Guest post by David Archibald
My papers and those of Jan-Erik Solheim et al predict a significant cooling over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. Solheim’s model predicts that Solar Cycle 24, for the northern hemisphere, will be 0.9º C cooler than Solar Cycle 23. It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.
So when will it cool? As Nir Shaviv and others have noted, the biggest calorimeter on the plant is the oceans. My work on sea level response to solar activity (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/) found that the breakover between sea level rise and sea level fall is a sunspot amplitude of 40:
As this graph from SIDC shows, the current solar amplitude is about 60 in the run-up to solar maximum, expected in May 2013:
The two remaining variables in our quest are the timing of the sunspot number fall below 40 and the length of Solar Cycle 24. So far, Solar Cycle 24 is shaping up almost exactly like Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum:
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has reached the level at which solar maximum occurs. It usually spends a year at this level before heading back down again:
Similarly, the solar polar field strength (from the Wilcox Solar Observatory) suggest that solar maximum may be up to a year away:
Notwithstanding that solar maximum, as predicted from heliocentric current sheet tilt angle and solar polar field strength, is still a little way off, if Solar Cycle 24 continues to shape up like Solar Cycle 5, sunspot amplitude will fall below 40 from mid-2013. Altrock’s green corona emissions diagramme (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/) suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be 17 years long, ending in 2026. That leaves twelve and a half years of cooling from mid-2013.
From all that, for Solheim’s predicted temperature decline of 0.9º C over the whole of Solar Cycle 24 to be achieved, the decline from mid-2013 will be 1.2º C on average over the then remaining twelve and a half years of the cycle. No doubt the cooling will be back-loaded, making the further decline predicted over Solar Cycle 25 relative to Solar Cycle 24 more readily achievable.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 16, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Well yes. That is my point.That simple newly observed fact confirms the possibility that my earlier ‘hand waving’ (which I regarded as the application of simple logic) was on target.
Everything I say is always confirmation of your ‘logic’. Even if I said the Moon was made of green cheese. 🙂
But now you in a bind, because should this preliminary finding [based on a few years of noisy data] not pan out in the future, your theory fails completely.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm
“The calibration problem comes in because the offset changes slowly with time due to different degradation.”
“The plot I just showed is such a verification.”
It is dependent on the offset. As a thought experiment, let’s say I wanted to have reported TSI go up by X per year compared to what it would otherwise; I take the original data and have a computer add X from mostly a simple mathematical function to the data. Subtract X, and the adjusted data goes back to then matching the original data. Yet that does not directly prove X was the proper true offset as opposed to 0.5 * X or another figure.
In a different example, there are even mostly about the same up and downs in adjusted versus original plots for temperatures even; such as the adjustments discussed in http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part1-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-181.php are very subtle individually in most months, albeit having a major cumulative effect gradually with a little cunning.
At this point, the debate on what TSI has been doing has largely reached the matter of whether I trust the University of Colorado and Denver environmentalists or not; with prior history, I don’t trust them really any more on TSI than them on sea level rise rates, so going further on this matter is not particularly possible.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm
“Furthermore, I know both teams personally and can vouch for their integrity.”
This discussion has been illuminating of some of the complications, but, as may be guessed from our past discussions unless perhaps you don’t recall my name, I don’t, however, trust you personally at all. As one example, using this particular thread, when in the context of your August 14, 2012 at 9:14 am post you said “solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades,” I was mentally contrasting to such as the solar activity rise from 1.000 -> 1.032 -> 1.032 for the cycles from 1964 to 1996 A.D. seen in average relative inverted neutron counts from cosmicrays.oulu.fi, which was followed by decline to 0.995 and then, in this incomplete cycle, 0.942 so far (where one decade and part of another decade, from part of the 1990s to 2012, is not what a person would normally by default call several decades) — and asking what would be the fundamental driving motivation for saying that in its original context.
(Even if instead I did trust you on that, anyone meeting someone face to face personally doesn’t automatically directly mean much; most people are not mentally prepared to suspect that someone friendly in person could not be true to their face, but, from past experience in other contexts, I am).
You may reply with a standard remark like saying you have no dog in the race, but this is not really going to go anywhere.
If not for what I believe to be your motives, etc., I would thank you for the discussion.
“But now you in a bind, because should this preliminary finding [based on a few years of noisy data] not pan out in the future, your theory fails completely.”
Of course it does and I told you that ages ago when you challenged me to offer a means of falsification. I gave you several other means of falsification at the same time but none have yet come to pass.
