Guest post by David Archibald
Figure 1: Ap Index 1932 – 2012
The Ap Index is the weakest of the solar activity indicators and has returned below the floor value of solar minima over the last 80 years – the green line in the chart above.
Figure 2: Solar Cycles 20 and 24 Ap Index and Neutron Count
The last time there was a cooling event in the modern instrument record was during Solar Cycle 20. Aligned on the month of minimum, Figure 2 shows that while the Ap Index and neutron count are co-incident to date in Solar Cycle 24, they were quite divergent over two thirds of Solar Cycle 20.
Figure 3: Neutron Counts over Solar Cycles 20 to 24
One big difference between Solar Cycle 20 and the other solar cycles of the modern instrument record is that just over half way through the cycle, the neutron count returned to levels of solar minima and remained there for the balance of the cycle. That is shown in Figure 3 above which also shows that the neutron count of Solar Cycle 24 is yet to depart from levels associated with previous minima, three years into the solar cycle.
Further to the post on Solar Cycle 24 length based on Altrock’s green corona diagram at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/, Altrock noted the slow progress of Solar Cycle 24 in mid-2011. From Altrock, R.C., 2010, “The Progress of Solar Cycle 24 at High Latitudes”:
“Cycle 24 began its migration at a rate 40% slower than the previous two solar cycles, thus indicating the possibility of a peculiar cycle. However, the onset of the “Rush to the Poles” of polar crown prominences and their associated coronal emission, which has been a precursor to solar maximum in recent cycles (cf. Altrock 2003), has just been identified in the northern hemisphere. Peculiarly, this “rush” is leisurely, at only 50% of the rate in the previous two cycles.”
Altrock’s green corona diagram is available here: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/6_altrock_rttp.pdf
If Solar Cycle 24 is progressing at 60% of the rate of the previous two cycles, which averaged ten years long, then it is likely to be 16.6 years long. Using that figure of 16.6 years would make Solar Cycle 24 seven years longer than Solar Cycle 22. Using a solar cycle length – temperature relationship for the US – Canadian border of 0.7°C per year of solar cycle length, a total temperature decline of 4.9°C is predicted over a period of about twenty years.
Has a fall of that magnitude happened in that time frame happened in the past? A good place to look is the Dye 3 temperature record from the Greenland Plateau, available here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/gisp/dye3/dye3-1yr.txt
Figure 4: Dye 3 Temperature Record from Oxygen Isotope Ratios
There is plenty of noise in this record and rapid swings in temperature, for example the 5.2°C fall from 526 to 531 at the beginning of the Dark Ages.
Figure 5: Dye 3 Temperature Record 22 Year Smoothed
Averaging the Dye 3 temperature record using the 22 year length of the Hale Cycle produces a lot of detail. What is evident is that there has been a very disciplined temperature decline over the last four thousand years. The whole temperature record is bounded by two parallel lines with a downslope of 0.3°C per thousand years. The fact that no cooling event took the Dye 3 temperature below the lower bounding green line over nearly four thousand years is quite remarkable. It implies that solar events do not exceed a particular combination of frequency and amplitude. From that it can be derived that this particular combination of frequency and amplitude with be ongoing – that is that cooling events will happen just as frequently as they did during the Dye 3 record.
Figure 6: North – South Transect through the Grain Belt
The relationship between temperature and growing conditions at about the latitude of the US – Canadian border is that one degree C will shift growing conditions by about 140 km. With a total 4.9°C temperature decline in train, that means a shift of about 700 km. Figure 6 shows the result of that temperature decline. Witchita will end up with the climate of Sioux Falls, which in turn will be like Saskatoon now. The growing season loses a month at each end.
Following this post issue, it is possible for our GW friends to have some hope, as being the 24 solar cycle a long cycle, its maximum, though lower, will probably do it for milder winters and hotter summers, and…if you pray to your Saints, perhaps it would give, in a few years, for a dwarf “El Niño”, which will fulfill your dreams and would end your dreadful nightmares , though it will be, again, “the Sun..stu…!”, but, you know, in times of scarcity anything is better than nothing.
