The NOAA Space Weather Prediction center updated their plots of solar indices earlier today, on January 3rd. With the exception of a slight increase in the 107 centimeter radio flux, there appears to be even less signs of solar activity. Sunspots are still not following either of the two predictive curves, and it appears that the solar dynamo continues to slumber, perhaps even winding down further. Of particular note, the last graph below (click the read more link to see it) showing the Average Planetary Index (Ap) is troubling. I thought there would be an uptick by now, due to expectations of some sign of cycle 24 starting up, but instead it continues to drop.
Meanwhile, the Oulu Neutron Monitor shows a significant up trend, reaching levels not seen in over 30 years. According to an email I received from Dr. David Archibald, GCR flux has indeed increased:
Oulu Neutron Monitor Data, plotted by David Archibald with prediction point added. Data source: University of Oulu, Finland
Svensmark is watching this closely I’m sure.
Looking at the SWPC graph below, it appears that we are in uncharted territory now, since the both the high and low cycle 24 predictions (in red) appear to be falsified for the current time frame. No new cycle 24 predictions have been issued by any solar group (that I am aware of ) in the last couple of months. The last time NASA made a change was in October 08. The question now seems to be, are we seeing the beginning of a cycle skip, or a grand minima? Or is this just an extraordinary delay for cycle 24 ?
Solar cycle 24: where are you?
h/t to Russ Steele
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Those following rainfall may like to check this note from Australia:
Gulf Country see’s its heaviest rain in years
Paddy Aicken
href=”http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/gulf-country-sees-its-heaviest-rain-in-years/10713″>Weatherzone
That’s: Weatherzone
(I keep losing my anchor reference.)
Bob Tisdale (15:55:22) :
… In it, I was discussing a long-term oscillation (approximately 80 years) that appears in the difference (delta T) between NINO3.4 SST (not anomaly) and global and hemispheric absolute temperatures. An example of the graphs:
http://i34.tinypic.com/11lok5h.jpg
Note that I used the polynomial trend line to help illustrate the oscillation, not as a predictive tool.
—–
The 80 year cyclic curve you highlighted matches very closely with the 78 year temperature cycle we have been experiencing: But the oscillation is directly reversed: peaks at the coolest years of the past 150, and low points at the times (1930-1945 and 1990-2005) when temperatures have been about 1/2 of obne degree higher than baseline.
IF (big “if”) you can determine the link, you may have determined a foundation of the climate “problem” that the political “scientists” are trying to foist down our throats with trillions of new taxes and wasteful “energy policies”
It’s snowing right now in London, UK.
The Ap Index is now the lowest it has been in living memory. The Index started in 1932. One interesting thing is that Hathaway in his latest prognostication used the aa Index to following solar max correlation to derive an estimate for Solar Cycle 24 of about 50, putting one of his predictions near where Clilverd has been for years. The aa Index and the Ap Index are very similar. It should be borne in mind that the average solar cycle amplitude for the last 8,000 years is only 30. It was warmer than now over that period as a whole due to higher insolation for the Northern Hemisphere. Insolation at 65 degrees North has declined by 50 watts per square metre from the peak of 525 watts eleven thousand years ago. According to the people who model these things, we are on the cusp of plunging into the next ice age, which will reach its full development 20,000 years from now.
davidgmills (15:30:57) :
Leif you say: “My point was to compare the Dalton Min with the 30 years before and after, when solar activity back high.”
Well how could we do that in any precise manner? If there is anything Anthony has taught us on this board, it is not to trust surface temperature measurements.
We use the meager measurements we have, but your argument cuts two ways: Some people are claiming the Dalton Min was cold; don’t they heed Anthony’s teachings?
George M (18:15:58) :
Leif Svalgaard (14:19:44) :
Mark (13:56:03) :
“if this cycle doesn’t kick up again and soon, what implications will that have on Mother Earth?”
Leif: “Not much, except homing pigeons and other birds will have somewhat improved navigation.”
They are the high frequency radio users .. etc
I had originally a statement about that [I have been supported by the Air Force who wants to know about sunspots, etc], but then deleted it as I wanted to stick with “Mother Nature” [i.e. no technology stuff]. Perhaps I misinterpreted the Nature bit, but out here in Northern CA, that kind of language is usually used by tree-huggers that don’t think technology…
Glenn (16:09:59) :
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
Can’t get that url to load, can you find another?
