Little surprise here: A new paper published by Climate of the Past journal shows that solar cycles indeed play a dominant role on climate change. I touched on this already once before, here. Here’s the front page of the study:
Contrary to what popular science is telling us today, this paper tells us we need to be worried about cooling for the next 65 years….possibly even down to 1870s levels! The abstract (my emphasis):
A large number of investigations of paleoclimate have noted the influence of a 200 year oscillation which has been related to the De Vries/Suess cycle of solar activity. As such studies were concerned mostly with local climate, we
have used extensive northern hemispheric proxy data sets of Büntgen and of Christiansen/Ljungqvist together with a southern hemispheric tree-ring set, all with 1 year time resolution, to analyze the climate influence of the solar cycle. As there is increasing interest in temperature rise rates, as opposed to present absolute
temperatures, we have analyzed temperature differences over 100 years to shed light on climate dynamics of at least the last 2500 years. Fourier- and Wavelet transforms as well as nonlinear optimization to sine functions show the dominance of the 200 year cycle. The sine wave character of the climate oscillations permits an approximate prediction of the near future climate.”
Figure 1 of the study below shows the global overview of the proxies used in the study, and thus serve to refute claims the study results are only local in nature:
The study looks back 2500 years, and takes a global look. A thorough analysis of the multiple proxies led the authors to find the very pronounced 200-year De Vries/Suess solar cycle. In the discussion part of the paper the authors write:
The Earth’s climate shows a rather regular oscillation of 200 year period during the last millennia. However, frequency, phase, and strength of the oscillation are found to vary in different time series of temperatures and for different times (see Figs. 4–6, and 8). Nonetheless, the relative historic stability of the cycle suggests that the periodic nature of the climate will persist also for the foreseeable future.”
So what will this cycle bring us in the future?
Of course it is not possible to extrapolate directly as the authors hint above. Later in the paper they point out that the cycle is impacted by “terrestrial activities” which “can dominate the solar activity temporarily, e.g. disrupting the sine-like oscillations“. But for the most part, the cycle is likely a reliable indicator of what to expect ahead on decadal timescales. The authors write of the 200 year cycle:
It gives correctly the 1850–1900 temperature minimum and shows a temperature drop from present to AD 2080, the latter comparable with the minimum of 1870, as already predicted in the studies (Steinhilber and Beer, 2013; Liu et al., 2011) on the grounds of solar activity data alone.”
You may want to hold back on purchasing land along Greenland’s coastline, unless that is you or your kids plan to be selling glacial ice in the decades ahead. The warming we saw during the 20th century appears to be in large part caused by the 200-year cycle. But now the peak is behind us. The paper warns that we need to expect cooling over the next 65 years!
More on the implications of the paper here.
The papers are available online (that is a very good thing!), so everybody should take a look at them:
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/11/279/2015/cpd-11-279-2015.pdf
I do not see it as an independent “confirmation” of anything though, which you will easily notice when you look at the acknowledgements:
“Acknowledgements.
We thank Sebastian Lüning for helpful discussions and providing us with
additional references to the interdependence of solar activity and climate change”
Somebody looking for cycles comes to the conclusion, that cycles are important. He does so, by using data from people, who also think that cycles are important.
The problem with the approach is simple: any cycle analysis done at a high point in the dataset, will AUTOMATICALLY predict a downward trend for the future.
So the result of their analysis was 100% clear, even before they started it.
Let me give an example:
Some time ago, we decided to have our milk delivered weekly from a farm. Now the milk is piling up.
I look at the data and it looks like a hokeystick, with some wiggles in the past. I do a cycle analysis. There is a strong two week cycle in the data (i went to buy new milk, when we were running out of it) and also an annual cycle (we use more milk in winter)
So i do a cycle analysis, and it tells me, that milk reserves will magically start dropping in the near future (and i do not change my contract for the delivery). Great!
I understood, that they include a disclaimer:
“terrestrial activities … can dominate the solar activity temporarily”
But that is just not enough, when we simply KNOW, that a new effect is dominating solar activity.
As I have described before, we are currently at the peak of the sum of three cycles: a 1000 – 1500 year Bond cycle, the 200 year De Vreis cycle, and the 60 year AMO/PDO cycles. These have been documented over and over, separately and together. And ignored by the priesthood.
I am sorry, but do you even see what you wrote there?
“As I have described before, we are currently at the peak of the sum of three cycles: a 1000 – 1500 year Bond cycle”
so we are at the peak of a cycle that is either only 1000 years or 1500 years long? and you know, that the year 2015 or even this decade is the peak of it?
wow, just wow!
Sod, a studied failure to understand on your part does not at all imply stupidity on my part.
https://notrickszone.com/2015/05/25/analysis-coinciding-maxima-of-three-natural-cycles-ends-cooling-ahead-as-they-turn-negative/#sthash.Z5tSaIMq.dpbs
Sod, as to your milk problem: When it piles up it’s no longer good. I suggest you terminate your contract with the farmer and simply buy milk when you need it.
