Guest Post by David Archibald
NASA’s David Hathaway has adjusted his expectations of Solar Cycle 24 downwards. He is quoted in the New York Times here Specifically, he said:
” Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible.”
NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in predicting solar activity than NASA.
The graphic above is modified from a paper I published in March, 2006. Even based on our understanding of solar – climate relationship at the time, it was evident the range of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude predictions would result in a 2°C range in temperature. The climate science community was oblivious to this, despite billions being spent. To borrow a term from the leftist lexicon, the predictions above Badalyan are now discredited elements.
Let’s now examine another successful prediction of mine. In March, 2008 at the first Heartland climate conference in New York, I predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would mean that it would not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. Lo and behold, the Canadian wheat crop is down 20% this year due to a cold spring and dry fields. Story here.
The oceans are losing heat, so the Canadian wheat belt will just get colder and drier as Solar Cycle 24 progresses. As Mark Steyn recently said, anyone under the age of 29 has not experienced global warming. A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean that they will have to wait to the age of 54 odd to experience a warming trend.
Where to now? The F 10.7 flux continues to flatline. All the volatility has gone out of it. In terms of picking the month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition, I think the solar community will put it in the middle of the F 10.7 quiet period due to the lack of sunspots. We won’t know how long that quiet period is until solar activity ramps up again. So picking the month of minimum at the moment may just be guessing.
Dr Hathaway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum, and I agree with him. I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity model. It hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century, which is a couple of very weak cycles and then back to normal as we have known it. I consider his model to be a major advance in solar science.
What I am now examining is the possibility that there will not be a solar magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
Sponsored IT training links:
Achieve guaranteed success using up to date 646-230 dumps and 642-426 study guide prepared by 642-661 certified experts.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hindcasting is always a questionable activity:
There is a quote to the effect of — Give me 4 fee parameters and I’ll draw you an elephant — Give me 5 and I’ll make his trunk wiggle
There used to be 2 germain grafitti about plotting — these hadbeen hand engraved into the wooden backs of the wooden chairs in the MIT 10-250 Lecture Hall (chairs have since been replaced with much more confortable plastic backed ones) — anyway on the same chair back (in two diferent hands) — Plotting is a a Communist Science — and — Sceince is a Communist Plot —- not sure which precveded which
So beware of Plotting and Modeling — look very carefully at both the data and the methadology used to process it before you draw any conclusions which in the future you will fnd embarassing
WestHighlander (05:22:47) :
Plotting is a a Communist Science — and — Sceince is a Communist Plot
Human greed and envy made both the capitalism and communism into what they are.
Leif Svalgaard (00:39:02) :
The discussion was about the variation during the very weak cycles to come, so it is reasonable to adopt the lower number.
Not while TSI is decoupled from SSn and is falling off the bottom of the scale.
Unless you can present a detailed calculating that shows this, you have no basis for saying that the 0.05K ‘is simply wrong’. During a ‘normal’ cycle various researchers have found a solar cycle variation of about 0.1K, so it is quite reasonable to expect a smaller [e.g. half] variation for cycles that are only half as strong.
In case you hadn’t noticed, nobody has detailed calculations for how the climate system operates. This doesn’t mean qualified assertions as to reasons why the solar variance is underestimated can’t be made. The reduced TSI difference between the max and min of small cycles might be one factor, but the loss of heat from the oceans and the unsusual timing of el ninos produced may more than offset it.
Not that this is particularly important in terms of my interest in longer term changes in the sun’s output.
If I may ask a question of a more general nature, do you believe the 25% increase in the sun’s output over the last 3Bn years happened in a perfectly smooth linear way, or in an increasing series of pulsating waves? If the former, why so? Everything else in the universe oscillates while it exists, why not the sun?
Also.
How do you know the sun has completely finished it’s increase in output?
Hi tallbloke
The other day you asked me to do some ‘numerology’ exercise for you. Since I get accused by Dr. S and AnaV for doing just that, I thought I’ll have some fun, be a bit provocative and have produced this for you. It goes under name PMT: Planets, Magnetic index, Temperature.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PMT.gif
For time being the equation is a ‘trade secret’ but all the numbers are astronomical values.
vukcevic (05:21:45) :
Leif Svalgaard (00:20:37) :
vukcevic (10:42:04) :
“No problem, I will go much further, say 260 years”
Leif Svalgaard (00:20:37) :
“Except, you didn’t.”
