooling for about 15 years until the PDO goes positive again.
    All of this assumes ~60 year cycles for both the PDO and AMO. I did not mention anything about the sun because that connection is yet to be determined. All we, as skeptics, need to point out is these are natural cycles that seem to have a strong influence on global temperature.
    It should be noted that a small difference in the length of the AMO and PDO cycles of 4-5 years is all that is needed to explain a millennial-ish cycle. This cycle seems to be driven by SSTs and changes in the salinity of the oceans. Why these might correlate is anyone’s guess.

    • Thank you Richard M for your interesting comments.
      UAH LT temperature has continued to decline as I predicted, down to 0.20C in Feb2018 from 0.36C in Nov2017. UAH LT temperature is still 0.20C higher than predicted by my formula, which only employs two variables – Nino34 equatorial Pacific surface temperature and the aerosol index (which has not been updated since ~2012). I have not bothered to post the latest updated plot, since Nov2017 is adequate until the Nino34 Index is updated for Feb2018.
      I am unsure of the cause of this 0.20C delta – maybe it is just a natural delay, or maybe is it because of the Atlantic Ocean temperatures are still in warm mode – we will soon see.
      On 1Sept2002 I (we) predicted in an article published in the Calgary Herald that natural global cooling would return, starting by 2020 to 2030. That prediction is still looking good.
      You predict that the AMO will turn cool circa 2023 and global cooling will commence then for ~15 years, based on ~60-year cycles of the PDO and AMO. Does that accurately summarize your position?
      Regards, Allan
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/01/salmost-half-of-the-contiguous-usa-still-covered-in-snow/comment-page-1/#comment-2707499
      [excerpt]
      Global Lower Troposphere (LT) temperatures can be accurately predicted ~4 months in the future using the Nino34 temperature anomaly, and ~6 months using the Equatorial Upper Ocean temperature anomaly.
      The atmospheric cooling I predicted (4 months in advance) using the Nino34 anomaly has started to materialize in November 2017 – with more cooling to follow. I expect the UAH LT temperature anomaly to decline further to ~0.0C in the next few months.
      https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1527601687317388&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater

      • “You predict that the AMO will turn cool circa 2023 and global cooling will commence then for ~15 years, based on ~60-year cycles of the PDO and AMO. Does that accurately summarize your position?”
        Yes, It will be the only time both the AMO and PDO are in their negative phases at the same time. This corresponds to ~1963-1978.
        I should point out the AMO index should start dropping soon as the switch over isn’t instantaneous. And, the biggest impact on global temperatures isn’t the warmer N. Atlantic waters but is the effect of those warm waters on Arctic sea ice.

      • Thank you Richard M. Sounds credible,
        In my many conversations with Joe d’Aleo he has mentioned something similar – in passing I think he said that the AMO has to go negative (along with the PDO) for global cooling to commence – I may be misquoting him though – lots of talks over the past decade.

      • ALLAN, I agree with Joe. In addition, I don’t see any warming occurring before the AMO goes negative. The pause will just continue.

  15. And that folks is why it is not called “Global Warming”, it is called “Climate Change”.

  16. Is there a proofreading problem? Under Figure 4 it refers to solar cycle 24/25 minimum of 2009. Wouldn’t that be 23/24? Under Figure 5 it refers to solar cycle 24/24 minimum expected in 2020. How many other typos and errors are there?

  17. Last winter (2016-2017) was warmish, with one bitter cold spell in December. That was fun, walking to the bank and the bus stop in winds that were strong enough to knock you off your feet.
    This winter (2017-2018) has been relatively normal, one or two snows and only one was really bad, but it’s all melted away now and I’ve heard the robins warbling. We’re supposed to have one last slap from Old Man Winter between now and Tuesday, so I’ll wait and see, but the chives in my pot on the front steps are already coming up and the hardware store put up its spring seed racks about two weeks ago.
    None of this matched any of the almanacs’ forecasts for mild, wet winters in this part of the continent or world. They do produce nice calendars, however.
    Wild swings in weather (short term) may or may not be indicators that a trend is underway, but they require a longer period than the 12 years between the start of this solar minimum and now to be accurately monitored and termed ‘cooling period’.
    Owing to modern farming methods, as opposed to 10th century through the 19th century methods of producing crops, I’m only concerned about food stocks. Yes, I can make my own bread, but I have no cows and can’t churn my own butter, or make my own cheeses. I have to rely on commercial dairies for that, unfortunately.
    This prognostication of a prolonged cooling period may hold up, once the records are completed. It will not surprise me if this does become a prolonged cold period. It only means thinking ahead by XXX growing seasons and possibly becoming somewhat more self-sufficient.
    However, the only way to find out if the forecast is correct is to live long enough to see the results to the end, and unless you are one of Methuselah’s children, that is unlikely.

