Cooling In The Pipeline? Low Solar Activity, Wild Fire Smoke, La Niña All Setting Up A Cooled 2022?

Reposted from the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 8. August 2021

Here are 3 reasons why global surface temperatures will probably see continued cooling over the coming year.

1. La Nina back in the forecast

NASA continues to project La Niña conditions into 2022 thus suggesting vigorous globally time-shifted cooling conditions:

Source. NASA

The NOAA-ENSO forecast also shows La Niña conditions taking hold again later this year:

Hat-tip: Snowfan here

Because the ENSO has moved back into neutral range during the summer, a modest warming of global temperature can be expected in early 2022. But with a lag of about 8 months, global temperatures will tend to cool off by early summer of next year, 2022, in response to the coming La Niña – should the above ENSO projections come true.

2. Soot filtering out sunlight over North America

Another factor that could act to cool the earth’s surface a bit over the short term are the massive wildfires in California and elsewhere this summer. Satellite images show a sun-blocking haze of smoke spreading over large parts of North America:

Satellite image of California wildfire emitting large quantities of smoke into the atmosphere. Image August 6, 2021:  Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 17.

The following graphic from July 21st shows how much soot was measured in the atmosphere over the US and Canada as wild fires raged:

Smoke Across North America

NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens, using GEOS-5 data from the Global Modeling and Assimilation Office at NASA GSFC and VIIRS data from NASA EOSDIS LANCEGIBS/Worldview, and the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS). Story by Adam Voiland.

3. Low sunspot activity

The previous solar sunspot cycle was one of low activity, and recent sunspot activity has been very low. In fact according to SpaceWeatherLove.com here, the sun currently has no spots.

Chart: SpaceWeatherLive.com 

The upcoming solar cycle no. 25 is also expected to be one of low sunspot activity. Such cycles of low activity are linked to periods of cooler earth surface temperatures.

4.8 29 votes
Article Rating
95 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
M Courtney
August 9, 2021 6:06 am

One year does not a climate make.

And nobody knows anything on the complexities of predicting temperature measurements.

Even if La Nina does form there’s no guarantee the temperature figures will notice.
Just like the atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa didn’t notice the 2020 lockdowns.

These things do not measure what people think they measure. Climate is too complex to be summarised in any single global metric.

John Dueker
Reply to  M Courtney
August 9, 2021 6:32 am

The article only showed indicators it didn’t make predictions. In addition your assertion that it described a “single global metric” is a complete mischaracterization. Compare this with the alarmist predictions based on the output of a single model that has yet to be right. I much prefer an analysis of inputs.

Pierre Gosselin
Reply to  John Dueker
August 9, 2021 6:45 am

You’re right. I never claimed the year 2022 is going to define the climate, as M adventurously seems to nitpick. La Ninas do depress global temps, observations have long shown, e.g. the last 5 years. Of course if you want an exact prediction, we’d have to accurately weigh in all the factors, and nobody has succeeded doing that so far.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Pierre Gosselin
August 9, 2021 10:59 am

If the UAH graph was a stock chart, I would say the risk is to the downside.
Since it is not, I am still gonna say that.

Javier
Reply to  M Courtney
August 9, 2021 6:35 am

You don’t have a clue. As anybody could imagine, the effect of ENSO on the GSAT is very well known.
comment image

A new La Niña would mean a decrease in the GSAT.

Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 12:09 pm

Javier is correct.

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
[excerpts]
 
This formula works reasonably well back to 1982, which is the limit of my data availability.
 
5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:
 
UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)
 
6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).
 

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
August 10, 2021 5:11 am

In 2002, co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U, Ottawa and Allan MacRae, P.Eng. (now retired), McGill, Queens, U of Alberta, published:
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

Allan MacRae published in the Calgary Herald on September 1, 2002, based on communication with Dr Tim Patterson:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/#comment-63579

3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
MacRae updated his global cooling prediction in 2013, based on cold events that occurred starting circa 2008 near the end of Solar Cycle 23:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/study-predicts-the-sun-is-headed-for-a-dalton-like-solar-minimum-around-2050/#comment-1147149

3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
________________

THE REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS COOLING, AND IT MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED
By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/

For hundreds of extreme-cold events worldwide, see
https://electroverse.net/category/extreme-weather/

Leo Smith
Reply to  M Courtney
August 9, 2021 11:10 am

50 years do not a climate make, either.
Human history is littered with weather periods that lasted for years, then vanished to be replaced by other weather periods.
Exactly as a chaotic non linear system would behave.

