UPDATE: New graphs from David Archibald added. See below.
The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) has released their latest charts on solar activity and the news is not encouraging for solar watchers. Today, the sun has but a couple of anemic “sunspecks”.
Last month I wrote about how May had not continued the advances seen in March and April. Now according the the latest SWPC graphs of the three major metrics of solar activity, June appears to have slipped even further.
I see NASA’s Hathaway making another adjustment to his forecast soon. He wrote on July 1st:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 69 in June of 2013. We are currently over two and a half years into Cycle 24. Three consecutive months with average daily sunspot numbers above 40 has raised the predicted maximum above the 64.2 for the Cycle 14 maximum in 1907. The predicted size would make this the smallest sunspot cycle in over 100 years.
More near real-time information on the state of the sun is available on our WUWT solar reference page
UPDATE: My friend in Perth, David Archibald, sends along this information.
Solar Update July 2011
Now that the UK Met Office is half way to admitting that solar activity is the main driver in climate, it is appropriate to check up on how the Sun is going.
Two and a half years after solar minimum, the Ap Index remains below the minima of previous solar cycles.
Dr Svalgaard provides a useful daily update on the F 10.7 flux at http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png What the above graph shows is the ramp up of Solar Cycle 24 F 10.7 flux relative to the previous five solar cycles, aligned on the month of minimum. The current cycle has a very flat trajectory.
Similar to the Ap Index, the Interplanetary Magnetic Field is now up to the levels of previous solar minima.
This chart compares the development of Solar Cycle 24 with the last de Vries cycle event – the Dalton Minimum. The Solar Cycle 24 ramp up in terms of sunspot number is tracking much the same as that of Solar Cycle 5 but about a year ahead of it. All solar activity indications are for a Dalton Minimum repeat. There has been no development that precludes that outcome.
This graph shows the sum of the north and south polar magnetic fields on the Sun. It has yet to get down to the levels of previous maxima, and solar maximum may be still two to three years off.
David Archibald
July 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pamela: irregardless is not a word. But I agree with your point. Global temperatures increased from the 1880s to the 1940s prior to large increases in CO2 emissions. Why is this not regarded as the normal rate of natural forcing? We only need to explain why the world suddenly cooled in the late 1940s through to the 1970s to explain over 130 years of global temperature observations with a simple linear equation. Any AGW effect would be in addition to this natural increase.
What is it with the troll R Gates? Most of his/her arguments are just ad homs and appeals to authority and “my computer is really really big and my equations are very complex so they got to be better than yours” and “none of you know what you are talking about”.
YAWN. I have just about had enough of his/her condescending contributions that unfortunately add nothing that relates to this thread.
/ignore
R. Gates says:
July 9, 2011 at 12:08 pm
“These additions may make some minor differences in future climate scenarios but will not change the overall anticipated major trends such as an ice free summer Arctic, etc.”
Insider knowledge, Mr. Gates? How can you know that? You said yourself that they simulate a “nonlinear” system (but that’s not important, the important part that you left out is that it is a chaotic system). And you know in advance that adding for instance GCR influence will not change whatever the makers of the models anticipate? You know, i am very sure that you are right because the makers of the models have all financial reasons in the world to cling on to their extreme warming prognostications but i thought you pretended they were scientists. Mayve just a slip of the tongue but telling…
R. Gates says:
July 9, 2011 at 11:51 pm
“But in terms of the basic dynamics of increases in CO2 at the levels we’ve seen over the past few hundred years and it’s relationship to global warming…yes, I think we’ve got most of this modeled pretty well. (at least the linear part, for we may never model the non-linear “tipping points” very well as these are chaotic by nature.”
The old “we got the basic physics right” Realclimate canard, and then followed by an admission that we unfortunately can only guess the dynamics. R. Gates, by that argument i could say that each time it rains the Earth gets wet, so we’ll all necessarily drown (we still have to figure out what happens between rainfalls but we have the basic physics right).
