Guest post by David Archibald
Dr Svalgaard has an interesting annotation on his chart of solar parameters – “Welcome to solar max”:
Graphic source: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Could it be? It seems that Solar Cycle 24 had only just begun, with solar minimum only two and a half years ago in December 2008.
The first place to confirm that is the solar polar magnetic field strength, with data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory:
Source: http://wso.stanford.edu/
The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum. The northern field has reversed. There are only three prior reversals in the instrument record. Another parameter that would confirm solar maximum is the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle, also from the WSO site.
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.
If the Sun is anywhere near solar maximum, the significance of that is that it would be the first time in the record that a short cycle was also a weak cycle, though Usoskin et al in 2009 proposed a short, asymmetric cycle in the late 18th century at the beginning of the Dalton Minimum: http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/arlt2.pdf
Interestingly, Ed Fix (paper in press) generated a solar model (based on forces that dare not speak their name) which predicts two consecutive, weak solar cycles, each eight years long:
The green line is the solar cycle record with alternate cycles reversed. The red line is the model output. Solar Cycles 19 to 23 are annotated.
This model has the next solar maximum in 2013 and minimum only four years later in 2017. This outcome is possible based on the Sun’s behaviour to date.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Polar fields as plotted from the WSO data have stalled in the last few weeks, indicating solar max at least a year away.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
Darn sun’s going weird on us.
We don’t really need another Dalton, not with the population size we’ve got to feed.
Wow!
No one really knows what it means … yet we know the sun is such a massive massive factor influencing our lives, that even an almost insignificant change in the sun could lead to millions perhaps billions of deaths on earth.
Potentially the biggest thing that has happened to humanity, or perhaps nothing at all.
Drum roll & queue the profits** of doom. (**not a spelling mistake)
Interestingly, Ed Fix (paper in press) generated a solar model (based on forces that dare not speak their name) which predicts two consecutive, weak solar cycles, each eight years long
Polar field formula (first version published in Jan 2004) extrapolates ‘normal’ length for SC24, next min arround 2017-18, but then things may get more interesting.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum. The northern field has reversed. There are only three prior reversals in the instrument record.
There are five reversals. The first one in 1957-1958: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Babcock1959.pdf
>i>The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.
In cycle 21 it only took one year.
If the Sun is anywhere near solar maximum, the significance of that is that it would be the first time in the record that a short cycle was also a weak cycle
Just because maximum is early does not mean that the cycle will be short. E.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
If the cycle is long or even just average in length, the polar fields may have time to grow so that cycle 25 might be a large cycle. If Ed Fix’s prediction fails it would mean that the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed.
The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum. The northern field has reversed. There are only three prior reversals in the instrument record.
No, there are five reversals in the record. The first one in 1957-1958: http://www.leif.org/EOS/EOS/Babcock1959.pdf
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.
In cycle 21 it only took one year.
If the Sun is anywhere near solar maximum, the significance of that is that it would be the first time in the record that a short cycle was also a weak cycle
Just because maximum is early does not mean that the cycle will be short. E.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
Ed Fix (paper in press) generated a solar model
If the cycle is long or even just average in length, the polar fields may have time to grow so that cycle 25 might be a large cycle. If Ed Fix’s prediction fails it would mean that the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed.
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.
In cycle 21 and cycle 22 it only took one year.
Very interesting post. Is it possible the magnet pole reversal phase could take longer though in a weak cycle? In the strong cycle the switch looks to have happened in the space of around 1 year – perhaps in a weak cycle it will take 3 years due to the amplitude of the pattern being less.
Very interesting !
The sun is the main climate driver (with volcanos). It has been and it’s still the case today.
Once again we can see that our weak scientific knowledges on the sun can not predict its future behavior.
How can computer climate projections to do any accurate forecasts ?
“(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???
Anyone care to enlighten me?
vukcevic says:
May 8, 2011 at 12:25 am
Polar field formula (first version published in Jan 2004) extrapolates ‘normal’ length for SC24, next min arround 2017-18, but then things may get more interesting.
So disagrees with Ed Fix’s…
BENG says:
May 8, 2011 at 1:03 am
Very interesting post. Is it possible the magnet pole reversal phase could take longer though in a weak cycle?
Yes, this is possible and the polarity could change back and forth more than once, as the polar fields are the result of rather random flux arrivals. Weak cycles tend to have a drawn-out maximum, e.g. cycle 14:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC-14-and-24.png
NeilM says:
May 8, 2011 at 1:45 am
“(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???
Anyone care to enlighten me?