JEHILL
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 9, 2021 6:00 pm

And strangely the climate in those places in history have all stayed within boundaries that the vast majority of lifeforms could adapt too; the other lifeforms either migrated or died off. What’s that call..again; evolution happened.

ResourceGuy
August 9, 2021 6:20 am

4) Low SST temp anomaly in the North Atlantic, and not coming back anytime soon

Pierre Gosselin
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 9, 2021 6:37 am

I thought about adding in the AMO, but that’s still in its warm phase. Yet, it’s gonna have to switch to the cool phase eventually, history shows.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Pierre Gosselin
August 9, 2021 7:00 am

When it turns it has more impact because of its cycle length. The Pacific is much larger but the cycles there are shorter. These are not equal weight listings.

Ron
Reply to  Pierre Gosselin
August 9, 2021 9:43 am

Wasn’t there a 2015 Nature paper that claimed that the AMO is still positive but at least at its peak or even already declining?

Ah yes, this one:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14491

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Ron
August 9, 2021 12:01 pm

Published in 2015 using data through what period?

Richard M
Reply to  Pierre Gosselin
August 9, 2021 1:44 pm

My own best guess is 2025 ± 2. Other influences could come into play as well. The Pinatubo eruption made it difficult to pin down exactly when the AMO went positive.

Another factor is the PDO. It appears to be leaning towards negative again but again other factors come into play. La Nina events almost always move it into negative territory for a while.

Both of these natural cycles could suppress global temperatures in the coming decade and beyond.

griff
August 9, 2021 6:38 am

No.

Absolutely not.

Ridiculous even to suggest it, even for one year.

Peter W
Reply to  griff
August 9, 2021 6:48 am

Have you heard about Milankovitch Cycles?

Javier
Reply to  Peter W
August 9, 2021 7:02 am

Milankovitch is only noticeable on the millennial and higher temporal scales. On the centennial scale and lower, Milankovitch parameters changes are too small to produce a noticeable effect.

Peter W
Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 7:38 am

Not according to some of the information I have seen!

philincalifornia
Reply to  Peter W
August 9, 2021 7:50 am

If you’re going to make a comment like that, then you need to show the information you have seen. Otherwise, it could just as easily be the voices in your head.

Sadly, I suspect the information you have seen is likely to be derived from the voices in other people’s heads. This site deals in data.

Peter W
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 9, 2021 8:26 am

See “Climate Change in Prehistory” by Burroughs. For example, the chart of sea level changes on page 58 shows consistent changes over several thousand years of about an inch every three years, both up and down. Explain how you get that much of a change in sea level with a stable climate.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Peter W
August 9, 2021 8:42 am

Peter, I’m not trying to be a prick here. In fact, I’m trying to be respectful of your position. You would have to connect, as in correlate at least, the Burroughs sea level data with Milankovitch cycles to convince people on here.

Peter W
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 9, 2021 1:10 pm

The Burroughs sea level data covers over 100,000 years. The longest Milankovitch cycle is 100,000 years. With that in mind, exactly what is your problem? I am afraid I do not understand.

Javier
Reply to  Peter W
August 9, 2021 9:20 am

 the chart of sea level changes on page 58 shows consistent changes over several thousand years of about an inch every three years, both up and down.

You’ve got to be kidding, Peter W. Chart 2.10 on page 58 of Burroughs’ “Climate change in prehistory” has the temporal scale in kya, kilo years, or thousands of years. It is not three years, it’s 3,000 years. That chart shows no change in sea levels for the past 5,000 years because they have been too small to be seen at a scale of meters.

The problem is not with the information, it is with your interpretation of the information.

Peter W
Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 1:08 pm

Same to you, with stars on it!

Javier
Reply to  Peter W
August 9, 2021 7:56 am

Disregard that information. It is incorrect.

The axial tilt of the Earth only changes by 0.1º in 1000 years.
comment image

MarkW
Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 8:08 am

But, but, but … what about tipping points?
Or was that tipping canoes?

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  MarkW
August 9, 2021 10:10 pm

“Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” (1840)

Peter W
Reply to  Javier
August 10, 2021 7:53 am

So what does the tilt of the earth have to do with it? Try looking at the shape of earth’s orbit, while keeping in mind that interesting conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the evening sky this past December. Now think about that!

It is the shape of earth’s orbit which is the biggest factor in causing ice ages, which then last for at least 90,000 years, just lie the last one we had until about 9,000 years ago.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
August 9, 2021 6:51 am

Yet this year is definitely cooler than last year, griff

How can that be?

MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
August 9, 2021 8:09 am

Who you gonna believe, griff or the lying data?

fretslider
Reply to  MarkW
August 9, 2021 8:49 am

Data and observation every time.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  fretslider
August 9, 2021 8:26 am

Yet this year is definitely cooler than last year…

That’s because of the recent La Nina conditions as shown on the NASA chart. These started around August 2020 and lasted until May 2021. As stated in the article, there is a lag between ENSO fluctuations and surface or LT monthly temperatures, so these have been reduced right up to the present month. This happens every time there is a La Nina. So far the warming has just picked right back up again each time following the onset of ENSO neutral and/or El Nino conditions.

philincalifornia
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 8:46 am

Yep, true, the warming has picked right back up at the same rate as pre-industrial. No additional CO2 signal or at best (for everyone) something possibly slightly measurable above zero. Might delay our descent into the next ice age proper and climate crisis by some years. Fortunately, humanity already has the technology to keep humans warm enough and it doesn’t involve stupid-ass carbon.

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 9:46 am

Ah yes, one month of warming following the end of the very weak La Nina, is proof that CO2 controls the climate.

Reply to  griff
August 9, 2021 7:37 am

If the “predictions” come from PIK, you are right 😀
Else NOT. 😀

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
August 9, 2021 7:43 am

Does your certainty grow as COP approaches in concert with planted news placement volume across more media outlets? These are some of the characteristics of underlying agendas in coordinated messaging and agenda science.

John Tillman
Reply to  griff
August 9, 2021 7:43 am

Please explain why Earth has been cooling since February 2016, and before that its GASTA stayed flat from 1998 to 2015, despite rapid growth in plant food in the air.

Thanks!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 9, 2021 8:09 am

The great models have spoken.
All hail the holy models.

icisil
Reply to  griff
August 9, 2021 10:34 am

You claimed a few days ago that Greenland’s sharp SMB drop meant global climate is warming. What does it mean when Greenland’s SMB goes the opposite direction by about the same amount a week later?

https://electroverse.net/yesterday-during-the-height-of-summer-greenland-gained-enough-mass-to-bury-central-park-under-2200-feet-of-ice/

Last edited 1 month ago by icisil
Reply to  icisil
August 9, 2021 1:39 pm

The actual graph you find here

Javier
August 9, 2021 6:47 am

We can try to estimate the joint effect from the three factors:

  1. La Niña can reduce GSAT by 0.3-0.4 ºC
  2. Soot from fires probably has a negligible effect.
  3. The solar minimum probably has an effect of -0.1 ºC, part of which has already happenened in the previous years.

It might be enough to go to the previous Pause level (+0.4 ºC in HadCRUT4) that took place 1998-2014 by the first half of 2022. That would mean no warming in the 21st century.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 8:29 am

The solar minimum probably has an effect of -0.1 ºC, part of which has already happenened in the previous years.

Then but for the low solar activity, I guess the already record warm period covered by solar cycle 24 would have been even warmer than it was.

Javier
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 8:50 am

The record warm period was due to the super El Niño of 2014-2016. Solar activity has a very small effect on temperatures on the short term, otherwise we would know it. It is in the long term when solar activity has a disproportionate effect on climate through indirect effects. The Modern Solar Maximum went for 1935-2005, 70 years with above average solar activity. It is since 2005 that solar activity started a long period of low activity known as the Eddy extended minimum, that is coincident with the Pause. It should extend until 2035 and we should see little, if any, warming until then.

The fact that CO2 cannot overcome the combined effect of low solar activity and the 60-yr oscillation indicates that most of the warming is natural. I already set the test to see if the solar hypothesis was a better predictor of global temperature in 2017.
comment image

So far the solar hypothesis is showing a better prediction.
comment image

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 11:00 am

The Modern Solar Maximum went for 1935-2005, 70 years with above average solar activity. It is since 2005 that solar activity started a long period of low activity known as the Eddy extended minimum, that is coincident with the Pause.

