Guest post by David Archibald
Frank Hill’s summoning up of sunspots from the vasty deep of the Sun’s convection zone reminds me of some Shakespeare (Henry the Fourth):
Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
Frank Hill says that his sunspots will be with us in three to six months. The Ap Index suggests otherwise. There is a correlation between the geomagnetic indices (aa Index and Ap Index) at minimum and the amplitude of the following solar cycle. Earlier this year I produced this graph of the Ap Index plotted against solar cycle maxima when I thought that the Ap Index would bottom out at three, giving a maximum amplitude of 25:
This is June and the monthly average of the Ap Index is 3.1. What is interesting from that graph is that there will be no sunspots if the monthly Ap Index goes below 2. The heliospheric current sheet is telling us that the month of minimum is possibly a year off and the Ap Index is showing no signs of pulling out of its glide slope of 0.28 per month, as shown in this graph:
The Ap Index enters the no sunspots zone in October at its current glide slope. Will it pull out in time? The Sun is bleeding magnetic flux (for a very good reason), so I don’t think so.
Frank Hill has shouted (his words) that there is no correlation between solar activity and climate. Back in a time when those who studied the Sun were armed with not much more than an enquiring mind, William Herschel in 1801 noted the relationship between the number of sunspots and wheat prices. When there were fewer spots, wheat prices were higher. To bring that up to the current day, when there are no spots at all, wheat prices will be the highest ever.
Back to Shakespeare: Hotspur has some good advice for those who study the Sun and draw implications for public policy:
Hotspur:
And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devil—
By telling the truth. Tell truth and shame the devil.
Leif Svalgaard writes in with some graphs of his own:
Using Aa which goes much further back than Ap, the relationship between Aa and the size of the next cycle has been used by many people to forecast the next cycle. [one of the standard methods]. The data point with the red dot is the predicted Rmax for SC/24 using the polar fields and is plotted at the 2009 yearly average so far of Aa [9.1]
No spots for Aa = 2.4
Aa = 0.2318 (B Vo2)0.9478
Where B is the interplanetary magnetic field in nT and Vo is the solar wind speed in 100 km/s units. E.g. for B = 4 nT and V = 350 km/s, thus Vo = 3.5, we have Aa = 8.55 and Rmax = 57.
Ap is about half of Aa, but the relationship is not quite linear: Ap = 0.2925 Aa 1.204
So Aa = 8.55 corresponds to Ap = 3.87.
If we plot Rmax for the previous cycle (purple plusses) there is no correlation
Are you sure that the relationship will be linear at all readings of Ap?
Many examples in non-climate systems where you get a lessening of decrease in Y axis as X axis trends to zero……….
Time will tell I guess………
I think I see a great debate ahead.
Ps the ad mid page is just too perfect:)
SunSpot Bleaching – Rated
What Sun Spot Lightener Works Best? Find Out Before You Buy!
hahahahahahah!
wow….this is full of bold predictions. i LIKE that! easy to falsify and soon at that…..
i hope Dr Archibald is correct, because it will be so fun to see the spin….
Is this the same Archibald who predicted that the UAH May temperature anomaly would be -0.4°C?
October 2009 is when the Hadron Collider will be trned on again apparently. I wonder if it’ll create some sunspots and some climate global warming change cooling??
So if I read Leif’s version correctly…we are probably in for a weak, but not anemic, solar cycle?
I didn’t know where else to post this, (and since my computer is currently imitating a slug, I couldn’t do too much searching). I thought it interesting in light of the year 1913 and spotless days, and now we are going through a significant percentage of spotless days for the third year in a row while AGW has taken a vacation.
Arizona has had a “very nice June”. The “nicest” since 1913. More than two weeks with temperatures under 100 degrees. First time since 1913. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/19/20090619junelovely0619.html
REPLY: Inspiration. See the new Tips and Notes page in the menu bar. Thank you. – Anthony
RW: would not laugh to soon he’s been right with about everything nearly everything especially sun minima, sunspots etc. Re temps have a look at this and tell me what might happen in June 2009 with global temps (AMSU ch 05 surface temps). He might have been off by maybe 1-2 months… Note: yellow line is 20 yr mean/average!
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
RW (00:08:34) :
Is this the same Archibald who predicted that the UAH May temperature anomaly would be -0.4°C?
YES !
It was a brave prediction and of course not correct, but at least it’s in the right direction of where temperature will most likely head. If you look at the woodfortrees data on SSN/temperature linkage then from what I can see it will b most likely be a -0.2 average anomoly by ~2013 and would probably take another cycle to get to -0.4 if you compare to past trends with degrees C/decade.
But DA should be given maximum credit for at least trying to keep pushing the most likely cause of long term climate forcing. Even though we are still to prove the exact mechanism linked to SSN (EG: GCR clouds)
What really annoys me most is the assumption by govt. here in Australia that temperature rise is completely man made. My kid at school is brain washed into this nonsense by left wing teachers who only have a right hemisphere brain.
No offence to Picaso !
Romm could be wrong? I’m shocked…
“Aa = 0.2318 (B Vo^2)^0.9478
Where B is the interplanetary magnetic field in nT and Vo is the solar wind speed in 100 km/s units. E.g. for B = 4 nT and V = 350 km/s, thus Vo = 3.5, we have Aa = 8.55 ”
When I give the following input (0.2318 (4 (3.5)^2)^0.9478) in http://www.wolframalpha.com, it gives me 9.27003 (and not 8.55).
Can someone correct me? Thanks.
While I notice Leif and David do not see eye to eye, I feel they are both on the right side of the line. That is that cycle 24 will be significantly weaker than 23. Correlation may not prove causation, but falling temperatures and reduced solar activity may soon be hard to ignore. I am guessing that solar scientists will soon have to provide more than predictions for space vehicle insurance premiums. People will want to know which of Jack Eddy’s “many plugs” are important and what regulates solar cycles. Putting a spanner in the cogs of the AGW hoax is one thing, finding out if we will have enough to eat is quite another.
Ozzie John: What I am saying to RW (above), looking at current AMSU surface temps is that it will likely be -0.2C in June 2009! so DA not of the mark at all (well 4 weeks maybe but so what… its very close). I notice RW has not replied… LOL
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
4 nT — Is that nano Torr? — John M Reynolds
REPLY: nanoTESLA – Anthony
Yes, June is shaping up to be a rather cool month (anomaly wise). I think it has a very decent chance of coming in under June ’08. David may have only been 1 month off.
Long ago there was a study that defined excellent decision makers as those who were right about 45 percent of the time when working from insufficient data. I.E., it was found “being right about half the time” (working from insufficient data) makes for successful projects and very profitable operations.
So, if Archibald has been “right” about half the time, I’m impressed.
Anyhow, as another posted, it would be fun to see what happens if we hit another major solar minimum. On the other hand, I suppose it would be even more fun if “warming” resulted in a few extra degrees because its getting cold where I live (June has virtually gone AWOL).
“RW (00:08:34) :
Is this the same Archibald who predicted that the UAH May temperature anomaly would be -0.4°C?”
The problem with predictions is that they are, usually, wrong.
Swine ‘flu pandemic.
Bird ‘flu pandemic.
SARS pandemic.
AIDS pandemic (Although AIDS is a big problem).
Global warming (Post cooling period).
Global cooling (Post WW2).
With CO2 “pollution” and “climate change” we are more at risk from Govn’t policy and political spin.
Storm the gates I say!! Storm the gates of power…they need a wake up call.
One question I’ve had is about the accuracy of the historical record of sunspots.
Would some of the sunspots that are being observed now that appear and fade rapidly even have been counted in earlier centuries? In other words, was there a possible under count in the early years of solar observation?
World temp.’s are flat for 12.5 years, here is a composite graph of 4 world temp.’s found on woodfortrees
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
World temps. are decreasing since 2001, 8.5 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
This is why we now have “climate change” instead of “global warming”.
[Archibald] Earlier this year I produced this graph of the Ap Index plotted against solar cycle maxima when I thought that the Ap Index would bottom out at three, giving a maximum amplitude of 25.
That’s a pretty long leap from your plotted spots (observed lowest minimum of about 6.5) to your extrapolated 3. I’d be a bit nervous about whether a 1st order polynomial is the appropriate relationship, but at least it will provide a useful datapoint in the future.
At least it will be easy to test, assuming we have any faith in the official spot counters.
—-
jmrSudbury (03:04:10) :
> 4 nT – Is that nano Torr?
nanoTeslas – magnetic field strength.
correlation is not causation, but anti-correlation is worse.
CO2 continues to increase. temps fall. gorebull warmingers have some explaining to do.
they often claim that recent “non-warmng” is due to “natural” factors temporarily overwhelming CO2. however, they ignore the simple fact that if natural factors can be responsible for cooling, the same natural factors very likely play a significant role in recent warming, too.
Something about having cake and eating it…
Remember. Livingston/Penn predicted this based on barycenter analysis of the sun. David Archibald highlights this in his 07 paper. Both noted that Maunder similarities where in the offing for sun/angular momentum activity for the next 30 years.
What I see evolving here is just that kind of scenario.
David Archibald is simply applying others work (Livingston/Penn-Salvgard) and presenting it in clear terms for our consumption. Nice work David
Taking a “lief” out of Herschel’s book, I will be watching the world grain prices over the coming 12 months, whilst keeping an eye on Sunspot activity. Estimates suggest that production may well be down this year already due to poor weather conditions.
Making predictions using hi-tech hardware & software is infallible like all technology, right up to the point it lets you down when you need it most! If we are heading into a prolonged minimum, & that may be a big IF, then the world should be planning for all eventuallities & not just on one role of the dice!
OT 🙂 Sizzling June not quite getting there to date, a few days here & there, still only 1 bbq this year. My money is on Wimbledon Centre Court roof will closing a few times before the final day! (If nothing else it’s nice to see a great piece of engineering in action;-))
Some quick refresh questions for you solar guys:
(1) has SC24 started yet or are we still arguing about that?
(2) there isn’t much data for projecting AP index or even Ap for that matter in a current minimum so could it be that they aren’t linear?
(3) What has been the consensus of the AGW scientists about this minimum? (4) What about the moderate real scientists like Dr Meier saying now that we clearly have a reversal of 20th century warming yet CO2 levels keep advancing?
(5) Have the modelers starting adjusting there forcing factor from 2 to account for this cooling in the last several years?
Thanks