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.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote in reply to my comment, “Bob Tisdale (08:54:59) Try this,” and presented me with a graph of the PDO+AMO+an accumulated SunSpots composite.
But your statement was not about the PDO+AMO+an accumulated SunSpots composite. You wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”
Your reply has nothing to do with your statement and my request. Let me try again.
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?
Tenuc: You wrote, “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.”
SST reconstructions only go back to the 1850s, so there’s only160 years. With respect to the other portion of your question, there’s an obsolete TSI reconstruction that was created to help climate scientists explain the rise in global temperatures during the early 20th century. It’s the light gray one identified as Hoyt in the following graph from Leif Svalgaard:
http://s5.tinypic.com/mmuclk.jpg
The current understanding of TSI variability is shown in red, the curve identified as Svalgaard. Its minimums show little change from one cycle to the next. So my guess is, the correlation you recall was based on an obsolete TSI reconstruction.
The graph is from a post titled IPCC 20th Century Simulations Get a Boost from Outdated Solar Forcings:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
It also ran here at WUWT.
Ed Murphy (13:20:33) :
It’s exceedingly difficult to make a convincing case to Congression Budget dept. to fund NASA manned space (and other parts of NASA) when NASA GISS has been playing with a more politically correct version of science.
If NASA is content to have GISS and Robotic Exploration only, who am I to argue?
Vuk etc (13:13:27) : The link you provided to the graphic of the Ocean Conveyor Belt…
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Water/images/thermohaline_circulation_conveyor_belt_big.gif
…is believed to have a cycle length of 1500 years. But if you know of papers that express shorter time periods, please provide links. I’ve looked and can’t find them.
The ocean basin with the greatest multidecadal variability due to thermohaline circulation/meridional overturning circulation is the North Atlantic. This phenomenon expresses itself in the variability in North Atlantic SST anomalies known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and its cycle length is about 60 to 80 years. Here’s a long-term (multiple century) reconstruction of North Atlantic SST from Gray et al (2004) “A tree-ring based reconstruction of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since 1567 A.D.”
http://i47.tinypic.com/ekkhuc.png
Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-index.html
Most shorter-term representations of the AMO are represented by detrended North Atlantic SST anomalies:
http://i40.tinypic.com/2uqlw28.jpg
Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation.html
Regards
ya i don’t think that this stark rise in sunspots will last all too long, it’ll probably level off at around 40. so a weak cycle but hopefully we will see so big storms out of it at least one or two. cause i live in Houston tx so ive only seen the aurora once. that was way back in 2003 so be hopeful…..please.
Bob Tisdale (13:59:18)
Well we have the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum et al with lower levels of solar activity and colder temperatures and according to ships logs the mid latitude storm tracks were nearer the equator at those times which in my view is a ‘fingerprint’ of cooler ocean surfaces.
Then there is that source which said the ITCZ was nearer the equator during the LIA:
http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/07/06/itcz-moved-southward-from-the-medieval-warm-period-to-the-little-ice-age/
and now it has moved northward again:
http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/07/06/itcz-moved-southward-from-the-medieval-warm-period-to-the-little-ice-age/
It is well established that a warmer world is associated with more poleward tracks of weather systems so a cooler world would have more equatorward tracks.
Now if you could show me a period of time when the ocean surfaces warmed yet the jets moved equatorward then I might concede that you have a point.
Can you do that ?
The fact is that during the current interglacial all the evidence available is that cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity all occur at the same time.
That gives us the question as to whether or not that is circumnstantial or evidence of a direct causative correlation between all three variables or any two of them.
On the basis of what Leif says about the smallness of solar variability I suspect circumnstantial at the moment.
Perhaps your detailed knowledge is causing you to dismiss broader perspectives unwisely ?
Whoops, this should have been my second link.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/07/itcz-has-been-moving-northward-since.html
Bob Tisdale (14:22:29) :
“Vuk etc (13:13:27) : The link you provided to the graphic of the Ocean Conveyor Belt…
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Water/images/thermohaline_circulation_conveyor_belt_big.gif
…is believed to have a cycle length of 1500 years. But if you know of papers that express shorter time periods, please provide links. I’ve looked and can’t find them.”
Yes, I have seen figure of 1590 years (or 2mm/sec), strikes me as extremely slow (normal thermal conductivity would be higher than that).
However, I was also looking at the Gulf Stream’s surface velocity quoted at 2m/s, while below 1000m depth less then 10cm/sec, lets assume 7cm/sec =70mm/sec or 35 times faster, i.e. 1600/35 gives ~ 45 years.
http://kingfish.coastal.edu/gulfstream/p2a.htm
Of course all just a guesswork, and my post was written with a bit of a lighthearted attitude (hence Vuk etc instead of usual vukcevic).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
Gail Combs (06:23:33)
I was referring to reinterpretations of reconstructions of past TSI fluctuations using proxy data. There is some discussion of this here –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/18/scafetta-on-tsi-and-surface-temperature/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/13/scafetta-paper-increasing-tsi-between-1980-and-2000-could-have-contributed-significantly-to-global-warming-during-the-last-three-decades/
It seems to me that there has been much work post 1980 that could use a thorough review after the AGW hoax dies down. Someone posted an analysis of the politics behind some of the recent papers in solar science on WUWT last year, which I can no longer find. Maybe another reader could point to this.
Stephen Wilde: Regarding your 14:49:55 reply. You began with, “Well we have the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum et al with lower levels of solar activity and colder temperatures…”
Your statement upon which I based my request had nothing to do with the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum. You specifically used the word “currently”. I don’t believe any bloggers here at WUWT (other then yourself) would accept your interpretation of “currently” to represent the late 1600s to the early 1700s or the late 1700s to early 1800s.
Then you shifted topics to the ITCZ. Wrong subject.
Third try…
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…”
I replied, 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
I continued, Would you like me to remove the effects of the volcanic eruptions and the linear effects of ENSO to see if that helps?
Ed Murphy (13:20:33) :
Do you label Joe D’Aleo’s work as silly too?
The silliness comes in by postulating a 2 degree change based on Hanover, NH.
astonerii (22:07:03) :
Why does solar cycle 5 look so smooth in the first graph and solar cycle 24 looks jagged?
Solar Cycle 5 is smoothed and 24 is too short to smooth yet. 24 also has a steep trajectory at the moment.
Alexander Feht (23:10:21) :
Green corona brightness tells us that solar maximum will be in 2015. I expect a fairly symmetrical cycle with the 24/25 minimum in 2021.
John Whitman (23:39:46) :
Very high confidence.
Ed Murphy (00:14:15) :
Thanks for the reference to the Raspopov paper. A de Vries cycle cooling is due right now, given that the last one was the Dalton Minimum 210 years ago.
John Finn (00:25:28) :
The mid-latitudes, say 40 degrees north and south, will have a two degree fall, reducing towards the equator.
Armagh will have a 1.4 degree fall, based on Butler and Johnson 1996, figure 5. I recommend you look in that paper for a discussion of methodology.
Rhys Jaggar (02:14:02) :
It works everywhere. The northeast US is where the US has its longest temperature records.
Gary Palmgren (03:15:09) :
It now being one year from solar minimum, the Ap should be bottoming out and Oulu neutron count topping out.
Patrick Davis (03:27:07) :
What it means for the layman is 24 years of colder weather. I expect mid-latitude agricultural production to be severely affected with higher prices as a consequence, as per Herschel’s observation two hundred years ago.
rbateman (03:36:47) :
Bear in mind that solar polar magnetic field strength started declining in 1980.
Leonard Weinstein (05:02:08)
Excel chose it.
vukcevic (10:22:03)
No, Solar Cycle 4 was 13.6 years long.
Ed Murphy (13:20:33) :
There are two other good stations in the northeast US that show a correlation. One is Providence, Rhode Island. Other than those, there are no records that I have found that are long enough.
