Solar data suggest our concerns should be about global cooling.

David Archibald’s new paper “Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States”, will be presented at the Heartland Institute Climate Conference in NY City, March 2-4, 2008. David points out how solar data indicates that Solar Cycle 24 which is in the early throes of commencing now, could initiate global cooling.

39 thoughts on “Solar data suggest our concerns should be about global cooling.”

  1. Lates GISS data show Jan 2008 .28 degrees cooler than Dec 2007 and .43 degrees cooler than Oct 2007. Brrrrrrrr.

  2. An interesting paper. There was one question that sprang to mind upon reading it and I have sent a query to the author (reproduced below).

    Hi David

    On page 24 of your recent paper (which I accessed via there is a
    graph illustrating a variety of climate sensitivity estimates. You state
    that the 1 degree Celcius rise upon increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm
    in the absence of net negative or positive feedbacks is agreed upon by
    everyone. However, two pages before this you show a graphic illustrating the
    maximum temperature rise in going from 280 ppm to 1000 ppm as being about
    half of this rise. I am interested to know how you account for this
    difference? For what it’s worth, this is not a nit-pick from an AGW

  3. David,

    Herschel’s observation in the Philosophical Transactions of 1801 that high wheat prices, indicating a scarcity of wheat, occur when sunspots are at low numbers has proven true in the last year as wheat prices have risen to a record high (as of today).

  4. Two totally different computations cookie.
    The 1 degree figure ref to on page 24 is derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann law which treats the earth as if it is an idealised black body.

    The diagram at top of page 23 is another way of portraying the data in the graph at top of page 22 which derives from the widely used MODTRAN model, which attempts to model Earth conditions I think.

  5. Thanks Warwick

    David Archibald’s reply:

    ‘The graph on page 22 is based on Idso’s observations from nature that the
    relationship is 0.4 degrees per watt per square metre.

    The one degree on page 24 is the figure without either positive or negative

    Idso’s figure implies plenty of negative feedback from increased evaporation
    from the ocean’s surface. I understand that evaporation increases 7% for
    each one degree increase in temperature. That is why the warmest part of
    the ocean doesn’t get above 31 degrees.’

    To the layperson like myself, I think that this disrepency should be made clear within the paper.

  6. I really think David’s presentations are among the very best on the web. He has a talent for making the complex intelligible (IMHO the soul of science) and an economy of expression (skill with English).
    At the same time it is a conservative forecast, by no means alarmist.
    We can expect drought in our corn belt to accompany fewer degree days on the margin where rainfall should remain normal.
    At the same time Idso’s allowance for CO2 sensitivity is generous as is the estimated increase of 100ppm from LIA bottom to the current day from which he begins.

  7. I do not see a discrepancy cookie, two different “things” being measured.

    The Idso measurements are described in his 1998 paper which I have in www form here.
    How MINISCULE is the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect ?
    January 24th, 2006 by Warwick Hughes

    Sherwood Idso finds that a consensus of 8 natural experiments he describes is that for a doubling of carbon dioxide to 600ppm, the global temperature might rise at most by 0.4 degrees C.

  8. Can you tell us who peer reviewed your paper and why there are no sources cited? What, for example, were the sources of your graphs? The graph for sea ice does not match data from various ice centers, for example. Current sea ice extent is below the norm, yet you incorrectly show a spike above the norm. Sources?

    Ah, don’t bother. Were you a scientist your work would be in a journal and would have been peer reviewed.

  9. I’m sure glad with multiple degrees in Biology, Physics, Comp. Sci. and Math I don’t have to rely on shibolleths like ‘peer-reviewed’ to determine the value of an argument. Moreover, with Google I am able to access relevant data while vetting anyone’s work–just to refresh my memory, understand. Current sea ice below the norm? Where? Mars? NH is above norm, as is Antarctic.

  10. Try again:
    1. The polar faculae peak suggests a Solar Cycle 24 amplitude of 45. If you look at the sunspot cycles of the 18th century prior to the Dalton Minimum, the 20th century record has a similar structure.
    2. The weakness of the IMF. We have only three cycle’s worth of data. What is interesting is that cycle 20 was very flat in terms of IMF though the sunspot cycle itself was normal. The aa Index fell away half way through that cycle. We haven’t seen an increase in GCRs yet. Apparently the solar wind takes a year to get out to the heliopause and thus the effect will be smeared out.
    3. I was able to draw lines on the bounding edges of that descending wedge in the IMF. What does that mean about the underlying processes that create the IMF? I think that there is a paper just in that little wedge because nothing similar is seen in the prior 30 years of data.
    4. The cooling we are seeing now may be due to solar minimum and it may be due to a relaxation from that peak in solar flares and the aa Index in 2003, depending upon the lag in the oceans.
    5. That said, we have at least another year of solar minimum-related cooling coming.
    6. The application of Friis-Christensen and Lassen methodology to US temperature series. It doesn’t matter what else you believe in, the correlations are too good to dismiss. Therefore every day’s delay to the magnetic reversal at solar minimum decreased the temperature of the US by 0.002 degrees C, relative to the length of the previous cycle. You don’t have to know what the mechanism is for this to be valid. 1.4 C of cooling is already in the bag. I think it is significant that the AGW promotors are silent on this one. They have no answer to it, and it blows their edifice away. It is the dog that didn’t bark in the night. This is the most significant bit of new data in this paper.

    A year ago, I thought that I wouldn’t be able to give any more original views to this debate. Interaction with a solar denier over at Climate Audit, Dr Svalgaard, enabled me to freshen it up and give it a better basis in solar science.

  11. In futures terms, I am long on food. And all that more expensive, less available, food implies. Famine, pestilence … conquest by the Shanghai Cooperation Org … global thermonuclear war. You should be especially concerned in resource rich, temperate to tropical Australia. You have what they want, and few to defend it. Don’t count on the US, we are like the UK were, 1919 – 1940.

  12. Steve S, you are not the only one who worries about the geopolitical consequences of a cooling climate. We may look back on the last 30 or 40 years as a period of unprecedented peace, plenty and prosperity.

  13. David

    I read up to page 3 of your paper when I noticed comments which were not consistent with the main thrust of your argument. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the purpose of your paper is to show that there is a significant correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature. In particular, you conclude that a long cycle is followed by climate cooling and predict that due to the length of the current cycle (SC 23) significant cooling can be expected in the next few years.

    On page 3 you discuss the temperature record of a rural US data set (we’ll ignore the issue of selecting such a small region for analysis). Your final comment is as follows:

    “The 1.5° temperature decline from the late 1950s to the mid-70s was due to a weak solar cycle 20 after a strong solar cycle 19.”

    My comments :

    1. From the graph, it looks as though the cooling actually began in the late 1940’s – or at best the early 1950’s which was actually before the start of SC 19 (i.e. the strong one).

    2. SC 20 didn’t begin until 1964 by which time the bulk of the cooling had already occurred.

    3. SC 20 (the long one) ended in 1976. If your cycle length/temperature hypothesis is correct, cooling should have been evident in the post-1976 years. Needless to say, it wasn’t.

  14. John Finn:
    While your comments weren’t addressed to me, as an interested reader, I’m having a hard time making sense of the timescale your using and the comparison referred to that might graph solar cycles against temperature.
    The graphic comparison on page three, TSI versus Temperature, doesn’t seem to support your points.
    Any close comparison of solar cycles and temperature would have to include the oceanic flywheel, PDO-AMO, as the ocean’s heat capacity is 2000 times that of the atmosphere. Inotherwords, surface temperature at smaller timescales is a function of incoming TSI and TSI history. That, however, isn’t a focus of the discussion.

  15. Gary re: #19

    David claims the cooling in the “late 1950s” was due to “a weak solar cycle 20″. I’m suggesting that the cooling began in the late 1940s (or possibly early 1950s) and, in any case, Solar Cycle 20 didn’t begin until 1964 by which time most of the cooling had already
    happened. How then can SC 20 be responsible ?

    David is the one insisting there’s a close (and immediate) relationship between temperature and solar cycle length. I think he may be wrong about substantial imminent cooling.

  16. John Finn:
    I do see the sentence you’re referring to but I can’t verify the issue graphically from the paper.
    The paper graphs TSI with which SSN would only correlate positively, as would Radio Flux and Geomagnetic Index.
    In particular the argument indicates that the solar minimum length is strongly associated with global cooling. Look at the graph on page 4, aren’t the temperature low points on either side of cycle 20 most outstanding?

  17. Re:

    ” I do see the sentence you’re referring to but I can’t verify the issue graphically from the paper. ”

    I’m referring to the graph entitled “US Rural Data Set” which according to the version of the paper I can see is at the top of Page 3. But it doesn’t really matter since almost all data sets show cooling before 1950 which must rule out SC 20 as the cause.

