Guest post by David Archibald
Solar Cycle 24 is now over a year old, so it is appropriate to see how it is ramping up.
Solar Cycle 24 was a late starter, about three and a half years later than the average of the strong cycles in the late 20th century and almost three year later than the weak cycles of the late 19th century. It was almost as late as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum. The last few months have seen it ramp up relatively rapidly.
[Note: Solar Cycle 22 and 23 are overlaid on solar cycle 3 and 4 above to show similarity]
Plotting up the last three solar cycles relative to the Dalton Minimum, another solar minimum is not precluded by the data to date.
With Solar Cycle 23 ending up at twelve and a half years long, applying Friis-Christenson and Lassen theory to the temperature record of Hanover, New Hampshire results in a two degree centigrade decline in the annual average temperature at this location over the expected twelve years of Solar Cycle 24, from December 2009 to late 2021. Given some record low monthly averages in the northeast US in the recent summer, and the current cold winter, this cooling is well under way.
When comparing to the Dalton Minimum cycles 5 & 6 remember that the spot counts back then were based on naked eye counts, and thus the more “rapid” rise of 24 might not differ from those in fact.
I always wonder about the use of regression lines when “r squared” (the correlation coefficient) is low. I value of less than 0.95 indicates a trend and less than 0.9 a tendency. Less than .8 and you are approaching random scatter.
More an indication of variability in the data set, caution should be applied when looking for causality within a linear relationship. “r squared” is just one such indicator of how indirect the inter-relation can be.
So many factors, so much data, too little time.
James F. Evans (01:14:58) :As vukcevic (00:05:17) explains maximum seem to be nearer, however little as compared with previous cycles.
Stephen Wilde (03:40:14) : What does connect the atmosphere to ground millions of times each day?
Updates on the solar cycle are appreciated, but this repeated use of Hanover, NH by some of the solarists is getting old. Cherry picking one station to represent earth’s temp is worse than all the paleoclimate nonsense uncovered by Climate Audit et al.
When I first saw Oliver K. Manuel’s closing I read too quickly and came away with pilot. Later I realized the PI meant Principal Investigator = the primary individual in charge of a research grant.
I’ve just looked at one of the suggested sites he has. Rather impressive.
Quote: hunter (01:47:47) :
“I am curious about the claim of Oliver K. Manuel to have been “Former NASA PI for Apollo”. This is a rather enormous claim. If it were true, you’d think there would be some record of this on NASA’s website. But a search for “Oliver Manuel” reveals only one result, which is about a poster presented at a meeting. “Oliver K. Manuel” gives no hits.”
Look for NASA Grant: NASA NGR 26-0030057
Quote: Jack Jennings (Aus) (03:53:19) :
“Hey Oliver
I have enjoyed & appreciated your posts.
I know I’m lazy – what does the PI stand for?”
Answer: PI = Principal Investigator.
Somewhere I may still have a very nice letter from NASA’s Administrator thanking me for being a Principal Investigator for Apollo.
That may also explain why I was invited to Washington, DC to the National Academy of Science Building on June 26, 2008 to help celebrate the 50th Anniversary of NASA and the International Geophysical Year (IGY) that was organized by the Space Science Board.
I publicly posed this question to the gathering – twice – much to the dismay of the NAS President, Dr. Ralph Cicerone.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Question for the Space Science Board
Can the Space Science Board help NASA move away
from the untruths that are wrecking our economy?
• Earth is bathed in a steady flow of heat from
Hydrogen-fusion in the Hydrogen-filled Sun.
• Solar neutrinos from Hydrogen-fusion melt
(oscillate) away before reaching detectors.
• Earth’s climate is immune from cycles of solar
activity (sunspots, flares, eruptions).
• Therefore CO2 from our economic engines
caused global warming.
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor and Former
NASA PI for Apollo Lunar Studies
http://www.omatumr.com
REFERENCES:
1. P. D. Jose: 1965, “Sun’s motion and sunspots”,
Astronomy Journal 70, 193-200.
2. R. W. Fairbridge and J. H. Shirley: 1987, “Prolonged
minima and the 179 year cycle of the solar inertial motion,”
Solar Physics 110, 191-220.
3. Theodor Landscheidt: 1999, “Extrema in sunspot
cycle linked to Sun’s motion”, Solar Physics 189, 413-424.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/extrema.htm
4. O. Manuel et al: 2005, “Isotopes tell origin and
operation of the Sun” http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[Microphones were removed from the aisle after lunch so the gathering would not be exposed to inconvenient truths.]
” vukcevic (00:05:17) :
Overall polar field intensity is on its way down, indicating that the SC24 max is not to far off (possibly some time in 2012).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm”
Hope you will update this graph currently like Dr Svalgaard does: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
“wayne (03:06:34) :
After reading Friis-Christensen and Lassen’s paper I’m a little at loss of words. Wish I had found and read that month’s ago. Seems many of the same things I’ve been posting here were in that paper written back in 1991. A bit embarrassing. ”
Heck no ! If two independent thinkers reach the same observation from the same data – but working without collusion then it gives credibility to both.
An important principle is at stake here – results can be replicated. I just wish the same could be applied to all the climate papers published.
psi (06:09:56) : Responding to 23:27:21 you wrote: John, Google Svensmark. A hypothetical — some would say proven — cause is well understood.
My hard drive has a folder with a dozen papers by or related to the Svensmark hypothesis. You indicate “some would say proven” while I would express my view as it has not been falsified. Work in progress by Svensmark, and others, may strengthen support, or it may not. I vote on waiting. (I’ve been very busy since late Nov. so if there is something new I may have missed it.)
With the CAGW message seemingly stalled (reported in numerous posts on WUWT over the past 3 months) I see no need to pound the drum for any idea just yet. There are plenty as suggested by Stephen Wilde @ur momisugly (03:40:14) on this post and others – and by many other individuals as you know.
Stephen Wilde (03:40:14): You wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”
Really? Please show this on the following graph. Don’t forget to account for the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions:
http://i50.tinypic.com/30vyigy.png
Would you like me to remove the effects of the volcanic eruptions and the linear effects of ENSO to see if that helps?
Henry Pool (05:17:05) :
Thank you Vukcevic, I was going to ask that question, as to where we stand with that cycle.”.
On the 107 year cycle it is zero crossing which is relevant. If you look at the equation the major occurrences happen when two components are equal in value but in antiphase.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
The next zero crossings is around 2022 and coincides with an extrapolated prolonged polar fields dip, which again is around the time that extrapolation of the experimental results by Livingston and Peen predict sharp deterioration in SS visibility.
Philip T. Downman (08:23:15) :
“Hope you will update this graph …..
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm ”
As long as WSO keeps updating their website, they use delayed 10 day average (current value is for 2010:01:13_21h:07m:13s , published yesterday.
JonesII (07:42:31) :
“As vukcevic (00:05:17) explains maximum seem to be nearer, however little as compared with previous cycles.”
Predictions is hazardous business if carrier or reputation depends on it even if one considers himself an expert (AGW comes to mind). In my case is none of those.
Henry Pool (05:17:05) :
Thank you Vukcevic, I was going to ask that question, as to where we stand with that cycle.”.
The next zero crossings is around 2022 and coincides with an extrapolated prolonged polar fields dip, which again is around the time that extrapolation of the experimental results by Livingston and Peen predict sharp deterioration in SS visibility.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Wayne: You wrote, “One related thing that paper didn’t seem to touch on was mentioned by me in re-clarification to Leif near the bottom of the NODC revises ocean heat content.. article. It addresses the slow, decadal lag time of long term solar variation and storage or release of the excess heat in the oceans above or below the current equilibrium temperature.”
Sorry I missed your comment on the OHC thread. I would have asked you to look at the following three posts in which I segment the OHC data into smaller subsets and compare them the NINO3.4 SST anomalies, the NAO, and the NPI, which appear to be the dominant factors for the rises in OHC.
Regarding time lags, note the rise in tropical Pacific OHC in 1995 in this graph:
http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png
That rise was caused by the 1995/96 La Nina, which had extraordinarily high trade winds. The higher the trade winds, the less cloud cover. Less cloud cover means more downward shortwave radiation to warm the ocean. The tropical Pacific OHC didn’t lag, or take many years to respond. The response was during the La Nina event, little to no lag.
And here are the three posts I talked about above:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
AND:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html
Regards
Re: http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Uh-oh.
Excerpt (emphasis added):
Tata? As in the (formerly known as) Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI)?
Ah-ha! Oliver K. Manuel is actually a plant from Pachauri sent to spy on us “deniers” and spew disinformation! GET HIM!!
Seriously though, Professor Manuel, how did that short stint come about?
Do the charts compensate for the recent sunspot number inflation that seems to be taking place? I refer to the fact the even sun specks and some plaque get numbers in the past 12 months or so.
Bruce H
Dr. Archibald
Comparing SC4 & 5 to SC23 and predicted SC24 may be somewhat misleading. SC4 lasted some 16+ years, which is not the case with SC23. Further more, a number of reputable solar scientists consider that SC4 contained hidden half-cycle SC4a, but of course this is difficult to prove one way or the other.
