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
Mike Lorrey (22:15:57) :
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.
Bingo. Eventually they will admit (if their egos will permit it) that they were confusing two separate arguments:
(1) Homo Sapiens are polluting the planet…and they (we) have to do something about it.
(2) Homo Sapiens are changing the climate.
The first one is true….the second one, is, by and large, FALSE.
Two separate arguments.
It is not Anthropogenic Global Warming. It is merely Anthropogenic Global Pollution.
(The Texas-sized trash gyre in the Pacific, being one example).
But the climate alarmists have burned their reputation through Al Gore, as opposed to addressing ACTUAL….and SOLVABLE pollution issues.
This is so simple….yet you will never EVER hear this argument in the media or anywhere else.
I. Stop polluting, mate. Your trash is a horrible legacy to your offspring and theirs.
II. Beyond that….learn to ADAPT to the natural cycles….be them 11 years or 100,000 years.
It is up to us to figure it out.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“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… – Anthony”
And we, the readers of WUWT, will be the poorer for it if this proves so.
My admiration for Leif’s patience is unbounded. Perhaps he suffered fools a little too gladly. but one could not see this as a fault.
At the very least he was a litmus test of new stories and both old and new theories.
He permitted us entry into what would normally be closed bodies of science; closed for the simple reason that many, perhaps even most of us, simply did not have the dedication to search out.
At a time of wild claim and irrational science, Leif is steadying benchmark.
…and if this sounds something like a eulogy, it kinda is.
I have a question on the aloooot of spotless days chart.
Is there any significance to the angle of rise of SC24 for spotless days? It seems steeper than the SC10-15 average and looks like it is closing in on the slope/rate of rise on SC15 itself.
thanks
I doubt that a grand minimum will be acknowledged in the future, not because SC 24 will strengthen, but because the official data will be skewed (with non-existent spots being counted) to the extent that it just won’t be allowed.
The sunspot-climate connection has both strong support and strong opposition, and since we have much to learn we can only wait and observe.
Great Stuff, many thanks.
I too hope Dr Svalgaard comes back he has helped me understand the sun a little better, maybe taking a break from small minds is a good thing but please Leif come back when you are refreshed we need you here to help us understand things even if we disagree.
Mr. Alex (00:47:47) :
I doubt that a grand minimum will be acknowledged in the future, not because SC 24 will strengthen, but because the official data will be skewed (with non-existent spots being counted) to the extent that it just won’t be allowed.
In what way does that help the AGWers. Reporting more spots isn’t going to alter the climate. If anything, AGW supporters should welcome a “grand minimum”. If we still have relatively low solar activity and global temperatures don’t fall in the next few years their argument will be all the stronger. As it is things are looking pretty good for them. The solar peak occurred in the early 1990s. Just from the reduced TSI (solar max -> min) effect we ought to be ~0.1 deg cooler than we were back then. Needless to say – we aren’t. Despite the protracted minimum, 2009 is likely to be warmer than any year in the 1990s apart from 1998.
Meanwhile we (the readers of this blog) appear to have lost the contributions of the one person who was able to provide some perspective on the issue.
“Dr A Burns (18:38:02) :
It is more likely our pollies will then claim that their carbon taxes have been a dramatic success in preventing warming.”
This is the crux of the matter. There, appears to me anyway, a real “rush” on the part of pollies to have “some system” in place to control emissions in the circa 2010-2015 timeframe. My gut feeling is that we are heading towards a cooling, much like the 1940’s – 1970’s NH as I recall well, which will be the “vehicle” used to peddal energy rationing (For the west only it apperas, energy rationing, lower CO2 emisisons = lower temps) while in the face of rising CO2 emissions and falling temperatures. Signed, sealed and set in concrete, a tax on the air we breathe by 2015.
“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”
Seriously hope not, but I do understand the reasons why. I knwo blogs like this are imposrtant in providing a space to debate topics openly. It’s a shame some try to “lock it down”. Reminds me of what happned in Grenada and Toledo.