I just tried it, works good. I can try to embed it: click here
Lee Kington (18:34:14) : and others
The discussion of Dalton min temps goes back to a post by nobwainer, who first claimed that there was a 40-year cold interval in CET during the DM and then made the claim more specific: “If you want to get pedantic about it it clearly shows a cooling from late 1770’s to late 1820’s…thats more than 40 years.”
So, I simply calculated the numbers:
The CET average for 1750-1777 [late 1770s] was 9.036C, for 1778-1828 [late 1820s] it was 9.101C, and for 1829-1860 is was 9.071C. Pedantry clearly shows that your 40-year period was warmer than the intervals before and after it. One can argue that the errors may be larger than the differences, but that cuts both ways.
The DM would have been even warmer had it not been for the volcanoes. Quoting single years or max and mins etc is not climate.
The fact is that we do not have good evidence that the DM was colder than the surrounding 30-year climate intervals.
Wally (18:44:09) :
The CET data does not appear to mean much as far as the Dalton minimum. […] no minimum due to the Dalton minimum.
I wish that everybody would do like Wally and just do the numbers.
Robert Wood (18:00:35) :
cycle 24 has started, by definition?.
There is no agreed upon definition of when a cycle starts
The number of cycle 24 sunspots are outnumbering the number of cycle 23 susnpots. We have seen the occasional cycle 24 spot since August, but no cycle 23 spots.
If you look at page 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf you may see why I agree with you that cycle 24 is here. It is still a weakling. From that alone we cannot deduce that it will stay weak. We have other indicators that point to a weak cycle.
So, does this mean a weak cycle 24?
see above
Well that’s some interesting stuff:
1st, the Sun expands during Minimum and drowns out the sunspots.
The the Earth starts cooling, contracting, the crust buckles under the strain and off pop the volcanoes, rubbing salt into the wounds.
Nice.
I am fully convinced that there are those who will not learn a thing from this episode of sunspot dimming, due to the fact that they have closed thier minds of to the possibility that the very Star which warms our planet cannot possibly do anything to vary our climate.
I expect this sort of stuff from politicians.
Leon Brozyna (18:02:53) :
The predictions for the 10.7cm values seem to be bearing up well, with December’s values again up slightly and remaining within the predicted range.
The reason 10.7 bears up so well is that it is plotted incorrectly. It should have started [when the first plot was made] at its minimum value of 65 flux units, but due to a clerical error the scale starts at 60 instead of 65. I have pointed that out several times, but errors cannot be corrected.
Here are excerpts from an email exchange
leif@leif.org to _NWS NCEP SEC Cycle24 Prediction Panel
date Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:55 PM
subject: Our prediction graph of f10.7 is clearly wrong
1) f10.7 should not go down to 60 at minimum
2) the maximum value [even fro the high prediction] is clearly lower than that for cycle 23.
Can we not have the graph corrected?
Reply on Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:47 PM:
Leif, Yes, the f10.7 should not go down to 60. Our forecast minimum limit is 65. However, this requires a change in a product and I’m not ready to take that task on at this time. Changing products within the NWS can be a very time consuming, difficult task. However, if one were to complain about a product to the proper authorities, one might be able to prompt action. You’ll find a feedback form on our website.
——
needless to say, i didn’t manage to get the plot corrected and now it looks pretty good 🙂
davidgmills (15:30:57) :
Lief you say: “My point was to compare the Dalton Min with the 30 years before and after, when solar activity back high.”
Well how could we do that in any precise manner? If there is anything Anthony has taught us on this board, it is not to trust surface temperature measurements.
It isn’t the measurements that we don’t trust, it’s the adjustments.
“I am fully convinced that there are those who will not learn a thing from this episode of sunspot dimming, ”
It remains to be seen if there will be anything of significance to be learned. To assume that this minimum will be something extraordinary is at this point a leap of faith and not based on science because it could well pick up tomorrow and all this talk of a “grand minimum” evaporate.
It is just too soon to tell and anyone saying otherwise is talking through their pants. We just have to wait and see and we aren’t going to know anything with any certainty for about another year or so.
I guess that goes against our modern human nature these days. It is hard for people to accept that there are things that just can’t be known and simply have to unfold on their own. We are so used to “experts” who seem to have everything figured out that we become uncomfortable with the notion that nobody knows. This often then results in people who “predicted” what turns out to be the correct outcome being touted as some kind of expert when they did no better than guess correctly.
We just have to wait and see what happens and keep our eyes on the data.
