German Scientists Show Climate Driven By Natural Cycles – Global Temperature To Drop To 1870 Levels By 2100!

Climate reveals periodic nature, thus no influence by CO2

Prof. H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss
(Original German version here.)

We reported recently about our spectral analysis work of European temperatures [1] which shows that during the last centuries all climate changes were caused by periodic (i.e. natural) processes. Non-periodic processes like a warming through the monotonic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause at most 0.1° to 0.2° warming for a doubling of the CO2 content, as it is expected for 2100.

Fig. 1 (Fig. 6 of [1] ) shows the measured temperatures (blue) and the temperatures reconstructed using the 6 strongest frequency components (red) of the Fourier spectrum, indicating that the temperature history is determined by periodic processes only.

On sees from Fig. 1 that two cycles of periods 200+ years and ~65 years dominate the climate changes, the 200+ year cycle causing the largest part of the temperature increase since 1870.

EIKE_2

Fig. 1: Construction of temperatures using the 6 strongest Fourier components (red),  European temperatures from instrumental measurements (blue). It is apparent that only  a 200+ year cycle and a ~65 year cycle play a significant role.

The ~65 year cycle is the well-known, much studied, and well understood “Atlantic/Pacific oscillation” (AMO/PDO).  It can be traced back for 1400 years. The AMO/PDO has no external forcing it is “intrinsic dynamics”, an “oscillator”.

Although the spectral analysis of the historical instrumental temperature measurements [1] show a strong 200+ year period, it cannot be inferred with certainty from these measurements, since only 240 years of measurement data are available. However, the temperatures obtained from the Spannagel stalagmite show this periodicity as the strongest climate variation by far since about 1100 AD.

The existence of this 200+ year periodicity has nonetheless been doubted. Even though temperatures from the Spannagel stalagmite agree well with temperatures derived from North Atlantic sedimentation; and even though the solar “de Vries cycle”, which has this period length, is known for a long time as an essential factor determining the global climate.

A perfect confirmation for the existence and the dominant influence of the 200+ year cycle as found by us [1] is provided by a recent paper [2] which analyses solar activities for periodic processes.

eike_2

Fig. 2: Spectrum of solar activity showing the 208 year period as the strongest climate variation.

The spectrum Fig. 2  (Fig. 1d of [2]) shows clearly a 208-year period as the strongest variation of the solar activity. Fig. 3 (Fig. 4 of [2]) gives us the solar activity of the past until today as well as the prediction for the coming 500 years. This prediction is possible due to the multi-periodic character of the activity.

EIKE_1

Fig. 3: Solar activity from 1650 to present (measurement, solid line) and prediction for the coming 500 years (light gray: prediction from spectrum, dark gray: prediction from wavelet analysis). Letters M,D,G denote the historical global temperature minima: Maunder, Dalton, Gleissberg.

The solar activity agrees well with the terrestrial climate. It clearly shows in particular all historic temperature minima. Thus the future temperatures can be predicted from the activities – as far as they are determined by the sun (the AMO/PDO is not determined by the sun).

The 200+ year period found  here [2], as it is found by us [1] is presently at its maximum. Through its influence the temperature will decrease until 2100 to a value like the one of the last “Little Ice Age” 1870.

The wavelet analysis of the solar activity Fig. 4 (Fig. 1b of [2]) has interesting detail. In spite of its limited resolution it shows (as our analysis of the Spannagel stalagmite did) that the 200+ year period set in about 1000 years ago. This cycle appears, according to Fig. 4, regularly every 2500 years. (The causes for this 2500 year period are probably not understood.)

eike_4

Fig. 4: Wavelet analysis of solar activity (showing which periods were active at which time). The dominant oscillations (periods between 125 years and 250 years) are clearly recognizable and recurring at 2500 years.

Summary

The analysis of solar activity proves the existence and the strength of the 200+ year periodicity which we found from historical temperature measurements, as well as from the Spannagel stalagmite data. This 200+ year cycle is apparently the one known as “de Vries cycle”.

This solar “de Vries cycle together with the AMO/PDO determine practically completely the global climate of the past  (Fig. 1) and the coming time. A significant influence of CO2 on the climate thus has to be excluded. This latter is not surprising in view of the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its weak infrared absorption cross section (also in view of the various proves of NEGATIVE water feedback).

eike_5

Fig. 5: Predicted global temperature of “official” models  (red) and real (measured) global temperature (green).

