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.
Tidal height due to the planets oscillations needs to be at least 200m instead of 2-3 cm to produce meridional flow variation of 20m/s (if surface was uniform).
Alternatively, since planets move Sun around the barycentre, could they also introduce axial precession, which may have enough power to speed up and slow down the meridional flow of the thermal conveyor belt?
You misunderstand again. Resonance is not within the Sun’s interior, it is within the solar system.
5 x11.862 years – Jupiter orbital period = 59.11
2 x 29.657 years – Saturn orbital period= 59.314
Her Kepler lived in more sedate times of Maunder minimum (as some other great minds of mechanical age), and was less concerned with how fast than how much, (prefered constant area to constant speed) so kindly arranged elliptical orbits where planets continuously change their speed along the orbital path, thus synchronization is not exact. If orbits were perfect circles than there would be a perfect synchronization.
Nogw (11:04:32) :
“solar activity is not an oscillation”
So you tell to the laymen here: There are not solar cycles anymore?
Scientists often use words that have a sharper meaning than what laymen attach to them. A good example is ‘theory’. A scientific theory is a set of equations or statements that explain a great many observed facts, while when a layman says “theory is one thing, reality is something else” he means that ‘theory’ expresses uncertainty or probably not even true.
Same with ‘oscillation’. There is an [irregular] solar cycle, but no solar activity oscillation and no resonances, in the same sense as there is an [irregular] cycle of forest fires in Yellowstone, but to tree-height oscillation and no resonances.
Of course, if you are bitten by cyclomania, everything is cyclic and oscillates. This may be your affliction too [but you would know].
Leif Svalgaard (13:21:41) :
The Hale-cycle is that the poles of the two spots reverse. …
Since you were so kind to introduce me to secrets of polar fields (at your everlasting regret), I go by PF Hale cycle, as I believe it was originally intended. SS are just incidental nuisance.
vukcevic (14:38:10) :
Since you were so kind to introduce me to secrets of polar fields (at your everlasting regret), I go by PF Hale cycle, as I believe it was originally intended. SS are just incidental nuisance./i>
SS make the PFs which make the SSs. Hale discovered SS polarity laws. Couldn’t measure polar fields. First crude measurements by Babcock in 1952, and first accurate measurement by me in 1976. Don’t go around and rename things. Hale-cycle is about SSs.
vukcevic (13:51:41) :
Alternatively, since planets move Sun around the barycentre, could they also introduce axial precession, which may have enough power to speed up and slow down the meridional flow of the thermal conveyor belt?
No as the Sun is in free fall and thus does not feel the gravitational force [except for tides]
You misunderstand again. Resonance is not within the Sun’s interior, it is within the solar system.
So what? The solar system does not have any influence on solar activity. There are also resonances in the asteroid belts, Saturn’s rings, etc. None of which have any effect either.
Leif Svalgaard (10:44:26) :
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:
(Leif)
“The decline of TSI from solar max to solar min would decrease the temperature by 0.05 degrees.”
(tallbloke)
This is simply incorrect.
One has to answer certainty in the face of uncertainty with a certain certainty about uncertainty.
@Tenuc
Good info and thanks for the links.
I’m worrying the TSI bone because all the indictions are that it isn’t quite as fixed and measurbe as Claus Froelich and Leif would have us believe.
Leif is declaring 2 sig fig certainty on temperature effects of TSI change but telling me that the current publicly available figures may be wrong due to a calibration issue.
This is called trying to have your cake and eat it.
vukcevic (14:38:10) :
Since you were so kind to introduce me to secrets of polar fields (at your everlasting regret), I go by PF Hale cycle, as I believe it was originally intended. SS are just incidental nuisance.
SS make the PFs which make the SSs. Hale discovered SS polarity laws. Couldn’t measure polar fields and didn’t know about reversals [in fact everybody at the time were convinced that there could not be reversals of the general field – conductivity too high]. First crude measurements by Babcock in 1952, and first accurate measurement by me in 1976. Don’t go around and rename things. Hale-cycle is about SSs.
tallbloke (15:27:11) :
One has to answer certainty in the face of uncertainty with a certain certainty about uncertainty.
Nonsense, one has to make reasoned statements, not blanket declarations. And there is very little uncertainty as we have seen it all before and can go by past performance. If the decrease is 1 or 2 W/m2, the temperature changes will be 0.05K to 0.1K, which is known territory. What is simply wrong is Archibald’s 2K temperature drop. Go complain about that one.
Leif Svalgaard and vukcevic,
I do not understand much of the technical discussion between you two, but am convinced of the role of the Sun as the primary driver of our climate.
