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.
The discussion here suggests to me that the current proxy, terrestrial and satellite measurement values for TSI over the last 1000 years provides a reasonable basis for arguing that the sun is unlikely to be the dominate factor in climate shifts over that period. Some historical records add to the basis of the argument.
The current proxy, thermometer and satellite measurement values for GMT (Global Mean Temp) over the last 1000 years provides a reasonable basis for arguing that mankind is unlikely to be the dominate factor in climate shifts.
The current proxy, terrestrial and satellite measurement values for global mean atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years provides a reasonable basis for arguing that all sources of CO2 combined are unlikely to be the dominate factor in climate shifts over that period. Arguably, all sources of CO2 combined may not reasonably be expected to be a significant factor in climate shifts.
All of the above leads me to suggest that the scientific community needs significantly more research by truly independent scientists (a.k.a. skeptics), as opposed to those IPCC centric scientists who believe they are on the side of a ‘cause’ that have dominated the climate alarmism for the last +25 years.
John
>>Leif Svalgaard says: January 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm
>>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
So we end up with a ‘Modern Maximum’ instead of a ‘Modern Grand Maximum’. That hardly invalidates the distinctly possible correlation between sunspot number/cycles and climate.
.
>>Leif Svalgaard says: January 25, 2012 at 8:26 pm
>>There is no such correlation:
>> http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
Sorry, Leif, but those temperature plots (pink) do not take urban heat island into effect. If you adjusted the pink temperature plot by 0.5oc (either make the past warmer, or the present cooler), I think you would find that there is a very good correlation between temperature and your green solar cycle plot (I presume the green plot is peak to peak and trough to trough?).
Then what would your scatter-plot look like?
.
Ralph says:
January 27, 2012 at 11:08 am
So we end up with a ‘Modern Maximum’ instead of a ‘Modern Grand Maximum’. That hardly invalidates the distinctly possible correlation between sunspot number/cycles and climate.
We end up with a maximum in every one of the centuries since 1700…
Ralph says:
January 27, 2012 at 11:18 am
Sorry, Leif, but those temperature plots (pink) do not take urban heat island into effect.
Nor does it correct for AGW [as Lassen and Friis-Christensen want to do]. No corrections can rescue this sorry nonsense. But, I recognize that true believers can’t be swayed by anything.
Ralph says:
January 27, 2012 at 11:18 am
I think you would find that there is a very good correlation between temperature and your green solar cycle plot
The green curve is the temperature plot [corrected for a linear trend]. The solar cycle lengths are the blue curve…
Leif writes: “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.”
I came to the climate discussion some years ago as a true believer. I’m a liberal Democrat with the usual keen sense of environmental responsibility that implies. Most skeptics like to mock such a mindset. To write with a straight face that I do feel that we need to be good “stewards of the planet,” is to invite great derision and accusations of tree hugging and Gaia worshipping. I’ll never forget something Rush Limbaugh once said regarding global warming, that God would never have created an atmosphere that was not self-correcting, so we could go on polluting without fear. I could barely believe my ears. So as you can imagine, it took quite a lot for me to begin to see through the scam that is CAGW. And yet at a certain point it became clear to me that there just wasn’t any there, there. That same insight happens over and over again, and each time I find it shocking.
Dr. Svalgaard, your statements above are just so weak. First, your contention that the if the sun is not the major driver then it’s not even worth talking about beggars belief. I can only imagine that you misspoke.
Second, it doesn’t take a scientist to understand that while solar activity might be close to what it was a century ago, there must be other factors at play, Again, I’m not a scientist, but is our position relative to the sun precisely the same as it was then? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I’m just asking. There are others who could do an infinitely better job than I of enumerating conditions which are not the same as they were in 1910, and that might have important climatic implications. So I won’t even try, but I invite others to jump in.
Meanwhile, the long range forecasters who’ve been beating the AGw modelers season after season, year after year (check out UK Mets recent series of fiascos with their ongoing warm bias…with their perennial calls for barbecue summers and warm, snowless winters)… are all in agreement on one thing: that we’re entering a cold cycle. That cycle has already begun with the cold PDO and when the AMo flips, watch out. You simply put your credibility in jeopardy when you dismiss the possibility of a flip to cold under the current solar regime.