I actually hope that the next two cycles are quite quiet, because then, for the first time since satellites and automatic temperature measurement on land, sea and in the air have been taken, there will be the chance to discern, via direct temperature measurement, the effect of a Hale cycle with weaker solar output.
Let the AGW vs solar output experiment begin!
Dr. Svalgaard probably won’t be back;
This to me is a disaster, where else can one ask a question and be replied by one of the worlds foremost authorities on the subject, questions by the well informed, and those by the ignorant such as myself, I have learned about the sun from Dr. Svalgaard and that has made me THINK !
please come back.
The Sunspot/Climate relationship rests largely upon Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis on the seeding of lower cloud cover by Cosmic Radiation and It does fit nicely in with the Stefan- Boltzmann equation. Hopefully the impending research to be undertaken by CERN will confirm this. Otherwise we have a problem.
Sunspots, however only indirectly influence cloud cover by altering the Heliosphere and thereby affecting the incidence of both the solar and galactic cosmic rays with the latter sadly interfering with attempts to establish close correlations.
It appears that we have a magnetic climate to consider just as complex as our earthly equivalent. All intensely interesting; but way above those with CO2 addled brains.
We are slowly slipping in to a new Dalton or Maunder minimum, although this is not official yet. We have to wait a few months more, it seems.
Personally I believe that because of the solar barycenter’s effect on the Sun that this has a strong effect on the difference in solar rotation deep down in the Sun’s interior. This differential rotational speed deep down is blocking and unblocking the solar activity depending on the state of the Sun which in turn is caused by its movement around the barycenter. It is the torque forces which causes this.
I expect that the result from the current slowdown will be something between Dalton and Maunder minimum. Most likely it will be a repeat of the Wolf or Spörer Minimum. This is my bet.
When will the mass media start to talk about this? So far there has been a total censorship caused by the journalists’ ignorance of science and caused by their promotional belief in the CAGW religion.
Will it be after the The UN’s Global Warming Flying Circus in Copenhagen or have the temperature really start to dive deep before anything happens.
Dr. Svalgaard has my highest respect. He is source of knowledge on solar data and solar measurement. However on the impact from the variation of solar activity on the Earth’s climate and on importance of the solar barycenter movements and its effect solar activity he is wrong, in my opinion.
And that the way it is!
I noted earlier the cool weather that followed after 3 or 4 years of low solar activity. Just to close , the weather after 5 years [two more years of current low solar activity] was cooler still.
1708-1713 Maunder minimum[also 1709, the coldest European Winter]
1808-1812 Dalton Minimum
The current warmer oceans may moderate the current situation in the earlier years but most natural cycles like AMO, PDO and NAO are heading for 30 year cool cycles. Recently many Ocean SST ‘s have been dropping ,especially SH-SST.
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
Scientific debates have no call for insult or emotion. If someone has a greater knowledge and understanding of a phenomenon than others, that is a good reason to pay attention. On the other hand, if someone has a better knowledge and understanding then they might be in a position to throw around a few corrections. My chemistry professors chided me for my ignorance, which looked personal, but in retrospect, it was they who were in the right, and they must have thought me the fool.
Dr Svalgaard has been the only contributor here who has openly admitted of a mistake – apart from George E Smith of course, who also seems like a bright chap
“John Finn (02:11:13) :
In what way does that help the AGWers. Reporting more spots isn’t going to alter the climate. If anything, AGW supporters should welcome a “grand minimum”. If we still have relatively low solar activity and global temperatures don’t fall in the next few years their argument will be all the stronger.”
This is not about helping the “AGWers” or proving them wrong, this is about obtaining recordings which can be compared with past data from 400 or 200 years ago when there were no massive telescopes. It’s about fairness and uniformity.
Sunspot data may hold clues to solar mechanisms we don’t yet know of.
The “AGWers” don’t have an argument, at least not a scientific one.
