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.
Joke–Dear Leif: We might be pseudos but never underestimate the wisdom of distributed processing: …It’s what voted in Obama!
I was impressed with Brian Cox’s ‘Wonders of the Solar Sytem’. What stuck in my head was his visit to the Iguazu (sp?) River. He stated that the river (level or flow rate??) tracks sunspots. He stated that there was no known connection. I discussed it here @ur momisugly WUWT and asked Lief why this was not interesting. He said correlation is not causation. While the Iguazu does, many or nearly all rivers, including the Amazon don’t. Made sense to me…but……why does the Iguazu track Sunspots?? I puzzled it but dropped it but often wondered about this. It would have to be an anomaly that only affected that particular feeder area of the Iguazu. What on earth could it be? So i’m sitting, minding my own business watching a youtube clip below. It seems that, the Hubble was having trouble with a couple of instruments….but only over Brazil/Argentina (..or in the ‘neck of the woods. NASA gave this patch which affected their instruments a name: .the Sourth Atlantic Anomaly. To prevent this, Nasa switched off the instruments while Hubble flew through the South Atlantic Anomaly. Brian Cox suggested, and it’s been discussed here, that perhaps there is a as yet unknown component linking Sunspots to precipitation. What is different about that region is that it has the weakest magnetic field on earth, So, perhaps, the phenomenon driving the Iguazu is as much to do with the Sun as it is the local oddities in earth’s magntic field. Here is the clip. The part relevant to the above is @ur momisugly 00.43 and from then on. Thx..
Surprised Leif didn’t bite on Scarfetta’s recent offerring. I understand he was Japan bound but was looking forward to him getting involved.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
I accept that Science says there is no connection between the Iguazu and Sun Spots. Science says that TSI and other radiances cannot account for the earths pertubations of temperature. That in the absence of a trigger, the recent run-up (to about 15 years ago) of Global Temperature Anomaly can only be placed at the foot of CO-2 as a default/absence theory, hence the AGW _________ (you fill in the blank). If all the fossil fuels was combusted, CO-2 still would only amount to, on a scale, to a fart in a Hurricane. So, what do we know about the earth’s field???
Ha’penny for you thoughts!!
Patrick Davis says: January 26, 2012 at 7:24 am
…………..
Number of points:
– I think the idea of the global temperature averaging is wrong even if there were accurate records.
– I am doubtful that even the last 10 years are true representation of what is happening on the global scale, but we have to work with the data as they are since there is no alternative.
– I think that lot of historical numbers are ‘modelled’ on the CET records:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETGNH.htm
This is a cyclical event (Maunder Minimum) despite the predictions of the CAGW via CO2 scaremongers. The sun’s conveyor belts have slowed down to a crawl and we’re going to be freezing for the next few decades. Now is a good time to start looking for property in Panama City, Panama.
I’m confused. Ok, correlation is not causation. That’s clear. But the lack of sunspots during the maunder and dalton minimums (minima?) happening to coincide with very cold climates. especially the maunder…seems quite a neat coincidence. I also note that long range forecasters I follow and respect…including Joe B. and Joe D…..use even brief low solar periods as a wild card for cold.
I note also that the sporer minimum from about 1460-1550 also coincided with cold temps. Do we have examples of a solar minimum that hasn’t been correlated with a cool climate?
.
Dan says:
January 26, 2012 at 7:21 am
Leif, have you done any research on the correlation between spotless days and the climate?
Don’t think there is any, and in any case the ‘number of spotless days’ is strongly [anti]correlated with all the other solar indicators.
Mike Wryley says:
January 26, 2012 at 7:34 am
1. If the TSI is constant, why do I care about cycles ?
TSI is not constant. It has a small 1 in 1000 variation and does cause a tenth of a degree cycle in temperatures.
2. Someone stated that the TSI had been “relatively” constant for the past 100 years. It is still a challenge I believe to made a detector that is both accurate at any frequency, let alone one that is flat over a wide range of frequencies. How can this statement be made with regard the the sun’s emissions over the range of DC to gamma rays, going back to 1912 ?
We do not have direct high-accuracy measurements of TSI going back before 1978, but TSI depends on a lot of other solar parameters which we have good observations of, so we are able to estimate TSI back in time.
3. Does the solar wind have any net charge effect on the upper atmosphere or do all positively and negatively chagred particles net to zero charge ?
Zero charge
4. Do all these particles result in significant mass being added to the atmosphere ? Likewise,
does anyone calculate this energy input (highly energetic particle with mass) to the earth’s energy budget ??
