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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, to me this is no junk:
By William Arnold:
“A Secondary Sunspot Cycle and Weather Cycle, max spots followed by min spots and max flood followed by min flood, as per the Slurzberg and Osterheld diagram of an a-c wave, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a predicted minimum at 1990″ (He wrote this in 1985, so the 1990 was his estimate).”
Henry says
It compares well with my wave for the change in maxima in degrees C/annum against time, which turned negative in 1995 (=turned from warming to cooling) and where I can estimate that it also changed sign in 1945, more or less, from cooling to warming. Assuming my 50 year cycle was right then I can further estimate that my whole cycle started in 1895. In all 3 cases me and Arnold differ by only 5 years!
Obviously I cannot confirm his assertion in that paper that the planets have a pull on the sun,
initiating solar spots etc. and/or changing solar activity. I leave that to the experts and Leif to sort out.
But the 100 year cycle that I was looking for is clearly there!!! I am quite elated about that.
So the Nile flood measurements and suncycle spots in tandem clearly established the proof that I was looking for.
I think you guys still don’t get it as to how the mechanism works.
On my first data set I wrote, a long time ago:
Looking at the differences between the results from the northern hemisphere(NH) and the southern hemisphere (SH), what we see is happening from my dataset is that more (solar) heat went into the SH oceans and is taken away by water currents and/or weather systems to the NH. That is why the NH is warming and that is why the SH does not warm.
The only possible explanation for the fall in maxima and global temps. must be that the particular prevalent sun cycle activity affects the ozone production. There is now more ozone from 1996 (and we have already established this as fact) and it will still carry on increasing. More ozone causes less of <0.3 um radiation to come through the atmosphere because if there is more ozone, more of the <0.3 light is back radiated to outer space. However, whatever the ozone content, it does not change the temperatures in the top layers of the atmosphere. The gases in the atmosphere are all completely transparent to <0.3 um (I think). But the moment the <0.3 um light falls on water it is absorbed there and tranformed to heat, mostly. So, from that point of view, the change in ozone in the upper atmosphere has a bottoms up effect, from the seas, which will get warmer if ozone concentration is lower and which will cool down when ozone is creeping up higher.
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
David Archibald is one of my favorite scientists on the planet. He has continued to find original takes on the climate puzzle typically relating to the Solar effects. He has gone out on a limb to call for a significant temperature fall during Solar cycle 24. Part of the prediction is that this current cycle is expected to be cooling and long which go together. The average cycle length of 11.2 years gets stretched when the cycle is weak. Cycle 23 which was about 13 years led to the current cooler cycle. A 17 year cycle should be really cold if all turns out as expected. All the global warming crowd is aware of the trend and the current climate numbers and have become desparate to implement all their pet projects before the world wakes up to a continuing cold period. It would be like trying to sell a ticket to the 7th game of the world series the day after the event. The odds are not too great.- Kirt
Although two respected members here have expressed a healthy skepticism, I think it is important to understand what Dr. Svensmark is saying. It is not that cosmic radiation in an effect promoting cloud formation, it is that cosmic radiation is *the* effect that allows the condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere, at least in the absence of other abnormal condensation nuclei and perhaps only in the lower atmosphere where temperatures are above freezing. I believe he is saying that cosmic rays make the difference between a climate that grows palm trees in Antarctica and one that puts mile-deep ice over New York City. The Milankovitch cycles are reduced to a side effect.
The best way to falsify or verify his theory is to measure the *absolute* humidity required for condensation with ‘clean’ air in an underground radiation-free chamber. As far as I can tell, measurements like this at CERN seem to have qualitatively confirmed his theory by demonstrating that pulsed radiation can turn condensation on and off.
If this theory is correct, I believe that the primary cooling effect of cosmic radiation is due to increased convection as each cloud is the top of an extended convection cell. This condensation promotes the transfer of heat evaporated from the ground directly to the atmosphere. Without condensation, water vapor would be just like CO2.
The latest data from the Oulu site indicates that cosmic cooling this solar cycle may be bottoming out with a cosmic ray neutron count around 6200 counts/min. Going back, previous bottoms (minimum cooling) appear to be about 5800, 5400, 5600, and 5800 counts/min. It looks like the previous peaks (maximum cooling) were, going back, 6800, 6500, 6400, and 6500 counts/min.
Ref: Cosmic Ray Station of the University of Oulu
Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Finland)
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=06&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=03&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Another source of cosmic ray data is the Climax Neutron Monitor from the University of New Hampshire. The data from this site runs from 1951 to 2006. the formula:
6136+(Climax-3998)*1.365509 seems to match the Oulu data.
Huge Data File:
ftp://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/DailyAverages.1951-.txt
It is important to note: While the lower clouds appear to be dancing to the cosmic tune, it may take decades for the temperature to respond due to terrestrial thermal inertia. Also, on a day to day basis, seasonal effects appear to predominate over solar-cosmic cloud modulation effects.
Spector, the atmosphere is loaded with suitable condensation nuclei already.
I think the changes in cosmic ray quantities are simply a proxy for solar variations with no significant causative effects as regards cloud quantities.
One has to look to changes in stratospheric temperatures to produce the various patterns of climate change that we observe.
Spector says
Huge Data File:
ftp://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/DailyAverages.1951-.txt
It is important to note: While the lower clouds appear to be dancing to the cosmic tune, it may take decades for the temperature to respond due to terrestrial thermal inertia. Also, on a day to day basis, seasonal effects appear to predominate over solar-cosmic cloud modulation effects
Henry says
I had a look at those data and there does not seem to be a correlation with the acceleration /deceleration of warming
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
sorry.
RE: Stephen Wilde: (August 24, 2012 at 10:20 am)
Spector, the atmosphere is loaded with suitable condensation nuclei already.
You may be right. Mutual causation of a phenomena is less complicated than a chained effect.
However, in my state of ignorance, I am not sure that an initial load of condensation nuclei would be sufficient to support a continuous condensation process. Cosmic nuclei are being continually refreshed at rates in thousands of counts per minute.
Svensmark et al are claiming that warm periods in our past climate can be correlated with the solar system passing through the blank space between galactic arms where cosmic radiation is quite low and that cold periods can be correlated with passage through galactic arms where cosmic radiation has been shown to be quite high due to the multiple supernovae occurring in that region. He is saying this indicates that cosmic rays are required for the rate of cloud formation we see. Of course, there might be some other reason for this apparent correlation.
As stated before, I think the best way to verify or falsify this concept would be to measure the absolute humidities required for continuous condensation in clean air and in a cosmic radiation free (shielded) environment.
I do believe that clouds usually indicate that thermal convection is in progress and thus are indicative of the rate of convective cooling.
Of course, the need for condensation nuclei presumes that the spontaneous creation rate of H4O2 linked water molecules is always equal to their rate of destruction by evaporation when colliding with other molecules.
RE: HenryP: (August 24, 2012 at 1:08 pm)
Henry says
I had a look at those data and there does not seem to be a correlation with the acceleration /deceleration of warming
Over the time period that this data is available, temperature correlation seems inconclusive, but there does appear to be an increasing cooling trend since 1990 with the highest peak cooling over the whole period in 2010 based on Oulu data. Just as seasonal variations in cloud cover mask, to some extent, the cloud cover correlation, I suspect that terrestrial climate cycles, PDO, etc. may mask cosmic temperature derivative effects over this short interval. I have regarded the graphic showing the close connection with low cloud cover to be the most convincing evidence of the Svensmark effect. The reported strong Galactic correlation seems to indicate that cosmic rays may be *required* for most low cloud formation. The effect may only apply in air where water would condense in liquid form–colder air might be self-condensing.
http://www.androidworld.com/Clouds_CosmicRays.jpg
Source(ScienceBits): http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Oulu data from April 1964 to date can be downloaded from this site. Select a text app to receive data from the *.dat data file if you select that option. I do not recommend saving as a *.dat file because windows uses this extension for files containing system configuration information.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Spector says:
August 25, 2012 at 9:44 am
I have regarded the graphic showing the close connection with low cloud cover to be the most convincing evidence of the Svensmark effect.
Except that [as usual] the correlation breaks down just after it was ‘discovered’ [red vertical line]:
http://www.leif.org/research/GCR-Temp-Falsification.png
Figure 2 from http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/assets/pdfs/Relationship%20of%20Lower-Troposphere%20Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays_%20An%20Updated%20Perspective.pdf
So no ‘convincing evidence’.
RE: Svensmark
I have not found a cloud cover data set that matches the Svensmark graph. They all seem to show a steadily declining trend after about 1993. Such a trend might indicate a transition to more variable weather–hot days–cold nights. I think Svensmark is going to need a more knowledgeable person than myself to defend his theory. If it is bogus, that should be exposed here.
His concept would seem to indicate that cosmic rays are required for water vapor condensation in the lower atmosphere to have the strong Galactic effect he claims. If the effect were limited to liquid condensation then the definition of ‘low clouds’ might be critical.
Spector says:
August 26, 2012 at 6:01 pm
If it is bogus, that should be exposed here.
It is not ‘bogus’, and it could have been true, but the data simply does not any longer support it. For many people it doesn’t matter that the data doesn’t fit, they will just postulate some special circumstance, or variable that has not been considered, or the like.
So, it’s beginning to look like “Svensmark’s Cosmic Jackpot” instead of heralding a new understanding of the condensation process, may have been the last convulsive kick of a horse long dead. His correlation of warm and cold periods with the Earth’s position in the Galaxy might be correct, but cosmic ray modulation of clouds would not be the cause. If such theories appear obviously invalid, it’s best to discard or set them aside in short order.
I think we should know more about how water condenses especially in the absence of other particles. If Kirk Sorensen can draw a pie chart showing the probability that a neutron will be absorbed by a thorium nucleus, it should be possible to draw such charts showing the probability that two colliding water molecules will fuse to form H4O2 and the probability that they would emit an odd photon in the process.
Mr Archibald, can you describe how you make correlation plot between sun spots and SLR? I’m interested in source data and methods.