Animation courtesy Michael Ronayne. Click for larger, slower speed animation
NASA’s David Hathaway just recently updated his solar cycle prediction and has pushed cycle 24 into the future a little more once again. Though to read his latest update on 10/03/08 at his prediction page here, you wouldn’t know it, because the page is mostly tech speak and reviews of semi relevant papers.
However, there is one graphic, the familar one above, that has been updated and tells the story best. Michael Ronayne was kind enough to provide an animation (above) that shows the march of time as far as solar cycle 24 predictions go. With the latest update (static image here) the startup of solar cycle 24 has been pushed into 2009.
This isn’t the first time NASA has moved the goalpost. Back in March I did a story on NASA moving the goal post then, and since then they’ve moved the cycle ahead twice, once in April and again now in October.
NASA isn’t the only one having to update predictions, NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) has also had to make several adjustments to their graphic:
Animation courtesy Michael Ronayne. Click for larger animation
And there is more change in the current thinking on sunspots. As Michael Ronayne writes:
After ignoring sunspots for two and a half years the New York Times finally ran a story and BLOG posting on the current state of the Sun.
Sunspots Are Fewest Since 1954, but Significance Is Unclear
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/science/space/03sun.html
Climate and the Spotless Sun
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/climate-and-the-spotless-sun/
Details of the recent NASA reports on Ulysses and the Spotless Sun were minimal and the Times failed to mention NASA’s report that the Sun was dimming. The Times reporter speculated on possible connections between solar activity and Earth climate but such speculation was of concern to some Times readers who made their views know in the Dot Earth BLOG. Perhaps the Times should avoid controversial phrases such as “Little Ice Age” in the future. I decided to make a post on the Dot Earth BLOG about some of the graphic records I have been collecting of past SWPC and NASA sunspots predictions. Apparently my input was not fit to print because the moderator did not allow it to be posted to Dot Earth. Attached is the text of my submission to the New York Times. I thought the posting was quite balanced and am not sure what warranted it being rejected.
As you review the SWPC and NASA predictions, note that the outer envelope for the onset of Solar Cycle 24 for the SWPC Low Prediction (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/ssn_predict.gif) is January 2009, while the NASA prediction has been moved out to July 2009. Watch the two animations carefully and note where the changes were made in the NASA predictions.
I am writing a segment on Sunspot Predictions which will be posted in Wikipedia, at the following URL, when it is done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
It will be interesting to see when solar minimum actually occurs. I suspect that we will be in for a long wait. I will keep the above animations current as SWPC and NASA post their monthly updates.
Lots of scrambling going on to get in tune with the sun these days.
[…] post: Comment on NASA moves the goalposts on Solar Cycle 24 again by garron Tags: announcements, climate, Climate Change, education, goalposts, halloween, hurricanes, […]
Re: Big Chill in Fairbanks:
True, the first week in October has been cold, but nothing approaching record-setting:
http://www.accuweather.com/us/ak/fairbanks/99701/forecast-climo.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=1&zipChg=1&metric=0
Fairbanks, by the way, is one of my favorite places; I was stationed there for 18 months (Army) and left in January, 1971, 10 days before the lowest temp ever recorded in the U.S., -80 F, occurred at a place called Prospect Creek.
Nothing quite as bracing as taking that first inhalation of -50 air!
[…] The rest is here: Comment on NASA moves the goalposts on Solar Cycle 24 again by Erl … […]
Erl Happ (01:05:14) :
Because solar radiation falling on the Earth is constant. Outgoing LONG WAVE delivered from Earth to space is less than the energy flow from the sun. The difference is short wave reflected to space by clouds.
