2012-02-20 11:20:45New paper predicting imminent cooling due to solar cycles
John Cook

Got this email:
What do you / others make of this paper - attached?

"The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24"


Seems to be a new paper in arxiv which is the denier publishing house du jour lately

2012-02-20 22:12:20
John Mason


In the conclusions:

"Our forecast indicates an annual average temperature drop of 0.9◦C in
the Northern Hemisphere during solar cycle 24. For the measuring stations
south of 75N, the temperature decline is of the order 1.0-1.8◦C and may
already have already started. For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5◦
C is forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even
higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months (Solheim et al.,

Artic amplification due to feedbacks because of changes in snow and ice
cover has increased the temperature north of 70N a factor 3 more than below
60N (Moritz et al., 2002). An Artic cooling may relate to a global cooling
in the same way, resulting in a smaller global cooling, about 0.3-0.5 ◦
C in SC24."

The stats is beyond me - I'd be tempted to see if Tamino would take a look at this.

Also note they have done a bit with David Archibald.....

Quite a few typos in there too....

Cheers - John


2012-02-20 22:31:55
Tom Curtis


Four comments:


1)  From the abstract:


"We find for the Norwegian local stationsinvestigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years maybe attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72%solar contribution."

Those figures are certainly consistent with greater than 50% of warming post 1950 being the consequenc of anthropogenic causes.  So, much as they may desire it, and as Humlum is an author, they do desire it, their evidence does not contradict the IPCC.


2)  There figure 1 showing solar cycle length is a poor match to the global temperture series, even if lagged by eleven years.  As I believe a study has already been done showing the supposed correlation between solar cycle length and GMST does not hold post 1970 (can't remember name and author unfortunately), their failure to discuss that lack of correlation, and to point out that this is a regional effect if that, is a glaring omission.

3)  As I am sure Tamino points out, by going regional they vastly improve the chances of a coincidental match by vastly increasing their sample size.  Inferences from this result, even if valid, to global causes is therefore very much unwarranted; and

4)  The charts such as their figure 1 always puzzle me.  Purportedly each point represents a solar cycle, and the y-axis indicates the length of the cycle.  It follows that the seperation along the x axis of any two points is given by the either one of the two values on the y axis (if lagged) or the average of the value on the y axis (if the point is at the midpoint of the cycle).  Yet the y axis values of the first six points are in order:

10; 8.5; 14; 11.5; 10.5; 11

And the seperation of the first five points on the x axis are in order:

8.3; 11; 11.6; 13.6; 9.8

Those respective values seem to me to be strictly inconsistent.  I am not an astronomer, so astronomers may have some wierd naming convention that resolves this inconsistency.  Never-the-less, the point is bizzare.

2012-02-20 23:01:16
Ari Jokimäki


I saw this during last week in a real journal. It was Journal of Solar and Terrestrial physics, I believe, a journal that seems to publish a constant stream of these denier flavour articles. Also, one of the authors is Ole Humlum, who has been publishing this kind of stuff (and even worse) before.

2012-02-23 11:02:31
Dana Nuccitelli

Oh the Humlum paper.  I think it's essentially the same as the Archibald paper, in fact I believe the paper has high praise for Archibald.  The whole solar cycle length argument has been debunked for over a decade, and of course they're relying on local temperatures (like Archibald does).  Both are just a joke.