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.
Kudos to Leif for spending so much time answering questions & educating fellow blog followers !!
Well done & thanks!
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 8:19 pm
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.
Actually the data referenced in his paper implies the 23/24 minimum was around 0.26 W/m^2 less than the previous minimum. If you want, you can call that “significantly lower,” but you are trying to disprove the Russian data with a publication on French satellite data outright implying its own uncertainty is of roughly comparable magnitude to that entire figure. If anything, even the *corrected* PREMOS data looks like a slight decline in minima between 1996 and 2008, as seen if I quickly draw (nonexact) red and brown lines on it here ( http://img185.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=17964_premos_122_174lo.JPG ), although such is not particularly meaningful to interpret in itself when the data source has up to tenths of W/m^2 error as the authors note.
More importantly, as Dr. Abdussamatov remarks, “the uniqueness of the elapsed cycle 23 is confirmed by the fact that this cycle became the longest (~12.5 years) among all ascertained and studied 11-year solar cycles for more than 150 years of reliable observations starting from the cycle 10.”
But even that is far less major of an observation than what is being seen for solar cycle 24’s relative decline compared to solar cycle 23.
The real test of his extrapolation is in cycle 24 and beyond.
If you argue about cycle 23 versus 22, you are trying to quibble over hundredths of a W/m^2. Cycle 23 versus 24 is what really matters.
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…..
I think you have my motivation backwards here. I am in the business of predicting solar activity. Anything that can help with that, I would welcome. If planetary influence could be in fact observed and established, we could separate those from the internally generated causes and open a new window on the physics of the sun and stars. Unfortunately, no such elucidation has been forthcoming in the 150 years the hypothesis has been around. The subject has been hijacked by eager dilettantes pushing nonsense bordering on astrology and no progress has been made [except in their own minds – where anything goes]. Papers are from time to time published in second-rate journals [sometimes after repeated rejections by reputable journals – perhaps that is what you have stumbled upon], but there is none of what characterizes true science: quantitative analysis, sound physics, and building on a common, ever expanding body of knowledge.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:10 am
Perhaps not, if there is a double peak like cycle 23.
Great job Professor Archibald, although you truly are [url=http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/tag/david-archibald/]hiding your light under a bushel.[/url]
When comparing SC24 with cycles before 1945 it is necessary to discount the Waldmeier factor and the increased speck ratio we experience today to compare apples with apples. David and Vuk have both made that mistake when using the SIDC values for SC24. When the comparison is done correctly SC24 is very very close to SC5….so far.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24.png
I see Leif is still peddling the same rhetoric, I remember statements he made in the past like, SC24 will not be part of a grand minimum and that SC25 was going to be a large cycle. His side of science can only guess. Based on sound data the current cycle and SC25 will be weak with a recovery during SC26. This makes this period weaker than the Dalton and much weaker than the Maunder, so perhaps don’t expect too much cooling.
Interesting that David is going for a 17 year length for SC24, I thought the Ed Fix model was predicting a very short cycle length?
When comparing SC24 with cycles before 1945 it is necessary to discount the Waldmeier factor and the increased speck ratio we experience today to compare apples with apples. David and Vuk have both made that mistake when using the SIDC values for SC24. When the comparison is done correctly SC24 is very very close to SC5….so far.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24.png
I see Leif is still peddling the same rhetoric, I remember statements he made in the past like, SC24 will not be part of a grand minimum and that SC25 was going to be a large cycle. His side of science can only guess. Based on sound data the current cycle and SC25 will be weak with a recovery during SC26. This makes this period weaker than the Dalton and much weaker than the Maunder, so perhaps don’t expect too much cooling.
Interesting that David is going for a 17 year length for SC24, I thought the Ed Fix model was predicting a very short cycle length?
Dr. S.
You might be interested in a comment from your Stanford colleague
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/12/philosophical-reflections-on-climate-model-projections/#comment-228922
Australia has not had a period of cooler than normal temperatures over such an extended period of time as is the case this year. In 2011, Northern Australia experienced cooler than normal temperatures, not seen for many decades. This year it is even cooler, and has been for a longer period than experienced before. No bull… just ask the people of Darwin in Australia’s Northern Territory. In Australia, there definitely has been cooling despite rising Co2 emissions.
Girls girls you are all pretty. As a highschool dropout with an interest in solar physics and its effects on past and future climate I say we live in interesting times where a ball of plasma billions of years old will show us that maybe nobody here really knows all her secrets. We have been studying the sun crudely for only a few hundred years. We also have crude temperature records roughly over the same time. Now we have the instruments to do some detailed observations and I can only hope we get an honest evaluation. Not data manipulation like we get from poor themometer sites
Mike J says, August 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm
South pole will be max 7.25° inclined towards earth again on March 7th. Plenty of time to darn old socks.
Regarding timing, I think we are better in most fields at predicting what rather than when. Timing is really difficult to predict, and often involves a high degree of subjectivity in the analysis – years after a change in global climate, informed people will have different opinions on exactly when it started to occur.
Therefore, I have no strong opinion on the timing of the commencement of global cooling – it may start soon, or may have already commenced.
Now, concerning what will happen, here is my best guess – and I submit that all our opinions are guesses at this point – we do not understand climate science well enough to know what is cause and what is effect – for example, does CO2 primarily drive temperature, or does temperature primarily drive CO2?
My prediction regarding global cooling is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/premonitions-of-the-fall-in-temperature/#comment-990638
I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections)? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm
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.
Why should Wolff and Patrone feel compelled to answer to the meanderings of Gough, who admits in the first sentence of his ramblings that he didn’t read their paper? Get a grip.
Gough completely misunderstood the physical mechanism proposed because he didn’t actually read the paper, he just made stuff up about what he thought they must be proposing and criticised the strawman of his own creation.
You’re guilty of the same thing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 9:54 pm
If planetary influence could be in fact observed and established, we could separate those from the internally generated causes and open a new window on the physics of the sun and stars.
If you were able to quantify the magnitude of and predict the timing of the internal causes, which you are not.
Unfortunately, no such elucidation has been forthcoming in the 150 years the hypothesis has been around.
This is a lie.
The subject has been hijacked by eager dilettantes pushing nonsense bordering on astrology and no progress has been made [except in their own minds – where anything goes].
And this is just ad hominem crap.
Papers are from time to time published in second-rate journals [sometimes after repeated rejections by reputable journals – perhaps that is what you have stumbled upon], but there is none of what characterizes true science: quantitative analysis, sound physics, and building on a common, ever expanding body of knowledge.
Gatekeepers like you are preventing the expansion of knowledge, not facilitating it.
EM Smith says
“We started cooling in 1998 (all down hill from there..”
Hmm, according to GISS, UAH and BEST we haven’t been cooling since 1998, we’ve been warming. But not so according to HadCRU3 and RSS (although updated HadCRU4 says yes to warming since 1998).
Ocean Heat Content (<750 meters or <2000 meters. take your pick) has warmed since 1998.
So it's not *all* downhill. Which data stream is the right one, EM?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Papers are from time to time published in second-rate journals
[sometimes after repeated rejections by reputable journals]
For your information Leif the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics is rated in the top ten worldwide for the IDRT measure of research impact.
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics/
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may03/bollen/05bollen.html
The ten highest IDRT scoring journals consist of a range of journals relating to a variety of subjects. We find, for example, the Journal of Arid Environments, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Remote Sensing of Environment and Planetary and Space Science
Funnily enough the “reputable Journal you review for isn’t in the list.
Henry Clark says:
August 13, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Actually the data referenced in his paper implies the 23/24 minimum was around 0.26 W/m^2 less than the previous minimum. If you want, you can call that “significantly lower,” but you are trying to disprove the Russian data…
That is a quarter of the solar cycle variation so is significant. But there are no Russian data involved. He used the PMOD [of Froehlich] composite for his extrapolation. PMOD has now been shown to be wrongly compensated for instrument degradation [as I also showed long ago: http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
So no long-term decline has been observed, hence the basis for the extrapolation has gone away.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 14, 2012 at 12:43 am
When the comparison is done correctly SC24 is very very close to SC5….so far.
Except that we have very little actual data for SC5. Here are the various attempts to reconstruct SC5: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png so to claim that something is ‘very very close’ is meaningless.
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…
[still waiting for your response]
E.M.Smith says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm
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….
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…
________________________________
There is also the lesson I would hope Gerard Roe brought home when looking at the effects of solar insolation in relation to the the Milankovitch cycles.
I think that is what we are seeing here. Not a change in temperature but a change in the rate (derivative) that temperature is increasing or decreasing. Therefore instead of looking at the increase in temperature we should be looking at the slope of the line/rate/first derivative.
We now have fifteen years that say there has been a change in the first derivative. Graph
Leif, FWIW or not, several elderly farmers I’ve been talking to in Southern Illinois this past week have surprised me with their unusual unanimity in opinion about the coming Winter weather. They’re all more than 72 years of age. I talked to each one individually, and they offered their opinion without any prior solicitatoins from me for those opinions. They each said that they believed the cold weather is already showing signs in Nature for the coming Winter, and the Winter they believe is going to be an extraordinarily cold one. When i asked if there were any particular reasons why they were so convinced the Winter was going to be so cold, they responded by saying no. They all said it was just the feeling they had from the way the hot months of June and July and the cooling month of August felt so much like it did when they were young and it got bitter cold the following Winter. These are the same guys who normally cannot agree about much of anything, and especially about the weather in the coming season.
tallbloke says:
August 14, 2012 at 5:31 am
Funnily enough the “reputable Journal you review for isn’t in the list.
I have reviewed for some of those [and for some not in the list, like Nature and Science] and even published in some, including JASTP, so I don’t know what your problem is. BTW, IMO the quality of JASTP has, sadly, been declining lately.
chickenlittle says: @ur momisugly August 14, 2012 at 12:12 am
________________________
Use HTML tags see the bottom of Ric Werme’s Guide to Watts Up With That
(Or you can steal them from Joanne Nova’s site and even preview the comment before cut and past to here. )
tallbloke says:
August 14, 2012 at 5:31 am
The ten highest IDRT scoring journals consist of a range of journals relating to a variety of subjects.
The IDRT is just a measure invented by Bollen et al. to quantify their results of surveying the journal articles downloaded at one laboratory [Los Alamos] reflecting that laboratory’s interests and is not a measure of the general interest. As usual, you know not whereof you speak.
Henry@Gail
Gail, I am not saying you are wrong or anything. I just want to know why you would say that you trust UAH. How do they do their calibration?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2012 at 5:35 am
[still waiting for your response]
Still waiting for you to deal with the substantive issue. Which isn’t asking for copies of other people’s email. Which you won’t get.
tallbloke says:
August 14, 2012 at 8:09 am
Which isn’t asking for copies of other people’s email. Which you won’t get.
I suspect that I won’t get it, because there isn’t any. Now, I know Charles so perhaps I just ask him. BTW, there have been six citations of W&P, five by Scafetta and one by Callebaut et al. who states “As an improvement to earlier research on this topic we reconsider the internal convective velocities and we examine several other effects, in particular those due to magnetic buoyancy and to the Coriolis force. The main conclusion is that in its essence: planetary influences are too small to be more than a small modulation of the solar cycle.”