Guest post by David Archibald
Dr Svalgaard has an interesting annotation on his chart of solar parameters – “Welcome to solar max”:
Graphic source: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Could it be? It seems that Solar Cycle 24 had only just begun, with solar minimum only two and a half years ago in December 2008.
The first place to confirm that is the solar polar magnetic field strength, with data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory:
Source: http://wso.stanford.edu/
The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum. The northern field has reversed. There are only three prior reversals in the instrument record. Another parameter that would confirm solar maximum is the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle, also from the WSO site.
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.
If the Sun is anywhere near solar maximum, the significance of that is that it would be the first time in the record that a short cycle was also a weak cycle, though Usoskin et al in 2009 proposed a short, asymmetric cycle in the late 18th century at the beginning of the Dalton Minimum: http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/arlt2.pdf
Interestingly, Ed Fix (paper in press) generated a solar model (based on forces that dare not speak their name) which predicts two consecutive, weak solar cycles, each eight years long:
The green line is the solar cycle record with alternate cycles reversed. The red line is the model output. Solar Cycles 19 to 23 are annotated.
This model has the next solar maximum in 2013 and minimum only four years later in 2017. This outcome is possible based on the Sun’s behaviour to date.
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:57 am
Poor Leif and David Hathaway, can’t hold more than two variables in mind simultaneously.
“Give me five and I can fit an elephant”
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:01 am
“Give me five and I can fit an elephant”
Depends if they are free variables or not.
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:59 am
I can see why your prejudice might lead you to think that was what I meant.
Well, what did you mean, then? Now, the prejudices of physical laws, correct science, cause and effect, etc, are good guidelines in any research. If you throw these to the wind you end up with the pseudo-science that holds so many it its thralls. To wit, your blog and comments here.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:59 am
We only have three hundred years and during that time the phase has reversed twice already, so not so intriguing.
Are you still taking just jupiter here?
Norman Page says: May 10, 2011 at 7:21 am
In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures. ”
I think they are partially right, it appears that the Maunder Minimum period cooling was mostly the North Atlantic phenomenon + ‘crosstalk’ in the rest of NH. I would say the MM cooling does not appear to do much with the solar irradiance; else some sections of the physics textbooks have to be revised. This is probably another one based on a reconstruction of the TSI using the Greenland 10Be data, not to be taken as a reliable pointer.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be.htm
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:04 am
Depends if they are free variables or not.
The phase reversals are free as there is no explanations for them. Sometimes a phase reversal can be a spectacular confirmation of a finding if there is a physical reason for it. Otherwise, a phase reversal is a falsification: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1972/JA077i028p05385.shtml
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:06 am
Are you still taking just jupiter here?
Just going by Ed’s paper.
Uh-oh, leif’s getting nasty. Time to go.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/rotation-solar-windspeed-adjusted.png
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:19 am
Time to go.
Can’t stand the heat, eh?
Vucevic I agree with you that ” I would say the MM cooling does not appear to do much with the solar irradiance”
I’m reasonably sure its to do with the solar magnetic field strength and the GCR – clouds – albedo connection. I just wanted to show that Mann Schmidt and co had about the same global – regional temperature difference as Archibald.
Dr. Archibald/Leif,
I meant not to ascribe statements to anyone that they did not make. Like others, over time the 2C drop got stuck in my head as having being made for the world, whereas what you say is, indeed, for a portion of the continental US, with 1.5C for a portion of Europe. The significance of the difference is great, obviously, as the skeptical position would be pleased to see a demonstration of the solar, rather than CO2, connection.
http://nhclimateaudit.org/
Reviewing my notes and an historical history of the New Hampshire temperature record, I find that NHamp has about a 4.1X decline in a given temperature change relative to the global record as shown by Hansen. The NHamp record shows large, high frequency variations, of course, and the authors use an 11 and 33 year moving average to smooth the trends out. This is too much, plus the GISTemp data-graphs we see use a 5-year smoothing function so a comparison is not possible. Awkward as it is, I quickly estimated with ruler and pencil trends as I saw them both in the NHamp long-term data-graph and the GISSTemp global data-graph:
1900-1910: NHamp -0.8C, Global -0.2C, ratio 4.0X
1915-1920: NHamp -2.3C, Global -0.03, ratio N/A
1954-1965: NHamp -1.75C, Global -0.16?, ratio 11?
