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.
Leif Svalgaard (09:17:43) :
tallbloke (08:36:40) :
Only 10% of the long-term LOD variation can be explained by the observable changes in atmospheric circulation.
Of course, the major changes come from within. Yet you showed changes in the ACI. My point is that the 10% atmospheric part is climate dependent [and, according to you, therefore solar activity dependent], but the remaining 90% are due to slow internal changes that have nothing to do with solar activity.
I showed the correlation between long term changes in ACI and the long term changes in LOD which are not caused by the atmosphere acting on the earth as you claimed, but by the earth acting on the atmosphere. This truth is further evidenced by the fact that a best fit is obtained when there is a six year lag between long term LOD changes from downtrend to uptrends in rotation speed, and the concomitant changes from downtrends to uptrends in global temperature.
The slow internal changes seem to correlate with long term changes in solar activity, but I am not claiming that the changes in solar activity cause the long term changes in LOD. Rather that they are both caused by the changing disposition of the planets, through a number of mechanisms. Some are uncontroversial, others are yet to be established. For me and quite a few others, there is compelling correlative evidence of these, but I won’t bother going into examples because I know your a priori rejection of the possibility will make doing that a waste of both our time.
Leif Svalgaard (13:48:45) :
“The currents are generated by a conductor moving through a magnetic field or the field moving through a conductor. This is the standard problem you are having. The electric currents are consequences of the movements, in the oceans, in the solar wind, in the Sun, in the cosmos. This should be clear by now [I know it isn’t, but one can always hope].”
And what do you think I was implying?
Currents plucked out of thin air?
Read page 13: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/40/88/86/PDF/NATA.pdf
Copper plate will spin freely until you bring a permanent magnet close to it, in which case it will slow down and stop, due to induction of a counter emf.
See also Faraday paradox, where electric currents may close circuit trough ocean floor and the coastline (Antarctic circumpolar current). Either way, the energy will be taken out if circular motion and transferred into heath (minor contributor) and more importantly slowing down oceans circular currents. The amount of energy taken will depend on the strength of magnetic field and is reflected in circulation velocity, which will vary as magnetic pole’s distance changes in relation to the centre of circulation, thus having direct effect on the global temperatures as described here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/40/88/86/PDF/NATA.pdf
Correlation between these events is sufficiently strong to be summarily dismissed, especially if the dismissal is baseless.
Vukevic, did you catch this link Leif provided? It seems to support your thesis concerning the southward drift of the Indian ocean current towards antarctica in the C20th, and is an excellent visualization.
http://www.epm.geophys.ethz.ch/~cfinlay/gufm1/BfS.gif
Takes a while to load the animated gif frames, be patient.
Stephen Wilde (16:27:27) :
“The radiation coming from the sun (the magnetic field) moves through a conductor known as the Earth.”
Solar wind induction would produce a negligible effect. Solar storm is a pulse lasting only few hours and its intensity is significantly less then 1% of the existing field in the area, so its effect is also negligible. Further more, rise and fall cancels out, there is only thermal effect left which is again of a minor consequence.
What I am talking about is slow change in circulation velocity, on century time scale, that may take place due to shift in magnetic pole position on the same time scale.
vukcevic (01:17:22) :
And what do you think I was implying?
Currents plucked out of thin air?
Yes, something like that.
tallbloke (02:09:51) :
Vukevic, did you catch this link Leif provided? It seems to support your thesis concerning the southward drift of the Indian ocean current towards Antarctica in the C20th, and is an excellent visualization.
http://www.epm.geophys.ethz.ch/~cfinlay/gufm1/BfS.gif
Takes a while to load the animated gif frames, be patient.
Yes thanks. No problem with loading (broadband).
Centre of the circumpolar current will tend to follow magnetic field, less resistance (minimum if they are concentric). Movement of pole in direction of Australia will move flow of the cold circumpolar current further away from Horn of Africa towards Antarctic. Result of this is speeding inflow of the warm currents from Indian Ocean into South Atlantic and outflow of cold currents in the opposite direction, thus contributing to rise of temperatures in the Atlantic basin area.
vukcevic (01:17:22) :
Correlation between these events is sufficiently strong to be summarily dismissed, especially if the dismissal is baseless.
