Guest post by David Archibald
Predicting the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24 was a big business. Jan Janssens provides the most complete table of Solar Cycle 24 predictions at: http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
Prediction activity for Solar Cycle 24 seemed to have peaked in 2007. In year before, Dr David Hathaway of NASA made the first general estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
Based on the slowing of the Sun’s “Great Conveyor Belt”, he predicted that
“The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries.” He is very likely to have got the year wrong in that Solar Cycle 25 is unlikely to start until 2025.
In this paper: http://www.probeinternational.org/Livingston-penn-2010.pdf,
Livingston and Penn provided the first hard estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude based on a physical model. That estimate is 7, which would make it the smallest solar cycle for over 300 years.
This is figure 2 from their paper:
Livingston and Penn have been tracking the decline in sunspot magnetic field, predicting that sunspots will disappear when the umbral magnetic field strength falls below 1,500 gauss, as per this figure from their 2010 paper:
Dr Svalgaard has updated of the progression of that decline on his research page at:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
With data updated to year end 2011, the line of best fit on Dr Svalgaard’s figure of Umbral Magnetic Field now intersects the 1,500 guass sunspot cutoff in 2030:
Using the Livingston and Penn Solar Cycle 25 amplitude estimate, this is what the solar cycle record is projected to look like:
And, yes, that means the end of the Modern Warm Period.
===========================================================
Further reading:
Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict –Sunspots may disappear altogether in next cycle.
NASA Long Range Solar Forecast – Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
sorry, make that show to be …
well, how about “shown to be”
Randy says: January 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm
“Way ahead of you. That’s why I moved from Denver back to Florida a couple years ago.”
Shhhhhhhhhhh. Too many here already.
Tom in Florida says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:13 pm
‘Randy says: January 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm
“Way ahead of you. That’s why I moved from Denver back to Florida a couple years ago.”
Shhhhhhhhhhh. Too many here already.’
Tom, what about the house prices? Florida could use many more wealthy retirees. Even wealthy refugees.
How many people is the world projected to have by 2030? Going to be real interesting on how we feed them all.
Dr. Landscheidt is proving to be quite the solar genius…
Cryptic replies by Lief may be accurate and effective, but don’t communicate his point. Well, they may if you have a Doctorate and share his approach. Any chance he could make an argument that the modestly knowledgeable could follow and comprehend?
The question that immediately comes to my mind is that if the solar “conveyor belt” is predictive of activity two cycles hence, what is the conveyor belt saying now about cycle 26?
Also, while the Sahara does tend to green when climate warms (because the ITCZ migrates farther Northward away from the equator), if climate is due to cool, the Southern edge of the Sahara will begin to dry out again as the ITCZ’s maximum summer location migrates Southward.
Somewhere back in the archives on this site I asked Svalgaard his prediction for 25, and he claimed that it would be large.
Pamela Gray says: “How does a low cycle translate into measurably cooler temperatures on the ground?”
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/stephen-wilde-co2-or-sun-which-one-really-controls-earths-surface-temperatures/
Stephen Wilde does his best to hypotheize what may be driving the cooler temperatures observed in a prolonged period where the sun is quiescent. What can’t be disputed is the cold temperatures associated with the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. I don’t think anybody ought to pretend they have got it figured out – but Stephen Wilde’s observations and theories are a good start for an answer to your question.
Serious non snarky question: what is most likely scenario as to how IPCC will acknowledge this? will it be completely ignored?
Oh c’mon…we all know that the Sun and its activity don’t have anything to do with climate here on Earth! It’s all the Eeeeevile gas! And SUVs! And capitalism!
/sarc
I actually don’t think that Solar Cycle 25 will be as low as shown in some of these very early forecasts, but regardless, it will be a fantastic time to compare those effects to the 40% increase in CO2 and similar increases in methane and N2O.
Terry Jackson says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Cryptic replies by Leif may be accurate and effective, but don’t communicate his point. Well, they may if you have a Doctorate and share his approach. Any chance he could make an argument that the modestly knowledgeable could follow and comprehend?
How about:
1) the sunspot number is artificially too high [inflated] by 20 after 1945.
2) this means that the cycles appear too large after 1945
3) when we correct for that, there is no longer a distinct Modern Grand Maximum
4) it is therefore not correct to associate the modern warming with a [non-existent] modern grand solar activity maximum
1) the sunspot number is artificially too high [inflated] by 20% after 1945.
Lawrie Ayres says:
January 25, 2012 at 6:54 pm
I find myself on the horns of a dilemma; I want a cold period so the great fraud and it’s perpetraters can be destroyed once and for all but fear for the widespread disruption to food supplies that such occurrence would precipitate.
______
This kind of thinking should be a huge red flag for you and others. It shows that are not really a skeptic in the true scientific sense of the word, as a true skeptic doesn’t “want” anything in particular to happen. What this kind of thinking shows is that your thought processes are guided by some burning desire to prove your “side” right, which is of course, more politically motivated and exactly as expected for a certain segment of those who would otherwise call themselves “skeptics”, but in reality, are nothing of the sort. You give true skeptics a bad reputation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Terry Jackson says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Cryptic replies by Leif may be accurate and effective, but don’t communicate his point. Well, they may if you have a Doctorate and share his approach. Any chance he could make an argument that the modestly knowledgeable could follow and comprehend?
How about:
1) the sunspot number is artificially too high [inflated] by 20 after 1945.
2) this means that the cycles appear too large after 1945
3) when we correct for that, there is no longer a distinct Modern Grand Maximum
4) it is therefore not correct to associate the modern warming with a [non-existent] modern grand solar activity maximum
__________
Indeed, but in pointing this out, you are taking away the last best hope of skeptics who’d like to find something…anything…to pin the late 20th century warming on other than the 40% rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Now, as we are likely looking at a Dalton or even Maunder Minimum in the next few decades, it will be interesting to see how a very quiet sun counteracts the contined forcing from CO2. I cannot imagine a more exciting time to be studying the sun and the climate in general. We live at a very fortunate juncture in history.
And BTW, thanks for your excellent website.
I can only marvel at the nonchalance on this subject (feigned no doubt) of the climate scientists who’ve built their careers around the pseudoscience of global warming. They must be sweating bullets over this. What I’m not clear on is when this is supposed to kick in sufficiently to effect climate? One chart seems to show sunspots will disappear around 2015. Can someone with a better handle on this set me straight?
Tilo Reber says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Somewhere back in the archives on this site I asked Svalgaard his prediction for 25, and he claimed that it would be large.
You probably misunderstood the issue. To clarify:
1) I don’t think I can predict more than one cycle ahead and that only when the polar fields have become firmly established, sometime in 2016 perhaps
2) Since the polar fields in SC24 seem to reverse abnormally early [especially in the North] it is possible that there will extra time for build-up of the new fields
3) This may mean that they will be rather strong
4) If so, SC25 will be strong
But there are many ifs and maybes in that, so bottom line is that nobody knows. Statistically, SC25 should be weak, but that is just ‘extrapolation’, which must not be confused with ‘prediction’
If L&P are correct [which I think they are] we will have to revise what we mean by ‘solar activity’ as the magnetic fields of activity will still be there, but sunspots will not form. The solar wind and cosmic rays and F10.7 and UV and other indicators will still cycle as usual [perhaps with a bit smaller amplitude]. Perhaps the sunspot number will then no longer be a meaningful indicator as during the Maunder Minimum. At any rate, there will be minimal influence on climate [IMHO].
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 25, 2012 at 6:59 pm
“The last of DA’s graphs seems to suggest that we had a Modern Warm Period because there was also a Modern Grand Maximum in sunspots. There is compelling evidence that the latter did not exist casting doubt on the association with the former, see e.g. http:// etc”
Dr. Svalgaard:
Your latest research shows that TSI has in fact been relatively constant for over a century. Within that TSI there are varying lightbands/energy bands.
There has been speculation that UV can and does change the pattern of the NH Jet Streams, as in the potential cause/effect of the Russian heat wave of 2010.
Is there a way to also reconstruct the spectrum within the TSI of the last century in order to better project future variations in climate that may be caused by the sun?
Not to be off topic, but this is a great website where Dr. Svalgaard takes the time to answer questions directed at him. A very learned man who is kind enough to share his information with folks who have questions.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1587
R. Gates says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm
“4) it is therefore not correct to associate the modern warming with a [non-existent] modern grand solar activity maximum”
Indeed, but in pointing this out, you are taking away the last best hope of skeptics who’d like to find something…anything…to pin the late 20th century warming on other than the 40% rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.
Which explains the hostility towards what I say. but that ‘last best hope’ is just wishful thinking [as you say ‘something….anything’]. One should not let what one wishes to happen control the science [this goes both ways…].
This is a recent invited talk http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf on sun-climate given during a Workshop in Japan for an audience of climate scientists. They didn’t like it either, as the AGW crowd also needs the sun to explain climate variations before SUVs.
I can understand why you say this, after having read your remarks here and materials on your site. The interesting thing, though, is an uncanny correlation between cycle length (not magnitude) and climate. This correlation goes back well into the 1800’s and correlates to both warming and cooling (not just one small 30 year period of warming the way CO2 correlates). There definitely appears to be something going on that couples Earth’s climate with solar cycle length. I believe Svensmark has the answer but we shall see in the coming years.
Camburn says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Is there a way to also reconstruct the spectrum within the TSI of the last century in order to better project future variations in climate that may be caused by the sun?
The recent data on spectral variations are very preliminary and need to be confirmed by further observations before we go off to speculate. Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf on sun shows some possible effect of the [purported] inverse relationship between UV and Visual solar irradiance.
crosspatch says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:21 pm
an uncanny correlation between cycle length (not magnitude) and climate. This correlation goes back well into the 1800′s
There is no such correlation: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
There is another sign that the end of the Modern Warm Period is at hand – the USDA has just updated the US plant hardiness zones map: http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html
Leif, in what time-frame are we likely to see an adjusted international sunspot number series published and are there any plans to flesh out the early cycles with Vaquero’s recently unearthed records?