Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA
Reposted here: October 30th, 2008
by Warwick Hughes
The real world sunspot data remaining quiet month after month are mocking the curved red predictions of NOAA and about to slide underneath. Time for a rethink I reckon NOAA !!
Here is my clearer chart showing the misfit between NOAA / NASA prediction and real-world data.
Regular readers might remember that we started posting articles drawing attention to contrasting predictions for Solar Cycle 24, way back on 16 December 2006. Scroll to the start of my solar threads.
Then in March 2007 I posted David Archibald’s pdf article, “The Past and Future of Climate”. Well worth another read now, I would like to see another version of David’s Fig 12 showing where we are now in the transition from Cycle 23 to Cycle 24.
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Issued April 2007 from NOAA / NASA
NOTE from Anthony: We now appear to have a new cycle 24 spot, which you can see here:
See the most current MDI and magnetogram here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard (22:25:55) :
The cooling was not primarily due to volcanic eruptions.
I think we are getting somewhere.
I agree; it’s the higher 10Be records that were due to volcanic eruptions
we all know the 10Be records are inverted but yes you got me 🙂
(but i am sure you understand my argument)
nobwainer (22:17:11) :
I thought i made it quite clear…there is no way of knowing the SO2 level (other than rough ice cores) from Tambora and even if we assume it was high that still doesnt mean it had a drastic effect on the temp as Krakatoa shows.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Indonesia/description_tambora_1815_eruption.html
The June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was global. Slightly cooler than usual temperatures recorded worldwide and the brilliant sunsets and sunrises have been attributed to this eruption that sent fine ash and gases high into the stratosphere, forming a large volcanic cloud that drifted around the world. The sulfur dioxide (SO2) in this cloud — about 22 million tons — combined with water to form droplets of sulfuric acid, blocking some of the sunlight from reaching the Earth and thereby cooling temperatures in some regions by as much as 0.5 degrees °C. An eruption the size of Mount Pinatubo could affect the weather for a few years.
A similar phenomenon occurred in April of 1815 with the cataclysmic eruption of Tambora Volcano in Indonesia, the most powerful eruption in recorded history. Tambora’s volcanic cloud lowered global temperatures by as much as 3 degrees °C. Even a year after the eruption, most of the northern hemisphere experienced sharply cooler temperatures during the summer months. In parts of Europe and in North America, 1816 was known as “the year without a summer.”
It is the SO2 amount that via water determines the cooling, so it seems clear that Tambora must have output much more SO2 than the 22 million tons of Pinatubo. In fact, Rampino, M.R., and S. Self. 1982. Historic Eruptions of Tambora (1815), Krakatau (1883), and Agung (1963), Their Stratospheric Aerosols, and Climatic Impact. Quaternary Research, 18, 127-143, estimate ratios of Tambora:Krakatau:Agung for sulfates of 7.5:3:1, so there are ways of knowing.
nobwainer (22:45:02) :
“The cooling was not primarily due to volcanic eruptions.”
I think we are getting somewhere.
I don’t think so, as nobody has ever claimed that. What is claimed is that the sharp spike of 10Be for example at the end of the Maunder Minimum was due to volcanoes and likely also caused a sharp cooling spike during the much more extensive LIA that had other, probably internal, oscillations as its main cause.
“I agree; it’s the higher 10Be records that were due to volcanic eruptions”, we all know the 10Be records are inverted but yes you got me 🙂 (but i am sure you understand my argument)”
Absolutely not, as it is precisely the point that these spikes were due to volcanic eruptions and not to the lack of solar activity.
nobwainer (22:17:11) :
Tambora is listed as a scale 7, Krakatoa a scale 6 so i am not sure where the 5X comes from.
As part of your continuing education [ 🙂 ] learn now that the scale is largely logarithmic, so that a scale 7 eruption ejects 10 times as much as a scale 6 eruption.