Leif: “Quoting single years or max and mins etc is not climate”
Kind of like averaging the life of star … sure 99.999% of the time it was quite livable to be an earth distance away, but those Nova years averaged in were no cause for alarm (except for everyone dying).
Averages don’t necessarily tell us everything that happens.
An exceptional number of extremely cold months and years IS climate.
Why did 11 of the 15th coldest CET years occur during the MM or DM?
Year Annual Minimum
1740 6.84
1695 7.25 MM
1879 7.42
1698 7.63 MM
1694 7.67 MM
1692 7.71 MM
1814 7.75 DM
1784 7.83
1688 7.83 MM
1675 7.83 MM
1816 7.87 DM
1860 7.89
1799 7.89 DM
1684 7.92 MM
1697 8 MM
Glenn (15:32:26) :
I’d warn you about making statements based on one month difference of a small percentage of an increasing amount, but it wouldn’t do any good.
http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA16.png shows the changes for the two stations Oulu and Moscow. Thule shows the same pattern. My point was just that there is no justification for claiming that the CRF is still increasing, but it probably wouldn’t do any good.
David Archibald (20:12:04) :
One interesting thing is that Hathaway in his latest prognostication used the aa Index to following solar max correlation to derive an estimate for Solar Cycle 24 of about 50
No, he claims ~95, not 50. On slide 34.
we are on the cusp of plunging into the next ice age, which will reach its full development 20,000 years from now.
meaning a decrease of temperature of 0.00035 degrees/year. Scary, eh?
Bruce (21:04:25) :
1814 7.75 DM [Mayon]
1816 7.87 DM [Tambora]
The two coldest years of the DM was due to volcanic activity. I thought that was clear enough.
Leif Svalgaard (21:26:30) :
Bruce (21:04:25) :
1814 7.75 DM [Mayon]
1816 7.87 DM [Tambora]
The two coldest years of the DM was due to volcanic activity. I thought that was clear enough.
And even with these two record-cold years, the DM average is warmer than the two bracing 30-year periods. Would you care to guess how much warmer the DM would have been had these two years been ‘normal’?
David Archibald (20:12:04) :
The Ap Index is now the lowest it has been in living memory. The Index started in 1932. One interesting thing is that Hathaway in his latest prognostication used the aa Index to following solar max correlation to derive an estimate for Solar Cycle 24 of about 50, putting one of his predictions near where Clilverd has been for years. The aa Index and the Ap Index are very similar. It should be borne in mind that the average solar cycle amplitude for the last 8,000 years is only 30. It was warmer than now over that period as a whole due to higher insolation for the Northern Hemisphere. Insolation at 65 degrees North has declined by 50 watts per square metre from the peak of 525 watts eleven thousand years ago. According to the people who model these things, we are on the cusp of plunging into the next ice age, which will reach its full development 20,000 years from now.
David, Can you expand on the insolation and the resulting effect. I’m not understamding fully.
I’m sure many of us may be wondering.
Ric Werme (14:40:02): “The only decent frozem mammoth reference I’ve come across is in my 2016: The [Next] Year without a Summer. Part of what I quote is “when we dug it out still farther…”
Steady, Ric! This is the kind of fact which causes severe tooh fractures (I like believing in Tooth Fairies… And Santa Claus…).
Bruce (21:04:25) :
Year Annual Minimum
1814 7.75 DM
1784 7.83
Some people count 1784 still part of DM [nobwainer’s ‘late 1770s to late 1820s’]. The next year on your list after Mayon is 1784 which was caused by the Laki (Grimsvotn) eruption http://star.arm.ac.uk/preprints/437.pdf [thanks Ellie]
for some reason I’m picturing Leif with a big forehead, fantastic hair, a great tan, and plans for an Interossiter 😉
It’s both. Many sites are so badly placed the measurements from them really should be discarded.
I have a theory about volcanic warming if anyone is interested.
Its based on the injection of SO2 into the statosphere causing cloud/precipitation nucleation that results in loss of water vapor from the stratosphere. (a boom and bust cycle of temp) this causes stratospheric cooling (after the initial warming) leading to increased efficiency of tropical convection. Increased convective efficiency leeds to greater rainfall and a drying out of the atmosphere, leading to less clouds and increased short wave absorption followed by warming. It all happens under negative feedback since humidity has a negative correlation with temp. The effect could last decades!
Of course if a volcanic eruption was more steam based then this would put more water vapor in the stratosphere and have a double whammy cooling effect.
Does anyone else know why the stratosphere temp has such a good (negative) correlation with tropospheric temps?