The present “stagnation” of global temperature (Fig. 5) is essentially due to the AMO/PDO: the solar de Vries cycle is presently at its maximum. Around this maximum it changes negligibly. The AMO/PDO is presently beyond its maximum, corresponding to the small decrease of global temperature. Its next minimum will be 2035. The temperature can expected to be then similar to the last AMO/PDO minimum of 1940. Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the “little ice age” of 1870.

It accounts for the long temperature rise since 1870. One may note, that the stronger temperature increase from the 1970s to the 1990s, which is “officially” argued to prove warming by CO2, is essentially due to the AMO/PDO cycle.

[1] H.Luedecke, A. Hempelmann, C.O. Weiss; Clim. Past.  9  (2013) p 447

[2] F. Steinhilber, J. Beer; Journ. Geophys. Res.: Space Physics  118  (2013) p 1861

 

30 responses to “German Scientists Show Climate Driven By Natural Cycles – Global Temperature To Drop To 1870 Levels By 2100!”

  1. Ric Werme

    This fits in fairly well with a Chinese tree ring study that has 2500 years of data. It shows the local peak was in 2006. It can be used to hindcast the historical record, and to forecast some 60 years of cooling to 2068. After that it calls for warming to another peak at 2100 but somewhat cooler than 2006. (This is more similar to the stagmite FFT analysis than the wavelet analysis). The power spectrum shows cycles of 1324, 800, 199, and 110 years.

    See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/ I keep a link to that and a similar Japanese study at http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html

  2. Ric Werme

    > “Little Ice Age” 1870.

    Is this a different little ice age than the “real” little ice age in the 1600s? Googling |little ice age 1870| yields several instances of 1300-1870, e.g. http://www.climatepedia.org/terms.php?term_id=177 :

    The Little Ice Age was a period of extreme cooler temperatures and climates for most parts of the world between 1300 and 1870.

    Perhaps that should refer to the “end of the LIA.”

  3. Ny studie visar att periodiska processer styr klimatet - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

    […] [3] NoTricksZone – Climate reveals periodic nature, thus no influence by CO2 […]

  4. Charles.U.Farley

    Does this mean I can reclaim my stolen taxes?

  5. BobW in NC
  6. Report: Scientists predict a century of global cooling | World Media Monitoring

    […] Researchers used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called the de Vries cycle. […]

  7. stefanthedeniers

    climate is in constant change; GLOBAL warming is phony. Always some place is warmer than normal; but simultaneously other place / places is colder, overall is same temp in the troposphere at any time: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/

  8. stefanthedeniers

    if cooling is ahead, isn’t it fair to reward the big polluters for preventing global cooling?

  9. German scientists predict global temperature will decline throughout this century | Atlas Monitor

    […] German Scientists Show Climate Driven By Natural Cycles – Global Temperature To Drop To 1870 L… (notrickszone.com) […]

  10. eco-geek

    What I find interesting is that a new consensus is both emerging and going public. It is however a divided consensus, as well it should be, as to how much cooling the planet will be subjected to over the coming decades.

    How deep will the plunge into the next LIA be?

    Has anyone yet been able to synthesise and overview as to what the differences between the models and views are? This is an important next step as it will help further research into the different possible “hows” and “whys”.

    This kind of research is seriously in need of funding as “The Plunge” with all its socio-economic and political implications is already underway.

  11. Report: Scientists predict a century of global cooling | I Hate Al Gore

    […] used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called […]

  12. Another Global Cooling Prediction | Frank Davis

    […] Climate Depot. Russian scientists have been predicting global cooling for some years. Now two German scientists add to the chorus, finding multiple temperature […]

  13. James

    I understand that our education system is not the best, and that fewer and fewer Americans actually understand the scientific process. Here in Florida our Tea Party Governor, Rick Scott, has an approval rating similar to congress, slightly below poop.
    He is “solving” the problem of low high school graduation rates by, are you ready for this, removing the requirements for science and math classes because they are “too hard”. Here we come Honey Boo boo society.

    So lets just keep this simple and look only at the title of this article.

    “Climate reveals periodic nature, thus no influence by CO2 ”

    Geeee I could write statements like that too . . .

    Romney breaths oxygen, thus the world will end on Jan 1st 2014

    The NSA spies on American citizens, thus we should all accept the loss of our civil liberties.

    Most Texans own guns, therefor we should nuke France.

    Do you see the pattern here? Perhaps there is a big huge obvious logical problem with the title?

    I’m a scientist. We scientists are an independent thinking lot. The majority of us rarely agree on, well, pretty much anything. When 90% of us agree on anything, the world really should stop watching Honey Boo Boo and the Kardashians and pay attention to actual experts that actually study things and generally, as a group, make decisions based on facts.