It’s pretty obvious, even from eye-balling the HadCRUT4 data above, that there has been continued warming since 2005. Quantifying it, the warming trend in HadCRUT5, the latest itteration in the HadCRUT series and the one used in AR6, the warming trend since 2005 is +0.24C per decade.

You put a lot of emphasis on a single strong El Nino in 2015-16, and no doubt this has influenced the trend since 2005; but there have also been 6 separate periods of La Nina cooling since 2005, including the double-dip one spanning 2010-12.

The fact that CO2 cannot overcome the combined effect of low solar activity and the 60-yr oscillation indicates that most of the warming is natural.

If it’s a 60-year oscillation then isn’t it a bit early to be drawing that conclusion?

Javier
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 11:53 am

It’s pretty obvious, even from eye-balling the HadCRUT4 data above, that there has been continued warming since 2005. Quantifying it, the warming trend in HadCRUT5, the latest itteration in the HadCRUT series and the one used in AR6, the warming trend since 2005 is +0.24C per decade.

There has been warming, but the speed of warming is decreasing since the mid-90s.

This is the 15-year average of the yearly averaged monthly rate of temperature increase in HadCRUT4. It includes data up to 2020.
comment image

As you can see, despite accelerated increase in CO2 levels, the planet is warming more slowly. The 2020 and 2021 Niñas can only reduce that speed even more. The CO2 hypothesis cannot explain 25 years of reduction in the speed of warming.

If it’s a 60-year oscillation then isn’t it a bit early to be drawing that conclusion?

Just by looking at the speed of warming we can see what Is going to happen to temperatures, because the speed of warming is the first derivative of temperature and therefore it is 90º phase shifted to temperature.
comment image

Figure from:
Schlesinger, M. E., & Ramankutty, N. (1994). An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65–70 years. Nature367(6465), 723-726.

1500 citations, yet almost completely ignored by AR5 since it doesn’t toe the line.

Scissor
August 9, 2021 6:58 am

Couldn’t the Gore effect also bring cooler temps, what with all the hypocrisy of flying private jets to a climate summit in Glasgow?

At the very least, expect poor karma emissions from that.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Scissor
August 9, 2021 7:46 am

Could be gearing up for that…

NOAA SST-NorthAtlantic GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×481) (wp.com)

But then they’ll just deflect it with smoke effects or current slow down. We know they have warehouses full of excuses.

Editor
August 9, 2021 7:04 am

Another La Nina could mean really bad things for the California rainy season this winter and next year’s fire season.

Eben
Reply to  Ric Werme
August 9, 2021 7:18 am

There is a lot of things California could do to manage the water and protect from fires, electric cars and windmills are not one of them

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Eben
August 9, 2021 8:21 am

No, wetlands and discharge to SF Bay come ahead of all else. The Party has decided who wins and who loses. Begin wearing your ID on clothing when out in public for the EPA guards to track you.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 9, 2021 11:40 am

There are no losers. The Party forbids it. Yes, there are double-plus good winners, but they are deserving for their service to the Party and our beloved Gov. Noisome. Please excuse my colonialist English, but I’m late for the Two Minutes Trump Hate and don’t have time to run this through the translator.

BobM
Reply to  Ric Werme
August 9, 2021 8:20 am

Logically, it seems that California’s (and perhaps other Western forests) fire seasons are now somewhat worse because they were artificially “governed” to be “better”, for decades now. If, in fact, there had been less airborne soot and smoke from “natural” but suppressed normal wildfires, and therefore less “cooling effect”, didn’t that contribute to a “man-made” warming effect? Do the models take that into “land-use” consideration? Honestly, I have no idea what the natural effect of normal forest fires, etc., would be around the world.

Rah
Reply to  Ric Werme
August 9, 2021 9:20 am

True but the Californias water supply and wildfire problems are for the most part caused by Californians.