David Archibald
applying Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to the temperature record of Hanover…
Apart from the poor/invalid data analysis by F-C&L anybody can by inspection see that their ‘theory’ does not hold water:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
Bob Tisdale (08:54:59) :
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
Bob,
You’d have a different perspective if you’d look at the first differences of the data. Check this out:
http://i47.tinypic.com/kasavo.jpg
The rate of change in SSN’s bottomed out in 2004, and has been rising since then. The current decadal cycle in global temperatures bottomed out in late 2006, and since the La Nina of 2007 has been on a ascending track. These decadal cycles are ~9-11 years in length. On that basis, and depending on whether we count the last peak as having occurred in 1998 or in 2002, the current warming phase in global temperature should peak within the next 12-36 months.
The data in the image above supports what Stephen said. But it depends on getting people to think in terms of rates of change, not absolute values (anomalies or otherwise). Yes, SSN’s are still low. But the rate of change in SSN’s is rising rapidly.
If I have your attention, I’d invite you to look at this paper by Trenberth and Caron (2001)
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=014&issue=16&page=3433
In the abstract, they conclude:
“At 35° latitude, at which the peak total poleward transport in each hemisphere occurs, the atmospheric transport accounts for 78% of the total in the Northern Hemisphere and 92% in the Southern Hemisphere. In general, a much greater portion of the required poleward transport is contributed by the atmosphere than the ocean, as compared with previous estimates.”
How do you see this influencing your view that natural climate variability is dominated by ocean influences?
I once made the comment that the influence of atmospheric processes was 1.5x more significant than ocean currents, and you asked for a source (as I recall). That was based on a “conventional” 60/40 split. This paper is saying that it is more like 3/1 in the NH, and 12/1 in the SH.
I do not doubt that the variability in climate begins in the tropics, where solar insolation is greatest. But atmospheric processes play the greater role in distributing this energy poleward, and for this reason I think Stephen is probably on the right track in pointing to the latitudinal position (and direction, meridional vs. zonal) of the jet stream as the dominant factor in decadal variations in climate (temperature).
Basil
Interesting. I noted on the Dutch news yesterday that a number of (Dutch) scientists have reviewed their previous AGW report and now believe AGW c/would (could or would – I cannot remember) be delayed as less radiation is coming from the sun due to lower solar activity. (This is my translation of what the news reader said). A picture of the life sun was shown during this read…
I suspect that this will be the general way out for org’s and governments to explain global cooling without getting too much eggs on their face and without damaging all those investments in green. I even think our pensions may depend a lot on the general lies of AGW to continue….
This is what really makes this story of AGW the hottest hoax of the world. It is unbelievable. Even those of us who know the truth may have to compromise on our findings just for the sake of safeguarding our own financial future.
Basil (18:42:35) :I do not doubt that the variability in climate begins in the tropics, where solar insolation is greatest. But atmospheric processes play the greater role in distributing this energy poleward,
Would you say this is true due to the relative speed of atmospheric transport, relative to the ocean current speed. Due to the difference in mass, I’m having trouble imagining a mechanism that would work.
Evans (01:14:58) wrote: “…Maybe, I’m missing something, here, but I haven’t noticed a plethora of Sunspots or a large jump in magnetic flux…”
JonesII (07:42:31) responded: “As vukcevic (00:05:17) explains maximum seem to be nearer, however little as compared with previous cycles.”
I’m not much for predictions when it comes what the Sun is going to do — it seems a bit of a crap shoot — but if the Sun is nearing a “maximum”, I hate to think what the next minimum is going to look like.
Burrrr…
Bob Tisdale (17:03:20)
Third try at getting you to understand 🙂
By ‘currently’ I mean during the existing interglacial and overall on average not a specific moment of time such as a single day or even a single year.
Generally overall we do see low levels of solar activity at the same time as the ocean surfaces are cool and vice versa.
