NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a “Mini-Maunder” Cooling Event

This research investigating solar cycle anomolies expects it to get very cold. I've omitted most of the charts which are at the link provided.

Global cooling coming? Archibald uses solar and surface data to predict 4.9°C fall (!)

David Archibald, polymath, makes a bold prediction that temperatures are about to dive sharply (in the decadal sense). He took the forgotten correlation that as solar cycles lengthen and weaken, the world gets cooler. He refined it into a predictive tool, tested it and published in 2007. His paper has been expanded on recently by Prof Solheim in Norway, who predicts a 1.5°C drop in Central Norway over the next ten years.

Our knowledge of they solar dynamo is improving, and David adds the predicted solar activity ’til 2040 to the analysis. Normal solar cycles are 11 years long, but the current one (cycle 24) is shaping up to be 17 years (unusually long), and using historical data from the US, David predicts a 2.1°C decline over Solar Cycle 24 followed by a further 2.8°C over Solar Cycle 25. That adds up to a whopping 4.9°C fall in temperate latitudes over the next 20 years. We can only hope he’s wrong. As David says ” The center of the Corn Belt, now in Iowa, will move south to Kansas.”

He also predicts continuing drought in Africa for another 14 years, with droughts likely in South America too.

If he’s right, it’s awful and excellent at the same time. Cold hurts, but wouldn’t it be something if we understood our climate well enough to plan ahead?

See his post below for all the details…

- Jo

———————————————

Just how much cooler will it get?

Friis-Christensen and Lassen found the relationship between solar cycle length and temperature in 1991. In 1996, Butler and Johnson applied that theory to the 200 years of temperature data at Armagh, Northern Ireland and found a relationship of 0.4°C per extra year of solar cycle length. I showed that Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory could be used as a predictive tool in 2007. My methodology was copied by Professor Solheim in an article for a Norwegian astronomical magazine. His work predicts a 1.5°C decline, on average, in Norwegian temperatures over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23.

Professor Solheim has a paper in press that credits me with the discovery of the use of Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to predict climate. In the meantime, he has published a paper predicting a 6°C decline for Svalbard, on the island of Spitzbergen, in winter over Solar Cycle 24. At the moment, Professor Solheim and his co-authors have the field to themselves.

<img src=http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/archibald-david/dombass-norway-temperature-sunspots-550.jpg>

This is a figure from the paper in press, predicting a 1.5°C decline for Dombaas in central southern Norway. In 2010, temperatures already fell to the range predicted by the paper.

<img src=http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/archibald-david/northern-hemisphere-sunspots-temperature.gif>

Also from that paper, the predicted decline in global temperature of 1.0°C will take us back to temperatures last seen in the mid-19th Century. All the warming of the 20th Century will be wiped out. This prediction is at the 95% confidence level.

Professor Solheim and his co-authors have confirmed that solar cycle length is the main determinant of climate, in the correlations over the last few hundred years. So it seems if we want to predict climate, we have to predict solar cycle length. The length of a solar cycle is negatively correlated with its amplitude: the lower the amplitude, the longer the cycle. There are plenty of exceptions though. For example, Solar Cycle 23 was relatively strong with a peak sunspot number of 120, but longer than average at 12.5 years.

We can now predict solar cycle length even before the first sunspots of that cycle have become visible. From Altrock, R.C., 2010, “The Progress of Solar Cycle 24 at High Latitudes”:

“Cycle 24 began its migration at a rate 40% slower than the previous two solar cycles, thus indicating the possibility of a peculiar cycle. However, the onset of the “Rush to the Poles” of polar crown prominences and their associated coronal emission, which has been a precursor to solar maximum in recent cycles (cf. Altrock 2003), has just been identified in the northern hemisphere. Peculiarly, this “rush” is leisurely, at only 50% of the rate in the previous two cycles.”

If Solar Cycle 24 is progressing at 60% of the rate of the previous two cycles, which averaged ten years long, then it is likely to be 16.6 years long. This is supported by examining Altrock’s green corona diagram from mid-2011 above. In the previous three cycles, solar minimum occurred when the bounding line of major activity (blue) intersects 10° latitude (red). For Solar Cycle 24, that occurs in 2026, making it 17 years long.

For humanity, that is going to be something quite significant, because it will make Solar Cycle 24 four years longer than Solar Cycle 23. With a temperature – solar cycle length relationship for the North-eastern US of 0.7°C per year of solar cycle length, temperatures over Solar Cycle 25 starting in 2026 will be 2.8°C colder than over Solar Cycle 24, which in turn is going to be 2.1°C colder than Solar Cycle 23.

The total temperature shift will be 4.9°C for the major agricultural belt that stretches from New England to the Rockies straddling the US – Canadian border. At the latitude of the US-Canadian border, a 1.0°C change in temperature shifts growing conditions 140 km – in this case, towards the Gulf of Mexico. The centre of the Corn Belt, now in Iowa, will move to Kansas.

Similar effects will be seen in China, Russia, Ukraine, Western Europe and South America. Colder tends to be drier, so there will also be a drought effect on top of the shorter growing seasons.

