David Archibald forwarded me this PowerPoint presentation from Jan Janssens which he presented on October 22nd. It has some very interesting slides and is a good summary of the current debate over solar cycle 24.
I’ve put the entire slide show online in the post below at 50% size, as the PDF download of the PowerPoint document is quite large. For those that want it, you’ll find it at the end of the post mirrored on WUWT’s file system so that better bandwidth can help out.
The PDF of the PowerPoint (with full sized graphs) is available here
Warning, large file 5.6MB
Found this gem about Copenhagen in the Daily Telegraph’s Finance pages
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100001825/the-real-story-at-the-g20/
and inside it was another gem from the UK Met Office
“Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf
Janssens starts his spotless day count at Rmax of prior cycle. The curve begun in “A looot of spotless days” has clearly been tracing out a 1000 plus count over the past 18 months.
An average cycle is 11 years long, weak cycles are longer than strong, weak cycles take longer to run to max than short cycles, QED, Rmax will not come before 2014. This means cycle 24 is not a repeat of the 10-15 sort, i.e., a Grand Minimum(as far as we know them).
Note cycles 5-7(Dalton) were reversed in proportion of their rise to max versus fall from, normally 0.382:0.618, meaning Rmax could well be 2015 or 2016. Cycles 5 & 6 had a max of about 50.
Thanks Paul James 14:38 for the link.
Trend for 1999 to 2008 after removing the impact of the ENSO – 0.00C per decade.
Now we’ll have to wait for the adjustments from the AMO and other ocean cycles as well. The 2007-08 La Nina just woke up a few climate scientists to the impact of the ENSO again and now they have to account for it. If the AMO goes down in the near future as forecast, then they will be forced to incorporate it as well and then there will be soul-searching.
Phil Jones just did a pre-emptive strike on the AMO in his latest co-authored paper. They changed it into a white noise series – lol.
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/TWJK_JClimate2009_revised.pdf
We may not have to wait long for the temperatures to change. Here is what happened fairly recently after extended solar minimum kind of periods
When ever we have had at least 3 years of low solar activity [sunspot #5-10 or less]
1797 -1799 Dalton Minimum cold period
1888-1890 followed by 3- 5 years of cooling weather
1900-1902 followed by 10 years of cold weather [AMO and winter NAO negative too]
2007-2009 ?
For 4 years of little or no solar sunspot activity
1821 -1824 Dalton period
1911-1914 part of one of the coldest periods this century [AMO negative]
I am not saying that the low temperatures are the result of low solar activity primarily since the natural cycles like AMO and NAO were clearly also in cool modes for some of the above dates, but there does seem to be some association
Boy that metoffice paper does a great job of obfuscating the sorry state of global (non)warming over the last decade.
It took me a while to figure out what they were plotting on Figure 2.8b. It’s basically a control chart telling how well actual temperatures conform to their marketbasket of climate simulations (black line). The actual changes plot below the model line every year since 1994!
GISS and NCDC temps have been flat or negative since 2004, HadCRUT3 even longer.
In chemistry, when you get three or so points falling on the same side of the trend line in a control chart, you become suspicious of your calibration. If you have four points in a row falling near 2 SD off (the 90% line) as HadCRUT3 from 1998 thru 2001, something is seriously wrong!
Paul James
The article you quoted
“Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?”
The Met Office used 1999 to 2008 temperature anomaly rise and used .07C per decade rise for their comments. Had they looked at 2001-2009[to date] ,they would have said -0.009C per year. It would have made the case much worse. They clearly expect warming to resume in the next few years based on some near-term forecasts . We will have to see how good these near term forecasts really are?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/trend
Thanks Bill
I owe a sincere if belated hat tip to Daily Telegraph poster Catweazle for the Met Office link.
I follow Catweazles posts in the DT and always enjoy reading his jousts with the warmist poster Slioch.
Nicely spotted Catweazle Sir !
It is much worse then we thought. Nasa no longer has the soho video or anything available. I frequently use the little icon in the left margin and watch the movie of the last month or so. Hasn’t been available in about 10 days.
Add to those slides the last month, where spots have formed from N-S aligned magnetics which fail quickly. This is 90 degrees out from where a spot is most likely to thrive, and that would be E-W.
You could say the Sun is not getting wound up as much as it is being short-circuited.
More of the N-S anomaly appears with spots material flows connecting directly to the poles, as seen best in SOHO EIT 195 or STEREO EUVI 195. Watch for them. Whether such connections are normal or at a greater pace I don’t know.
twawki (12:48:38) :
So when are our politicians going to take serious note of what is happening with the sun?
The majority of them are not paying attention to much of anything going on outside, let alone the sun.
matt v. (16:11:27) :
To that end, it’s much easier to make the case that solar activity lull and cooler climate are associated somehow, than that they are not.
Safe to say that they go together like soup & sandwhich.
To be expected. The normal happenstance.
Has anyone tried to determine what the spotless days would be at the ability to detect sunspots that existed in 1909, or in 1810? How many of the “tiny tims” should not be counted to get an apples to apples comparison?
If Tallbloke’s theory is correct than because of the quiet sun we should see some rather cool SST’s after El Modoki ends, considering they have dropped while El Modoki rose to its current peak, and Tallbloke having predicted El Modoki and how it would be now himself.
Also, does Leif not check solar threads on Sundays I thought he’d be all over this thread by now?
What they thought was CO2 signal is just solar noise.
Paul James,
This was interesting in your link: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf
“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate. ”
I assume that this implies that another 4 years of global cooling will force the IPCC and the world’s pollies to eat humble pie !?
It is more likely our pollies will then claim that their carbon taxes have been a dramatic success in preventing warming.
I don’t believe it will be a Maunder Minimum-style collapse, but the nearest I can think of would be the Spoerer Minimum that preceded it.
Dr David Hathaway (to his great credit, I might add) has come clean and admitted that his predictions were wholly wrong and that the solar science community has no real visibility as to what will happen next with SC24.
Apart from Leif Svalgaard who predicted a low peak of for SC24 but (wisely) neglected to predict WHEN. So his prediction has yet to be falsified.
And the late Theodor Landscheidt who predicted the appearance of the last three solar maxima and predicted six years in advance that SC24 would be very quiet on the basis of the Sun’s motion about the barycentre of the solar system – but of course that would be pseudoscience wouldn’t it, Dr Svalgaard?
I think it is clear this sunspot activity is because of CO2
Murray (17:52:15) :
Yes, and the follwing days in bold would NOT be counted
2009 10 20 71 11 10 1 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 10 21 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 10 22 72 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 10 23 73 30 60 1 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 10 24 76 21 120 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 10 25 76 28 130 0 -999 A1.2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 10 26 81 29 190 0 -999 A6.2 3 0 0 4 0 0 0
2009 10 27 82 29 260 0 -999 A4.2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0
2009 10 28 80 26 340 0 -999 A4.4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
2009 10 29 77 19 380 0 -999 A2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 10 30 75 13 320 0 -999 A2.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 10 31 75 0 0 0 -999 A7.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 11 01 72 0 0 0 -999 A1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 11 02 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 11 03 72 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 11 04 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 11 05 71 15 50 1 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 11 06 71 16 10 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 11 07 71 11 10 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 11 08 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
John A (18:57:56) :
Dr Svalgaard, even if I finally disagree with him, makes me think. I could think and be wrong. [snip]
REPLY: Dr Svalgaard probably won’t be back, he was insulted one too many times and got tired of it. I’m tired of it too. You know who you are. – Anthony
Awwww… I don’t even remember the [snip] part. I value Dr. Svalgaard. Please don’t go away. You’re a better man that.
Wondering Aloud (17:23:53) :
Bookmark this page:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin9.htm
The color composite images are intended to show the active regions that don’t produce sunspots as well as those that do. I try to keep it current.
Leif has made available an archive for all the STEREO images Ahead & Behind that I can produce. The Active Regions are what he bases his predictions on, and if L&P effect continues, one of the last places we can turn to see what’s under the hood of spotlessness.
“Dr Svalgaard probably won’t be back,…”
That will be a shame. Just yesterday (I think) he answered Ted Annonnson’s @ur momisugly 12:47:22 question about the last sunspot. And, of course, he could add the text for the images now before us. I think it is extraordinary that he has coached us along for so long. Amazing, really.
The reason why the alarmists and the media do not freak out equally at the risk of a new Maunder Minimum is that it is something we cannot pass a law to change. It also ‘detracts from the message’ and portrays CO2 pollution as a good thing in case a maunder minimum is at hand. You would think they’d get the point that they could still make many millions of dollars in research grants trying to predict how bad it will be and when it will end, but most of them will have to go back to school to get a solar astronomy degree to qualify…
Frankly, Anthony, you should have banned that guy, he was way over the top in his rudeness to Dr. Svalgaard. Svalgaard has a right to be pissed.
REPLY: Its a catch-22, banning people. But we are going to be more vigilant now with everybody in snipping. We often get over 1000 comments a day, reading and deciding each one we invariably make mistakes. -A
“Dr Svalgaard probably won’t be back,…”
I would like to thank Leif for donating his time and knowledge to discussions on this board.
rbateman: “To that end, it’s much easier to make the case that solar activity lull and cooler climate are associated somehow, than that they are not.
Safe to say that they go together like soup & sandwhich.
To be expected. The normal happenstance.”
Yes. The answer has been staring us in the face….even if remotely….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA