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.
The Butler and Johnson 1996 paper on the Armagh record is now available on Icecap:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ButlerandJohnsonArmagh1996seefig5.pdf
Stephen Wilde: Let’s drop back to your comment to Basil, in which you wrote about me, not to me. You wrote, “In my cautious opinion Bob appears to lack a way of integrating his ENSO work into a more comprehensive global climate overview.”
I know I’ve provided these three links to you on at least one occasion, but let me try again:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html
and
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
and
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html
If you were to read and comprehend what is written in those three posts, and in the papers and addition posts linked to them, you would find that I do not “lack a way of integrating his ENSO work into a more comprehensive global climate overview.” Much of the content of those posts and in my numerous posts about the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events are discussions about the impacts of ENSO outside of the tropical Pacific.
In other words, your “cautious opinion” is contradicted by my writings.
Bob,
In my humble opinion your multiyear after effects don’t cut it.
The energy flow into the oceans from the sun and out of the oceans to the air both seem to be variable.
The energy flow from sea surface to tropopause seems to be variable.
The energy flow from stratosphere upwards to space seems to be variable.
You are analysing merely the filling in the sandwich namely from ocean surface to tropopause.
This is an honest opinion with no desire to annoy you but it is how I see it.
anna v (12:56:31) :
Nevertheless, I would be interested to see a world temperature anomaly versus length of previous cycle
That information is in my plot already. In response, I also put the correlations with the ‘prior’ cycle length on the second plot. No correlations, as you can see: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
vukcevic (13:57:47) :
Actually, I felt it. Very fast/short motion in 3 descending waves.
tata (13:22:44) :
Where has it been the hottest to offset a very cold NH winter on land, to produce the warmest January ever??
Re: Leif Svalgaard (Feb 4 17:56),
thanks.
Re: rbateman (Feb 4 19:02),
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Those southern waters, Green land waters and Alaska 🙂
How can anybody call this non-peer reviewed? 🙂
I do not think there is a meaning in averaging the global temperature because it is the energy that is important, and the energy from temperature transformation is not linear, goes like c*T^4 where c depends on the material, has a spectrum dependence and can vary from the black body constant by as much as 25% . In addition the surfaces of the earth are fractal, so simple geometric integration is out.
Ditto for averaging anomalies and then deriving energy balances from these averages.
There is a meaning in local temperatures, if the gray constant does not change, because they can be translated to heat measures for that specific location.
I accept that Leif has shown that the correlation of sun cycle length with global temperature anomalies is non existent. Nevertheless there exist local plots that show some correlation.
It is easy to lose a correlation seen in localized data in averaging over the globe. Let me give a simple example, ( I am not pushing it as dogma 🙂 )
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
The study finds that in summer when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little plants. UV light also gives sunburn to humans.
The plankton try to protect themselves by producing a chemical compound called DMSP, which some scientists believe helps strengthen the plankton’s cell walls. This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and changes into another substance called DMS.
DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it breaks down again to form tiny dust-like particles. These tiny particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean that less direct light reaches the ocean surface. This relieves the stress put on plankton by the Sun’s harmful UV rays.
Now if we average clouds over the year( when it is summer in the north it is winter in the south and vice versa) this effect will disappear in the multiplicity of factors that make clouds and will not be seen as an effect of plankton.
We do not have such a long and clear record of the albedo to be able to talk of correlations with sun cycles at the moment. What is more to the point is that the albedo generation system is also chaotic, a lot of interdependent factors add up to create the albedo so one should never really expect a one to one correlation for any input, and certainly not on values averaged over the globe.
Nice info from NASA on the Solar Dynamics Observatory: The ‘Variable Sun’ Mission
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm?list26348
anna v (00:40:12) :
I agree with some of points raised:
– global temperature averaging is misleading.
– any correlation should be looked for in the regional temperature records.
– some years ago I wrote that the world oceans are possibly largest constant producers and absorbers of CO2 (volcanoes are only irregular blips). Phytoplankton plays major role, and its reaction to the solar radiation could be a significant factor. Regular rise and fall in the CO2 levels trough eons has a periodicity pattern and it is possible that could be linked to the solar periodicity.
anna v (00:40:12) :
What is more to the point is that the albedo generation system is also chaotic, a lot of interdependent factors add up to create the albedo so one should never really expect a one to one correlation for any input, and certainly not on values averaged over the globe.
We measure the albedo by looking at Earthshine on the Moon. Now if it doesn’t make sense to compute a global temperature or albedo, that will make the Svensmark cosmic ray theory non-falsifiable as it posits a connection chain like this: GCR=>clouds=>albedo=>temp
A direct test of the GCR theory has recently been carried out http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL041327.pdf
“[1] Currently a cosmic ray cloud connection (CRC) hypothesis is subject of an intense controversial debate. It postulates that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) intruding the Earth’s atmosphere influence cloud cover. If correct it would have important consequences for our understanding of climate driving processes. Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC‐hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so‐called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no
response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any
altitude and latitude.”
But perhaps ‘global cloud cover’ is also meaningless 🙂
I would define global properties as the integral over the globe divided by the surface area. And this can always be done.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (Feb 5 06:40),
We measure the albedo by looking at Earthshine on the Moon.
Yes, but for very few cycles.
Now if it doesn’t make sense to compute a global temperature or albedo, that will make the Svensmark cosmic ray theory non-falsifiable as it posits a connection chain like this: GCR=>clouds=>albedo=>temp
I am not saying that it makes no sense to compute a global energy flux per m^2. Energy is what is conserved and of course it can be averaged. So of course the GCR hypothesis can be falsified if there is no change in the albedo.
