Have we hit solar max?
NOAA’s SWPC recently updated their solar metrics graphs, and it seems to me like we may have topped out for solar cycle 24. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of resurgence in any of the three metrics. Granted one month does not a cycle make, but it has been over a year now since the peak of about 95 SSN in October 2011, and there has been nothing similar since. Unlike the big swings of last solar max around 2000-2001, there’s very little variance in the signals of the present, demonstrating that the volatility expected during solar max just isn’t there.
It has been 7 years since the regime shift was observed in the Solar Geomagnetic Index (Ap) in October 2005, and the sun seems to be in a generally quiet magnetic period since then with no hint of the volatility of the past cycle.
UPDATE: Another indicator that we are at solar max is that the polar magnetic fields are about to flip, as tracked in this graphic from Dr. Leif Svalgaard. Click image to enlarge:
![WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/wso-polar-fields-since-20031.png?resize=640%2C147)
Brrrr is all that comes to mind.
Very soon Climate Scientists find out that is’s the Sun STUPID. Many AGW believers including Leif are in wery embarracing situation. In next 10 years that 0,8 degrees celsius Global Warming are gone and they start saying, that CO2 makes iceage to us.
BTV 10 days sunspot avg app. 34
OK – so, as many have suspected, a Little Ice Age is on the cards – where is Plan B?
Not to panic. It is approaching SC24 max, Polar field dipole appears to have change the sign
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
F10.7 and sunspot count on Lief.org site graph shows nine clear 27 day cycles in a row. Perhaps this has been there in past solar max but hidden, perhaps not, but it is odd how the sun can have a peak of activity on one spot, and it seems to be continuing (seen as it rotates to face us. Correlation to the quiet sun?
It has been 7 years since the regime shift was observed in the Solar Geomagnetic Index (Ap) in October 2005, and the sun seems to be in a generally quiet magnetic period since then with no hint of the volatility of the past cycle.
The October 2005 ‘step’ is spurious. In general the ‘volatility’ scales with the overall level, so a lower level also means lower ‘volatility’. No mystery.
REPLY: I know you keep saying that, due to the circumstances, but I don’t believe it to be spurious at all, and the graph shows that the overall level and volatility never recovered after that date. There’s some software that I can run to detect a regime shift, so I think I’ll do that and make a future post to settle the issue. Your point about the scaling of volatility is well taken though – Anthony
JM VanWinkle says:
December 10, 2012 at 11:18 am
F10.7 and sunspot count on Lief.org site graph shows nine clear 27 day cycles in a row.
Such has been noticed many times in the past. Known as ‘active longitudes’. Quite normal.
@JM VanWinkle
I have observed & wondered about this cyclicity.
Lief, could you comment on this cyclicity & what (if anything) it tells us?
Thanks!
I suspect the Dr. Svalgaard would agree with you. (About Solar Max) The sun’s magnetic poles are in the process of flipping now:
See here: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
and here: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
In the past, the poles have flipped within a year of solar max.
Very soon Climate Scientists find out that is’s the Sun STUPID
Not apparently.
On the J.C’s Climate etc blog, for few days now the AGU’s presentation by Dr. V. Pratt has provoked lively discussion, since he apparently has matched global temperatures to the CO2 curve to a miliKelvin.
I made few posts, since he apparently has a standby hypotesis that the rest comes from the Earth’s core (no details except something incoherent about sawtoot oscillations).
Surprise, surprise, you may heard some more detailed stuff of that kind from someone called ‘vukcevic’: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
To shorten the story, our own Dr. S. made a very, very rare appearance, only to declare Vuk is wrong (nothing new there), but I managed to get something far more interesting:
Vuk: I presume you have by now dissected Dr. Pratt’s analysis
Dr. S: He needs to make an experiment that I suggested to him at AGU. Then we’ll see
Vuk: Don’t be so mysterious, we want to know, don’t we? What is the experiment?
Dr.S. Apply his filters to the sunspot number and to the heliospheric magnetic field
Something odd with the Stanford’s miliKelvin’s, now that is interesting, perhaps Dr.S may be persuaded to tell a bit more to his WUWT audience.
Anyway you choose, thanks Doc.
For any of you who operated the 10 meter ham contest this past weekend, it was almost like the bottom of the cycle conditions! The MUF was below 28 MHz on most east-west paths. I particilarly enjoy working aurora on 144 MHz. Aurora. What’s that? Since October, 2005, with the Solar Geomagnetic Index bottom fishing, there’s been almost no 144 MHz aurora here. I agree with Anthony that the cycle probably peaked out a year ago. Looks like we have an opportunity for the age of science to experience a grand minimum. That will be interesting. BTW, one of my routes to climate science was writing articles about the following topics- space weather and short wave propagation; troposphere and VHF propagation.
73,
Doug
Is there any voice anywhere that can be heard that can sound the alarm to all the world, LITTLE ICE AGE is coming? Shouldn’t the whole world stand in awe of descent into little ice age? Is Bastardi the loudest voice? What will we call the decades of Solar Slump and Global Cooling? Landscheidt Minimum, in the tradition of the Maunder and Dalton minima? If his paper is confirmed with eventual Maunder minimum character with deep minimum in 2022, when will it be time for the world to declare a new Grand Minimum?
lsvalgaard says:
December 10, 2012 at 11:24 am
REPLY: I know you keep saying that, due to the circumstances, but I don’t believe it to be spurious at all, and the graph shows that the overall level and volatility never recovered after that date.
People believe all kinds of weird things. The overall level and thus volatility have not ‘recovered’ because cycle 24 is a much weaker cycle.
