Next Solar Cycle Could Bring Cooler Temperatures

Written by Dr David Whitehouse

solar activity flare

A former BBC science correspondent says that there remains a real possibility that unusual solar behavior could influence the Earth’s climate, bringing cooler temperatures for the next decade.

Despite rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the reduction in solar activity along with cooling from other long-term terrestrial climate variables could mean we might see a slowdown in global warming for years.

Dr. Whitehouse says:

“It is clear that the solar influence on climate is about 0.1 °C a decade so it is important to know when there are low solar activity periods. We have a grasp of the basic mechanism that drives long-term solar activity, but many of the specifics still elude us. Successful predictions of solar cycle strength are therefore few and far between.”

Whitehouse adds that although NASA is predicting that solar cycle 25, which is just beginning, might be moderate-to-weak, the possibility of a very weak cycle, with a measurable effect on the terrestrial climate, remains a real one.

Dr. Whitehouse reviews the history of solar cycle predictions in a new paper by the Global Warming Policy Foundation which is published today.

The paper, entitled The Next Solar Cycle, And Why It Matters For Climatecan be downloaded here (pdf).


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (27)

  • Avatar

    Jan Sevenhans

    |

    4 of the 11 year solar cycles already did for -0,1% now but integrate this slope cumulative over 44 year to calculate the negative energy cash flow …
    44×0,05=2,2 year of sunshine lost over 44 year now …

    • Avatar

      Jan Sevenhans

      |

      Correction : i made a mistake :
      4 of the 11 year solar cycles already did for -0,1% now but integrate this slope cumulative over 44 year to calculate the negative energy cash flow …
      44×0,05%=0,022 year of sunshine lost over 44 year now …
      8 days of sunshine lost in 44 years …

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    But, but …
    All the climate modelers say the sun doesn’t do diddle-squat to the climate. Only the mighty and mysterious power of atmospheric CO2 can affect the climate ….

    Believe that and I’ve got a London Bridge to sell to you!

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi TomO,

    I am curious. Are you following (https://follow.mosaic-expedition.org/)?

    It is a grand scientific expedition which trying to copy Fridtjof Nansen’s attempt (Sept 1893) to freeze a special ship he had constructed in the Arctic ice to drift with the ice to the North Pole. What I find really great is if you now enlarge the map (image) and scan upwards you will find a group of white dots. If you click on one of these dots you will get a date and if you click on the date you will get the drift of Nansen’s ship and Nansen’s comments made during the drift. And clearly Nansen briefly notes the natural phenomena he observed. Hence, his account of his adventure is more scientific than many of the present daily accounts of the present adventure.

    If you have not discovered the present expedition, I am sure you would enjoy to give it at least a look.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      tom0mason

      |

      Thanks Jerry I was not following this expedition.
      Your info about the map was very good. What Fridtjof Nansen team were doing with the technology of the day was incredible.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi TomO,
      ,
      One of Nansen’s observations was of a bright red twilight maybe a week or more before sunrise which I really noted. For during this winter at Salem OR (45 deg. N) we seeing the same thing, for a brief period before sunrise. For usually the morning twilight is not highly colored. He marveled at its beauty, as I remember, but did not question how?

      I have thought about how? but would like to give you a unbiased chance to explain how. You don’t need to feel obligated to try. Maybe some body else who reads this would care to give it a try. And certainly encourage anyone to follow the moasic project for really is a great undertaking. And Nansen’s effort was even more so. .

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        tom0mason

        |

        I can not say that it interest me that much as I’ve never experienced it. It may well be quite important but I can not see why.

        I’m no good at hints.

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi TomO

        I hear you and will stop asking questions and instead give my take on things, whether it be right or wrong.

        Markus Frey 3/9 referred to cloud condensation nuclei and ice nucleating particles (INP). The condensation nuclei (condensed matter either solid or liquid) in the troposphere prevent the atmosphere from ever becoming supersaturated (a non-equilibrium condition equilibrium). But liquid water is prone to supercool (another non-equilibrium condition which is common. Because supercooled (temperatures down to maybe neg 40 degrees) cloud droplets are common, obviously the INP are not common. And the INP are important because they create the greater precipitation event. Because ordinary super-cool cloud droplets are so small the settle very slowly and they are the mist particles which are warmed as they slowly settle through the warmer atmosphere near the surface.

        So the red twilight is just evidence that there is something unique relative to this condensed matter (nuclei) in the troposphere. Nansen’s observation of the red twilight is strong evidence that it is not likely caused by any industrial revolution activity. And even if we can not have anything to do with what is naturally happening, it never hurts anything to better know what is happening.

        Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Brian James

    |

    Feb 21, 2020 Climate Alarmists Are “Moving The Goalposts” To SCARE YOU Into Submission!