    Attention republicans – your being sold a bill of goods. A strategic decision to fight climate changes was made some time ago and now your hell bent on ignoring reality, ignoring the experts and sticking to the party line.

    The rational world has long since moved past debating if climate change is real. Flogging this dead horse is not helping your cause.

    Here is the thing – as conservatives one would think you would want to, well, conserve. If you want your children to have the same or better quality of life as you do, in addition to fighting the debt (an issue I’m right there with you on), you might also want to conserve the environment which provides us with ecosystem benefits that are so valuable that it is hard for even economists to put a value on them. Things like air, food and water.

    If we as a nation are beyond being able to think critically, then perhaps irony will work.

    The environment provides us with air, water, food and building materials, thus we should destroy it.

    Dr. James

    1. DirkH

      James
      8. Dezember 2013 at 23:06 | Permalink | Reply
      “I’m a scientist. We scientists are an independent thinking lot.”

      And all dependent on government grants that reward results showing that the Earth is going to hell in a handcart and that Big Government is the only solution.

      NASA alone cashes in 1.2 billion USD a year for climate scare research.

    2. Ed Caryl

      Dear Dr. James,
      Did you really miss the point of the article? Which was: If the influence of natural cycles explains all the past temperature variation with no room for a CO2 influence, then a projection of those cycles into the future will predict future temperature. I will give you that the wording of the secondary title could have been slightly different, but this is coming from the German. The snark is unnecessary.

      So far, the “strategic decision to fight climate change” is fighting something that does not exist as the politicians envision it. Because temperatures cycle on the scale of a human lifetime, the up cycle was thought of as having never occurred before and that humans had caused it. Politicians seized on this as a means to an end: more taxes, government controlled spending, and government control in general. The resulting money bought an increasing number of “researchers” willing to tell the politicians what they wanted to hear. The left-leaning media go along with this and propagate the message. A message repeated often enough becomes the “truth”.

      Of course climate change is real. It has been changing constantly since the beginning of time. The constant changes of solar output, orbital mechanics, movement of the continents, volcanic activity, seasons, and the chaotic nature of the atmosphere, insure that the climate will never be “settled”. But man can have little impact on it.

      Yes, the environment provides us with air, water, food, and building materials. CO2 is part of the air. It is as necessary for life as oxygen. It is what supports plant life on this planet. It is not a pollutant. The real air pollutants, soot, sulfur dioxide, fly ash, nitrous oxide, and others, have largely, in the western world at least, been reduced to the point of not being a problem. China and India need to do their part. Collecting “reparations” from the countries that have solved the air pollution problem to give to countries that have not makes no sense. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is already helping the third-world grow crops. Without it there would be famine.

      Water and money resources are now being heavily used to grow corn for ethanol. The result is the silting of the Mississippi and an enlarged “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico due to erosion and fertilizer run-off. This makes no environmental sense. This shifting of food to fuel has raised the price of food world-wide, resulting in unrest in the middle-east, and more hunger in the third-world. Biofuel palm oil has resulting in tropical forest destruction that is reducing the world biosphere, as well as other environmental impact. Forests are now being harvested to produce wood pellets for power-plant fuel. This will raise the price of lumber. Wind turbines are now polluting the visual environment, killing endangered birds and bats, causing much environmental destruction in China to make the Neodymium magnets, and in the near (20 year) future, as they begin failing, will be a major source of environmental damage on Western US ridge lines. They will become a curse word.

      Dr James, you need to take your critical thinking to the next level.

    3. Dorian

      Dear James;

      Note, I refer to you as James and not Dr. James. Personally I think you should take that patronizing and self centered independent thinking of yours, along with your useless Ph.D, and go back to school and really learn some real science, and pick up some sanity if at all possible.

      Some poignant observations on your foolishness:

      What is the point of this nonsense?
      ————————–
      “I understand that our education system is not the best, and that fewer and fewer Americans actually understand the scientific process. Here in Florida our Tea Party Governor, Rick Scott, has an approval rating similar to congress, slightly below poop.
      He is “solving” the problem of low high school graduation rates by, are you ready for this, removing the requirements for science and math classes because they are “too hard”. Here we come Honey Boo boo society.”
      ————————–
      James, this is a scientific article, not a place for your left wing, political commentary. You call your self a scientist and independent thinker…. FAILED. Nothing scientific or independent thinking here, just plain and simple prejudice and bias.

      So how about this:
      ————————–
      So lets just keep this simple and look only at the title of this article.

      “Climate reveals periodic nature, thus no influence by CO2 ”

      Geeee I could write statements like that too . . .

      Romney breaths oxygen, thus the world will end on Jan 1st 2014

      The NSA spies on American citizens, thus we should all accept the loss of our civil liberties.

      Most Texans own guns, therefor we should nuke France.

      Do you see the pattern here? Perhaps there is a big huge obvious logical problem with the title?
      ————————–

      The only pattern I see here, is that you are a fool. No science, just bad mouthing, left wing, dare I say, communistic trouble making. No facts, no science, no logic, just plain bigotry, prejudice, and a seriously disturbing amount of xenophobia. In addition, a twisted, almost perverted sense of reasoning. Luedecke and Weiss use real scientific data, and all you can do, is use fantasy to challenge their real science. This is an old communist trick, maybe James, if you don’t like what you hear from the REAL EXPERTS, cut them down with lies and fantastic stories.

      Now we get to the really laughable stuff:
      ————————–
      I’m a scientist. We scientists are an independent thinking lot. The majority of us rarely agree on, well, pretty much anything. When 90% of us agree on anything, the world really should stop watching Honey Boo Boo and the Kardashians and pay attention to actual experts that actually study things and generally, as a group, make decisions based on facts.
      ————————–
      James YOU ARE EITHER A [-snip, pls keep the name-calling to a minimum – PG]:

      Science is not about a self imposed group of egos getting together and telling the rest of the world what they should be doing. Science is about the scientific method. I know you don’t know anything about that, cause if you did, you wouldn’t be talking like a moron. Let me explain, the scientific method, is about doing test, experiments and analyzing real natural data (not the stuff created by fantasy programs or theories) and learning from this real data what nature is about. This means, scientist(s) can develop theories, ergo many theories, and they are all in conflict until one theory, after many, many trials shows to be correct. You see James, science is about CONFLICT OF COMPETITIVE IDEAS and THEORIES. This is how truth, facts and good theories rise to the top. What you are proposing James, is a blending of religion and communism, those anointed or choosen group of individuals will tell the rest of the world how to live. Lets not also forget, James, that some of the greatest theories in science, mathematics and especially physics, came from people who were not even educated scientists! Blah, you are a hypocrite!

      And more rantings from James the Communist:
      ————————–
      Attention republicans – your being sold a bill of goods. A strategic decision to fight climate changes was made some time ago and now your hell bent on ignoring reality, ignoring the experts and sticking to the party line.

      The rational world has long since moved past debating if climate change is real. Flogging this dead horse is not helping your cause.

      Here is the thing – as conservatives one would think you would want to, well, conserve. If you want your children to have the same or better quality of life as you do, in addition to fighting the debt (an issue I’m right there with you on), you might also want to conserve the environment which provides us with ecosystem benefits that are so valuable that it is hard for even economists to put a value on them. Things like air, food and water.

      If we as a nation are beyond being able to think critically, then perhaps irony will work.

      The environment provides us with air, water, food and building materials, thus we should destroy it.
      ————————–

      WHAT HILARITY. You obviously are not aware, that the North and South Pole’s have there ice caps, growing, in fact, since records began the South Pole ice extent is approaching records. Glaciers are growing. New record low temperatures around the world. Our problems are not environmental, our problems are ECONOMIC. Like for example, spending wasteful taxes on useless gypsy science like global warming, and most likely on people you. We should be redirecting all those billions wasted on idiotic notions like yours, and put the money where it would do a lot more good. Like look for and developing new energy sources.

      James, turn in your Ph.D… you are a disgrace to science. Leave the real scientists to do their work. As for your political mumbo jumbo non-sense, if anything you have proven, without the shadow of the doubt, is that you are a Honey Boo Boo. After all, you yourselve did try to imply, so poorly, so I will do it better for you, that people are wasting their time on meaningless persuits, like watching realilty TV programs that very superficial, and not developing their minds. I guess that is what you were trying to say, but because you are incapable of expressing your self meanfully, and in capable of providing facts to support your assertions, and can only use rhetorical irrelevant flim flam arguments to counter sound, factual science, which pretty much puts you in the “people are wasting their time on meaningless pursuits” category, I have now shown you CLEARLY and LOGICALLY, ARE A HONEY BOO BOO of Science!

      Q.E.D.

      Oh, James The Boo Boo, that means Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Good scientists do that sort stuff you know.

  14. Bob smith

    Dr. James please spare us the speech about scientists thinking differently. Yea saw how different the scientific community thinks when Eugenia Scott lied on national tv when she claimed right in front of doctor Stephen Meyer that there were no peer reviewed papers on ID. The scientific community thought so differently that not a pip was heard from them to call Scott on her lie.

    Please don’t insult our intelligence here James.
    The scientific community is no different than any old boys network that is in a current paradigm.

    Doctor Richard Sternberg saw how open minded the scientific community was when a governmental investigation showed how the smithsonian bullied and pressured him and finally moved him out of his position as an editor there.

    You may be able to fool some naive people who haven’t researched the supposed open mindedness of our scientific community but you can’t fool all of us.

    Comparing the republican party to honey boo-boo is creating a strawman and tearing it down . Truly open minded people don’t operate so deceptively. So much for the supposed open mindedness of the scientific community.

    I for one am starting to believe that climate change is a hoax, and I see it from the desperate ad hominem comments being thrown around by your alleged open minded scientists .

    I loved how Morano exposed bill Nye for what he was and showed us that scientists are just like any other people in power, they can be corrupted and biased.

  15. Brian H

    Edit: “the various proves” ==> proofs (the noun form).

    Someone dared conduct an almost-clearly-worded survey of the AMS, and barely managed a 52% majority for human influence on weather. A more pointed question about human CO2 dominance of weather and/or climate would demolish the ‘consensus’ meme entirely.

  16. You want climate change? Bundle up. | Eco-Tyranny Book

    […] Click here for the story. […]

  17. Global Cooling Soon? | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

    […] temperatures on Earth be dropping until the year 2100 to Little Ice Age levels, as Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, a scientist at Germany’s Saarland University, predicted last week? Or will the temperatures […]

  18. Why Humans Don’t Have Much To Do With Climate Change | Quixotes Last Stand

    […] temperatures on Earth be dropping until the year 2100 to Little Ice Age levels, asHorst-Joachim Lüdecke, a scientist at Germany’s Saarland University, predicted last week? Or will the temperatures […]

  19. Global warming equals -135.8 degrees Fahrenheit? | This Got My Attention

    […] my claim to being a global warming expert. In fact, two real scientists in Germany are predicting a global cooling trend based on their analysis of solar cycles. I read recently that it’s very common for global […]

  20. Lawrence Solomon: Why humans don’t have much to with climate change | Energy Probe

    […] temperatures on Earth be dropping until the year 2100 to Little Ice Age levels, as Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, a scientist at Germany’s Saarland University, predicted last week? Or will the temperatures only […]

  21. Lawrence Solomon: Why humans don’t have much to do with climate change | Energy Probe

    […] temperatures on Earth be dropping until the year 2100 to Little Ice Age levels, as Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, a scientist at Germany’s Saarland University, predicted last week? Or will the temperatures only […]

  22. Mike

    If you take any finite data set you can do a Fourier decomposition and derive a set of frequencies that will repoduce the data. But this has no predictive value. Some of the preiods may happen be part of long term natural oscilations, but not the whole set.

    1. Ed Caryl

      How do you know?

  23. Settled? | mad libertarian guy

    […] Researchers used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called the de Vries cycle. […]

  24. H.S. Ahluwalia

    Regrettably, the analysis presented in Figure 3 incorrectly assumes that phi function (galactic cosmic rays) and TSI are related; NOT so!

    The reader may refer to the paper:

    H.S. Ahluwalia, “Advances in Space Research, v. 52, pp.2119-2121, 2013.

    Enjoy!

  25. Andreas

    Dear all,

    I don’t know how many of you are familiar with statistics, but the article from Lüdecke seems to be incorrect in many ways. See:

    http://editor.copernicus.org/index.php/cpd-8-C1605-2012.pdf?_mdl=msover_md&_jrl=12&_lcm=oc108lcm109w&_acm=get_comm_file&_ms=16830&c=49781&salt=10159708801199060201

    By the way: I often have the feeling that people talking about things they do not understand. Who of you understand Fourier or wavelet Analysis? Who of you knows really anything about atmospheric and ocean physics? Who really understand sun physics? Reading one book or newspaper article is not replacing
    academic studies of many years. So, let the scientists (Al Gore is Not one!) discuss climate change. In Germany we say sometimes: if you have no clue, just shut up!

    Regards
    Andreas

  26. Herschel, sun-spots and the possibility of cooling « DON AITKIN

    […] argued that we could be in for a period of sustained cooling. They are Mike Lockwood, from the UK, Horst-Joachim Luedecke from Germany, Habibullo Abdussamatov from Russia, and Anastasios Tsonis of the USA. All of them […]