I asked if we were to simply assume that the apparent correlation between solar minima and cooler temps is pure coincidence, but unless I missed it I don’t think you answered. If that’s your position, fine. I’d just like to know one way or the other…
pokerguy says:
January 27, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Dr. Svalgaard, your statements above are just so weak. First, your contention that the if the sun is not the major driver then it’s not even worth talking about beggars belief. I can only imagine that you misspoke.
Didn’t misspeak. The Sun is absolutely worth ‘talking about’. I have been studying it for 40+ years. What is not worth harping on is the alarmist cries that because of the sun millions are going to die as we plunge into icy conditions.
Second, it doesn’t take a scientist to understand that while solar activity might be close to what it was a century ago, there must be other factors at play
Usually the null-hypothesis is that when everything is the same, the results are the same. Since the results are not the same [temps have risen] other non-solar factors must indeed be responsible. Some people know precisely what those are.
Again, I’m not a scientist, but is our position relative to the sun precisely the same as it was then? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.
This is an observational question and the observations we have point to the sun being the same.
are all in agreement on one thing: that we’re entering a cold cycle. That cycle has already begun with the cold PDO and when the AMo flips, watch out. You simply put your credibility in jeopardy when you dismiss the possibility of a flip to cold under the current solar regime.
The climate changes all the time. I do not dismiss the cold coming, just that it has nothing to do with the sun.
I asked if we were to simply assume that the apparent correlation between solar minima and cooler temps is pure coincidence, but unless I missed it I don’t think you answered. If that’s your position, fine. I’d just like to know one way or the other…
You have a couple of weasel words there: ‘apparent’, ‘pure’, … The answer is that there is not a correlation strong enough to take seriously. And, BTW, the Sun does have an influence: 0.1C. Just not big enough to worry about, and besides, not something we can do anything about with a return on investment that is worth taking. How many trillions should we spend trying to avert 0.1C?
The climate changes all the time. I do not dismiss the cold coming, just that it has anything to do with the sun.
Leif writes: “The climate changes all the time. I do not dismiss the cold coming, just that it has anything to do with the sun.”
Look Doctor Svalgaard, I greatly appreciate your patience and courtesy. I respect that you’re willing to engage in a dialogue. Most scientists of the AGW persuasion don’t have the courage. Of course they’ll say they can’t be bothered to waste their time with a bunch of flat-earthers and fossil fuel shills, but the truth is they won’t debate because they’re afraid. You on the other hand are brimming with confidence. It’s a nice change.
I’ll leave it at this, doctor. In support of your thesis that solar minima do not cause a cooler climate, you’ve submitted into evidence the current relatively warm climate. You mentioned that (2008) as 1 of 2 minima not associated with cold temps. And yet you’ve also just stated that even if we do get cold…and according to the long range weather guys who’ve far and away had the most success in this area, we are engaged in that very process as we speak…. it will have nothing to do with the sun. This strikes me as attempting to have it both ways. Heads you win and tails I lose.
One sees this all the time in the AGW wars. NO matter what happens in the real world, no matter how inconvenient the data, no matter how poor the predictions, their hypothesis is always right.
The years pass and weather eventually become climate. I think we can at least agree it will be interesting to watch what happens.
pokerguy says:
January 27, 2012 at 1:52 pm
This strikes me as attempting to have it both ways. Heads you win and tails I lose.
Even if it turns a bit colder we are still way above what it was a century ago. If the temperature drops 1.2C and stays down, it would be a different matter, but that has not happened yet and you are welcome to present reputable predictions that we are headed there.
