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.
The recent drop in sea level was entirely due to the La Nina
La Nina would cause sea levels to rise (relative to El Nino conditions), as lower SSTs result in more heat retained in the oceans and hence thermal expansion.
It’s that pesky cause and effect thingy.
rbateman (22:58:13) :
I am of the mind that Grand Minimums are all created differently. There being no 2 alike.
At what point do we say that the odds have changed from against to for in terms of attaining a “Dalton” type?
How much more time do we need? One year? Two Years?
How many spotless days are required?
As, accrding to yourself, all grand minima are created differently, maybe the “Dalton type” does not exist? Is it an important concept? Maybe it is more useful to compare with the average of cycles 10-15 http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution
If we get significantly (say ~50) more than 800 spotless days, it looks like a rather deep minimum to me. We could be there by the end of this year if things proceed as now.
Is it the lack of sunspots alone that causes cooling, or does this require the visible facula as well.
I think we must keep these questions separate. One is “what drives solar activity?” and the other is “what drives the climate?”. Granted, I strongtly suspect there is a connection, but we need to find the physical mechanisms.
Kevin Kilty (19:19:58) :
Philip B:
Regarding time it takes solar irradiance to input 12×10^22 Joules, assume cross sectional area of earth, times effective solar constant of 1kW/square meter, times 0.70 for ocean fractional area, times one-half for effective daylight fraction, and the order of magnitude to accomplish the task is about 2.7 million seconds, which is about 3 weeks or so. There is an additional fractional amount for solar zenith, but this is about the order of magnitude
I assume your calcs are good! Taking your figure of 2.7e6 it is a mite over 4 weeks.
But this is not the point. Your 1kW/sqm is required to maintain it at its current energy level. It is evapourating/radiating/conducting heat away which has to be replaced.
What you are looking for is 12e22 joules additional over 25 years 790e6 seconds i.e. 3.5w/sqm(?) (more if you take into account the greater evap and radiation) continuous for 25 years.
I do not believe TSI has been 3.5 W above normal for 25years
Ps 12*10e22J is over the period 1982 to 2007 approx. so TSI is not in doubt for this period. (compared to reconstuctions)
Vincent (03:34:28)
I said the anthropogenic theory would be proved beyond a ‘doubt’ because the primary proposed physiogenic driving factor, solar activity, now appears to be at an all time low. We should see a response to this condition if it were the predominant climate forcing factor.
Only a major rebound in solar activity or a major volcanic eruption might ‘cloud’ the issue.
If we see progressive indications of increased arctic melting and continued world-wide warming in the face of this reduced solar activity, I think it will be hard to deny ‘Anthropogenic Atmosphere Change’ as the cause. We would not necessarily know which man-made pollutant was really driving these increases.
I hope we see a clear indicator of this situation before going over the cliff, one way or the other.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (02:01:06) :
The Dalton most certainly did happen. And we don’t have much quality data on it, currently available.
That’s a problem.
The Dalton cycles are not represented in the Spotless Days Page. Problem #2.
I think we must keep these questions separate. One is “what drives solar activity?” and the other is “what drives the climate?”
If you don’t know which type(s) of visible solar phenonenon is/are responsible for attributed solar activity, then the process of elimination is hindered. Problem #3.
Focusing on a counting system (Wolf#) and trying to relate it to Climate changes runs afoul of the arbitrary nature of that count.
Increasing technology can help you measure better, but it will only foul up counting schemes as the forest is lost for the trees.
I’m not a scientist, Carsten, but I can certainly appreciate the value of measurements over counts.
I agree with you, we are heading straight for a deep minimum. All that is necessary is for things to continue apace.
I don’t know about you, but as I look at the record of measurements, it’s not near long enough. Therefore, I say dig. Bring it on. I would rather have old drawings to measure, crude and patchwork as that is, than an arbitrary count of how many sunspots groups were seen on a given day.
@Mary Hinge, the only thing which is rising is your blood pressure and hysteria of alarmists. Ocean heat content measured by ARGO: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/images/graph4_evans.jpg
timetochooseagain:
“you better have a good explanation for accusing him of being wrong-given that there has been no atmospheric warming in twelve years…”
Statistically, your statement makes no sense, because you cannot measure trends in global temperatures over periods as short as 12 years. However, we can observe that the last 12 years have been warmer than any other 12 year period in the instrumental record, and have probably been warmer than any 12 year period for several centuries.
i> Richard (16:39:58) :
Richard, let me remind you what I’ve been saying. I’m saying that the Dalton Minimum was no colder than many other periods. I’m not saying it was warmer than other periods – just that there were periods that were hjust as cold depite higher solar activity. I made this comment which you have included in your post.
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.
Ok, Richard what do you think you’ve shown here. What, for example, has 1736 got to do with anything apart from the fact that it’s a relatively warm year. The Dalton Minimum supposedly starts in ~1790 (though the ‘weak’ cycles didn’t begin until 1798). What we really need to look at is the decline in temperature from just before the Dalton Minimum, say in ~1780, until the end of the DM. You are right that the 1730s were the warmest decade of the 18th century but things began to cool off after that. This, though, had nothing to do with the Dalton Minimum.
I’ve checked the trends between 1780 and all years from 1790 onwards. It’s only when we get to 1780-1814 that we actually see a slight negative trend. By 1820 the trend is a NON-significant -0.04 deg per decade, i.e. it’s flat.
Now the interesting thing is that between 1770 and 1790 some of the strongest cycles recorded occurred. So the decline in temperature from 1780 in a period of very high solar activity to 1820 and a period of very low solar activity was an insignificant -0.17 deg.
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
Yes, Richard we know it’s warm now. That’s why we are having all these debates. The question is how does the average 1790-1820 temperature of 9.093 compare to other similar length periods.
The 1740-1770 average was 8.97 which as well as being lower than the DM average also provides an explanation for the post-1730s temperature decline to which you alluded. Here’s another interesting one. The 1760-1790 average was 9.06. So the average for the 30 years immediately before the Dalton Minimum was actually lower than the average during the Dalton Minimum. Here’s a few others
1830-1860: 9.1
1860-1890: 9.075
1870-1900: 9.062
1880-1910: 9.056
After that we get the early 20th century warming period. But, thanks for your post, Richard, you’ve managed to help me confirm exactly what I’ve been saying. The Dalton Minimum was not particularly cold.
Mary Hinge was last featured prominently here last fall trying to argue that the La Nina of the last few months was not arriving. She is an intelligent warmista with a blind spot the size of a sunspot. She’ll cherry pick any data that suggests future warming. Hey, she must be a climatologist.
==============================================
If wishes were horses, Mary, carriages would crush the cooling thermometers.
===============================================
I’ve discovered a way to accurately reconstruct the historical SST’s using the sunspot number and variation in length of day.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=temp-hist-80.gif
The mismatch around the war years is due to maladjustment for cooling water inlet sensors in military vessels.
I think this moves things along a bit.
jorgekafkazar (07:53:27) :
“His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”
As David noted above, pool chlorine sales are probably no worse a proxy than tree rings, and possibly better. Climatologists’ lust for proxies borders on sheer desperation. They’d use bat poop as a speleothem if it had annual strata.
I wonder if there is a “ring around the collar” correlation? If so we could get the dirt on the weather. And if we watched it long enough on the climate as well.
rbateman (02:58:40) :
The Dalton most certainly did happen. And we don’t have much quality data on it, currently available. That’s a problem.
Yes, and therefore it is of limited use to try to compare the current minimum with the Dalton. We can only do it to the level of precision that you find in the Dalton cycles (5-6-7) data.
The Dalton cycles are not represented in the Spotless Days Page. Problem #2.
True. The intent was to compare the current situation with whatever quality data we may have. The average of cycles 10-15 is at least a useful reference, if not the answer to everything.
Focusing on a counting system (Wolf#) and trying to relate it to Climate changes runs afoul of the arbitrary nature of that count.
That is why the two (solar activity vs. climate drivers) should initially be kept separate. And studying the Sun should certainly not be limited to counting Wolf numbers. For example, your efforts with faculae are indeed very interesting and useful. But one measurement does not exclude another. For consistency reasons, continuing also the Wolf# count is useful with all its limitations.
Increasing technology can help you measure better, but it will only foul up counting schemes as the forest is lost for the trees.
I don’t see the inconsistency in counting as a technological problem. Changes in technology does not in itself drive the changes in counting schemes. There is no real technological barrier preventing us from counting the way it was done before. I suspect non-technological reasons why the counting schemes are “fouled up”.
I’m not a scientist, Carsten, but I can certainly appreciate the value of measurements over counts.
I think your facula-work is science. That makes you a scientist. Btw. measuring areas or counting spots are really two sides of the same thing. Spot counts just don’t use fractions and therefore become increasingly meaningless near minimum.
I agree with you, we are heading straight for a deep minimum. All that is necessary is for things to continue apace.
Indeed. So we just have to define when to declare a deep minimum. Arbitrarily I chose ~850 spotless days. It does not say anything physically, it just implies when to write articles about it in blogs and newspapers 🙂
I don’t know about you, but as I look at the record of measurements, it’s not near long enough. Therefore, I say dig. Bring it on. I would rather have old drawings to measure, crude and patchwork as that is, than an arbitrary count of how many sunspots groups were seen on a given day.