    Greta how dare you Thunberg is on a mission to convince you that YOU are the problem and that more government is the solution. In the 80’s we were told it was the “greenhouse effect” in the 90’s it was “global warming” that morphed into “climate change” which is now being rebranded as “climate emergency” in an effort to ramp up the fear needed for offering a global solution.

    https://youtu.be/yisMSo4e7S0

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    The referenced work from the GWPF group is a comprehensive summary of Earth’s recent ice age history related observations. As new information becomes available, the picture to this critical subject, becomes clearer.
    Of recent times, Argo buoy data has added to our store of knowledge, some of which is available at:
    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18084
    Argo buoys operate by sinking to collect sea water information, and then returning to the surface where the data is downloaded to satellites. This provides a cross section of deep marine conditions, including the formation of submarine hot water plumes as they travel towards the surface.
    We can now see how variations in core activity affects sea surface temperature, which also provides a vital component to the ice age discussion.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Robert,

      Jame Kamis (I believe I remember correctly) and you need to compare notes. Relative to trade winds and ocean currenst and the Coriolis Effect, westward flowing currents and east winds diverge and eastward flowing currents and west winds converge, even if they are part of a gyre.

      I have extensively studied the El Niño/La Niña phenomena beginning as early as the late 1970’s. And I know that U of Washington oceanographers have studied the currents along the Pacific equator going both ways in layers at different depths (layers because of density differences.

      For the trade winds along the equator are generally easterly. These easterly trade winds create a sloped Pacific along the equator. Which creates a pressure (gravity) at depth which push an equatorial current back toward South America. If you look at a map you will see that there are equatorial islands which block the east trade winds so you can guess where the east flowing equatorial current begins and converges to a narrower faster moving current at depth which upwelling with it colder water at the west coast of South America.

      This is not to criticize you or James, but we really need to pool our studies so we can complete a complete picture of what is ‘simply’ occurring it most all the possible general information is on the table. And Richard C. I have the problem that I could never remember much and things are not improving..

      So I know there are four retired people, who never studied as their life work that which we now make our remaining life work. New eyes looking at an old problem.

      Very good article.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Have a good day,

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Robert,

      When I wrote my previous comment I had totally ignored: ‘GWPF group’. Why? While this is not an excuse for my failure to check out was it was, a fact is I had no idea that the ‘GWPF group’ was ‘The Global Warming Policy Foundation’ group. Now when I got to their website and read about who this group was; I encountered MPs. Again, I had to do a search as to who MPs were.

      I have several questions. The first is: Why did you not write ‘The Global Warming Policy Foundation’ (GWPF) group? Then when I searched and found ‘The Global Warming Policy Foundation’ group; I found MPs without any explanation. So I had to do another search.

      My second question is: Did you share your post with PSI readers like you shared it with WUWT readers and I just missed it?

      I stop here because as I search I find myself at fault because I am finding much information here at PSI (publication and prom) I did not know existed because I have not paid much attention this information provided by PSI.

      But!!! I just learned about the Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Woods Hole, Massachusetts July 23-27, 1979 to the Climate Research Board
      Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences National Research Council.

      I have to ask: Why in 1979 am I reading that clouds ‘reflect’ solar radiation? I have just submitted an essay to the editor of PSI titled Two Common Sayings of 1638. One of these sayings was: “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (Louis Elzevir)

      And a reader of my comment should question: What is the problem with writing–“that clouds ‘reflect’ solar radiation”–in 1979?

      Have a good day, Jerry
      :

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      The “common sense” part is recognizing GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

      Thanks for the laugh, Zoe.

      • Avatar

        Matt

        |

        Hi Geran. one of the best sayings I ever heard was ” don’t ever become so rapt in something you can’t see past it”.
        Tatoo the saying on the forehead of the climate crazies if you wanna.
        Yo!

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Geran, please explain lunar warming if you have a better idea.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          It’s simple, Zoe. You found some nonsense that you believe supports your nonsense.

          The comedy continues.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            OK, Geran, give us your brilliant theory for cause of lunar warming…

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            I’m glad you like comedy more than learning physics.

            More please.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Teach us the physics of evident lunar warming, please. We’re all dying to learn what you have to teach us.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Polly want a cracker?

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Polly knows you don’t have a cracker.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe, how about entertaining us with some of your hilarious pseudoscience. I like when you explain how an object can’t emit unless it has something to emit to.

            That’s one of my favorites. But, your Moon nonsense is close.

            Maybe work both into a new comedy routine.

            We can’t wait!

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            You were supposed to show us your cracker, not beg me for crackers.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Zoe,

      Zoe. I am quite gullible so when I read some of your remarks I believe what you write and . I begin to dismiss you and do not really read much of what you write. So, at least for awhile I will make greater effort to check out what you really are writing.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Oh you mean I have loads of respectable arguments and worthy of being taken seriously?

        Thank you.

Comments are closed