Leif Svalgaard (22:57:47) :
In fact, Rampino, M.R., and S. Self. 1982. Historic Eruptions of Tambora (1815), Krakatau (1883), and Agung (1963)
Interesting abstract that you refer, it goes on to say:
Decreases in surface temperatures after the eruptions of Tambora (1815), Krakatau (1883), and Agung (1963) were of similar magnitude, even though the amount of material (dust and volatiles) injected into the stratosphere by these three events differed greatly. Large amounts of fine ash and volatiles were dispersed into the upper atmosphere by Krakatau and Tambora; the Agung eruption in 1963 was a much smaller, vulcanian-type eruption which injected dust and volatiles into the stratospheric aerosol layer more directly. Analyses of magmatic volatiles indicate that the Agung eruption was proportionately richer in SO2 and Cl than either Tambora or Krakatau. Relative amounts of fine ash produced by the Tambora, Krakatau, and Agung eruptions are estimated at about 150:20:1, whereas the masses of atmospheric sulfate aerosols produced were on the order of 7.5:3:1.
Decreases in surface temperature of a few tenths of a degree C for several years following volcanic eruptions are primarily a result of the sulfate aerosols, rather than of the silicate dust. The similarity in the atmospheric response after these three eruptions supports the idea of limiting mechanisms on volcanic stratospheric-aerosol loading, which is suggested by microphysical processes of aerosol particles. Fluctuations in stratospheric aerosol optical depth seem to be controlled to a large degree by high-intensity sulfur-rich eruptions (e.g., Agung, 1963), which may however be relatively small in total ejecta volume. Such eruptions leave little geologic record, but appear as acidity peaks in polar ice cores.
A few tenths is a lot more believable than 3C stated in your other article.
So looking again at our GIFF record we actually see an increase in world temps at 1963. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif and that eruption supposedly produced more SO2 than Tambora.
So I think we can put the temperature argument to bed and the smaller than expected SO2 input from Tambora would add to the 10Be records but saying it contributes the major part of the 10Be record without any input from the greatly reduced solar activity is not based on good science.
Leif Svalgaard (23:44:00) :
As part of your continuing education [ 🙂 ] learn now that the scale is largely logarithmic, so that a scale 7 eruption ejects 10 times as much as a scale 6 eruption.
Thanks Leif, but we know its the size of the SO2 output that really counts.
Suspect we are both getting some education on this issue 🙂
Agung eruption was proportionately richer in SO2…7.5:3:1.
ok i should have read that more closely its obviously smaller than Tambora in SO2. I wonder how they arrived at that figure (not having access to the paper) On the McCraken 10Be the Krakatoa eruption completely overrides any solar influence where as the Tambora time scale 10Be closely follows the sunpsot activity. Also in 1700 according to McCraken we have a big dump from Hekla but nothing from the large eruption of hekla in 1845-6.
nobwainer (23:45:52) :
From your quote: “Analyses of magmatic volatiles indicate that the Agung eruption was proportionately richer in SO2 and Cl than either Tambora or Krakatau. Relative amounts of fine ash produced by the Tambora, Krakatau, and Agung eruptions are estimated at about 150:20:1, whereas the masses of atmospheric sulfate aerosols produced were on the order of 7.5:3:1.
Again you quote disingenuously; what it is really saying is just that Agung ejected only a third of Krakatoa and about a tenth of Tambora, not that Agung ejected more.
A few tenths is a lot more believable than 3C stated in your other article.
I was just quoting the USGS and don’t want to play the dueling cite game.
So looking again at our GIFF record we actually see an increase in world temps at 1963.
Followed by a good 0.3C drop in 1964. The eruption was 1963-1964 and it takes about a year for the cooling to hit through.
that eruption supposedly produced more SO2 than Tambora.
According to your own quote above, Tambora produced 7.5 times as much SO2 as Agung.
