NASA June 2012 Solar Cycle 24 Prediction

Compiled by Joe D’aleo WeatherBell

via NASA MSFC

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013. We are currently over three years into Cycle 24. The current predicted size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle in about 100 years.

The prediction method has been slightly revised. The previous method found a fit for both the amplitude and the starting time of the cycle along with a weighted estimate of the amplitude from precursor predictions (polar fields and geomagnetic activity near cycle minimum). Recent work [see Hathaway Solar Physics; 273, 221 (2011)] indicates that the equatorward drift of the sunspot latitudes as seen in the Butterfly Diagram follows a standard path for all cycles provided the dates are taken relative to a starting time determined by fitting the full cycle. Using data for the current sunspot cycle indicates a starting date of May of 2008. Fixing this date and then finding the cycle amplitude that best fits the sunspot number data yields the current (revised) prediction.

Predicting the behavior of a sunspot cycle is fairly reliable once the cycle is well underway (about 3 years after the minimum in sunspot number occurs [see Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann Solar Physics; 151, 177 (1994)]). Prior to that time the predictions are less reliable but nonetheless equally as important. Planning for satellite orbits and space missions often require knowledge of solar activity levels years in advance.

A number of techniques are used to predict the amplitude of a cycle during the time near and before sunspot minimum. Relationships have been found between the size of the next cycle maximum and the length of the previous cycle, the level of activity at sunspot minimum, and the size of the previous cycle.

Among the most reliable techniques are those that use the measurements of changes in the Earth’s magnetic field at, and before, sunspot minimum. These changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are known to be caused by solar storms but the precise connections between them and future solar activity levels is still uncertain.

Of these “geomagnetic precursor” techniques three stand out. The earliest is from Ohl and Ohl [Solar-Terrestrial Predictions Proceedings, Vol. II. 258 (1979)] They found that the value of the geomagnetic aa index at its minimum was related to the sunspot number during the ensuing maximum. The primary disadvantage of this technique is that the minimum in the geomagnetic aa index often occurs slightly after sunspot minimum so the prediction isn’t available until the sunspot cycle has started.

An alternative method is due to a process suggested by Joan Feynman. She separates the geomagnetic aa index into two components: one in phase with and proportional to the sunspot number, the other component is then the remaining signal. This remaining signal has, in the past, given good estimates of the sunspot numbers several years in advance. The maximum in this signal occurs near sunspot minimum and is proportional to the sunspot number during the following maximum. This method does allow for a prediction of the next sunspot maximum at the time of sunspot minimum.

A third method is due to Richard Thompson [Solar Physics 148, 383 (1993)]. He found a relationship between the number of days during a sunspot cycle in which the geomagnetic field was “disturbed” and the amplitude of the next sunspot maximum. His method has the advantage of giving a prediction for the size of the next sunspot maximum well before sunspot minimum.

We have suggested using the average of the predictions given by the Feynman-based method and by Thompson’s method. [See Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann J. Geophys. Res. 104, 22,375 (1999)] However, both of these methods were impacted by the “Halloween Events” of October/November 2003 which were not reflected in the sunspot numbers. Both methods give larger than average amplitude to Cycle 24 while its delayed start and low minimum strongly suggest a much smaller cycle.

The smoothed aa index reached its minimum (a record low) of 8.4 in September of 2009. Using Ohl’s method now indicates a maximum sunspot number of 70 plus/minus 18 for cycle 24. We then use the shape of the sunspot cycle as described by Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann [Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994)] and determine a starting time for the cycle by fitting the latitude drift data to produce a prediction of the monthly sunspot numbers through the next cycle. We find a maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013. The predicted numbers are available in a text file, as a GIF image, and as a pdf-file. As the cycle progresses, the prediction process switches over to giving more weight to the fitting of the monthly values to the cycle shape function. At this phase of cycle 24 we now give 66% weight to the amplitude from curve-fitting technique of Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994). That technique currently gives similar values to those of Ohl’s method.

Note: These predictions are for “smoothed” International Sunspot Numbers. The smoothing is usually over time periods of about a year or more so both the daily and the monthly values for the International Sunspot Number should fluctuate about our predicted numbers. The dotted lines on the prediction plots indicate the expected range of the monthly sunspot numbers. Also note that the “Boulder” numbers reported daily at http://www.spaceweather.com are typically about 35% higher than the International sunspot number.