The seeming drop in October is due to some ‘last gasp’ strong storms in September, 2005 http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005%2C09%2C01
combined with the fact that geomagnetic activity naturally declines as one goes from the equinox towards a solstice [happens every year]. Here are the variation of several solar/wind/activity indeces from 2000 to the present: http://www.leif.org/reseach/Oct-2005-event.png nothing unsual about October 2005, just the usual decline of solar activity.
http://www.leif.org/research/Oct-2005-event.png
JM VanWinkle says:
December 10, 2012 at 11:18 am
F10.7 and sunspot count on Lief.org site graph shows nine clear 27 day cycles in a row.
….
This effect was discovered by Dr. Svalgaard and J. Wilcox in the 1970’s
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
I did a simple polar graph with the more recent data:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC7.htm
Leif, I am not surprised that the 27 day cycle has been noted, it quite stares out a us, but is there a guess as to the cause. Also it seems to be quite pronounced at this point. Thanks for the response and thanks for the lovely graphs, I check them often. Furthermore, thanks for sharing your understandings. Best regards.
Cycle 23 had a Bactrian camel top (double humped) near maximum in both the Sunspot Number and in the 10.7 cm Radio Flux. Is it still possible or likely that this current cycle 24 will do a Bactrian Camel shape near maximum?
John
vukcevic says:
December 10, 2012 at 11:50 am
To shorten the story, our own Dr. S. made a very, very rare appearance, only to declare Vuk is wrong (nothing new there)
It is actually worse than we thought. Vuk is not even wrong, as nonsense cannot carry a clear distinction between wrong and correct. As for anybody claiming to find solar ‘cycles’ in non-solar data, a prerequisite for such cycles to be valid would certainly be that they are present on the Sun too.
vukcevic says:
December 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm
This effect was discovered by Dr. Svalgaard and J. Wilcox in the 1970’s
although what we were discussing was consistent with the effect, the ‘active longitudes’ were actually discovered by Maunder and Chree a century ago.
JM VanWinkle says:
December 10, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Leif, I am not surprised that the 27 day cycle has been noted, it quite stares out a us, but is there a guess as to the cause
Several proposed causes, but none generally accepted:
‘dynamo waves’, ‘fossil asymmetric field in the core’, ‘banana rolls in the circulation’, and more.
Yes Anthony but what does the polar “flip” MEAN to we dumbclucks? Be honest; should I be investing in tins of baked beans? Now if I was to suggest that the flip will take place on 21st December … Just what was it the Mayans were predicting would happen on that date?
MonktonofOz says:
December 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Yes Anthony but what does the polar “flip” MEAN to we dumbclucks?
The reversal of the solar polar fields is part of a regular and normal process: the polar fields are dragged down into the sun’s interior [by circulations] and there amplified to create the fields that give rise to sunspots. When sunspots die, part of their magnetic fields migrates towards to the polar and reverses the old polar fields, building a new one with reverse polarity, and the whole process repeats, the sunspots now having opposite polarities of the previous cycle and so on. Here a paper on reversals: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
Whilst I concur that this is likely to be a very weak cycle there are some very good reasons to doubt that we are yet at solar max.
Sunspot cycles often have several “maxima”, judging one during an on-going cycle could prove a tad embarassing especially with low amplitude cycles, which are renound for several “maxima” over an extended period. The maximum in October 2011 was mostly due to activity on the northern hemisphere. Subsequently the activity here has waned with the southern hemisphere becoming more active. The lattitude at which sunspot groups appear in the northern hemisphere seem to be somehwat closer to the equator than those in the southern hemisphere, perhaps related to the activity mentioned above. However the average latitude at which the sunspot groups appear, is par for the course Which would also suggest a while to go to sunspot max,
Observational data also suggests that weak cycles have a prolonged rise to solar max from minimum; a rapid ascent, such as would be suggested by a maximum in 2009 would be more normally asociated with a very short but active cycle.
Then again the sun has fooled quite a few people recently.
ANYTHING that happens on December 21st will be predicted by the Mayans!
Dr. Svalgaard says:
Vuk is not even wrong, as nonsense cannot carry a clear distinction between wrong and correct.
Well, we know that.
But you also say:
As for anybody claiming to find solar ‘cycles’ in non-solar data, a prerequisite for such cycles to be valid would certainly be that they are present on the Sun too.
Forgive me, but could you elaborate if this applies to Dr. Pratt’s analysis too.
Is this related to the:
Apply his filters to the sunspot number and to the heliospheric magnetic field
We would like to know the result of the filtering experiment.
On the ‘27 day thingy’: Asymmetric solar core?
Earth solid core is apparently asymmetric and has a diff rot of (I think) about 2degrees/ annum. I remember that ‘27 day thingy’ also drifts very slowly.
Do I have this straight?
A calmer sun means reduced Forbush decreases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbush_decrease
“A Forbush decrease is a rapid decrease in the observed galactic cosmic ray intensity following a coronal mass ejection (CME)…. A 2009 peer reviewed article[2] found that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases” )?
This means more clouds, greater albedo, and more cooling, right? How much will this cool Earth by and over how long?
vukcevic says:
December 10, 2012 at 12:51 pm
“Apply his filters to the sunspot number and to the heliospheric magnetic field”
We would like to know the result of the filtering experiment.
Bug Dr. Pratt
On the ‘27 day thingy’: Asymmetric solar core?
None of those proposals have gained any acceptance. Active longitudes are still a mystery. More here: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
Leif,
Cycle 23 had a Bactrian camel top (double humped) shape near maximum in both the Sunspot Number and in the 10.7 cm Radio Flux. Is it still possible or likely that this current cycle 24 will do a Bactrian camel shape near maximum?
John
The Ap regime change in 2005 is interesting and also coincides with two other regime changes.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/281
The current 27 day frequency in the EUV record is more pronounced and shows another regime change for SC24.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/euv_27day.png
John Whitman says:
December 10, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Is it still possible or likely that this current cycle 24 will do a Bactrian camel shape near maximum?