No significant mass added. First of all, most of the particles are deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field, and second, there are not all that many to begin with. The total mass impinging on the magnetosphere is less than 10 kilograms per second and most of that just ‘slides off’. So, no effect on energy budget
5. By what means is the solar magnetic flux measured and what is the expected accuracy ?
The Zeeman effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect
The accuracy depends on the resolution. For a sunspot of 2500 Gauss, the error is of the order of 25 Gauss. For large-scale structures, e.g. the polar fields the error is much smaller, a fraction of a Gauss.
John F. Hultquist says:
January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
“ . . . the magnetic fields of activity will still be there, but sunspots will not form.”
The phrase P & L used was — “few sunspots will be visible” –
Am I being overly sensitive to the words?
We observe the emergence of flux as a lot of small elements. If those coalesce, a sunspot is formed. If not, no sunspot will form and none would be visible. So: concentrated flux is dark and visible, spread-out flux is not.
PaulR: Check these deserts out
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_glacial_max.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/present_interglacial.html
The whole article is pretty good and worth a read.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
All I can say is “please be wrong” but I don’t think they are.
pokerguy says:
January 26, 2012 at 10:16 am
Do we have examples of a solar minimum that hasn’t been correlated with a cool climate?
655 AD and 2008 AD
Thanks for the reply Leif.
Leif says: “People who claim the ‘uncanny’ correlation are happy using the HadCru data [or the GISS or whatever, they don’t differ much], so I’ll just as happily use the same data to show there is no correlation [with or without a lag].”
Good answer.
Thanks M.A.Vukcevic for the graphs – Unfortunately it doesn’t help me to know that they all agree closely, as the organisations involved all are under the same auspices. We are left to assume trustworthiness from people proven untrustworthy. I asked the question because I wanted to know if Leif took that into account. It looks like he considers it’s ok if everyone’s using the same data. Thats fair enough for what I wanted to know.
Maybe its just how I’ve come to view it but, with regard to both Sun forecasting and Climate forecasting I think that the theorised variables seem to be uncomfortably stuck in the realms of supposition, and that the theorists thrive on this being the case. It all seems to be lacking in objective (dare I say ‘idiot-proofed’) science.
Leif Svalgaard says:
655 AD and 2008 AD
2008?
Give it a chance, Leif. Rome wasn’t frozen in a day.
JJ says:
“Leif Svalgaard says:
655 AD and 2008 AD”
2008?
Give it a chance, Leif. Rome wasn’t frozen in a day.
>>>>>
That was my reaction. This seems weak to me. . I’m not smart enough to grasp the science, and that makes me humble. But I’m troubled by what appear to be pretty compelling coincidence whereby solar minima seem pretty well correlated with cold climates. How about if we look at it the other way? Generally speaking, are solar maxima correlated with warm periods?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2012 at 10:42 am
“655 AD and 2008 AD”
====================
Two years out of a ~ 1400 year series ?, I knew Leif had a sense of humor 🙂
pokerguy says:
January 26, 2012 at 11:09 am
“Give it a chance, Leif. Rome wasn’t frozen in a day.”
That was my reaction. This seems weak to me.
It is indeed weak to want to wait for something that hasn’t happened yet. The fact is that solar activity is way down and temperatures are still way up.
How about if we look at it the other way? Generally speaking, are solar maxima correlated with warm periods?
One of the largest cycles on record was in 1778 still during the little ice age…
One look at this may be slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
u.k.(us) says:
January 26, 2012 at 11:41 am
Two years out of a ~ 1400 year series ?, I knew Leif had a sense of humor 🙂
others will contest that judgement. As for the number of years: a grand solar minimum is not just a single year, but many years, and there are also other minimum, like the Oort minimum in the middle of the Medieval Worm Period. Slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf tells a fuller story. On the other hand, actual data does not carry any weight for the already convinced flock. Prove me right on that one.
Here is a detailed 350 year long temperature – sunspot record.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-CET.htm
Make your own mind.
M.A. Vukcevic:
The match between sunspot record and temperature of CET as presented works at times, and fails at other times.
Somewhat of a correlation, but not statiscially close enough to be a causeation, in my humble opinion. There is something we are missing as there are numerous breakdowns in the correlation.
@R. Gates You’re making the mistake of assuming that an active sun with spot activity is the normal state, since there is no recorded data from the last maximum extent of glaciation approximately 18,000 years ago, you can’t possibly know the state of the sun during this period, was it quiet? is a prolonged quiet sun a normal and frequent occurrence?
Did the Ice ages happen? if so, What in your opinion caused the ice ages?
Do you also subscribe to the alternative theory (new age drivel, picking up on Velikovsky’s “Nemesis” theory) for the frequent occurrence of ice ages on earth? from none other than one of your fellow Cagw enthusiast Richard Muller, which hypothesizes that our sun being a binary star system with a red dwarf star and as it periodically orbits closer to our sun it disturbs the Oort cloud sending comets hurtling towards the earth, and the collision of these comets cause the ice ages and extinctions.
R. Gates: 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.
I share your enthusiasm. Every little piece of information (like Leif Svalgaard’s reconciliation of the Wolf Sunspot numbers and the Group Sunspot Numbers) adds to the excitement.
M. A. Vukcevik: Here is a detailed 350 year long temperature – sunspot record.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-CET.htm
Make your own mind.
Could you provide us with a graph of temp vs sunspot number, with the points connected showing chronology?
Leif writes:
“The fact is that solar activity is way down and temperatures are still way up.”
Cold PDO, AMO turning cold, and yes, low solar activity. All the pieces seem to be locking into place for a cooler climate over the next decade. Let’s give it a few years and see. The following might be of some interest. According to Joe D’Alea in new blog post above:
“As shown above (see the datapoint in the square box), the UAH AMSU daily temperatures are the coldest for the globe at 600mb of all the years tracked since 2002 (warmest 2010, previously coldest 2009).”
“The new Dr. Ryan Maue reanalysis based global temperature anomalies has declined dramatically this month – almost a full degree Celsius!”
About the Parana River and Sunspots:
Solar Forcing of the Stream Flow of a Continental Scale South American River
Pablo J. D. Mauas*Instituto de Astronomı´a y Fı´sica del Espacio (CONICET-UBA), C.C. 67 Sucursal 28, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina Eduardo Flamenco
Instituto Nacional de Tecnologı´a Agropecuaria, Rivadavia 1439, 1033, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Andrea P. Buccino Instituto de Astronomı´a y Fı´sica del Espacio, (CONICET-UBA), C.C. 67 Sucursal 28, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina
(Received 18 April 2008; published 17 October 2008)
Solar forcing on climate has been reported in several studies although the evidence so far remains inconclusive. Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana´ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with the sunspot number, in multidecadal time scales, and with larger solar activity corresponding to larger stream flow. The correlation coefficient is r ¼ 0:78, significant to a 99% level. In shorter time scales we find a strong correlation with El Nin˜o. These results are a step toward flood prediction, which might have great social and economic impacts.
http://www.giurfa.com/reprint_parana.pdf
@Johnnythelowery says:
January 26, 2012 at 9:38 am
Very interesting video, though it raises the question: “what is it first, the chicken or the egg?”. Perhaps an exterior field caused the conditions for a local field to be generated, like in the case of an induction kiln. Now that the exterior field is decreasing…..:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
time is due perhaps, to local field to change polarity (phew!, a few years free!)
Camburn says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:34 pm
…….
Camburn hi
You are more or less correct. Reason is very simple but not acceptable to many. Short term (less then 2-3 decades) oscillations of the CET and the ‘global temperatures’ are mainly caused by the North Atlantic SST oscillations, the AMO.
The AMO oscillates at the primary frequency corresponding to the period of about 9 years, and the sunspots mainly at 10-12 years. As they drift in and out of synchronisation there is apparent correlation and a subsequent breakdown of the same, which can be clearly seen here (including spectral composition):
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GISS-spec.htm
Why 9 years for the AMO?
It takes about 9 years for the cold currents of the Beaufort Sea to reach the southern tip of Greenland where it joins Labrador current and the sub-polar gyre, the source of the AMO. This in turn controls extent of the thermo-haline deep water circulation (several hundreds of W/m2 of heat released into atmosphere), which affects the local atmospheric pressure (Icelandic low) and the polar jet-stream above; the Arctic winds drive summer temperatures of the Beaufort Sea, and in doing so close the Arctic’s 9 year feedback loop.
But does the sun affect the Beaufort or subpolar gyres?
Yes and No; sort of as you can see here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
So is the sun final arbiter of natural variability?
Nearly.
adolfogiurfa says:
January 26, 2012 at 1:02 pm
“About the Parana River and Sunspots:
Solar Forcing of the Stream Flow of a Continental Scale South American River…”
Good find, Adolfo!!!
Another for the Nile here,,,
Nature – “Sun-Spots and the Nile”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v19/n483/abs/019299a0.html
“And, yes, that means the end of the Modern Warm Period.”
[snip]
Solar activity has been on a long-term quiet trend for almost a century. The “Modern Warm Period” (gawd, that is soooo WUWT), has been getting warmer. Using the sun-worshippers’ mantra, when the belt goes to zero, the warm turns to broil.
“The Modern Warm Period” ….. hahahahaaa ….