    • Can you really call it another Little Ice Age if the snow line isn’t creeping south?
      If there’s no new growth of glaciers in mountain ranges in general, but rather, the ice fields remain static, doesn’t that signify that it is not yet a cooling period?
      It isn’t about how much snow we get in winter. It’s about whether or not the snow melts back and replenishes ground water levels that counts. If by the end of May in the Midwest, the snow hasn’t melted back and nothing has been planted because of it, that would be a significant factor in regard to real change in the direction the climate is taking. It has to be specific signs like the snow line creeping further and further south in the northern hemisphere, for example, that signify a real and probably prolonged change \.

  18. With regard to the Central England Temperature

    There is not much evidence for the Modern Warm Period on this graph with temperatures of the late 20th century only slightly above those of early 18th century, 300 years ago.

    Here’s CET as a 30 year rolling average.
    https://i.imgur.com/uTpasMp.png
    Currently temperatures are around 0.75C warmer than the peak in the early 18th century. I’d say rather more than “slightly” above when averaged over 30 years. (Between 1750 and 1900 the climate only varied by about 0.25C)

  19. Using statistical analyses, I have identified four factors that correlate with, and drive, Global Temperatures. Two are short term effects and two are long term effects.
    The two short term effects that affect concurrent temperatures are:
    1. Ocean temperatures, characterized by ENSO.
    Allan Macrae, post at 6:51 a.m., describes this effect, which has a 4 month lag.
    2. Solar activity, characterized by SSN.
    The magnitude of the effect of solar activity on concurrent temperatures is similar to that of ENSO events.
    The low solar activity, that we are currently experiencing, is adding to the La Nino. The two combined are likely the cause of the periods of abnormally cold temperatures this winter in both North America and Eurasia.
    The two long term effects are:
    1. The after-effects of ENSO as it spreads throughout the worlds oceans.
    This after-effect is at its maximum about 5 – 10 years after an ENSO event.
    This effect has been described over the years by many authors (for example Tisdale, Bob; Regression Analyses Do Not Capture The Multiyear After-effects of Significant El Nino Events, Climate Observations, July 27, 2009.).
    This effect appears to be analog to what is described in Archibald’s blog, above, in Figure 5, as caused by the aa Index, with a delay of 6 years. Perhaps the strength of the AA Index is a forcing function behind the concurrent strength of ENSO events.
    2. The long term effect that Solar Activity has on the strength of ENSO events.
    This long term effect of solar forcing affects the strength of ENSO events with a time lag of the order of 3 to 4 decades. The cause of this effect is the high frequency solar radiation that penetrates directly into the deep ocean.
    An increase in solar forcing from above normal Solar Cycles began about 1950 and is, in my opinion, responsible for the increased strength and frequency of El Nino events beginning about 1980. These above average El Nino events in turn drove what has come to be known as ‘Global Warming’, via the long term effects of ENSO, as described as long term effect 1, above.
    The above average solar forcing that began in 1950 ended with Solar Cycle 22, in the early 1990s.
    Note that the highly non-linear nature of the 4 factors that I have described above, (i.e. lagged and chained effects) makes primitive statistical analysis of the cause of Global Warming quite useless. Thus, Global Warming Alarmists, using primitive statistical analysis, can’t identify the cause and blindly attribute climate change to CO2.

    • Hello dh – thank you for your interesting comments. I encourage you to post your analysis with data and graphs on wattsup.
      Re your short-term point #1 – I thought I had discovered something new – but others had beat me to it. Bill Illis previously wrote about the close relationship between Nino34 temperature and THREE-month-later TROPICAL Tropospheric temperatures. I now understand that John Christy and Richard McNider previously wrote about a similar observation in their 1994 paper.
      Re the longer term, Dan Pangburn has noted that global temperature correlates with the Integral of solar activity, modified by a ~60 year oceanic cycle, which makes sense to me.
      I agree with you that increasing atmospheric CO2 has little or no apparent impact on global temperature. In fact, It has been proved (by me in January 2008) that the CO2 trend lags global temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record – but hardly anybody wants to talk about that – apparently it makes their heads hurt. 🙂
      Best, Allan

      • Allan
        “In fact, It has been proved (by me in January 2008) that the CO2 trend lags global temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record – ”
        Would you please reference that.

      • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/22/claim-climate-sensitivity-narrowed-to-2-8c/comment-page-1/#comment-2725621
        [EXCERPT]
        … – there is more evidence to disprove CAGW, for example:
        The mainstream climate debate is essentially an argument about the magnitude of Climate Sensitivity (TCS or ECS) to increasing atmospheric CO2:
        Global warming alarmists say TCS is greater than or equal to about 3C/(2xCO2), which is false extremist nonsense, for which there is no credible evidence;
        Global warming skeptics say TCS is less than or equal to about 1C/(2xCO2), which is so low that there is no real global warming crisis.
        On January 31, 2008 (now ten years ago), I published that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2, that is “dCO2/dt” changes ~contemporaneously with atmospheric temperature, so that its integral CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record. In fact, atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, from the above ~9 month lag for ~ENSO cycles to the ~~800 year lag inferred in the ice core data, for much longer cycles.
        Paper at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
        Excel sheet at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls
        IF CO2 were the primary driver of global temperature, as the warming alarmists allege, then CO2 would lead temperature at all time scales, and not lag it. Richard Feynman called this principle “Causality”. In layman’s terms, “the future cannot cause the past” (at least in this space/time continuum). 🙂
        This does not prove that CO2 has NO impact on temperature, but it DOES mean that this impact of C02 on temperature is very small and not at all catastrophic. TCS must be very low, probably much less than 1C/(2xCO2).
        It is apparent that temperature significantly drives CO2, and it is obvious that temperature drives CO2 more than CO2 drives temperature. If it were otherwise, this clear dCO2/dt vs. temperature signal and the resulting ~9-month-lag-of-CO2-after-temperature would not exist.
        This does not preclude other drivers of CO2 such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, other land use changes, etc. – this last sentence is the one most people ignore when they argue about my conclusion – not all increasing CO2 is necessarily caused by increasing temperature, and yet the clear signal of dCO2/dt vs temperature survives loud and clear – not only in the satellite era, but all the way back to the origin of quality CO2 data in 1958, and I suggest long before then.
        Humlum et al reached similar conclusions in 2013 here:
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
        “Highlights:
        – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
        – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
        – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
        – Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
        – Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”
        https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1551019291642294&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
        I suggest that the global warming alarmists could not be more wrong. These are the true facts, which are opposite to their alarmist claims:
        1. CO2 is plant food, and greater atmospheric CO2 is good for natural plants and also for agriculture.
        2. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2-deficient and the current increase in CO2 (whatever the causes) is beneficial.
        3. Increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause significant global warming – regrettable because the world is too cold and about to get colder, imo.
        Regards to all, Allan

      • Hi Jon – my previous post is in moderation – maybe this one will help.
        The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature, and its integral CO2 also varies with global temperature but LAGS global temperature by about 9 months.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
        I suggest that the correct relationship of temperature and CO2 is as follows:
        [A] There is a “base increase” of atmospheric CO2 of about 2 ppm per year, generally assumed to be from man-made causes. (whatever the cause, CO2 is increasing at this time)
        [B] There is a clear signal on top of [A] that the velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature, and its integral CO2 also varies with global temperature but LAGS global temperature by about 9 months.
        [C] The sensitivity of CO2 to temperature must be greater than the sensitivity of temperature to CO2, or the clear (dCO2/dt vs. temperature) signal described in [B] would not exist; also, the magnitudes of both sensitivities are small and not dangerous to humanity or the environment..
        Best regards, Allan

  20. Figure 5: aa Index plotted against Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly lagged six years 1880 – 1995

    Why stop in 1995?

    • Adding data after 1995 drops the r-squared value down from 0.55 to 0.17.
      In contrast the r-squared value for the correlation between temperatures and CO2 is 0.87.

  21. I’ve seen a lot of evidence (on this site as well) that short term oscillations with cycles of about 60 years are an historical norm. If a low occurred around 1979, 2006 would be just 5 years early, and somewhere around 2039 we should see another bottom. I suspect that is all Mr. Archibald is seeing.

  22. Cooling? Yeah, yeah, but for how long even kim doesn’t know.
    It struck me ten or so years ago that CO2 was not showing the expected effect, or even any effect unless such effect was being counter-acted by cooling, hence my long term phrase ‘We are cooling, folks’, etc.
    Sooner or later the cooling trend of the latter Holocene, and the cooling into the next Little Ice Age was going to return, and given that I believed that CO2 causes some warming, I thought the absence of any sort of CO2 effect(unchanged general warming trend since the LIA) was possible evidence for the onset of cooling.
    I haven’t really changed my mind, but now have also learned that since we know so little of the ocean’s temperatures over time that anything is possible.
    Cooling is something to be frightened about, and it is something to plan for since it is inevitable. Warming as we are to get from CO2 is a blessing, something to be thankful for, and the greening would be miraculous were it not so easily understood.
    All we had to fear from warming was the fear of it itself, and that fear has provoked a crippling narrative that has damaged us and our grandchildren forever, since lost opportunity costs compound.
    However, we are getting over our fear, and will get over it. This has been a tragic interlude in the history of public consciousness.
    Our grandchildren, and theirs, will survive, but what awesome fools they will find us.
    =================================

  23. The current inter-glacial period has lasted over 11,000 years. The temperature trend has been flat during that time. Short-short term excursions of the temperature from the mean over a few years to hundreds of years is just noise and not relevant to long-term forecasting, The next major move in temperature should be cooling based on the frequency of inter-glacial periods over the last 400,000 years. Relative to the human lifetimes, long-term climate prediction is probably an exercise in futility and a waste of resources. Enjoy your lives while you can, and stop wasting time by neither tilting at windmills nor building windmills.

    • A waste of resources indeed. We have real pollution to tackle, aging water treatment plants should be the priority. Cleaning up trash from the oceans and other waterways would be a much better expenditure instead of chasing the imaginary global average temperature fix.

  24. We can only hope that we aren’t heading into another LIA-type of cooling. Time will tell. Some are predicting just that, though, by about 2055, and lasting to the end of the century. Our CO2 won’t stop it, much as we might wish.