Yes.
OK, so we seem to be entering a deep solar minimum. In fact we may even be some way into one. There seems to be something for everyone in this – sceptics will point to the flat temperatures and say ‘we told you it was the sun all along’ while mainstream will say temps would be climbing upwards were it not for the temporary solar quietness, and will take-off again when the minimum is over.
As an impartial observer (if there can be such a thing) I’ll to have to wait a decade or two to have an informed opinion. If the sun slumps but temps stay stable or inch upwards then that should make things pretty awkward for this site, given the way the Thames and half of Europe froze in previous minima. If things get clearly colder then the mainstream opinion may have to make a big shift.
Reality will probably fall somewhere in between, which would be fine if it silences some of the more dogmatic voices on both sides.
It’s all very well calling max for Cycle 24, but look at the butterfly diagram:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif . Northern spots have made it to the equator but southern ones have not. Then look at Cycle 15 in the 1910s, which also had this asymmetry, and see that maximum, which was measured at 1917.6, did not occur until the wings of the butterfly had approximately come together. So I think we are a little way away yet.
Rich.
As a hobby, I keep track of the Penticton 10.7cm flux data, including a 292-day smoothed running mean (You don’t want to know). I notice that cycles 21, 22, and 23 have 2 local peaks approx 18 months apart in the 292-day running mean, before heading downwards. I do not have an explanation or theory. There was a peak in January 2012 in the running mean. Assuming the behaviour persists, I expect another local peak around August 2013 (+/- a month). After that, the running mean will start heading downwards to the minimum between cycles 24 and 25. Note; the 2nd local peak can be lower or higher than the first,
Mor Electric Heating (@morelectricheat) says:
December 10, 2012 at 11:56 am
No, please, no, no, no. I don’t want anyone sounding the dang alarm regarding ice any more than I want them sounding the heat alarm. I don’t appreciate people SHOUTING ABOUT THE COMING LITTLE ICE AGE any more than I care for people SHOUTING ABOUT THE COMING THERMAGEDDON. Future climates are unknown, get used to it. It might cool down … but then it might not. It might heat up … but then it might not.
Take a deep breath, things are not happening fast. Let’s learn some more about the climate and give up on predictions. If the Little Ice Age cometh, we’ll deal with it. If you want to be forewarned and prepared and corner the market on fur-lined jockstraps in anticipation of future earnings, that’s up to you. Me, I take another tack. Just like with the never-ending threats of global warning, I don’t pay the threat of global cooling any mind until I see actual evidence of a shift, either up or down.
Still waiting …
w.
Dr Svalgaard – What are the signs for SC25? Is LP still on track – pointing to an imminent disappearence of sunspots? What about the other advance indicators of the future start – or non-start – of SC25? Thanks.
Dr. Acula says:
December 10, 2012 at 12:55 pm
A calmer sun means reduced Forbush decreases
Forbush decreases are rare and so will play only a minor role in anything.
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum.
Just to sum up all of Leif’s posts for everyone.
Leif: “Quite normal.”
😉
Willis
My concern is that the world is fixated on promoting and implementing plan A. This covers the notion of what to do to combat significant warming. There are serious consequences if it turns out that what we should have been doing is to put together a Plan B to cover global cooling.
Tonyb
Jon T:
You’ve already had your answer when record cold temps occurred several years ago. The Warmists claimed the record lows were due to AGW!
phlogiston says:
December 10, 2012 at 1:27 pm
What are the signs for SC25?
No sign of SC25 yet.
Is LP still on track – pointing to an imminent disappearence of sunspots?
Yes, I think so: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png and
http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf
What about the other advance indicators of the future start – or non-start – of SC25? Thanks.
Too early to tell.
Tilo Reber says:
December 10, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Just to sum up all of Leif’s posts for everyone.
Leif: “Quite normal.”
Not so, I advocate the most abnormal course of events: a coming Maunder Minimum. Livingston and Penn effect makes this cycle and the coming ones highly unusual.
The good news might be that if we experience another Little Ice Age man is better equipped to deal with it than the last one. The bad news is that a lot of money was needlessly spent. The scientists who warned of a coming ice age in the 1970s will just say “we were right the first time”.
Leif: “Not so, I advocate the most abnormal course of events: a coming Maunder Minimum.”
I agree, that would be an advocation out of the norm. However, last time I talked to you, which was probably over a year ago, you seemed to think that 25 would be bigger than 24.
Geran
All climate – and now, also all weather events – can be reduced back to AGW now. We just have to accept this. It’s “heads we win, tails we lose” for AGW, and however farcical and primary school playground it may appear to be, that doesn’t matter. It’s not science, it’s ideology evinced as fundamental religion &/or politics. A nasty and potent mix.
Tilo Reber says:
December 10, 2012 at 2:14 pm
last time I talked to you, which was probably over a year ago, you seemed to think that 25 would be bigger than 24.
Many people have latched on to that [false] notion, ignoring what was a hypothetical: if the solar maximum in SC24 would come extraordinarily early [like in 2010], then the polar fields might have time to build up and become strong, creating a strong next cycle. Since that did not happen, there is no reason to expect a strong SC25, but many reasons to expect a very weak one.
Please, y’all non-professionals, read N. N. Taleb of The Black Swan and Antifragility.
He cautions against prognostication, particularly against forecasters without skin-in-the-game, and that robust systems, cultures, are fragile to the unexpected. His collaborator Benoit Mandelbrot called reality fractally complex, thus proof against naive induction.
Willis, a pity the UN and their believers did not listen to you!
Spending billions on something that may or may not happen seems silly so I guess it really is just a political redistribution of money from people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
I never get over the arguments I see with respect to the Sun on these pages – each of several opponents so sure they are right and their opponent is an idiot – and all for what – something we really know little about.