Astrology…
Bob the swiss says:
May 8, 2011 at 1:12 am
The sun is the main climate driver (with volcanos). It has been and it’s still the case today.
No, the Earth’s orbit and axis orientation are.
“(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???
Anyone care to enlighten me?
NeilM: I don’t know, but I’d guess with very high subjective probability: Jupiter, Venus, Earth (+possibly other planets). Such a theory would be astronomical if anyone could explain the physics, but as they have not yet done so, many people call it “astrological”. Such theories are unacceptable in many scientific circles. Personally, I am more open-minded about the cumulative effects large gaseous bodies can have on other large gaseous bodies.
Rich.
See – owe to Rich says:
May 8, 2011 at 2:20 am
Personally, I am more open-minded about the cumulative effects large gaseous bodies can have on other large gaseous bodies.
The effect would be much larger if Jupiter and Saturn were not gaseous.
If one uses an model based on the planets, how to explain the maunder minimum?
All I want to know is if it will get cooler or will it get warmer? Will the change be significant enough to make the climate scientists revise their projections of continued warming with continued emissions? Even before these latest solar shenannigans the correlation was not obvious.
If the extended solar minimum of Cycle 23 was the cause of the severe winters we’ve had these past two or three years, the next Cycle could result in a series of winters more like that of ’63. In addition, the less energetic jetstreams in both hemispheres will mean more of the unsettled weather we’ve had, including more flooding and more mini heat waves.
Irrespective of the outcome, the warmists will blame Ag e’Dubalu, their malign god of climate.
Strongly disagree!
Not before 2014. Next minimum around 2020.
See “butterfly” diagram:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
Sunspots are not even near equator.
And short cycles are strong! Long ones, like the SC 24, are weak.
Leif: The effect would be much larger if Jupiter and Saturn were not gaseous.
Yes! I’m assuming you mean that if they were solid – and still the same size – then they would be more massive and their graviational pull would be greater.
Jcarels: If one uses an model based on the planets, how to explain the maunder minimum?
I doubt that you’ll be allowed to debate that here. Try tallblokes’ talkshop.
Lawrie: Will the change be significant enough to make the climate scientists revise their projections of continued warming with continued emissions?
There are two questions there: first, will the change be significant, second will it make climate scientists revise their projections? On Total Solar Irradiance alone I don’t think the change will be that significant. But the Svensmark Hypothesis is that weak sun affects the Earth’s albedo, which would be significant.
For the second question, some climate scientists will revise, and some won’t. It’ll be a bloodbath, or a mudbath, or some other painful thing as new data is analyzed and promoted or disdained by various camps.
Rich.
The delay/failure of the southern half of SC24 could make this weak cycle long/short.
Leif, you are correct about orbit and axis orientation, but the implication for N. Hemisphere Summer grows in importance, for Earth does not receive the TSI from the Sun with such factors corrected out.
[snip]
Jcarels says: May 8, 2011 at 2:46 am
If one uses an model based on the planets, how to explain the maunder minimum?
Resonance systems are well known in many branches of physics. There is a degree of planetary synchronisation (Titius –Bode law). An article published in 2004
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf ( page 2 fig2.)
shows that may be a ‘possibility’. Maunder min was only one in the sequence of minor and major anomalies as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
Interesting!
Shiney ball theory gets another airing. We don’t really know what effect element ‘A’ has on element ‘B’, but we know for sure element ‘C’ overpowers element ‘A’. Makes sense to me, sarc off:-)) The Sun does possess 99.9% of the mass of the solar system. We possess less than a few hundreths of the mass of the solar system, if that much if it makes any sense. Who can say for absolute certainity that a 0.1% change in TSI & a 6-10% change in Extreme UV doesn’t affect us in some unknown way? Of course, if we did know, that won’t get us a UN Global Intellectual Socialist Elitists Guvmnt (They know what’s best for us better than we do) & massive wealth transfer to the poor people, you know those who’ll receive about $390 each for every $1,000,000 that will go to their little guvmnts/leaders/business interests secret bank accounts, etc.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 8, 2011 at 1:58 am
So (you) disagrees with Ed Fix’s…
I often disagree even with people I can identify by their previous work, since I don’t know who is Ed Fix ( FixEd, fixed ) or who or what is fixed, so I shall disagree.
I will agree with :
Leif Svalgaard says: May 8, 2011 at 2:02 am
No, the Earth’s orbit and axis orientation are.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2011 at 2:02 am
No, the Earth’s orbit and axis orientation are.
So if you “remove” the sun there wouldn’t be much change?