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.
Owl905,
The Modern Warm Period is a commonly accepted term. You don’t believe it’s currently warmer now than over the last half millennium, heh.
It’s funny, but I can’t find any warmists who are willing to take my bet that the next five years will see cooling, not warming. I don’t get it. They’re all so convinced. I have the feeling they think I’m trying to pull a fast one on them whereby they’ll lose on some unforeseen technicality.
“””””
R. Gates says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Terry Jackson says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:39 pm “””””
Well R. I can read the Mauna Loa CO2 record as well as anybody, and it seems to me that it only records a 25% increase since modern reproducible CO2 records have been collected; not 40%.
I take it that you have good traceable continuity between the supposed 280 ppm purported for the “pre-industrial revolution” period, and the continuous Mauna Loa Record. I didn’t know that CO2 measurements were being made at Mauna Loa prior to the industrial revolution; and one thing we know for sure is that CO2 is NOT globally well mixed, with about 4.85% range of variability observed routinely.
We seem to be having a rash of “The science is not settled” admissions from folks in the field. Hansen goes back and post adjusts past observed results downwards for GISSTemp, despite vociferous claims by his disciples like Algore, of a settled science. Then Mann dismisses the Little ice age, and the mediaeval warm period, to tape up the kinks in his hockey stick handle.
Now we find out that the modern warm period was not a real modern warm period after all.
I’m most disappointed to find out that 1957/8 sunspot peak may just have been another ho hum sunspot peak, and not the all time observed record. I really thought it was neat that those who pre-planned the International Geophysical year for 1957/58 (I was there) were geniusses to pick on the biggest sunspot peak of all time; and now we know it was all a bust.
Ah well we can all look forward to some more sane period, when the science will really be settled.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2012 at 11:55 am
===========
Thanks Leif.
I’ve been here a long time, mostly hoping to see the end of the stupid windmill craze (in time I suppose they will be wrapped in the solar energy “film”, that is never quite perfected).
I sorta understand the solar/climate cycles etc., so was surprised you would pick 2 particular years in your response, thought you were being facetious.
Ah well, the good news is, things still need study.
Thermal lag Leif, thermal lag.
Leif says,
One of the largest cycles on record was in 1778 still during the little ice age…
===========
1778-1784: Warm spell throughout Europe, highest thermometer readings recorded prior to 20th century.
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm
=========
It’s a regionally constrained effect. Ask Mike Lockwood.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2012 at 10:42 am
“655 AD and 2008 AD”
Ah Ha! I knew there was a 1353 year cycle in there somewhere! 🙂
I’m the first to admit I’m not a very bright guy. I barely passed high school algebra and couldn’t crack 500 on my math SAT. But we make do with what we have, and I’ve managed pretty well in life on decent verbal skills and good old common sense. I read Dr. Svalgaard’s answer to my questions with an open mind, and I don’t find it particularly persuasive. I’ll give him 655 AD on the assumption he’s referring to a range of years as a warm time that coincided with a solar minimum.
But 2008? Your statement Dr. Svalgaard, that the sun is quiet and yet temps remain way up seem a bit premature. You talk as if that’s in the bag already. A fait accompli. And that strikes me as arguing from weakness. Let’s see what the next few years bring. With the cold PDO. the cooling soon to go cold AMO, along with the quiet solar might well turn things around in a hurry.This last month alone has seen nearly a full degree C. drop in global temp. anomalies according to Ryan Maue.
Let me ask the same basic question this way as I’m confused on this point. Are we to accept the apparent correlation between quiet suns and cold climates as pure coincidence? Yes, the correlation isn’t perfect by any means, but it looks pretty striking on the surface.
pokerguy says:
January 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm
But 2008? Your statement Dr. Svalgaard, that the sun is quiet and yet temps remain way up seem a bit premature. You talk as if that’s in the bag already.
If the Sun is the major driver of climate [and if it is not, who cares about the Sun and we need not have any discussion], then it would seem to me that since solar activity now is what it was a century ago, the climate should also be the same. This automatically takes into account lags and thermal inertia which very likely would have been the same then as now. Since the current climate [e.g. the past 10 years – anything less than that is weather] is very different from what it was a century [more precisely 108 yrs] ago, the Sun is not a major driver. This is how I see it. If you disagree, then do so at your peril, I’m not on a crusade to persuade anybody.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm
If the Sun is the major driver of climate [and if it is not, who cares about the Sun and we need not have any discussion], then it would seem to me that since solar activity now is what it was a century ago, the climate should also be the same.
Two ridiculous statements made by Leif
1. You are suggesting if the Sun was responsible for say 20-30% of the total natural forcing, we therefore should not study or appreciate those effects?
2. Your efforts to compare 1910 with now are misleading and only worthy of a died in the wool alarmist. The planet was in a completely different position. You know the Sun has been following a modulation wave that spans around 172 years. 1910 was near the the bottom of the trough and hence no oceanic inertia. We have just finished the height of the wave with all its associated ocean heat, it will take longer for the solar effect to be recognized.
Your statements are disingenuous.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/powerwave3.png
JJ says:
January 26, 2012 at 7:52 am
R. Gates says:
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.
You know Gates, those are some very strong and uncharitable words you have directed at Lawrie Ayres. Do you really believe that Ayres’ comment demonstrates a lack of functional objectivity, or are you just shoring up your own poorly supported worldview by charicaturing the opposition? Red flag? Politically motivated? Bad reputation? Do you honestly believe that?
R. Gates has a small… so he make up for it by elevating his arrogant elitist front. Combining all his remarks at this blog results in a single theme: big head and little…
Leif says,
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.
Thank you for your response, a couple points if I may.
I’ve been in the electronics business long enough to take notice whenever someone starts talking about any situation with .1% accuracy. I looked up the specs on a lab grade solar pyranometer
and the unit is spec’d at 1%, with a drift of 1.5% over one year. Unless the observations are made from space with some exceptional equipment, I would find statements of such accuracies suspect.
Extrapolation of these numbers prior to 1978 to such an accuracy would also strain credulity. I would suggest that the only way to make such a measurement would be to have an instrument
out side of the atmosphere, boresighted on the sun with .01% accuracy both short and long term.
I am laboring this point because of the implication that a .1% change in TSI can make a .1 degree change in temperature, and it seems as if much of the AGW climate debate is wrestling with deltas of that resolution, although, in my opinion, any thing past the first decimal point in a temperature discussion is just noise.
HOWEVER, getting back to my first point, which I did not make clear,.
If the TSI is NEARLY constant, probably within the realm of measurment error, what is the significance of the sunspot cycles ?
Article on the Vaal River and link to sunspot activity:
http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/Alexander%20-%20Causal%20linkages%20between%20solar%20activity%20and%20climatic%20responses.pdf
Mike Wryley says:
January 26, 2012 at 7:54 pm
I would suggest that the only way to make such a measurement would be to have an instrument
out side of the atmosphere, boresighted on the sun with .01% accuracy both short and long term.
That is in fact how it is done: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/instruments/tim.htm “Relative changes in solar irradiance are measured to less than 10 ppm/yr (0.001%/yr)” or 1500 times smaller than the drift you mentioned.
If the TSI is NEARLY constant, probably within the realm of measurment error, what is the significance of the sunspot cycles ?
The cycle variation of TSI is more than a hundred times larger than the measurement error, so the cycles show up very clearly, but still only make a temperature signal of less than 0.1C.
Leif: The cycle variation of TSI is more than a hundred times larger than the measurement error, so the cycles show up very clearly, but still only make a temperature signal of less than 0.1C.
What do you consider to be the strongest solar influence on earth climate. What other solar objects respond similarly as to ascertain it is a solar affect? What change in solar activity and to what extent would solar activity have to be to significantly modify a permanent measurable change in temperatures, given all else equal. And, what galactic influences are moderated by the sun that influence climate?
highflight56433 says:
January 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm
What do you consider to be the strongest solar influence on earth climate.
It depends on the time scale involved. On the longest scales [billions of years] the sun has overwhelming influence and will eventually fry the Earth, boil away the oceans. On time scales of less than tens of thousands of years [with great uncertainty] the influence is that of the solar cycle which is of the order of 0.1C
What other solar objects respond similarly as to ascertain it is a solar affect?
??? You have to distinguish between real solar effects [caused by changes in the sun] from apparent solar effects caused by changes in the Earth’s tilt and orbit [in turn mostly caused by Jupiter].
What change in solar activity and to what extent would solar activity have to be to significantly modify a permanent measurable change in temperatures, given all else equal.
If TSI would increase 0.1% the temperature will rise 0.07C. If the solar change is permanent, the temperature change will also be permanent [and measurable over long enough time: say we measured T for 1000 years before the change and for 1000 years after the change, then I think that we can beat the noise down enough to detect 0.07C].
And, what galactic influences are moderated by the sun that influence climate?
none, IMO. This does not mean that galactic effects never have any effect [a nearby supernova or a very dense molecular cloud would do wonders], but they would not be moderated by the sun.