Time will tell – no-one really knows what is around the next corner but to not prepare some plans for either eventuality so we can adapt if necessary is akin to the grasshopper “fiddlin” throughout the Summer while the ant colony prepared for the coming Winter – Disney cartoon – can’t remember the name.
Indoor agriculture could feed us in either circumstance so to develop viable technology seems like a good thing to me – certainly better than squandering more money on already failed techniques and con schemes.
All the prior sunspot cycles had a “bactrian hump” (love it!). So far we have a dromedary. The humps are not equal, but either one can be higher. So far the total sunspot number is showing to be more like Dalton minimum. Going to Maunder would require another down cycle as well, and there is no pattern to predict that, that I can see.
Even the Maunder minimum wasn’t an ice age, but it sure got cold in the northern hemisphere. Still, predictions of another Maunder are, in my opinion, on the same level of certainty/settled science as the predictions of CAGW.
Personally, I’m looking to a cold period with increased winter precipitation in the mid-North American continent. Colder and dryer. Not so good for wheat. Same with the Ukraine area. I’m in the Sun crowd; warm is, from a Canadian, Calgary perspective, better, as well.
Wheat future up, full bellies, down.
Not a good time to be dependent on food parcels in Africa.
I do like this graph by Leif
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Putting a straight line across the tops of the maxima and minima produces a intersections somewhere just after 2020. One can only speculate as to what happens next. A missing solar cycle perhaps. In other words a Maunder repeat.
Interesting that two of the more significant solar scientists in the world, Leif Svalgaard and Habibullo Abdussamatov are both leaning towards a repeat of the Maunder minimum.
Though I seem to remember that LS is maybe not a fan of HA’s work. But my memory often needs checking.
J Martin says:
December 10, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Interesting that two of the more significant solar scientists in the world, Leif Svalgaard and Habibullo Abdussamatov are both leaning towards a repeat of the Maunder minimum.
HA makes an absurd extrapolation of TSI [and hence temperature]. See last slide of
http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
Tonyb says:
December 10, 2012 at 1:35 pm
My problems with the posting from the fellow who wants “Mor Electric Heating” were the alarmism and the false sense of urgency. I’ve had that “WE NEED TO ACT NOW” schtick up to here regarding the terrifying predicted future warming, I don’t need to get it about terrifying future cooling as well.
Look, if it were to cool, we don’t know where the problems and issues would be. So how can we do anything about it until it happens? During the last Ice Age some parts of Siberia were ice free, go figure … could anyone have predicted that or prepared for that? Will parts of Siberia be ice free next time? No one knows, so there is no way to plan for it. Once it starts to happen, we will have a much better idea of what is going on.
w.
PS—For people who actually think that “mor” electric heating is a good idea, consider the following two scenarios:
1. Electric Heating
Burn gas ——> Extract heat from burning gas ——> Use heat to make steam, with attendant losses ——> Use steam to make mechanical energy, with attendant losses ——> Use mechanical energy to generate electricity, with attendant losses ——> Transmit electricity from generator to location needing heat, with attendant losses ——> Convert electricity back into heat ——> Use heat to heat house
2. Gas heating
Burn gas ——> Extract heat from burning gas ——> Use heat to heat house
Care to guess which of those is less efficient?
Leif said
Here’s a sort of TSI model that hasn’t been extrapolated through to 2100 unfortunately, perhaps because all models fail sooner or later. This model indicates another Maunder repeat as far as I can extrapolate it by looking at it. Anyhow, for what it’s worth;
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tsi-lean2k.jpg
Care to guess which of those is less efficient?
A point that I have been making for years to government types and only now is it beginning to dawn upon them. For all the efficiency gains made with electric devices from motors to heating, electricity as an energy medium is extremely inefficient. Half of all electricity is lost before it is even used from transmission and distribution. Electricity is very convenient, but very inefficient.
Note this also carries not only for heating applications but also for cooling applications such as chillers. On a system wide basis, gas engine driven chillers are more energy efficient than electric motor driven chillers.
As a policy matter IF you were trying to reduce energy losses as a means to be energy independent or green for the politically correct among us, it is generally better to bypass the use of electricity in a process. That applies to cooking, heating, mechanical movement and also cooling. That is the general answer to plan A or B.
I would like a simple answer…..cycle 24 = cooler weather for the future? Yes or No?
Willis,
One can also produce electricity for heating with nuclear power.
I agree that burning the gas, in-situ, is usually the most efficient means of heating; especially when it gets really cold and the heat pumps stop working.
Jon T says:
December 10, 2012 at 1:10 pm
You’ll be frozen to that fence if you sit there too long.
J Martin says:
December 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk” John von Neumann
Tim Channon (at your link) used seven parameters.
@Steve,
The only simple answer anyone can give you is Maybe.
@Willis,
Wouldn’t there be some loss in converting the electricity back to heat as well?
@dscott,
As far as chiller’s go an Einstein refrigerator is probably even more efficient that a gas motor driven chiller. It generates cold from burning a gas with no moving parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator
“He’s Dead Jim!”
from another genre…
“Dead. Gone Polly. Pushing up daisies”.
“He’s just sleeping, that’s all”…
At least we’re getting good data on what a Grand Minimum looks like…
@mitigatedsceptic:
If the past is any guide, learn a new language and move to the Equator…
(Note that this is invasion INTO the Roman Empire, not BY them… Also note that all the arrows have a southward tilt to them (other than AFTER reaching North Africa, the Vandals did some attack over water north at Rome).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
While it has the usual Wiki-Censorship of the climate aspects, even they could not totally erase that it was a cold period which came just after the Roman Optimum.
“Debated” my posterior… The consequences are clear. “The Dark Ages” with the collapse of many dominant social orders and the retreat of Rome to Byzantium. (Greece does better during cold periods. The Greek golden age was during a cold turn).
History is very clear. During warm periods, folks migrate north and east. Into the vast places being made habitable again. Empires grow and thrive. During the cold periods, empires collapse and decay. Folks move south and west, running for the warmth. (Why do you think the Hungarians are in Hungary today instead of the Asian Steppes where they originated?)
It’s a clear and persistent pattern of history. (We have less data for North America / South America, but there ought to be N/S migrations in the US Plains areas and up/down mountain movement in the Mountain States and S. America. Equatorial Sub-Saharan Africa and Brazil have stable zones so not much happens.)
The only question is “Dalton / L.I.A. type (when a load of folks migrated to America) or Migration Era Pessimum (when Europe went all wonky…)”
Brazil and Australia are likely to be comfortable… Just sayin’…
Or maybe not. Could be all ‘stuff and nonsense’…
Me? No, not planning to move there. It is likely to take until 2030-40 for things to get rolling really bad, and I’m not likely to make it that long. I’ll encourage the kids, though… Besides, I’m in California and we mostly just get a drought, near as I can tell. No real temperature problem. (Besides, I already can speak mediocre Spanish so I’ll be able to talk to the rest of the population of the State… )
@MonktonofOz :
The Maya stuff just says the calendar cycles and that there is a lot of water likely. As we’ve had some fair increase in rains on this warm to cool transition, you are likely seeing it now. (Remember the Queensland and UK floods? And Columbia and the central Americas? And now California? What’s happened before? http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/california-extreme-super-flood/ )
So we’re most likely to get a bit wetter, but inside historical norms. I’d not sell the house to buy a boat…
Per the solar changes: Doesn’t mean much at all. The Grand Solar Funk has meant that I don’t need to use sunscreen any longer since the UV has plunged. At peak I was good for all of 20 minutes at high noon and would burn. Now I don’t use anything and I’ve been out for hours. Other than that, not much to notice. A bit more mildew on some winter crops. The current ‘flip’ won’t do much you can even detect without instruments.
But if you do want to stock up tins of beans ( which I think is a good idea… mostly due to paychecks being unstable and living in earthquake country), here’s some guidelines for a simple DIY system that lived through a 7.x quake and several job outages:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/food-storage-systems/
Just to stoke the fires of “coincidence isn’t causality but why not panic anyway”:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/great-famine-of-1315-vs-the-sun/
😉
@jon T;
It is most likely that the process, whatever it is, is coincident with solar changes but not caused by them. I wasted way too many months of my life trying to find a Solar causality. The best I can find is a possible solar / lunar ‘orbital resonance’ coordinated coincidence and a lunar / tidal potential causality.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
tries to connect all the dots, including a longer term meteor shower density cycle, but most of the ‘meat’ is in:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
which basically shows a likely mechanism for tidal ocean stirring in long cycles via lunar orbital changes (natural and expected) causing weather cycles up to 1800 years in length. Has a nice chart of the prediction, too. So if really worried you can compare “now” to other times of horrors. (Hint: It’s not all that bad). Graph here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F1.expansion.html
we take a little dip to about 2020, then a flat rounding move to 2050, then more drop to about 2095. IIRC (on a different chart) it isn’t until about 2300 AD that things get LIA cold. Large chart: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F2.large.jpg
Assuming they are right and not just “making stuff up” 😉
So next solar quiet cycle that’s on top of a lunar tidal cycle, not this one…
Notice that we’re talking in hundreds of years spans? The LIA was not just 1/2 of one life time long. It takes a LOoooong time for nature / geologic things to move. So whatever you have now (over the last 100 years) is pretty much what you are likely to have over the next 100 years, even if it IS a L.I.A. in the making. ( In other words: Count me with Willis on the “SHOUTING” bit… Admire the potential? Sure, it’s fun. Worry about it? Only enough to learn how to make Hot Totties and Hot Mulled Rum… and maybe stock up the fixings… )
@TonyB:
Look again at that Migration Era Pessimum map. Notice it covers from 100 AD to 500 AD or so? We’re talking several hundred year spans. There’s plenty of time to make a “Plan B” in about 20 or 30 or 50 years when things are clarified…
It’s not like the coal and oil in the ground is going to run away if we ignore it for a decade or two…
@Willis:
We do have some reasonable histories from prior warm / cold transitions. The big issue I see in those histories is the distribution of water more than the cold. Western Europe gets very wet and has crop loss issues. (In other historical cycles, the Egypt / Mesopotamia area gets 100 year droughts – but I’ve lost track of if those are during warm or cold cycles. I think it is the cold cycle). IIRC, Central / North of South America get heavy rains. Then a Maya Drought…
But what makes this time different, is that we have global food shipment. So if Australia and Brazil are still doing fine, the world need not starve. At most, we cut back on the meat. (It takes about 10 lbs of dry grain to make one pound of wet beef. You can live about 10 days on 10 lbs of dry grain and never have an empty stomach. For pork and chicken it’s about 3:1). Or maybe stop feeding corn to our cars… And as onset is over decades long, there’s plenty of time to react well ‘after the fact’ is shown to be real. Say about 2040?
Thank goodness we have higher CO2 levels so plants are more drought tolerant and growing better! 😉
At any rate, I’m not worried. Geology and History both move at ‘glacial speed’ 😉
But if Katla or Tambora blow up again, or a large asteroid strikes, well, then you have something to be worried about 8-0
😉
MattS says:
@Willis,
Wouldn’t there be some loss in converting the electricity back to heat as well?
===========
Only if it generated light or microwave or something other than infrared. Now light generation, on the other hand, usually releases some heat as well, so is not perfectly efficient. Incandescents (as a general rule) are least efficient.
@Steve:
Cooler, but not enough to be important. My best guess.
@Dscott:
Honda makes a great little home co-generator unit… that they don’t sell in California because they think we don’t need the heat 8-(
So IMHO the BEST answer is to burn the gas for heat, and electricity 😉
From a link here: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/dear-england-power-to-you/
http://world.honda.com/news/2011/c110203Micro-Combined-Heat-Power-System/index.html
So just get your home plumbed for one of those and when the electricity goes out due to the windmills stopping, you can be warm AND well lit…
@MattS:
You can actually get MORE than 100% back as heat. Put the electricity in an electric resistance heater, you get just about 100% (One of my reasons for thinking curly bulbs mandate daft… if you live somewhere cold like the UK any ‘savings’ from the curly bulb is consumed in higher heating costs…) However, if you run a heat pump, that unit of electricity can give you more than one unit of heat moved into your home.
IMHO still more efficient to make the electricity on site with co-generation and THEN run a heat pump IFF you need more…
It’s amazing to me that we have all these experts that think they know how the universe was created and nobody knows if a simple solar cycle will cause heating, cooling or nothing.
@Steve:
It’s a cycle. It will cause heating, cooling AND nothing, and repeat, and repeat, and…
It seems like Habibullo Abdussamatov is right!
I come on here and when I see these solar cycle threads, I just roll my eyes………nobody really knows, it’s too complex.
Steve, that’s funny!
We can probably expect cooling for about the next 30 years, on the order of about .4C, regardless of what additional cooling effect the lazy sun has: http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/22/signs-of-strengthening-global-cooling/
The cooling should begin in earnest when the AMO flips to negative in a couple of years. No need to panic, unless you’re a Warmist. But, cheap, readily-available energy will be even more important in a cooling world.
Well the weather is going to be nasty in 2020. I’m buying land near the equator.
My eyeball software still says a 10.5 year cycle.
Steve says:
December 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm
I would like a simple answer…..cycle 24 = cooler weather for the future? Yes or No?
Colder.
I would suggest that you view the hour long video:
More WUWT.TV: Interview and presentation with Dr. Sebastian Lüning
He wrote “Die Kalte Sonne” (The cold sun) with Dr. Franz Vahrenholt
It should be noted that El Ninos can overshadow the effects of the sun. However it looks like the ENSO meter just dropped from 0.30 to 0.0 so for a few months at least, that will not be a factor. I do not foresee 2013 setting a new record.
MattS says:
December 10, 2012 at 4:29 pm
That’s an excellent question, Matt. Generally, the losses when we convert energy from one form to another (say electrical to mechanical) are in the form of heat. For example, electrical motors get hot, and that heat is an efficiency loss.
But when we are converting to heat, unless we are losing energy as say light, it all gets converted to heat. And since heat is what we are looking for, something like electrical heating can be very near 100% efficient.
People play that “near 100% efficiency!!!” up, of course, as if that were the important figure instead of all of the losses further upstream in the full electrical system.
w.
For good times I have electric heat, that is subsidized by my power co-op in order to maintain adequate load for operating the generators at night, and electric lights. When the electric power is off, we have a propane convection heater, a propane cook stove/oven and diesel powered Welsbach mantel lamps that provide good light and some heat with no soot or odor. The only utility absolutely dependent on electric power is the 250′ deep well and in the winter the snow is pristine, in the summer the lake water is adequately pure.
The wisdom of Yogi Berra (1925 — )
“Every situation is different, and this one is no exception.”
“Prediction is hard. Especially the future …”
“You can observe a lot by just watching.”
Hope the above gems of thought help to undestand the situation.
MonktonofOz says:
December 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm
… “Just what was it the Mayans were predicting would happen on that date?”
Not much!
Autos have odometers that report distance traveled. In the USA the mile is the metric. HaHa. Anyway, if the right-most number is for tenths then there will be a series from 0, 1, … 9 as you travel. After 9 the cycle repeats. Most odometers in the USA have a maximum of 99,999.9, then the whole set of numbers “turns over” and the series begins again.
Same with the Mayans. Baktun!
http://www.ancient-world-mysteries.com/long-count.html
I’ve been cheer leading for Grand Solar Minimum since 2009 when I discovered the low solar activity and brutally cold planetary conditions that followed. It’s the Sun Stupid. I still am cheer leading for more low solar activity and more brutally cold planetary conditions. I don’t enjoy the effects of global cooling, the crop failures, and high frozen dead body counts, but I feel it is necessary to teach the man-made global warming/climate change zealots a lesson they will never forget. It is my recommendation the Sun stay in a low output phase till the lesson is learned.
Dr Browns post a few days back is worth rereading. We do not have sufficient data to draw a rational conclusion, warm ? cool? so don’t panic.
Now remember to look to the bright side, adaptation is the human survival skill.
And on the sarcastic side, vegetarians are the best eating, followed by fitness freaks.
The next 2 to 5 years will be interesting.
Either the AGW crowd is right, and the warming will resume… very doubtful !!
—
or temps will stay level, putting more pressure on their religion.
(I mean real temperatures, just watch out for more adjustment shenanigans !!),
—
or there will be an undeniable drop in temps, that will blow the AGW religion apart, making the bletheren even more desperate than they are already getting.
It appears we are going to have an opportunity to witness a Heinrich event. Large change to the geomagnetic field, very large volcanic eruptions, and significant cooling. The Heinrich events are strong Dansgarrd-Oeschger or Bond events. (Bond traced 30 events in geo record and found the correlation of cosmogenic isotope changes with the events. The Bond events have a periodicity of 1500 years, the Heinrich events occur with a pseudo periodicity of 4000 years to 8000 years.
