Guest post by David Archibald
George Orwell said,” He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” Some amongst us have used that as an instruction manual and have attempted to create confusion about the sunspot number record. We can sidestep all that by using the F10.7 flux which can’t be fiddled with and adjusted. The F10.7 instrument record goes back to 1948:
It has been previously derived that the break-over between sea level rising and falling is a sunspot number of 40: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/ A sunspot number of 40 equates to a F10.7 flux of 100.
WUWT recently alerted us to the existence of Usoskin’s 2010 paper on solar activity during the Holocene, available here: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia
Usoskin’s paper contains a lot of useful information that allows us to backtest the relationship between solar activity and sea level. For example, consider that if the average sunspot number over the Holocene had been above or below 40 over the Holocene, then sea level would have risen or fallen over the Holocene according to my theory. His Figure 18 provides the answer:
Figure 18 shows that the average sunspot number over the Holocene was very near 40. We can also tie sea level events over the Holocene to the detail in Usoskin’s Figure 17:
The figure above is the last six thousand years of sunspot number. It is evident the average sunspot number was higher prior to 0 BC and lower since. Sea level therefore should have been higher prior to 0 BC and lower since. That is confirmed by a 2007 paper on Holocene sea level variability: http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/public/groups/everyone/documents/journal_article/jcuprd_054910.pdf
From the abstract,”the Holocene sea-level highstand of +1.0 – 1.5 m was reached ~ 7000 cal yr BP and fell to its present position after 2000 yr BP.” Low sunspot periods from Usoskin’s Figure 17 are evident in the sea level record. Further from that abstract,”During this ~ 5000 year period of high sea level, growth hiatuses in oyster beds and tubeworms and lower elevations of microatolls are interpreted to represent short-lived oscillations in sea-level of up to 1 m during two intervals, beginning c.4800 and 3000 cal yr BP. The rates of sea-level rise and fall (1-2 mm yr) during these centennial scale oscillations are comparable with current rates of sea-level rise.” On Usoskin’s Figure 17, the 4,800 BP date corresponds to the low sunspot period at 2,800 BC and the 3,000 BP date corresponds to the low sunspot period at 800 BC.
The Usoskin paper contains another instructive figure, his Figure 13 of an example of a reconstruction of the heliospheric magnetic field at Earth orbit for the last 600 years:
The benign period of the second half of the 20th Century is associated with a far more active Sun. The cold periods are associated with a heliospheric magnetic field of under 2 nT. How does that compare with the modern instrument record? The following figure shows that the recent range of the magnetic field equates to that of the first half of the 20th Century:
Now back to the F10.7 flux and sea level. Based on the length of Solar Cycle 24 derived from Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram and Livingston and Penn’s prediction of peak Solar Cycle 25 sunspot amplitude of 7, we can predict the general form of the F10.7 flux to 2040:
I have come to the conclusion that a F10.7 Flux of 100 is the breakover between heating and cooling on Earth. It explains most things to me. My best guess on that at this point is January 2015, following which, two decades of cooling will ensue.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard said
“…so the 100k cycle does not operate for about 100k years every 400k years, in particular, the coming 100k years. During such periods the 40k-yr variations of the axial tilt provide the necessary modulation.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
So perhaps the Younger Dryas was the 41k World reasserting itself ?
vukcevic says:
September 18, 2012 at 5:52 am
Your vigorous protestations are suggesting that your are in a direct conflict with your own data.
More crap. Don’t you think I take my own data into account.
– re: Closed flux In comparison, the recent reconstruction of Y. Wang et al. (2005) is based on solar considerations alone, using a flux transport model to simulate the long-term evolution of the closed flux that generates bright faculae. yours truly IPCC
1: not recent [already outdated]
2. based on faulty Group Sunspot Number
3. I am one of the foremost experts on this subject and have, in fact, peer-reviewed several of Wang [and Sheeley]’s papers on this so no need to dig your hole any deeper
4. You have learned a new word ‘closed’ flux, but apparently have no idea what it means and how it relates to the rest. The SSN is a good measure of the ‘closed flux’. The heliospheric magnetic field is a mixture of open flux [mostly polar fields] and closed flux [mostly CMEs] and is well described by this formula: HMF = floor + coefficient * SQRT(SSN) as Wang points out [“should scale with the square root of the sunspot number”]. There is some confusion in the literature where some people call ALL of the HMF ‘open’, but that is a detail.
– re: What a load of self-serving c… no need to comment that one
I take it would be painful to realize how true that statement is. But you do not need to comment on that pain, just accept my true statement.
progress of science requires understanding of natural process not a denunciation .
Your comments and suggestions show abundantly that you have no understanding of any of those natural processes, and nonsense pseudo-science should be denounced for what it is.
J Martin says:
September 18, 2012 at 2:47 pm
So perhaps the Younger Dryas was the 41k World reasserting itself ?
I don’t think so as the duration the YD was much too short for that.
Hi Doc
That sounds to me (and anyone who could read the ‘sentiment’ as well as the words) as a pretty strong endorsement.
I shall get in touch with Dr. Dickey at JPL, she might help to get my result published possibly as a ‘letter to the Editor’ in Nature or similar.
Thanks.
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2012 at 3:52 am
she might help to get my result published possibly as a ‘letter to the Editor’ in Nature or similar
You may have better luck here http://www.jir.com/
Irreproducible results ?!
Well, you got both sets of data, TSI and the ETHZ. It is bi-decadal change in the magnetic field :
Bz year x – Bz year (x-20), at Latitude –90 degrees, Longitude 0 degrees (south pole).
Now, if your Excel failed to calculate and plot that and doesn’t look like this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMCa.htm
then either your Excel or your computer has a problem, it is in the need of urgent attention.
Science is not interested in if someone dislikes result for any reason whatsoever.
Science wants to know the data then science wants to know why.
Science has data by curtsey of Wang, Lean , Svlgaard, Finlay and Jackson.
Vukcevic just compared the two sets of data and found they correlate.
Science now wants to know why!
It is a mighty big question and answer may not please everyone, but science doesn’t care about that. Come on doc, its not that bad even if you are wrong for once.
I assume no one else beside two of us is any more reading this webpage, lets declare we do not agree, no need to spoil our long friendship, from which I have learned:
I should investigate what I am told not to.
You can have the last word.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm
HenryP says:
September 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm
the process of cooling, initiated by natural processes coming from the sun, is already underway, from 1995, to be precise.
“The Sun may have shown less activity, but somebody forgot the tell the Earth that, as temperatures since 1995 have increased.”
Not according to most sources, http://flowingdata.com/2009/07/20/important-data-please-act-responsibily/
Henry@JimG
your graph is about right. I am saying energy-in was the highest in 1995, but the max. of energy-out (when earth was the warmest) was ca. 1998…., acc. to most data sets.
According to my calculation we will continue to fall in temps. until 2039
…better buy some extra warm cloths…
Henry@Vukcevic
I am not sure how you can reconstruct TSI back in time by 200 or 300 years. I think the first distribution of TSI (for wavelength) was established in the early 70ties. I don’t know how and if it was done again since, or even how many times this distribution (over wavelengths) was measured again? I believe it is the variance in the distribution of the solar constant that causes a “differing” shield, e.g. differing amounts of ozone & , which in turn leads to warming and cooling periods of ca. 44 years (1 cycle =88 years)
HenryP says:
September 19, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Henry@JimG
“your graph is about right. I am saying energy-in was the highest in 1995, but the max. of energy-out (when earth was the warmest) was ca. 1998…., acc. to most data sets.
According to my calculation we will continue to fall in temps. until 2039
…better buy some extra warm cloths…”
Already have them. Live in Wyoming. Was hoping for some Global Warming.
Hi Henry P
see: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2012 at 10:15 am
Science wants to know the data then science wants to know why.
What you do it not science. So perhaps it would be better to submit to http://www.improbable.com/magazine/
Jim G says:
September 19, 2012 at 12:04 pm
“as temperatures since 1995 have increased.”
Not according to most sources, http://flowingdata.com/2009/07/20/important-data-please-act-responsibily/
Jim G says:
September 19, 2012 at 12:04 pm
“as temperatures since 1995 have increased.”
Not according to most sources
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Henry@Leif
My own data set shows a steady decline from 1998 as reported by JIM G. and HADCRUT 3. We have fallen by about 0.2 or 0.1 degree C since 2000.
UAH, as I understand it, has a problem, I told you. If you look at the UAH data you get no correlation whatsoever. All of my data for means, maxima and minima I can put in binominals with high correlation, >95%.
My data set also shows that further cooling is coming, regardless of CO2
Not reporting the truth on this is not fair, e.g. to the tomatoes planters in Anchorage, where it cooled by almost 1.5 degrees C since 2000.