The dismissal is based on there not being enough energy in the current to have any measurable effect.
I have discovered the method for very successfully hindcasting monthly deviations from normals through 350 years of CET, and can show the cause of any older documented extreme in temperature to the month (from any location). From my findings, I can also show what has affected the varying amplitude of previous sunspot cycles. SSN is not directly proportional to temperature, and is not a good forecast measure for temperature. My projections show that global temperatures are on the rise for a few years, but from 2014 to 2020 is a period colder than any time in the last century.
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=208
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=85&start=10#p1879
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=133
http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/p/22784/746890.aspx#746890
Leif Svalgaard (04:50:06) :
The dismissal is based on there not being enough energy in the current to have any measurable effect.
Another baseless statement.
Between 1955 and 1970 Oceanic Transport index as measured in the North Atlantic gyre dropped from 65 to 50 m/sec. 15m/sec and you call that ‘no measurable effect’ !
See: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/OTI.gif
vukcevic (01:17:22) :
And what do you think I was implying?
Currents plucked out of thin air?
Leif Svalgaard (04:21:24) :
Yes, something like that.
Sir, that is a nonsense!
Saline sea water is a conductor circulating in presence of geomagnetic field; result induced electric current. There are hundreds of studies and thousands of measurements related to the subject!
vukcevic (08:51:19) :
The dismissal is based on there not being enough energy in the current to have any measurable effect.
Another baseless statement.
Between 1955 and 1970 Oceanic Transport index as measured in the North Atlantic gyre dropped from 65 to 50 m/sec. 15m/sec and you call that ‘no measurable effect’ !
But it is not the effect of the electrical current
vukcevic (01:17:22) :
“And what do you think I was implying?
Currents plucked out of thin air?
Leif Svalgaard (04:21:24) :
Yes, something like that.
Fits right in with some of other currents you promote.
Saline sea water is a conductor circulating in presence of geomagnetic field; result induced electric current. There are hundreds of studies and thousands of measurements related to the subject!
Let’s do the numbers. I asked the engineer in you to do it and you refused [for good reason as we shall see]. Here goes:
The emf from a conductor moving at velocity v in a magnetic field B is E = vB [as v and B are nearly perpendicular] per unit length. Let the speed of the circualtion be v = 1 m/s, B = 50,000 nT = 5E-5 T, and the length L of the gyre path be 6000 km = 6E6 m, then the total emf becomes V = E*L = 300 Volt [check my math as we go along as I’m just typing this in as I go]. The resistivity R of sea water is 0.2 ohm, hence the current I = V/R = 1500 amps. The power is then P = V*I = 300*1500 = 450,000 W. The solar input is perhaps 45 W/m2 over the polar cap [low angle, high albedo, etc], so the total power P is the same as the solar input to an area of P/45 = 10,000 square meter, which is 100,000,000 times less than the solar power to the polar region. Since the secular movement of B is not the whole of B, but much smaller, say a generous 10%, the effect of magnetic polar wander is 1000,000,000 times smaller than the ordinary solar input, hence totally insignificant. I had assumed that this took place in the upper 1 meter. If we let the ocean current go down 1000 meter [much too much as the speed of the gyre at depth is small] the one billion becomes 1 million, still negligible.
Leif Svalgaard (20:21:15)
I see that a terminology issue has crept in there but there’s no point trying to untangle it here.
Suffice it to say that I used the term ‘magnetic field’ inappropriately.
Leif Svalgaard (04:21:24) :
vukcevic (01:17:22) :
And what do you think I was implying?
Currents plucked out of thin air?
Yes, something like that.
Vuk, you shouldn’t give Leif these feedlines. He knows no shame.
Lol.
Ulric Lyons (07:32:54) :
SSN is not directly proportional to temperature, and is not a good forecast measure for temperature.
Agreed. I have found you need to consider how much above or below the ocean equilibrium value SSN is in order to be able to calculate change in ocean heat content, which as Stephen Wilde has been saying for a long time, is the main driver of temperature. Understanding the modes of ocean heat release therefore is of importance. I will be looking at the historical occurrence of el nino and la nina in comparison with the metrics you and I have discussed previously.
tallbloke (10:16:46) :
vukcevic (01:17:22) :
And what do you think I was implying?
Currents plucked out of thin air?
Leif Svalgaard (04:21:24) :
Yes, something like that.
Vuk, you shouldn’t give Leif these feedlines. He knows no shame.
His good science arguments are pleasure to follow. Once he runs of arguments ‘good old doc’ flips the coin, but I do enjoy his colourful metaphors.
I have been known as: cyclomaniac in extreme, man of superior ignorance, a danger to society, astrologer, peddler of pseudo-science; I treasure them all. Now I am looking forward to something new and original.
vukcevic (10:53:09) :
I have been known as: cyclomaniac in extreme, man of superior ignorance, a danger to society, astrologer, peddler of pseudo-science; I treasure them all. Now I am looking forward to something new and original.
With the exception of ‘superior’ all of the above still hold. Any ‘new’ appellation would depend on you to earn it.
But, it would refreshing for a change if you would try to stick to the Science [if that is possible] and respond to my ‘back of the envelope’ calculation of the energy in the oceanic electric currents.
Leif Svalgaard (10:04:31) :
Fits right in with some of other currents you promote.
……Let’s do the numbers.
Dear Sir,
You got it all wrong, and you did not read what I wrote or understood a thing. You are stuck in a solar groove.
May I just for starter point out that gyre is much faster than 1m/s. The North Atlantic gyre transport index averages around 60m/sec and Beaufort Gyre is probably faster. So thermal power is at least 60 times greater than what you calculated, but that is not point! Electrical heating is not the point !!!
From my link http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/OTI.gif you can see that The North Atlantic gyre transport index varies anything up to 15m/sec over decades and variations in magnetic field appear to be one of the major contributors, but not one in the area itself, but further north and much further south.
Here it is again, this time I will just explain role of Beaufort Gyre while the Circumpolar current effect I have elaborated on in my post to tallbloke:
vukcevic (04:27:37) :
Here it is:
Copper plate will spin freely until you bring a permanent magnet close to it, in which case it will slow down and stop, due to induction of a counter emf ! (basic physics).
One major feature of the Arctic’s Ocean currents is a clockwise circular flow, located under polar ice cap, known a Beaufort Gyre.
http://nsidc.org/seaice/images/beaufort_gyre.jpg
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2011/finalwebsite/graphics/climate/atlanticmap.gif
North Pacific waters enter Arctic Ocean and exit into Atlantic as cold currents. Beaufort Gyre acts as a giant pump controlling the flow-feeding Transpolar current. Reduction in the angular velocity in the gyre reduces the volume of cold water moving into the North Atlantic, allowing the Gulf Stream to reach further north, and vice versa. Eenergy for the Beaufort Gyre is supplied by the Earth’s rotation! In the absence of other factors, current gyration should be more or less constant. There is a good reason why the circulation speed within Beaufort Gyre may vary over long periods.
Ocean waters, due to salinity, have attributes of an electrical conductor. Since the Beaufort gyre is in proximity of the Magnetic North Pole, Beaufort becomes a giant but weak electrical current generator. One property of an electric current generator is rise of a counter-electromotive force, resisting movement of the conductor. If there is no additional input of energy, velocity is in a reverse proportion to the strength of magnetic field. Part of the energy contained in the gyre, which normally moves huge masses of water, is transformed into heat, raising its temperature by a small (negligible) fraction.
AS the MNP moves closer to gyre’s centre, rising counter-emf will provide greater resistance, thus reducing velocity of the circulating ocean current (and vice versa).
In this scenario Beaufort’s cold water pump will slow down allowing warm waters of the Gulf Stream to reach further north, rise in temperature as a consequence. Opposite will happen when the MNP moves further away from the gyre, intensity of counter-emf is reduced, allowing increase of the gyre’s angular velocity, the stronger cold-water currents moving further south into the North Atlantic, intercepting the Gulf Stream at lower latitudes; result cooling of the North Atlantic.
If you do not read the post or the article than your comments and calculations become irrelevant.
vukcevic (12:39:16) :
May I just for starter point out that gyre is much faster than 1m/s. The North Atlantic gyre transport index averages around 60m/sec
The transport index is not the velocity. 60 m/s is twice hurricane force wind speed and the water does not move at that speed. I calculate the emf, from there you can [as I did] calculate the energy dissipated. If the energy is too low, none of the details matter.
The ocean currents are [as you say] not driven by that emf, but you invoke the emf to change the speed, and it is much too small to have any effect as I showed. If you don’t like to compare with the solar power, convert the 450,000 W in kinetic energy to velocity and see how little you get. Get with the numbers, not the hand waving.
Where’s that popcorn and beer smiley when you need it?
I’m wondering if there might be a different explanation for the changes in the speed of the circulation of the Gyre related to my metric of the moment, Length of Day.
It seems to fit pretty well with a 6 year lag of the Gyre to the LOD data. And Ive found a reasonably convincing link between a curve composed of TSI-LOD and Atmospheric Angular Momentum
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=glaam-lod-tsi.gif
The sticky out bits are the el ninos
Leif Svalgaard (13:02:02) :
……….
You cannot help putting wrong interpretation in order to supposedly ‘win’ the argument. ELECTRIC CURRENTS DO NOT DRIVE OCEAN’S CURRENTS ! Induced counter emf slows fractionally polar current down. Emf is not energy source, it acts as an electric break. Energy comes from the Earth’s rotation. Solar energy is nothing to do with Beaufort gyre, it is most of the time entirely under ice cap, and its waters are not exposed to solar heating.
It is balance between of two ocean currents Transpolar current flowing into North Atlantic and Gulf stream entering Arctic Ocean which is disturbed. Both currents contain huge amounts of energy (one from rotation the other from heath) and they are held in fine balance, disturb the balance and energy of one will be absorbed by the other, amplifying effect of the initial disturbance. Think of low friction balanced scales, introduction of a tiny input to one side is sufficient to throw whole system out of balance (proverbial butterfly in south Atlantic causing hurricane in Florida).
In Antarctica circulation slowly moves in direction of pole movement (lower resistance) altering balance between Circumpolar current and the currents flowing in and out of South Atlantic.
If solar input heats the atmosphere to 290K, ocean currents cause +-0.2K divergence or 0.07%. The solar heating of tropical waters provides the energy for this divergence.
You should look at the correlation as calculated here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/40/88/86/PDF/NATA.pdf
vukcevic (12:39:16) :
May I just for starter point out that gyre is much faster than 1m/s. The North Atlantic gyre transport index averages around 60m/sec
May I for starters point out how little you know about these things. The transport index is not measured in meters per second, but MT/s or MegaTon/second.
vukcevic (12:39:16) :
And to continue on that road, the Beaufort gyre is a result of the Coriolis force, driven by the prevailing winds, and the Ekman transport [friction between layers of water participating in the Ekman Spiral]. The atmosphere is the driver of the gyre.
vukcevic (12:39:16) :
And looking more closely at your claims, perhaps you should consider that the Beaufort gyre is a freshwater gyre and thus not very conducting, and so on and on. One of the things that scientists implicitly do when they read each other’s paper is to assume that the paper is ‘true’ in the sense that one does not have to check and verify every little detail. This is the default attitude: trust that the details are right. You seem, repeatedly, to violate that trust, so we can now add other one to the list of appellations: “trust violator”.
vukcevic (14:31:13) :
ELECTRIC CURRENTS DO NOT DRIVE OCEAN’S CURRENTS ! Induced counter emf slows fractionally polar current down.
You contradict yourself.
Energy comes from the Earth’s rotation.
No, it doesn’t.
Solar energy is nothing to do with Beaufort gyre, it is most of the time entirely under ice cap, and its waters are not exposed to solar heating.
Not the point, which is that the gyre interacts with other circulations that are and therefore the solar input [what you call the ‘heath’] is a good measure to compare with.
But since the gyre is freshwater, the whole emf thing is irrelevant to begin with…
tallbloke (14:17:28) :
I’m wondering if there might be a different explanation for the changes in the speed of the circulation of the Gyre related to my metric of the moment, Length of Day.
http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/results.html
Leif, you may have better information than I have gathered, but my understanding is that the Gyre contains freshwater from the Canadian basin (at variable amounts) but it is not strictly a fresh water gyre.