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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:14 pm
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.
Equating a two body problem with constant accelerations with the Sun’s situation caught betwixt nine large planets all moving at different velocities is a problematic oversimplification.
James Abbott says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Or the prediction was completely wrong and is really speculation/wishful thinking.
Indeed. Now, this is, of course, testable. In a few years we shall know. Note, however that by postulating longer and longer cycles, the moment of reckoning is pushed further and further out.
MiCro says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:05 pm
As for the hundreds of thousands of years, that’s potentially a good point, but even if true
The number is based on well-known physics and is true. One can quibble a bit about the exact value [depending on the composition]. but the order of magnitude is correct
the sun was falling around a moving CoG hundreds of thousands of year ago as well.
The point is that because of the very long travel time [by random diffusion] any periodicity of the order of decades or centuries will be completely washed out.
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Equating a two body problem with constant accelerations with the Sun’s situation caught betwixt nine large planets all moving at different velocities is a problematic oversimplification.
Make the astronaut’s orbit non-circular. It makes no difference. And there are not nine large planets, they are a thousandth or less the solar mass and are far away. And it wouldn’t matter anyway. All the bodies are in free fall in their combined gravitational field [omitting tiny general relativity effects].
vukcevic says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:30 pm
These changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are known to be caused by solar storms
You are confusing things. There are currents in space around the Earth that are caused by solar storms and are rather well understood. E.g. given solar wind data we can calculate with good accuracy what those currents are. The internal field originating in the core is not affected.
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).
NASA does not accept this because there is no such feedback current.
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
“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.
So, they [and you] chicken out. Perhaps you could copy us the email where W&P said that…
As can be seen, for example, at http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2008&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on in this year so far 2% more cosmic rays have been deflected on average than in 2011, and solar activity is still rising at the moment. Perhaps it will peak by the May 2013 prediction though. Solar-GCR effects are superimposed upon the 60-year ocean cycle, while on shorter timescales there is the ENSO oscillation.
The 60-year ocean cycle’s impact appears on such as the high temperatures in the late 1930s-1940s then also more recently. One good example is http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif first for the arctic (showing temperatures then were comparably warm to more recent temperatures), and, secondly, for the average over the Northern Hemisphere as a whole when without dishonest revisionism of past temperature measurements, in http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=43034_ScreenHunter_296_Apr._08_09.29_122_441lo.jpg (original National Academy of Sciences graph before the political era) when combined with http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig75.jpg as well as the other data referenced in my comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/nasas-james-hansens-big-cherry-pick
Dr. Abdussamatov predicts cooling to start around 2014, with cooling rising over subsequent years and decades. (That’s without trying to take into account the ENSO, though, so personally I wouldn’t count on single-year precision but just wager sometime between 2013 and 2016 as about the start, since the AMO will be going down too). We need the current solar cycle to peak first.
His estimate extends to:
“The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop [starting] in approximately 2014.” “The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.”
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
With that said, even though I would describe the past decade or so mostly as a plateau (and near the AMO oscillation index high point), temperatures have bordered on cooling since the 1997 albedo (cloud cover) change and the 1998 El Nino, as seen in http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1998/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend for RSS satellite data while there is also what HenryP’s data shows.
HenryP says:
August 13, 2012 at 6:09 am
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
I’ve looked at such before when you posted it, and I just wanted to thank you for interesting data, including showing how averages versus minimums and maximums are quite different quantities.
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Equating a two body problem…
And it is not a two-body problem. Rather a three-body problem as the astronaut is in free fall in the combined gravitational field of the Earth and the Moon. Or a four-body problem if you include the Sun, or a MANY-body if you include the 588618 asteroids, 3157 comets, 176 planetary satellites, 8 planets, and the [large] Sun known today. None of this matters, as it didn’t matter to Gravity-B http://einstein.stanford.edu/
Sorry, but the astronaut orbiting the Earth is not a two body problem. The Earth itself is moving in an elliptical orbit around the Sun (with varying velocities). The moon also has a gravitational effect on the astronaut, as does every other body in the Solar System (and, indeed, the universe). What defines free fall is that the body is freely “falling” in response to whatever current gravitation net vector is being experienced. The gravitational net vector does not have to be constant – a body will still be in free fall even if the gravitational net vector varies over time.
Henry Clark says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Dr. Abdussamatov predicts cooling to start around 2014, with cooling rising over subsequent years and decades … http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
His prediction is based on [see his Figures 1 and 2] an assumed decrease of TSI during the last minimum. This decrease did not happen. It is an artifact due to the erroneous assumption that an instrument that is not exposed to solar radiation [but still in space] does not degrade. This assumption has been shown to be incorrect [and so is Abdussamatov]: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf slides 31 and 33: “Observed data do not support a measureable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008”.
