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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I do not think the form of the 50 years slopes is can be just a coincidence or an artefact of selective filtering, so there is something to made from a closer look.”
So, what is it P. Solar?
You’re just looking for more funding, aren’t you?
sarc/
I could use some help please.
In the second diagram in David’s article the polar magnetic field in both hemispheres each show a dominant 22 year cycle upon which there appears to be a superimposed annual cycle. Are these annual cycles in the polar magnetic field strength caused by the changing vantage point that we have of the Sun’s poles as the Earth moves around the Sun?
Thanks in advance.
Astrology or Astronomy?
The clock strikes twelve and moondrops burst
Out at you from their hiding place
Miss carrie nurse and susie dear
Would find themselves at four winds bar
It’s the nexus of the crisis
And the origin of storms
Just the place to hopelessly
Encounter time and then came me
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2011 at 1:59 am
NeilM says:
May 8, 2011 at 1:45 am
“(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???
Anyone care to enlighten me?
Astrology…
That continues to be a problem for mainstream science, especially in the US. Fear that their work will be labelled “Astrology”.
Similar fears gripped the scientists of the past which prevented progress for almost 2 thousand years.
http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
The above reference provides a possible reason. It claims that as the Earth moves
up and down across the ecliptic plane the measurement aperture used at the Wilcox Solar Observatory moves location in the solar coordinate system. They filter this annual variation out with a filter. Is this the correct reason?
tallbloke says:
May 8, 2011 at 6:15 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2011 at 1:59 am
NeilM says:
May 8, 2011 at 1:45 am
“(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???
Anyone care to enlighten me?
Astrology…
Coupled with Dynamology.
tallbloke, what is Dynamology? I visualize the center of mass for the solar system (COM) which is in or near the sun and constantly changing as well as the sun’s mass, moving internally, as the COM moves and compensates with the COM. The sun’s internal movement affects its magnetic field.
“Will the change be significant enough to make the climate scientists revise their projections of continued warming with continued emissions? ”
Only if it affects their funding.
DirkH says:
May 8, 2011 at 6:25 am
“And where’s the postulated, never observed, positive water vapor feedback that the AGW scientists need to maintain their catastrophe predictions in your cake analogy?”
It has been observed.
In terms of the analogy perhaps it’s the fatter you get the less exercise you want to do.
onion2 says:
“Rising CO2 is like eating slightly more cake each day.”
This incorrectly implies that CO2 isn’t useful. It also vastly overstates the contribution of CO2 emissions to the Earth’s total radiative balance. Even a little extra cake would mean 100 calories or so, or about 5% of the total energy balance. If you want to preserve your anology you’d have make it a nibble of carrot.
Even so, it would be possible to throw off your normal weight by indulging in that healthy bite. It would take a very long time and well before the results became problematic, unrelated natural processes (death from old age) would naturally limit the imbalance. The truth is that there would be no way to predict the actual effects without calculating unknown variables like total caloric intake, exercise regimens, sleep duration, water consumption, etc.
Any nutritionist who attempted to project weight gain from a daily bite of a healthy vegetable would (correctly) be laughed into silence. Any professional who tried to present a bite of carrot as a potentially fatal dietary mistake would lose their credentials, and any that tried to extort money in order to force you into alternatives would likely go to jail.
Though long-term Milankovitch and solar cycles are unquestionably major climate determinants, paleo-geologic eras are driven more by global bathymetric regimes (deep-ocean “magmatic episodes”) in context of plate tectonics. Planet Earth is less an oblate spheroid than a subtly pear-shaped ovoid which periodically expands/contracts by a factor of ~.00689%, perhaps one quarter-mile on her 4,000-mile equatorial radius.
Over some 65-million years from the Chicxulub Impact which ignited the planet’s oxygen-rich atmosphere, six well-defined geologic eras have averaged 12 – 16 million years apiece. At ~ 2.6-million years, our current Pleistocene Era accordingly has 10 – 14 million years to run. Since the Pleistocene by definition is characterized by cyclical Ice Ages averaging 102,000 years interspersed with median 12,250-year Interglacial Epochs such as the current Holocene, we anticipate that, regardless of tactical astronomical and atmospheric factors, this geophysical strategic pattern will persist for some time yet.
Since the Pliocene Era ended, North and South American continents have walled off Eastern from Western Hemispheres, interfering with global atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Only when “continental drift” re-distributes these landmasses, liberating fluid air-and-water flows again, will Earth abandon Pleistocene Ice Times.
Meanwhile, absent a 1,500-year “cold shock” called the Younger Dryas which set back the post-glacial clock c. BC 8700 – 7200 (from 10,700 years-before-present, YBP), Earth’s “long summer” aka the Holocene Interglacial Epoch was due to end c. AD 450, coincident with a protracted period of “Roman Warm.” Global Warming?– as Earth “exhales,” expanding tectonic Rings of Fire from early 1800s suggest the opposite.
We need to send most of our climate scientists and academics to the Sun to research what is happening.
Dress light, take lots of water.
Dave (UK) says:
May 8, 2011 at 2:54 am
“Irrespective of the outcome, the warmists will blame Ag e’Dubalu, their malign god of climate.”
Manmade CO2 is a sky god. A sky god who controls climate.
To steal money and minds they are warning
That a gas of life brings warming
They are idle and ignorant of a sun which is shoning
With less vibrance and vigor these mornings
Please see that change is the universe’s law
The cosmic flow knows not one nor all
As specks of dust in this against this scale of force
You’ll see the cold that is coming will be worse
Late last night when I saw that David’s post had “outed” me and this model, my first thought was something like, “Now, it’s going to hit the fan.” And that’s ok.
Several people seem to be arguing about whether “my prediction” has any merit without knowing what I actually wrote. Since Anthony has banned (for good reason) discussions over the role of certain forces on the sunspot cycle, I won’t get into that discussion here. For the record, I’m not actually making any prediction.
What my paper in press actually describes is a dynamic simulation using ONE aspect of these forces on a VERY simple model that is NOT intended to actually represent any real aspect of the sun. It is merely a placeholder to explore the hypothesis (not theory) that some aspect of these forces MIGHT have an effect on the sunspot cycle. As a result, I am of the opinion that this avenue is worth pursuing, even though many respectable scientists (again, for good reason) regard this avenue as little more than astrology or numerology. Since I have no reputation in solar physics, I have nothing to lose.
I let this model run out a few cycles into the future, and it did some things in the near future timeframe that it didn’t do at any other time (short sunspot cycles, etc.). What I conclude is that, if this avenue of inquiry has any merit, then the next couple of sunspot cycles may be quite different than anything we’ve seen in the past–at least the cycles we’ve had the instrumentation to study in detail. HOWEVER, the fact that the latest minimum is unique over at least the last century kind of says as much without any model.
When I developed the first iteration of this model in 2008, it showed Cycle 24 starting an upswing around the start of 2010. When the actual sun started showing activity around Dec, 2009, it was gratifying, but hardly any sort of confirmation. David Archibald (who has been hounding me to get this in shape for publication for the past year and a half or so) has presented some current data that MAY correlate with something you might say a posteriori correlates in some way with what my simple model did. Again, interesting and at some level gratifying, but but it will be years before we can say there is any real correlation, let alone rule out coincidence.
What David Archibald does is pull together information from disparate sources and points out the apparent correlations he finds. These correlations may or may not actually mean something, but they are generally interesting, and provoke lots of discussion. And, of course, he isn’t shy about stirring the pot. That can be fun, too–even if you happen to be in the pot.
“Leif Svalgaard says: May 8, 2011 at 1:59 am
Astrology…
I have had fun describing the hypothesis as scientific astrology. I have yet to find enough evidence to dismiss it. Thought experiment: Suppose one had non radiating body of one solar mass in Mercury’s orbit. One would definitely see solar output being modulated its position. Could one model this? If so, within the model, slowly move the body out to Jupiter’s orbit. The magnitude of the variation would be greatly reduced but one solar mass would still have a significant effect. Now within the model start slowly reducing the mass to one Jupiter mass.
If I understand Dr. Svalgaard, the model would show the induced variation would be reduced to below noise levels well before the mass was reduced to one Jupiter mass.
At what mass (within an order of magnitude) would the model show insignificant induced solar variation?
One question.
If the Sun reaches its maximum and that maximum has a low TSI and the Earth’s temperature declines, does this mean that the Sun does influence the Earth’s temperature?
Of course CO2 will increase due to the slower growth of plants [due to the coolness], so rising CO2 and a cooler planet. I’m sure it was predicted by AGW.
For those of you adding solar to your theories, I will plead with you to clearly indicate this: State what is the mechanized and mathematically reasonable driver of measureable and observed temperature CHANGE.
It is clearly understood by one and all that the Sun’s output keeps us reasonably and relatively constantly warm, and its solar TSI cycle impinges on the ANOMALOUS CHANGE we measure here cyclically by .01 to .03%. Everyone here agrees with that. So you look stupid when rhetorically responding with “Well wut wood hap’n if ol’ SOL dis’peard?!?!?!?”, she paraphrased.
We can also all agree with this: The well-accepted construct, of which both maths and mechanisms match, of cyclical solar affects (.01 to .03%) on temperature change is hidden INSIDE Earth’s own wide, natural, intrinsic variation and is thus mechanistically and mathematically the case but not observationally the case on our thermometers.
The argument centers on other postulated solar mechanisms. To that I say: The solar energy available for the known cyclic change is far and away greater than any other solar variation mechanism, such that THOSE affects you tout would hide inside the .01 to .03%! Solar enthusiasts postulate that there is Solar energy and mechanism available that drives MEASURABLE anomaly change in Earth’s temperature that is greater than TSI. To this I say, show how your maths and mechanism match and outruns TSI.
Even then you are not done. Here is your blind spot. There are far more probable internal drivers of (naturally intrinsic and anthropogenic) temperature change you MUST rule out (show it is wrong or at least overrun with your idea) before haralding a poorly postulated ethereal solar affect.
Because you have not, solar enthusiasts fail to convince me that solar variation of any kind is the driver of the temperature CHANGE/Fluctuation we have seen on our thermometers in the modern era.
The null hypothesis stands: Solar variation is not the driver of observed anomalous temperature change.
I really don’t understand these solar cycles at all and I’m not really that interested in learning. But it does strike me a bit strange to claim that the planets effect the sun, but the sun doesn’t effect the climate on the earth.
Leif
You stated that the last polar reversal was in the 57-58 timeframe, which was an extremely large solar cycle.
Any thoughts on the mechanism for such a switch in a weak cycle?
Were any of the previous reversals in a weak cycle?
Is there a periodic component to the reversals?
Thanks
Re: onion2
Nearly everybody agrees that eating more cake means you will gain weight. The CAGW crowd would also have you believe that gaining weight means you defecate less and therefore an enhanced weight gain feedback mechanism comes into play. This means that if you eat cake your weight gain will spiral out of control.
Eating just one of those wafer thin mints will be okay though. Honest.
Ninderthana says:
May 8, 2011 at 7:29 am
It claims that as the Earth moves up and down across the ecliptic plane the measurement aperture used at the Wilcox Solar Observatory moves location in the solar coordinate system. They filter this annual variation out with a filter. Is this the correct reason?
Indeed it is. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun%27s%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
Gary Palmgren says:
May 8, 2011 at 8:12 am
If I understand Dr. Svalgaard, the model would show the induced variation would be reduced to below noise levels well before the mass was reduced to one Jupiter mass.
At what mass (within an order of magnitude) would the model show insignificant induced solar variation?
The issue is that tidal effects from Jupiter are about half a millimeter [proportional to the mass]. If Jupiter had the mass of the Sun [1000 times larger than it has], the tidal bulge would be 1000 times larger, i.e. half a meter. This is still insignificant. You have to move the perturbing body closer to the Sun. So let us move it ten times closer [to half an AU], now the effect is a thousand times larger [as it scales with the cube of the distance], or half a kilometer [which is still less than a millionth of the solar radius]. You have to move the body REALLY close to have any effect. There are binary stars that are very close, and on those there is an enormous effect.
Alex says:
May 8, 2011 at 4:17 am
So if you “remove” the sun there wouldn’t be much change?
If I understand the discussion it is that the Sun’s output does not vary enough to cause the climatic shifts (for example, glacial versus interglacial) while Earth’s changing orbital shape and axis orientation do vary enough to produce the observed changes. I think most folks will agree that the Sun has to stay in our solar system for it to exist.
Pamela Gray says: “The null hypothesis stands: Solar variation is not the driver of observed anomalous temperature change.”
Before making that your “null hypothesis”, you first define what you regard as anomalous temperature change in that statement, without using bristle-cone pine , illogically inverted lake sediments and inconveniently truncated tree ring proxies.
Since all temperate change is referred to as an “anomaly” anyway your null hypothesis is nullified.
Tom t says:
May 8, 2011 at 8:26 am
But it does strike me a bit strange to claim that the planets effect the sun, but the sun doesn’t effect the climate on the earth.
The strange bit is the first part of your statement.
Dennis Wingo says:
May 8, 2011 at 8:27 am
You stated that the last polar reversal was in the 57-58 timeframe, which was an extremely large solar cycle.
Any thoughts on the mechanism for such a switch in a weak cycle?
The mechanism is the same in all cycles: transport of magnetic flux from dead sunspots to to poles. The polar fields at the beginning of SC24 were weak, so are easier to reverse.
Were any of the previous reversals in a weak cycle?
Since [as far as we know] the fields reverse in every cycle, yes, this also happens in weak cycles. An observed case is cycle 20, which was only half of that of cycle 19.
Is there a periodic component to the reversals?
No, other than the periodic solar cycle itself. The polar fields are the result of an essentially random walk of the flux. The total polar flux is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the total magnetic flux erupting during a cycle, so it doesn’t take much random variation of that to produce just about any polar flux you want.
Ninderthana says:
May 8, 2011 at 7:29 am
It claims that as the Earth moves up and down across the ecliptic plane
It doesn’t. The Earth’s orbit is the ecliptic plane. If you had said the sun’s equatorial plane it would have been correct.