If you look again [assuming that you had the courtesy to even do it earlier] at
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/geosys/fig3.3.gif
You can see that what goes out (70) is just what comes in (70), the remaining 30 never coming in [reflected out, so is not part of the radiative process]. Stefan-Boltzmann accounting wonderfully for the whole thing [see chapter 2 of that link], even predicting that the atmosphere should be the fourth root of the number 2 times warmer due to greenhouse effects [as indeed it is]. If you increase what comes in (say to 72) you get a GW of the atmosphere and the surface and the OLR also increases (to 72) to match what comes in (72). All your complicated [and frankly incomprehensible – to me at least] explanations of resistors and insulators and containers, etc, just obscures that very simple physics. So, it comes down to the question: ‘what drives the albedo’. The obvious answer is, as you have been able to see, that more clouds drives the albedo [possibly with minor contributions from aerosols and dust – e.g. volcanoes and Human activity], then why more clouds? Different people have different answers to that: GCRs, UV [you], more evaporation because of AGW [feedback] or because of heat from the oceans, more pollution, etc. To a certain degree this is a chicken and egg business, and I don’t think we know [at least I don’t know – but there are lots of know-it-alls out there that would say things like QED].
The way forward for the know-it-alls is to discuss [not just ramble] their various mechanisms openly [e.g. here in this forum]. For example, I would like the UV crowd to explain to the GCR crowd [not to me] why they [the GCRers] are wrong, and the GCR crowd to explain to the UV crowd why they are wrong, and so on.
El Nino: what should be explained is the weakening of the wind, then the rest follows. You have not addressed that at all, just keep chanting the mantra that “it is the Sun”, which is no explanation, just a cry.
Winter is arriving early in the Sierra’s:
http://www.seablogger.com/?p=11984#comments
Robert Bateman (01:24:19) :
If the input has changed (from a slightly lower TSI (.5%) and a larger does of NUV(1.5%) what then does that do to change the stored energies in the various boxes on your diagram?
TSI has not changed 0.5% and NUV is such a small fraction of the whole that a small change of NUV is insignificant.
How long ago and under what conditions relative to todays output from the Sun was that diagram constructed? Has MIT plugged in the latest data and re-ran it?
This diagram has been known for decades and there is little, if any, discussion about its validity. To a certain extent the details below the top horizontal lines are not important, only that outgoing is equal to incoming in the long run.
Leif Svalgaard (07:41:43) :
“You can see that what goes out (70) is just what comes in (70), the remaining 30 never coming in [reflected out, so is not part of the radiative process].”
My point is that the ratios change. The quantities shown in the diagram are not written on tablets of stone.
“El Nino: what should be explained is the weakening of the wind, then the rest follows. ”
I can oblige. The wind is a consequence of air density differences due to temperature variations. Unfortunately the ‘ENSO theory crowd’ have not grasped that essential point and it seems to be lost on you too.
EL NINO occurs when there is an increase in the standing cloud free area to the East of South America and California due to a rise in 200hPa temperatures (UV reacting with ozone). This lowers air density in the cloud free zone tending to draw air in from all directions including from the west. So, the trade winds slacken and the tropical waters consequently move more slowly to the West. In cloud free conditions the waters warm in situ. The slackening of the westward movement of surface waters across the equator means that the waters adjacent to South America warm to depth….or in conventional parlance, upwelling of cold waters is reduced. The centre of air convection moves from Indonesia to the dateline and air pressure in Tahiti drops relative to Darwin.
The standing cloud fee zone adjacent to South America is just one of many in similar situations around the globe. All these ‘situations’ have in common the fact that cold waters are travelling equator-wards in the trade wind zone and there is a rain shadow effect from a continent to the east. This accounts for the ‘standing cloud free zone’.
A warming event in the Pacific is not a singular thing. At the same time the same sort of warming events happen in both hemispheres in every ocean. For a warming event to occur the cloud free zone expands, as 200hPa temperatures increase, and for a cooling event to occur the cloud free zones contract.
These simultaneous warmings are not due to ‘tele-connections’ or fairies in the bottom of the garden. They have in common a change in the interaction of solar influences with the upper troposphere.
In 2008, 200hPa temperatures have almost returned to 1977 levels. That is because the atmosphere is extraordinarily compact and cool and that in turn is related to the lack of strength of the solar wind. Many scholars have pointed out the excellent correlation that exists between the aa index of geomagnetic activity, a measure of the strength of the solar wind, and terrestrial temperatures. A very compact atmosphere reduces the penetration of UV light. UV creates ozone and ozone absorbs UVB. The upper troposphere (500hPa to 100hPa) has significant ozone content. Its very cold temperature facilitates that. It also has significant water vapour content and forms ice clouds. Ice clouds deliver a lot of reflective bang for the specific humidity buck. In that way quite tiny amounts of water vapour have a very large effect on albedo. The change in specific humidity at 300hPa (highest point that it is measured) in the tropics is very small over long periods of time. (about 12% with no trend up or down 1948 to 2008). At minus 53°C (the temperature of the air at 200hpa) air has little capacity to hold moisture. Given the small variation in moisture content a change in temperature has a big effect on cloud density.
Change in energy gain in low latitudes drives temperature in winter time at high latitudes and it is at high latitudes that the Earth has warmed.
But, I have no expectation that this explanation will be welcomed any more than the 200 or more that have preceded it.
It will be described as long winded and full of irrelevancies. You can’t cook a pudding without a few raisins.
Leif
“You can see that what goes out (70) is just what comes in (70), the remaining 30 never coming in [reflected out, so is not part of the radiative process].”
The diagram does not address my point at all. It deals with energy flows which are due to the sum of all wave lengths.
OLR from the Northern hemisphere has increased by 3.4% since 1948 and the southern hemisphere 2.3% since 1948.
Temperatures have risen by much less than either figure over the same period.
If less short wave is reflected long wave must increase.
Dear Mr.Happ
What happened years before the extraordinary 1997-98 “el nino”?, (which, by the way, was the pretext for all the GW hysteria). Perhaps Dr.Svalgaard could tell us if there was some peculiar solar phenomena in those years.
Erl Happ (09:00:05) :
My point is that the ratios change. The quantities shown in the diagram are not written on tablets of stone.
Part of your problem is the imprecise wordings. What ratios? The 70/30? I did just discuss a case with 72/28, so your statement is vacuous. What have stones to do with the radiation budget?
“El Nino: what should be explained is the weakening of the wind, then the rest follows. ”
I can oblige. The wind is a consequence of air density differences due to temperature variations.
Another problem is the use of non-standard [or confused] terminology. The quantity that determines the wind is the air pressure, not the air density.
During El Niño the trade winds relax in the central and western Pacific leading to a depression of the thermocline in the eastern Pacific, and an elevation of the thermocline in the west. This has nothing to do with the rain shadows to the east of California and the Andes. Here is more information about El Nino http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html
Erl Happ (09:11:02) :
The diagram does not address my point at all. It deals with energy flows which are due to the sum of all wave lengths.
This may be another example of terminology confusion. Because the earth’s effective emitting temperature is about 300 K whereas that of the sun is close to 6000 K, their two spectra have almost no overlap. So we may talk about shortwave and longwave radiation, without ambiguity. Perhaps this http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/geosys/fig2.2.gif is useful to make the distinction clear.
That is because the atmosphere is extraordinarily compact and cool and that in turn is […] A very compact atmosphere reduces the penetration of UV light. UV creates ozone and ozone absorbs UVB.
Compact? “A very compact atmosphere reduces the penetration of UV light”. This is just nonsense. The ‘penetration’ depends on the number of molecules in the atmosphere and that number does not change.
related to the lack of strength of the solar wind. Many scholars have pointed out the excellent correlation that exists between the aa index of geomagnetic activity, a measure of the strength of the solar wind, and terrestrial temperatures.
There is no such correlation. Reconstruction of the aa-index back to 1845 [see e.g. page 14 of http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-SPRG-2008.pdf ] shows that aa-index during 1845-1870 was just as high [or actually a tad higher, if you do the numbers – but eyeballing works fine, too] as during 1980-2005. Many scholars have pointed out that the temperatures during those two periods are significantly different.
Whatever merit your ideas may have, you diminish them by dragging in geomagnetic activity and the solar wind.
Erl Happ (09:00:05) :
UV creates ozone and ozone absorbs UVB.
And BTW, UVB [315 nm – 280 nm] varies opposite to solar activity. UVB is lower at solar maximum and increases towards solar minimum: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl69.png as I have pointed out to you before [to wit: the URL].
Erl Happ (09:11:02) :
OLR from the Northern hemisphere has increased by 3.4% since 1948 and the southern hemisphere 2.3% since 1948.
Temperatures have risen by much less than either figure over the same period.
First, when calculating temperature changes from OLR changes you must divide by 4 because of Stefan-Boltzmann’s law [that governs all of this], so the ~3% OLR change would result from a 3/4% temperature change which is 2 degrees. This is, if we assume that the albedo was the same, and to the extent that the temperature change is perhaps only half of the 2 degrees, we can conclude that the albedo has also changed [decreased]. I think the prevailing idea is that aerosols have something to do with this. Or clouds, or whatever. As you have stated, the Sun has stayed the same, so we can take that out of the equation, if you want.
Leif,
I wish to thank you and all those who provide discourse here. I am but a quisling in this arena, but I learn much just by reading through these comments. I only wish I had more time to engage in serious study in these areas, as I have found myself with an intense interest in these things.
garron, I have updated my current post to put the word “Indicated influence” on the charts, along with a stronger caveat and explanation of such usage before I present the charts. I believe I am very public about the limitations of the analysis. At this point, it’s a model in infancy, though I think still worth sharing as food for thought.
Adolfo Giurfa (09:55:38) :
What happened years before the extraordinary 1997-98 “el nino”?, […] if there was some peculiar solar phenomena in those years.
There was a solar minimum a years before, but there is one every 11 years. Solar activity was picking up on its way to the maximum, but so it is every 11 years, so nothing special.
“According to AGW, the stratosphere at first cools, as the LWR is absorbed by the CO2(radiator insulation) at lower levels. ”
UAH, RSS and Aqua all together indicate this is not happening, and is inconsistent with GCMs.
If empirical support exists for AGW it is well disguised.
CO2, at STP, has an emissivity of 9*10^10-4 versus 0.94 for green leaves. The earth’s terrestrial surface radiates heat 1000 times more effectively than CO2.
The emissivity of water is 0.58 or 60% that of the terrestrial surface. Water’s heat capacity is 50% greater.
As Bob Tisdale’s graphs over at Jennifer’s have shown, the temps of the center of mass of the SO and global temps are the spittin’ image of each other.
So AGW is bankrupt and irrelevant and is the only factor independent of the sun’s input, volcanism included.
Erl Happ (09:00:05) :
Change in energy gain in low latitudes drives temperature in winter time at high latitudes and it is at high latitudes that the Earth has warmed.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUSPol.html
shows South high latitude cooling since 1978
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUNPol.html
shows North high latitude cooling 1978-1994, then a jump up and flat since.
As far as I know it is the Night Temperature that has increased globally and not the Day Temperature. This is another interesting piece of the puzzle. Clouds at night?
More:
http://tinyurl.com/4bet65
Erl Happ (09:00:05) :
Change in energy gain in low latitudes drives temperature in winter time at high latitudes and it is at high latitudes that the Earth has warmed.
moderator?
Leif Svalgaard (13:04:14) :
We need a decent time span to look at temperature.
See a comparison of air temperature in the decade 1948 to1958 to the most recent decade here:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/Surfacetemperaturesglobe.jpg
Data from http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/Timeseries/timeseries1.pl
You will observe that it is high latitude winter temperatures that have increased.
On a daily basis the minimums are higher, and the minimum occurs at night and that is related to sea surface temperatures. High minimums in winter relate to less frosts and less ice.
The climate shift in 1978 involved a dramatic increase in the temperature at 100hPa, 70hPa and 50hPa (the lower stratosphere) due to a jump in outgoing long wave radiation associated with loss of cloud cover. OLR reacts with ozone. Temperature at 100hPa in the tropics peaks strongly in mid year associated with the fall in cloud cover associated with the increase in global temperatures due to Northern Hemisphere warming in turn associated with the size of the land masses in relation to the sea. It can be safely concluded that the main driver of lower stratospheric temperature is outgoing long wave radiation. Those temperature peaks have decayed continuously since 1978.
Thanks for the following comment:
“we can conclude that the albedo has also changed [decreased]. I think the prevailing idea is that aerosols have something to do with this. Or clouds, or whatever. As you have stated, the Sun has stayed the same, so we can take that out of the equation, if you want.”
So, there has been a change in cloud cover. (Less waffle would help). The usual relatively cloud free zones simply expand. These are the re-charge zones for tropical warming events.
And the change in albedo is also clearly reflected in the jump in 200hPa temperatures in 1978. The relationship between 200hPa temperatures and cloud cover is well documented.
And 200hPa temperature is clearly driven by the reaction of ozone to UV light.
The amount of UV light that emanates from the sun as sunspots come and go is less important than the effect of the solar wind on the mass of the atmosphere over the tropics. I infer this change from observation of change in temperature in the tropics. If you don’t want to infer it and want to stick to your notion that the mass of the atmosphere over the tropics is invariable go right ahead. But, have the graciousness to admit that neither of us really knows.
Leif
For a bit of background data on the relationship between ENSO and the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere Oceans see http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/10/peruvian-coast-sst-anomalies.html
The change in the temperature off the Peruvian coast, in the Southern Oceans and air temperature at high latitudes in winter have this in common. They all had a strong maximum in the 1940S, a minimum in the late 1970s and have risen strongly since. But, since 2003 they are all in decline.
Now check this http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/SOIandSST1-20S.jpg
and this
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/aaand200hPatemp.jpg
The point I would make to you is that the flywheel of the Earths heat budget is the oceans of the southern hemisphere. After all, we know that due to orbital considerations irradiance is almost 7% stronger on January 3d, when the sun is over the tropic of Capricorn.
Erl Happ (16:11:36) :
effect of the solar wind on the mass of the atmosphere over the tropics. if [you think] the mass of the atmosphere over the tropics is invariable go right ahead. But, have the graciousness to admit that neither of us really knows.
The mass [really the weight, but with gravity not varying…] of a column of air is given by the pressure it exerts, independent of its temperature. The pressure over the tropics is well-known, so we do know [or can know]. So central to your theory is that the pressure in the tropics should vary with the solar wind. This is a critical experiment. If it does not, your theory is wrong. If it does, it does not prove your theory right as the theory is not unique [there could be other mechanisms at play]. So, one cannot prove a theory, but one can disprove it. Back in the 19th century people looked at correlations between geomagnetic and solar activity and just about everything they could think of. If memory serves, no correlation with pressure was found. I’m not aware of anybody later having looked at this, but it should be an easy thing to check. Why don’t you?
Erl Happ (16:53:23) :
The point I would make to you is that the flywheel of the Earths heat budget is the oceans of the southern hemisphere.
No need to make a point of the obvious, but from this the rest of your theory does not follow.
Erl Happ (16:11:36) :
So, there has been a change in cloud cover. (Less waffle would help). The usual relatively cloud free zones simply expand. These are the re-charge zones for tropical warming events.
And the change in albedo is also clearly reflected in the jump in 200hPa temperatures in 1978. The relationship between 200hPa temperatures and cloud cover is well documented.
That the albedo is changing and clouds too is not in doubt, but those facts do nothing to prove your specific theory as many other mechanisms could be claimed [even AGW for that matter].
The heaping up of details just obscures the central point of your theory: the ‘compacting’ of the atmosphere by the solar wind. This point is amenable to an observational check. There are long records [Dutch, British] of meteorological data including air pressure. Find many stations, compile a composite data set and compare it with [correct] aa-index subject to rigorous statistical checks, and the point can be made.
Leif Svalgaard (17:07:25) :
“If memory serves, no correlation with pressure was found. I’m not aware of anybody later having looked at this, but it should be an easy thing to check. Why don’t you?”
Thanks for the suggestion.
Boyles Law. Pressure volume and temperature are related.
If the pressure rises and the temperature also rises and the volume is laterally adjustable but is at the same time vertically constrained by gravity, then the density of the material in the column affected by the increased pressure and temperature, will decrease. In the following diagram I show that part of the southern ocean that has the least albedo and the maximum irradiation in summer. Thats 10° to 20°S.
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/Pressureand200hPatemperature.jpg