While sunspots are often the proxy of choice for solar activity reports, the 10.7 cm radio band is also an excellent indicator of solar activity. As you can see in this NOAA graph below, it is slowly coming up, but there’s still a fair gap to the red line, which represents the predicted level.
Dr. Leif Svalgaard maintains a number of automated plots on solar data, one of which compares the current solar minimum to 1954, which is also considered to be a significant solar minimum. The flatness is instructive:
In other news, the Ap magnetic index still needs a jump start:
h/t to David Archibald in Tips and Notes
R. de Haan says:
November 17, 2010 at 3:42 am
German Scientist, CO2 not the cause of climate change, cold period is anticipated.
Germany being within North Atlantic climatic area is in the main affected by the Arctic –N. Atlantic interactions, as is England and the most of the N-W European countries, which could expect considerable cooling in the next decade.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
Juraj V. says:
November 17, 2010 at 2:50 am
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
Is there any available update of total cloud cover? ISCCP runs to 2007 only.
As far as I know the Earthshine Project is still running. I’ve no idea when they will provide an update though.
I think the dropping of ISCCP and non replacement with another such project differentiating low and high cloud types across the latitude bands will be seen by future scientists as the betrayal of the scientific method writ large all over the AGW enterprise.
John Day : “.. except the title “The unbearable flatness of 10.7″. Sounds a little like impatience with the status quo”
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
The Solar energy’s effect on the Earth temperature is a cumulative operation. That is, it is the total area under the 10.7 curve. Instantaneous events are not important [unless we get a Solar Flare pointing (frying) directly at us].
The Sun is acting on its 380-400 year “Dalton Cycle” (my definition). The results will be the same: “The Thames River will freeze”. Since 2005, the beginning of the minimum of the 10.7 Flux, the Earth is losing 0.1C/2.5 years from loss of Solar input. So far we have lost 0.2C.
The La Nina and other natural Solar driven cycles are the indications of the Earth giving up its stored heat to Space via the poles. Watch the Sea Ice page for the Arctic temperature. This is an easy read thermometer for the Earth.
If this does become a full blown “Dalton Minimum”, we can expect the Global temperatures to drop 2.0C from 2005 to 2055.
Remember, most “scientists” believe that the Sun is a constant output Star that has no effect of the Earth’s Climate. How wrong can they be???
“The Unbearable Flatness of 10.7” proves that the Sun is variable.
Thanks,
Dr. Lurtz
It clearly reflects POWER is down…..We’ll need to install some condensers, because if we don’t the electrical company will charge us more money 🙂
vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 2:21 am
No need to panic, not yet
Need to call the electrical company!…or , is it anyway to know, based on past performance, what will it be in the future?
tallbloke says:
November 17, 2010 at 4:57 am
Need someone who could have the Sun’s musical score to know what follows… 🙂
I think this shows how it could work:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How the Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”.
Basically a weak sun sends the jetstreams toward the equator with an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.
The opposite when the sun is more active.
Leif informed me the other day that SORCE has been going through a bit of a crisis:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/weekly_status/2010/weekly_status_2010_10_14.pdf
To get an idea of how the ‘prediction’ follows the data:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
First Solar Cycle 24 Prediction April 2007
Ooops, never mind, that was Way Off try this one.
May 2009 Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update
Ooops, never mind, that was Way Off try this one.
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update released May 8, 2009
Wait for it….
I predict that the prediction will be re-predicted in a couple of months so that the prediction at least line up with the historical actual data that has become available since the last prediction.
I think that adding these two past ‘predictions’ to this posting would be informative.
A three shot blink change of the three prediction graphs (corrected for scale) would be nice.
[Or four shot. Or five. Six? Seven blink comparison? 8<) Robt]
LarryT says November 17, 2010 at 2:18 am
Each to their own. These arguments have been done do death, let’s not clutter up this thread with it too, eh?
Andrew30 says: November 17, 2010 at 6:39 am
I don’t have an animated gif, but here is a static presentation of the cycle 24 predictions.
http://i55.tinypic.com/2dj2fc9.jpg
Dr. Lurtz says:
November 17, 2010 at 5:57 am
If this does become a full blown “Dalton Minimum”, we can expect the Global temperatures to drop 2.0C from 2005 to 2055. ……………The Sun is acting on its 380-400 year “Dalton Cycle”
Hi doc. I disagree with your diagnosis.
I personally think (or at least my equations show)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
that by 2055 solar cycles will be well up on the SC25. The ‘Grand minimum’ I expect to occur around 2025, no deeper than the 1810. A Maunder type minimum is long way off, more likely around 2200. If temperatures are directly related to the solar activity (TSI etc.) than 2 degree drop by 2055 is also far too drastic (if applied to CETs
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm )
I also don’t recognise 380-400 year “Dalton Cycle”. Some grand minima are deeper than the others, but again going by my equation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC5.htm
110-120sh yr multiples appear to be more common, hence 60 year weather cycles.
Speculative All Gore-ish type exaggerations may give a ‘bad name’ to ‘normal’ sceptics.
rc says:
November 17, 2010 at 1:56 am
With all do respect, Dr Hathaway is wrong. the model they are using does not factor a good number of things. As with our current earth model they use static numbers where they can not be and should no be used simply because they do not know what effects the internal systems have on one another let alone what outside magnetic forces have.
GIGO
Infants have tantrums and cry a lot… prediction programs are infants…
vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:56 am
“Hi doc. I disagree with your diagnosis.
I personally think (or at least my equations show)”…
Look at the Sunspots at the beginning of the Maunder minimum [1620]. They don’t follow your eqns. They collapsed to near zero for 50 years. A better set of eqns. would be a sawtooth with a sine wave on top.
“Speculative All Gore-ish type exaggerations may give a ‘bad name’ to ‘normal’ sceptics.”
I didn’t come up with the words ‘Solar Constant’.
Maybe we all need a “sceptics reference chart” to know what to say. I’m sure you could provide one!
Stephen Wilde says:
November 17, 2010 at 6:20 am
I think this shows how it could work:
Basically a weak sun sends the jetstreams toward the equator with an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.
The opposite when the sun is more active.
You are really paraphrasing Kristian Birkeland wrote:With a constant magnetisation, the zones of patches will be found near the equator if the discharge-tension is low, but far from the equator if the tension is high
But that’s TABOO for “Settled Science”….
Dr. Lurtz
I have studied Maunder minimum extensively, and my equations give a good approximation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMb.htm
I do not see current minimum turning into 50 year long minimum, I am basing my judgment on the known astronomy orbital properties, but of course I may be wrong.
vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:56 am
….Not to worry, then. No Blackout in sight. That’s a relief!
vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:07 am
I am basing my judgment on the known astronomy orbital properties
But, if the EU proponents are right then other fields are important and your extrapolation of the Sun’s polar fields:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.gif
Show “power” decreasing…
Enneagram says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:25 am …….
Don’t forget orbital properties apply not only to the huge round lamps of frozen Hydrogen but also to their magnetospheres, they are the key!
There is another indicator, Sun-Earth magnetic connection, which I do not understand , but the last 400 years shows that the Arctic magnetic field moved in advance (in reverse proportion) of about one Hale cycle to the sunspot output.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
But we should also remember that according to NASA sun pumps 650,000A current into Arctic.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/203795main_FluxPower_400.jpg
Arctic field at the moment shows small rise (due to the Siberian leg), but again there is no indication of GMF going up strongly as it did 1600-1640.
Enneagram,
No. my proposition is entirely different and depends on the solar effects on ozone chemistry.
You should read the article I linked to.
Mike Jonas says:
November 17, 2010 at 5:08 am
That was the movie title that popped into my head when I read the post heading. Couldn’t make the connection though. Maybe sunspot activity cannot be anticipated like that bloke in the movie.
“Stephen Wilde says:
November 17, 2010 at 6:20 am
Basically a weak sun sends the jetstreams toward the equator with an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.”
If we just have the following: “Basically a weak sun (causes) an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.”
The graph by Juraj V. above: (http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif) seems to show that since 2000, the cloud cover has increased and the temperatures decreased. And the following shows that the sun has gotten quieter since 2000 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2406928/posts?page=77) See the fourth red one. These 2 graphs support 3 out of your 4 assertions. Now you just need some graph showing jet streams from 2000 to 2010. Do you know if one exists or if something exists from which you can infer the jet streams?
vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:46 am
Then we should need another equation, from you, to see how it is working the “local grid”, if it reflects the Sun’s.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:47 am
Enneagram,
No. my proposition is entirely different and depends on the solar effects on ozone chemistry.
You should read the article I linked to.
You said “OZONE”…..and protons during Sun’s increased activity (in your paper)
No more witnesses needed! 🙂
Your theory is perfectly correct, however that’s electricity working (btw:I can be an iconoclast, no remorses whatsoever).
The Unified Field shows that everywhere we’ll find alternate currents (Sin +Cos) where the “phase angle” φ changes and changes the outcome (“Call it Power, Energy, pH, or Global Warming):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42018959/Unified-Field-Explained-9
vukcevic, there’s a 011011 pattern in your 120s. The beat of ~180 (lunisolar tides) with ~120 is 360. I’m not suggesting anything, but I did pause to wonder if you had noticed this before responding to Dr. Lurtz.
–
Steve Keohane posted:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2dj2fc9.jpg
Truly humorous – but on a more sober note, this is also very telling about a pathological problem that has taken widespread & deep root in our society: uncritical acceptance of absolutely untenable assumptions. While the laughter at the sight of the graph was both involuntary & impulsive, the seriousness of the problem (uncritical acceptance of absolutely untenable assumptions) is anything but humorous.
–
Re: R. de Haan
Your link led to this:
Borchert, H. (2010). South Pacific oscillation and cosmic radiation.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/SO_Borchert.pdf
A quick look at the graphs suggests this might be a stimulating article. My instinct is that the author may be focused on decadal-timescale cloud-modulated thermal tides while overlooking gravitational lunisolar (~2.37a, QBO, EOP, LNC, 179a, etc.) tides, but I don’t read German, so it’s time to take a more careful look with this …
http://translate.google.com/
–
This is probably an opportune time to share an update on my research into the nature of interannual terrestrial oscillations.
Using NASA Horizons data, I have verified one of the claims of Piers Corbyn regarding lunisolar beat envelopes. Some of you may be interested to know that these envelopes are nearly exactly synchronized with fundamental beats of the solar system, perhaps for reasons which Ian Wilson is outlining for a forthcoming article.
I am developing new algorithms that bring objectivity to the study of sign switching in turbulent multivariate coupling relations. (We all know about the highly regular QBO in the stratosphere, but the troposphere is more turbulent.)
Observations arising with ease during the first hours of testing:
1) A remarkable multiyear multi-index coupling occurred ~1920. This dovetails with research on the dynamics of ~1915-1945. The core frequency of the coupling is 2.37 years.
2) The sign of the interannual-timescale phase-coupling of QBO & AO/NAO/NAM is related to LNC. Awareness of this pattern might be of value for those looking to advance the work of Karin Labitzke.
http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke/
3) Major SOI events coincide with qualitative changes in the nature of SOI coupling with SAM. This story – “The Tale of SAM & SOI” – which can be communicated via analogy with human coupling, has a major lunisolar twist…
4) Intermittent North Atlantic contrasts with the North Pacific are undeniably nonrandom. The conventional assumption of unconditional randomness underpinning mainstream climate science tests of statistical significance absolutely does not withstand scrutiny. What we are witnessing appears to be an entire discipline which has fallen victim to Simpson’s Paradox. As one of my most valued mentors, a tactfully-rebellious, amicable, & eminently sensible statistician, once announced emphatically, “Too much of this p-value stuff.” Suggested: See the work of W.S. Cleveland for some better ideas on how to explore data:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/departments/sia/project/trellis/
I’m exploring the possibility of extending the new algorithms into the complex plane to engineer a form of complex cross-wavelet analysis that is independent of wavelet shape. To my knowledge, such methods have never been developed. If anyone has knowledge of the existence of such methods, please let me know immediately.
A note mainly for those of you still trumpeting the notion that terrestrial climate is “chaotic”:
The following authors took a few wrong turns and haven’t finished what they’ve started, but please take note of what they are saying about strange nonchaotic attractors:
Sonechkin, D.M.; & Brojewski, R. (2003). ENSO: A quasiperiodic forced dynamical system.
http://forum.decvar.org/presentations/ENSO_WORKSHOP/documents/presentations/posters/Sonechkin-poster.pdf
Also see:
Sonechkin, D.M.; & Ivachtchenko, N.N. (2001). On the role of a quasiperiodic forcing in the interannual and interdecadal climate variations.
Some worthwhile quotes from the latter article:
“After the seminal researches of Ed Lorenz the idea of the chaotic nature, i.e. instability and unpredictability, of the atmospheric variations of all scales won almost all of meteorologists.”
“First of all, QBO is clearly established in the temporal variations of the zonal winds within the equatorial lower stratosphere. But, the phenomenon is also observed in the variations of different atmospheric variables within extratropics.”
“In order to clear up the nature of QBO and other mentioned peaks and bands of increased power energy the notion of the so-called strange NONCHAOTIC attractor seems to be important. This notion was recently introduced by mathematicians to depict some aperiodic variations in the nonlinear dynamical systems forced by two or more periodic external forces at incommensurable frequencies. The variations excited by such a manner were found to be of the neutral stability, i.e. they are predictable without any limit even if their shapes are very complex.”
“But, in practical calculations, these spectra look like continuous ones, and their peaks seem to be statistically insignificant under the traditional tests.”
“Actually, the phenomenon of the strange nonchaotic attractor is well known in meteorology. An example is the oceanic and atmospheric tides. The tides are excited by the gravitation interactions between Earth, Sun, and Moon. These interactions are quasi-periodic, and the tides are known to be of neutral stability. But, our aim here is to indicate that the notion of the strange nonchaotic attractor may be also used to model and predict the interannual and interdecadal atmospheric variations.”
I want to suggest that they need to include spatial heterogeneity and cloud-modulated thermal tides (frequency modulated by solar cycle acceleration = SCL’ [or something confounded with it]) in their thinking.
Caution: Even though their article is stimulating, there’s also some stuff that appears (upon a glance at least) to be misguided junk, so I recommend following up on their separate claims with independent empirical investigation.
The new methods I’ve developed can see linear-correlation-crushing phase-reversals with crystal clarity. My conclusion: Beyond being foolhardy, the assumption of randomness is dangerous to society & civilization. There is a myth that Simpson’s Paradox is “rare”. If independence does not hold, SP most certainly is not rare; on the contrary, it can be guaranteed. This is no trivial matter.