August 9, 2021 7:14 am

We will see what happens:
comment image

August 9, 2021 7:15 am

And Greenland again adds snowmass in melting season:
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
Javier
August 9, 2021 7:29 am

One factor that Pierre Gosselin did not take into account is that the QBO just turned Eastward in June, and solar activity is still low. Low solar activity during QBOe years has a devastating effect on the winter Polar Vortex in the Northern Hemisphere. We can expect a disorganized polar vortex, with meandering Jet Stream, cold air masses intrusions into mid-latitudes, higher snow fall. As more warm air goes to the Arctic and escapes to space, the Earth cools down.

ren
Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 8:08 am

There is even some QBO anomaly visible in the middle stratosphere, perhaps related to the decrease in UV radiation.comment imagecomment image

pHil R
Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 10:11 am

ok, I’ll bite, I’m generally pretty good with acronyms, but what is QBO?

Javier
Reply to  pHil R
August 9, 2021 10:34 am

Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, a stratospheric equatorial wind current that descends towards the tropopause and is substituted by a wind current in the opposite direction. It is tremendously important.

Last edited 1 month ago by Javier
pHil R
Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 3:17 pm

Thanks for the clarification.

Ron Long
August 9, 2021 7:32 am

Good comments in this report, but I am a little leery about advising environmental fruitloops about smoke from fires producing cooling. They might get the idea “we had to destroy it to save it”.

John Tillman
Reply to  Ron Long
August 9, 2021 7:40 am

At the very least, it gives them a lame excuse should the coming months fall below the 30-year baseline again.

oeman 50
Reply to  Ron Long
August 9, 2021 7:56 am

Ah, yes. We had to burn the forests in order to save the world. But wait a minute, what about the heat released from all of that burned carbon, plus the CO2? I’m getting a headache.

John Tillman
August 9, 2021 7:33 am

La Niña is to be expected at this point in the solar cycle.

Ed Zuiderwijk
August 9, 2021 7:51 am

But, but, cooling = warming. Everybody knows that.

Bob boder
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 9, 2021 3:56 pm

Factually cooling does at some point mean warming, just not the way the cultist believe.

philincalifornia
August 9, 2021 7:56 am

Yay, pop the champagne corks everyone. Seth Goebbelstein thinks we could make it to two degrees C over Little Ice Age temperatures:

https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-un-report-ipcc-1d89d5183583718ad4ad311fa2ee7d83

Pillage Idiot
August 9, 2021 8:03 am

I have recently been out in the sun in several mid-continent states under the smoke haze skies.

While on vacation and working at the farm it HAS NOT been as hot as expected during activities in direct sunlight compared to my expected response based on the concurrent shade temperature. (I realize my body temperature is not a highly calibrated instrument, but I could always stay out in the heat longer than expected – and I am not getting any younger.)

Considering the chart below, imagine how much smoke haze there was covering the skies in the U.S. prior to the 1950s? Further, does the U.S. onset of fire suppression roughly correspond to similar efforts in Canada, Western Europe, and Russia? How much solar energy was sent back to space (prior to reaching the ground) during the Northern Hemisphere summers when the forest fires were burning 500% more acreage?

If the early part of the chart reflects the typical burns during the last 2,000 years, then how much of the observed warming since the 1950s could be just due to the reduction in fire smoke reflectivity?

I have read papers that assert that cleaning up the atmospheric pollution since the 1970s may have resulted in a portion of the observed temperature increases. However, does anyone know of any good papers or studies concerning the massive decrease in forest fire smoke and the expected temperature response?

US-Forest-Fire-Burn-Acreage-1.png
pHil R
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
August 9, 2021 10:18 am

My only question/observation would be the dust bowl years, 1930’s…much higher acreage burned coinciding with hot, dust bowl temps & drought conditions.

Ron
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
August 9, 2021 10:36 am

So in summary, taken better care of mother nature (less aerosols, less wildfire) has gotten us the higher temps? Dammit!

TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 8:16 am

3. Low sunspot activity

The previous solar sunspot cycle was one of low activity, and recent sunspot activity has been very low… The upcoming solar cycle no. 25 is also expected to be one of low sunspot activity. Such cycles of low activity are linked to periods of cooler earth surface temperatures.

You have to wonder why global temperatures were so high throughout the previous solar cycle in that case. Solar cycle 24 had the fewest sunspots of any cycle in a century, yet global temperatures were warmer than those recorded during any previous solar cycle.

philincalifornia
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 8:50 am

You already answered your own question above, along with the cooling question. ENSO is to global temperatures as Godzilla is to CO2 Bambi.