1965-2000: NHMP +1.3C, Global +0.54, ratio 2.4X
Not good enough for a peer-review paper, but perhaps enough to show what is going on: in the state of New Hampshire, temperature changes are >3X what is noted on a GISSTemp global scale. So a 2C change in Haven, for example, might be seen as a 0.5C change in the global record. Or less, as I suggested, due to smoothing algorithms. (The smaller the sample, the harder it is to see global patterns. Which makes you uneasy about the “reality” of short-term global patterns. As noted.)
The relationship to the specific locations in New Hampshire to the State or to the Globe were not explained in the Solar Cycle 24 article. We read many, many articles pro- and con-CAGW that hint at positive and negative impacts on global warming. The fellow who asked the question asked legitimately a legitimate question. I apologize if the tone of my reply was offensive; the medium plus my style has undesired consequences at times. I stand by my conclusions, however. Global warming is not global, and significant temperature drops or rises in one part of the world are not necessarily representative of the globe as a whole but can be used to estimate the global changes.
This is very significant, as the GLOBAL rise as proposed by the IPCC cabal of 3C to 5C means that the American mainland will be facing a 6 – 10C rise, while the Arctic, 9-15C rise. Of course this is going to be catastrophic! But let us think for a moment.
Because the regional variations are so great, a projected 3-5C rise globally will show up – must show up – regionally in extreme ways. And if these extremes don’t now, by 2050 they must have a bizarre rebound to maintain the IPCC model. Each year that goes by makes the “correction” more extreme. The man-in-the-street will see it … if it occurs.
Which, of course, it won’t. (According to the Suzuki team, the Arctic is already seeing a 5C rise in 201a0, with the Canadian Government weather maps handily show this. A close look at the map shows you that the open water beside the weather stations has the same effect as tarmac at airports, however. Here, cause and effect have been reversed.) So far there is nothing to say we are in a rapid rise in those sensitive areas. Forget the GISSTemp 0.01C rise to look for CAGW: look to the American Heartland.
Again, sorry if I ruffled feathers.
David Hathaway had already given a reasonable reply to Ed, with which I concur:
“While Jupiter produces excursions with a period near that of the sunspot cycle (first noted in the literature in the mid-1800s) it very quickly gets out of phase with the more chaotic sunspot cycle.”
I also responded with a similar suggestion. Using solar velocity is the same as angular momentum, it will show the same roughly 10 year oscillation which is close to the solar cycle and never stay in phase. But solar velocity or AM can be used to determine overall solar modulation strength and also give a marker for grand minima. Solar velocity follows the same curve as the Sunspot cycle wave but one has to acknowledge the interruption caused by grand minima. The only reason for the velocity wave and grand minima markers is the combined gravity of Uranus and Neptune at their conjunction.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
but one has to acknowledge the interruption caused by grand minima.
No, one has to show that there is something. And define ‘interruption’. What is it characteristics? Interruption of what?
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
May 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
but one has to acknowledge the interruption caused by grand minima.
———————————–
No, one has to show that there is something. And define ‘interruption’. What is it characteristics? Interruption of what?
We have been over this several times but you still do not understand. Lets start with the powerwave first, your diagram shows this easily because there is no grand minima in the timeframe. My diagram is the same curve but over a longer time scale and has interruptions to the wave when grand minima occur. Once you understand the background principles it all becomes clear.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 10, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Lets start with the powerwave first, your diagram shows this easily because there is no grand minima in the timeframe.
My wave has no physical significance. It is just there to aid the reader in following the trend that I think I see. He can the agree or disagree as he sees fit.
My diagram is the same curve but over a longer time scale and has interruptions to the wave when grand minima occur.
I take it that you ascribe physical significance to your curve and that ‘interruptions’ are where your physics fails.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 6:53 pm
My wave has no physical significance.
The wave is the trend that we and many others have noticed. I have a driver for that trend where you ascribe to a random number generator.
I take it that you ascribe physical significance to your curve and that ‘interruptions’ are where your physics fails.
This is where your understanding fails you. There are two forces at play, one controls the background modulation while the other disrupts the solar cycle. Can I suggest you have another go at reading my paper as “the force that dare not speak its name” is not open to discussion here.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Can I suggest you have another go at reading my paper
Your paper contains nothing new and is [as we have discussed many times] just curve fitting, finding different wiggles of different types. You are still pushing the Angular Momentum spiel in spite of having been shown that there is no free AM to exchange: the solar AM [wrt to the barycenter] precisely balancing that of the planets. This is a necessary consequence of physical laws. I still have to see a quantification of your data. Without that you have nothing [as you well know].
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:01 pm
So you have not shown you have an understanding of the theory.
You are also forgetting that there is now a peer reviewed paper by Wolff and Patrone that provides a viable mechanism that links solar path changes to solar output. This paper should be discussed in a separate article on WUWT once “the force that dare not speak its name” is allowed airspace.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:40 pm
So you have not shown you have an understanding of the theory.
There is no theory to understand. The one physical element you used to invoke does not work, even Shirley understands that.
You are also forgetting that there is now a peer reviewed paper by Wolff and Patrone that provides a viable mechanism that links solar path changes to solar output. This paper should be discussed in a separate article on WUWT once “the force that dare not speak its name” is allowed airspace.
There is no such mechanism. What Wolff and Patrone point out is that IF you can find a coupling between what they calculate and solar phenomena [any phenomena] then there might be a cause-effect relationship, but they pointedly do not supply any viable coupling.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:47 pm
“Wolff and Patrone that provides a viable mechanism”
There is no such mechanism.
A mechanism means that you can specify a force in Newtons, a mass in kg that the force is acting on for a time t in seconds, giving rise to an acceleration and hence a velocity [in m/sec] displacing solar matter a distance in meter, causing a change in the magnetic field in Tesla of the sunspots, etc. THAT is a mechanism. It is OK if you have to assume [reasonable] values for some of the parameters because they may be poorly known, but the values should in real physical units. For examples see http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leighton-1969.pdf or http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-Karak-2009.pdf Those are mechanisms.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:47 pm
You have to understand the theory before dismissing it with nonsensical statements. I challenge you to prove to me you understand the theory of both forces on my blog.
There is no such mechanism. What Wolff and Patrone point out is that IF you can find a coupling between what they calculate and solar phenomena [any phenomena] then there might be a cause-effect relationship, but they pointedly do not supply any viable coupling
Wolff and Patrone have provided a model built on sound physical attributes that provides a mechanism for solar modulation as a product of the outer 4 planet positions. This is what needs to be debated, the peer review process has certainly not found fault.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 10, 2011 at 9:24 pm
You have to understand the theory before dismissing it with nonsensical statements. I challenge you to prove to me you understand the theory of both forces on my blog.
I agree that is is useless to continue here at WUWT.
Wolff and Patrone have provided a model built on sound physical attributes that provides a mechanism for solar modulation as a product of the outer 4 planet positions.
I have studied that papaer and finds no references to sound solar physical attributes [they were astronomical attributes].
This is what needs to be debated, the peer review process has certainly not found fault.
You cannot fault a paper that conditions its result: IF such and such happens, THEN this and that will happen. That does not say that the IF is satisfied, and that is what is wrong with the W&P paper. No mechanism, only a hypothetical.
See my comment
“Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:59 pm”
for what a mechanism is.
Doug Proctor says:
May 10, 2011 at 10:17 am
Thankyou for being gracious. There is a paper coming that will be the last word on this subject. I will say, for all the North American academics reading, that the US and Canada is still an open territory (Europe has been done). With the demise of global warming, something will fill the gap, and that will be solar-climate studies based on solar cycle length. You can generate a large number of papers and get that paper count up. Own a brand new field. Speak at agricultural conferences. That sort of thing.
David Archibald says:
May 10, 2011 at 9:45 pm
You can generate a large number of papers and get that paper count up. Own a brand new field. Speak at agricultural conferences. That sort of thing.
That smells more like alarmist propaganda than science…
Geoff is correct in assuming that there is
‘modulating factor’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
and
‘disrupting factor’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm