NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) produced their monthly solar cycle progression update yesterday. The news is not encouraging. We’ve had a drop in solar activity again in December, The sunspot count is lower, but the really worrisome thing is the Ap geomagnetic index. The solar dynamo has now dropped to magnetic activity levels last seen in late 2009. Readers may recall this post from December 23rd: Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index Hits Zero which was a bit unusual this far into cycle 24.
Here’s the Ap Index from SWPC:
The Ap value of 3 was last seen in late 2009 and early 2010, which bracketed the lowest value seen in 10 years (on the SWPC graph) of Ap=2 in December 2009. It was also the lowest value in the record then. SWPC has since revised their data upwards from 1 to 2 for December 2009. Here’s what it looked like then:
And here is the story at that time:
The 10.7 centimeter radio flux is a bit more encouraging, but still rather anemic compared to where to where it should have been in the solar cycle.
Here’s the data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
The last major update to NOAA’s prediction came in May 2009 when they wrote:
May 8, 2009 — The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.
It seems to be time again for an update, since it seems likely that the “consensus prediction” has failed.
The Livingston and Penn data (from Dr. Leif Svalgaard) continues unabated and on track for sunspots to become invisible when the umbral magnetic field reaches ~1500 gauss.
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
But the rest of the world is now just getting around to realizing the significance of the work Livingston and Penn are doing related to sunspots. Science ran with a significant story: Say goodbye to sunspots
Here’s a prominent excerpt:
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning.
…
Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun’s face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
We live in interesting times.
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm
“The argument will be: “it’s little understood natural variability, not the trace gas CO2″.”
Who is going to really buy that though?
—-
A: Intelligent people.
—-
You are assuming the warming will continue when it has already stopped. Onion, it’s time to pull off your blinders and follow the data. The reliable (read: unadjusted) data.
geo says:
January 5, 2011 at 11:39 am
I don’t want to pile on the solar scientists, but this went past embarrassing a long time ago.
And the sun is something we’ve been studying much longer than climate, and with quite a few less variables involved.
Uh, maybe you should learn something about solar science, before you comment!
onion says ….
At the risk of feeding a potential troll, let me respond to your posts above.
What you don’t seem to understand is a true skeptic is skeptical because at the end of the day all good science is done via skeptical thinking. At the end of the day, a true skeptic wants scientific truth. Period. Plenty of right wing politicos have glommed on to the skeptical position because it fits their ideology, just as plenty of left wing politicos have glommed onto the AGW hypothesis because it fits their ideology.
Weather & climate are highly interpretative sciences – it’s not like a chemistry lab experiment where you can fully describe a procedure & conduct it under controlled conditions & be able to predict the result. If you aren’t skeptical when it comes to interpretive sciences, then you are only fooling yourself & in the end, you will lose.
The problem with AGW is that there is much more at stake. To suggest you shouldn’t be skeptical with so much on the line – bets being placed on an interpretive science – is absolutely the most absurd things I have ever heard suggested.
I have made a successful living being skeptical working in a profession based on interpretative science. In my professional life, the skeptics always come out ahead in the long run & I see no reason why AGW is any different. Why – because they make decisions based on data, not models. Let’s give it 30 year & collect more data – then, hopefully, we will actually have enough data that we can make some intelligent decisions.
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm
“If the world instead warms over the next 2 decades that will be a massive successful prediction for AGW given how strongly advocating of cooling everyone here seems to be.”
The ‘C’ in (C)AGW is based on the late 1970’s to 1990’s trend accelerating.
Without the ‘C’, AGW is right up their next to ‘increases in agricultural productivity’ on the list of human accomplishments.
JJ says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:06 pm
“Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming …”
Continues? When does it start?
There has been no statistically significant ‘global warming’ in 20 years. Or so says Phil Jones. We still are worshipping Phil, arent we?
20 years? Got a quote on that?
Or hey, talk to Dr. Spencer about it. I bet you can put a trend line through his data that says something to ya — http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-published-1998-still-warmest-year-in-the-uah-satellite-record/
Hey onion ever hear of the AMO?
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm
My suggestion is: Global warming is continuing. The PDO switch and solar minimum have merely slowed it down, not even been able to reverse it’s course.
Now here’s a cluebat candidate if ever I met one. Don’t you read the replies people take the trouble to give you?
Numpetry. Sheer numpetry.