New geomagnetic storm has started, at it looks as it may be big one
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
E.M. Smith … question for you … what effect does a weakening magnetic field have on iron rich magma?
@M.A.Vukcevic says:
January 24, 2012 at 8:17 am
“The fast solar wind may be the way, a large coronal hole is developing in the southern hemisphere:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/img2.htm
Ulric Lyons any ideas regarding weather ?”
Plenty, but I really wanted to reply to your earthquake comments. The common thread I can see preceding larger EQ`s is actually lower and declining solar wind speeds for a number of days before the event. Here are the solar conditions for recent great quakes (Mag8.0+) with the EQ 1 day before the end date on each link:
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20110312_2326/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20100228_0017/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20090930_1004/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20070816_1039/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20070331_1241/index.html (EQ 1st Apr)
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20061116_1000/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20060504_1002/index.html
With only one of those you could say the solar wind was speeding up, bearing in mind that the first Japan event in March 2011 was on the 9th. The results with Mag 7+ events look good too, though a proportion of events occur a day or two into a slight rise after the long down slope, mostly with little geomag` storming.
J Martin says:
January 22, 2012 at 1:18 pm
@ur momisugly John Finn
Quote sources, show links.
Show what?
We were referring to the CET record, right?
This link shows the current January anomaly. Note that up to Jan 23rd the anomaly is +2.8 deg C (or almost 3 deg as I said)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
This link shows the mean temperature for each month/year since 1659. The mean temp in 2011 was 10.7 deg which is second warmest behind 2006 (10.82 deg).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
E.M.Smith says:
January 24, 2012 at 12:18 am
@John Finn:
So I’m pretty sure everyone understood your point just fine. You are ignoring the inevitable time lags and stochastic effects of weather to make a political point. Meanwhile, reality has a cycle length of about 60 years for “the usual” cycle (so we’re now having a ‘do over’ of the 1950s on that scale… just after the Very warm late ’30s / ’40s) and with some longer cycles too. One of them runs about 179 years, another runs about 1500 average (but with 1800 year nodes). As the Sun looks to be having a Grand Minimum, the fear (and it is a valid fear…) is that we’ll get what we had last time this happened, and not just a 1960s redux.
1. I don’t think everyone did understand my point “just fine” – as evidenced by the comments.
2. I am not ignoring the inevitable time lags and stochastic effects. On the contrary
I claim that there was NO cooling event in the 1970. The cooling period which began in the 1940s ended in the 1970s. The 1970s were actually warmer than the 1960s. That’s because warming began in the mid-1970s. The person who mentioned the cold winter of 1979 (UK) forgot to mention the warm summers of 1975 and 1976.
So let’s look at time lags with respect to David Archibald’s claim. The timeline is as follows:
Cooling begins in the mid-1940s – Agree?
Solar Cycle 20 begins in 1964 – Agree?
Clearly SC 20 cannot possibly be responsible for the cooling (i.e. the effect cannot precede the cause), but let’s continue
Solar Cycle 20 ends in 1976 – Agree?
Warming resumes in ~1975 – Agree?
If there was a time lag in response to SC20 then the years following 1976 should have seen cooling – not warming. In fact, if Davis Archibald’s solar cycle length ‘theory’ is correct significant cooling should have occurred over the period of solar cycle 21 (1976-1986).
Can you address these points and explain how they are in any way political?
John Finn says:
January 25, 2012 at 3:03 am
You peddle the same uninformed nonsense every time this topic appears. You have been informed that isolating solar impact on climate alone is meaningless.
Simple answer, combine ocean cycles with solar cycles.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
Pamela Gray says:
January 22, 2012 at 10:17 am
The only thing I might have been confused about was what you were trying to say. A common affliction is to assume your own thoughts are deep and penetrating, and that everyone else should recognize the value in them.