  18. It is not just the delay of sc 24 that has caused the record drop in temp. 2007-2008. Also we must remember that TSI has been dropping steady from an 8,000 year high. These two factors combining are what has caused the temp. drop,and both are going to continue to be a factor in the coming years.

  19. RE: Also we must remember that TSI has been dropping steady from an 8,000 year high.

    Do the math. Another Maunder may be a best case scenario. I am ready for something far worse than that.

  20. Marshall

    Also we must remember that TSI has been dropping steady from an 8,000 year high.

    Say what? According to the ACRIM team, TSI has been increasing since 1980. I think you mean SSN, which might be more accurate.

  21. Re 20, Beach Boy, sorry I haven’t got back to you earlier. I think the Russian has the direction right but is about 20 years late. Things are pointing to a Solar Cycle 24 amplitude of about 45. That number is within Schatten’s error bar on his estimate of 72. A number of wavelet people have numbers in the 40s.

    Interesting things are happening in the progression of this cycle. The last 27 day period of the IMF was 3.3 – and we are likely to be still a year off solar minimum. Right at the moment I am thinking I would like to get my hands on the solar UV data. The background to that is that yesterday I was working on the Maunder Minimum, which had five solar cycles in a 70 year period for an average length of 14 years. That three year increase over average solar cycle length would have produced a two degree cooling. C14 and Be10 were normal through the Maunder Minimum, so galactic cosmic rays can’t explain the cooling. There was a Be10 spike at the end of the Maunder Minimum, and I am going to plot that up in terms of the Central England Temperature.

    By the way, there seems to be a 60 year odd periodicity in the Be10 spikes in the Dye-3 record, and on that basis we are due for another one next decade, so it might be a double whammy.

    Back to the Maunder Minimum – something varied and it may be UV. So plotting up UV as we go in and out of this minimum could be a productive line of enquiry. Somehow, a long solar cycle may mean lower UV, but substantially the same TSI, in the following cycle.

    I have finished working through European temperature records. The closer a site is to the Arctic Circle, the better the solar cycle length – temperature correlation. Thus Archangel is good, and so is De Bilt, Armagh and the Central England Temperature.

  22. “C14 and Be10 were normal through the Maunder Minimum, so galactic cosmic rays can’t explain the cooling.”

    I’m going to link this over a Watts’.

  23. David Archibald

    I notice you didn’t address my queries (Post#18 – a couple of posts earlier than Beach Boy’s).

    We’ll let that pass for now. On a separate point – do you have the URL for the Butler and Johnson paper which you refer to in your papers. Failing that can you tell me what data you are using for your SCL/temp correlations, i.e. is it just cycle length v 11 year mean or smoothed cycle length (over several cycles) or something else.

  24. Re 34 and 18, John Finn, in 18 you didn’t ask any questions, you made statements which anyone is free to make.

    On to 34, I don’t have a URL for the Butler and Johnson paper but I will ask Warwick to post it on his site. Bonus answer, it is solar cycle length versus the average temperature over the following cycle. No smoothing or averaging involved. Try it yourself. Go to GISS, download Hanover and start plotting.
    Added by WH 24 Mar
    Butler and Johnson paper,
    also via David;
    Dr Roy Spencer PowerPoint presentation of his paper from Heartland Climate Conference NY, “Recent evidence for reduced climate sensitivity.
    and off topic;
    Cartoon from Canberra Times featuring our new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in the big wide world.

  25. David:

    Anthony Watts has posted this graph several times of Geomagnetic activity:

    He’s pointing to a step-drop in magnetic activity in October 2005 as “something happened”. Care to comment on that? It does appear that something indeed did happen which caused magnetic activity to drop to a level and not really recover from. Is this normal/abnormal? What does it mean really?

    Still amazed Dr. Landsheidt basically nailed this solar activity downturn decades ago. Just amazing…

  26. Re 36, Matt, it looks very similar to the graph of IMF that I put in my NY presentation. We only have three decades of data. I wouldn’t call that particular fall in 2005 too abnormal, what the next twelve months will bring will be interesting.

  27. Weird stuff. Months of virtually zero activity, all of a sudden 3 spots. And they’re all on the equator, so they’re Cycle 23 spots.

    This is the Energizer Bunny of solar cycles. Keeps going, and going, and going….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>