Another indicator of the level of solar activity is the flux of radio emission from the Sun at a wavelength of 10.7 cm (2.8 GHz frequency). This flux has been measured daily since 1947. It is an important indicator of solar activity because it tends to follow the changes in the solar ultraviolet that influence the Earth’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Many models of the upper atmosphere use the 10.7 cm flux (F10.7) as input to determine atmospheric densities and satellite drag. F10.7 has been shown to follow the sunspot number quite closely and similar prediction techniques can be used. Our predictions for F10.7 are available in a text file, as a GIF image, and as a pdf-file. Current values for F10.7 can be found at: http://www.spaceweather.ca/sx-4-eng.php.

———————-

Jan Janssens adds

You may want to consult my webpage “Evolution of SC24”.

Besides sunspot numbers, it tracks also solar flares, geomagnetics, radio flux, cosmic rays,…

An overview of SC24-predictions (made prior to 2009 = prior to SC-minimum) can be found at this link.

At this time (only 40 months after cycle minimum), we have not reached SC24-maximum yet. This is expected to occur in the first half of 2013.

Currently, we seem to be in a standstill very similar to what happened during SC23 (albeit this time later in the cycle and at a lower sunspot level:

see).

BTW, low solar may relate to overall lower global temperatures but more stable (meridional patterns that result in more extremes). All of the continental heat extremes occurred in the lower solar periods.

This is because the meridional patterns seem to persist when the sun is less active. That partially explains persistant the cold in the Peciifc Northwest down to coastal California while areas to the east have been stuck warm. The second strongest La Nina in 110 hears is also likely playing a role resulting in an enhanced cold PDO with cold water off the west coast and warm north of Hawaii. This helps maintain a western trough and downstream ridge. That appears to be breaking down as El Nino comes on now as it did in 2009.

Here is a plot of the water anomalies in the eastern Pacific.

The pendulum is likely to swing as it did in 2009. By the way the last regime with waters cold in the east was the early 1970s, a period where the Atlantic was cold. That made the difference. As now we are in the warm mode which favors continental warmth in summer in the Northern Hemisphere.  But this last year has been US specific.

—————————-

NOAA making big deal about last 12 months warmest ever.

John Christy provides color:

Here are the sectors from MSU TLT in deg C. Max12mo is highest 12-month average value beginning with Dec78-Nov79 and going forward month by month. Right column is latest 12-month running mean (Jun2011-May2012). Latest USA48 is essentially tied with the value from Oct1999-Sep2000. The USA48 is the interesting story because other sectors (larger) are less than half of hottest value. Note at bottom – Alaska was well below average for Jun2011-May2012 (record low was -1.131 C, and doing this quickly I couldn’t add in the small part adjacent to BC.)

Sectors

Trpcs 20S-20N

NoExt 20N-85N

SoExt 85S-20S

Pol 60 to 85

UAH LTv5.4

Region…Record Max…Last Year

image

In NASA GISS’s own words:

“”Everyone appears also to agree that too much attention is paid to records, particularly given that the difference between 1934, 1998, and several other sets of years in the top 10 warmest list for the United States are so small as to be statistically meaningless.”

Dr. Hansen and his team note that they rarely, if ever, discuss individual years, particularly regional findings like those for the United States (the lower 48 are only 2 percent of the planet’s surface).  “In general I think that we want to avoid going into more and more detail about ranking of individual years,” he said in an e-mail message. “As far as I remember, we have always discouraged that as being somewhat nonsensical.””

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

As usual, I’ll point out that this is David Hathaway’s personal forecast, and not NASA’s ‘official’ prediction [they don’t have any]

Joachim Seifert

The solar specialist Prof. Mrs. Lean predicts a 0.14 C temp increase
from 2010 to the year 2014….. based on sunspot cycle combined with
CO2-effect. The low sunspot count of cycle 24 has been factured in…
…no surprises, nothing new…
JS

We just had the 2nd Sunspot number Workshop in Brussels this May. For anyone interested, here is the Wiki for the workshops: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home

SteveSadlov

6+ billion people, Great Recession, sleeping Sun and tens of thousands of WMD. Bad, bad, bad.

Green Sand

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 8, 2012 at 12:01 pm

==============================
Thanks Leif

crosspatch

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 8, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Found the whole Waldmeier Jump presentation rather fascinating.

Leif Svalgaard says:June 8, 2012 at 12:01 pm
……………
Hi doc
Is this
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120527115925/ssnworkshop/images/0/03/Sunspots-1700-present.png
still a proposal or has it been accepted as a future reference?
Has anyone published annual SSN for the above?

vukcevic says:
June 8, 2012 at 1:56 pm
still a proposal or has it been accepted as a future reference?
The SSN Workshops are still work in progress and a ‘final’ outcome is still a year [at least away], but you may get a feeling for how it is going by reading Hugh Hudson’s summary of the 2nd workshop: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Hudson.pdf

Gail Combs

ERRrrr, didn’t NOAA switch to an unadjusted Sunspot count that should be multiplied by 0.6 so it can be compared to the historic data?

Gail Combs says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:25 pm
ERRrrr, didn’t NOAA switch to an unadjusted Sunspot count that should be multiplied by 0.6 so it can be compared to the historic data?
Yes they did. One of my goals [since we are going to change the ‘precious historical record’ anyway] is to get rid off the 0.6 factor and revert to the simple and intuitive original equation R = 10*Groups + Spots. This will be a hard struggle.

Bruce

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 8, 2012 at 11:49 am
As usual, I’ll point out that this is David Hathaway’s personal forecast, and not NASA’s ‘official’ prediction [they don’t have any]
Really? He does this on his own time, I thought he did this FOR NASA as an EMPLOYEE under THEIR direction…..

Bruce says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I thought he did this FOR NASA as an EMPLOYEE under THEIR direction…..
What makes you think that? The FOR NASA and THEIr direction clauses are not correct. Scientists that work for NASA often follow their own paths. Not everything is FOR NASA or DIRECTED by NASA.
I work for Stanford University, but my work is not FOR Stanford or directed by THEM.

Bruce says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Really? He does this on his own time
Yes, just as this:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml

I don’t have time to investigate, but the climate widget in the rightside nav bar says “Sunspot#: 155”. The more recent data at http://spaceweather.com/ says 98. Did we hit 155?
Hmm, 155 × 0.6 = 93. Hmm….
REPLY: the updater is stuck again – will fix tonight -A

Ric Werme says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Hmm, 155 × 0.6 = 93. Hmm….
Yet another reason to get rid off the 0.6…

Looking at the graph, it seems to me that we could have a rather impressive drop in solar as early as this winter, If that winter then happens to coincide with severe weather, then this story is likely to go ballistic. Not that the weather is likely to have any connection to sunspots, but we know how the press just love to take a story like this and frighten the public.

@Leif: since we are going to change the ‘precious historical record’ anyway
I found this remark quite flippant. Maybe it’s an inside joke within your working group. It is not funny even if meant as a joke. George Orwell’s 1984 wasn’t a comedy. Rewriting history should be viewed as a crime against science, yet I fear “the disappearing” of inconvenient data is becoming too commonplace.
REINTERPRETING the historical record is quite another matter. At least then, the history remains and the method of reinterpretation can be debated, accepted or discarded for another reinterpretation.
Models come and go. Interpretations evolve. The historical observations are subject to error bars. But the observations remain. The historical record is indeed precious and should be treated as such.
Leif, I wish you well on your improved sunspot metrics using technology’s advancements over the centuries. Certainly something better than sunspot groups*10 can be agreed to. I think, however, that it is preferable to “add” to the historical record rather than “change” it.

Gail Combs

Scottish Sceptic says:
June 8, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Looking at the graph, it seems to me that we could have a rather impressive drop in solar as early as this winter….
___________________________
I doubt it. Weak solar cycles general “Hit Peak” and noodle around near peak for a few years. They form more of a “plateau” than peak. Maybe Lief will comment.

Stephen Rasey says:
June 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm
I found this remark quite flippant. … I think, however, that it is preferable to “add” to the historical record rather than “change” it.
There is general agreement that the historical record should be changed. This has happened several times in the past as new data and new methods have become available. And will happen this time too. This has nothing to do with ‘rewriting history’, but everything to do with getting the data right.

Gail Combs says:
June 8, 2012 at 4:42 pm
I doubt it. Weak solar cycles general “Hit Peak” and noodle around near peak for a few years. They form more of a “plateau” than peak. Maybe Lief will comment.
Yes, this is often the case, compare cycle 14 and cycle 24: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png

Stephen Rasey says:
June 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm
But the observations remain. The historical record is indeed precious and should be treated as such.
The RAW observations are indeed precious, but not the resulting combined data series. You can see some of the papers on our Wiki why not, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Cliver4.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard9.pdf

[SNIP: Off topic. Please find a more appropriate thread; this one is about sunspot numbers. -REP]

sunshinehours1 says:
June 8, 2012 at 6:21 pm
12 Warmest Months at the state level.
And what has that to do with the sunspot number?
[REPLY: Nothing. Fixed. Commenters are asked, again, to keep comments relevent to the topic of the thread. Thank you, Dr. Leif. -REP]

Off Topic? Did you read the article? The author brought it up!!!!!!!!!!!!
“NOAA making big deal about last 12 months warmest ever.
John Christy provides color:”

sunshinehours1 says:
June 8, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Off Topic? Did you read the article? The author brought it up
He shouldn’t have.

el nino spanish jampalaya soup will crash and destroy the planet and turn into cayene spices.

gopal panicker

yeah… so what…sunspot numbers dont seem to correlate….medium cycles in the 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s when it was warming, high numbers in the 50’s and 60’s when it was cooling…in any case solar activity varies by about 0.1% through the sunspot cycle…not much…compared to 6%+ variation in solar insolation from aphelion to perihelion

TFNJ

Many thanks Leif: it is a delight to read sun orientated posts kowing that your overview will be made available so freely.

Brian H

Edits:

the Peciifc [Pacific] Northwest down to coastal California while areas to the east have been stuck warm. The second strongest La Nina in 110 hears [years]

And “Alaska ,,, the small part adjacent to BC” is called the Alaskan Panhandle. 😉

We may have to revise our hypothesis: human CO2 may be depressing solar activity.

Gary from Chicagoland

With solar cycle 24 being predicted to be the smallest peak in over 100 years and with it predicted corresponding cooling temps., why are US Land temperatures so warm these last couple of years? For example, Chicago IL monthly temps. have been above the historical average for 20 of the last 26 months, especially this past Winter and Spring. Globally, what has been temp. trend the last couple of years? Is the same temp. trend found in the Southern Hemisphere as the Northern Hemisphere? Is there a time delay soon to kick in to show the the world is cooling?

Gary from Chicagoland says:
June 9, 2012 at 9:11 am
With solar cycle 24 being predicted to be the smallest peak in over 100 years and with it predicted corresponding cooling temps
Why do you think temps should be cooler? Perhaps, Mother Nature is telling you that your preconceived notion may not be correct…

Dave Dodd

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 9, 2012 at 9:27 am
Gary from Chicagoland says:
June 9, 2012 at 9:11 am
With solar cycle 24 being predicted to be the smallest peak in over 100 years and with it predicted corresponding cooling temps
Why do you think temps should be cooler? Perhaps, Mother Nature is telling you that your preconceived notion may not be correct…
Like my old astronomy buddy, Dr. Bob Wildey used to say: “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger then we CAN imagine!” …so much for preconceived notions… Mother nature can be a hound dog at times!

Gary from Chicagoland

In the past, Is there a direct relationship between solar cycles and global temps? As the solar cycle gets longer and the sunspot number lower, the global temps generally decrease. Perhaps the sea surface temps and cloulds affect the jet stream due to the solar cycles as well?

Gary from Chicagoland says:
June 9, 2012 at 10:06 am
As the solar cycle gets longer and the sunspot number lower, the global temps generally decrease.
No evidence for that: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf

Pamela Gray

Regarding sunspot numbers. When it comes to measuring things, people can be just as wrong with a yard stick way back when as we can be right now with all our technology. And many time, the wrong method used will result in under or over measurements, not random measurements. The trick is to be sure you are on the right track and not just guessing or inserting your own wrong method when trying to clear up the mess. If a clear error can be identified, than adjustments to the data should be applied, as long as the original data set is preserved.

Pamela Gray says:
June 9, 2012 at 10:27 am
as long as the original data set is preserved.
Unfortunately, starting with 1945, the Director of the Zurich Observatory [where the sunspot number was determined] has not preserved any of the original data. When SIDC in Brussels took over in 1981 they have carefully preserved all observations.

RACookPE1978

Lief, Dr Christy, and others. (Odd that I feel more comfortable addressing the good doctor Svalgaard by his first name after reading hundreds of his comments, while addressing Dr Christy more formally, though I’ve met neither in person. )
A couple of observations (and criticisms) for your reflection, correction, or expansion.
1. The first 5 paragraphs seem limited to “curve fitting” – better and better curve fitting with each revision to the original cycle 24 predictions, curve fitting that appears to yield ever-more-accurate “predictions” based on back-fitting previous cycles, but nothing more than “curve-fitting” nonetheless. If – big “if there! – curve fitting works and needs to be continually revised in the near-term to continually refine simple sunspot cycle predictions, is it not valid (until a “real theory” comes along at least) to attempt to “curve-fit” solar-planetary cycles and the earth’s climate?
2. It seems very, very wrong to make any attempt under any circumstances to directly link any sunspot cycle influence on the earth’s climate. Sunspots, rather, are only a symptom of periodic changes in solar circulation, and perhaps, solar activity. They are not themselves a “solar activity” by that can influence any pattern or radiation, or TSI or electric-magnetic fields by and under themselves. But having said that, since the quantity and size and patterns of sunspots do change periodically because of other changes in the sun’s operations, they “may” be a valid symptom of one or more other by solar circulation patterns and electromagnetic radiation and illumination fields that might” be influencing the earth’s climate.
But I think you can ONLY make any sense of the changes in sunspot levels and cycles IF you nknow exactly ALL of the other influences, and have accounted for them correctly.
For example, assume you are measuring wave heights offshore and trying to relate them to wind speeds you measure across a beach. If you look at the moon only, you ,miss the second tide every day. If you ignore the sun’s position with respect to the moon, then you miss the neap tide influence when the sun and moon are on the same side of the earth and the tides are higher. Or slightly lower when they are opposed to each other. If you miss the hurricane broadcasts, you miss the irregular but repeated influence of storms that are “invisible” to your eye, but are affecting ocean buildup and long range waves. If you ignore earthquakes, you miss the tidal wave. If you ignore land subsidence when the water is pumped out under the local city, you change your wave-wind prediction over time. If you measure water levels only, you miss the seasonal effect of fresh water flooding in spring and low river levels in the late summer drought. ALL of these factors have nothing to do specifically with wind-wave effects, but they ALL combine to screw up your one measurement than you are trying to use.
So, we count sunspots, but what are we actually measuring.
4. What is the “time-lag” between different solar changes below the chronosphere and their influence on sunspot levels? That is, if it takes a year for a single unit of energy to “work its way “up” from its fusion point” to the point of release from the sun to begin its 8 minute travel time to the earth’s orbit, how far back in time does whatever influence (or influences!) is changing the sunspot cycle is going to be starting – (and ending!) – its influence on the sunspot cycles we see now? The changes we saw in the past, and will see in the future? Do different circulation patterns at different depths have different lead times on the final circulation pattern that affects sunspot counts?
5. As I understand the fundamental processes, there are two 22-year circulation patterns involved – one positive and one negative – that cross/combine each other to yield the familiar 11+ year visible sunspot cycle. There also appears to be a “beat” of three “high” cycles, then three low cycles over the years making a net 60-66 year change. What influence(s) may be changing an “odd” cycle that might affect an “even” cycle more. Or affect it less? Or differently? Would we gain any useful inferences if we did not look at the combined sunspot cycle, but at the two different cycles (maximum, time interval, minimum counts, etc.) separately over time?