Last edited 1 month ago by philincalifornia
Javier
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 9:00 am

You only wonder if you are an ignorant. The planet might get a super El Niño about every 20 years. That was the main cause of the temperature increase during SC24, not solar activity.
comment image

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 11:02 am

I think we can all agree that the effects of ENSO dwarf those of solar activity. Can we also agree that, in terms of warming and cooling effcts on the climate, they even out over time?

Javier
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 12:07 pm

Only on the short term. On multidecadal or centennial escales Niños and Niñas tend to average out, while solar activity might accumulate to the point of producing a Little Ice Age or a Medieval Warm Period.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Javier
August 9, 2021 4:17 pm

Bob Tisdale, in his Climate Observations blog, has conclusively shown that El Ninos and La Ninas are not simply the different sides of a single coin, with an El Nino followed by an offsetting La Nina. A quick look at the above ENSO graph shows the approximate 27 year-period 1950-1976 has an excess of La Ninas during a generally cooling climate. The approximate 22 year period 1977-1998 has an excess of El Ninos during a generally warming climate. While the post 1998 period of about 22 years is a generally mixed bag of El Nino warming an La Nina cooling, without significant warming. What is in store after the recent and upcoming La Ninas is anybody’s guess.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 4:16 pm

The planet might get a super El Niño about every 20 years. That was the main cause of the temperature increase during SC24, not solar activity.”

“I think we can all agree that the effects of ENSO dwarf those of solar activity.”

The future (2015-16) El Niño was predicted by me on June 23 2014 here at WUWT as dependent on another sunspot increase, which occurred during the second SC24 sunspot peak. The El Niño progressed according to my solar threshold developed in 2014/15, warming right up until TSI fell below my decadal sun-ocean warming threshold in 2016, to the day.

comment image
comment image

I predicted in my 2018 AGU poster solar cooling until about 2022 according to this threshold. The recent La Niña and ocean cooling is evidence of this solar cooling period.

The many claims being made here by Javier and others regarding their views that solar activity is a smaller influence than ENSO activity simply show they don’t understand why the big El Niño or the La Niña happened in the first place, in spite of as in Javier’s case, relying on Leamon/McIntosh etal.

They were caused by the effects over time of deviations from my solar warming threshold of either accumulating or declining ocean temperatures.

Tropical (ENSO) temperatures are clearly attributable to solar cycle variation, expressed here by subtracting solar min years from solar max years:
comment image

G. Loco
Reply to  Bob Weber
August 10, 2021 5:45 am

Do you maintain a website, and do you have a prediction for post 2022?

Thanks

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 9:48 am

Thermal mass

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 9, 2021 10:22 am

Raw temperatures, or harmonized?

Steve Z
August 9, 2021 8:32 am

La Nina usually leads to dry weather over the western USA, which can lead to higher temperatures in the summer (less clouds blocking the strong sun).

Smoke from wildfires is already having a cooling effect in northern Utah. Daily maximum temps were near 100 for most of July, with mid-80s now. No real water-vapor clouds, but we can’t see the mountains from 5 miles away with all the smoke.

Duane
August 9, 2021 9:34 am

The earth is always cooling, when it’s not warming. It’s always doing one or the other. The planetary climate has never been a static thing.

ren
August 9, 2021 9:37 am

The upcoming La Niña may be weak, but that means a longer pause as the subsurface western Pacific will not be warmed enough for an El Niño to form.

Greg
August 9, 2021 9:59 am

Firstly, I have close to zero confidence in anyone’s ability to predict ENSO.

another factor that could act to cool the earth’s surface a bit over the short term are the massive wildfires in California and elsewhere this summer.

The cooling effect is over land and it’s oceans which control climate. I don’t expect any detectable effect here. And what about all that extra CO2 being released !! 😉

As for sunspots, probably the earliest and greatest urban climate myth.

To find the solar signal you’d need to first admit that there is a lunar signal of 9y. That may explain why supposed solar signal disappears from time to time.

combining lunar and solar produces a 59y cycle.

p1=9.1;p2=10.8;
cos(2*pi*x/p1)+cos(2*pi*x/p2)

This looks a bit like this ( different periods here ).
comment image

If you have lunar and solar interfering like that it will be hard to detect if you look for solar only.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
Javier
Reply to  Greg
August 9, 2021 10:24 am

ENSO is predictable based on solar activity, and both past El Niño and La Niña were successfully predicted.
comment image

I agree that the lunar cycle and the solar cycle interfere. AMO presents a 9-year oscillation that goes on and off synchronicity with the solar cycle. When the 9-year AMO goes from phase to anti-phase with the solar cycle the AMO turns positive, and when it goes from anti-phase to phase it turns negative.
comment image

That’s one of the basic features of the 60-year cycle.