Albedo impacts on energy and if it is averaged over the globe by earthshine then that would be an ok global measure. I was thinking from the down side on cloud creation in general where many processes enter.
I will read the reference and see if I understand it :).
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “In my humble opinion your multiyear after effects don’t cut it.”
Which is fine, Stephen, because once again your opinions contradict the instrument temperature record evidence.
Stephen: You wrote, “You are analysing merely the filling in the sandwich namely from ocean surface to tropopause.”
Then apparently you’ve missed reading the numerous posts with the discussions about ENSO-induced variations in tropical Pacific cloud amount that cause changes in Downward Shortwave Radiation. You’ve missed the discussions of how La Nina events not only recharge the tropical Pacific OHC, but also redistribute the warm water released from the Pacific Warm Pool by El Nino events. You’ve missed the discussions of how ENSO-induced changes in Hadley Circulation, Walker Circulation, wind stress, etc., change surface temperatures remote to the tropical Pacific. Apparently you’ve missed a lot.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/solar_cycle_24_update/
ICECAP posted Dave Archibald’s sc24 update and added a fair bit to it…
As a home project, I have plotted all post-1700 sunspot cycles together and aligning them all with the start of cycle-23. On this basis, the post-Dalton cycle-9 to cycle-10 transition in 1856 seems to match the current cycle-23 to cycle-24 transition data fairly well also.
Leif Svalgaard (06:40:56) :
You use Earthshine upon the Moon to determine albedo, but how do you account for massive artificial light emanating from billions of streetslights?
Are you only checking the Moon during New Moon events?
I can tell you that Earthshine used to be a phenomenon best viewed within 2 days of New Moon. That was 30-40 years ago. Today, you can clearly make out the major features on the un-sunlit side of the moon well past 1st Quarter (& before 3rd Quarter).
That has to be a complication.
rbateman (06:59:47) :
Are you only checking the Moon during New Moon events?
Here is how it is done:
http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Qiu_etal_JGR_2003.pdf
See Figure 1. There is very little energy input from the nightside, as the dayside completely overwhelms the street lights. And the measurements are taken preferably as close to Full-Earth [seen from the Moon] as possible.
Bob Tisdale
All the phenomena you list relate to events from ocean surface to tropopause so my comment was correct.
My ‘opinions’ fit the long term historical temperature records rather well. That would be because I started with the observations and formed a scenario to fit.
A large proportion of the historical record involves a 1000 year cycling from Roman Warm Period to Dark Ages to MWP to LIA to Modern Maximum. Then there is the 60 year oceanic cycling (can you suggest a term for that, other than PDO ? ). Then the interannual ENSO phenomena.
There is planty of chaotic variability within the system to disrupt correlations on multidecadal or even century time scales but any climate description has to be capable of accommodating those longer term 500 / 1000 year cycles and preferably also the large discrepancy between ice age climate instability and interglacial relative climate stability.
As I say, your perspective is too short and limited to the ‘sandwich filling’ from sea surface to tropopause.
Quote: Simon Filiatrault (04:02:12) :
“Nice info from NASA on the Solar Dynamics Observatory: The ‘Variable Sun’ Mission”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm?list26348
Yes, Simon, cold weather and snow have remarkably improved common sense at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), NASA Headquarters, NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center, and the University of Colorado.
From NASA Headquarters: “The sun,” explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, “is a variable star.”
From NRL: “Understanding solar variability is crucial,” says space scientist Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC. “Our modern way of life depends upon it.”
From NRL: “‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises an falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
From NAS: According to a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences, a century-class solar storm could cause twenty times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina.
From Boulder, CO: “If human eyes could see EUV wavelengths, no one would doubt that the sun is a variable star,” says Tom Woods of the University of Colorado in Boulder.
From Goddard Spaceflight Center: “Understanding the inner workings of the solar dynamo has long been a ‘holy grail’ of solar physics,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.
Leif may be left alone defending the obsolete dogma of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.
Now DOE (Department of Energy) scientists need to get involved and admit or deny that neutron repulsion is the energy source that powers the Sun and generates the cycles of solar magnetic activity that are empirically linked with changes in Earth’s climate.
I am grateful to the weather, to Anthony Watts and to everyone here for encouraging NAS, NASA, and NRL to re-examine old dogmas. It would be great if we could also get DOE scientists to reconsider their dogma about N-N interactions.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Oliver K. Manuel (12:48:48) :
Lika Guhathakurta
Judith Lean
Tom Woods
Dean Pesnell
…
Leif may be left alone defending the obsolete dogma of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.
I know that everyone you ‘quote’ knows that the Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.
Now DOE (Department of Energy) scientists need to get involved and admit or deny that neutron repulsion is the energy source
This has been denied by the all correctly interpreted evidence for the past 70 years, so the DOE doesn’t feel any pressing need to walk over that old ground.
Good luck, Leif.
May you not be the last one on the sinking ship!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “My ‘opinions’ fit the long term historical temperature records rather well. That would be because I started with the observations and formed a scenario to fit.”
As repreatedly illustrated, your opinions contradict the historic instrument record.
You wrote, “A large proportion of the historical record involves a 1000 year cycling from Roman Warm Period to Dark Ages to MWP to LIA to Modern Maximum.”
The posts, my posts, that you dispute explain the warming over the past 30 years, and they discuss multiyear processes of a few individual ENSO events, but now you, somehow, attempt to introduce “1000 year cycling” to those discussions.
You wrote, “As I say, your perspective is too short and limited to the ’sandwich filling’ from sea surface to tropopause.”
And your need to redirect from the topics at hand is telling.