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 replied, “As I suggested, your perspective is far too narrow.”
And your failure to illustrate your previous claim with the simple graph I provided you is telling.
You wrote, “Generally overall we do see low levels of solar activity at the same time as the ocean surfaces are cool and vice versa.”
And I have asked you repeatedly to use the graph I provided to back your claim. You don’t. If the data verified what you’ve written, you would have used that graph and discussed the rises and fall of global SST anomalies in response to the variations in solar activity.
You replied, “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.”
I suggest you return to my posts on ENSO and find where I have written that I see “a reduced rate of energy release as a period of energy recharge for the oceans.” Please find the post, because any discussion of energy discharge and recharge would be limited to the tropical Pacific Ocean, not “the oceans” in general, and would have been limited to discharge during El Nino events and recharge during La Nina events. Outside of the tropics, my writings are discussions of SST responding to ENSO-induced changes in atmospheric circulation, or to the ENSO-induced redistribution of warm waters by ocean currents, or, specific to the North Atlantic, in response to the AMO.
And just in case you believe that the tropical Pacific OHC responds to the solar cycle, I’ll put that to rest also. A blogger at my website commented that rises in tropical Pacific OHC occurred at solar maximums. This was not supported by data, so I replied, I’ve added scaled sunspot numbers to the graph of Tropical Pacific OHC vs NINO3.4 vs Sato Index data:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2dugxop.png
The anomalous rise in OHC that occurred in 1995 happened at the solar minimum between SS#22 and SS#23. The biggest factor in that rise was the strengthening of the trade winds above normal levels for the size of the La Nina. Refer to discussion under the heading of IS THERE EVIDENCE OF AN IMPACT OF ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE GASES ON THE RECHARGE MODE OF ENSO?
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
You concluded your comment above, Stephen, with, “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.”
I respond to comments that contradict data–in other words, that are factually wrong. You wrote in full, “So the question arises as to whether the phasing of high solar activity with warmer tropospheric temperatures is simply a coincidence as I think Leif would contend whilst the true climate driver is in fact the oceans which currently vary the rate of release of energy approximately in phase with solar activity levels e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active and that tends to give the possibly false impression of a causative correlation between solar activity levels and tropospheric temperatures.”
So if you feel I took your statement out of context, you could pull up some graphs from somewhere and detail the claims you’ve made. If you can illustrate parts of that paragraph, that’s fine, but the portion I responded to has no basis in fact. If it had, you would have used the graph I provided you and ended the discussion.
Stephen, this is not the first time you’ve made comments that contradict the instrument temperature record. On the “NODC revises ocean heat content data – it’s now dropping slightly” thread, just days ago, you wrote, “Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.” It’s tough to take that out of context. It is simply wrong. Average Global SST anomalies from 1979 to 2003 were significantly less than they are today. SST anomalies have risen over the past thirty years, which is one of the reasons this blog exists.
FYI, I don’t search for your comments. In fact, I scroll upwards from the bottom looking for replies to me or for questions directed toward me, so, most times, I have no idea who has written a specific comment until I reply.
Basil: You asked with respect to Trenberth and Caron (2001), “How do you see this influencing your view that natural climate variability is dominated by ocean influences?”
First, thanks for the link. I don’t find any conflict. It agrees with and confirms my past discussions that El Nino events are the means by which the earth redistributes heat from the tropics to the poles. And I would also have to say that it confirms my presentations that ENSO-induced changes in atmospheric circulation cause rises and falls in temperature outside of the tropical Pacific.
You wrote, “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).”
I believe the papers/news articles/press releases Stephen presents to confirm the latitudinal variability of the jet stream indicate the poleward movement of the jet stream is a response to warming of the tropics.
Basil, you know as well as I do that climate reasponds to a multitude of coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, so attempting to isolate one from the other is complex and most likely futile. But the second most dominent natural cause of year-to-year variations in global temperatures is ENSO, ( first place goes to volcanic aerosols which can and do overwhelm ENSO events) and as my posts indicate, there are multiyear aftereffects of strong ENSO events which influence decadal changes in global temperature.
Good to hear from you, Basil. Been a while.
Basil: You wrote, “You’d have a different perspective if you’d look at the first differences of the data. Check this out,” and provided this link:
http://i47.tinypic.com/kasavo.jpg
Do you have link to the source of the graph?
Regards
Leif Svalgaard (18:24:52) :
“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”
There is a reasonable correlation between temperature anomaly (CET 1700-1900, GT 1900-2000) and the Geomagnetic field at the location of its highest intensity in the Northern hemisphere.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC8.htm
The transfer mechanism (if does exist) is as yet unknown; ergo applying the strict science standards, it counts for very little.
jinki (01:02:08) :
Good point. That might be the thing to do when we revisit this in a years time or so.
Bob,
I put the graph together myself last night.
In the upper two panels are SSN data. In the lower two panels are monthly HadCRUT3 global temperature anomalies. Left panels are the “raw” monthly numbers, seasonally differenced, i.e. the value for any given month, less the value 12 months earlier. Seasonal differencing is a way of tracking what is happening to annual rates of time on a monthly basis. The right panels are smooths, using Hodrick-Prescott smoothing. For a longer view, the two smooths plotted together look like this:
http://i50.tinypic.com/331hj69.jpg
I think this shows a connection between cyclical variation in global temperature, and the sunspot cycle. But there are issues with it, in that there are phase shifts (and more if you go back prior to 1950). But I think that there is a ready explanation for the phase shifts, in that the global temperature cycles are influenced by the lunar nodal cycle. In a nutshell — and I do not think there is any great disagreement with our POV in this — the amplitude of the cycles originates (is “caused” by) the solar cycle, but the frequency is the result of a complex interaction between the solar cycle and the lunar nodal cycle. If you look carefully at the left axis in the latest image, you’ll see that the variation in rate of change of global temperature over these cycles is of an order of magnitude that Leif has said could be attributed to variation in solar irradiance: just eyeballing the graph to estimate the average peak and trough of the blue line, I put the average peak to trough at ~0.05C, and I believe Leif’s theoretically derived estimate is 0.07C.
How’s this for a theory? Variation in solar insolation over the course of a solar cycle, in the tropics, “seeds” a cyclical process that is further modulated by the lunar nodal cycle. ENSO is the result. You can then have ENSO doing its various teleconnections to other parts of the globe, and whatever else takes place to distribute the variation in energy poleward, creating various natural climate cycles. Even if ENSO is a proximate cause for other various teleconnections and natural climate variation, you are still lacking a specific cause for ENSO. I think that the luni-solar influence could provide that specific cause.
Basil
tallbloke (13:23:06) :
Ah, so it’s your idea that energy is accumulation of power 🙂
Basil (04:54:51) :
I put the average peak to trough at ~0.05C, and I believe Leif’s theoretically derived estimate is 0.07C.
There MUST be, and is, such a variation of about that magnitude.
Basil,
Lunar is all you need
http://virakkraft.com/moon-volcano-temp.png
http://virakkraft.com/uah-rss-moon.png
Basil (04:54:51)
I agree with that. Not sure about the scale of the lunar aspect as a forcing agent but open to persuasion so I’ll read up on it. I’ve deliberately left the oceanic side of things a bit vague at this stage tending to just refer to the thermohaline circulation but lunar movements could have an impact on that.
In my cautious opinion Bob appears to lack a way of integrating his ENSO work into a more comprehensive global climate overview.
The ENSO phenomenon is just a staging post in the constant flow of energy from sun to sea to air then to space. There is variability in the rate of flow and the timing of variations at every stage not just in the ENSO phenomenon.
Until he can accommodate that into his ideas he will not ‘get’ what I say and we will continue to generate confusion.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, speaking about me, not to me, “Until he can accommodate that into his ideas he will not ‘get’ what I say and we will continue to generate confusion.”
I understand precisely what you write. It’s very difficult to misinterpret when you write something as factually wrong as, “Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.”
Leif Svalgaard (18:24:52) : | Reply w/ Link
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
Hi Leif
I have the impression that in the plot above it is the anomaly of the following cycle that is being displayed. If I am not wrong, do you keep the same convention in your plots? Do you have anything written to accompany them?
anna
Basil: Thanks for your explanation of how you created the graphs. I asked for the source because I’ve plotted the monthly change in sunspot numbers and the monthly change in global SST anomalies in the past (without the seasonal difference). I’ve never posted them because they illustrated little to no correlation:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2v9oehj.png
The dominant factor is, of course, ENSO, illustrated in a comparison of monthly changes in global SST anomalies versus scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2d144ux.png
With respect to the seasonal difference you use, I assume that you’re applying this to the temperature data, but not the sunspot data. Is this correct?
Regards
The Euros must be deeply confused. Either Wallace’s Farmer or Farm Journal was hoping that ethanol production could be ramped up to 8% from 6% of the corn crop. That is a lot less than 1/3.
Meanwhile in Iowa there is a lawsuit by a town against a grain elevator due to the hill of corn rotting beside it. This is common throughout the midwest.
anna v (08:53:26) :
….
Hi Leif
I have the impression that in the plot above it is the anomaly of the following cycle that is being displayed. If I am not wrong, do you keep the same convention in your plots? Do you have anything written to accompany them?
anna
Ok, Anna – solar cycle 20 ended in 1976. It lasted 11.5-12 years.
1. Which data point corresponds to the temperature reading for that cycle? 2. What data was used to determine the temperatures?
3. How was the temperature calculated, i.e. is it the mean of the following cycle or something different?
Basil: A note about the “seasonal adjustment” you used. I just compared the monthly change versus your method that has been “seasonally differenced, i.e. the value for any given month, less the value 12 months earlier”. It does not change the shape of the curves, just the amplitude. It also creates a 12-month lag, but that’s minor. In order to get the same amplitude from the two curves, I had to scale the “seasonally adjusted” data by a factor of 0.08333. Here’s the comparison:
http://i50.tinypic.com/ru8mz4.png
So the seasonal adjustment really only smoothes out the monthly change data and amplifies it. It also adds a bit of confusion to the subject, unless you show that it really does not change the basic curve.
And with respect to the graph you provided…
http://i50.tinypic.com/331hj69.jpg
…you offered an explanation for the phase shifts, in other words, for the lack of correlation. An alternate explanation that’s just as plausible is that there is no direct cause and effect.
Regards
anna v (08:53:26) :
Do you have anything written to accompany them?
I have explained this plot many times. One more time:
1. you can define the length of a solar cycle two ways: from max to max or from min to min. The blue curves show those lengths with a symbol plotted halfway between max and max and min and min.
2. the pink curves shows the average temp anomaly [HADCRU..] over the cycles, again plotted halfway.
3. the scatter plot below the first Figure shows how the pink points correlate with the blue points [pink open circles]. The square of the correlation coefficient is R^2 = 0.0324, thus NO correlation.
4. One might argue that the correlation is obscured by the clear upwards trend in dT (dashed pink line) [although that upwards trend was the point of F-C&L], and that a clear correlation would emerge if one removed the trend, so the green diamonds in the first Figure is the blue points minus the trend.
5. The second Figure shows that the green points [green filled circles] are very weakly correlated [R^2 = 0.2041] with the cycle length. With so few data points a R^2 of 0.2 is not considered significant, but is one absolutely wants to attach significance to it [people here peddle all kinds of dubious correlations, so why not this on 🙂 ], the correlation is positive, i.e. longer cycles are warmer than shorter cycles.
6. In my opinion the whole thing is not substantiated. On top of that F-C&L used a 5-point smooth, so it is impossible to say what the value of the length of ‘cycle 23’ to use in their ‘relationship’ would be for cycles until after cycle 25, or for SC24 until after cycle 26. So to say that because SC23 was long, it follows that temps must be cool the past cycle or now is plain nonsense if it would be based on F-C&L.
pkatt (02:56:12) :
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.
Yes, you make sense.
Has the butterfly diagram on this page enough data to answer your question?
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/DPD/index.html
Bob, would you please stop repeating a comment which I made in relation to which I have already admitted a slip. I accepted in an earlier post that I had not realised how much higher the SSTs were in the years 1998 to 2005 as against the build up to the peak that occurred from 1979.
I have already pointed out that I should have referred to the average size of the SST anomalies between 1998 and 2005 as against the period 2005 to 2009.
On the basis of that comparison my initial assertion was correct. The latter period was clearly one of reduced rate of energy loss from the oceans as compared to the former period.
We should take a cue from King Canute, and instead of commanding the tides to obey us (or Algore) instead command the sun to obey, and the earth climate to stop varying.
Wait, i know…. more taxes can do that if we just send them to the IPCC. Sorry for the oversight. My bad.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (Feb 4 11:26),
Thanks
longer cycles are warmer than shorter cycles.
I thought that the conclusion from the Hanover NH plot is that a longer cycle is a precursor for having a colder cycle next.
The only reason I am intrigued by this datum is that if the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis holds then this would be the expected result: a longer period with high albedo therefore a cooler next cycle.
6. In my opinion the whole thing is not substantiated. On top of that F-C&L used a 5-point smooth, so it is impossible to say what the value of the length of ‘cycle 23′ to use in their ‘relationship’ would be for cycles until after cycle 25, or for SC24 until after cycle 26. So to say that because SC23 was long, it follows that temps must be cool the past cycle or now is plain nonsense if it would be based on F-C&L.
I can see that the smoothing by F-C&L would obscure any issue.
Nevertheless, I would be interested to see a world temperature anomaly versus length of previous cycle, testing on the hypothesis that longer cycles mean higher albedo ( not necessarily only galactic, I have been intrigued by the plankton-UV-cloud connection too).
Anybody out there feel the 6.0 shaker 35 mi off the Eureka, Ca coast?
That’s 2 in the last month.
Seismic/Tectonic frequency of occurence/level of magnitude is increased in times of low solar activity.
Any theories?
It’s still pretty warm though, even if the solar irradiance is low. This january is the hottest recorded, according to RSS, 0.64 degree celcius above the normal:
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt
anna v (12:56:31) :
“longer cycles are warmer than shorter cycles.”
I thought that the conclusion from the Hanover NH plot is that a longer cycle is a precursor for having a colder cycle next.
What I’m pointing out is that Hanover NH is anomalous and the that global dT [if you think there is such a thing – I do] data shows otherwise.
The only reason I am intrigued by this datum is that if the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis holds then this would be the expected result: a longer period with high albedo therefore a cooler next cycle.
But actual measurements of the albedo shows that it does not correlate with the solar cycle.
Nevertheless, I would be interested to see a world temperature anomaly versus length of previous cycle
That information is in my plot already.
rbateman (12:59:39) :
Anybody out there feel the 6.0 shaker 35 mi off the Eureka, Ca coast?
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/nc71348851.php