Dr. Svalgaard
I ran across ge0050’s comment on Climate Etc. related to “Scenarios: 2010-2040. Part III: Climate Shifts” and wonder if Orbital Mechanics are considered a valid indicator of activity?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/04/scenarios-2010-2040-part-iii-climate-shifts/#comments
ge0050 | January 5, 2011 at 11:58 am
The climate cycles are well predicted by orbital mechanics. Much better then by CO2 models.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/fairbridge_rhodes.pdf
Each 179 years the sun begins a new cycle of the epitrochoid family of barycentric orbits; the most recent of these began in 1996 with Sunspot Cycle No. 23. Whilst the sun is in the beginning phase of the new epitrochoid cycle, solar output of all types is understood to decline and the climate on the earth cools. The four previous epitrochoid cycles began in about 1790, 1620, 1430 and 1270 respectively. Solar activity diminished during the first several decades of each of these epitrochoid cycles, resulting in a cooling of the earth. For example, Europe between the 1620s to the 1710s (the Maunder Minimum) was a time of intense cold, causing extensive havoc and misery. The Thames froze each winter and the alpine glaciers grew deep into the valleys. Between the 1790s and 1820s (the Dalton Minimum) was also a time of intense cold throughout Europe, with 1816 being considered one of the coldest of the last 250 years.ix All of the cold intervals have been well documented in both the standard climatological records and the broader historical record (FAGAN, 2000).
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbridge-ClimateandKeplerianPlanetaryDynamics.htm http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=bfeddc8e-90d7-4f54-9ca7-1f56fadc7c2b
My eyes are watering again. Is that onion misrepresenting my arguments and then knocking down the misrepresented argument? How fiendishly clever.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:06 pm
………..
Polar field curve
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
(including extrapolation) calculated by Excel as:
y = -0.0054x^6 + 65.532x^5 – 328589x^4 + 9E+08x^3 – 1E+12x^2 + 1E+15x – 4E+17
but curious thing is that PF max was in 2006, so this cycle is 4 years old, say another 2 years to max, would suggest at least 13+ year long cycle, similar to SC4, hence:
we are in new Dalton!
Leif
Are you in a position yet based upon observations, to lower your forecast of a peak SSN of 72 for Cycle 24? Do you have any thoughts yet on Cycle 25?
Thanks
Well said, Onion!
We have just ended the warmest year (2010) of the warmest decade on record (the 2000s), that during the deepest solar minimum in a century!
Now it seems that the sun is heading to a new Dalton Minimum…
Let’s make a bet:
in a few years if the climate scientists are right (as have been for decades) warming will continue in this decade, reaching new record warm years in a few years (just wait for the next moderate El Niño)…
If the “skeptics” are right, the warming trend that was observed between the 1970s and the 2000s will be replaced by a cooling trend driven by low solar activity.
Now let’s see what prediction is realized. So far the warming has continued unabated despite the deepest solar minimum in a century…
When will we be getting the promised raft of consolidated data on the sun, as we now have with polar ice levels? We spent too much effort on counting angels on pinheads in the latter case, and not enough on the former.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Already, the sunspot number is running way below it should be for the F10.7 values
Wow. Maybe not quite conclusive yet, but that is pretty clear. I see why you are so dismissive of anyone who claims the current count is inflated. It hardly matters what the current count is if we can’t understand this better.
onion says: Global warming is continuing
Well duh, just as it has done every century since the ice age. Now show us the calamity. Sky not falling, nothing to see here… move along
Leif Svalgaard, Jan 5th at 1.19 p.m.
I can only concur with that statement. With the low winter sun it is often difficult to achieve the same value in ‘seeing conditions,’ that you get 6 months later with the sun at a higher altitude, or if you try to observe in the morning or late afternoon.
With the sun you definitely DON’T need large apertures. In fact many telescope owners with ‘scopes of 6 inch diameter, or greater, stop the aperture down. Even with white light projection, or with the great array of filters now commonly available, it is patently obvious to the observer when the seeing is really good. The tiny spores that observers refer to now have always been visible in white light with small apertures in good seeing conditions. It is the increased resolution of larger aperture, and focal length telescopes that led to Wolf and Wolfer to making their adjustments to compensate for the difference. That adjustment continues today with the work of skilled amateurs and professionals alike.
Onion Says:
So what’s going on?
My suggestion is: Global warming is continuing
Good Doggie! Al has a cookie for you.
thegoodlocust says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:53 pm
“…Personally, I hope the world cools dramatically, I love the cold weather and such an event will hopefully wake up millions of people not only to the AGW lie but to other lies they’ve been told by the same people over the years (economic myths in particular).
It really could start a new Enlightenment.”
“Hunger does not breed reform; it breeds madness, and all the ugly distemper that makes an ordered life impossible.” – Woodrow Wilson
Wait. We just had an especially long minimum (not as long as the Maunder-minimum). Did you take that into account and move the projected increase slope forward on the chart?
… a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
From Saint-Simon’s memoirs of Versailles during the 17th and 18th centuries, an eyewitness account:
http://iamyouasheisme.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/the-little-ice-age-view-from-versailles/
So which is “better” . . .NASA at sun predictions or the MET at forecasting snow or BBQ summers?
Oh, I get it now. Disregard previous comment. You used their value of 2013 as the next maximum, which we’re not likely to hit, showing their poor accuracy in predicting sun cycles.
You are making several not necessarily valid assumptions.
First – you are assuming that temperature is the way we should measure if the earth is heating or cooling. Many of us do not, feeling heat content is more appropriate since hot dry air can actually hold less heat energy than cooler moist air.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html
Second – you are assuming that the concept of “global average temperature” is a valid and meaningful concept. Many of us do not.
Third -you are assuming that the data gathered to compute that value is valid and suitable for the task. Many of us think the data input is horribly corrupt.
Fourth – you are assuming that the math and statistical methods used to massage that data yield valid and appropriate output. Many of us do not believe that is true.
Fifth – You are assuming that temperature is correlated with and driven by CO2 levels and that AGW folks have proven this connection. Many of us do not.
Sixth – You have assumed that no other mechanism could explain such a “hypothetical” future increase in temperature. Many of us have proposed other mechanisms that are at least as well correlated.
All of those assumptions must be correct for you supposition to be true. If any one of them is not true, your assertion fails.
I suspect you are wrong on most of those assumptions.
We are not all in the “cooling camp”!
Many of us suspect that there may be cooling coming due to either solar output levels or the effects of the ocean surface temperatures or changes in the global precipitatable water content of the atmosphere (to name just a few of the possible mechanisms some of us are speculating on).
We are in the early stages of the scientific method — making observations, proposing mechanisms and suggesting the logical result of those mechanisms if they are true. If they fail it in no way “proves” CO2 has anything to do with world wide temperature increase, or that the AGW models are remotely accurate, it only proves that that specific speculation does not result in the expected outcome. That means, using the scientific method we will go back and re-evaluate the assumptions and theories proposed for the mechanism and try again.
If AGW scientists were doing the same, they would have tossed out CO2 as a driving mechanism a decade ago, since none of their detail predicted outcomes of increasing CO2 have panned out. During the same time others have pointed out serious flaws in method and data that their conclusions absolutely require for their assertion that CO2 is the climate driver to be correct.
You are jumping to unsupported conclusions because you refuse to consider equally valid means that explain climate variability at least as well if not better than CO2 levels.
Not the least of which, is we have no clue what drives climate!
What ever it is, it has been warming our climate slowly (with a superimposed variability) for something like 10,000 years.
There is an apparent correlation between sunspot number counts and climate, but no one presumes to state exactly why that correlation exists and the mechanism that might cause it. There are several “theories” about how that might happen, (TSI variation, solar magnetic effects on cosmic ray flux and cloudiness, indirect effects on the atmosphere due to changes in IR or UV radiation that some how modulate heat transfer/ heat gain), but we are probably 200 years away from having the data to prove any of them.
We simply do not have good data with a long enough history to do anything more that the early stages of the scientific method — ie make observations, gather data, propose possible correlations and mechanisms to explain those correlations then propose falsifiable means of testing those theories.
We have however identified many problems with data currently used, how it is gathered, and how it is processed and strongly suspect that the global average temperature anomaly numbers are absolutely useless for their intended purpose.
In fact they are worse than useless, they are manipulated data that leads researchers in a totally useless direction, and causes them, there time and funding to be used on a fools errand.
If the AGW camp was doing the same methodical scientific process (which it has absolutely refused to do to this date). They would have discarded the theory that CO2 was a significant factor in global climate, a decade ago.
Larry
Greg Goodknight says:
It would be instructive if someone could round up (or point to a collection of) the past projections for comparison.
Last update for this was Feb 09. There should be enough for a few to claim success eventually!
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
Onion said..
2010 might have had an El Nino, but 1998 did too – and in fact that El Nino was stronger than the 2010 one. So why are UAH satellite temperatures for 1998 and 2010 tied?
i thought that 1998 edged 2010 out by 0.01deg,C
And 1 year does not make a trend,lets see where we are in 2-3 years time when the SST’S are way down and we enter a La Nina dominated system,by then the warmist’s will shouting from the rooftops “Ah but it the LA NINA that’s cooling it down.