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.
Leif,
Great solar dialog.
Of interest to me wrt evaluating sources of decadal length earth cooling periods are the variations in:
a) solar spectral irradiance during the ~22 year magnetic solar cycle and between such cycles
b) solar wind composition, intensity/density and frequency of perturbations during the ~22 year magnetic solar cycle and between such cycles
c) earth magnetic system changes that occur during a) and b) but which are independent of the solar magnetic system cycle . . . . that is coincident with but not correlated with each other.
I am a fisherman for ideas on sources of decadal length earth cooling periods. : )
John
John Whitman says:
May 9, 2011 at 11:46 am
a) solar spectral irradiance during the ~22 year magnetic solar cycle and between such cycles
There are 11-yr cycles, no 22-yr cycles. The ‘magnetic cycle’ is not a cycle, but simply two juxtaposed 11-yr cycles. So no differences.
b) solar wind composition, intensity/density and frequency of perturbations during the ~22 year magnetic solar cycle and between such cycles
Same answer as above.
c) earth magnetic system changes that occur during a) and b) but which are independent of the solar magnetic system cycle . . . . that is coincident with but not correlated with each other.
The Earth’s magnetic field as such has nothing to with the solar cycles. there are VERY small perturbations [less than 1%] cause by solar activity. and there is a small difference in the response of the Earth to the direction of the solar field. This is the 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity. It is explained [in part] in section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf but as a perturbation on a perturbation is of second order and has no detectable climate effects.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 9, 2011 at 11:44 am
………….
I see no apology, till then the rest I shall ignore.
To the rest of readers and contributors:
I misquoted my own article by paraphrasing rather than using ‘copy and paste’:
“one billion Amps, 10^24 -10^30 Joules, the Earth’s take (Fig 1.a) is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules”
and posted: “when as much as one billion Amps is short-circuited in Arctic in single ‘zap’, releasing 10^24 -10^30 Joules of energy. For more details
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm”
I also should have looked up details, before hitting ‘Post Comment’ button.
Everyone is entitled to their views, even to consider above ‘dishonest’ or ‘economical with the truth’; I will only engage in an exchange where basic civility is observed.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2011 at 11:59 am
I see no apology, till then the rest I shall ignore.
The easy way to evade the inconvenient truth.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2011 at 8:30 am
I do not subscribe to Electric Universe ideas, so you are wrong to include me there.
Here is why you are on the same level as the Electric Universe people [your denial or no denial]: They [EU] claim that large electric currents external to the sun [from far away – the Galaxy or Jupiter makes no difference] have profound influences on the Sun and solar activity. You claim the same, hence can be lumped in with them as far as that goes.
What you know or don’t know isn’t really concern of mine.
Is a Vuk example of civil discourse.
steven mosher says:
May 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm
fred.
“The IPCC GHG models failed to predict that warming would level off in 1999. Does this mean the GHG theory behind them has also failed?”
___
Steve says “Actually not, ….
…The different is this. Fix’s model looks to be deterministic. one set of inputs: one set of outputs. in a GCM the same inputs lead to different outputs because of natural variability in the models. IF GCMS gave you a deterministic answer then you could say they were wrong. But since they give a spread of results ( its the nature of the beast) we have a much more complicated situation.”
______________
And there is the rub, Steve. “But since they give a spread of results”… they can’t be falsified. Indeterministic.
If GCMs can’t be falsified they are not science, they are just endless math calculations. (With all due respect for the math and what they are attempting.)
In a nutshell, there are too many independent variables, too many dependent variables, too many outcomes to know causation or effect.
When they are good they are very very good, but when they are wrong they are horrid (but good none the less?).
To reader from: National Aeronautics And Space Administration (128.158.1.164), Huntsville, Alabama, United States
Graph you are interested in
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Thames-SSN.htm
is in response to : Solar to river flow and lake level correlations
to show that there is no obvious correlation.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard said May 9, 2011 at 11:55 am
Leif,
Thanks for the clarification. I can see a distinction in why one would say the geomagnetic activity has a 22-year cycle whereas the solar cycle would be considered 11 years.
Thanks for the reference to your 1977 work. Those were the IBM Selectrixc (golf ball) typewriter days, weren’t they? : )
Question: Does any aspect of solar wind reaching earth vary wrt the earths position relative to the solar equatorial plane? For example such aspects could be things like solar wind intensity/density or duration of maxs/mins or composition or frequency of storms/events (perturbations).
John
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2011 at 7:39 am
..ICWs are irrelevant for the problem at hand..
~
Well..not exactly..seems part of this solar cycle 24 phenomenum..missing spots, low squashed polar fields, dominate surface field and low ICW counts..
And ICW’s role in coronal heating and acceleration of solar wind/IMF ..ah..Think I’ll doing some reading on ICW’s making waves in the radiation belts down here for a while..maybe..
John Whitman says:
May 9, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Thanks for the reference to your 1977 work. Those were the IBM Selectric (golf ball) typewriter days, weren’t they? : )
Indeed they were. Great machine.
Question: Does any aspect of solar wind reaching earth vary wrt the earths position relative to the solar equatorial plane?
The relative number of days with one polarity vs. days with the other polarity varies through the year. This is called the Rosenberg-Coleman effect: http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric%20Rosenberg-Coleman%20Effect.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual%20Variation%201954%20and%201996.pdf
But that is about it.
Carla says:
May 9, 2011 at 1:07 pm
“..ICWs are irrelevant for the problem at hand..”
Well..not exactly.
They are exactly irrelevant. What matters is the magnetic field in the solar atmosphere. The ICW’s are just a proposed mechanism [one of many] for heating the corona, related to the magnetic field. The ICWs as such are not of interest.
Leif – regarding the issue that has riled Vukcevic:
Vukcevic : “Once I lived in a political system where I was classified by those who knew better than I do ‘what my thoughts were’.”
Leif : “Your thoughts are revealed by your statements [if you are honest].”
The political system that Vukcevic refers to was, I think you will find, that of the Soviet Union. In that system, your thoughts were not your own but whatever the authorities decided they were. I would suggest that you could reasonably expect Vukcevic to find your comment inappropriate.
Unfortunately, the situation was then made worse by what appears to be an english-language error by Vukcevic, using “What” instead of “Who” : “What you know or don’t know isn’t really concern of mine.“. Using “Who”, the statement fits the context, and is reasonable.
Now, can we all please get back to being civil.
Mike Jonas says:
May 9, 2011 at 2:13 pm
The political system that Vukcevic refers to was, I think you will find, that of the Soviet Union.
I have actually lived a while in the old Soviet Union, so knows the system well.
Now, can we all please get back to being civil.
One might hope for the best.
Malaga View says:
May 9, 2011 at 3:12 am
Very well said. Obviously cooling is not allowed.
It is becoming more evident that amateurs and most academics are now on the same level on this topic, with Vukcevic for one, emerging above the surface.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2011 at 9:29 am
Don’t be sloppy in quoting me. My prediction based on Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory is a 2.0 degree C decline for the US-Canadian border and consequent failure of the Canadian wheat crop. The UK, northwestern Europe will have a 1.5 degree C decline.
Sunspot says:
May 9, 2011 at 3:23 pm
It is becoming more evident that amateurs and most academics are now on the same level on this topic, with Vukcevic for one, emerging above the surface.
You should pay more attention to the facts. Vuk’s scheme hindcasts [and predicts] that all solar cycles have the same length, except once per century where his formula slips.
David Archibald says:
May 9, 2011 at 3:29 pm
My prediction based on Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory is a 2.0 degree C decline for the US-Canadian border
which is ten times the 0.2 degree that Doug Proctor was saying. Or are you backing off from the 2 degrees?
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2011 at 6:51 am
tallbloke says:
May 9, 2011 at 1:10 am
The MSFC panel prediction for cycle 24 failed, spectacularly. Does this mean the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed?
I would say so.
Heh, maybe we’re at cross purposes here. I’m not talking about the heuristic method the majority of the panelists employed to make their failed prediction, but the “theory behind it”.
Anyway, the point stands. The dynamologists have not been able to use their theory to make good predictions, except by predicting every outcome so at least one of them is somewhere near. So for you to demand falsifiability of the planetary solar theory is to invite the reply,
“People who’ve set up their homes in greenhouses shouldn’t throw stones.”
I’m looking forward to a more coherent and settled version of the Babcock-Leighton dynamo theory so we can see it’s predictions and put them to the test.
Likewise I hope Ed Fix’s forthcoming paper will clarify how the red planetary curve has been constructed and provide a similarly testable prediction.
May the better theory then result. (I forsee an amalgamation of the two).
tallbloke says:
May 9, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Heh, maybe we’re at cross purposes here. I’m not talking about the heuristic method the majority of the panelists employed to make their failed prediction, but the “theory behind it”.
The ‘majority of the panelists’? This was Hathaway’s method, alone. And David has repeatedly said that he didn’t know how it worked, so no ‘theory’ actually. The method failed, and the ‘theory’ that a correlation is the same as causation failed.
So for you to demand falsifiability of the planetary solar theory is to invite the reply
I do not demand falsifiability, but feasibility.
I’m looking forward to a more coherent and settled version of the Babcock-Leighton dynamo theory so we can see it’s predictions and put them to the test.
Leighton gave that long ago: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leighton-1969.pdf
Likewise I hope Ed Fix’s forthcoming paper will clarify how the red planetary curve has been constructed and provide a similarly testable prediction.
since we have seen the paper, we cannot really comment, can we. You can always hope.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2011 at 4:02 pm
since we have NOT seen the paper, we cannot really comment, can we. You can always hope.
The Grand Missing Correlation, otherwise known at the Great Climactic Coincidence.
Things that really ruin your day: watching two phenomena coincide right under your nose like they’re supposed to and then you find out the wiring has melted.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2011 at 9:29 am
Doug Proctor says:
May 9, 2011 at 9:24 am
This discussion goes off into the technical details as so much of AGW discussions do, without addressing clearly that we all started arguing about. As I understand things, if Ed Fix and other correlations are correct, a very short and therefore very low sunspot number for Cycle 24 will be associated with a -0.2 – -0.4C global temperature drop over the next 15 years.
Leif wishes to know where I get this understanding from: I’ve been checking the land records such as New Haven, Connecicut for temperature drops wrt to sunspont number, and I see that these Continental US (and other European land stations) have, indeed, a 2C drop during a Dalton-like low sunspot interval. However, there is an insidious error here: that of conflating a land station change in temperature with that of a global change.
I took the GISSTemp data for Global, SST and Land-Station only, plus US Continental graphs and compared on a date-basis changes in temperatures. Also subdivisions of the globe. Taking the amount of change for a variety of time-change events, I averaged out about 4 events. Not all that scientific, but the end result was telling. Then, taking the GISTemp Global change as a reference point, I came out with changes in individual parts of the globe as follows:
1. GISSTemp 1.00
2. Land-Ocean 1.2
3. Global Meteorological 1.41
4. Land Only 1.79
5. SST 0.58
6. NH 1.68
7. SH 0.63
8. Tropics 1.01
9. Mid North Lat 1.84
10. Mid South Lat 0.43
11. Arctic 3.55
12. Nh-Trop 2.43
13. SH-Trop 0.43
14. Trop-Trop 0.94
15. Tokyo 2.62
16. Greenland 3.21
17. US Cont 2.09
18. RSS(V3.3) 0.98
19. UAH 0.96
This means that for every 1C rise that GISSTemp shows, for example, the US Continental records will show 2.09C increases. Though there is some difference in drops, the results are similar. I also looked at individual stations like New Haven, and saw that the individual US station drops differently from the US continental. I can’t find my datasheet this moment, but the difference was on the order of another 2X in the NE continental Us. So when Archibald etc. say that New Haven drops by 2.0C during a low Sunspot Number of <50, I have to drop that to 1.0C for the continental US, then drop that to 0.45 or so for the global average. Then, because looking at the historical record of GISSTemp from 1880 to the present I see no sustained drops in the record of 0.45C, I suspect that the smoothed number is less than 0.45. Thus I get 0.3C.
The key is that regional temperature variations are not mirrors of the global average. The Arctic, as per IPCC claims, warms more than the global average, in my estimation about 3.55X from observation. The Continental US average, about 2.09X the global. Within the Continental US the average is less than the high spots (I've misplaced the calculation sheet, but I doubt you disagree). Then smoothing over a 5-year period reduces the change even more.
We have to compare apples to apples. If Archibald says that a 2C drop occurs worldwide, then the continental drops 4C or more. That's called an ice age.
You guys with your computers can replicate my graph and hand calculator in an instant. Take individual rises over the last 120 years as broken down by Hansen et al. What counts in this debate is the truth of GISTemp and therefore the IPCC. Look at UAH and RSS as well for the same intervals. There will be some time-shifts necessary as the temperature changes in the southern hemisphere etc. are delayed in the northern hemisphere.
It all comes from the global warming not being global, and regional changes not being equal in space or time. Global averages are grossly unrepresentative of the world, as the movement of the NYSE is grossly unrepresentative of my personal stock holdings. Both in a negative way.
Likewise I hope Ed Fix’s forthcoming paper will clarify how the red planetary curve has been constructed and provide a similarly testable prediction.
Ed was kind enough to send me a draft copy some time ago that may have changed but without giving too much away the primary input looks to be solar velocity measured from the SSB with some tweaks. Some of the model output is very close to the angular momentum output performed by Carl Smith in 2007, but interestingly Ed’s model does not hindcast the Maunder Minimum suggesting perhaps that further work maybe required.
Hindcasting over very long time periods is necessary to prove models that attempt to predict solar output. Carl’s graph and the subsequent research that followed on from it, show good correlation with solar cycle modulation and grand minima over the entire Holocene.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Yes, you are quite right about hindcasting. It must be done as well as forecasting, otherwise one is merely trend-chasing.