In the meantime you can only ‘hand wave’ yourself on the basis that you think it is a misleading result from a few years of noisy data.
The thing is that if those findings do hold up I’ve hit the jackpot.
As for the balance of probability there are so many observations that fall into place if those findings are accurate that I cannot conceive of any other scenario that would fit those observations and still comply with basic physical principles.
One simply cannot achieve the observed changes in air circulation without reversing the sign of the solar effect on the stratosphere from that assumed by the established climatology.
If the effect of a more active sun were to warm the stratosphere as normally proposed then since the effects of solar chemistry on the upper atmosphere are proportionately greater at the poles the more active sun should have caused more meridionality and / or an equatorward shift but the opposite actually happened.
Henry Clark says:
August 16, 2012 at 9:38 pm
“The plot I just showed is such a verification.”
It is dependent on the offset.
Not at all, as the offset is constant [4.5 W/m2 for this plot] and can be determined simply by subtracting the yearly means for the two instruments.
As a thought experiment, let’s say I wanted to have reported TSI go up by X per year compared to what it would otherwise; I take the original data and have a computer add X from mostly a simple mathematical function to the data. Subtract X, and the adjusted data goes back to then matching the original data. Yet that does not directly prove X was the proper true offset as opposed to 0.5 * X or another figure.
I think that makes no sense. The offset for that year is simply the yearly mean for one minus the yearly mean for the other. I have no idea where you get the ‘simple mathematical function’ from. For the year 2004 which is shown the offset is constant.
At this point, the debate on what TSI has been doing has largely reached the matter of whether I trust the University of Colorado and Denver environmentalists or not; with prior history, I don’t trust them really any more on TSI than them on sea level rise rates, so going further on this matter is not particularly possible.
This is not a question of trust. SORCE reports the data in real time, PMOD reports every three months. These data are completely independent and yet matchg almost perfectly with the constant offset.
“solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades,”
Sure it has [the cycles are usually compared using the smoothed sunspot number]:
1979.956 164.5
1989.539 158.5
2000.287 120.8
2012.041 63.5 [max predicted next year to be 75]
If not for what I believe to be your motives
My motive is simply to educate you. To give back to that society that has supported my research over the decades. This ought to be a motive for every scientist funded by the public, don’t you think?
Stephen Wilde says:
August 16, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Of course it does and I told you that ages ago when you challenged me to offer a means of falsification. I gave you several other means of falsification at the same time but none have yet come to pass.
I submit that they were so vague that no comparison was possible. For that, one need NUMBERS and ERROR BARS, which you have not provided.
that you think it is a misleading result from a few years of noisy data.
No, I don’t think this is a misleading result. It is a real finding for those years and cannot be misleading as the numbers are what they are. Because they are numbers one can compare the finding with newer data when they become available and so check if *their* finding holds up.
The thing is that if those findings do hold up I’ve hit the jackpot.
Not really, because their finding was supposed to be a general things, true for all cycles, past and present, and not just for those four years.
If the effect of a more active sun were to warm the stratosphere as normally proposed then since the effects of solar chemistry on the upper atmosphere are proportionately greater at the poles the more active sun should have caused more meridionality and / or an equatorward shift but the opposite actually happened.
The sun has become less and less active over the past several decades, so what is that with ‘a more active sun’?
Henry Clark says:
August 16, 2012 at 6:48 pm
The foundation of his prediction, in terms of such as the reduced solar activity seen during the Maunder Minimum and his estimation that it is time for that to occur again
I mentioned that Livingston, Penn, and myself have a paper coming out on this. Our conclusion states:
“By extrapolating our sunspot formation fraction to the predicted peak of Cycle 24 (in mid-2013) the sunspot formation fraction would be approaching 0.5. This suggests a rather small SSN for this cycle, in agreement with some recent Cycle 24 predictions (Svalgaard, Cliver, & Kamide 2005; Hathaway 2011). And while there is no physical mechanism which suggests that we should extrapolate further, it is fascinating to see that the sunspot formation fraction would drop below 0.2 by 2020. This would suggest that although magnetic flux would be erupting at the solar surface during Cycle 25, only a small fraction of it would be strong enough to form visible sunspots or pores. Such behavior would be highly unusual, since such a small solar maximum has not been observed since the Maunder Minimum. During that period from roughly 1645 to 1715 few sunspots were observed, although cosmic ray studies suggest the Sun did have a functioning magnetic activity cycle (Usoskin, Mursula, & Kovaltsov 2001); this is consistent with the scenario provided by our fit extrapolation”
This would mean that the TSI we measure now and in the next cycle would resemble TSI during the Maunder Minimum, hence the intense interest in whether minimum TSI is decreasing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:47 pm
“This is not a question of trust. SORCE reports the data in real time, PMOD reports every three months. These data are completely independent and yet matchg almost perfectly with the constant offset.”
It is a question of whether or not they can be trusted, as any good liar knows the most useful lies have as much truth as possible while still being effective, so the obvious way would be to have a correction for the instrument degradation (true in itself) but just make the quantitative magnitude of the offset adjustment an overcorrection such that it diverges more and more from reality at such as a constant rate gradually over a period of years. Deduct the offset adjustment, and the adjusted data goes back to matching the original data. Having software add any constant adjustment in real time would be trivial.
As an outside observer, I can’t tell one way or another directly, but what is apparent is potential motive. Get rid of, for instance, how ACRIM shows a fraction a W/m^2 rise in TSI during minimums between 1986 and 1996, as part of rise over the 1960s-1990s followed by decline afterwards, while also getting rid of its fall of several tenths of a W/m^2 to the minimum following cycle 23 depicted originally in http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig26.jpg , and that lets an environmentalist write:
“Did a quiet Sun cause the Little Ice Age? Maybe not. […]
Using the 2008/09 sunspot minimum data, Schrijver et al estimate that the decrease in the TSI during the Maunder Minimum may have been significantly smaller than previously estimated. Using the 2008/09 sunspot minimum, the authors estimate that the TSI was about 0.2 – 0.5 watts per square meter smaller than in 1996. Previous estimates ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 watts per square meter. For comparison, the greenhouse warming due to long-lived greenhouse gases is about 2.6 watts per square meter. […]
What I take away from Schrijver et al’s work is that the climatic forcing (whether it came from the Sun or something else) that led to the Little Ice Age may have been much smaller than we thought. And what that means is that the climate sensitivity — the amount of temperature change for a given climate forcing — is also larger than what’s included in current climate models.”
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/solardoubt
That’s wrong for multiple reasons including that, in actual non-fudged temperatures, recent years are not even multiple tenths of a degree Celsius beyond temperatures of the late 1930s, which rules out what the creators of those climate models claim as valid, let alone having higher claims for anthropogenic effects via increasing the climate sensitivity and the effect ascribed to CO2 increase.* But it is convenient for the CAGW movement.
* In images, how the 1930s were about as warm as the 1990s is seen in http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif first for the arctic, and, secondly, for the average over the Northern Hemisphere as a whole when without dishonest revisionism of past temperature measurements, in http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ScreenHunter_296-Apr.-08-09.29.jpg when combined with http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig75.jpg . Full non-fudged southern hemisphere temperature data is harder to acquire, but, beyond partial segments like http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig47.jpg , the overall global temperature average would be related to what global sea level data shows: slower rise rate in the second half of the 20th century than during the first half (“1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003″ versus “2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953″ as http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml notes). More illustrations are in http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part1-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-181.php , http://www.real-science.com/hansens-tremendous-data-tampering , etc., even indirectly supported by historical arctic sea ice maps.
Amongst the general population, a moderate majority is honest most of the time, but, if being associated with and supporting dishonesty bothered someone, they would tend to be an outcast skeptic, remain a casual in the general public, or otherwise not end up employed in University of Colorado (or GISS or CRU) environmental studies programs in the first place. Most skeptical scientists entered the field decades ago, and many are retired or otherwise in particularly safe circumstances.
Science has historically had a well-deserved favorable reputation from contributing to the technological, industrial progress and material advancement of mankind (not reducing energy per person but rather increasing it), yet that is precisely what makes hijacking the mantle of science the greatest prize for promoting an agenda.
You’ll likely reply by saying again essentially that those involved are trustworthy, but, for the TSI dataset differing from the rest in adjustments for sensor degradation over time, that is not externally verifiable. While the mess with TSI instruments was moderately interesting to see, at this point this discussion is dropping into a loop.
In the first sentence of the preceding, the “they” refers to the University of Colorado SORCE group. Since other TSI measuring instruments do not match in trend at the tenths of W/m^2 level except through adjustments, the adjustment’s exact quantitative value is the key matter.
Actually a good analogy in a way would be a temperature station which is adjusted for a change in location from one decade to the next. Deduct the adjustment, and of course the adjusted data after deducting the adjustment would match the original data. An adjustment may be justified in itself for existing, but a big question becomes whether or not the adjustment is being done with the right numerical magnitude.
edit:
Some of the wording of my August 17, 2012 1:11 am comment is careless. I mean “helps write,” not “lets write” as the latter could give the wrong connotations as if I was justifying the incorrect chain of TSI-only-mattering assumptions in the article quote, which I am not.
Stephen Wilde says
However one needs to be careful about the height at which the ozone increases or decreases
Henry thinks:
No worries about that. The behavior of ozone is the same, whereever you find it.
According to a Swiss measuring station that has been doing measurements on ozone for a long time it started moving up since 1996 and if you look very carefully you will also note a bendpoint going down from just before the the fifties….,
The absolute measurements off late are probably a lot better due to technology, though, so look at trends, reather than stare yourself blind on absolute values.
Henry asks:
Do you perhaps know if the light that is back radiated by the ozone
(ooops, there, almost I said “deflected” again….don’t want to upset my friend Leif again)
of which the wavelength is all <0.3 um, is also counted in earth's albedo?
I think if we talk about albedo we must clearly define exactly what we are talking about,
knowing full well that the <0.3 um carries the highest amount of energy which is directly converted to heat when it hits on water.
Leif said:
i) “The sun has become less and less active over the past several decades, so what is that with ‘a more active sun’?”
Only very slightly has it become less active (until recently) and from a very high peak so that throughout the period the level of activity was higher than that required to maintain equilibrium (via the spectral changes and not TSI) so that until around 2000 the climate zones continued to drift poleward slowly.
ii) “their finding was supposed to be a general thing, true for all cycles, past and present, and not just for those four years.”
Quite so. That would be the jackpot. An active sun always cools the stratosphere allowing a poleward drift of the climate zones,regional climate changes, less cloudiness and more energy into the oceans for a faster througput of energy from surface to space. A less active sun does the opposite.That fits all available observations.
iii) “I submit that they were so vague that no comparison was possible. For that, one need NUMBERS and ERROR BARS, which you have not provided.”
Direction of trend would be sufficient. Precise numbers not necessary.
You may be an expert debater but I think the exercise of successful debating takes priority in your mind over a search for truth.
“According to a Swiss measuring station that has been doing measurements on ozone for a long time it started moving up since 1996 and if you look very carefully you will also note a bendpoint going down from just before the the fifties….,”
Agreed.
The dominant process appears to be the recently discovered reverse sign effect above 45km. Conventional climatology says that when the sun is less active ozone reduces but in fact it increases. The conventional viewpoint only refers to the processes below 45km but it appears that that lower process is overcome by the processes higher up for a reverse sign ozone and temperature response throughout stratosphere and mesosphere.
We just have to wait and see whether those measurements hold up as Leif says.
@Henry Clark
Regarding ACRIM and PMOD TSI.
See this letter
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/acrim.jpg
Note that the letter is sent to Nicola Scafetta, who a member of the ACRIM team. This is part of the reason Svalgaard has the knife out for Scafetta.
The data benders and flatteners still rule the roost.
Like I said:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1460.html
“Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate by inducing atmospheric changes.”
But the authors fail to take the next logical step which is to realise that those atmospheric changes alter the energy flow rate from surface to space.
@Henry Clark
Regarding ACRIM and PMOD TSI.
See this letter
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/acrim.jpg
Such is interesting, indeed not particularly inspiring confidence in PMOD. And I see now also that http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm states:
“The PMOD composite approach uses a different subset of the satellite TSI database, the ERBS/ERBE ACRIM gap ratio and modifies published Nimbus7/ERB and ACRIM1 results, to conform them to the predictions of TSI proxy models [Frohlich & Lean, 1998]. The sparse ERBS/ERBE data required the PMOD model to use about 90% interpolated data to compute their ACRIM gap ratio.”
Well, the deeper one digs into this matter, the messier it gets.
edit:
The preceding is in reply to Tallbloke, accidentally forgetting to properly mark the quote.
Stephen Wilde says
which is to realise that those atmospheric changes alter the energy flow rate from surface to space.
Henry@Stephen Fisher
Sorry, it is the other way around. The amount of energy let through the atmosphere is less due to the back radiation of more <0.3 light due to higher ozone content. It is going out to space instead which is why I always used the word "deflection".
This is not only confirmed by my lessons here,
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
given to Leif earlier on,
( on "The theory of GHG and anti GHG behavior")
but it also confirmed by the results in my tables for maxima,
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Stephen Wilde says:
August 17, 2012 at 2:56 am
Direction of trend would be sufficient. Precise numbers not necessary.
If the trend is -0.1 +/- 0.2, then the minus sign [the direction] is not significant and is not sufficient. Precise numbers and their error bars are absolutely and always necessary.
Henry Clark says:
August 17, 2012 at 6:07 am
Such is interesting, indeed not particularly inspiring confidence in PMOD.
Indeed, which is the whole point I have been trying to get across to you. Abdussamatov used and depended on the flawed PMOD for his extrapolation. It is good to see that you agree.
Your paranoid comments about trust are just silly and need no further arguments.
tallbloke says:
August 17, 2012 at 4:26 am
Note that the letter is sent to Nicola Scafetta, who a member of the ACRIM team. This is part of the reason Svalgaard has the knife out for Scafetta.
Nobody has any knife out for Scafetta. The low quality of his papers speaks for itself as several reviewers can testify too, and as any competent scientist can readily discern.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Paul Jose was at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico
My bad. I probably was thinking of Anthony Peratt – the guy who successfully modeled the spinning of the spiral arms of a galaxy without the need for ‘Dark Matter’. He just did the sensible thing and included all the fundamental forces instead of limiting his model to gravity.
tallbloke says:
August 17, 2012 at 7:01 am
“Paul Jose was at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico”
My bad.
Don’t you think an apology is needed? For ‘as usual you don’t know…’
I probably was thinking of Anthony Peratt – the guy who successfully modeled the spinning of the spiral arms of a galaxy
That failed attempt has long been in the dustbin.
tallbloke says:
August 17, 2012 at 7:01 am
I probably was thinking of Anthony Peratt – the guy who successfully modeled the spinning of the spiral arms of a galaxy
Educate yourself: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/06/scott-rebuttal-ii-peratt-galaxy-model.html
Leif said:
“If the trend is -0.1 +/- 0.2, then the minus sign [the direction] is not significant and is not sufficient. Precise numbers and their error bars are absolutely and always necessary.”
If a change in trend is to be regarded as having been observed then that implies that the change exceeds the error margin so your comment is redundant. Another example of you preferring to score debating points rather than ascertain truth.
HenryP said:
“The amount of energy let through the atmosphere is less due to the back radiation of more <0.3 light due to higher ozone content. It is going out to space instead which is why I always used the word "deflection".
No problem, I could just say that the atmospheric changes are associated with a change in the rate of energy flow from surface to space. The sequence of cause and effect makes no difference to the general principle. Whatever comes first the system seeks to retain balance in the face of ANY forcing other than surface atmospheric pressure or top of atmosphere insolation. If more energy goes out by reflection/deflection as you say then the circulation changes do not need to work so hard to maintain balance.
The circulation changes just mop up any net energy imbalances that arise elsewhere in the system from other processes. The atmospheric circulation always reconfigures as necessary to ensure energy in equals energy out at top of atmosphere and in the process keeps total system energy content at the level set by surface pressure and top of atmosphere insolation.
It is a very neat self regulatory arrangement and explains why we have had liquid oceans for 4 billion years despite massive disruptions from impact events and widespread volcanism.
Stephen Wilde says
If more energy goes out by reflection/deflection as you say then the circulation changes do not need to work so hard to maintain balance.
Henry says
As long as you realize that if less of <0.3 um radiation is going into the oceans, than less warmth will be accumulated there and hence, eventually it will start taking average temps. on earth down. It is all a question of time; but surely, by now, anyone here on this blog must agree with me that average temps. are dropping? My dataset suggests a drop of at least 0.2 degrees K since 2000. And I can easily predict from my data set that from now on, it will be accelerating further down. Better buy yourself some extra warm cloths and count on more snow….the sun-UV-O2- O3 bike is cycling back ….it seems that is on a 50 or 51 year natural cycle of warming (from 1945) and now cooling (from 1995).
Agreed Henry.
Whether it is due to more ozone reflecting more energy out or more clouds doing the same then either way the system energy content is declining. More likely a combination (I favour the clouds).
However the increased cloudiness and more meridional jets being a negative system response which also slows the loss of energy to space and with ocean cycles still being on the warm side especially in the Indian Ocean and North Atlantic it is hard to predict when the falling energy content will significantly affect the troposphere and that is the question behind this thread.
It is not enough to deal with AGW that the warming pause for a while. We need to see a significant fall.