The Gods punish excessive hubris, but Anthony has invited me to comment on Dr Hathaway’s most recent Solar Cycle 24 prediction:
The number is still wrong.
Hathaway’s number is 64. The best estimate is 48, the same as Solar Cycles 5 and 6. We still have four years to solar maximum so there is plenty of time for activity to build. With the F10.7 flux at 75 as I write this, the trajectory is very flat.
The shape is wrong.
Strong cycles are front-loaded. Weak cycles are symmetrical. This is a weak cycle so the decline will be as long as the ramp up. Dr Hathaway has the Solar Cycle 24/25 transition in 2020. It will be in 2022.
Year of maximum is wrong.
Dr Hathaway has maximum in 2013. It will be in 2015, as foretold by the green corona intensity, and halfway through a 12 year solar cycle that started in December 2008.
Based on the rate at which Dr Hathaway is approaching a correct prediction, we can now estimate when he will finally make a correct prediction. That will be in 2012.
In the spirit of the Hockey Team, I will now make a prediction based on an interpretation of someone else’s as yet unpublished work. That prediction is that there will be no reversal of the Sun’s magnetic poles at Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
In hindsight on Solar Cycle 24 prediction, what is apparent now could have been predicted a couple of decades ago in that it is a de Vries cycle event. The de Vries cycle is a 210 year cycle. The last one was the Dalton Minimum which started in 1798. The current minimum started right on schedule exactly 210 years after that. In the last 2,000 years, the only time we missed out on a de Vries cycle event was the Medieval Warm Period. So it is about 90% reliable. To not have a de Vries cycle event now, we would have to be able to explain why this time that we live in is special. This is a not a special time in which the laws of physics and Nature are suspended, so we are having a de Vries cycle event. While a couple of individuals (Clilverd and Badalyan) made early and correct predictions of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude, nobody got the big picture view correct. While I am saying that, we are also due for a Bond Event.
Under Svensmark’s theory, the significance of weak solar activity is in its effect on the neutron flux in the lower troposphere. Neutron flux remains in an extended peak:
If someone was really good, he or she would be able to predict the shape of the Oulu neutron flux over the rest of this solar cycle (My fossil fuel interests have sidelined me – I am in the middle of drilling an oil well).
With global cooling underway, and while waiting around for solar maximum, my own research interest has moved on to understanding the transition to cooling. A recent report on the Canadian wheat crop has it down 20% this year due to a cold and wet start to the growing season. This is consistent with my view that, by the end of the decade, Canadian agriculture will be reduced to trapping beavers, as it was in the 17th century.
The transition to a severely cold regime can happen in one year flat. Brauer et al, http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/sigman/paperpdfs/Brauer08.pdf , determined that the transition to the Younger Dryas occurred in 10,671 BC. The date they used was 12,679 BP. As their paper was published in 2008, I changed it to a fixed date. The year of transition was preceded by 21 years of sometimes bad winter weather, but otherwise there was no gradual transition. It was a rapid regime shift. We are now headed into the third cold northern winter in a row, so perhaps there may be only 18 more winters before the climate is set up for a rapid regime shift. As Brauer et al note, there is a strong negative feedback from sea ice. Last winter, some English people were astounded by a patch of sea ice that grew out from the local beach. That may have been the harbinger.
Apart from being very cold, it was also very windy, which reminds me of a slide I will be using in a presentation at a power conference in Brisbane next week:
The north German plain is now blessed with an abundance of wind turbines. With the fierce winter westerlies coming, they might get to have a higher load factor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s about what I told my brother a year ago.
Minimum first of each century except the 1878 to 1933. That was a 400 total mean cycles.
50 to 60 high for the next two.
200 total sunspot mean for this and the next cycle.
Pile the wood high and long.
Off grid heating required.
Scathingly refreshing article.
But now I am scared for reals.
“This is consistent with my view that, by the end of the decade, Canadian agriculture will be reduced to trapping beavers, as it was in the 17th century.”
Ouch !
Some say the Bond events are caused by the Gulf Stream slowing down… and we all know that that’s not happening anytime soon…
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8714/aofscur100f024natl.png
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8714/aofscur100f024natl.png
http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-10-04/coldest-winter-emergency-measures.html
Very straightforward writeup, with some very powerful predictions.
The scale of the shift to colder climate suggested would have very unhappy consequences.
Meanwhile, for future occasions, it would be appreciated if major concepts such as Bond event or deVries cycle were hyperlinked to some added discussion/ elucidation.
I’m not so sure that the suggested climate implications are right though I do prefer David’s analysis of solar behaviour to that of Dr. Hathaway.
As for a Bond event I’m vey doubtful They are characteristic of highly unstable glacial epochs so I think we will need to have exited the current interglacial before seeing one of those.
I have proposed elsewhere that interglacial periods are relatively uneventful because in my opinion the solar and ocean cycles are phased so as to be generally offsetting one another hence a period of relative stability.
What we will see much more of is equatorward jets producing colder mid latitudes in both hemispheres and warmer but still cold polar regions. Furthermore we are still seeing warmish oceans from the very warm ocean cycles of the late 20th century and it may well be up to 500 years before the ocean surface temperatures are back to the temperastures of the LIA.
So, although we might well see a period of low solar activity with harsh mid latitude winters the temperatures for the entire troposphere may not cool down very quickly just yet.
Even if we do see the oceans turn significantly colder one must recall that I did say that periods of quiet sun result in a warming stratosphere and a reduced energy flux to space which again offsets ocean cooling effects on the troposphere.
The new findings of Joanna Haigh mentioned in another thread seem to support my opinion that solar effects on the atmosphere are contrary to expectations (as she put it).
“our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations.”
Hathaway’s number is 64. The best estimate is 48, the same as Solar Cycles 5 and 6
“Best estimate”? based on what? As for SC5 and 6, their sizes are very uncertain.
I hate to be so ad hoc, but, hasn’t the requirement for “sun spot” been recently reduced to try to boost sun spot numbers? I mean, 72 or 48 of what sized spot is a good question. I’ve been following the spot resizing discussions when they come up here, and, it sounds to me like we’re already in a huge minimum because the spot numbers we have from recent data are really from spots that would be too small to show up in previous data, and, therefore the new data doesn’t really compare to older data. Is this not the case?
Leif brings up a salient question. Every research article (and every post here) should have as its final paragraph, the answer to “Based on what?”. Love it.
Agriculture technology has obviously made vast, vast improvements since the 17th century. Surely they will be able to grow *something* in Canada’s shortened summers….
“No difference really” “an indulgent luxury with no moral basis”
I’ll take mild offence. The differences between these two religions are numerous:
1. The early Christians acted on their beliefs themselves, rather than to try and makes others follow their teaching without doing so themselves.
2. Their founder lived a life of simplicity, had “nowhere to rest his head”, and died a cruel death to open the way to God. The many leaders of the new “Faith” live in luxury, and require the poor in the third world to suffer & die in their stead.
I could go on. The environmental movement is a religion straight out of Hades.
“No difference really” ?
One huge difference, really, Dr Archibald. I recommend taking down that offensive slide from your presentation.
Also, “Gods” in your first paragraph should not be capitalized.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 6, 2010 at 5:05 pm
The part that SC24 is still flat is par for this cycle’s course.
And since Hathaway is predicting SSN Max, ‘flat’ refers more specifically to sunspot numbers.
The Sunspot Area is much worse, and is only a couple of months away from undercutting SC13 & 14.
I too see no semblance of similarity between the cross of the crucifixion and the wind turbines. It might appeal to some with little or no knowledge of Christianity, but to everybody else it reveals how little you know about it.
Owen, Mike McMillan and RockyRoad are right – that slide should be removed. Christianity did not start out of some capitalist impulse, subsidized by state support, to pull one over on the gullible. The wind power industry, given the huge cost overruns of building and maintaining these behemoths, is getting away with daylight robbery through misrepresenting the costs and benefits of wind power. And they are aided and abetted by a culpably ignorant MSM that appears to have abandoned investigative journalism in favour of agreeing with anything that’s PC. Not much MSM support for Christianity, nowadays. With the same degree of indifference to the truth, the MSM prefers to clobber and misrepresent Christians, adding to the general ignorance on which this slide is building.
Some points worthy of consideration in Mr. Archibald’s paper, but his references to religion distracts from his message and dilutes the credibility. Also, his hubris is quite noticeable. To predict nature — that’s tough and prone to errors!
On the wind turbine / cross comparison, folks. Lighten up.
I am an practicing Episcopalian and I don’t mind the humor.
The allusion in that slide that the CAGW movement is actually a “religion”, and, sure, wind turbines could very well be one of their icons. [lol].
-Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I understand it is offensive to some people, but I see the juxtaposition of the crosses vs. wind turbines NOT as an affront to Christianity, but as a demonstration that people are trying to replace Christianity with this new eco-religion. And that is a position I agree with.
Until the glaciers are a mile high again over the prairies, something will always grow here. There are faster growing strains of wheat, and we’re getting better with GM plants.
Besides, even if we trap beavers, there’s no market for the pelts anymore… maybe we can send them to Australia where they can build some sorely needed dams? 😉
Owen says:
October 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Mike McMillan says:
October 6, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I feel I ought to head this off at the pass. You are barking up the wrong tree on this. My earliest theological training was as an alter boy in the Anglican church. More recently I gave me self a refresher course by reading the 1,293 pages of Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (1988 edition). I have the greatest respect for the true Christian tradition. In this day and age, it is frowned upon to take offence at other people’s religions. But you can object to being forced to pay through taxes and power charges for other people’s idolatry. So I think your offence at the comparison is misplaced. Like Moses coming back from Mt Sinai to find the Israelites worshipping a golden calf, tear down the false idols, or at least complain as loudly as you can to your politicians that you don’t want to pay for the things.