@Pamela Gray
Agreed! No matter what the warmists say, there is no real detectable signal of anthropogenic origin above and beyond what we can recognize as the natural climate variation. There always remains a possibility of some anthropogenic signal (thought to be due to CO2 or whatever) but it is nowehere near demonstrable from observations (further meaning that any such signal MUST be small!). Worse still, thus far, there is no evidence of ‘out of the ordinary’ climate i.e. of all the so called AGW caused ‘current’ events, equally similar or worse events have been ‘witnessed’ in the past!
That’s my view – and no amount of MSM or alarmist hype will convince me otherwise!
Pamela Gray says:
July 10, 2011 at 7:35 am
——
Pamela,
I thank you for your dispassionate and clear statement on climate change determination criteria.
I concur generally.
I suggest, that in addition, there needs more real earth system evaluation (not by models) of the ‘radiative physics’ which some say causes statistically significant (wrt natural variation) permanent warming by the (unfortunately named) greenhouse CO2 gas. It is not sufficient to say ‘all things being equal’ that additional CO2 simply yields either significant transient or permanent warming when statistically compared to natural variation.
John
@Jeremy
Ah! You’ve noticed too! LOL
Pamela Gray says: July 10, 2011 at 7:35 am
…………….
In England temperature is the main controlled by the Atlantic currents. However in the month of June, when the insolation is at its highest and generally overrides the effect of the surrounding seas, ground level temperature should show a rising trend due to combination of both the anthropogenic and solar forcing.
There is no rising (or any) trend for the 350 years of the available data.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETjun.htm
From 1910 to 1945 there was 0.45 degrees of warming.
From 1945 to 1975 there was no warming or cooling.
From 1975 to 2000 there was 0.50 degrees of warming.
Rate of warming (natural) from 1910-1945 was 1.28 Deg/Century.
Rate of warming (natural + AGW) from 1975 to 2000 was 2.00 Deg/Century.
Difference is (2.00-1.28) 0.71 Deg/Century.
Subtract a 30 year period of no warming and we should expect 0.50 Deg/Century.
However, if we believe that warmer temperatures lead to CO2 increases which in turn lead to higher temperatures, then we have to back out the effect of the natural warming adding more CO2 and then leading to more warming. I don’t know how to do that, but this drops the 0.50 Deg/Century down even further.
I am not a climate scientist and I am not worrying about the climate. Now taxes? That is something to worry about.
R Gates,
“IF we should go into a Maunder type minimum, what excuses will the AGW skeptics have if we don’t get their much talked about and anticipated new “LIttle Ice Age”, but rather, on a decade to decade basis, global temps continue to rise.”
Then the sceptics will also have been proven right about the scamming of the temperature record!!
8>)
John Finn says:
July 10, 2011 at 3:38 am
Should be done as a relative drop, not an absolute drop.
If you have 2 baloons that leak 2 cfm, one holds 200 cfm and the other holds 400 cfm, which one will leak air faster? Your analysis assumes that if SC 3,4 & 5 absolute temps do not match SC 22, 23 & 24 absolute temps, then solar influence is falsified. There are even more problems than that, as we don’t have measured Neutron counts, data on UV output and all the other things we just started measuring for SC 3, 4 & 5.
Steven Mosher,
“Now, if a small change in the suns output ( remember we only care about the change in forcing
not the source, watts is watts) drives a big chill… well, then you better be more worried about C02. Thats a more sensitive climate.”
Actually that is exactly what part of the argument is about. Watts is NOT Watts. (sorry Anthony)
If the amount of energy is the same but the frequencies delivering that energy changes, the effect on the earth can change. You know this.
We have seen that there is some validity to the high energy cosmic ray theory of Svensmark. Again, this will cause extra cooling for the same change in Watts.
Then there is the change in the direct effects on the magnetic field and upper atmosphere by the charged particles of the solar wind and the sun’s decreased magnetic field.
These and possibly other effects are there in the net measurements, but, not attributed correctly.
So, the deflection is NOT only a direct influence of Watts (or TSI) and we probably don’t have to worry about a glaciation starting anytime soon.
R. Gates,
“IF we should go into a Maunder type minimum, what excuses will the AGW skeptics have if we don’t get their much talked about and anticipated new “LIttle Ice Age”, but rather, on a decade to decade basis, global temps continue to rise.”
No excuse needed. It will be validation of one of the sceptics other claims. That the temperature record has been gamed. 8>)
From the projected Linear Trend Department:
Hear ye, hear ye: All trends are hereby etched in stone. All areas getting warmer will fry like egss. All areas getting colder will enter a cyrogenic state. All areas getting wetter will wash away or become inundated. All areas getting drier will turn to a pile of sand & rocks.
The Earth will continue to move towards the Sun indefinately, since we have passed aphelion, until it burns to a crisp, until awoken by Mrs Bronson, where the Earth moves relentlessly away from the Sun.
Don’t you just love linear trends without end, amen? /sarc
Jeremy not quite literally quoting R. Gates: “my computer is really really big and my equations are very complex so they got to be better than yours”. The problem is that the models still don’t resolve weather to the level of detail needed to predict water vapor feedback. Sensitivity is unknowable by models.
Mosh: your logic seems to be that sensitivity is a constant and a simple multiple of a few simple forcings. Other people have pointed out some of the flaws in that logic, but here is another. Sensitivity depends on the weather and weather depends on many things but mostly on various solar factors (e.g. GCR, solar UV, etc). The MWP could have easily been warmer because sensitivity was higher and a small change in TSI was multiplied more than the current less small change in CO2 forcing. IOW, if the current blocking, negative AO, etc keep going the way they are going, there will be a lot less positive feedback to CO2 warming and perhaps even negative feedback. That doesn’t mean we will cool, but warming could effective stay suppressed.
Eric ,
No I’m not saying that. Have a look at the work Paul K and SteveF did at Lucia’s. Especially SteveFs. The point is this. When we talk about sensitivity to doubling C02 here is what we mean.
doubling c02 gives you a certain increase in forcing (3.71wsqm ). That increasing in forcing get’s amplified ( so the theory goes) based on the sensitivity or gain in the system.
read SteveF and you will begin to understand
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/a-simple-analysis-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/
Ohhhh for the love of humanity!
R. Gates, you have not persuaded me that the current low Arctic sea ice extent is caused by man-made co2. Soot and windmaybe, but not co2.
See Arctic warmth within the last ~3,000 years.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
http://www.ebook3000.com/Climate-Change-in-Eurasian-Arctic-Shelf-Seas–Centennial-Ice-Cover-Observations_35204.html
More sensitive to what?
Mosher,
Do you accept that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon?
Medieval Climate Anomaly
Global:
Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period
Was the medieval warm period global?
Ljungqvist et al [pdf]
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years
Antarctica:
B.L. Hall et. al.
E. Castellano et. al.
B.L. Hall et. al.
Brenda L. Hall
Margaret B. Williams et. al.
Boo-Keun Khim et. al.
Southern South America:
Torsten Haberzettl et. al.
Dmitri Mauquoy et. al.
C.M.F Dubois – Universidad Nacional del Centro
Ricardo Villalba – University of Colorado
New Zealand:
P. W. Williams et. al.
Edward R. Cook et. al.
Indo-Pacific Warm Pool:
Alicia Newton et. al. [See also pdf version]
R. Gates,
The “Maunder type minimum” occured during the Little Ice Age, it did not cause the LIA.
Jimbo.
More sensitive to forcing. Read the essay by SteveF. here is the point. A doubling of c02 creates and addition forcing of 3.71W per sq meter. the question is what’s the temperature reponse
to a forcing of 3.7Watts. If does not matter whether those excess watts are created by by methane or water vapor or increased solar forcing. What is the response. SteveF gives you
a first order estimate of that response assuming NO feedbacks. That figure, 1.56C is the temperature RESPONSE for the given forcing. that is for every extra watt of forcing, the temperature goes up by .406C. it doesnt matter where that excess watt comes from. it’s
like this. You put x watts in, how much C to you get out? source of the watts is immaterial.
With no feedbacks then we can estimate that doubling co2 gives you ~1.5C of warming. Absent
feedbacks. Now, where does the 3.71 watts per doubling come from? That comes from
emprically verified radiation theory. The same theory we use to design ir missiles and sensors
in satillites. Increase C02 and you get a change in forcing. about 3.7watts per doubling.
What does 3.7 watts get you? ~1.5C. Thats the sensitivity WITHOUT feedbacks.
So if the sun is the ONLY THING that drives the MWP, then you’ve just said that small changes in
in the suns output(watts) makes big changes in C. ( the climate is sensitive to small changes)
To recap. Changes in watts produce changes in temperatures. SteveF has a nice little estimate that says a change of one watt ( any source) gives you an increase of .4C. That’s the response.
Looking at c02 with Radiation transfer codes we can say doubling c02 gives us 3.7 extra
watts. 3.71 *.4 gives you 1.5C per doubling.. thats the sensitivity to doubling.
IF co2 gave you 1 excess watt per doubling, then the sensitivity would be .4
The final question, the most important question is the feedback question.
Are there feedbacks positive or negative that drive the sensitivity higher.
in any case one shouldn’t think that a warmer MWP makes the skeptic case stronger. It doesnt.
not in any clear fashion.
rbateman said: “Agree except for the “it gets warmer” part. With the sun out of the picture during the Polar Winter, the heat in the refrigerator is just like the leaking O2 aboard Apollo 13….it escapes to space. We certainly have extended winters and springs as collateral data, as well as cold fronts getting much further towards the equator. The next step is to be able to establish proof that the Sun is responsible.”
—————————————————
The sun is out of the picture and the energy escapes into space, BUT your starting temp is higher, therefore your ending temp is higher or else ‘bottoms out’ in a longer timeframe, meaning that during that time temps were warmer than they would otherwise be. Moreover, during that timeframe, warmer air is continuously being drawn into the polar regions as the jet stream continues to drag polar air south. No matter how you slice and dice it, the polar regions will be warmer.
Jimbo.
Was the MWP global?
Well first you need to define the terms. What do we mean by MWP? warmer than what?
warmer than the LIA? sure it was warmer. warmer than today? hmm, not so certain.
warmer GLOBALLY? hmm thats also tough.
This is a funny question. Lets look at one of your sources;
“To analyze the geographical pattern of temperatures depicted by the proxies, all centennial indices within a 1,500 km great circle distance, centered on each proxy site, are averaged. The statistical robustness of the averages within each search radius is also assessed. ”
You know, i love it when people who criticize hansen for averaging over 1200km point to paleo sources that average over greater distances. Basically what people like this are doing is this.
1. I dont believe a global record is accurate when 7000 thermometers are averaged over 1200km
2. I do believe a global record when 150 proxies are averaged over 1500km or more.
So, You see, I get to be consistent here. Since we know that we only need a 150 well placed thermometers to capture a global trend, I can say that 150 well spaced proxies should be enough ( if they are well placed). you see I have no logical problem here arguing that it may have been global.
the people who have a logical problem are those who say 7000 thermometers with a small fraction averaged over 1200km is not enough.
So, the question is really to you:
1. do you believe 150 proxies ( or thermometers) is enough?
2. is 1500km averaging good enough?
Dont complain to me, you sited the source, so I assume you read it.
jtom says:
July 10, 2011 at 6:07 pm
You misunderstood, my bad. The Sun is only out of the picture for warming the Arctic during Winter.
The question should be: Do we have solid evidence that the Sun is responsible for shoving the Jet Streams toward the Equator?
steven mosher says (July 10, 2011 at 6:20 pm):
“1. do you believe 150 proxies ( or thermometers) is enough?
2. is 1500km averaging good enough?”
If I understand Steve correctly here, he’s saying the evidence for a MWP cooler than or the same as today is more complete/reliable/extensive than the evidence for a warmer MWP. RIght?