Also did anyone notice the last time the PDO went negative was also the last time the Arctic passages opened?
Cheers
The discussions regarding the “Svensmark Effect”, and cosmic rays, and claims that there is no increase in earth albedo, and still other claim that cloud cover hasn’t changed, and then we have th neutron flu observations. All these arguments are in support of the contention that the 0.1% peak to peak change in solar constant over a typical sunspot cycles; all to convince us that the sun plays no role in earth climate.
Does this sound like the claims that cigarette smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer.
A lifelong friend recently retired from a full professorship in pediatrics and behavioral pshychology at the University of Miami; where he worked closely with the U of M medical school.
He says the evidence that that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is more conclusive than the evidence that sex causes children.
I’ve got the same feeling about the case against Dr Svensmark’s hypothesis.
So there is no change in global cloud cover. I would consider it to be more truthful to say that there is no way to measure gloabl cloud cover. I’ve watched a lot of clouds moving across the skies; coming and going, and i’ve observed massive changes in lcuds in just a few minutes. Now I know no way in compliancew with the laws of physics, to get an earth satellite around the globe in much less than an hour and a half. If my memory serves me, the hum frequency that plagues inertial navigation systems has an 84 minute period, which is also the period of a pendulum with a length equal to the earth radius; so that must also be the minimum orbital period, at the earth’s surface.
So just how are you going to monitor (how about integrate) cloud changes that happen very much faster than the orbital period of any monitoring satellite.
So without a complete global mesh of satellites in different orbits like the GPS satellite system, I remain to be convinced that satellite monitoring of either cloud cover, or earth albedo is possible.
Now I am willing to grant that they may be able to monitor cloud cover, within the mandatory 3:1 climate modelling (Playstation video games) fudge factor; which renders and actual observations “consistent with the predictions of GCM models”. But how about an accuracy of say 1/10th percent, similar to the solar constant p-p cycling with sunspots.
Sorry I just don’t believe it. And albedo changes are only part of the situation. Those same cloud variations (which aren’t observed) also manifest their presence, and their effect of cooling or warming, by means of changes in global precipitation. The non-scientist may not have automatically linked precipitation with the presence of clouds; but they go hand in hand.
Once again; I suggest people check out the paper by Wentz et al in July 2007 SCIENCE journal. Wentz by the way is with Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in Santa Rosa california. Their paper is entitled “How much More Rain will Global Warming Bring?”
Their satellite observations showed that a one degree C rise in global surface temperature results in a 7% increase in total global evaporation; and a 7% increase in total atmospheric water content; and a 7% increase in total global precipitation. The Playstation modelers actually agreed with Wentz as far as the 7% increase in evaporation and total atmospheric water but they disagreed on the total precipitation. According to their models the total global precipitation for a 1 deg C rise, is between 1 and 3 %; not 7%. Now there we have the obligatory 3:1 fudge factor; but more significantly; as much a a 7X disparity from real actual live world observations.
“Hello ! Earth to Playstation; we like to have our total global precipitation equal to our total global evaporation. ” It is quite discomforting to contemplae having the oceans over our head, rather than stay where they are. They must match over time; and you want to claim a 7X factor difference from observation ? “Fiddlesticks !”
Now Wentz didn’t mention that a 7% inctrease in global total precipitation might suggest that there was an increase in precipitable cloud cover of around 7% (of precipitable clouds). Now that could manifest itself as increased cloud area (not seen) or increased cloud water density; or perhaps longer persistence time of the water bearing cloud. But whichever composite of tyhose effects woud suggest a similar level of reduction in ground level insolation due to optical density of those clouds; maybe a 7% increase or thereabouts.
Now as much as I don’t believe we can measure cloud cover from satellites; I surely don’t believe we can measure total global cloud cover from the ground; given that about 73% of the ground is actually the oceans..
So forgive me if I ROFLMAO at the claims that Dr Svensmark’s conjecture is not supported by cloud observations.
The amount of total ground arriving solar energy doesn’t have to change much with cloud modulation. to wipe out any GHG effects.
To me, the Wentz et al SCIENCE paper is a landmark observation of a key ingrediaent of how the ocean/cloud system regulates the global temperature; no matter what efforts are made to change it; either up, or down.
Svensmark’s cosmic rays and solar charged particles that are affected by sunspot related solar magnetic fields by rearranging the latitudinal distribution of arriving energetic particles; cam shift those particles from the colder polar regions; where water vapor is in short supply, to the warmer tropics where ther is plenty of water vapor to nucleate clouds on charged particle showers (or volcanic ash, or aerosols.
Anything that facilitates cloud formation results in cooler temperatures, since the clouds can form with lower water vapor content, on suitable nucleation centers.
Things that inhibit cloud formation (like clean air) force a temperature rise because more surface temperature (and evaporation) is required to create the proper cloud cover that temperature regulation requires.
So to me; you don’t have to hit somebody betweent he eyes with a 2 by 4 to get them to understand why Dr Svensmark;s thesis looks extremely plausible.
Compared to that concept; the 150 year old wild guess by Arrhenius, that CO2 controls the temperature is laughable.
And yes if you think you can convince me that we can actually measure cloud cover; feel free to enlightn all of us.
And yes; please make sure that your method conforms to the laws of sampled data systems; in particular the Nyquist Criterion; and don’t forget those five minute cloud appearances, and disappearances..
Spend some time on your back out in a farm meadow watching the clouds come and go; it’s very instructive.
I realize that anecdotal weather reports are not quantifiable, and therefore rank next to useless, but the discussion of temperatures on either side of the Dalton minimum made me think of the harshest winter the New York City area went through — the Winter of 1779-80. There’s a book by weather historian David M. Ludlum that discusses various things about The Hard Winter, but the extensive freezing of all the waterways around New York sticks out. While it’s probably not a great measuring stick for winter temperatures, traveling by foot 12 miles from Long Island to Stamford Connecticut over the iced over Long Island Sound will stick in memory. The waters from Staten Island to Manhattan were frozen over to the extent that cannon and hundreds cavalry and provision laden sleighs were able to be moved for reinforcements. You see, Washington’s men made skirmish attacks of Staten Island after making their way over the frozen ice from New Jersey. Ludlum’s book is “Early American Winters: 1604-1820.”
I mapped out all the minima, correlated them to the Jose cycle (Jupiter predominates … I like simple and it’s good when doing IPCC style science 😉 ), and then with a couple of other clues like Landscheidt suggesting a phase change in the Gleissberg cycle that would allow for another ‘optimum’ about 2500 … I predict …
We are entering a Grand Minimum which I’ll put at the solar minimum of 2010 for 30 years of good chill. Then there will be other minima interspersed with weak maxima in 2180 and 2370 and then the phase change and a 100 years of balmy weather in 2500. Then a weak Grand Minima in 2720 and finally a Sporer Minimum (send the Vikings home) quality ‘Grandiose Minimum’ in about 2900. I suggest we call that one the Archibald Minimum since it will be the one that drives us into the arms of the next phase of the Milankovitch cycle … 100,000 years of glaciation.
So we have 900 years to figure out how to move to the Sahara in an orderly fashion 😀
There may be a problem with the way in which SWPC/NOAA is calculating the monthly Ap values which they are reporting. The international standard for the monthly Ap values are published by the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ) which are contained in the following dataset which extends back to January 1932:
ftp://ftp.gfz-potsdam.de/pub/home/obs/kp-ap/ap_monyr.ave
NGDC/NOAA also has a dataset which reports monthly Ap values back to January 1932 which has some data duplication errors and are not in agreement with the GFZ values in all cases. I have reported these problems to the NGDC/NOAA staff who are addressing these issues:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/GEOMAGNETIC_DATA/INDICES/KP_AP/MONTHLY.DAT
Starting with August 2004 the Ap values reported by SWPC/NOAA are at variance both the official GFZ values and those reported by NGDC/NOAA for almost every month. Generally the SWPC/NOAA Ap values are lower.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
The Ap monthly values reported by GFZ, NGDC/NOAA and SWPC/NOAA are integers. If you look at the following SWPC/NOAA graphic they are displaying the Ap values as fractions. Something is clearly wrong.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
I have reported these observations to NGDC/NOAA so let’s see what they have say. The NGDC/NOAA staff has been very responsive to problem reports.
Mike
Leif, “The two coldest years of the DM was due to volcanic activity.”
So you say. The 3rd coldest January in the CET was in 1814. Since Mayon did not erupt until February 1st, you can’t blame it on Mayon can you?
It may have been on course for a very cold 1814 without a volcano.
As for 1816 … Tambora erupted in April 1815. 1815 was the 140th coldest so I wouldn’t blame volcanoes for cooling 1815 since it didn’t cool.
Maybe you are suggesting a 1 year lag in volcanic effects … but that would mess up one of those years for your argument wouldn’t it?