Guest post by David Archibald
The prognostications based on spotless days are now a distant memory. From here, given that the green corona brightness indicates that solar maximum will in 2015, the big unknown is what the maximum amplitude will be. We are now eighteen months into a six year rise to solar maximum. What is interesting is that in the last few days, the F10.7 flux has fallen to values last seen in late 2009:
The red line is a possible uptrend based on the data to date. That uptrend would result in a maximum F10.7 amplitude in 2015 of about 105. Using the relationship between F10.7 flux and sunspot number, that in turn means a maximum amplitude in terms of sunspot number of 50 – a Dalton Minimum-like result. Dr Svalgaard has kindly provided a graphic of the relationship between sunspot number and F10.7 flux:
Dr Svalgaard has also done the work to show that Solar Cycle 24 is looking less and less like Solar Cycle 19:
The red line is the Solar Cycle 18 to 19 minimum, and the blue is the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 minimum. Dr Svalgaard updates this graphic daily at: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yarmy says:
May 17, 2010 at 2:35 am
This is just nonsense. LS has predicted a small Solar Cycle 24.
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction24thCycle.pdf
It may depend on what you consider a small cycle. Above 70 SSN may turn out to way above reality?
Response to rbateman 116. I appreciate your response so please let me ramble a little here. If I get the gist of what you are saying correctly you are saying the K values are wrong giving to high of a SSN. Eyeballing charts overall I don’t see that. I do see an uptick late thirtys which is when better telescopes started being made and it seemed to have lasted till the sixties but historically doesn’t seem significant.
inki says:
May 17, 2010 at 7:23 am
Yarmy says:
May 17, 2010 at 2:35 am
This is just nonsense. LS has predicted a small Solar Cycle 24.
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction24thCycle.pdf
It may depend on what you consider a small cycle. Above 70 SSN may turn out to way above reality?
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. DA implies that LS is trying to show that SC24 is going to be a large max comparable to SC19 and the link shows the exact opposite.
#
Yarmy says:
May 17, 2010 at 7:44 am
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. DA implies that LS is trying to show that SC24 is going to be a large max comparable to SC19 and the link shows the exact opposite.
You made the statement “This is just nonsense. LS has predicted a small Solar Cycle 24.”
LS may have a different perspective on what makes a small cycle. His estimate may turn out to be much higher than what SC24 solar max eventually records, Hathaway may indeed continue to go lower over the next 12 months.
DA might be stretching the point, but calling above 70SSN a low count at this stage is presumptuous.
Contrary to the “constant Sun model”, via ice cores and other historical records, the Sun appears to have a ~400 year oscillation. This oscillation looks more like a sawtooth waveform. The last peak was in ~1620. A vertical drop in the energy output indicated by both Sun Spot reduction and ice cores. The sawtooth then rises to a “Global Warming Peak” during the next 400 years, then energy output collapses.
During the peak [before the vertical energy output drop] 1600s,1200s, 800s, … , Greenland became “green” (tree line information).
The Sun has “turned off” and we are now experiencing the vertical drop of the 400 year sawtooth oscillation.
More disturbing, are the volcanoes [ash, SO2], the Pacific temperature declines [stored heat decline], and the DECREASE in CO2 levels. I am not worried about “Global Cooling”, I am worried about “Global Freezing”.
jinki says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:26 pm
yes, the Layman’s Sunspot Count…my bad.
My point still stands. We must continue to refer to the old Wolf methodology to correlate as best we can with the past. It is climate change, after all.
The sun’s activity, or best measure of it going forward is irrelevant to my point. They should be looked upon as standalone methods. My other point is to use the old counts properly, using the right statistical treatment, not to pick and choose who we think was good at it, until we prove that any new method conforms to the older method’s means and standard deviations. Then we can say things like, “the new radio waves (or magnetic method, etc.) at such-and-such a wavelength or field strength is within xxx s.d. of the old method mean.” Then we can use correlation coefficients properly to deduce any trends.
Dr. Lurtz says:
May 17, 2010 at 8:23 am
Yes, I too am concerned with freezing and the coming ice age. If there continues to be warming at the pace of the last 30 years, well and good. If CO2 goes up, well and good.
The AGW climatologers have lulled everyone to sleep about cold climate. As a result, the world is unprepared for a cooling event. The poor will suffer, as they have already suffered with the food to alcohol fiasco and lack of energy. How many more millions must suffer and die before we turn the tide, and turn the page on AGW fundamentalism?
Dr. Lurtz says:
May 17, 2010 at 8:23 am
The next cluster of LIA type minimums would be c.1150yrs after the LIA. Every 4yr cluster more severe, at 4627yrs, a Heinrich event.
Notice the c.179yr periods between the Roman maximums, and cold episodes from AD970 to 1814;
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/holobib.html
Ice cores are a good precipitation record, but warm can mean dry or wet, it depends what time of year it happens.
#
rbateman says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Gail Combs says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:03 pm
AHHhhh yes – Another controversy. Some think there are solar/magnetic/volcano /earthquake correlations, others do not (Dr Leif)
I don’t qualify to investigate the messy details of the mechanism, but:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SSNvsVOL.JPG
….Make of the graph whatever you like. Make a better one. I just did it because nobody else had.
__________________________________________________________________________
I was trying to stay neutral because some say there is a correlation and others state there is not. I have not had the time to follow it up and see what the truth actually is or if there is enough data to actually make a judgment call. Thanks for the graph.
Dr. Lurtz says:
May 17, 2010 at 8:23 am
“Contrary to the “constant Sun model”, via ice cores and other historical records, the Sun appears to have a ~400 year oscillation….
More disturbing, are the volcanoes [ash, SO2], the Pacific temperature declines [stored heat decline], and the DECREASE in CO2 levels. I am not worried about “Global Cooling”, I am worried about “Global Freezing”.”
________________________________________________________________________
Amen to that. “Global Warming” is annoying “Global Freezing” is down right deadly.
Can you give some links to that info? I am aware of the 200 yr Wolf-Gleissberg cycle but not the 400 yr cycle.
Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2010 at 11:22 am
Can you give some links to that info? I am aware of the 200 yr Wolf-Gleissberg cycle but not the 400 yr cycle.
Hundreds of hours across dozens of web sites. Yes, there is a 200 yr cycle and what I am naming the 400 year oscillation. The 200 is in phase with the 400. They both hit minimums every 400 years.
Research the Maunder minimum in ~1620 and analyze the gradual increase in Sun Spots for the next 400 years. We are forced to us tree rings, and ice cores for the rest.
Pascvaks says:
PS: Problem is, there ain’t enough caves on this here planet for 6.8 billion cavemen.
I’d be more worried about producing food than finding caves. What land isn’t covered by ice, tends to be a bit arid, if I understand previous glacial periods correctly.
R. de Haan says:
May 15, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Layman’s sunspot count: SC 24 = SC 5
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
The Official SSN count could be called the sunspots count “on steroids”or “robust” (or rather “Stoned Count”).
It’s remarkable the comparison with cycle 5.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
May 16, 2010 at 1:17 am
Those are “robust” counts.
Pascvaks says: Really funny…gotto get some solar panels or windmill generators to power heat..(The new technologies that C&T will provide)
Dr. Lurtz says:
May 17, 2010 at 11:50 am
Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2010 at 11:22 am
Can you give some links to that info? I am aware of the 200 yr Wolf-Gleissberg cycle but not the 400 yr cycle.
Hundreds of hours across dozens of web sites. Yes, there is a 200 yr cycle and what I am naming the 400 year oscillation. The 200 is in phase with the 400. They both hit minimums every 400 years.
Research the Maunder minimum in ~1620 and analyze the gradual increase in Sun Spots for the next 400 years. We are forced to us tree rings, and ice cores for the rest.
______________________________________________________________________
So what we see is a “minor minimum” alternating with a “major minimum” ?
I thought you might enjoy this that I just found. It is about time
The Sun’s Chilly Impact on Earth updated April 17 2010
A new NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a “Little Ice Age” in several regions including North America and Europe
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=200112065794
I followed the link at that site and found this: Of course they then have to add the mandatory political funding blurb
Changes in the sun’s energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution….
The paper, “Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum,” by authors Drew Shindell, Gavin Schmidt, and David Rind, from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and co-authors Michael Mann and Anne Waple, from the Universities of Virginia and Massachusetts respectively, appears in the December 7 issue of Science.
“The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth’s recent climate than human actions,” Shindell said. “The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases,” he added.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html
WOW so man is more powerful than the sun…..
Dr. Lurtz,
Would you please recommend a website which best summarises the risk of global freezing?
You mentioned a possible decrease in CO2 levels. Is that your own conclusion – that if the various drivers of temperature turn down, then CO2 (as a lag indicator) will follow suit – or are you referring to some interesting work by others?
Ani says:
May 17, 2010 at 7:37 am
I’ll try to post up something that underscores just how far away from reality the rash of weak spot counting is to a really healthy spot, both in visual and Extended Ultraviolet.
Yarmy says:
May 17, 2010 at 7:44 am
Leif has made his SC24 prediction based on Active Regions, not Sunspot Counts. The L&P effect could virtually wipe out all but 1 spot/AR, and Leif’s prediction can still hold up. I do believe he has stated more than once that his SC19/SC24 graph was done just for fun. The point I get out of it is that SC23 ended on a low slope and SC24 is coming up on an equal-lower slope.
Why does SC24 behave this way? It may have started life L&P’ed is my 2 cents worth.
Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2010 at 2:19 pm
There is actually very little on a 400yr cycle, I found only this, and a re-hash of it by Svensmark: http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~dettinge/PACLIM/Yu02.pdf
There is a mountain of references to the 17yr and 179yr cycles, dating back to ancient Chinese records.
As sunspot levels are not directly proportional to SSN, they are not always the best indicator of real temperatures, eg. the 83yr and 166yr cycles in sunspots.
There should be something showing around 204 years in tune with the 17yr coronal hole cycle and certain planetary synodic periods, but it is not the dominant cycle around this length, as much fewer synodic periods unite over this interval than the 179. I don`t find a 400yr cycle usefull for mapping past temperature, but as it has cropped up, I will have a look at old Chinese flood/drought records, as precipitation is the issue here.
May 17, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Typo; 5th line; proportional to `temperature`.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynken,_Blynken,_and_Nod
tesla_x says:
May 15, 2010 at 10:54 pm
.. http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif ..
Thanks for the image Tesla. Someone should have stamped that with a “Parental Advisory,” warning. Looks incremental for increasing cold and colder. Looks incremental for less time between cold to colder. To me the planetary theory looks like a shabby fit. Ok, interstellar densities win, lag time has arrived now. Where is Henrik again? Maybe my rollerblading will carry back over to prolonged ice skating. Just a thought. Maybe we should start covering our beers or something.
Leif, all is well?
Carla says:
May 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm
By that graphical measure, there is no need for TSI or Irradiance changes on the Sun. All that has to happen is for the Magnetic Field of the Sun to be weak (or whatever it does to make the coincidental effect on Earth), and off go the Volcanoes to do the grunt work of dragging the global temp into the fridge.
Hmmm……
“Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2010 at 2:19 pm
“The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth’s recent climate than human actions,” Shindell said. “The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases,” he added.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html”
That 2001 story, although previously unknown to me , actually covers part of my New Climate Model by similarly linking solar activity levels with air circulation changes and in particular the polar oscillations. However I go further in describing the mechanism which involves variations in stratospheric temperatures affecting the strength of the inversion at the tropopause so as to drive the polar oscillations within the troposphere.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5497
The thing is that to work correctly as per observations one has to reverse the normal sign of the solar effect so that the stratosphere cools when the sun is active and warms when it is inactive so that the air circulations can be changed in the way actually seen.
Interestingly the authors were on the verge of getting it right but threw it all away by assuming that the anthropogenic effect was greater. If they had focussed on the implications of that piece of work then current climatology would by now be very different and instead of being pariahs they would have achieved something useful.
The killer pieces of evidence are that the jets started moving back equatorward at the same time as the sun grew quieter, the polar oscillations started getting stronger, the ozone quantities started to recover and the stratosphere started to warm again.
I have placed in the public domain the only climate description that combines all those features plus many others and whilst all that was happening CO2 kept rising which effectively stuffs their proposition that some human caused effect was in control. It also brings the assumed CFC effect on stratospheric ozone into question as a seperate issue.
To avoid confusion in my previous post a stronger polar oscillation is negative (as now) and a weaker oscillation positive (as for the late 20th century).