Agreed. Pull out as much information as possible from old data. If you can find new knowledge in it, it is science at least as good as anything else.
IS SOLAR MERIDIONAL FLOW CONTROLLED BY JUPITER – SATURN AZIMUTHAL OSCILLATIONS IN RELATION TO THE SOLAR EQUATORIAL PLANE ?
Jupiter’s inclination to Sun’s equator is 6.09, while for Saturn the angle is 5.51 degrees. Consequently during a single orbit Jupiter could be found at an angle in relation to solar equatorial plane varying between approximately +6.1 an -6.1 degrees. The angle variation in its simplified form can be described by a sinusoidal function. This is also case for any other planet taking into account the appropriate angle. Jupiter – Saturn azimuthal oscillations in relation to the solar equatorial plane satisfy equation:
Y = A [ Cos(pi /3 + 2 pi(t – 1941.5 – ö)/(2 * 11.862)) + Cos 2 pi (t – 1941.5 – 3)/19.859 ]
Y.-M. Wang , J. Lean , and N. R. Sheeley, Jr. from
Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
as published in The Astrophysical Journal, 577:L53-L57, 2002 September 20
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html
by investigating role of a variable meridional flow in the secular evolution of the sun’s polar fields concluded that ‘stable polarity oscillations can be maintained if the meridional flow rate is allowed to vary from cycle to cycle, with higher poleward speeds occurring during the more active cycles’. Their result published in graphic form is closely correlated to the above equation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-NRWmv2.jpg
Inference can be drawn that the asumed solar meridional flow is controlled by Jupiter – Saturn azimuthal oscillations in relation to the solar equatorial plane.
Is the assumed relationship result of gravitational (tidal), magnetic or electro-magnetic feedback is for time being an open question.
TARGET TO MISSION BY ISLAMIC RULES
On a side note, and in response to a number of comments regarding pending calamities resulting from crop failures… If I dabbled in the commodities exchange, I would be going heavily into durum wheat and other grains produced mainly on the Canadian and Northern Plains. This year got off to an extremely late start, and they are already experiencing soft (and even hard) frosts over large areas in the Canadian “wheat basket”. The calamity is already here. I would confidently predict Canadian wheat production to be down by 30% or possibly more starting within the next 2 months at the latest. If you are into pasta, you will be paying much more for it soon, as Canada produces the majority of durum wheat globally. Look for massive farm bailouts this winter for wheat farmers. Check out the weather in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Brrr.
ELECTRONICS MEMORISED TO SOFTMISSION
To correct you (again) last NH autumn I said there would be no La Nina during the NH winter, there wasn’t, just short lived la Nina conditions. I had hoped you might have been able to differentiate between the two however that seems to be a false hope. To put it plainly to you, there was not a La Nina last winter, just La Nina conditions for a few months. I did state last autumn that I would predict a strong possibility of an El Nino developing later this year. That also seems to be happening.
You haven’t changed I’m afraid. You always have, and presumably always will, continue to issue litle soundbites with no substance or references to back up your innacurate views (at least you’ve dropped the “The Earth is cooling, even Kim doesn’t know for how long” postscript). You seem to prefer the Ad Hominem approach than discuss the science, its a shame but when the global temperatures are rising, fast, I suppose its easier for you. Maybe you can share with us why temperatures are rising despite the solar minimum, and maybe let us know if you actually believe the Svensmark nonsense?
As discussed previously the graph shows the effects of La Nina very well. It is strange you have picked a graph that finishes in January 2008, when the La Nina’s effects were at their peak, is there a reason for this other than the obvious?
Err, all the evidence shows that sea levels fall during and for a short period after La Nina’s and La Nina events, they also rise during El Nino’s. Just compare sea levels with ENSO records and you will see the very clear correlation. I think you have completely forgotten/ignored the impact of changes in evaporation during ENSO events. Evaporation is greater during La Nina’s, this has a major impact on sea temperatures. The reverse is also true, during El Nino events the rate of evaporation is reduced.
John Finn (03:49:27) : I wouldn’t use the CET data from the Had Met Office until we know for sure how they processes the data. If they used a method similar to the one used for Mann’s hockey stick chart, then it cannot be used for anything but virtual toilet paper.
People in rural Zimbabwe are experiencing an extreme political climate.
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=23095#23095
Friends:
Several discussants here have suggested that the Earth is in radiative balance: i.e. radiation received by the Earth equals radiation emitted by the Earth. But the Earth is never in radiative balance on a global scale and it cannot be.
The Earth warms almost 4 deg.C from January to July each year and has equivalent cooling from July to January each year. This is because the Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space. The energy input to the system (from the Sun) may be constant (although some doubt that as the above article demonstrates), but the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun ensure that the energy input is never in perfect equilbrium with the energy output.
The absence of such an equilibrium is because the climate system is an intermediary in the process of returning (most of) the energy to space (some energy is radiated from the Earth’s surface back to space). And the Northern and Southern hemispheres have different coverage by oceans. Therefore, as the year progresses the modulation of the energy input/output of the system varies. Hence, the system is always seeking equilibrium but never achieves it (due to the Earth’s continental configuration and axial tilt).
So, at no time is there a radiative balance on a global scale except in the meaningless way that a stopped clock is right twice each day.
Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that the Earth achieves quasi-equilibrium over a 12-month period. A varying system such as the global climate system (see above) could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour. And, importantly, the length of the oscillations could be harmonic effects which, therefore, have periodicity of several years. An oscillating system is not in equilibrium at any time during an oscillation. Very importantly, the global climate system is observed to exhibit such oscillations; i.e. AO, NAO, PDO, etc., etc., etc.
So, it is an empirical fact that the global climate system is never in in radiative balance and it cannot be.
Furthermore, the climate system is observed to be bistable (i.e. it is stable in the glacial and the interglacial states). The Vostok ice core data suggests that a transition between these two states occurs as a series of rapid ‘flips’ between them until the system stabilises in one or other of the states. These ‘flips’ could be argued to be a demonstration of the system having two extreme boundary conditions such that the system moves to an extreme until it is ‘stopped’ against the boundary.
Importantly, the system has maintained this bistability throughout the 2.5 billion years that the Earth has had an oxygen-rich atmosphere with little change to the temperature of each of the states. This bistability has been maintained throughout that time despite changes to the Earth’s geography, geology, obliquity and eccentricity.
Very, importantly, the Sun is a g-type star and, therefore, the Sun must have increased its thermal output by about 30% during that 2.5 billion years. This is an increase to radiative forcing (from the Sun) of ~30% and if radiative forcing had a direct effect on global temperature the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago.
So, the Earth’s climate system is observed to have a mechanism (or mechanisms) that regulates its temperature to counteract effects of very large changes in solar output.
(Incidentaly, for nearly 30 years I have been asking:
“Why is 0.4% increase to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide thought to threaten catastrophe when about 30% increase to radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effect?”
To date I have not obtained a cogent answer.)
But the global temperature does change slightly in each of its apparently stable states (I have my own views of why it changes – i.e. cloud effects – but they are not pertinent here). And anybody who looks at the records of recent global temperature (i.e. the most recent millennia) can see a series of cycles of global temperature change that are overlaid on each other. For example:
1.
There seems to be an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP)
and
2.
There seems to be an apparent ~60 year oscillation that caused cooling to ~1910, then warming to ~1940, then cooling to ~1970, then warming to ~2000, then cooling since.
The above article attempts to predict what will next happen to global temperature on the basis of solar activity. In the light of the the two apparent cycles I cite above, the attempted prediction is an attempt to answer the question;
“Has the warming from the LIA stopped or not?”
And I argue that the answer to that question cannot be known because the pattern of past global temperature fluctuations suggests that the existing cooling phase of the ~60 year cycle is opposing any such warming. And that cooling phase can be anticipated to end around 2030 when it can be anticipated that then either
(a) warming from the LIA will continue until we reach temperatures similar to those of the MWP
or
(b) cooling will set in until we reach temperatures similar to those of the LIA.
Richard
Mary H: “It is strange you have picked a graph that finishes in January 2008, when the La Nina’s effects were at their peak, is there a reason for this other than the obvious?”
Please direct us to an updated graph of ocean heat content.
I spoke with an 86 year old man yesterday who told me that in late June 1947, the snow was so deep that the village of Stanbury, near Haworth in West Yorkshire UK couldn’t be accessed for nearly three weeks.
Stanbury is 800ft above sea level on the lee side of the Pennine hills.
Mary Hinge (05:55:35) :
Err, all the evidence shows that sea levels … rise during El Nino’s.
during El Nino events the rate of evaporation is reduced.
Incorrect on both counts. If you look carefully at the sea level graphs, you’ll see the level falls during the el nino as heat is lost from the ocean to the atmosphere.
If evaporation is reduced during el nino, what cause the up to 50W/m^2 reduction in outgoing longwave radiation? Please don’t try to tell me it’s co2.