The ocean surfaces from 2005 to 2009 have been releasing energy less fast than from 1998 to 2005 yet the ocean heat content has failed to increase. That clearly violates my ideas and also yours because you see a reduced rate of energy release as a period of energy recharge for the oceans. Thus I suggest that the reason for that discrepancy would be the weak sun and/or increased albedo from more cloudiness.
I don’t see your problem with that proposal since it helps to retain the value of your concepts as well as mine in the face of what looks like contrary evidence namely a reduction of ocean heat content simultaneously with a slowing of the rate of energy release from the oceans.
As I suggested, your perspective is far too narrow.
When I read the work of others I try to get behind what they are trying to say because a single error or unclear wording within a submission is not an indication that the whole submission is wrong. A lawyer learns that very early on.
You seem to seize on a single comment that you may not agree with or which you do not like or maybe that you have not fully understood in the more general context and then fire off with both barrels.
David suggests that SC24 is in acceleration mode compared with SC5. But I have to ask the question – has he aligned the two cycles correctly? If we are to refer to his graph, the alignment of the two cycles is based on matching the minimum of SC22/SC23 and SC3/SC4. May I suggest that it would be better to align the minimum of SC23/SC24 and SC4/SC5?
Basil (18:42:35)
Yes it’s down to relative rates of energy transfer between different layers of the Earth system with the troposphere sandwiched in the middle being pulled and pushed this way and that way.
In the short term the air circulations in the troposphere carry most of the energy poleward but the long slow ocean movements set up the background trend against which the air circulation systems have to react.
The heart of the problem is not the planet’s radiative balance as a whole but the radiative balance between individual layered components of the Earth system.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the rate of energy transfer varies all the time between ocean and air, air and space and between different layers in the oceans and air.
That is what we need to get a grip on to diagnose changes in the energy content of the troposphere.
The observed climate is just the equilibrium response to such variations with the positions of the air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle always adjusting to bring energy variations above and below the troposphere back towards equilibrium (Wilde’s Law ?)
Sorry meant earth around 5 billion years? had a couple of beers LOL
So far concerning the current situation Leif Svaalgard has not been accurate…the sun’s lack of sunspots/activity is correlating with lower temps and freezing conditions in NH and SH especially in winter, both in 08, 09 and so far 2010. Of course it may mean nothing just a coincidence. That famous graph sunspot v temps would seems to be reverting to high correlation significance?
Actually everything (temps, sun activity, cosmic ray theory etc, precipitation, clouds) that’s been happening with climate/weather for the past 3 years supports D. Archibalds previous statements and do not support Svalgaards….. (ie sun activity has no influence on climate or is this right? (his view)). Again this may be just coincidence, and Svalgaard may be correct. I predict that the NH and SH winters are going to get colder and colder for the next 3-30 years as the sun minima effect from the last 3 years kicks in further over time. Its hard to discern an effect on Summers both in NH and SH I must say.
I have a question: Given where the current spots are traveling across the sun, how far into this solar cycle are we? I may be misunderstanding, but if spots get closer to the equator region of the sun later in the cycle, are starting the cycle now? or are we mid cycle? .. I hope that made sence.
Leif Svalgaard (18:24:52) :
Apart from the poor/invalid data analysis by F-C&L anybody can by inspection see that their ‘theory’ does not hold water:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
I don’t think you’re using the ‘correct’ filter, Leif 🙂
Though I am surprised David is employing the F-C & L calculation as I seemed to think, from his earlier ‘work’, that he favoured the Butler et al method which was used with the Armagh data. This simply plotted the 11 year mean temperatures centred on the years of solar max and solar min. I’m fairly sure it was from this method that David gave us his predictions for a 2 deg decline in temperatures in “a few short years”.
The problem (for David) might be that we have at least 5 years data for the SC23 solar min year temperature and, since around 4 of the last 6 years have been the warmest on record for Armagh, his enthusiasm for the Butler method have been dampened somewhat.