Why did you do that in the first place?
“Sod, as to your milk problem: When it piles up it’s no longer good. ”
you did not understand the example. try again.
Hint: yes, we could stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That is, what some of us are advocating for. And it is the same, as terminating the milk contract. Are you in?
So, you plan to continue stacking spoiled milk?
You warmunists are weird people.
“So, you plan to continue stacking spoiled milk?
You warmunists are weird people.”
So you plan to add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere? You sceptics are very weird people!
There has been a regime change. In my example, the milk contract changed. In the real world, the CO2 effect will overpower all short term natural cycles. Think about it!
And you have absolutely no evidence to support that SOD, other than in your own apocalypse fixated brain
“The problem with the approach is simple: any cycle analysis done at a high point in the dataset, will AUTOMATICALLY predict a downward trend for the future.”
Not so. Only if the high point is, in fact, an inflection point.
“Not so. Only if the high point is, in fact, an inflection point.”
The shortest cycle automatically will give you the direction. If you are at a high (the highest?) point in the dataset so far, the shortest cycle will tell you, when it will turn downward the latest.
If we assume a 60 year cycle to be a dominant factor in global temperature, then it is easy to predict a downward trend in the next couple of decades!
Nonsense. The boundary is not generally a stationary point. If you fit one and an 8th cycles to a sine function starting from zero, the end point is going to be midway between a maximum or minimum.
“at a high point in the dataset.”
Yes.. we are !
Oh dear!!!!! This is not in accordance with the climate world according to Barack Obama who is clearly a ‘born again enviro-activist” who has just been to Alaska proclaiming “Beware the climate … the end of the world is near.”
But would mean that the theory that CO2 emissions are the cause of the 1 degree K increase since the Little Ice Age is false, and we don’t want that do we. Imagine if tomorrow we wake up with the following headlines:
FOSSIL FUELS ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING
how many green firms, bankers, politicians, ‘scientists’ and journalists would remain standing? Very few I would say.
So we’d better kill the truth in the bid before the world takes note.
Tree-rings. Well – I do say.
I use a finely tuned crosscut saw and cut thin rounds from various size trees. When the cut is near limbs, bends, or scars the ring patterns are frequently intriguing. We use them in the kitchen as “hot pads” (trivets).
Warmunism loses important pressure group: German Greens now concentrate on forcing Arab “refugees” into private households of Germans.
“Green leader of Bundestag faction Katrin Göring-Eckardt calls for Germans to take refugees into their homes. Says if Syrians are taken into German household this is worth Gold for the integration.” (Wait a moment wasn’t Gold just a pet rock and a barbarous relic?)
http://www.mmnews.de/index.php/politik/52925-grun-flucht
For some reason the Greens do not ponder how terrible it will be for the environment if all poor Arabs suddenly get a German standard of living which will doubtlessly increase their CO2 footstep by a factor of at least 10.
“German Greens now concentrate on forcing Arab “refugees” into private households of Germans”
Well, what percentage of the population vote Green.
Surely they have enough “followers” to take all of them without pestering anyone else.?
ps.. How many are each of the Green politicians taking in ?
That is the first question to ask !!!!!
They have all the teachers and journalists, so the media sings from their hymn sheet, we have already seen this with warmunism.
This also tells us something about the brains of teachers and journalists.
Also check out http://www.globalweathercycles.com run by a company who is in the business of predicting long range weather forecasts by looking at the varying elliptical orbits the earth makes around the sun and the various lunar orbital cycles the moon makes around the earth among other things. They also predict we are about to enter a decades long cooling period.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/09/06/huge-implications-study-shows-climate-dominance-of-200-year-solar… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/09/06/huge-implications-study-shows-climate-dominance-of-200-year-solar… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/09/06/huge-implications-study-shows-climate-dominance-of-200-year-solar… […]
The Big Picture. Try to keep it separate. We have:
1.The day to day weather.
2.The seasons.
3.The short term temperature variations caused by the activities on the Sun.
4.The long term temperature/climate variations caused by our planet changing its orbit from elliptical to circular and thereby its distance to the sun. Our Planet also spins and wobble. Yes, we are 10,000 years into this 34th freeze down which will end some 100,000 years from now. Do you understand or are you all brain-dead?
Stop the stupid discussion about CO2, greenhouse gasses,
fossil fuel. CO2 is a plant nutrient. There are no such thing as greenhouse gasses. Not supported by real science. Natural oil and gas are developed deep in our planet. Russian scientists have proved this. The Russian have drilled 10km or more to get through the crust of the planet and have found lots of oil and gas. They have now declared that they have as much or more known supply than the Saudis’. It has nothing to do with fossil fuel.