  25. It is all very simple really if you use a basic obvious common sense approach and keep old Ockham and his razor in mind. -. see this recent exchange with Professor Happer.
    Exchange with Professor Happer – Princeton
    Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:43 AM
    To: William Happer
    \Subject: Climate Forecasting
    Dr Norman Page Houston norpag@att.net 713 467 8709
    Professor Happer. Climate models surely are unable to make useful forecasts. A different forecasting paradigm is required.The hadsst3 data shows global SST temperatures are now below the pre El Nino trend.
    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bw6Bg3cSLAU/Wmoj7naWrQI/AAAAAAAAAmk/_z1Slvtf6kYnxrqlLbwAMH4ecojMN9XdwCLcBGAs/s1600/HADSST2018125.png
    Reality is finally beginning to intrude upon the RealClimate dangerous global warming team. They say ” it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html Here is the abstract for convenience :
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    For the current situation and longer range forecasts see Figs 4 and 12 in the links above.
    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ouMJV24kyY8/WcRJ4ACUIdI/AAAAAAAAAlk/WqmzMcU6BygYkYhyjNXCZBa19JFnfxrGgCLcBGAs/s1600/trend201708.png
    Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)
    Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003 The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019
    Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
    Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (redharmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Best Regards Norman Page
    On 2/6/2018 9:21 AM,
    William Happer wrote: Dear Norman, We clearly agree that establishment climate models don’t work. I hope we can help to stop ruinous policy decisions based on these flawed models. Best wishes, Will
    Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:11 AM To: William Happer Subject: Re: Climate Forecasting Will . I’m sure you are extremely busy but I would be most grateful if you could find the time to read my 2017 paper linked below and make whatever comments you think appropriate on the working hypothesis and forecasts made. Best Regards Norman. Here is a link to a previous 2015 exchange with Freeman Dyson. https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/04/climate-and-co2-exchange-with-freeman.html
    Dear Norman, Freeman Dyson has been a good and respected friend of mine for many years. I agree with his note to you. I did take a quick look at the material at the links you sent. If I understand it correctly, you believe the main driver of Earth’s climate is solar activity, perhaps through control of cloud cover. Svensmark and Shaviv have been promoting similar ideas. And Wilie Soon is also persuaded that “it’s the Sun, stupid.” These ideas and the observational data in support of them seem much more persuasive to me than the establishment picture of a climate controlled solely by concentrations of CO2 with a little CH4, N20, etc. to help. If you are right, we need to be able to predict solar activity. Based on my very brief glace at your work, my impression is that you think observed solar cycles are regular enough that we can extrapolate future activity from their amplitudes and phases. Nicola Scafetta and Abdussamatov have somewhat analogous views. You may be right, but I have always been nervous about models based on Fourier analysis of past data. They have failed spectacularly when applied in some other areas, including predicting stock prices. I hope these stream-of-consciousness reactions are of some help. I am short of time, as you correctly guessed. Will
    From Norman Page
    Will. Many thanks for your prompt response. I would just note that I do not rely on Fourier analysis for the forecasts.The paper says “The millennial cycle peaks are obvious at about 10,000, 9,000, 8,000, 7,000, 2,000, and 1,000 years before now as seen in Fig. 2 (8) and at about 990 AD in Fig. 3 (9). It should be noted that those believing that CO2 is the main driver should recognize that Fig. 2 would indicate that from 8,000 to the Little Ice Age CO2 must have been acting as a coolant……….The later 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist temperature time series of Fig. 3 is here proposed as the most useful “type reconstruction” as a basis for climate change discussion. …………. Note also that the overall curve is not a simple sine curve. The down trend is about 650 years and the uptrend about 364 years. ……………The depths of the next LIA will likely occur about 2640 +/-. In the real world no pattern repeats exactly because other things are never equal. Look for example at the short-term annual variability about the 50-year moving average in Fig. 3. The actual future pattern will incorporate other solar periodicities in addition to the 60-year and millennial cycles, and will also reflect extraneous events such as volcanism. However, these two most obvious cycles should capture the principal components of the general trends with an accuracy high enough, and probability likely enough, to guide policy. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting alone have no necessary connection to reality if turning points picked from empirical data in Figs 4 and 10 are ignored………From Figures 3 and 4 the period of the latest Millennial cycle is from 990 to 2003 – 1,013 years. ” In other words the cycle lengths and amplitudes are picked from the empirical data – the simple assumption is that the current cycle beginning in about 2004 will most likely be similar to the last cycle which began in 990+/. Would you have any problems if I posted this exchange on my website? Norman.
    Dear Norm,
    Feel free to post my response. It was not meant to be disparaging. Please fix any spelling and grammatical errors. I did not proof what I wrote very carefully. Will
    Will.
    I did not think is was disparaging – my response was just for clarification. Norman

    • Climate is controlled by natural cycles
      No, that is wishful thinking. Cycles have specific causes. If you have not identified the causes, what you are doing is simple curve-fitting with little or no predictive skill.

      • I don’t do curve fitting- I simply pick the peaks from the data . The simplest working hypothesis is the correlation of the millennial solar activity peak in the neutron data in 1991 +/ with the temperature peak and trend inversion point at about 2003/4 ( this Archibald post says 2006 ). There is a 12 year +/- delay because on the thermal inertia of the oceans.
        As I said above “Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting alone have no necessary connection to reality if turning points picked from empirical data in Figs 4 and 10 are ignored………From Figures 3 and 4 the period of the latest Millennial cycle is from 990 to 2003 – 1,013 years. ” In other words the cycle lengths and amplitudes are picked from the empirical data – the simplest ( as per Ockham) assumption is that the current cycle beginning in about 2004 will most likely be similar to the last cycle which began in 990+/.

        • I don’t do curve fitting- I simply pick the peaks from the data
          Even more simplistic and with even less predictive skill than careful curve-fitting…

      • Here are Figs 3 and 12 for convenience
        https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YLvyjyaX2tA/WKMxjcuJlvI/AAAAAAAAAiw/pONkGQYs6IQp6GRzj7lpTXn6lpSuOHjjwCLcB/s1600/Norman%2Bimage-Fig3.jpg
        Fig.3 Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012. (9) (The red line is the 50 year moving average.)
        https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iSxtj9C8W_A/WKNAMFatLGI/AAAAAAAAAkM/QZezbHydyqoZjQjeSoR-NG3EN2iY93qKgCLcB/s1600/cyclesFinal-1OK122916-1Fig12.jpg
        Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
        Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (redharmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed.