DCA says:
January 27, 2012 at 8:53 am
A link from 2007 – has it been that long? Sweet memories. I appreciate the effort that the warmers go to to keep that link near the top of a Google search on my name. Their respect continues to this day.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2012 at 11:48 am
“One of the largest cycles on record was in 1778 still during the little ice age…”
1775 to 1781 was the second warmest span of years after the 1730`s.
pokerguy
You [Leif] mentioned that (2008) as 1 of 2 minima not associated with cold temps
=======
In the same way that the 1778 solar max is associated with conspicuous warmth, 2008 is associated with a conspicuous chill. Here’s a tip of the iceberg…
2008
Why winter no longer exists. – Express (UK), Feb, 2008
Climate change threat to alpine ski resorts – Telegraph UK, May 2008
Arctic blast brings London earliest snow for 70 years – Evening Standard, Oct 29, 2008
The Planet Gets Cooler in ’08. Say What? – Time, Dec 16, 2008
The Alps have best snow conditions ‘in a generation’ – Telegraph UK, Dec 19, 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2009
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/01/global-cooling-in-2009.html
http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-long-will-cold-snap-last.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2010
Snow hits Mediterranean coast – BBC, 9 March 2010
Quiet Sun Puts Europe on ice – NewScientist, April 14, 2010
Alice Springs: coldest day on record – Telegraph UK , Jul 06, 2010
Antarctic cold snap kills nine in Argentina – BBC, July 18, 2010
Peru declares emergency over cold weather – BBC, July 24, 2010
Argentina Colder Than Antarctica Raises Power Imports – Bloomberg Aug 03, 2010
The UK has just endured its coldest August for 17 years – DailyMail, September 01, 2010
Snow, wind and rain whip eastern Australia – ABC, October 16, 2010
Army moves in to clear away snow in coldest December for 100 years – Daily Mail, Dec9, 2010
Tuesday coldest day ever recorded in Ireland – Irish Times, Dec 24, 2010
Coldest December in Sweden in 110 years – The Local (Sweden), Dec 26, 2010
Heavy snow grips northern China – Telegraph UK, Dec 29, 2010
Winter may be coldest in 1000 years – DailyStar (UK), Dec 30, 2010
Melbourne shivers through coldest December in years – The Age (au), Dec 31, 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George E,. Smith (Jan 26, 2:02 pm),
1) thanks for being there! Your comment prompted me to look around. And I found:
2) Annals of The International Geophysical Year 1958
http://nsidc.org/rocs/archives-catalog/?p=digitallibrary/digitalcontent&id=339
— sunspot diagrams for each day in 1958 (Volume XXI, left table)
Ulric Lyons says:
January 27, 2012 at 4:11 pm
1775 to 1781 was the second warmest span of years after the 1730`s.
Nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.png
@Khwarizmi says:January 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm
“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.”
*********************************
Considering that the thermometer record starts in 1724 for F. and 1742 for C. it seems to be constrained by the fact that the record is limited to Europeans keeping records (Ben Franklin being an exception to the rule).
Khwarizmi says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:00 pm
In the same way that the 1778 solar max is associated with conspicuous warmth, 2008 is associated with a conspicuous chill.
compare: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 27, 2012 at 12:57 pm
The climate changes all the time. I do not dismiss the cold coming, just that it has anything to do with the sun.
———–
But neither is the climate is a random walk, and though it may be a complicated puzzle with many interrelated and dynamics pieces, just as we have slowly figured out the various dynamics that make up the operations of the human body, so too, the climate puzzle is slowly being revealed through the hard work of thousands of scientists. In term of some cold period coming– I would not count on it. A flattening of global tempersture rises does not a cold period make. All indications are that the main thrust of the 21st century will be to higher and higher tempertures with ever increasing greenhouse gases as the underlying cause.
Richard G says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Considering that the thermometer record starts in 1724 for F. and 1742 for C. it seems to be constrained by the fact that the record is limited to Europeans keeping records (Ben Franklin being an exception to the rule).
All the antics of several commenters ignore the fact that the temperature back then during the very high solar activity was much lower than now during very low activity, but rational thought seems to be severely lacking, replaced by rabid ignorance and wishful thinking, fully matching with opposite sign that of the worst Joe Rommish CAGW. Sigh.