“Just from the reduced TSI (solar max -> min) effect we ought to be ~0.1 deg cooler than we were back then.”
Surely that is just one theory, not law.
“As it is things are looking pretty good for them.”
Really… Is the earth on fire?
Patience. It’s all about cycles, what goes up must come down.
“Despite the protracted minimum, 2009 is likely to be warmer than any year in the 1990s apart from 1998.”
That may be true, but this doesn’t mean we are heading for catastrophic warming. A concrete example of this is if one climbs to the top of a hill, and after reaching peak, descent begins, you are initially still near the peak even though you are descending.
The duration of this ‘near the peak’ situation obviously depends on the slope. Remember the system is complex, so the effect (if any) will only become visible in a few years time, not instantly.
Anthony, please pass on to Dr. Svalgaard the appreciation most of us had for his comments and explanations, and for his disagreements with some theories which we hold.
Mr. Alex (04:33:18) :
“John Finn (02:11:13) :
That may be true, but this doesn’t mean we are heading for catastrophic warming.
Perhaps – but it doesn’t look like cooling either.
A concrete example of this is if one climbs to the top of a hill, and after reaching peak, descent begins, you are initially still near the peak even though you are descending.
The duration of this ‘near the peak’ situation obviously depends on the slope. Remember the system is complex, so the effect (if any) will only become visible in a few years time, not instantly
I’m not expecting an sudden plunge in temperatures, but I don’t buy into this unquantified lag business. If there is a correlation between solar activity and climate then the lag should be identifiable. Lassen and Friis Christensen produced a plot which suggested that the temperature response to solar cycle length was fairly immediate. What about the Dalton Minimum? If you examine any of the long term temperature records closely you will notice that any drop in temperatures started at least a decade before the Dalton Minimum cycles. There was actually very little cooling during the DM itself (apart from that following volcanic eruptions).
What about the early 20th century warming? where is the lag there?
The 1940s cooling? That didn’t hang about too long – yet solar activity was still increasing. Since ~1980, there is a significant divergence between the expected temperature if solar activity is the main driver and what is being observed. It is adivergence that is growing all the time.
Climate fluctuations over the past ~100 years cannot be explained by solar activity.
rbateman (17:29:01) :
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.
Thanks…..
Leif will be back, just needs time away to be with the Sweet or go shopping and clear his head. Sometimes we just need a break from the lunatic fringe.
Dr. Svalgaard shouldn’t be the focus here. I doubt Leif would leave.
Leave the one credible forum, in which to engage in the field of science, he is so knowledgeable of? I seriously doubt that.
Someone must be joking, because it aint me.
When you get get banged up by trolls, it takes time to recover from the bashing.
All joking aside, we shouldn’t worry. Our focus should be to forever fight the frivolous foes of fanaticism.
I suspect if we fight loud enough, hard enough and brave enough, our deeds will encourage him to rejoin us.
Or is it, ‘forever fight our frivolous foes of fanaticism’ ?
That sounds better I think.
Ya get my point. 🙂
Sunspots are an indicator. The “very poorly modeled internal physical events” cause the magnetic field, which then causes the sunspots. A model of anything is worthless until it is verified with “all the data” at “all frequencies”.
Oh, by the way, this entire discussion reminds me of the following:
a) the earth is the center of the universe!
b) the earth is flat!
c) the earth is static, there is no plate tectonics!
Religious link intended.
Are all scientists afraid for their [political] research funding?
I just wanted to second those expressing their support for Dr. Svalgaard. I have always found it a great opportunity to be able to read comments and articles from someone of his stature, and I do fully understand why he would get tired of getting sniped out. Life’s too short, you know?
Still, I do very sincerely hope that he would reconsider after some time has passed.
RE: John Finn (05:18:03) :
If there is a correlation between solar activity and climate then the lag should be identifiable.
Schatten (I think) finds the highest correlation at 3 years. Soon calls it a “decade.” A number of studies put the ocean thermal inertia lag at 7-12 years.