RACookPE1978 says:
June 9, 2012 at 11:47 am
The first 5 paragraphs seem limited to “curve fitting” – better and better curve fitting with each revision to the original cycle 24 predictions
Hathaway does precisely that. The forecast consists of a weighted average of a real prediction made back in 2008 and the observed sunspot number, where the weight of two terms change over time [in opposite directions]. Halfway through the cycle the two weights are equal, before that the prediction has higher weight, after that, the observations have higher weight. This is not a prediction in a strict sense, but a description of how the cycle has been doing so far augmented by what an average solar cycle looks like with a similar past [in the cycle].
they “may” be a valid symptom of one or more other by solar circulation patterns
the sunspot number is a very good proxy for the UV, TSI, and for the solar wind. That is why we still use it.
So, we count sunspots, but what are we actually measuring.
see above
That is, if it takes a year for a single unit of energy to “work its way “up” from its fusion point” to the point of release from the sun to begin its 8 minute travel time to the earth’s orbit
It actually takes a quarter million years to get the energy to the surface.
As I understand the fundamental processes, there are two 22-year circulation patterns involved – one positive and one negative
No, there is only one circulation. By virtue of how the magnetic field disperses over the solar surface, the field reverses every eleven years, taking two eleven-year cycles to return to the original polarity. But that does not mean that there are two different ‘circulations’.

P. Solar

Leif, the pdf is interesting but it is easy to be dismissive if you do not want to find any correlation.
To the eye there would seem to be some relation between the two warming cycles of 20th and one of you cycle length plots (though you don’t label them clearly so I can’t see which it is).
some people have suggested the ‘prior cycle’ idea so it is fair to look at that as you did, but from the plots you show I would be more inclined to suggest a lag of about ten years (probably due to thermal inertia of the system) may fit the data better than prior cycle.
To properly investigate the relationship one should look at how the correlation varies with lag.
Curiously you don’t quite say what temp data you use : “HADCRU…” = ???
Hadley Centre have made some pretty large magnitude “adjustments” to both hadSST2 and hadSST3 , much of which is done on the basis of hypothesis as John Kennedy agreed in this discussion: http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/
Just looking at the way the icoads data gets changed may account for the lack of correlation unless their hypothesis about buckets and arbitrary reassignment of bucket to EIR data are correct.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/hadsst2-icoads3.png?w=600&h=400
I doubt that the CRUTemp part of the data is any more reliable but we will never now because the cat ate their original data.
These data are far too uncertain for you to dismiss the possibility of correlation as lightly as you do.
best regards.

P. Solar says:
June 9, 2012 at 12:12 pm
These data are far too uncertain for you to dismiss the possibility of correlation as lightly as you do.
The shoe is on the other foot: the data does not demonstrate to my satisfaction that there is any correlation, perhaps the data convinces you [but that does not help me]. It doesn’t matter which temperature series you use.

P. Solar says:
…………..
– I would partially agree with Dr. Svalgaard and his gang, the SSN number may need correcting but I think his proposal is a bit overdone
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120527115925/ssnworkshop/images/0/03/Sunspots-1700-present.png
– Do not look to the ‘naked’ sunspot number or the ‘plain’ cycle length to explain the global temperatures, just take a good look at cycle SC19 (around 1960) and relevant temperatures, strongest cycle on the record accompanied by largest drop in temperatures in the 20th century, totally opposite to what is expected.
Now look at this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic.htm
Noticed similarity of two global images?
Change of solar input as measured by TSI is not sufficient to cause major climatic changes, neither is its daily magnetic input, however from time to time the Earth’s magnetic poles get strong jolt from the solar storms, that permanently changes Earth’s field.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm
All of this is of course labeled as pseudo-science since discovery was made not by some highly paid scientist, but an amateur.

vukcevic says:
June 9, 2012 at 2:29 pm
from time to time the Earth’s magnetic poles get strong jolt from the solar storms, that permanently changes Earth’s field
This is simply not the case. There is no ‘discovery’ here.

Leif Svalgaard says:June 9, 2012 at 2:42 pm
This is simply not the case. There is no ‘discovery’ here.
And how else would one qualify the fact that the decadal change in the Antarctic’s magnetic field is highly correlated with Dr. Leif Svalgaard’s TSI reconstruction 1700 -2000.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm graph #5
As soon as I discovered this, for the solar and geo-science important fact, I informed the author of the TSI reconstruction.

vukcevic says:
June 9, 2012 at 3:10 pm
And how else would one qualify the fact that the decadal change in the Antarctic’s magnetic field is highly correlated with Dr. Leif Svalgaard’s TSI reconstruction 1700 -2000.
Coincidences need not the be explained. But try to quantify your claim a bit:
Earth’s magnetic poles get strong jolt from the solar storms, that permanently changes Earth’s field
What is the magnitude of the permanent change per storm?

P. Solar

Leif says: The shoe is on the other foot: the data does not demonstrate to my satisfaction that there is any correlation, perhaps the data convinces you ”
The data will not demonstrate anything on its own , someone will have to look. I did not say I was convinced (or otherwise) since I have not had the time to investigate it. My point was that your trivial look at manipulated datasets that does not investigate any possible lag was too simplistic to dismiss the possibility of a correlation.
To claim that there is no correlation you have to have a credible attempt at finding one.

P. Solar says:
June 9, 2012 at 6:08 pm
My point was that your trivial look at manipulated datasets that does not investigate any possible lag was too simplistic to dismiss the possibility of a correlation.
A lag of one cycle was considered [the prior] and didn’t lead to anything. And this is a trivial thing: If there is a good correlation it trivially shows itself. Longer lags are not reasonable and do not stand out. Of course, if there is a 12345 year lag, my trivial analysis will not find it. So you can always postulate a lag that makes the problem unfalsifiable.
To claim that there is no correlation you have to have a credible attempt at finding one
Again: no. It is the one that makes the claim of a correlation that has to show it.

P. Solar

since determining the cycle length from either the ill-defined min or max point and the limited number of cycles to look at this is not going to give a dataset well suited to correlation statistics but a quick look at the interval between minima and hadSST3 does show the 1910 and 1970 troughs did coincide with longer cycles.
http://i47.tinypic.com/15xrghd.png

Legatus

As the solar cycle gets longer and the sunspot number lower, the global temps generally decrease.
No evidence for that:
I beg to differ, there is evidence for correlation.
However…
The main body of evidence is The Little Ice Age, which shows”
*Not one, but several long solar Grand Minimums, including one very long deep one (Maunder), and all fairly close to one another (all in the same time frame of around 400 years or so). Compare this with this one lil’ cycle, and, well, they don’t compare. Keep it up for a while, like several decades to a hundred years or so, and we can talk.
*The Maunder minimum was reported to have a lot less sunspots than this, like, some reports of zero. This lil’ cycle isn’t a real Grand Minimum by a long shot.
So yeah, we can see “global temperatures generally decrease” when we have decades and decades or even hundreds of years of true Grand Minimums with, like, zero sunspots for long periods of time. For just one cycle, however, not much. After all, if low sunspot numbers caused low temperatures that fast, we would see low temperatures every 11 years, as there are low sunspot numbers every cycles minimum.
Now if, IF some predictions are true and the next cycle is a true Grand Minimum, well, then maybe we can talk.

Werner Brozek

Gary from Chicagoland says:
June 9, 2012 at 9:11 am
Globally, what has been temp. trend the last couple of years?

2012 in perspective so far
With the UAH anomaly for May at 0.289, the average for the first five months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289)/5 = 0.0998. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.428.)
With the RSS anomaly for April at 0.333, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.058 -0.12 + 0.074 + 0.333)/4 = 0.05725. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 21st. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.55.)
With the GISS anomaly for April at 0.56, the average for the first third of the year is (0.34 + 0.39 + 0.46 + 0.56)/4 = 0.4375. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year. (2010 was the warmest at 0.63.)
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for April at 0.482, the average for the first four months of the year is 0.2995. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.548.)
With the sea surface anomaly for April at 0.292, the average for the first four months of the year is 0.242. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.273 to rank it 12th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.451.)
So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average is colder than their 2011 average value.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 8 months to 15 years and 6 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which was 0.00103655 per year or 0.10/century, so while it is not significant, it could be questioned whether it can be considered to be flat.)
1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to April)
2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
3. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (goes to April)
4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 8 months (goes to May)
5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March)
6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 4 months (goes to April)
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to April using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.005 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.004 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 5 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend