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.
typo correction: should be 1783 & 85
There were four major Iceland’s volcanic eruptions recorded :
in 1783 two, in 1784 –one and in 1785 –one, no surprise the CET got depressed.
Leif,
I overlayed the SSN graph from wikipedia over the CET graph that you referenced:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif
overlay:SunCET
Open the two graphs in separate tabs, then flip between tabs.
Note the underlying correlation in trends and direction of trends, with the most extreme spikes typically aligning with cycles. Not a bad case for the sun.
Thanks.
R. Gates says:
January 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm
” All indications are that the main thrust of the 21st century will be to higher and higher temperatures with ever increasing greenhouse gases as the underlying cause.”
Other than the flawed models you so religiously believe in, name one. You might also be more specific in defining your “higher and higher” temperatures. I am adding the above statement to my list of Gatesisms.
For the newer readers I offer the following:
Gatesisms
A Gatesism is a statement by R. Gates, an AGW proponent. He uses catch phrases without regard to magnitude, relevance or context and creates straw man arguments with hopes of hijacking threads.
The response to all Gatesisms should be: “So what”
Classic Gatesisms:
“40 % increase in CO2 over the last 100 years”
“CO2 levels have exploded”
“The earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600′s”
“especially with the increases in ocean heat content and water vapor levels we’ve seen over the past few decades.”
“The last time we had this much CO2 in the atmosphere, (i.e. the mid-Pliocene) we had ice-free Arctic ocean summers.”
“indications are that the main thrust of the 21st century will be to higher and higher temperatures with ever increasing greenhouse gases as the underlying cause.”
Meanwhile, the IPCC is working vigorously behind the scenes to prove that solar changes are due to humans burning fossil fuels.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 28, 2012 at 1:30 am
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,
I don’t think that what you peddle qualifies as scientific scrutiny.
Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.png
Please note the wide variations in CET temperatures, both year-to-year and over short (decadal scale) time intervals.
The trend line is based on the data that contain these variations.
Therefore, the trend line is unlikely to reflect changes due to atmospheric CO2, since atmospheric CO2 could NOT possibly be the source of such wide variations in CET temperatures: from ~ 7.3°C to 10.5°C (+3.2°C) in ~ 45 years (~ 1690-1735); ~ 10.5°C to 6.8°C (-3.7°C) in ~ 10 years (~ 1725-1735) 1710; and ~ 10.4°C to 7.4°C (-3.0°C) in ~ 11 years (~ 1865-1876).
There is zero evidence that the temperature trend of this chart is anything but the result of natural climate variability. Anything to the contrary is pure speculation.
@Bob Webster says:January 28, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Regarding the Wiki CET chart, I am always amused by a temperature record in C. that extends 83 years before the invention of the centigrade thermometer. Wiki sharpens my skepticism again.
@Bob Webster: By the way, I am in full agreement that it is entirely with in the range of natural variability.
Richard G,
You do know that temperatures can be converted to °C, right?
Bob Webster says: “There is zero evidence that the temperature trend of this chart is anything but the result of natural climate variability. Anything to the contrary is pure speculation.”
Exactamundo. Not saying that AGW can’t exist. But pretending to see a ‘human fingerprint’ in that rising trend line is trying to pick the flyshit out of the pepper. Notice that the rise in T between about 1690 and 1720 was almost identical to the rise from 1980 – 2008. And CO2 levels were very low three centuries ago. Common sense, the null hypothesis and Occam’s Razor all say it’s simply natural variability. AGW is only a bit player, if that.
@Smokey says: January 28, 2012 at 3:53 pm
The chart precedes the invention of F. thermometers by 65 years. Converted from what?
The point is that we can analyze a fabricated and faulty record until the cows come home and end up self deluded that the result is meaningful when in fact it is not meaningful. Before climate science was taken over by NASA space cowboys, it was never thought that climate was temperature. It was a study of actual wide ranging conditions on this earth of which temperature was a component. The notion that climate is an average of all temperatures globally is false. Climate is the sum of all things locally, of which temperature is a highly variable component. The dominating dependent variable is actually water.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:11 pm
“Nonsense”
You were referring to the LIA, and Dalton is all done by 1820, so from 1659 till 1820, 1755 to 1781 was the 2nd warmest span after the 1730`s. If you consider the LIA finishing at 1850, then it would be the 3rd warmest as 1822/28 was warmer. Do we ever get a run of cooler years at such large cycles ?
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl3.html
Ed Mertin says:
January 27, 2012 at 11:12 pm
“… For example the recent Iceland volcanoes didn’t make stratosphere at all really…”
Grímsvötn did… and quite well. But in it’s short eruption, it blasted out more than Eyjafjallajökull.
Here is the really wild part, the SO2 signature on GOME was quite small (as volcanoes go). It wasn’t until the whole thing was over that a large SO2 signal showed up. Really wild. Imagine if the SO2 emission had been coincidental with the main eruption… back when it was popping the stratosphere really hard.
Ulric Lyons says:
January 28, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Do we ever get a run of cooler years at such large cycles ?
Here are the largest cycles (in green ovals) the last 300 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Large-Cycles.png
Are you advocating there was no LIA or that it was done by 1720? Or that temps since 1980 were on par with temps earlier? Compare with this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/loehle_v_fig21.png?w=640
Compare with this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/loehle_v_fig21.png
testing: Compare with this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/loehle_v_fig21.png?w=100
testing: Compare with this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/loehle_v_fig21.png?w=320
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 28, 2012 at 10:13 pm
testing: Compare with this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/loehle_v_fig21.png?w=100
</i?
Your Loehle graph is pathetic:
As Crocodile Dundee would say:
this is a Loehle graph ‘mate’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
@Leif Svalgaard says:
January 28, 2012 at 10:11 pm
“Are you advocating there was no LIA or that it was done by 1720? Or that temps since 1980 were on par with temps earlier?”
Clearly, no, no and no again. And your original comment: “One of the largest cycles on record was in 1778 still during the little ice age…” implies that you are advocating that the LIA was cold all the way through, which is ludicrous.
“Here are the largest cycles (in green ovals) the last 300 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Large-Cycles.png”
Yes, where we find runs of warmer years.
Ulric Lyons says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:37 am
Yes, where we find runs of warmer years.
Climate is defined as the mean over 30 years.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:57 am
“Climate is defined as the mean over 30 years.”
And if seven of those years were warmer, the mean would be higher, so climate is the sum of weather, so what. You were referring to one solar cycle not 30yrs.
Dr. Svalgaard:
What is your understanding of the findings in this paper. Is this something that is potentially coming?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Ulric Lyons says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:28 am
You were referring to one solar cycle not 30yrs.
I was giving an example of a high cycle. There were others nearby. The real test is the totality of the entire 18th century vs. the entire 20th. Looking at a few years is meaningless.
The point is that solar activity the two centuries was similar, but the climate was not. If you claim the climate was similar you also claim that the 18th century was not part of the LIA. Smacks of the warmists effort yo get rid of the MWP, except with opposite sign.
Camburn says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:55 am
What is your understanding of the findings in this paper.
The confidence level is stated at 95%. This is not quite enough to establish an effect, although suggestive. The abstract notes: “points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period”. I would expect that to be even more the case for the Sun system. The author does not suggest a solar cause [probably for that reason]. The real test would be to verify the cycle with other ice cores. To my knowledge this has not been done.
Camburn says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:55 am
What is your understanding of the findings in this paper.
On the other hand: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2003ScienceMeeting/dec03_posters_presentations/Bond.htm
Thank you for the link Dr. Svalgaard.
I am a farmer, and understanding climate/temp, etc is of great concern to me. With my occupation, I also feel a moral responsability to grow food for people to the best of my ability.
I do not have anywhere near the expertise that you have in regards to the sun, cause, effects, etc on climate.
These types of documented cyclical climate disruptions bear study I would think, and I am sure that you have these type of questions as well. We are now within the (+)(-) time frame of another Bond type event. The L&P effect seems to be something peculiar to this cycle. Am I correct in that assumption?
1. Is there any way through isotopic proxy etc to know if the L&P effect has happened in the past near or during a Bond type event?
2. Are there any indications that the current dynamics of the sun are pointing to another Bond type event?
3. The Bond event is an approx 1470 year cycle. Are there planetary motions, orbital parameters as we travel through the Solar system, that are indications of this cycle?
4. I can’t see to find any type of cause/effect for a Bond to occur. As a learned man in this field do you see any type of cause/effect? One with enough certainty that we could prepare as mankind for the potential results of this?
Thank you for your time if you care to answer my questions.
Camburn says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:48 am
The L&P effect seems to be something peculiar to this cycle. Am I correct in that assumption?
It may have started back in cycle 22 and is getting stronger, but we need to wait a couple of years to be sure.
1. Is there any way through isotopic proxy etc to know if the L&P effect has happened in the past near or during a Bond type event?
No, although it is possible that the L&P effect was operating during the Maunder Minimum.
2. Are there any indications that the current dynamics of the sun are pointing to another Bond type event?
Not that I know of. It is not certain that Bond events are real. More datasets are needed. I discussed this with the late Gerald Bond some years back [page 4 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf ]
3. The Bond event is an approx 1470 year cycle. Are there planetary motions, orbital parameters as we travel through the Solar system, that are indications of this cycle?
no
4. I can’t see to find any type of cause/effect for a Bond to occur. As a learned man in this field do you see any type of cause/effect? One with enough certainty that we could prepare as mankind for the potential results of this?
It is not clear that the events are established. And we don’t know enough about what causes long-period solar cycles.