For the past 700,000 years, at least, like clockwork, every 100,000 years the Earth has been plunged into an “ice-age” or glaciation period if you wish and rising CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels have been powerless to stop this.
Similarly at the end of each glaciation period despite falling GHG levels the Earth has pulled out of the ice-ages. CO2 has been an impotent follower of temperatures and there is no reason to suppose it has suddenly become a driver of the climate now.
The AGW followers say that they have figured out the sun absolutely and repeat “the Milankovitch cycles” as their mantra. Though the 100,000 year cycle is far too weak to explain the big temperature rises that take place at the end of each glaciation.
They say that the Sun’s influence is fully realised and explainable and it has nothing to do with the current warming and this warming will continue for thousands of years unabated with catastrophic consequences to the Earth.
From what evidence I can see, there is no cause for this alarmism.
On the other hand I would be happy to see some indisputable evidence of the Sun’s influence on our global temperatures, albeit masked to an extent by natural variations like El Nino, Nina etc.
Solar cycles, sunspots etc are but a proxy for the direct influence of the Sun on our atmosphere, oceans and land. The solar wind, and irradiance of course, over the entire spectrum, would have a much more direct influence on this. The influence of these on secondary factors like Cosmic Rays and cloudiness is crucial also.
I just wonder if we do not have enough data to see the influence clearly enough, or if we have enough data to see the influence to a sufficient degree to be convincing enough for everyone.
tallbloke (15:37:08) :
that the current publicly available figures may be wrong due to a calibration issue.
There is no calibration issue for SORCE and we have good TSI since 2003 and can compare with good TSI from other satellites at that time. The degradation issues get worse with time, and the notion that TSI is off the chart is just that PMOD has degraded. Claus Froehlich knows this and everybody else too, there is not any great uncertainty in the difference between max and min, and even a factor of two error would still only mean 0.05K difference in temps. So, your ‘uncertainty’ ain’t there.
Richard (15:48:06) :
For the past 700,000 years, at least, like clockwork, every 100,000 years the Earth has been plunged into an “ice-age”
This has nothing to do with the Sun, but with the shape of the Earth’s orbit.
I just wonder if we do not have enough data to see the influence clearly enough, or if we have enough data to see the influence to a sufficient degree to be convincing enough for everyone.
I think we do have the solar data we need. The problem is not one of science, but of politics. There are alarmists on both sides of the fence, fry or freeze.
**********************
Richard (15:48:06) :
Leif Svalgaard and vukcevic,
I do not understand much of the technical discussion between you two, but am convinced of the role of the Sun as the primary driver of our climate.
****************************
The exact same thoughts have been on my mind WRT paleo climatge. From what I’ve read on the web, none of the paleo-length solar proxies are know to be reliable. No one I know of has disputed this allegation. This does not prove the Sun “did it,” but it leaves open the possibility the Sun is responsible for the larger swings in temperature alleged to occur over millions of years of history.
tallbloke (15:27:11)
“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.”
Lockwood and Frohlich (2007) tell us that the PMOD composite is the most reliable, and so solar activity has not increased at the end of the 20th century.Conversely PMOD shows a greater decrease in TSI at present.
Questions then arise is it measurement error,divergence,or understating the variance(initial position) ?
eg http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/tsi.jpg
Leif Svalgaard (15:56:00) :
For the past 700,000 years, at least, like clockwork, every 100,000 years the Earth has been plunged into an “ice-age”
“This has nothing to do with the Sun, but with the shape of the Earth’s orbit.”
Surely this has ultimately to do with the Sun and the change in solar insolation, if nothing else?
The questions then are:
1. Is this change in orbit/ insolation enough to explain the big temperature rises at the end of the glaciations?
2. Why would this influence of the Earth’s orbit change last for only 10,000 years approximately?
2. When is the next similar change in orbit due?
3. What about other more direct influences of the Sun like irradiance, solar wind, storms, magnetic activity?
4. What about cosmic dust and cosmic rays?
maksimovich (16:21:07) :
Questions then arise is it measurement error,divergence,or understating the variance(initial position) ?
Calibration error of PMOD.
A year ago, I pointed out to Claus Froehlich that the difference between PMOD and SORCE was decreasing by 0.2 W/m2/decade.
