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.
“Dr Hathway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum and I agree with him.”
I disagree with both Dr. Hathaway and you on this prediction. We are in for a cold spell colder than the Maunder Minimum. I base this prediction on the solar barycenter behavior. The solar barycenter is presently following the surface of the Sun for the longest period it has done so in the past 6000 years. I accept Oliver Manuel’s solar model where the Sun’s core is dense, solid and magnetic (a neutron star). The barycenter, mainly driven by Jupiter, causes the core to flip its polar axis every 11-13 years, which gives us the solar sunspot cycle. With the barycenter transiting the Sun’s surface for a full twelve years, the core will have lost its flipping momentum, which is causing a severe drop in solar sunspot activity and a severe drop in solar irradiance. The cooling we are about to experience is unprecedented in the human record. I will be posting a paper about this online in the next year.
The remarks were:
—————-
timetochooseagain (23:35:12) :
Antonio San (23:26:39) : Actually, no, its the sum of “weathers” divided by the number of “weathers” but it is a good point. Most people really don’t seem to understand they relationship between weather and climate-which is strange since so much of it is intuitive and very basic math for the rest…
—————-
Define your terms and your reasoning:
.
[1] ‘weathers’
.
[2] ‘number’
.
[3] ‘sum’
.
[4] Why would one ‘divide’ one by the other?
.
“..Maunder minimum… Felt by whom – and where?”
Try to read Trygve Gulbranssen “Og bakom synger skogene”.
Or look at some temperature record like http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/195013/armaghcetssn.jpg or http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
John Finn (11:32:18) :
Lee (09:15:29) :
Looking at that chart, and seeing how high cycle 23 was, it looks like what we might see is maybe a 1 degree drop by the end of cycle 24 in some 11 years. This is a very slow process – a tiny lessing of solar radiation, but steady and for a decade or 2 if Archibald is right.
I know of a way you can make a bit of money. Get in touch with James Annan and offer him a bet on cooling over the next decade. I’m fairly confident he will be only too willing to oblige. I’ll give Annan his due he does put his money where his mouth is.
John, what would I be betting on? That Archibald is right about the lower cycle, that he’s right about the 2 degree difference? that my interpretation is right? so far it looks to me like I ought to get pretty big odds.
I think it is going to get colder because as opposed to run-away effects, I believe in reversion to mean – particularly in the relative short run. We have had a few years of relatively warm weather (as evidenced by say melting polar caps), so I expect cooler years to come. Not necessarily colder than average, just cooler than they have been (but of course possibly a lot cooler).
David Thomson says:
I never cease to be amazed. A neutron star! By what model?
David Thomson (13:26:59) :
“………….The barycenter, mainly driven by Jupiter, causes the core to flip its polar axis every 11-13 years, which gives us the solar sunspot cycle. With the barycenter transiting the Sun’s surface for a full twelve years, the core will have lost its flipping momentum………..”
I do not know much about barycentre movements, but I find it intriguing that you suggest that ‘the core will have lost its flipping momentum’.
Here is my equation for polar field’s strength, which describes a scenario where Sun fails to flip its polarity during SC25:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
Geo (22:21:52) : “I’ve come to the conclusion that solar cycle predicting does not deserve the label of “science” at this point.”
I, too, get the impression no one knows in detail how to model the Sun. I wonder if we have reliable proxies to determine solar output over 100,000s of years.
On that note, here is a reconstruction of solar activity. It clearly shows the Dalton and Maunder minimums. It also shows that current acitivity is higher than any time in the last 1,000 years.
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FIAU%2FIAU2004_IAUS223%2FS1743921304007409a.pdf&code=a860b776fa5d1795be3d4e84592ebdd3
Mr. Alex (12:34:40) :
John Finn (11:24:06) : “Felt by whom – and where?”
*Felt by whom : Europeans who kept temperature/weather records indicate so. Others unknown
Ok – now all I need is the “temperature/weather records”. Rest assured I know about the CET record (England) and that doesn’t show significant cooling during the Dalton Minimum and I know about the De Bilt record and that also shows no significant cooling. There’s also the Uppsala record and that shows the 1850s to be much colder than the Dalton Minimum.
Do you have anything else?
bill (10:29:53) :
That’s the same graph as Mary Hinge posted. Its not Argo data and without knowing how was derived I can’t comment on it. Except to note that it shows a strong warming trend that stops when the comprehensive Argo data starts.
And your supposed link to Argo data is a link to a grant submission.
I realize the Argo data is a serious problem for you Warmers, because it shows conclusively the oceans haven’t warmed since 2003. And if the oceans haven’t warmed the Earth’s climate hasn’t warmed. End of story.
If there is only the elevated temps of the 2nd half of the 20th century and the return to means, then there will never be anything colder than the means.
The current baseline is there because of the timeframe upon which it was measured.
The other side of the means is fully capable of manifesting itself, and eventually, it will do just that. It could just as easily do it quickly or slowly.
To say that 2 C cooling is impossible or improbable is to be narrowminded and focus only on what the last 100 years has wrought.
To say that nature has to take it’s sweet time is to make the mistake of reading that geologists did before Mt. St. Helens proved them wrong.
The only question is: How far and how fast do we now cool?
The Sun is and has been out to lunch for quite some time, and given the elevated global temps of the 20th Century Warm Period, it has much to act upon.
Now, who said “The bigger they are the harder they fall”?
A quick look at the pre-alarmist spread of data & measurements reveals how hard things currently sit at the high swing of the pendulum.
David has given us his honest appraisal of that scene.
Given our current state of knowledge on the interaction of the Sun/Atmosphere/Oceans/Land Masses/Galactic Environment, what he has done is no different than the predictors on this page:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
They all end up as handing out a prediction.
They all got there via differering routes.
Most were wrong.
The signpost up ahead says we are entering the Twilight Zone of our late Warming Period.
David says further & faster.
Fine. Let the competition begin.
So I ask again
The sea has gained 12*10^22 joules from some where and from the second plot it does not look like TS1
It came from the sun via sunlight into the oceans.
As others have explained above that is the only physical mechanism by which heat can get into the oceans.
12*10^22 joules sounds a big number but its not compared to the energy received by Earth from sunlight. I can’t be bothered to calculate how long it would take for the Earth to recieve that much energy but its a matter of minutes to a few hours over presumably decades.
Otherwise, ocean temperature data has large measurement and sampling errors pre-Argo. Throwing buckets over the side of ships hauling them up and sticking a thermometer in, isn’t conducive to precise measurements.
John Finn (15:48:31) :
The Upsalla Record compares itself to the Wolf number, which is not a measurement as much as it is a count.
For real measurements, see:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/GrPulDebSFOSN_U_UP_F.PNG
The last 3 cycles for Faculae measurements are pending/not certain as to how they relate to Greenwich measurements. They will have to be measured from white-light images directly.
Safe to say that the Wolf record does not reflect the actual extent of solar activity, though it is certainly convenient and much used.
Not the best tool to use.
John Finn (15:48:31) : “Rest assured I know about the CET record (England) and that doesn’t show significant cooling during the Dalton Minimum”
I have the CET records. It shows significant cooling from 1659 to 1698 (Maunder Minimum) and then again from 1736 to 1816. Just plot the trendlines.
Also the Average CET temperature during the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) is 9.093C and the average for 1979 to 2008 is 9.949. It was on the average 0.86C cooler
rbateman (15:58:36) :
Thanks Robert, well said. I tend to agree with your many comments and analyses.
Geoff Sharp (05:14:50) :
This grand minimum will be less severe than the Dalton.
Which, of course, means that this minimum is no Grand Minimum, by that speculation.
Nogw (08:47:16) :
And…neutron cosmic rays Oulu count it is above 10%
The 10 % is above the average, and is not the good metric. The intensity is up only up 4% over last such minimum, but is in ant case not a useful number in itself as different stations have slightly different long-term trends. The uncertainty of the trend since 1952 [when the first good data started] is about 5%, so no significance should be attached to Oulu by itself. Here is the record of measurements from Hermanus in South Africa: http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/hermanus_e.html
For almost all stations the intensity has been decreasing since end of April, 2009.
The other link to the millennial solar proxy record was bad. Here is a good one.
http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=288735
and here is the CET record at the Met:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html
A bit of junk science in the mix on this thread. That having been written, I remain concerned about the potential for a serious Cold Period. As I have stated before, with over 6B people on the Earth, we are highly reliant on continuation of the relative warmth experienced since the 1800s. Were we to fall back into Dalton, Maunder or worse conditions, we would likely experience phenomena and global crises unlike any previously seen before. In all likelihood, such a scenario would certainly result in geopolitical chaos and ultimately wars of mass destruction, which, would serve as a positive feedback loop vis a vis further cooling. We stand at the precipice.
Richard (16:39:58) :”John Finn (15:48:31) : “Rest assured I know about the CET record (England) and that doesn’t show significant cooling during the Dalton Minimum”
I have the CET records. It shows significant cooling from 1659 to 1698 (Maunder Minimum) and then again from 1736 to 1816. Just plot the trendlines.
Also the Average CET temperature during the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) is 9.093C and the average for 1979 to 2008 is 9.949. It was on the average 0.86C cooler”
Does your data look like the chart in http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html
?
I am wondering how they “adjusted” this data? Did they use the Mann method? It was shown that the Mann method would decrease the amplitude of events before the calibration period. That could account for the compressed data before the present time.
According to Accuweather right now Canada’s temperature map almost looks like black next to white.
Western Canada is seeing a heatwave slated to extend north to the Arctic Ocean making some people think we’re seeing the fiery end of this planet. Go East and you see below average temps. especially in the region south of Hudson Bay. The apparent loopiness in the Jet Stream right now has it creating both major unseasable ridges and troughs at pretty much the same time.
Just don’t know about this. There are so many factors involved in climate change. We humans just love cycles. They make it easier for our little brains to explain our mundane problems in this big, complicated universe of ours. But can we honestly say with any degree of predictive certainty which way the wind will blow in Canada or the US? I dare say we cannot. All of the statistical models from both sides of the scientific debate (indeed: are there two sides and is this really a constructive debate?) are so “spotty” and lacking in convincing methodology.
I should also say that temperature measurements are not geographically uniform around the planet — not on land and not in the oceans. There is nobody that can argue the contrary. We do not have a coherent system for accomplishing this. And I imagine measuring uniform temp in the oceans with any statistical significance is nearly impossible. About like measuring temperature at higher elevations in the atmosphere around the planet. Currents would make both extremely difficult.
Until we do get an evenly distributed temp measurement system in place, none of the data from either side of the main climate change debate will mean anything wrt which way it is going — the temperature, that is. And even then, we’ll need years of data points before a useful picture emerges. Probably decades. When you quote, “nobody under the age of 29 has experienced global warming,” remember that this is a biased statement. You are most definitely *not* talking about people in rural Zimbabwe. Nor are you talking about people in northwestern Mongolia. This may seem like an insignificant point to you, but it isn’t to me.
As for your predictions — even a broken clock is right twice a day. I suspect the future will humble you soon enough. It tends to humble us all. Scientists are so concerned with what is true. This is a great thing — it has saved us from a world where priests, kings and feudal lords here in the West decided the fates of their “subjects”. (It was worse in other parts of the world and it largely still is.) Scientific truth, however, is often if not always difficult to apprehend. Here we are, postulating, counterpostulating, arguing, boasting, even insulting. We take defensible positions. But none of it is scientifically true. We have certain facts, but there is no irrefutable answer.
I should hope that more scientists continue to passionately pursue discovery and the truth, but also to remain committed to what serves. I ask: Why not err on the side of caution?
The Lonely Trader:
Because there is no side of caution to err upon.
If you believe in the dangers of AGW you need to commit trillions to combat it, dooming millions to poverty and likely premature death.
If you don’t believe in the dangers of AGW you risk environmental catastrophe if you are wrong and no action is taken.
Which of those is erring on the side of caution?
Jim (17:38:18) : I’m sure the graph you have referred me to is roughly correct. They have plotted the anomalies (differences) from the 1961-1990 mean, whereas I have plotted the actual annual mean temperatures.
The 5 year moving average trendline of my graph doesn’t look quite like that.
I dont know what they mean by “based on Parker et al 1992” though. Why they have to base the raw data on anything else I’m not sure. Maybe someone could enlighten me on this.
The posting by (Professor) David Thomson (13:26:59) provides us with another interesting scenario.
I am looking forward to his publication which, if possible could be made here at WUWT.
In the mean time I would like to thank David Archibald for his contribution.
All indicators point at sinking temperatures, from Dalton to Maunder to worst than Maunder conditions. Time will tell and the interesting part is that many of us will be able to observe it all happening within our lifetime.
I never would have expected the summer cold spell hitting Canada and North America.
These are extremely interesting times.
Let’s stop the AGW/Climate Change legislative process currently underway and spend our money on serious problems.
For example: How to secure agricultural output in a cooling environment.
People have to eat, don’t they?
It’s time our politicians stop playing Green and take some responsibility for real world developments.
Switches in climate from warm to cold come with huge political power shifts and the downfall of entire civilizations.
Watch the Russians, because they are highly adapted to cold environments and because they persuit their own agenda, now handsomely served by our own (stupid) political establishment.
I ask myself day after day if I have not completely wasted my time when I served the Air Force during the Cold War, protecting the Eastern European Border against the Reds now we see how our political establishment is destroying the Free World from within.
We have to stop this mad and irresponsible act act of treason right now.
vukcevic (14:31:57) : & David Thomson (13:26:59) Devasting scenario..
Please explain are the ocean’s loosing heat because the surface temperatures are high? or are the figures questionable?
Surface temperatures are high because of el Nino. That means cooler waters are trapped below rather than upwelling off Ecuador/Peru. So surface temps are up, but ocean, overall, may not be.
The Lonely Trader (17:56:01) : Well, I’m not being cute, but people in rural Zimbabwe can’t experience global warming since they experience the local climate. I mean, Death Valley has been really hot for a long time, but that fact does not global warming make.