Jnssens http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/MSCwebEng.pdf
Usoskin, Mursula : http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/700/2/L154
Dr. Svalgaard occasionally recalls cycles SC 13.
Using annual average it does not tell the entire story.
I have looked into this problem and found no particular importance to it except that there is long term undulation in the amplitude, but again there are also exceptions.
If you really whish to compare two cycles than perhaps you should look into more detail, such as intra-cycle similarity.
SC23 has a canny resemblance to SC20 in more ways than just amplitude and duration:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC7.htm
SC20 was followed by very high SC21, if that analogy is to work, why not also prediction by Dr. Hathaway which predicted high SC24 (possible but not probable).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
Bob Tisdale (08:54:59) :
“…Please show this on the following graph…
http://i50.tinypic.com/30vyigy.png…”
Hi Bob, do you by any chance have a similar graph for earlier periods please, say 200yag to date? The reason for this is that I read somewhere that there was a reasonable correlation between temp. and solar activity up to around 1965, but it’s gone pear-shaped since then? Any info would be useful please.
Tenuc (11:17:00) :
I read somewhere that there was a reasonable correlation between temp. and solar activity up to around 1965, but it’s gone pear-shaped since then?
AGW is to blame, of course. Or perhaps, there really isn’t any correlation. It has happened so often in the past, that people find a promising correlation and go all ga-ga, and then with time, the correlation fails, because it was spurious to begin with.
Tenuc (11:17:00) :
See this from Nicola Scafetta::
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/vwpsw/360796B06E48EA0485257601005982A1#video
Thanks Oliver.
I think I tuned in to WUWT around the time the “Weather station in Shenzhen” was first posted and have been an avid reader ever since. Whilst a lot flies over my head I’ve greatly appreciated the contributions from more knowledgeable folk – even the trolls, I’ve had to go and look up all these new terms !
This helps me greatly to suggest to my kids that they could be reading more widely than just accepting what is shown on the front page of the newspaper.
Whilst I don’t understand a lot of the technical stuff I value greatly the intellectual rigour which is clearly discernible.
I liked particularly the weather station projects as the pictures really put the lie to all the techo spiel – my kids got it. But I’m loving the sunspots – it seems I’m privy to a whole new body of knowledge being developed.
Cheers Jack
PS I do make my kids go and look things up so thanks for your latitude.
Bob Tisdale (08:54:59)
Try this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S1vF1X3GdLI/AAAAAAAAAs0/okk6loUxm_o/s1600-h/Fullscreen+capture+1232010+75750+PM.jpg
from here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
Bob Tisdale (09:10:49) :
“………..Regarding time lags, note the rise in tropical Pacific OHC in 1995……….”
Until the 1940-1980 period has been explained, direct Sunspot effect on the global temps is questionable, unless you introduce 40-50 years lag due to the heath transfer from Pacific to Arctic Ocean via the ocean’s conveyor belt.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Water/images/thermohaline_circulation_conveyor_belt_big.gif
In such a case 1950-1980 cooling would be due to 1890-1930 low activity, and the present 10 year cooling would be due to low SC20 (1965-1975). This unfortunately means that in the near future temperature will be on the up again (giving AGW a welcome boost of confidence) since SC21 & 22 were relatively high.
If that does happen, and the solar activity goes low, up to say 2040, the skeptics are out of ammunition (unless of course someone records and saves this post ?!).
Leif Svalgaard (07:16:52) : Stephan (22:39:23) :I doubt if Leif Svalgaard would agree with the statement “Given some record low monthly averages in the northeast US in the recent summer, and the current cold winter, this cooling is well under way.”
Yeah, it is plain silly to derive global cooling from Hanover, NH temps.
Sure, Dave could have provided more examples… but that’s where the issue reliablility gets blurred.
3342 NOAA ARGO floats worldwide
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/194_8.gif
5 years global cooling
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/194_9.jpg
Plotted data from the ARGO buoys by NOAA’s Willis and Loehle (2009).
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg
Do you label Joe D’Aleo’s work as silly too?
Stephen Wilde (12:50:36) :
Bob Tisdale (08:54:59)
Try this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S1vF1X3GdLI/AAAAAAAAAs0/okk6loUxm_o/s1600-h/Fullscreen+capture+1232010+75750+PM.jpg
from here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
“Saturday, January 23, 2010: Expanding upon the last post, the “sunspot integral” (accumulated departure in sunspots v. the monthly mean of 41.2 for the observational period of sunspots 1610-2009) shows good correlation with the temperature record.”
Nice to see people taking up my ideas, even if they give no credit.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/