You did not produce the requested graph and thus have conceded the field [as is proper].
Since it is obvious that your knowledge or oscillations within resonant systems appear to be somewhat deficient let me help out.
Your knowledge of physics is grossly deficient, solar activity is not an oscillation.
tallbloke (07:00:08) :
Not while TSI is decoupled from SSn and is falling off the bottom of the scale.
TSI is not decoupled from the SSN and is not falling off the bottom. That PMOD apparently is too low is a calibration problem as I have discussed here repeatedly.
If I may ask a question of a more general nature, do you believe the 25% increase in the sun’s output over the last 3Bn years happened in a perfectly smooth linear way
Yes, the 35% increase is a simple consequence of the steady ‘burning’ of Hydrogen to Helium. The increase was smooth, but not strictly linear and is slowly accelerating.
How do you know the sun has completely finished its increase in output?
It has not; our detailed calculations show that the Sun will continue to increase in luminosity and cause great climate change when the Earth’s oceans boil away a few billion years from now.
BTW, we are getting closer to the precision [~1 ppm] needed to actually detect the increase directly in measured TSI. We are not there yet, but only an order of magnitude away.
vukcevic (08:08:09) :
be a bit provocative and have produced this for you. It goes under name PMT: Planets, Magnetic index, Temperature.
You can only be provocative if there is substance. Since there is not, you are just being silly [or worse]. Anyway, your planets seem to predict severe increases in temperatures and IMF.
Some speculation that solar cycle 25 has already begun:
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (08:16:39) :
“Your knowledge of physics is grossly deficient, solar activity is not an oscillation.”
Definition:
Oscillation is the repetitive variation, typically in time, of some measure between two or more different states.
Also you have failed, what is more important, to show that:
The solar meridional flow can / cannot be a result of planets’ azimuthal oscillations in relation to the solar equatorial plane ?
Leif Svalgaard (08:16:39) :
TSI is not decoupled from the SSN and is not falling off the bottom. That PMOD apparently is too low is a calibration problem as I have discussed here repeatedly.
I agree there are problems with TSI calibration. Which is why you can’t state with any certainty what the difference between solar max and solar min is. And when I last asked you about this recent decoupling of TSI from SSn you told me to wait for Claus Froelich to adjust the data.
Not much of a discussion as I see it, though I may well have missed something you’ve said to someone else.
Thanks for the facts and figures on the sun’s long term changes in output.
Just to butt in on your misunderstanding with Vukevic, the sun’s activity does oscillate, at many frequencies, from 5 minutes to 5,000 years at least. You yourself told me the sun had a 5 minute oscillation, and you also told me the sun increased and decreased in size due to 5 earth diameter lumps growing and subsiding on it’s surface every solar cycle.
Classic resonant behaviour.
@tallbloke (07:00:08) :
The discussion was about the variation during the very weak cycles to come, so it is reasonable to adopt the lower number.
Don’t think the TSI bone is the correct one to worry. Changes to the quality of the insolation during solar cycles could be more important, such as the greater proportion of extreme UV and X-rays, could be a better one to pursue. I thnk changes to albido are are also worth a look.
Some UV data here:- http://wwwsolar.nrl.navy.mil/susim_uars.html
Kim. nice to see you again. Nope, no “fountains of faith” for me, of any kind, though I enjoy the hot springs here whenever I can.
Just checking to see how consistently skeptical the card-carrying “skeptics” are.
What do you attribute as the cause of the increased fusion of hydrogen that results after many steps to helium? There are a few floating about, but I’d like to hear yours.
Does anyone know why we are having these abnormally low temperatures this summer in the north central and northeastern states other than just a product of the jet stream? How much of this change can be related to the PDO, the extended solar minimum, if any or other phenomenon?
tallbloke (11:31:31) :
Mary Hinge (08:33:50) :
No problem, evaporation is reduced during El Nino’s but, conversely, precipitation increases. The reduced wind reduces cooling by evaporation from ‘normal’ or neutral ENSO conditions. There are of course many other factors including increased humidity and atmospheric temperatures but this change in evaporation would be a major cause.