All of this is my opinion and is not up for discussion. Should persuasive evidence be found for otherwise, I’m always willing to learn and change my opinion, but in the 40 years I have studied this, no such evidence has been produced to my satisfaction. Lots of wild claims [some going back 350 years], but no compelling and energetically viable ones.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm
If the Sun is the major driver of climate [and if it is not, who cares about the Sun and we need not have any discussion], then it would seem to me that since solar activity now is what it was a century ago, the climate should also be the same. This automatically takes into account lags and thermal inertia which very likely would have been the same then as now. Since the current climate [e.g. the past 10 years – anything less than that is weather] is very different from what it was a century [more precisely 108 yrs] ago, the Sun is not a major driver. This is how I see it. If you disagree, then do so at your peril, I’m not on a crusade to persuade anybody.
Vukcevic says:
(now and before, and probably for some time to come)
Ok, granted the sun is nearly the same for few years, but climate is not the same, at least not in the area I research data for.
So what has changed in the last 100 years?
Our good old friend the Earth’s magnetic field, lost in its intensity about 10% since 1850s, and that is a lot.
Link between solar activity and temperatures (which the ‘settled science’ is not ready to recognise) is the mysterious ‘North Atlantic Precursor’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
( as developed from existing data by our very own M.A.Vukcevic).
How does it work?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
but that text considers only the NAO on the N. Hemisphere’s winters ?
Yes, winters are the ones that moved, summers stayed more or less still.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm
Why then M.A.Vukcevic has not published his NAP data and physical principles behind it (the graph shown on the WUWT first time some 18 months ago)?
Simply time is not right, there are some ‘long established beliefs’ (not physical principles or laws) that will need readjustment. The right time is approaching fast, since the AGW shaky CO2 ppm (parts per million) hypothesis is evaporating into ‘thin air’ and the natural variability sponsors aren’t having a horse able to jump over the last hurdle of the wide acceptability.
The UN had predicted that by 2010 there should have been 50 million climate refugees due to man-made global warming. It could be that they may actually be right, partially right, becasue we may soon see climate refugees moving from the cold climes that are bound to become unbearably cold, to the warmer climes. Hence, if they warmists blame the cooling on anthropogenic CO2, then they would be able to blame AGW for the cold-to-warm climate exodus. Same as the Vikings exodus from Greenland back to mainland Europe.
Leif: What is your opinion on the CLOUD experiment and how does it connect to our magnetic field with respect to climate. What affect does the magnetic field have on atmosphere density and global climate?
If you were to think of the many variables that could change global temperatures, how many would that be and how would they be weighted? It would seem to me that it is too chaotic with too many unknowns to be prevent any real accurate sense of future climate.
Leif, et al
I appreciate the feedback from you and others on this post.
When I get into a bare knuckles “discussion” with some CO2 maniac, I need all the “facts*”, as they are best understood currently, in my ammo belt. It would appear to me that while the sun is a factor in global temps, it is not a primary, or >10% factor as Willis would say, in the current debate regarding 2 or 3 degree swings in average surface temps. Personally, this is a disappointment, as it would be an easy explanation to hang your hat on.
*, in and of itself a increasingly riskier term in any of these discussions
highflight56433 says:
January 27, 2012 at 5:57 am
Leif: What is your opinion on the CLOUD experiment and how does it connect to our magnetic field with respect to climate. What affect does the magnetic field have on atmosphere density and global climate?
The CLOUD experiment just showed what we have known since the 1920s: that ionization promotes formation of cloud droplets. I don’t think the magnetic field has anything to do with the climate.
If you were to think of the many variables that could change global temperatures, how many would that be and how would they be weighted? It would seem to me that it is too chaotic with too many unknowns to be prevent any real accurate sense of future climate.
To me there are three main factors involved [all the other a secondary] in this order of importance:
1) solar insolation
2) surface conditions
3) atmospheric composition
A nice extrapolation which we all could eventually (if young enough) verify:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MagAn.htm
I found this link in relation to an earlier paper you published. Does it have any merit or is it just flaming?
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
REPLY: well, when they use labels like “crazed denialist” instead of addressing the science, you can be pretty sure its just flaming – Anthony
I noticed that too as well as the complaints about “grammatical errors”.
I trying to defend Archibald on a local blog and my opponent is harping on the use of 5 rural stations used by the paper. Is there any credence to the criticism about or Is it relative in this case?
Thanks Anthony, I appreciate your help