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.
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Which is why there are as many opinions about the Sun’s physics as there are solar physicists.
Obviously not true.
I was referring to your assumption that cycle 24 will be short because there has been a lull in activity after mid 2011 which you believe to be ‘solar maximum’.
SC24 will not be ‘short’. It will be what small cycles are: longish, but not 17 years, thus shorter than Archibald’s claim. The polar fields reverse at maximum and are reversing in the North right now, so the North has maximum. The South is likely a year away.
My own expectations are based on the solar-planetary theory, which has proven itself better able to make predictions of solar activity than the dynamologists can.
the solar-planetary ‘theory’ is nonsense and has no predictive power.
Interesting comments…..looks like the Obama budget projections, that’s right, we have no budget. 😉
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm
SC24 will not be ‘short’.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:10 am
Altrock suggests:
“the maximum smoothed sunspot number in the northern hemisphere ALREADY OCCURRED at 2011.6 ± 0.3″ making cycle 24 short.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 9:22 am
The general rule is that for low cycles, the rise time is long, and the ‘tail’ is correspondingly short. So cycle 24 is not going to be 17 years long. More like 12 or 13.
You even disagree with yourself between posts. No wonder dynamology is in such disarray. According to your “general rule” cycle 24 should be extremely short, given that it’s rise time to maximum is less than two years and the ‘tail’ should be “correspondingly short”.
Truth is, you haven’t got a clue what cycle 24 will do.
Gail Combs says: August 13, 2012 at 11:15 am
…….
Hi Ms Combs
Thanks, it is an interesting article, I did see it some time ago. In last 2-3 years there were number of follow-ups. Some of the NASA experts are now focusing on the ideas which I would consider not to be dissimilar to what I have been suggesting since 2009.
I don’t normally participate in these solar discussions, but I’ll point out one thing.
Annual average temperature is a meaningless metric for whether the climate is warming or cooling. You need to look at winter averages, because any warming in the rest of the year not retained in the winter is ‘heat’ that isn’t retained in the climate system for more than a year, and thus irrelevant to whether the climate is warming/cooling over longer timescales.
And I think you will find winter averages have indeed cooled markedly in recent years.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm
“the solar-planetary ‘theory’ is nonsense and has no predictive power.”
My “feeling” is that the Sun orbiting around the CoG of the Solar System would have an impact on both it’s fusion engine, as well as it’s circulatory patterns, and graphs of solar activity seem to follow planetary configurations.
Why should I believe it’s nonsense?
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm
My own expectations are based on the solar-planetary theory, which has proven itself better able to make predictions of solar activity than the dynamologists can.
The dynamo theory prediction of SC24 is borne out quite well. So, if your expectations do not come to pass you will claim that solar-planetary theory has been falsified.
“Other cloud enthusiasts follow Svensmark and claim that the effect is in the low clouds, so you claim they are all wrong..”
Looks that way from the data you produced.
I think that the cosmic rays have little effect but maybe some and are merely a coincidental proxy for solar variations. The real cause of cloud and albedo variations is the change in the length of the lines of air mass mixing when the jets become more (or less) meridional.
matt v. says:
August 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm
The global SST is again rising this year but was dropping between 2002 and 2011.
‘Rising’ compared to what? Here is how I see the overall picture. With the sea surface anomaly for June at 0.351, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.242 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351)/6 = 0.276. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.63. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record. Sea surface temperatures are flat since January 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to June). (I realize the last 3 months are not on WFT, but knowing their values, I know the slope would be flat to June had they been present.) See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Altrock suggests: …
You even disagree with yourself between posts. No wonder dynamology is in such disarray. According to your “general rule” cycle 24 should be extremely short, given that it’s rise time to maximum is less than two years and the ‘tail’ should be “correspondingly short”.
It would help you if you could read.
SC24 will be about 12 years as small cycles usually are, e.g. SC5, SC6, SC14. If the maximum is late in the cycle, the tail will be reduced correspondingly. Small cycles have a long drawn-out maximum lasting several years. Again SC14 is a good example.
MiCro says:
August 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm
My “feeling” is that the Sun orbiting around the CoG of the Solar System would have an impact on both it’s fusion engine, as well as it’s circulatory patterns, and graphs of solar activity seem to follow planetary configurations. Why should I believe it’s nonsense?
Because the Sun is in free fall and feel no forces [except extremely small tidal forces]. Also, any changes in the core of sun would take hundreds of thousands of years to make their way to the surface.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm
It would help you if you could read.
It would help if you could remember what you wrote.
SC24 will be about 12 years as small cycles usually are.
I’ll nail that to the predictions page on the blog, thanks.
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 2:11 pm
It would help if you could remember what you wrote.
Anybody can just check the comments to see your misrepresentations for themselves.
“SC24 will be about 12 years as small cycles usually are.”
I’ll nail that to the predictions page on the blog, thanks.
Remember to give me due credit as the predication comes to pass.
Looks like NASA can not make up its mind.
I will have to go along with Tallbloke, scientists are still getting surprised by the sun and this solar cycle. Just as the last minimum was long, low and drawn out. I think we are looking at a low flat maximum like was seen in cycle 14. (wiggle matching) I also think this long drawn out maximum will mean a long cycle.
NOAA: Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Updated May 2009
Thank goodness for the current, weak El Nino. If not for that, we’d be screwed.
Gail Combs says:
August 13, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Looks like NASA can not make up its mind.
Hathaway’s forecast [Not prediction. The difference is that a prediction is made before the cycle, but a forecast is continuously updated with current data] is his own. Not NASA’s.
I think we are looking at a low flat maximum like was seen in cycle 14. (wiggle matching) I also think this long drawn out maximum will mean a long cycle.
Cycle 14 was 11.8 years long…
MiCro says:
August 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm
My “feeling” is that the Sun orbiting around the CoG of the Solar System would have an impact on both it’s fusion engine, as well as it’s circulatory patterns, and graphs of solar activity seem to follow planetary configurations. Why should I believe it’s nonsense?
You shouldn’t. See the numerous articles on my blog covering peer reviewed papers from people better qualified to elucidate the possible physical mechanisms than Leif. He speaks with false certainty.
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm
SC24 will not be ‘short’.
“You even disagree with yourself between posts. No wonder dynamology is in such disarray. According to your “general rule” cycle 24 should be extremely short, given that it’s rise time to maximum is less than two years and the ‘tail’ should be “correspondingly short”.
Truth is, you haven’t got a clue what cycle 24 will do.”
It is probably due to that dark matter, which no one is able to detect in our local neighborhood, which Leif says has been theorized by some to be “inside the sun”. You know, that stuff that only interacts gravitationally with other matter and energy and has been conveniently hypothesized to exist in order to explain why our other theories of mass and gravity, though ASSUMED to be correct and complete, are not proving out well based upon actual observations. If so. it may be the fly in the solar ointment, so to speak.
“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.”
0.9 C ? That would take the northern hemisphere back to the mean seen about a century ago
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif
We have just been through a prolonged solar minimum and there was no/very slight cooling. The solar min was more likely a factor in the temperature standstill seen since 2003, countering the rise in CO2 concentration.
Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf
found a global warming signal of 0.18 C attributable to the 11-year solar cycle with larger changes near the poles, but nowhere near 0.9 C over a whole hemisphere.
This rather gives the game away:-
“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.”
Or the prediction was completely wrong and is really speculation/wishful thinking.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm
“Because the Sun is in free fall and feel no forces [except extremely small tidal forces]. Also, any changes in the core of sun would take hundreds of thousands of years to make their way to the surface.”
It’s in free fall until it has to change direction since the CoG is moving. As for the hundreds of thousands of years, that’s potentially a good point, but even if true, the sun was falling around a moving CoG hundreds of thousands of year ago as well.
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm
my blog covering peer reviewed papers from people better qualified to elucidate the possible physical mechanisms than Leif.
What did Wolff and Patrone say about Gough’s debunking of their paper: http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc
“I have no advice to offer the authors that I believe they might take. What they should do is go back to the original publications of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar and try to understand them. If they succeed, and if they are honest, they would then withdraw the paper.”
I have not seen the retraction. Perhaps you could provide a link…
Jim G says:
August 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm
stuff that only interacts gravitationally with other matter and energy and has been conveniently hypothesized to exist in order to explain why our other theories of mass and gravity, though ASSUMED to be correct and complete, are not proving out well based upon actual observations.
The theories about mass and gravity are not affected by the actual observations of dark matter and dark energy [are in fact used to detect those things]
MiCro says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:05 pm
It’s in free fall until it has to change direction since the CoG is moving.
Not at all. an astronaut is weightless because he is in free fall. The CoG of him and the Earth is moving too as the astronaut circles the Earth.
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.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
The above makes sense only if NASA accepts (which paradoxically they do not) existence of electric & magnetic feedback circuit between sun and major magnetospheres via ‘magnetic cloud’ also known as ‘magnetic rope’(goggle either). Major players here are two gas giants’ magnetospheres, while the Earth with its minor magnetosphere gets caught in between.
This is bases of my sunspot number formula, with extrapolation providing a rough guidance of future solar activity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:07 pm
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm
my blog covering peer reviewed papers from people better qualified to elucidate the possible physical mechanisms than Leif.
What did Wolff and Patrone say about Gough’s debunking of their paper:
They said they’d not had such a good laugh in a while and that there was no need to respond until Gough got his ‘criticism’ past peer review.