Sun today – still blank. We are approaching a spotless month of August, 2 days to go.
Here at WUWT, I’ve touched on almost every point in this article below, here are some links for you to review in addition to the piece from Mr. Lawson. – Anthony
Keenlyside Paper and HP filtering of HadCRUT
Livingston and Penn – Sunspots may vanish by 2015
David Hathaway – What’s wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)
by: Mark S. Lawson, Online Opinion, Australia
Who has noticed that the period 2014-2015 keeps on turning up in the debate on greenhouse science? For that is when greenhouse proponents say the long-delayed global warming apocalypse will start happening. In addition, that general date has turned up in forecasts made by an arch sceptic, and two researchers in the US have forecast that sunspot activity will cease entirely by 2014.
As the two sides do not agree on anything else at all this is odd – odd enough to be worth exploring.
One group to point at the 2015 date is led by Noel Keenlyside of the Leibnitz Institute of Marine Science in the German city of Kiel. As reported in the journal Nature (letters, May 1) Keenlyside and colleagues added the affect of climate cycles to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models to forecast that global temperatures will remain stable or perhaps even dip down for the next few years, before heading up. The paper does not give a date for the expected kick up in temperatures but in a subsequent interview with the Daily Telegraph in the UK Keenlyside stated that the earth will start to warm again in 2015.
More recently, another group observing the sun has also come up with the date 2014 but for quite different reasons. As has been noted a few times in the media, the sun has gone quiet – too quiet – with the next solar cycle so far not putting in an appearance. Scientists have known for a very long time that the earth has a distinct 11-year cycle. At its height, indicated by lots of sunspots, the sun is very active giving off lots of flares and solar storms which affect satellites. At the bottom of the cycle there are few or no spots, and a marked lack of activity.
The last cycle was officially declared over by NASA in March 2006 with one group at the space agency putting out a release confidently forecasting that the next cycle would be 20 to 50 per cent stronger than the old.
The sun responded to this piece of scientific hubris by going quiet. A few spots from the new cycle have been sighted, as well as a few spots from the old – scientists can tell which spots the cycle belongs to by their magnetic polarity – but very little has happened.
At the time of writing the sun is still spot free. NASA solar physicist David Hathaway points out, quite rightly, that the sun’s behaviour is within major statistical limits – just. The average solar cycle lasts 131 months plus or minus 14 months and the current cycle – the quiet period counts as part of the old cycle – has lasted nearly 143 months. The solar cycle went quiet for years at the beginning of last century before restarting, Hathaway notes, so nothing out of the ordinary has happened – at least, not yet.
Another group at the US National Solar Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, William Livingston and Matthew Penn, believe that there may be a deeper process at work. Sunspots are highly magnetic regions that are somewhat cooler than the rest of the sun’s surface (they appear dark compared to the rest of the sun, but if seen separately would appear very bright) and the two researchers have been tracking both the temperature and magnetic strength of the spots. They found that the spots have been warming up and becoming less magnetic. An average of the trend is a straight line going down which hits the bottom of the graph at 2014. They have concluded that, although sun spots may appear briefly from time to time in the next few years, they will disappear by 2014.
This conclusion is in a paper submitted to the journal Science three years ago but rejected in peer review. With the sun now so quiet the paper has been resurrected from a filing cabinet in the observatory and circulated informally. Dr Livingston told me (by phone from his office in Tucson) that the paper had been rejected on the grounds that it was a purely statistical argument so it would be better to wait and see what happened, and he considered that a fair point. They are now waiting “for the right moment” to resubmit.
But what happens after 2014? Dr Livingston says that as they are using a purely statistical argument, without any theory to back it, they do not know. All they know is that the trend reaches zero in 2014. Conventional theory on the sun’s inner workings never forecast anything like this – in fact, forecast the exact opposite – but has been revised to say that the sun will restart some time next year.
With the sun being quiet for a surprisingly long time, plenty of commentators are pointing to the possibility of a Maunder Minimum – a period from 1645 to 1715 with very few sunspots which is associated with a series of bitter winters known as the Little Ice Age. Although it is widely acknowledged that there must be some link between the sun’s activity and climate, the nature of the link and its effectiveness is hotly debated. The IPCC models, the ruling orthodoxy, gives star billing to the effect of industrial gases in the atmosphere and places solar variations in the also ran category. However, as we shall see those models have proved largely useless for forecasting – in the short term, at least – and there are no rival climate theories. The sceptics largely decline to forecast, pointing out, with some justification as it turns out, that there is as yet no means of forecasting what the sun will do.
read the remainder of the article here
Dr Livingston is quoted: “…the paper had been rejected on the grounds that it was a purely statistical argument so it would be better to wait and see what happened, and he considered that a fair point. ”
If I am reading this paper correctly, the years plotted through 2005 / 2006 show observations (data), and forward years are represented to be linear extrapolation(s).
1) If this is unworthy science, perhaps we must revisit charts of temperature versus CO2.
2) If statistics of observations (data) are not worthy to be published, then perhaps we should revoke the publications of astronomical observations up to, but not including Newton.
3) We could then reject Newton and the gravity theory on the basis of no evidence and no mechanism, and all float off to Never-Never land.
Anthony
I have been working on trying to relate the area under the TSI curve (Leif’s data) to temperature, which I believe is a different way of looking at the data. I have divided the TSI curve up into 16 year intervals back to 1703 and compared the result to CET (running average 16 years) and Hadcrut temperatures. The result is rather interesting. However, there are a few inconsistencies because I believe I am having difficulty using the ImageJ program (thanks for the link, by the way) with the graph from Excel. Would you be interested in the work (in Excel) I’ve done so far? How could I send it to you? By the way, have you ever set the base period of temperature to back in the 1700s and done the graphs (after all we are coming out of a little ice age aren’t we? – LOL). Gives an different perspective to the temperature change in the 20th century.
REPLY: Check your email – Anthony
Dr Livingston also quotes Science as saying: “…so it would be better to wait and see what happened….”
Unfortunately, political exploitation of the AGW concept is not waiting. By 2014, we may be locked into a variation of the Soviet-style Turnover Tax (aka Carbon Credits, Cap and Trade).
Given the multiple indications, of which this article is but one, the “Precautionary Principle” would suggest that we get the science right before we destroy out ability to mitigate or adapt.
“The average solar cycle lasts 131 months plus or minus 14 months and the current cycle – the quiet period counts as part of the old cycle – has lasted nearly 143 months. The solar cycle went quiet for years at the beginning of last century before restarting, Hathaway notes, so nothing out of the ordinary has happened – at least, not yet.”
If things stay the same when can we say something out of the ordinary has happened?
John Miller (08:59:59)
Lets take a look at that.
Lets just say the sun switched off entirely, just sayin’.
Do you think the cooling would be 0.2% ??
Somehow I think not.
So many of these AGW argumnets don’t pass either the “common sense” test or the “scratch and sniff” test.
Everything in science needs to pass these tests or it is just “Ouijaboard, in a dark closet, With A Six Pack” — merely “OWASP” donchaknow
The theory is related to the wakening of the sun’s heliospher
=================
Perhaps you meant weakening? Let’s not anthropomophize this any more than we have to. ;*)
“Scientists have known for a very long time that the earth has a distinct 11-year cycle.”
dont you mean the sun as 11 year cycles?
Actually according to any number of net nutjobs, the world is supposed to end pretty much every year…
It would be interesting to consider the Zeroth law of thermodynamics here.
Could we find a correlation between the upper atmosphere temperature variations with coronal mass ejection?
My point here is that the amount of radiation being absorbed on earth is one thing and is related to the infrared and visible spectrum mainly and those vary with the intensity of the sun and cloud cover.
But also, the rate of heat rejection not only depends on the cloud cover and concentration of greenhouse gases (water being the most abundant!), but the rate of heat transfer to space also depends on the surrounding of the earth. During coronal mass ejection (i.e. during intense solar activity or coronal holes), huge quantities of hot plasma gas go pass us (and surrounds us). During mass ejection, the concentration is higher than at regular solar activity. This rate of heat transfer must be measurable and could be correlated to mass ejection phenomena.
2014 or 2015??? That beats my forecast of 2010.5 to get a 14 yr minima to minima trigger loaded for a real Minimum. 2014.5 will get us a whopping 18 yr minima to minima, and the maxima to maxima trigger is almost guaranteed.
Still, in a named Minimum, it’s going to take decades to reach full effect.
Meanwhile, the Artic Sea ice is on track to equal or exceed last years melt with 3 full weeks to go in the melt window. For a Sun dereft of Sunspots, the melting is making a statement all of it’s own. No need to drag Al Gore into it, it’s just plain happening.
The really interesting part would be if the new Minimum (should it actually occur) actually made a dent in the recent retreat of glacial and Polar ice. If it does, ‘whew’, that was close.
If it doesn’t, well, hope all you scientist types have an atmopheric miracle dimming plan ready to roll. Just don’t get carried away and start nuking too many volcanoes, please.
I’d like to see somebody plot this newfound warming/magnetic weakening over time to stack up to the heretofore useless 243 yr. cycle. The Sun has a lot to teach us young students.
REPLY: Why not do it yourself? If you want to learn something that is the best way.
Kirk – not sure if you understood what I was asking. If solar variation is +/-0.2% on the ground (I don’t know for sure if it is, that’s what the lady on PBS said) when taken across the entire surface of the planet, is it possible to dismiss the potential for that having an effect on climate? Is it possible to dismiss it and be intellectually honest?
If, and I know this is big if, we are headed into a new long term cooling period do to lack of sun spots, I vote to call it Gore Minimum.
Has low cloud cover started to increase?
Chris (10:41:19) :
I’d suggest heating oil futures. It’s a big, liquid market. But caution is in order when playing any futures market. You’re attempting to predict the future, right? That’s never easy. But if you’re still determined, keep in mind that this coming winter’s weather is already factored into the price, and in order to profit [assuming you’re long the market], there will have to be a significantly colder winter than is generally expected, or an unforeseen event [like a new war in the Middle East, etc]. OTOH, a McCain victory along with simply the discussion of new drilling could result in declining prices despite the weather. Also, weather patterns could result in the northeast being unexpectedly warm, even if the planet’s climate continues to cool. You’re making a bet on the future. You never know for sure.
I’ve played these markets. I bet on interest rate spreads in the ’80’s. Made a lot of money on my first several trades. Thought I had it figured out. Next trade I bet even more money, and lost everything I’d made and then some. It’s not for sissies.
Keep in mind that futures are a zero-sum game. For every dollar made by someone, someone else loses a dollar. It’s not like the stock market, where if you buy the right company, and the company grows year after year, everybody makes money. Futures is win-lose. Very few win consistently over time.
Also, use options on futures. You can at least limit the risk to your bet. On raw futures, your risk is unlimited. Good luck.
.2% per year over 30 years if cumulative would be 6%. That can be significant.
.2% per year over 60 years would be 12%. That could be devastating.
Unfortunately, we may not have significant global measurements to compare pre-21st century CO2 levels with 19th century CO2 levels if we do get another Dalton Minimum.
We may not learn all we can.
“Actually according to any number of net nutjobs, the world is supposed to end pretty much every year…” Jeff Alberts
Well, they are party right, the world DOES end for quite a few people every year.
[…] And poster, kim, on Watts Up With That? gives: “My range is twenty to a hundred years before we start warming up. Twenty if the sun […]
on the site spaceweather, we can see every day since long time “sun is blank no sunspot”, “sun is blank no sunspot”. sun go on a news minimum of dalton, its certainly
previsions of ips australian have change but stay very optimistic:
http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6
the global cooling will be begin
scuse for my english but im french lol
Off topic but interesting anyway- a new paper in Greophysical Research Letters:
Magnetic effect on CO2 solubility in seawater: A possible link between geomagnetic field variations and climate. Authors- Alexander Pazur & Michael Winklhofer
Abstract
Correlations between geomagnetic-field and climate parameters have been suggested repeatedly, but possible links are controversially discussed. Here we test if weak (Earth-strength) magnetic fields can affect climatically relevant properties of seawater. We found the solubility of air in seawater to be by 15% lower under reduced magnetic-field (20 μT) compared to normal field conditions (50 μT). The magnetic-field effect on CO2 solubility is twice as large, from which we surmise that geomagnetic field variations modulate the carbon exchange between atmosphere and ocean. A 1% reduction in magnetic dipole moment may release up to ten times more CO2 from the surface ocean than is emitted by subaerial volcanism. This figure is dwarfed in front of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Published 30 August 2008.
Cheer, Rob R
Ric Werme: The referenced Keenlyside et al letter to “Nature”, titled “Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector”, never uses the term Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or the initials AMO. They use Atlantic meridional overturning circulation or some variation thereof. Another distinction about the Keenlyside letter is that they don’t calculate the variability in North Atlantic SST using the standard method for the AMO, which is basically North Atlantic SST anomaly minus Global SST anomaly. Keenlyside uses Atlantic dipole. This they define in the narrative for their Figure 3: “b, Atlantic SST dipole index (60–10W, 40–60N minus 50–0W, 40–60S SST area averages), which is constructed to isolate MOC forced SST fluctuations from radiatively forced variations…”
What’s the difference? From 1900 to present, the only real difference is the amplitude of the oscillation. The Atlantic SST dipole varies about 2.75 times as much as the AMO.
http://i33.tinypic.com/sbpmjc.jpg
I’ve scaled the two and their almost identical (not shown). I’ll post on this later today or tomorrow at my blogspot.
Bibliographical note. The French historian Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie wrote a book on late medieval climate titled (in English translation) __Times of Feast, Times of Famine__.
Ladurie leans heavily on records of vintage for Western Europe, which date back, in the case of some vineyards, to the thirteenth c.
The Kayak Man [wanting to save the AGW World] has been blogging for months/years about paddling his kayak to the North Pole from Spitsbergen.
The other day his blog changed to paddling into the ‘Arctic Ice Pack’.
Geographical North Pole not mentioned. So Mr Lewis Gordon Pugh what is
the point [other than self gratification and Al Gore sycophancy] of your trip?
Robert
Have a look at Climateaudit.org for more detail on Artic melt this year. Will not be as little left as 2007.
And someone here said that science is common sense. I’m afraid that is as wrong as you can get. I suggest an in dept read of quantum mechanics an atomic theory. Long, long way from common sense.
John
If you are french shouldn’t votre nom etre Noel. 🙂
‘If things stay the same when can we say something out of the ordinary has happened?’
The long pause and the failure of SC24 to advance itself means things have not stayed the same as the cycles of the 20th century. The isolated and weak sunspots that rarely appear these days plus the total lack of activity in the other indicatiors means something out of the ordinary IS happening.
Two bum cycles coming right up, would you like to SuperSize that order?