What Henry Clark said…
I see the Tallbloke vs Leif “does so does not” is on again…
We started cooling in 1998 (all down hill from there – but with some wobble) and took a bit of a pause on the current cycle “peak” that isn’t much. As we round over the top of it ( 2013 ) we start down again.
At one of the presentations in Chicago a couple of years back they worked in a short movie by one presenter on ocean temperature patterns. Showed how cold / hot cycles at the Pacific equator took 18 years to work their way up to the Bering Straight. (We took a “cold dagger” to the center Pacific a few years back…) so it takes a while for the “global” to catch up with the “first change”.
IMHO, the change of circumpolar current whacking into Drake Passage sends more or less cold water up the spine of South America and out into the Central Pacific. From there it takes 18 years to reach Alaska and who knows how long to cross the Pacific, run down Africa in the Indian, and then up the Atlantic.
So, IMHO, Habibullo has it right and the oceans smear the process out over that flow pattern by about 1998 to 2055… But we’re past the hump and headed (slowly) down.
To the extent it has a sine wave shape, crossing the peak takes a while but once ‘mid change’ things pick up…
E.M.Smith says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm
the oceans smear the process out over that flow pattern by about 1998 to 2055… But we’re past the hump and headed (slowly) down.
The issue is if we’ll cool by one degree in the next decade as Archibald speculates [due to the sun, there might be other reasons]. I think we’ll not cool that much due to lower solar activity, if you think otherwise and support Archibald, tell us.
@Leif:
When I heard the presentation by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov he said it was based on observed changes of the diameter of the sun. ( I presumed due to either ‘standard understood things’ or ‘something new’ – but didn’t have a chance to ask ‘due to what?’ )
Do you have any insight into the “solar diameter” reference or changes? ( i.e. Red Herring or “yeah it changes, see flow model” or…)
In his announcement last year, Altrock said that the progress of the green corona emissions was 40% slower than the previous two cycles. All things being equal, that means that Solar Cycle 24 would be 40% longer than the previous two cycles, which makes it 17 years long. For all things not to be equal, it would have to either speed up or stop short of 10 degrees. Hell’s bells, from that 17 year figure, we even know the year of Solar Cycle 25 maximum, which is 2032. There is a 17 year period in the numbered solar cycles, from the maximum of Solar Cycle 4 to the maximum of Solar Cycle 5.
In other news, I am now a DC academic: http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/page/David-Archibald. The Institute of World Politics is a graduate school for all US intelligences agencies, the State Department and Department of Defense. Gail Combs please email me at david.archibald@westnet.com.au
Australia has been in a cooling cycle for the last three years record low temptures every where a good snow depth 1.6 mt. bring on global warming
If the Svensmark theory is correct, I think we should be looking at plots of cosmic radiation intensity for a clue on this issue. That should be the bottom line. In his video, ‘The Cloud Mystery,’ he shows a full cycle of close correlation between global cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity at about the 9:20 minute mark. For most other correlations used in ‘Climate Science’ our non-proxy observation window is less than a quarter of a cycle.
Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
One thing I seem to note is that there appears to be no clear comprehensive theory of water vapor condensation presented in basic meteorology texts. If condensation is controlled by cosmic radiation flux, then relative humidity depends on the cosmic ray intensity as clouds begin to form when the water vapor concentration is such that the rate of condensation exceeds the rate of evaporation at any given temperature and cosmic radiation controls the the rate of condensation. I think this would make the real moist adiabatic lapse rate dependent on the cosmic radiation flux.
My personal thought is that this effect may affect temperatures more by promoting thermal convection rather than by the equal opportunity cloud reflection of sunlight coming down and long-wave infra-red radiation going up from the Earth. The thermal time delay of this effect may, in part, be due to the time required for the atmosphere to respond to changes in environmental lapse rate forcing.
E.M.Smith says:
August 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov he said it was based on observed changes of the diameter of the sun.
How about reading his paper?
Do you have any insight into the “solar diameter” reference or changes?
The measurements were not accurate enough in the past to deduce anything. A modern satellite is dedicated to such measurements: http://smsc.cnes.fr/PICARD/ no results yet.
David Archibald says:
August 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm
In his announcement last year, Altrock said …
Why use out of date data? [ah, when they fit, of course – silly me]. It is not correct to simply extrapolate using such a short interval. Two month’s ago, Altrock [using the green corona] pronounced maximum in the Northern hemisphere to be already passed in 2011.
There is a 17 year period in the numbered solar cycles, from the maximum of Solar Cycle 4 to the maximum of Solar Cycle 5.
SC 4 was 13.6 years.
Spector says:
August 13, 2012 at 5:47 pm
If the Svensmark theory is correct
Svensmark claims that solar activity controls the low clouds, which is falsified here: http://climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif
Dr. Abdussamatov’s data has cycles 22 and 23 being merely just 0.17 W/m^2 apart on average as seen in figure 2 of his paper at http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
He is chief of solar research done through the Russian segment of the International Space Station, as in http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html
The publication you linked, right after saying the difference between 1996 and 2008 minima in TSI was not measurable (because they were so similar in W/m^2) emphasizes “When assessing long term trends, allow for an uncertainty of at least 0.2 W/m2 for the 1996 solar minimum!” (Elsewhere, uncertainties of “typically 300 ppm (0.4 W/m^2)” are referenced in it). http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf
Even before getting into the topic of different instruments being referenced, that is not disproving Dr. Abdussamatov’s data: His data has cycles 22 and 23 nearly identical in averages/minimum W/m^2, and so does their data within its stated margin of error.
Where matters get far more interesting, where Dr. Abdussamatov has major predictions in contrast, is for this current cycle 24 and beyond.
Like http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1995&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on suggests, the magnitude of vastly more major difference between the last solar cycle 23 and this cycle 24 is striking.
edit:
The above comment is meant to be in reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:33 pm
“His prediction is based on [see his Figures 1 and 2] an assumed decrease of TSI during the last minimum.” […]
Leif Svalgaard wrote:
“And it wouldn’t matter anyway. All the bodies are in free fall in their combined gravitational field [omitting tiny general relativity effects].”
Being in free fall in their combined gravitational field does not preclude objects affecting other objects in ways other than orbital motion.
The Moon, via interaction with the liquid parts of the Earth’s mass, takes energy from the spin of the earth and adds it to its orbital speed: the Moon moves further away and the days on Earth get longer. The interiors of the Jovian moons are heated and melted by the complex gravitational tugging within that system. The liquid interior of Jupiter is moved and heated by those moons, and we do not know enough to say how significant is the effect.
So the statement that the Sun is in free fall has no bearing on the possibility of it being internally affected in some way by the actions of the planets. The (solar system) centre of mass being inside and outside the variable liquid body of the Sun by 0.13 solar radius and 1.98 solar radius over a short period of years, is interesting enough to investigate any correlations of planetary positions and solar activity.
Solar activity is clearly dominated by the Sun’s internal processes but that does not preclude outside effect being significant.
Leif,
Look very closely at your following words since you are going to be eating them very soon…..
“…the solar-planetary ‘theory’ is nonsense and has no predictive power..”
I am going to enjoy watching you choking on humble pie..
Henry Clark says:
August 13, 2012 at 6:41 pm
that is not disproving Dr. Abdussamatov’s data: His data has cycles 22 and 23 nearly identical in averages/minimum W/m^2, and so does their data within its stated margin of error.
His Figure 1 shows that the minimum value of TSI was significantly lower for the 23/24 minimum than for the previous minima. This difference is the basis for his extrapolation. Observations show no difference, hence his extrapolation is wrong.
PJF says:
August 13, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Being in free fall in their combined gravitational field does not preclude objects affecting other objects in ways other than orbital motion.
I carefully said ‘except for tidal forces’. The examples you mention are all due to tides. The magnitude of tides can be calculated, and the largest tidal bulge is that raised by Jupiter [the next one is by by Venus] and is less than one millimeter high.
Solar activity is clearly dominated by the Sun’s internal processes but that does not preclude outside effect being significant.
Outside effects are there, no doubt, but are of such low magnitude that they have no detectable effect. There are also the effect of Sirius-shine on the Sun. When Jupiter is between the Sun and the star Sirius, Sirius-shine is reduced. This is an indisputable fact, but when you put numbers on it, you will find such a vanishing variation that there is no detectable effect. As your comment shows, that does not deter people from believing weird stuff.
Ninderthana says:
August 13, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Look very closely at your following words since you are going to be eating them very soon…..
You have been saying that for quite a while now…
I am going to enjoy watching you choking on humble pie..
It takes a certain kind of nastiness to enjoy other people’s misfortune…
AJB wrote”
“Hard to tell with the south pole tipped away from us at the moment but do you really think it’ll take another year for it to switch? Looks to be happening fairly quickly.”
Oh darn. I hope it the southern hemisphere tips back towards us here in the northern hemisphere soon, so we’re both tipped in the same direction.
Henry@HenryClark
I am just puzzled that no one is plotting maxima, as it is giving so much less noise. With a sample of 47 weather stations I have now ramped up my rsquare on the binominal for the change in maxima in degrees C per annum to 0,998. Amazing.
I think I may have made a slight error in one of my previous comments.Maxima are now droppping by -0.06 degrees C per annum, but it looks like earth energy output is now dropping by as much, if not more…. (maxima have been dropping since 1995)