For completeness in predicting temperature, let’s also calculate the contribution from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. We can do that by dividing the whole atmospheric carbon dioxide heating effect, as calculated by the Modtran software maintained by the University of Chicago, by the relative contribution by 20 ppm increment.

That enables us to generate this graph of climate to 2040. The blue line is the predicted annual average temperature. The red line is that less the contribution from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The higher atmospheric carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions have increased crop yields by 15%, so it is not completely useless.

<img src=http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/archibald-david/solar-cycles-kocharov-1600-1750.gif>

The last time we saw solar cycles as long as Solar Cycle 25 is projected to be was in the Maunder Minimum. Solar Cycles weren’t seen at the time due to a lack of sunspots. They are inferred from cycles in C14.

The last time the World had a significant cooling event was in the 1970s. That resulted in some research of what would happen to agricultural productivity in the event of cooling. Above is a map from some of that research showing the thermal limit to wheat growing in Canada as the stippled line and what that would shrink to in the event of a one degree decline in temperature. A 2.1°C decline is predicted over Solar Cycle 24 and a further 2.8°C over Solar Cycle 25. The prognosis for Canadian agriculture is not good.

The prognosis for other continents isn’t good either. Early in the 20th Century, it was noticed that there is a strong relationship between sunspot activity and the level of Lake Victoria in East Africa. Then the relationship broke down for 40 years before resuming in the 1970s. Parts of East Africa are currently in drought. Our prognosis of solar activity suggests that will continue for at least another fourteen years.

Colder is drier in South America too. The Parana River is the second largest river in South America and enters the Atlantic between Paraguay and Brazil. There are historical records of people being able to walk across it at times in the 16th century. Two Argentinian researchers found a relationship between sunspot number and Parana River streamflow. That relationship and our prediction of solar activity point to a long drought coming for central South America.

David Archibald

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/gl...-solar-and-surface-data-to-predict-4-9c-fall/

 

lol, Dombaas Norway. What a name huh

 

You've never heard of <s>Dumbass</s>, I mean Dombass, Norway?

I wonder what they call the residents? Just Dumbasses?

 

Yes you are right. It's probably closer to 98% now.

 

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases." (August 2012)

American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)

American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)

Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)

American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)

National Science Academies

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)

International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)

International academies: The Science of Climate Change

"Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science)

Research

National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices

"Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010

U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

"Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes

"Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change.'... Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.

Sign-on Statements

The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change: Scientists’ letter to the U.S. Congress. Statement signed by 18 scientists.
"We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation." (2011)

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. "... For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. ... The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. ...Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." (2010)

U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"We call on our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate." (2008)


http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-c...nsensus-on.html

 

Maybe you missed ALL of the previous evidence I presented about the overwhelming 97% consensus among climate scientists. So here it is again....

In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."


https://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

 

Numerous survey studies have been done, and the results are overwhelmingly in favor of scientific consensus that the earth is warming and human activity is the cause. Surveys done by reputable organizations find that around 97% of climate scientists agree with the statements above. The following are results from a few of these surveys, plus a resolution from a very distinguished group of scientists.

Expert Credibility in Climate Change (NAS)

This study compiled a list of 1,372 climate scientists, and then looked at those who are "actively publishing" in the science of climate. They categorized the scientists as either "convinced" or "unconvinced" by the evidence. The results were that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change. They also found that those scientists that were unconvinced had significantly fewer publications (in any science) than those that were convinced. This suggests that the (vocal) "unconvinced" group actually has done a lot less research. (Read this study in full.)

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (AGU)

This study was done in order to address the broader question of public opinion versus scientific opinion. It asked two questions, one about whether temperature is increasing, and one about whether or not human activity is contributing to any change. Here are the results:

Question #1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen.
Question #2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 82% of all the scientists and 97% climate scientists agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor.
The anonymous poll sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts at universities and government labs around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. The 2-minute, two-question poll had 3146 responses (30.7% of those polled). Approximately 90% of the scientists who responded were from the U.S., and about 90% held a Ph.D. degree. Of these scientists, 5% were climate scientists who published more than 50% of all their peer-reviewed publications in the past five years on the subject of climate change. The authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory. More results from this study, including responses from the general public, are shown below in Figure 1. (Read this study in full.)


http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp

 

In a 2012 analysis, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that 93 percent of Fox News' representations of climate science from February to July 2012 were misleading, and "The most common form of criticism regarding climate science was to broadly dismiss the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring or human-induced." UCS recommended:

To improve the accuracy of climate science coverage, News Corp. can help staff better differentiate between scientific and policy claims on climate change. It is always misleading to reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that human-caused climate change is occurring, but can be entirely appropriate to criticize specific policies aimed at addressing climate change. [Union of Concerned Scientists, 9/20/12]

Study Found 60 Percent Of Regular Fox Viewers Are Misinformed About Scientific Consensus. A study from the University of Maryland examined variations in misinformation by exposure to news sources and found that Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely" to be misinformed about the scientific consensus on climate change. Of those who said they watched Fox News "almost every day," 60 percent believed that "most scientists think climate change is not occurring" or that "views are divided evenly." By contrast, only 25 percent of CNN viewers, 20 percent of MSNBC viewers, and 35 percent of broadcast news viewers held that misconception.

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...of-doubt/190906

 

More of the same nonsense....