@tallbloke
Forgot to mention reduced charge density of solar wind at minimum, which has an effect on the topograph of earth’s atmosphere and electric field. Don’t know if their is a planetary connection as well?
Interesting info here on solar cycle length and planetary effects here:-
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#intro
tallbloke (09:28:50) :
I agree there are problems with TSI calibration. Which is why you can’t state with any certainty what the difference between solar max and solar min is.
Yet you state with certainty:
“The decline of TSI from solar max to solar min would decrease the temperature by 0.05 degrees.”
This is simply incorrect.
And the deltaT is of the order of magnitude [or a bit smaller than] that various people claim for the solar cycle effect [of large cycles], so cannot be far off.
vukcevic (08:55:54) :
Oscillation is the repetitive variation, typically in time, of some measure between two or more different states.
What you leave out is the crucial element that makes something a physical oscillation, namely that the variation is about an equilibrium and that there be a restoring force.
I was just in Yellowstone. There, every two hundred years or so most of the trees in the park go up in flames. This is actually beneficial to the forest as it allows new growth. The result is a variation of the height of the trees from 0 meter [just after the burn] to ~10 meter [just before the next burn]. It would be physically wrong to describe this as an oscillation about an equilibrium height of 5 meter, as there is no restoring force that push the trees down from 5 down to 0 meter.
Also you have failed, what is more important, to show that:
The solar meridional flow can / cannot be a result of planets’ azimuthal oscillations in relation to the solar equatorial plane ?
It would seem that the one who claims this has the onus of showing it. I also do not bother to rebut or dispute the claims of people that say they have been abducted by aliens in their spacecraft and [with some enjoyment, apparently] repeatedly raped and otherwise poked.
tallbloke (08:56:33) :
the sun’s activity does oscillate, at many frequencies, from 5 minutes to 5,000 years at least. You yourself told me the sun had a 5 minute oscillation
The 5 minute oscillations are true oscillations with an equilibrium and a restoring force [gas pressure].
rbateman (09:34:16) :
What do you attribute as the cause of the increased fusion of hydrogen that results after many steps to helium? There are a few floating about, but I’d like to hear yours.
I’m not quite sure what your question is. If you had left out ‘increased’ it would have been clear [although potentially misunderstood]. There are many steps in the conversion of H to He and all of these are well understood and have been spectacularly confirmed by helioseismology and neutrino measurements, and there are no mysteries or disagreements about this [discounting the iron-sun/’neutron star core’-sun nonsense]. Some good material can be found here: http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s3.htm
If you by ‘increased’ meant by what process the Sun has become hotter over its life, the answer is quite different. As the H in the core becomes depleted energy production there decreases and the Sun contracts. That increases the temperature and energy production just outside of the core goes up [depends on a very high power of the temperature, something like T^18] and the total luminosity goes up. This is a steady process [for a long time to come].
Leif Svalgaard (08:16:39) :
“You did not produce the requested graph and thus have conceded the field [as is proper]”.
Relevant chart you are referring to, it has deficiency in its concept, which
S.K. Solanki at al, have put right and produced more up to date graph at:
Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany Received 5 April 2004 / Accepted 14 July 2004
S.K. Solanki – I. Baumann – D. Schmitt – M. Schüssler
in
Evolution of the large-scale magnetic field on the solar surface: A parameter study
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
S.K. Solanki at al understand oscillations of resonant system, and use only period of the high values of the initial sine waves cross-modulation, where contribution of the sub-harmonics cross-modulation can be neglected, as described in my post of:
vukcevic (05:21:45) :
Here is comparison graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MPI.gif
Leif Svalgaard (08:32:31) :
“You can only be provocative if there is substance. Since there is not, you are just being silly [or worse]. Anyway, your planets seem to predict severe increases in temperatures and IMF.”
But you are still intrigued by correlation!
That is only an initial ‘numerology’ attempt, proportionality of the scale has yet to be set.
Perhaps you can now answer [as is proper]”: if the solar meridional flow can / cannot be a result of planets’ azimuthal oscillations in relation to the solar equatorial plane ?
Leif Svalgaard (08:35:44) :
Some speculation that solar cycle 25 has already begun:
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf
That would mean the polarity reversal is failing one cycle to early. My formula predicts Hale cycle polarity reversal failure at SC25, but we shall see.
Leif Svalgaard (08:16:39) :Professor Leif Svagaard said this:
solar activity is not an oscillation
So you tell to the laymen here: There are not solar clycles anymore?
Thank you professor!
vukcevic (10:46:26) :
“You did not produce the requested graph and thus have conceded the field [as is proper]”.
Relevant chart you are referring to, it has deficiency in its concept.
Yet you touted it as the ‘most authoritative source’. Showing the danger of not knowing what you talking about. Solanki’s has other problems.
Leif Svalgaard (08:32:31) :
“You can only be provocative if there is substance. Since there is not, you are just being silly [or worse]. Anyway, your planets seem to predict severe increases in temperatures and IMF.”
But you are still intrigued by correlation!
No, correlations do not intrigue me. My comment was only to expose your lack of substance.
Perhaps you can now answer [as is proper]”: if the solar meridional flow can / cannot be a result of planets’ azimuthal oscillations in relation to the solar equatorial plane ?
This is a simple engineering calculation: calculate the kinetic energy needed to move large fraction of the solar convection zone from the equator to the pole and compare with the energy in planetary motion [or better with the tidal movements]. Do this for yourself [for maximum effect].
Leif Svalgaard (08:35:44) :
“Some speculation that solar cycle 25 has already begun:
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf”
That would mean the polarity reversal is failing one cycle to early. My formula predicts Hale cycle polarity reversal failure at SC25, but we shall see.
What they claim to observe is the Hale-cycle polarity reversal… thus no failure.
Leif Svalgaard (10:44:26) :
Another one:
this as an oscillation about an equilibrium height of 5 meter, as there is no restoring force that push the trees down from 5 down to 0 meter
That oscillation is called DEATH and it is happening all the time. We´re near that and our grand children remind us that.
Nogw (11:09:06) :
That oscillation is called DEATH and it is happening all the time. We´re near that and our grand children remind us that.
Well, I’m still on the right side of the grass [rather than 6 feet under]. The point was that the average height is not a equilibrium height that the trees oscillate about. The solar cycle is a sequence of excitations, each dying and being replaced by another one. Not a true oscillation, thus there is no resonances involved, just like there are no resonances in the ‘cycle’ of tree height in Yellowstone. The original issue Wang/Sheeley had was that the meridional circulation has to be fast enough to get rid off the old cycle. Although the solar cycle is not a true oscillation you will often find that the term ‘oscillation’ is used in a loose sense as just meaning a variation to and fro.
If polar fields have not reversed as yet (leftover from SC23 down-slope) and SC25 is starting, its up-slope PF polarity is the same as in the SC23 down-slope, that means change over at top of SC24 has been skipped, i.e. Hale cycle failed.
vukcevic (11:35:15) : Would that it mean that the peak of solar cycle 24 was back in october 2008?…If that is so, we are facing a “lost cycle” again!…let´s wait and see.
vukcevic (11:35:15) :
If polar fields have not reversed as yet (leftover from SC23 down-slope) and SC25 is starting, its up-slope PF polarity is the same as in the SC23 down-slope, that means change over at top of SC24 has been skipped, i.e. Hale cycle failed.
The Hale-cycle is that the poles of the two spots reverse. So for SC23 we may have N-S [for a given hemisphere], for SC24 we then have S-N, for SC25 we then have N-S, etc, for non-failure. This is what is claimed in the paper I referred to.
David Archibald
NASA’s David Hathaway has adjusted his expectations of Solar Cycle 24 downwards. He is quoted in the New York Times here Specifically, he said:
” Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible.”
NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in predicting solar activity than NASA.
No you don’t, all you did is predict something that may occur in about 15 years time, you can’t take credit for it until it actually happens (if it does)! There is a huge difference, too, between your prediction of an event and Hathaway’s statement that “it lies in the realm of the possible” (so does my winning the lottery).