Gates, with regards to your 21st century outlook there is something else going on besides man made GHG & CO2. Volcanic activities began picking up in 1995. Really 1991 if you want to count Pinatubo and Cerro Hudson. The stratosphere hasn’t been blasted for any multi-year period by large eruptions yet and is clear. That is completely different at lower altitudes. For example the recent Iceland volcanoes didn’t make stratosphere at all really. Same in Chile, same in most other regions. I believe the low altitude volcanic aerosols and gasses cause much of the low altitude warming.
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/explosive-volcanic-eruptions-triggered-by-cosmic-rays-volcano-as-a-3p053jxP0S
“Rational thought” includes the ability to recognize that solar cycles cannot be treated in isolation. Rational thought would indicate that the cycles preceding the cherry picked cycles need to be realized as having an impact on climate. Think ocean heat inertia.
Rational thought would also imply that the “thinker” is capable of excepting that other natural climate drivers (PDO etc) are able to co-exist together and that cherry picking one driver in isolation is meaningless.
Rational thought would also dictate that solar effects on climate should not be restricted to TSI alone.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 27, 2012 at 11:18 pm
“Rational thought” includes the ability to recognize that solar cycles cannot be treated in isolation.
Observations show that each of the three centuries 18, 19, 20th have closely the same solar activity: WSN = 57 +/- 6. Therefore each cycle exists in closely the same general environment of surrounding cycles.
Rational thought would also imply that the “thinker” is capable of excepting that other natural climate drivers (PDO etc) are able to co-exist together and that cherry picking one driver in isolation is meaningless.
Rational thought realizes that, indeed, more than 90% of the climate has multiple other drivers than the sun.
Rational thought would also dictate that solar effects on climate should not be restricted to TSI alone.
Rational thought concentrates on the driver with the most energy and the clearest direct effect. Especially when all other solar drivers follow TSI [either direct or inverse].
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 27, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Observations show that each of the three centuries 18, 19, 20th have closely the same solar activity: WSN = 57 +/- 6. Therefore each cycle exists in closely the same general environment of surrounding cycles.
Disingenuous again. SC24 is preceded by a string of rising cycles since 1910 with the exception of SC20 . SC21/22/23 may be on a decline but are still considered high. Before 1910 there were two weak cycles SC12/13, before that the trend is weakening from a weak base with the only cycle of any strength being SC11. Even with some adjustment to the modern SSN record your suggestion is obviously wrong. The two cycles you compare are not taken from the same portion of the wave.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/powerwave3.png
Your other replies are also nonsensical.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:04 am
The two cycles you compare are not taken from the same portion of the wave.
Rational thought and ocean thermal inertia dictate that comparing one or two cycles is not reasonable. You must compare many more, say 10. But I would not expect you to understand this given your agenda. Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf is a good illustration of the generally even level since 1720. Compare 1720-1800 to 1920-2000. As I said, you are free to fool yourself and think otherwise at your peril. My opinion is not up for discussion.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
January 27, 2012 at 4:11 pm
1775 to 1781 was the second warmest span of years after the 1730`s.
Nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.png
Hold on boys, forget about wikipedia graph, not good enough, here are the facts
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
Dr. S. Notice there were two large eruptions of Laki volcano in the 1874&76, which severely affected the CET,
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:42 am
Geoff Sharp says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:04 am
The two cycles you compare are not taken from the same portion of the wave.
—————————————
Rational thought and ocean thermal inertia dictate that comparing one or two cycles is not reasonable. You must compare many more, say 10.
That is exactly what I have been describing. If we look at the preceding cycles you are comparing two distinctly different aspects of the Gleissberg curve (if you prefer to call it that). This is one of the fundamental flaws of your analysis (opinion).
Compare 1720-1800 to 1920-2000.
You need to compare 1820-1900 to 1920-2000 to position your chosen cycles correctly. Your logic is false. The difference is plainly visible to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. The graphs in your own referred pdf are clearly showing the same differences in trend.
I don’t wish to change your opinion, but when that opinion doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny it must be pointed out in the interests of proper science, especially as you are regarded as having some expertise on this forum. This is my only agenda.