I have 4 articles about this here at WUWT.

Reply to  Greg
August 9, 2021 11:45 am

El Niño Forecast Revisited

On 11 January 1999, my paper “Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña” was published on this web site. It included a forecast of the next El Niño around 2002.9 (End of November 2002). As this date is approaching, it seems to be in order to give a short delineation of the background of this forecast for those readers who are interested in an explanation of the general concept, but shun technical details. This all the more so as there are first indications that an El Niño is in the making.

Landscheidt had a different approach for the correct preedictions of La Niña

Javier wrote about here

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
Leo Smith
August 9, 2021 11:20 am

Weather scares stories proliferate as the panic sets in among the warmists, that the public may be falling out of love with renewable energy and climate scientists, costing thousands of jobs in windmill and solar panel companies, media and academia.

“We only have a year to save the planet windmills! Environ mental scientists are a species at risk. Journalist and academics are going to lose their jobs their homes and their careers, and don’t talk to me about retraining, they can’t do anything else!” Said a spokesmen for Renewable UK, clutching her JSA form to her ample bosom.

RickWill
August 9, 2021 3:20 pm

The list excluded the most important – there will be less ToA sunlight. The last time sunlight was as low as 2022 was 2001.

Earth’s ever changing orbit about the sun causes real climate change.

August 9, 2021 4:55 pm

Old timers in New Hampshire used to say forest fire smoke or “yellow days” meant cooler weather ahead in the short term. This made sense because a ridge in the west brought them heat and the dryness conducive to fires, but also tended to mean the jet would dig in the East, bringing south Canadian coolness. But what didn’t quite compute was that the chicken came before the egg. It might be hot in the East, with the Bermuda High making a fat ridge, which should mean the jet would dig south in the west. But as soon as the smoke appeared the Bermuda High seemed to get wimpy and cower away to the East. For this reason I suspect smoke has an effect In and of itself, even to a degree where it alters the jet stream.

Ewin Barnett
August 10, 2021 1:10 am

Dr. Valentina Zharkova has developed a unique model of the solar magnetic field dynamics that point to reductions and cooling during the next two solar cycles:
https://youtu.be/Wr7JDtm8qMU

ren
Reply to  Ewin Barnett
August 10, 2021 1:21 am

The Earth’s Climate at Minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles

Abstract
The recent extended and deep minimum of solar variability and the extended minima in the 19th and 20th centuries (1810-1830 and 1900-1920) are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle (CGC), a 90-100 year variation of the amplitude of the 11-year sunspot cycle observed on the Sun, solar wind, and at the Earth. The CGC has been identified in the Total Solar Irradiance reconstructed for over three centuries. The Earth’s climate response to the prolonged low solar irradiance involves heat transfer to the deep ocean with a time lag longer than a decade. The CGC minima, sometimes coincidently in combination with volcanic forcing, are associated with severe weather extremes. Thus the 19th century CGC minimum, coexisted with volcanic eruptions, led to especially cold conditions in United States, Canada and Western Europe (“a year without summer”). Using the reconstructed solar forcing and modeled and reconstructed Earth’s temperature data we identify the timing and spatial pattern of the Earth’s climate response that allows distinguishing the solar forcing from other climate forcings.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMSH43D2593R/abstract

john harmsworth
August 10, 2021 9:32 am

Which excuse will the Alarmists throw out this time when the expected warming doesn’t show up? Can’t be the sun. Can’t be La Nina. Must e all that darn smoke that is caused by Global warming! Global Warming causes Global Cooling! Cue the studies on how Global Cooling can, in turn cause Global Warming.

Ulric Lyons
August 10, 2021 6:08 pm

3. Low sunspot activity”
And what happens during a centennial solar minimum, the AMO warms and El Nino conditions increase. Not because of low sunspot activity but because of weaker solar wind states causing an increase in negative NAO/AO conditions, like since 1995. The peak of AMO cooling in the mid 1970’s was during the strongest solar wind states since 1964, that had lower sunspot activity too. Which shows what a useless measure it is,

%d bloggers like this: