By David Archibald
Joe D’Aleo asked for my comments on NASA’s James Hathaway’s latest solar prediction, available here: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
When I read May 2013 for solar cycle maximum, I thought “That is my prediction”.
But then at the bottom of the page, they provide text files of their sunspot number prediction and F10.7 flux prediction. So I downloaded the data and plotted it up, and I found that NASA is providing a number of predictions re the month of solar cycle maximum:
The F10.7 flux data plotted is less the magnetic floor of 64.
Firstly, their actual peak by the numbers is February and March 2013. Secondly, their forecast peak of F10.7 flux is September 2013. Sunspot number and F10.7 flux should be in lockstep.
So it total, NASA have provided three estimates of the timing of Solar Cycle 24 maximum in the one release.
What I find more interesting is what their F10.7 flux profile implies if it is correct. It suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be a very long cycle with the 24/25 minimum in 2021 or even 2022, making it 13 to 14 years long – possibly up to 18 months longer than Solar Cycle 23.
With the solar cycle length/temperature relationship of 0.7°C for the US – Canadian border, the NASA profile implies a further cooling of perhaps 1.0°C in Solar Cycle 25.
In terms of neutron count, things aren’t all that different from previous cycles:
This figure shows the first four years of average Oulu monthly neutron count for the last five solar cycles, aligned on the month of solar minimum. While Solar Cycle 24 is currently providing 17% more neutrons than the super-hot Solar Cycle 22 at the same stage, it isn’t all that different from the other three cycles to date.
By comparison, the Ap Index has just recovered to the levels of previous solar minima, three years into Solar Cycle 24:
I have asked this question before, but have not had an answer. When it comes to hurricanes, there is the number of hurricanes, but also the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE). With sunspots, there is the sunspot number. Is there any equivalent to the ACE value? The accumulated flare intensity count, or whatever?
WHAT IF EARTH IS COOLING, NOT WARMING?
Heresy 1 (Stone the leper!) :
Based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, I wrote in an article published in the Calgary Herald on 1 Sept 2002 that global cooling should soon return.
“… these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity….
… If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
This timing estimate was based on the Gleissberg cycle.
IF the PDO is a better approximation of timing, global cooling could occur sooner.
Heresy 2 (Drown it, to see if it is a witch!) :
Tim and I co-authored (with Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist) an article in the November 2002 PEGG concluding that ““the alleged warming crisis does not exist” (Is this a suitable null hypothesis?).
http://www.apegga.com/members/Publications/peggs/Web11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Ultimate Heresy 3 (Burn it, burn it, drive out the Devil!) :
In 2008, I wrote that CO2 LAGS temperature by 9 months, at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
More specifically, I wrote that (annualized) dCO2/dt varies almost contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags temperature by 9 months (so the alleged Cause LAGS the alleged Effect – Go Figure!). The standard response is that this is a `feedback effect – a religious argument for which there is no compelling evidence.
Last Rites (Confessions of a Climate Heretic) :
I submit that the IPCC and NASA (specifically Hansen and Hathaway, but not Leif) have exhibited little or no record of predictive skill.
I further suggest that the science of Global Warming (aka “Climate Change”) is in its infancy – we don`t even know what is cause (more likely global temperature) and what is effect (more likely atmospheric CO2)!
This rancorous global warming debate has now lasted more than a decade.
As a result of global warming political science, our society has squandered over a trillion dollars on energy nonsense such as wind power, corn ethanol and CO2 credits.
I do expect that Earth will experience some global cooling in the near future that will help focus the debate (but some parties are already saying that increasing humanmade CO2 is causing cooling – as well as warming – Quelle Surprise)!
I do believe that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature rather than leads it, although there may be a significant human component (or not).
I expect that when global cooling does occur, there will be a flattening or even a decline in year-to-year atmospheric CO2.
In a rational world, we would be much more concerned about the negative impacts of natural global cooling on food production and human wellbeing, than false fears about manmade global warming.
‘With the solar cycle length/temperature relationship of 0.7°C for the US – Canadian border, the NASA profile implies a further cooling of perhaps 1.0°C in Solar Cycle 25.’
If correct the ramifications will be shocking, but clearly if David Archibald is having trouble getting traction here then you can be sure the wider world doesn’t have a clue.
I’m betting he’s on the money.
Allan MacRae says:
November 7, 2011 at 3:07 am
WHAT IF EARTH IS COOLING, NOT WARMING?
Heresy 1 (Stone the leper!) :
Based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, I wrote in an article published in the Calgary Herald on 1 Sept 2002 that global cooling should soon return.
“… these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity….
… If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
This timing estimate was based on the Gleissberg cycle.
IF the PDO is a better approximation of timing, global cooling could occur sooner.
I submit that the IPCC and NASA (specifically Hansen and Hathaway, but not Leif) have exhibited little or no record of predictive skill…..
I expect that when global cooling does occur, there will be a flattening or even a decline in year-to-year atmospheric CO2.
In a rational world, we would be much more concerned about the negative impacts of natural global cooling on food production and human wellbeing, than false fears about manmade global warming.
_______________________________________
I am sure the Gleissberg cycle is well know in political circles and was part of the Scam. The impact of global cooling on food production is also well known and the basis for the next economic boom for the wealthy.
We can already see the politics behind that economic boom with the 1995 WTO Agreement on Agriculture that wiped tariffs These tariffs protected the national agricultural base especially in third world countries from the Multinational Corporations. The WTO/UN written regulations called “Good Agricultural Practices” are then implemented in first world countries to wipe out the independent farmers. The last step is the world wide land grab added by the housing market collapse.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-10/being-like-soros-in-buying-farm-land-lets-investors-reap-16-annual-gains.html
http://media.oaklandinstitute.org/us-universities-africa-land-grab-0
What is interesting is that Pres. Clinton signed the five banking bills leading to the housing market collapse in the USA. Clinton ratified NAFTA and WTO. Meanwhile VP Al Gore stated during the presentation of awards to Future Farmers of America that the kids should get out of farming because it was being shifted to the third world.
And just looky Al Gore is president of New Forest a company buying up land in Africa…. because it was being shifted to the third world.
“FOLLOW THE MONEY”
Jim Cripwell says:
November 7, 2011 at 2:53 am
The area under the curve of the F10.7 flux may be the closest thing to what you seem to be looking for.
@ur momisugly M.A.Vukcevic, November 7, 2011 at 1:10 am
Pardon me for asking what is probably a very simple question, but I am trying to get a good conceptual model of things. You say that CET mirrors Atlantic SST, which in turn correlates to AMO, and that (per BEST) AMO, more strongly correlates to global land surface temperatures than ENSO. Are we just looking at a system with various ill-timed resonances in it? Do you think that the AMO just happens (because of size, depth, currents and shape of the Atlantic Ocean) to be more closely in phase with the cycles of solar output — and hence more closely reacts to and mirrors the same solar forces that drive global surface temperature? Similarly, do you think that the ENSO is just too short, but is part of a longer (because the pacific is so much larger) cycle which has a poorer match to solar output changes?
As in the Goldilocks story of the bears, ENSO is too short, long term Pacific is too long, and AMO is just right. Help me out here, Vukcevic, I am not sure if I am facing the light or just seeing more fog!
@ur momisugly Gail Combs, November 7, 2011 at 5:11 am: “FOLLOW THE MONEY”
At the risk of being thought a member of the tin-foil hat brigade, yes, I have wondered about the same thing and considered pretty much the same scenario. If one were wealthy and powerful wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a carbon tax in place for all fossil fuel use while the world drifted into a cold phase? Wouldn’t it be nice to buy agricultural land cheap prior to a global food shortage?
…but how will this affect my tomatoes? they don’t do well in frozen ground.
“and AMO is just right”
and
“Do you think that the AMO just happens (because of size, depth, currents and shape of the Atlantic Ocean) to be more closely in phase with the cycles of solar output — and hence more closely reacts to and mirrors the same solar forces that drive global surface temperature? ”
Good points.
I think the north Atlantic responds first and most to the top down solar changes which alter the intensity of the polar vortices so as to shift the surface prssure distribution latitudinally. Thus altering global cloudiness and albedo and the rate of solar energy input to the oceans.
The north Pacific is busy responding to ENSO events which modulate the top down solar effect and introduce delays in the atmospheric response to solar changes.
The north Atlantic is partly insulated from the ENSO events by the American and Eurasian continents and so can respond more directly to solar variations.
“I do no not think it is the TSI, UV or CR, but that that is not all to the sun-earth link”
I think it is the variable quantity of various ozone destroying wavelengths, chemicals and particles descending through the polar vortex. An active sun destroys more ozone above 45km whilst an inactive sun destroys less ozone above 45km.
That is a separate process to the creation of ozone above the tropics when the sun is active.
The effect is maximised at the poles where the polar vortex descends. When the sun is active ozone is depleted above 45km at the poles and that ozone depleted ‘air’ descends down through the vortex to deplete ozone at lower levels nearer the poles as well, hence a larger Antarctic ozone hole when the sun is more active.
The mesosphere and stratosphere above the poles both cool due to less ozone above 45km so that the descending air is focused in a single high pressure cell over or close to the poles. That descending air then feeds the mid latitude low pressure cells which shift poleward allowing more equatorial air to move across the mid latitudes. As seen in the MWP and recently.
When the sun is less active the mesosphere and stratosphere above the poles warm so that there is resistance to the downward flow of cold upper air through the vortex. That warmth diverts the downward flow away from the pole itself and divides it to form 2 or 3 polar high pressure cells some distance from the poles leaving an area of relatively low pressure over the pole.
Those high pressure cells migrate into the mid latitudes (the mobile polar high of Marcel Leroux) and push the polar air ahead of them thereby forcing the mid latitude jets equatorward as seen most notably in the LIA.
There are differences in the way it plays out in the Arctic and Antarctic due to the differing landmass distributions.
Meanwhile oceanic cycles modulate the process from below by warming or cooling the equatorial air masses to provide variable resistance to the solar induced equatorward/poleward movements of the polar high pressure cells.
Conceptually that all fits together rather well and will be demonstrated or rebutted by ongoing direct observations of the atmospheric responses to the ongoing solar variability.
@M.A.Vukcevic Your extrapolation of Polar Field Strength 7th Jan 2004 : It confirms the situation we are in these “interesting times”:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Leif,
Now that we have modern measurement techniques, is the10.7cm Flux is that closely correlated to the Sun Spots?? What is the modern relationship??
Jason Calley says:
November 7, 2011 at 6:24 am
@ur momisugly Gail Combs, November 7, 2011 at 5:11 am: “FOLLOW THE MONEY”
At the risk of being thought a member of the tin-foil hat brigade, yes, I have wondered about the same thing and considered pretty much the same scenario. If one were wealthy and powerful wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a carbon tax in place for all fossil fuel use while the world drifted into a cold phase? Wouldn’t it be nice to buy agricultural land cheap prior to a global food shortage?
________________________________
Would it not be nice to have something like the Committee on Economic Development (founded in 1942) “to advance sound public policies that promote long-term and broad-based economic growth…..” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Economic_Development
The war against independent farmers is documented in this well researched article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
@Gail Combs.:The war against independent farmers is documented in this well researched article.. The “elite” knows from old that crop prices increase when it happens a solar minimum, that is why they have acted in consequence.
See: William Herschel On Sunspots And Wheat Prices In The 17th Century:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/william-herschel-on-sunspots-and-wheat-prices-in-the-17th-century/
“Land Reform” succeeded in depriving from their property to the local elites of many countries, to be bought by the international elite.
Dr. Lurtz says:
November 7, 2011 at 8:08 am
Now that we have modern measurement techniques, is the10.7cm Flux is that closely correlated to the Sun Spots?? What is the modern relationship??
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Flux-and-Sunspot-Number.pdf
On NASA and Hathaway:
Hathaway, David H. (MSFC-VP62) ✆
7:52 AM (0 minutes ago)
to leif
Yes
—–Original Message—–
From: Leif Svalgaard [mailto:lsvalgaard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 9:52 AM
To: Hathaway, David H. (MSFC-VP62)
Subject: Re: Help me out with this one.
In that your prediction is yours and not the official NASA prediction?
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Hathaway, David H. (MSFC-VP62)
wrote:
> You are absolutely correct.
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Leif Svalgaard [mailto:lsvalgaard@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 11:28 PM
> To: Hathaway, David H. (MSFC-VP62)
> Subject: Help me out with this one.
>
> There is the notion out there that the solar cycle prediction you make
> on the http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml website is
> NASA’s ‘official’ prediction. I thought the US govmnt prediction is
> the one from http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/ could you clear that
> up for me? Thanks.
RE : “Follow the money”
For me, it Is difficult enough to follow the science.
The unscientific nonsense emanating from the IPCC and NASA/NOAA (Hansen et al) can be managed by assuming that everything they say is wrong.
That assumption is an over-simplification, but it saves considerable time, and has been demonstrated to be more correct than incorrect.
Every dire prediction these parties have made has failed to materialize.
David Archibald
Your observation on apparent longer length of cycle 24 is very interesting:
Edward Fix modeled the sun in damped oscillation moving about the barycenter (center of mass of the solar system. Fix’s model “predicts two consecutive, weak solar cycles, each eight years long”.
You can read Fix’s paper “The Relationship of Sunspot Cycles to Gravitational Stresses on the Sun: Results of a Proof-of-Concept Simulation,” in Evidence-Based Climate Science 2011 Don Easterbrook ISBN 9780123859563 Ch. 14, pp 335-349. (Search for “barycenter” or “quail” or “beavercreek” or go to page 335.) See especially Fig. 6 and Fig. 10.
The implied length of NASA’s model is 69% longer than Fix’s model. It will be interesting to see which of these two very different predictions work out.
GravitySimulator looks interesting for exploring the barycenter behavior.
Jason Calley
Stephen Wilde
The CET mirrors both the AMO, which is the N. Atlantic currents dependant, and the NAO, a direct atmospheric tele-connection to the Icelandic Low. The IL moves polar jet stream trajectory which in turn affects large region of the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
The NAO’s northern component (Icelandic Low) appear to be directly related to downwelling of warm currents in the N. Atlantic (thermo-haline circulation). Heat is released at rate of several hundred W/msq, resulting in a deep water convection, which moves from Irminger sea (winter) to Nordic seas (summer) and vice versa.
Warming in the N. Atlantic (SST/AMO) appear to be real since the excess heat from equatorial region (which otherwise would be re-radiated) is moving poleward across Greenland – Scotland ridge; this is the true variable at the root of changes in the N. Atlantic. I happen to think there is a good reason for its long term change, which is loosely synchronised to the solar activity, but the science is not currently prepared to move in that direction, while it is suffering from the CO2 infection (some symptoms of recovery are already visible).
On the ENSO go by what experts say (see the Bob Tisdale’s posts and website, there is enough to satisfy anyone’s curiosity).
The TSI, UV and GCR do have effect, but by most accounts not large enough, to account either for the MWP, LIA or MWP2 (modern warming period ~1900-2000) at least not in the CET area.
Enneagram says:
November 7, 2011 at 8:05 am
Re: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
It’s simplicity and elegance is by the curtsey of Nicholas Copernicus.
Leif,
I am interested in the rate of change in the predictions.
I saved links of older prediction (not the image themselves) in hopes that I could produce a time-varying animation over the last 24 months or so of the predictions by David Hathaway as you put it.
Leif, do you have those images? The active links on Anthony Watts’s solar page shows the current plots not the historical prediction plots.
For those that are newer to this blog, Dr Leif Svalgaard was (is?) a member of the 2007 Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel. If I recall he disagreed with the official position and predicted a SSN max of 70. Please correct me if that is not accurate.
Compare the actual range envelope of Cycle 23 with the forecast one for Cycle 24, versus the Cycle 24 range to date. Based on that, Cycle 24 will be even weaker than currently forecast.
Hang on a minute – back in June, “3 lines of research were pointing to a sunspot cycle shut down”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/all-three-of-these-lines-of-research-to-point-to-the-familiar-sunspot-cycle-shutting-down-for-a-while/
These three lines were:
1. Zonal flow no show for cycle 25
2. Livingston and Penn, linear decline in magnetic field strength
3. Poleward march of magnetic activity – not observed
So what has happened in the meantime? – have the zonal flows and the poleward march belatedly started? Is the L&P magnetic field decline continuing or not?
On my computer, I read:
Sunspot number: 144
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 06 Nov 2011
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Since 2004: 821 days
Typical Solar Min: 486 days
Updated 06 Nov 2011
Where in any of the graphs shown in the above article does this long run of spotless days show up – and when did Solar Cycle 23 end and cycle 24 start?
Are we meant to forget or over-look something here?
Thank you for contacting Dr. Hathaway for his direct response.