        • the most straightforward hypothesis … simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends
          No, the most straightforward hypothesis is that this is all just simple cyclomania with no physical content.

      • Leif Why do you think that nature conforms to some imaginary mathematical formula and why do you prefer that to actual empirical data.?
        As to causes – they are reasonably obvious . Global temperature is an emergent property of the convolution of the earths orbital cycles ( Milankovitch) with changes in solar activity and in the earths magnetic field.
        “From Figures 3 and 4 the period of the latest Millennial cycle is from 990 to 2003 – 1,013 years. This is remarkably consistent with the 1,024-year periodicity seen in the solar activity wavelet analysis in Fig. 4 from Steinhilber et al 2012 (16).Fairbridge and Sanders 1987 (17) p 452 provide the commensurability relationships of planetary and lap periodicities as a basis for future analysis of the sun-climate connection. Their reported Uranus Saturn Jupiter Lap time periodicity of 953 years is pertinent. here. Scafetta 2013 (18) compares the GCMs with a semi-empirical harmonic climate model based chiefly on astronomical oscillations. The model is constructed from six astronomically deduced harmonics with periods of 9.1, 10.4, 20, 60, 115 and 983 years…………The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, GCRs, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved. Having said that, however, it seems likely that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth), the changing EUV radiation producing top down effects via the Ozone layer, and the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales. The effect on observed emergent behaviors i.e. global temperature trends of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time convolved with the phases of the millennial, centennial and decadal solar activity cycles and changes in the earth’s magnetic field”
        It turns out rather remarkably that at the present time that most of the variability in the general temperature and climate trends can be covered and forecast by convolving just 2 principal components – the 60 year and the millennial cycles.
        Solar cycle activity variability is likely to be similarly successfully forecast by convolving just 2 principal components of the SBMF. see Fig 1 in Kharkova at al Scientific Reports https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689
        You are well qualified to work out the details . To my mind the general trends are plainly obvious – I am at a loss to explain why establishment climate scientists and especially climate modelers will go to great lengths to avoid seeing it. The two fundamental schoolboy errors of the modelers and the academic establishmen tis first that their time sample size is too small – generally less than 150 years when the pertinent wavelength is millennial and second that they forecast linearly ahead across the early 21st century inflection point.

      • Leif do you really think that earths orbital cycles have no physical content? What about the Schwabe and Hale cycles? Are they cyclomania? For some reason you obviously believe in them but the millennial and 60 year cycles seem beyond your capacity to imagine.

        • earths orbital cycles have no physical content? What about the Schwabe and Hale cycles?
          The difference is that for those cycles we do know the cause [and BTW, the are no Hale Cycles, just two adjacent sunspot cycles], hence we can believe tha they are real and [to a certain extent] predicatable.
          For the others, not so much.

      • Leif: “The difference is that for those cycles we do know the cause”
        We can observe things about these cycles, like north hemisphere vs south hemisphere magnetic fields, and varying speeds of rotation with latitude and with depth below the photosphere, and the history of solar activity, but we have very little understanding of causes. As with climate, our projections are based on empirical observations and little else. IMHO, we do not understand the sun any better than we understand climate.

        • but we have very little understanding of causes.
          We have enough to be able to predict the effects from basic physics.
          we do not understand the sun any better than we understand climate
          As the Sun is so hot makes it a simpler system than the much colder climate system.

    • Leif, if you are still following this thread I would appreciate any comments and criticisms you might have on the Kharkova paper linked above
      “Solar cycle activity variability is likely to be similarly successfully forecast by convolving just 2 principal components of the SBMF. see Fig 1 in Kharkova at al Scientific Reports https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689

      • That paper is pure junk. She has everything wrong. See, e.g. this
        https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.05203.pdf
        https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.05516.pdf
        “A two-wave dynamo model was recently proposed by Zharkova et al. (2015, Zh15 henceforth), which aims at long-term predictions of solar activity for millennia ahead and backwards. Here we confront the backward
        predictions for the last 800 years with known variability of solar activity, using both direct sunspot observations since 1610 and reconstructions based on cosmogenic nuclide data. We show that the Zh15 model fails to reproduce the well-established features of the solar activity evolution during the last millennium. This means that the predictive part for the future is not reliable either.”

  26. Leif,
    What causes a tuning fork to oscillate at its natural frequency after being struck just once? Couldn’t the ocean basins have long-period oscillations without there being a forcing of equal period? We have evidence of such oscillations. There are too few periods evident in the data to be able to say, with confidence, that they will continue to repeat exist but I don’t see the need for an external “cause” for oscillation. The earth is continuously exited by daily and seasonal changes in solar insulation due to the rotation of the earth and it’s tilted axis, and ocean currents can speed up and slow down.Physical objets have natural frequencies. Large objects like ocean basins would be expected to exhibit low frequency oscillations.

    • The physics of tuning forks is well-known. So calculate what the oceans should do, and see if it explains something. Just positing something by analogy ain’t gonna do it.

  27. “The North Atlantic Current has cooled by 1.0°C to date since the peak in 2006.”
    Not it has not, it cooled briefly around the last sunspot maximum and has warmed again since.
    “It is evident that the heat content from the North Atlantic Current caused the milder winters of recent memory.”
    The coldest recent winters occurred during warmer AMO states, it’s normal for the AMO to be warmer during a solar minimum.

  28. Thanks again David. You’re on the right track with the key factors. The ongoing problem is that solar minimum and changes in solar cycles is significant with a lag for NH temps and AMO cycles are long and irregular cycles. That complexity is does not work well in regression model. It might be helpful in a logistic model for evaluating decadal trend directions instead of absolute levels of global temps. It certainly seems appropriate for NH prediction with screening for ENSO.

  29. Lief,
    The ocean basins are very complex. Underwater topography, variations of water density—due to variations in temperature and salt concentration—interactions with the atmosphere, cloud, etc. make calculating any natural frequency very difficult. But the fact that we can’t calculate a frequency, does not mean that such a frequency does not exist.
    I suppose one could build a model and see if it exhibits oscillation with multi-decadal periods but, if it does not, that does not mean that the real system also does not—it could be that the model doesn’t capture all the physics of the real world. I read that GCM can’t reproduce ENSO but this fact is explained as being unimportant because they are mere noises so they don’t affect the overall trajectory of the climate. That may be true, but if there are 60 year and/or 1000 year cycles, and if we happen to be in the up-trending portion of one or both, that could fully explain all or most of the current measured warming trend.
    Furthermore, a series of random numbers will produce cycles with long periods. I plotted a series of 166 random numbers between 1 and 10 (to represent years from 1850 to present) and found in some realizations of the randomly generated numbers a rising linear trend. Applying a 6th order polynomial trend line showed three distinct cycles with an average period of (oddly) 55 years and a steeply rising trend in the last 40 “years.” The numbers are random so there is no “cause” of the cycles, yet the cycles exist. Perhaps they are an artifact of applying a 6th order trend line to 166 data points—such math is beyond my expertise.
    The PDO, AMO and other multidecadal cycles are generally accepted to be real. Whether they have a cause or not is open for debate. They could due to natural frequencies of the ocean basins or they could be an artifact of random fluctuations. In either case they could be real but also have no discernible cause; at least not in the sense of an external forcing of the same periodicity.

    • But the fact that we can’t calculate a frequency, does not mean that such a frequency does not exist.
      But we should be able to estimate the approximate magnitude of such effects based on the size of the ocean basins. And the situation is not that hopeless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble
      Your point about random numbers is well taken, but I presume that you would agree that such random pseudo-cycles have no predictive power, which was my basic point.
      Even a wrong explanation can make a cycle be predictable, e.g. the ancient notion that the day-night cycle is due to the sun god traversing the sky during the day and continuing ‘hidden behind the mountains’ during the night to emerge when done, completing the cycle.

  30. Leif—pardon me for misspelling your name,
    I agree with all your points.
    It’s interesting that the Chandler Wobble has a periodicity similar to ENSO—I am human, and humans seek patterns and connections, it’s just what we do. : )
    I was playing with my random numbers and noticed that the 6th order polynomial curve very often exhibits 2 1/2, quasi-60-year cycles, so it might very well be an artifact of the math. Willis probably knows.
    If I plot a 10 year running average, I get quasi-30-year cycles. I also often get a distinct increasing or decreasing linear trend that spans the full 166 years of “data.” Of course, it’s all just random, statistical fluctuation with no real meaning or cause. Makes one wonder if the current warming is not also just random. I can also make “temperature” series with my random numbers that look very much like the real world temperature series.
    Modeling the natural frequency of ocean basins seems much more difficult than explaining Chandler Wobbles. It seems to me that ocean basins must have natural frequencies because, I think, all natural objects do. But oceans are far more complicated than tuning forks. They are like tuning forks that can change their natural frequency as they move, change density, etc. Interactions could quickly become so complex that they become unpredictable—even more unpredictable than a double hinged pendulum.
    Unpredictability may very well be the real state of affairs. But if the fluctuations in ocean basins are random, and if they can affect the global average temperature—and we know they do at least in the case of ENSO—then we can say with some degree of certainty that, like my random numbers, there will be an extensive cooling trend at some point in the not too distant future. We cannot say when it will happen but we can predict with a high degree of certainty that it will happen.
    The future path of the a double pendulum is unpredictable but I think we can know that, if it is excited hard enough, and left to run long enough, it will cover every point in its phase space. We also know that if we look in the pendulum’s phase space at any given time, we will find the pendulum—unless Schrodinger’s cat stole it. We also know that it will tend to be more often in the lower part of it’s phase space: because gravity.
    Some commenters have complained about WUWT posting articles like this one. I often quickly scan the articles that seem questionable but I read the comments carefully because there is almost always an interesting and lively discussion.
    I always find your posts informative. Thanks for taking the time to join in.

  31. According to ice core records, the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of our current Holocene interglacial. This point is more fully illustrated with ice core records on a millennial basis back to the Eemian period here:
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/…/the-holocene-context…/
    Our current, warm, congenial Holocene interglacial, although cooler than the Eemian interglacial 120,000 years ago, has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years, spanning from mankind’s earliest farming to the most recent technologies.
    Viewing the current Holocene interglacial on a millennial basis is rational. But sadly it seems that, driven by the need to continually support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis / religion Climate alarmists irrationally examine the temperature record at alltogether too fine a scale, weather event by weather event, month by month, or year by year.
    From the broader perspective, each of the notable high points in the current 11,000 year Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
    The ice core records from Greenland for its first 7-8000 years, the early Holocene, shows, virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium, including its early high point known as the “climate optimum”. But the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at around 1000BC, 3000 years ago, has seen temperature fall at about 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium .
    The Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and just judging from the length of previous interglacial periods, the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
    Nonetheless, the slight and truly beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to a Modern high point has been transmuted by Climate alarmists into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Alarm”.
    The recent warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has been wholly beneficial when compared to the devastating impacts arising from the relatively minor cooling of the Little Ice Age, which include:
    • decolonisation of Greenland
    • Black death
    • French revolution promoted by crop failures and famine
    • the failures of the Inca and Angkor Wat civilisations
    • etc., etc.
    As global temperatures, after a short spurt at the end of the last century, have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last twenty years.
    The world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or probably now non-existent further warming. Warmer times are times of success and prosperity for man-kind and for the biosphere. For example during the Roman warm period the climate was warmer and wetter so that the Northern Sahara was the breadbasket of the Roman empire.
    But the coming end of the present Holocene interglacial will eventually again result in a mile high ice sheet over much of the Northern hemisphere. As the Holocene epoch is already about 11,000 years old, the reversion to a true ice age is becoming overdue.
    That reversion to Ice Age conditions will be the real climate catastrophe.
    With the present reducing Solar activity, significantly reduced temperatures, at least to the level of another Little Ice Age are predicted quite soon this century.
    Whether the present impending cooling will really lead on to a new glacial ice age or not is still in question.
    As an interested layman, I would say that the betting is more heavily weighted towards a catastrophically cooling world rather than one that will be overheating because of the comparatively minor CO2 emissions from mankind.

  32. It’s been a cooler summer in Melbourne, despite a few outbursts of heat (mostly on weekends, fortunately, so that our production-reduced, carbon-spewing power plants managed to get through it without blackouts). How do I know it has been colder? Not by trusting the BoM, which always reckons every summer is catastrophically worse than the one before. No, as someone who lives on the beachfront, I can attest to having been woken only infrequently by rap-loving youths congregating after midnight in the nearby parking spots to see whose car stereo (and exhaust) is the loudest. Very few gatherings of noisy youth after midnight. Just too cold for the poor, semi-literate darlings.

Comments are closed.