His answer:
Yes, you may have noticed that the VIRGO data are now Version 6.002 and I changed an internal correction – I did this already in SF [at the AGU meeting in San Francisco, where I discussed this with him]. A few years ago I found a linear trend between the corrected PMO6V and DIARAD time series and allocated it to DIARAD. At SF I realized that this was probably wrong and remembered also that the re-analysis I started 2 years ago and never completed showed that the corrections of PMO6V-B [the less exposed backup] was with the early increase as determined for PMO6V-A changing too much – so I attributed the trend to PMO6V and obviously got a smaller change relative to TIM[SORCE], which was a kind of initiator of this whole action. But still it is completely internal to VIRGO and makes with all I know about VIRGO radiometry good sense.
My response in April 2009:
Claus, a detailed comparison of SORCE and PMOD composite, shows good agreement until 2008.6 [after his adjustments], but then PMOD becomes much more erratic, not in keeping with the dead quiet the Sun has been the past nine months:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202008.png
His response:
From that time on we have a problem with DIARAD I have not yet solved, but need to look into in much more detail – for the moment I used a simple correction, which may not be correct.
———–
and there it stands. The PMOD series has not been updated since. They used to update it every month.
Richard (16:53:53) :
“This has nothing to do with the Sun, but with the shape of the Earth’s orbit.”
Surely this has ultimately to do with the Sun
The answer to most of your questions may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The various ‘problems’ mentioned are likely due to a combination of data errors and errors in assessments of the strength of the various factors going into this, but there is little dispute that something like is going on. So, we would have these cycles even with a perfectly constant Sun.
Phil. (13:44:43) : [snip] One contribution of mine was that the first sign of a weak Solar Cycle 24 would be a long Solar Cycle 23. Everyone else was oblivious to one of the basic facts of solar activity. Now we have made our bed in terms of solar predictions are we are going to lie in it. Mine feels very comfortable thank you.
TokyoTom (02:37:14) : Properly respectful and you expressed your thanks for my contribution. To paraphrase a line from Star Wars, your sad religion is becoming ancient history. You will need a replacement belief system. Time is short, so all I cay say is try some Sun worship instead. The Sun is oscillatory. Schatten’s solar dynamo theory relies upon flux being converted from poloidal to toroidal and back again. This does happen. So, some of the Sun’s current flux was generated several cycles back. The Sun’s flux is bleeding off.
Leif Svalgaard (17:03:47) :
“The answer to most of your questions may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The various ‘problems’ mentioned are likely due to a combination of data errors and errors in assessments of the strength of the various factors going into this, but there is little dispute that something like is going on. So, we would have these cycles even with a perfectly constant Sun.”
According to wikipedia, one explanation of the 100,000 year cycle is that the Earth passes through a disk of cosmic dust that exists in the invariable plane, every 100,000 years. This sounds very plausible to me, specially since the radiative forcing is so small at this cycle due to the orbital change.
I also read that the Earth has been cooling for the last several million years.
So far as I could make out there is no explanation of why there is a large increase in temperatures that pulls the Earth out of the ice-ages and why these inter-glacial periods last for only about 10,000 years.
According to NOAA ( and I dont know who contributed to that article but several have been written, by Mann, Jones and Hansen), the conditions that will lead to the next ice-age will not be present for at least 50,000 years and possible not till another 620,000 years.
They quote Berger and Hollan but fail to mention Imbrie, who said cooling will continue (subject to caveats). Imbrie prediction was older but newer doesnt necessarily mean more accurate. From the Earth’s history I would favour Imbrie’s prediction. What is your opinion?
David Archibald (18:00:56) :
One contribution of mine was that the first sign of a weak Solar Cycle 24 would be a long Solar Cycle 23. Everyone else was oblivious to one of the basic facts of solar activity. Now we have made our bed in terms of solar predictions are we are going to lie in it. Mine feels very comfortable thank you.
Self-congratulatory and wrong as a ‘contribution’. This is the text-book version, and the argument was used even by Hathaway as a caveat for the Dikpati prediction [“where are the spots? they should have been here by now”].
so all I cay say is try some Sun worship instead. […] So, some of the Sun’s current flux was generated several cycles back. The Sun’s flux is bleeding off.
Meaningless blather. Solar magnetic fields because of their large size and the relatively high conductivity of the Sun, essentially live forever [i.e. much longer than a solar cycle]. ‘Bleeding off’, nonsense.
Richard (19:39:39) :
What is your opinion?
I’ll go with the orbital change theory operating on time scales of tens of thousands of years, so no glaciation would be imminent in the next few thousand years. I wouldn’t worry about it that this time.
Retired Engineer John (08:15:31) :
A description of Dr Hathway’s approach is found at http://www.solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml. The basis of the predictions is based on observations of the Sun and are closely related to determining solar minimum. Without a better understanding of the physics of the Sun’s processes, how can one rule out a Maunder Minimum?
My guess, is an educated guess, based on the number of sun cycles observed in relation to Maunder Minimums. It’s like Russian Roulette, except you lose fifteen minutes of prestige, instead of fifty years of life if you’re wrong.
Richard (15:48:06) :
I would be happy to see some indisputable evidence of the Sun’s influence on our global temperatures, albeit masked to an extent by natural variations like El Nino, Nina etc.
Here you go:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/mean:43/detrend:0.38/plot/pmod/from:1979/offset:-1366.4/scale:0.1
Leif Svalgaard (16:58:49) :
A year ago, I pointed out to Claus Froehlich that the difference between PMOD and SORCE was decreasing by 0.2 W/m2/decade.
His response:
From that time on we have a problem with DIARAD I have not yet solved, but need to look into in much more detail – for the moment I used a simple correction, which may not be correct.
———–
and there it stands. The PMOD series has not been updated since. They used to update it every month.
The data labeled as PMOD on the graph above is up to date. Is it coming from a different satellite? The graph seems to show a ~ 0.15C variation in SST over the last few cycles. This will be more like a 0.3C variation in air temperature. This is without taking into account the fact that el nino has taken place near solar minimum in the last four cycles and this will mask some of the range of temperature due to the solar cycle, as Richard noted.
Since sunspots are a reasonable proxy for TSI, the change in the average number of sunspots between the start of the c20th and 2005 can account for most of the C20th warming, when the cumulative nature of the sun’s heating of the ocean, as evidenced by sea level satellite altimetry, is taken into account.
{ vukcevic (13:51:41) :… could they (planets) also introduce axial precession, which may have enough power to speed up and slow down the meridional flow..}
Leif Svalgaard (15:12:15) : No as the Sun is in free fall and thus does not feel the gravitational force [except for tides]
Thanks for that, just wanted to eliminate another possible cause.
Leif Svalgaard (15:40:50) :
SS make the PFs which make the SSs. Hale discovered SS polarity laws…..and first accurate measurement by me in 1976. Don’t go around and rename things. Hale-cycle is about SSs.
Not for a moment, I would even wish to question your achievements, expertise, authority etc. as one of the top solar scientists, and I consider it a great privilege to be able to discus relevant matters with you. However, if I did agree with everything that is said or written, there is no either benefit, or as you may ascertain, detriment to the discussion.
Most of the solar science refers to a solar dynamo within the solar interior (unless of course there is an outside magnetic drive), its orientation is meridional (pole to pole) for about 90+ percent of the time. This N-S polarity is the one I have in mind when it is referred to solar magnetic field, rather than E-W sunspot polarity, on occasions much stronger, but only if a sunspot is present, only in a small area of the sunspot and its nearby vicinity.
When solar magnetic field reversals are referred to, I assume it is reversals of polarity of the solar dynamo (N-S) rather than the E-W reversal within an individual sunspot at beginning of a new cycle.
In my view, it makes sense that Hale cycle reversal reference is for the solar dynamo reversal. As a general guide PFs appear to be an excellent proxy. Further more PFs, in my view, fully comply with a definition of a periodic oscillation ( pendulum like) between two extremes around the mid point. Additionally, up to date measurements show it might be a ‘damped oscillation’ as well.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
Although it is a view I find logical. if above said is inconsistent with current understanding, I stand to be corrected.
vukcevic (02:27:16) :
Further more PFs, in my view, fully comply with a definition of a periodic oscillation ( pendulum like) between two extremes around the mid point.
It does not, as there is no restoring force, so the similarity with a pendulum [where gravity is the restoring force] is only superficial. Now, often we use words in a loose sense, which is OK as long as we know it and don’t press the similarity too far.
David, many thanks for your comments.
My intention, of course, was merely to make the point that there is nothing wrong with trying to model complex phenomena; indeed, such models and the historical record may be all we have to go on in making personal, business and political decisions.
“To paraphrase a line from Star Wars, your sad religion is becoming ancient history. You will need a replacement belief system.”
I`m not sure what I said that makes you think i have any religion, much less a sad one. And though I make a deliberate effort to constantly test my belief system, since I`m human I naturally find that the effort is difficult.
“Time is short,”
For what?
Sincerely,
TT
Tenuc (10:31:38) :
Forgot to mention reduced charge density of solar wind at minimum,
The charge density of the solar wind is zero and does not change. The normal [mass] density varies and is smallest at solar maximum.