Guest post by David Archibald
We return to Dr Svalgaard’s plot of four solar parameters, updated daily at: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
There are a couple of things to note. Firstly, the solar Mean Field, which is the top line, went into the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition being neat and regular like a heartbeat, and has come out choppy and arrhythmic. Secondly, the F10.7 ramp up continues to be very flat indeed. The line of best fit of the F10.7 flux, currently at 82, equates to a sunspot number of 24. In terms of sunspot number, the rate of ramp up over the last year is 11 per annum. At two years into the cycle, this will be the maximum rate of increase we will get.
One of the accepted solar cycle prediction methodologies is a curve fitting exercise two years after the month of solar minimum, which was December 2008. Inspired by the fact that NOAA et al called 2010 the hottest year ever when it was only half over, we have decided to go early and curve fit now. The green corona brightness tells us that solar maximum will be in 2015. Combined with that constraint, the graphic below is the result:
F10.7 flux at solar maximum will be 105, equating to a sunspot number of 50. It will be the weakest solar cycle since Solar Cycle 6, the second half of the Dalton Minimum (1810 to 1823). Solar Cycle 5 had a maximum amplitude of 49.2 and Solar Cycle 6 of 48.7.
The evidence for a Dalton Minimum repeat continues to build. As a 210 year de Vries cycle event, it has come along right on schedule.
johnnythelowery says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:19 am
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:30 am
He was referring to Barycenter Theory. As for corresponding temperature drops, particularly with the Dalton, we should also consider extreme volcanic events as the mechanism for those drops.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:30 am
…those sinful words like barycenter, EM fields, etc.. Anyway, the Dalton Minimum was an historical epoch in Sun’s life but in the humans life too. Coincidence?
Carla says:
I sincerely hope we have passed the maxima of “Carla says” multiple postings! Has she begun FAC-ing early? ;~P
What’s the deal with this projection for massive solar storm in 2012? 100 million H-bombs worth? Do I need to unplug my PC?
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20100826/981/tsc-massive-solar-storm-to-hit-earth-in_1.html
“Melbourne, Aug 26 (ANI): Astronomers are predicting that a massive solar storm, much bigger in potential than the one that caused spectacular light shows on Earth earlier this month, is to strike our planet in 2012 with a force of 100 million hydrogen bombs.
Several US media outlets have reported that NASA was warning the massive flare this month was just a precursor to a massive solar storm building that had the potential to wipe out the entire planet’s power grid. “
wayne Job says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:02 am
Try lead. The EPA wants to ban ammunition.
rbateman…lets take a blog pole.
I chose your number “3.”
So far it is unamimous: Solar Activity will suffer a ‘double dip’ recession and crash. Max ~ 20-30
🙂
rbateman says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:18 am
Echoes of Alexander Tchijevsky in that last part Robert. Which part of the literature are you referring to, not this I presume?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14149619/A-Chizhevsky-Physical-Factors-of-the-Historical-Process
Seems to chart the course of the Climate Change debacle pretty well if nothing else :-). I’ve always wondered where he got his sunspot record from. The Chinese I guess.
Pamela Gray says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:36 am
If the unspoken “read between the lines” subscript here is to Earth’s temperature prediction, and the unspoken “read between the lines” prediction, based on the Sun’s current measurement, is for cold, I still don’t see a mechanism. You might as well say that my slightly graying temples, which appeared almost at the same time we began to slip into minimum, predict cold for the next 30 years as long as my temples continue to gray. Without mechanism, comments related to temperature or “warmists” sound silly and early caveman era to me.
Pamela, I would like to propose the term ” Mini Svensmark ” for the cooling event.
I am not going to speculate on the unspeakable, ” Get yourself banned stuff”. 🙂
It’s the forecast for the massive solar storm in late 2012 that worries me. Is there any really hard data on this? Maybe I should relocate to a warmer climate with a wood burning stove for Winter? We will lose the internet of course. Are you ready for this Anthony?
“I am contemptuous of anyone having even a tiny sense of alarmism resulting from Mr. Archibald hypothesizing a near term (now) Dalton Minimum.”
Whatever. Humankind’s adaptability notwithstanding the short term pain to tens of millions in emerging economies is real and worrying. With green command economy avarice and lunacy, the fact that established northern margin agriculture is off the table, and aquifers are strained in the high plains, Amerikkka will not be adapting with its customary agility. Sucks to be a poor manufacturer.
Pamela Gray says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:36 am
“Without mechanism, comments related to temperature or “warmists” sound silly and early caveman era to me”.
Mechanism takes a bit of thinking but it doesn’t negate a phenomenon until we find a mechanism (Wegener’s “Continental Drift” based on the fit of the eastern coast of the Americas against western coast of Euro-Africa) – he died in infamy before the mechanism was discovered. Perhaps extreme ridicule by the geological “consensus” who also decried lack of mechanism sped along his death. Nor does having a mechanism say we have the right mechanism (the looping planets were created to hang onto the mechanism of the geocentric theory), although the sun continued to revolve around the earth, that is true!
If over the next 500 years, everytime we have low sunspot numbers it gets cold and miserable, we should be able to draw some conclusions about a connection. “Oh dear, were headed for another 30 year cold spell- I wish I knew what was causing it.”
I see these scientific catechisms a lot here. My favorite is “correlation is not causation”. These pithy little dithyrambs are intended to make you cautious and questioning when you appear to have patterns in data, but they are not intended to carry them to the brutish Neandertal point of ignoring them until you have a definitive explanation. And you say your temples are graying a bit.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:17 am
1) The solar mean field has a steady, strong rhythm now. Here are the last ten rotations superposed: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-MF-Superposed.png You can see the sharp polarity change at day 18.
Wow! Which rotation is which here Leif? Looks vaguely like two somethings are syncing to me. You’ve just inspired me to go play with this data big time, thanks for the link to it earlier on another thread. Can I ask whether there are any caveats I need to know about (e.g. degradations, recalibrations) and where your F10.7 data comes from?
“particularly with the Dalton, we should also consider extreme volcanic events as the mechanism for those drops.”
And these are unrelated?
NoMoreGore says:
August 27, 2010 at 9:13 am
wayne Job says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:02 am
Try lead. The EPA wants to ban ammunition.
Not entirely correct. The EPA is in receipt of a petition from a couple of environmentalist organizations which want to eliminate lead because they claim that suitable alternatives are commercially available. The matter is open for public comment on the site listed below.
From: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetai…
Click on the PDF icon for the last item in list of supporting documents for the entire letter. Only a page and a half long.
* Partial excerpt:
The petitioners understand that EPA is specifically prohibited from regulating ammunition or firearms under TSCA, but that toxic components of ammunition can be regulated if non-toxic alternatives are commercially available. The petitioners have waited until non-toxic alternatives have become available to submit this petition in an effort to clearly indicate that this petition is not an attempt to regulate ammunition or firearms.
Sincerely,
Michael Fry, PhD
American Bird Conservancy
Washington DC.
AJB says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:19 am
Wow! Which rotation is which here Leif? Looks vaguely like two somethings are syncing to me.
I show the last ten ‘rotations’ [actually just consecutive intervals of 28 days]. For the pattern exactly which are not important.
You’ve just inspired me to go play with this data big time, thanks for the link to it earlier on another thread. Can I ask whether there are any caveats I need to know about (e.g. degradations, recalibrations) and where your F10.7 data comes from?
The mean field data is from here: http://wso.stanford.edu/#MeanField and the F10.7 from here: ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/current.txt
The solar mean field is solid and has no known issues. The F10.7 flux at noon [2000 UT] is good.
Gary Pearse said at 10:16 am [ … ]
Thanks for giving me a new word: dithyramb. Although it was not really used in its proper context, it’s a keeper!☺
Also, the last sentence of your first paragraph under Pamela’s quote says it all. Only the advocates of junk science — and I include NASA here — hang their collective hats on the bizarre notion that CO2 is the primary driver of the planet’s climate and temperature. The CO2+CAGW
hypothesisconjecture is the modern equivalent of geocentrism.“Louis Hissink says:
It might also be useful to consider that the 1859 CME occurred during a Dalton minimum, so David’s prediction that we are headed for another cooler period is consistent.”
Except that the Dalton minimum ended in 1830, [b]almost 30 years later.[/b]
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:34 am
Looks like I’ve just got myself a new hobby for the winter. Many thanks Leif!
Tom Rowan says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:55 am
> The maximum for solar cycle 23 started in 1999. If my math is correct, this is eleven years later.
The solar cycle length has a bi-modal distribution. While 11 years is the average, 11 years is infrequent. A year or so shorter and a year or so longer are much more common. Long periods are associated with weak activity, so I wouldn’t the max for another year or so.
Bob from the UK says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:02 am
The last Dalton Minimum caused a 2 degree drop. The solar activity previous to that was almost as high as it has been over the last few years. So we could expect to see something like the same. Interestingly the long term Swedish temperature trend show temps in the late 18th century just before the Dalton min, similar to today. Looks like temps will be going down to 19th century levels.
Any chance we could see some evidence of this “2 degree drop” that was caused by the Dalton Minimum. The CET record shows very little change over the DM period. It’s a similar story for other long term records.
Gary Pearse says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:16 am
He didn’t die in infamy – he died in Greenland during an expedition to study its ice cap and climate. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Wegener/wegener_7.php
this petition in an effort to clearly indicate that this petition is not an attempt to regulate ammunition or firearms.
Sincerely,
Michael Fry, PhD
unfortunately, the petitioners intentions and those of the EPA are not the same thing. if they act you can bet whatever they come up with will regulate ammunition and do nothing for the birds.
and overall very cool blogpost and thread!
Here are the most recent 10.7cm measurements:
DATE 10.7cm
2010 08 15 86
2010 08 16 85
2010 08 17 81
2010 08 18 81
2010 08 19 78
2010 08 20 77
2010 08 21 76
2010 08 22 75
2010 08 23 75
2010 08 24 74
2010 08 25 74
2010 08 26 73
Source:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
Dr. Archibald is right but for wrong reason. We are heading for a cool spell, but the current sunspot or magnetic output has nothing to do with it.
Dr. Svalgaard is right on this one.
R.S.Brown says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Here are the most recent 10.7cm measurements:
DATE 10.7cm
2010 08 15 86
2010 08 16 85
Be careful. These numbers are indeed measurements and that is the problem. The measured numbers depends on the distance to the sun. The correct numbers to use are the flux values corrected for distance. And they were:
87.8, 86.9, 83.1, 82.5, 79.8, 78.9, 77.3, 76.1, 76.5, 75.2, 75.1, 75