E.M. Smith had a posting about a year and a half ago called Bond Event 0 but it was a placeholder and I am not sure if he followed it up:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
Scary stuff.
The comment on April 6 at 3:21 pm is interesting as is the comment on April 7 at 9:09 am.
MattN says:
October 6, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Yeah…Pot, to supply the out of work green scaremongers who’ll have nothing to do but sit-around singing kumbaya and dreadlocking each others hair.
okie333 says:
October 6, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I checked your links and if they are credible they indicate that the m/s velocity of Atlantic Ocean currents is less than 1/3 last year at the same time.
What is the basis of this information? Is it a credible site? Please share more.
An Inquirer says:
October 6, 2010 at 7:06 pm
“To predict nature — that’s tough and prone to errors!”
Yes it is, but I have a track record which is why I was asked. But I am also trying to hand the burden over to anyone who will take it. A couple of years ago in a paper on Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory, I included a list of the solar cycles and invited anyone to generate their own correlations. Only one person took up the invitation, Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of the University of Oslo, who published an elegant study of the Norwegian temperature record. Which astounds me, because if you were a junior academic who wanted to build a publication record, that stuff is very easy. The requirement for warmer scientists is shrinking by the day. You might as well anticipate the regime shift and go to the cool side.
Predicting the neutron flux for the next ten years successfully would establish you as a Master of the Universe, as you would be demonstrating a complete understanding of solar and terrestrial processes.
An Inquirer says:
October 6, 2010 at 7:06 pm
As 10:10 says: “no problem”
Now where is that button? Oh you are right, that is a highly inappropriate climate change snuff children video. How bad of me to reference it.
The Younger Dryas is Heinrich event 0. The planet cooled during the Younger Dryas event for roughly 1300 years which rules out a simple increase in GCR due to a series of weak solar magnetic cycles. (i.e. What is causing the change is not simply the solar magnetic cycle is low for a 1000 years.)
There are geomagnetic excursions at each of the Heinrich events and there are geomagnetic jerks (A geomagnetic jerks is a mild version of the geomagnetic excursion) at roughly 400 year periods. The occurrence of a geomagnetic excursions or a geomagnetic jerk both correlate in time with cooling periods. The strongest geomagnetic excursions correlate with the termination of the interglacial periods.
During an excursion or a jerk the geomagnetic field no longer aligns with the planet’s rotational axis and there is a strong non-dipole portion of the field. This causes an increase in GCR at lower latitudes and in some cases depending on the specific field configuration both increases and decreases in higher latitude regions. Using Svensmark’s mechanism this complex change in the geomagnetic field will cause strong regional cooling with a few regions that warm. The GCR strength also affects upper atmospheric wind patterns. (Just as we are now observing.)
The research finding that the geomagnetic field is abruptly changing cyclically is relatively recent. The geomagnetic specialists appeal to a mechanism of core instability to explain what is causing the geomagnetic excursions. That mechanism cannot explain however why geomagnetic excursions are cyclic.
From the periodicity of the geomagnetic observation and rapidity of the changes (the core cannot change cyclically or sufficient time to cause what is observed) and a set of other observations and analysis, a strong case can be that the geomagnetic field changes are caused by a restart of the solar magnetic cycle at which time there are a series of large discharges from the sun.
The direct evidence to support that hypothesis are burn marks throughout the Northern Hemisphere that are concurrent with the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event.
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007
“Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined.”
http://web.geology.ufl.edu/Channell/images/PDFs%20for%20web%20site2/channell2006.pdf
We conclude that directional instability is a characteristic of the geomagnetic field at times of polarity excursions. Polarity excursions are observed at time of low paleointensity (Fig. 12) when the strength of the axial dipole is reduced by a factor of about 5, and reduced relative to the non-axial dipole (NAD) field. Zhang and Gubbins [80] have shown that the critical Reynolds number (Rc) for the onset of core convection is very sensitive to the poloidal field, and the strength of core convection varies wildly in response changes in magnetic field strength particularly during intensity minima. Geomagnetic field instability with rapid changes in magnetization directions is to be expected at times of low geomagnetic field intensity.
This is a early paper that discusses the Younger Dryas cooling event and notes there is a very strong change increase in cosmogenic isotopes during the cooling period.
Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/root/2000/QuatIntRenssen/
rbateman says:
October 6, 2010 at 6:15 pm
The part that SC24 is still flat is par for this cycle’s course.
???
The Sunspot Area is much worse, and is only a couple of months away from undercutting SC13 & 14.
Sunspot area will also be [mildly] affected by L&P.
The sunspot areas reported by SOON [NOAA] must be multiplied by ~1.5 to match Greenwich 1874-1974.