So I think we can put the temperature argument to bed and the smaller than expected SO2 input from Tambora would add to the 10Be records
Well, your interpretation of your own quote is so flawed as I just showed that we can put your argument out to pasture instead. You should really try to read what it says rather than just try to bend it to your views and hope that nobody will notice.
So saying it contributes the major part of the 10Be record without any input from the greatly reduced solar activity is clearly based on good science. Especially since Tambora was not the only eruption at that time. In http://www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/nov102006/1200.pdf there is a discussion of events in the early 1800s. “The most prominent doublet of nssSO2–4 peaks […] is related to the Tambora eruption of AD 1815 and an older eruption attributed to an unknown volcano during 1809. […] Tambora is considered to be the greatest volcanic event during the past 500 years, having a VEI of 7 and IVI6 of 0.72. The global sulphate fallout related to this mega event was estimated to be as high as ~150 megatons [see, we do have an idea of SO2 from Tambora], making it one of the most impressive volcanic events that had direct climatic impact.” In addition Mayon had its most destructive eruption in 1814.
“so that a scale 7 eruption ejects 10 times as much as a scale 6 eruption.” Thanks Leif, but we know its the size of the SO2 output that really counts.
Well, see above regarding SO2 from Tambora [7 times that of Pinatubo].
Suspect we are both getting some education on this issue 🙂
It seems to me that the education mostly is going your way. You see, I would not make the statements I do without having researched the subject in depth. And as I have remarked, you may assume that I have considered all these possible objections already. That is part of the thoroughness in research that I’m known for.
nobwainer (00:43:33) :
but nothing from the large eruption of hekla in 1845-6.
It was only a 4 on the VEI scale, so down by a factor of a thousand from Tambora.
Hekla was not the only one around 1700. Global volcanism was high then. Here are some of the major ones:
TONGKOKO Sulawesi (Indonesia) 1680
CHIKURACHKI Kuril Islands 1690 ± 10 years
HEKLA Southern Iceland 1693 Feb 13
SERUA Banda Sea 1693 Jun 4
KOMAGA-TAKE Hokkaido (Japan) 1694 Jul 4
FUJI Honshu (Japan) 1707 Dec 16
And, as always, not everything is due to just one cause [general climatic conditions and precipitation also plays a role]. And the SO2 production for these have to be checked and so on. Clearly there is work to be done to quantify these effects. But, it is a new and significant element to consider the possibility that a good part of the 10Be record that was traditionally ascribed to [lack of] solar activity may be due to volcanic eruptions combined with general climatic conditions [circulation and precipitation]. Before ‘the’ 10Be record is over-interpreted too much, one must also remember that different ice cores give somewhat different results when examined in detail. More cores are needed before a really reliable 10Be curve can be had.
“The June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was global.”
Wow, really? The whole surface of the planet erupted? How did i miss that?
Jeff Alberts (04:00:06) :
“The June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was global.”
Wow, really? The whole surface of the planet erupted? How did i miss that?
“global” in its effect. You’ll be amazed at what people can miss.
Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
If magnetic portals connect Sun and the Earth’s magnetosphere, then it is almost certain that similar portals connect to the immensely more powerful and larger Jupiter’s and Saturn’s magnetospheres. For solar wind to reach the Earth via Parker’s spiral it takes 2.9 days, Jupiter up to 1 month and Saturn about 3 months; note: not in a straight line but via Parker’s spiral
http://beauty.nascom.nasa.gov/~ptg/mars/movies/planet_sat/space_20.jpg
If there are currents flowing in both directions then combined feedback may take up to 6 months.
Dr. Hathaway states; “Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient. We don’t know why this works. The underlying physics is a mystery. But it does work”.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
It takes 6 years for the angle of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn configuration to change by 90 degrees. If the mentioned 3-6 months are added then the result is Dr. Hathaway’s “6 plus years”. It is just possible that the 90 degrees change in the Jupiter – Saturn angular displacement will significantly alter the total effectives of the magnetic portals, and in doing so via HS current feedback, affect sunspot cycle. This may be coincidence and pure speculation, but if it is not then “the underlying physics would not be a mystery; and we would know why IHV predictions work”.
Any better ideas ?
Anomalous heat associated with changing solar irradiance is stored in the upper 100 meters ocean. The heat balance is maintained by heat loss to the atmosphere, not to the deep ocean.
Lean 2005 still shows a high steady 50 year smoothed TSI, even though the watts/m2 are not as high as Lean 2000 the clear correlation between TSI and temperature still exists. Tamio gives a 0.6 degree C temperature rise since 1950 I believe UHI can account for at least 50% of that, I do not know how many studies of major cities and towns weather stations will need to be undertaken before this is accepted, but each one that comes along invariably shows a Large UHI effect compared to its nearest rural neighbour of between 2 and 10 degrees C.
http://www.acrim.com/Presentations/AGU%20Fall%202007/SanFrancisco-Scafetta.pdf
It is suggested that the suns irradience is not great enough to cause the present warming, if this is the case, it was then not great enough to have caused the past warmings at the end of the little ice age and the 1800 cold period, perhaps someone can provide an answer as to what initiated those and other past warmings if it was not the sun.
Lean 2005 shows a steady high TSI from 1950 to 2000, this I believe was the highest level of TSI in 1150 years, all this extra heat warming the oceans, is it any wonder that the air temperatures have kept on rising even though the TSI has been fairly constant over that period albeit at a very high level, it does not I believe need an increasing heat source to keep air temperatures rising.
vukcevic (12:17:16) :
Many things wrong here.
If magnetic portals connect Sun and the Earth’s magnetosphere, then it is almost certain that similar portals connect to the immensely more powerful and larger Jupiter’s and Saturn’s magnetospheres.
They do, of course, as we can see aurorae on Jupiter and Saturn.
For solar wind to reach the Earth via Parker’s spiral it takes 2.9 days, Jupiter up to 1 month and Saturn about 3 months; note: not in a straight line but via Parker’s spiral
The solar wind is radial. Does NOT follow the spiral anymore than the water from a rotating garden sprinkler does.
If there are currents flowing in both directions then combined feedback may take up to 6 months.
The current cannot flow towards the Sun as the solar wind is 11 times supersonic. It’s like a swimmer swimming at 1 mile per hour against a current flowing in the opposite direction at 11 miles an hour.
It takes 6 years for the angle of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn configuration to change by 90 degrees […] “the underlying physics would not be a mystery; and we would know why IHV predictions work”.
Any better ideas ?
Yes, lots, and they don’t work either.
Well, see above regarding SO2 from Tambora [7 times that of Pinatubo].
Wouldn’t that be a bit over twice if we go by their paper (7.5:3:1) 7.5 ratio to 3? and if so wouldn’t we expect to see that reflected in the 10Be…something not right.
You obviously wrote your reply while mine was being moderated and again i had the ratio wrong,( like perhaps you) but agree a lot more work needs to be done. To me i cant see any volcanic fingerprint on the McCraken chart during the Dalton, its nothing like the Krakatoa spike.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
Followed by a good 0.3C drop in 1964. The eruption was 1963-1964 and it takes about a year for the cooling to hit through.
? you must be looking at a diff temp record to the GISS record…the annual mean clearly shows a .2C rise from approx 1963-67, but its probably just part of the normal fluctuation like Krakatoa.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
I will do some work on Tambora and see what i can find, and as you found around 1700 was certainly a busy time.
I meant highest TSI in 11,500 years.
Without knowing the cause of previous warmings and coolings especially the little ice age which lasted for approximately 300 years no one can possibly link CO2 as the driver of the present warming, even the ice cores indicate this is not the case.
I believe the most important question to ask is, WHAT CAUSED THE LITTLE ICE AGE AND WHAT ENDED IT, when we know the answer to that question we will have a better idea than just guess work of what has caused this present warming.
The cause of the LIA is still a topic of debate. Up till now the two most probable hypotheses are related to volcanic eruptions and short cyclical changes in solar irradiance, (back to the sun again), see link below.
http://www.uab.es/servlet/Satellite?cid=1096481466574&pagename=UABDivulga%2FPage%2FTemplatePageDetallArticleInvestigar¶m1=1096481770302
Nobwainer
The first reference I can find to planetary alignment and sunspots is here
Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle, and Climatic Change**
by T. Landscheidt*
PUBLISHED BY SWETS & ZEITLINGER B.V. – LISSE
J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19
Do you subscribe to this proposed mecahnism OR are you the author??
nobwainer (14:30:56) :
Well, see above regarding SO2 from Tambora [7 times that of Pinatubo].
Wouldn’t that be a bit over twice if we go by their paper (7.5:3:1) 7.5 ratio to 3? and if so wouldn’t we expect to see that reflected in the 10Be…something not right.
Tambora 150 megaton
Pinatubo 22 megaton
And the response in 10Be need not be linear
You obviously wrote your reply while mine was being moderated and again i had the ratio wrong,( like perhaps you) but agree a lot more work needs to be done. To me i cant see any volcanic fingerprint on the McCraken chart during the Dalton, its nothing like the Krakatoa spike.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
Followed by a good 0.3C drop in 1964. The eruption was 1963-1964 and it takes about a year for the cooling to hit through.
you must be looking at a diff temp record to the GISS record
http://www.leif.org/research/GISS-volcanoes.png
Marked [with blue] are Krakatoa, Agung, and Pinatubo…
Colin Aldridge (15:43:39) :
The first reference I can find to planetary alignment and sunspots
http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
I don’t know if it will last but I think I see an old cycle 23 area comin round the bend in the southern hemisphere near the equator.
Colin Aldridge (15:43:39) :
Nobwainer
The first reference I can find to planetary alignment and sunspots is here
Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle, and Climatic Change**
by T. Landscheidt*
PUBLISHED BY SWETS & ZEITLINGER B.V. – LISSE
J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19
Do you subscribe to this proposed mecahnism OR are you the author??
No Dr. Landscheidt died in 2004, so unless you believe in ghosts i suspect not. I dont subscribe to “this mechanism” but do keep an open mind to the possibility of planetary influence on the Sun. Cycle 24 will most likely prove it either way in my view. I have just taken over a blog that has most of Landscheit’s papers. Check it out at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
Leif wrote: ““global” in its effect. You’ll be amazed at what people can miss.”
I know, but you didn’t write it that way. I was just having some fun 😉
Re: Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth
Leif Svalgaard (13:46:15) :
vukcevic (12:17:16) :
Many things wrong here.
Dr. Svalgaard
Perhaps I should have been more precise; I had in mind a “magnetic flux loop” as in
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/HSC.gif
Charged particles within such a loop (if it does exist) create an obvious bidirectional link between Sun and a magnetosphere. The analogy with a garden sprinkler is not entirely appropriate for such “flux loop”. Although movement of a loop’s front is radial, the loop is locked into a rotating source an as consequence “stretched” backwards along a spiral. However, this is not particularly relevant since propagation time, even from a static source, would still be 0.5 and 1 month approx. If there is a 6-year IHV precursor to sunspot cycles, then I am not aware of a clear explanation, regardless of accuracy of Dr. Hathaway’s predictions. I cannot see any harm in having a go, although I did qualify it: “This may be coincidence and pure speculation”; for the time being I am happy to accept it to be just that and no more.
By the way thanks for the link: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf I shell read it with a particular interest.
vukcevic (03:29:00) :
If there is a 6-year IHV precursor to sunspot cycles
The precursor time is not sharply defined and varies between 4 and 9 years.
Tambora and central England temperatures from 1770-1840
http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view¤t=tamboraandcenglandtemps.jpg