The Younger Dryas was a Heinrich event, 12,800 years BP and as well as the 8200 year BP cooling event.
The tilt of the earth, eccentricity of the earth’s orbit and the timing of perihelion (whether the northern or southern hemisphere is closest to the sun during the hemisphere summer) amplifies or inhibits the effect. The orbital configuration currently is in a strong amplification for a geomagnetic excursion.
There is in the geomagnetic record evidence of four concurrent Auckland erupting volcanoes that capture a geomagnetic excursion. The volcanoes in question are fed by unconnected magma pools so there needs to be an external forcing function to cause concurrent eruptions and to capture the very rare geomagnetic excursion. The current eruptions in New Zealand is evidence of the change.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12003421
Dynamics of the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion from Black Sea sediments
Highlights
► Laschamp geomagnetic excursion occurred at 41 ka. ► It was characterised by a full reversal lasting about 440 yr. ► Reversed phase was associated with a significant recovery in field strength. ► Virtual geomagnetic pole movement was in the range of half a degree in latitude per year. ► Comparison with globally distributed Laschamp records indicates non-dipolar excursional field behaviour.
This ultimately allowed a high precision synchronisation of the two data records from the Black Sea and Greenland. The largest volcanic eruption on the Northern hemisphere in the past 100 000 years, namely the eruption of the super volcano 39400 years ago in the area of today’s Phlegraean Fields near Naples, Italy, is also documented within the studied sediments from the Black Sea. The ashes of this eruption, during which about 350 cubic kilometers of rock and lava were ejected, were distributed over the entire eastern Mediterranean and up to central Russia. These three extreme scenarios, a short and fast reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field, short-term climate variability of the last ice age and the volcanic eruption in Italy, have been investigated for the first time in a single geological archive and placed in precise chronological order
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-extremely-reversal-geomagnetic-field-climate.html#jCp
The actual polarity changes lasted only 250 years. In terms of geological time scales, that is very fast.” Most reversals, which the Earth has experienced periodically, are estimated to take between 1,000 and 10,000 years. (William: The limit of reversal in the standard model is roughly 2000 years to 3000 years for a core based change.)
During the reversal 41,000 years ago the field was very weak with only 5 percent of today’s field strength, researchers said, and as a consequence Earth nearly completely lost its protection shield against hard cosmic rays, leading to a significantly increased radiation exposure.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/10/16/Flip-flop-of-Earths-magnetic-field-probed/UPI-20911350433864/#ixzz2Ei8RWegh
Lief
Two things. First, if SC-24 ends up at 66.9 (conditionally), is that enough of a difference from your prediction of ~72 as to make you rethink anything?
Second, TSI is not the be all and end all of the influence of the sun on our atmosphere and you seem to be not addressing this in your considerations. We know for a fact that the atmosphere at low orbital altitudes expands and contracts in concert with the solar cycle. We also know for a fact that at SC-23/24 minimum that the atmosphere contracted to its minimum measured density during the space age. The variation in temperature in the upper atmosphere is measured down as low as 65,000 feet, which also is near the bottom of the conductive portion of the atmosphere as measured by many observers.
We know that this expansion/contraction is largely driven by the UV flux from the sun and since the UV flux varies by a much larger percentage than TSI, and since UV is preferentially absorbed in the atmosphere vs mid and long wave visible light, does it not stand to reason that this coupling at these wavelengths can drive atmospheric temperatures far more than the far less energetic absorption features in the short to mid IR bands.
To me this seems to be a major hole in the energy balance equations for heating the atmosphere. A UV photon carries far greater energy than an IR photon and thus when measuring an increase/decrease in UV flux this should be weighted in any calculation regarding atmospheric temperature.
We as of yet don’t know the effect of an extended minimum or lack of sunspots on the density of the atmosphere at higher altitudes but we do know the latest minimum, which was a very weak minimum had a major impact on the upper atmosphere. Thus we must broaden our consideration beyond just looking at TSI as it probably does not provide the insight we need in order to examine the impact of a maunder type minimum on global climate.
J Martin says:
December 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm
HA makes an absurd extrapolation of TSI [and hence temperature]. See last slide of
Here’s a sort of TSI model that hasn’t been extrapolated through to 2100 unfortunately, perhaps because all models fail sooner or later.
The model you show fails going backwards. There is really no indication that TSI in 1901 was any lower than in 2009. All other solar parameters we know have 2009 be comparable to 1901.
denniswingo says:
December 10, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Two things. First, if SC-24 ends up at 66.9 (conditionally), is that enough of a difference from your prediction of ~72 as to make you rethink anything?
Our prediction was made without considering [or even knowing about] the Livingston & Penn effect. With the L&P effect we would expect the actual SSN to come out lower, so 66.9 does not seem to be at variance with our prediction. In fact, we can redo the prediction in terms of F10.7 which does not seem to be impacted to much of L&P. If we do, the predicted value is 125, which is close to what is observed today [average 2012: 121 sfu].
Second, TSI is not the be all and end all of the influence of the sun on our atmosphere and you seem to be not addressing this in your considerations.
Since solar activity now is comparable to what it was during cycle 14, I expect TSI and UV to be comparable too. For UV we have a direct test of that, namely the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field which is caused by dynamo action on the conducting E-layer [the conductivity created by UV]. That variation back in SC14 is the same as it is today, so on that basis, I conclude that UV [and solar wind which was also the same] does not have any great influence on the difference in climate then and now.
There is plenty of geologic evidence for global cooling over the next several decades, but just how much remains to be seen. We have been on 25-30 year warm/cool cycles since at least 1480 AD and have seen a number of them since the Maunder (1790-1820 warm period, 1820-1880 cool then warm, 1880-1915 cool period, 1915-1945 warm period, 1945-1977 cool period, 1978-1998 warm period, and 1999-2012 no warming, slightly cooler. In 1999, the PDO changed abruptly from warm to cool and I predicted that the next several decades would be cooler, perhaps substantially cooler. Well, we’ve seen a little cooling, but not a lot. The past decade somewhat resembles the last transition from a warm period (1915-1945) to the 30 year cool period that followed (1945-1977). The latest transition of the PDO from cool to warm happened abruptly in one year (1977) but we seem to be waffling along only a little bit cooler. Because the 1978-1998 warm period was only 20 years instead of 25-30, we may have been in a transition period the past decade and just now heading into a cool period. The big factor now is what the sun is doing that might result in a sharply deepening cold period. Looking at the solar cycles since the Maunder, my money would be on something not quite so drastic, perhaps like the Dalton (1790-1820). Since the Maunder, each succeeding sun spot minima cycle has been accompanied by a period of global cooling. The joker now is the Solar Grand Minima we are heading for and what effect it will have on the PDO/AMO cycles. Time will tell—what we can say for sure is that the odds of having 6 degrees of global warming by 2100 are somewhere between nil and nada.
I guess the big question in all of this is how will the earth respond to a drop in solar radiance of 6 W/M^2. As the fusion reaction cools and contracts it will go through a phase of decreased output. It will be a decrease in both constant waves and a big increase in magnetic waves.
While the constant wave will be around a 2 W/M^2 its the magnetic one that creates the ripples in the earths atmosphere. The pressures which generally compress the polar atmosphere areas will allow expansion, settling, and cooling. As cooling progresses dryer air will cause fewer clouds at night and thus greater cooling.. During the day the up welling of clouds will rise fast and the convection will cool the day time ground temps..
Without the magnetic waves to pressure the earth atmosphere and cause pressure imbalances the number of storms and severity will be reduced. Its very similar to the electrons surrounding the core of a molecule. Depending on the bonds and the passing of other molecules and their internal bonds, certain effects can be seen and predicted.. Certain excitements or suppression can been determined. Those invisible waves of magnetism play a very big roll in earths complex system. That reduction in heat from the waves will be the other 2-4 W/M^2 through convection release and reduced cloud cover.
When one remembers that a 2 W/M^2 and its corresponding drop in magnetic waves triggered the LIA and Maunder events, All I can do is sit back and enjoy the earths systems making fools of CAGW folks… The Sun and its seen/unseen influences drive the earths systems.. So it makes sense that when Mr sun goes on vacation so does the earths systems.
denniswingo says:
December 10, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Second, TSI is not the be all and end all of the influence of the sun on our atmosphere and you seem to be not addressing this in your considerations
It seems that now matter how hard I try to take that into consideration [going back several years], people just won’t listen. Here are some links to my taking these things into consideration, e.g.:
http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
my first paragraph should have read >: It will be a decrease in both constant waves and a big decrease in magnetic waves / solar wind.
Landscheidt was of the opinion that there was a hidden mechanism by which heat was coupled into the first few hundred feet of the oceans which buffered global temperatures through the minima of the 11 year sunspot cycle. While Svalgaard’s work on cosmic rays and cloud formation could provide a partial explanation another mechanism does exist which became apparent about the time of Landscheidt’s death which was around 2004. I do not know if this has been taken up by anyone yet but has to be worth looking into:
While it is certainly the case that electrical currents in the sun are magnetically coupled via the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields into the Earth’s oceans with a skin depth of around 250 metres (i.e. 1/e of the currents are dissipated by that depth) the coronal (Spitzer) resistivity is badly matched to that of sea water. However, less than a decade ago it was discovered that the coronal resistivity associated with lateral solar flare currents was not the Spitzer constant it was thought to be and in fact is closely matched to that of sea water. Quantification apart we here have a secondary mechanism by which solar activity employs the heliosphere to warm up the planet and supply the missing heat that Landscheidt was looking for.
Critical comments, reasoned dismissal extremely welcome. It is just an idea that needs some numbers – and it’s not trivial.
eco-geek
Are you honestly committing to that post?
Thanks Steve–for saying, I would like a simple answer…..cycle 24 = cooler weather for the future? Yes or No?
I think the same way–for us non-scientists, dealing with maxima’s, Grand Minimum ‘s, camel backs, TSI, flipping of poles, etc
and this: Steve says:It’s amazing to me that we have all these experts that think they know how the universe was created and nobody knows if a simple solar cycle will cause heating, cooling or nothing.
You make me laugh and are syaing what I would if I weren’t so confused.
eco-geek says:
December 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm
While it is certainly the case that electrical currents in the sun are magnetically coupled via the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields into the Earth’s oceans with a skin depth of around 250 metres
That is certainly not the case. The skin depth in the oceans [and in any medium] depends on the frequency. For a magnetic disturbance lasting a quarter on an hour the skin depth is 7,500 meter; the formula is SD = 250 m / SQRT(freq Hz). So the whole ocean is affected. The currents are, however, so weak that there is no measurable heating from those, so the mechanism won’t work.
SC 24 maximum is not reached yet, it will be in ~2013/14.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
William says:
December 10, 2012 at 7:56 pm
During the reversal 41,000 years ago the field was very weak with only 5 percent of today’s field strength, researchers said, and as a consequence Earth nearly completely lost its protection shield against hard cosmic rays, leading to a significantly increased radiation exposure
Yet here was no detectable climate change at that time…
Day By Day says:
December 10, 2012 at 10:15 pm
and this: Steve says:It’s amazing to me that we have all these experts that think they know how the universe was created and nobody knows if a simple solar cycle will cause heating, cooling or nothing.
Of course we know: a simple solar cycle causes a heating of 0.1 degree followed by a cooling of 0.1 degrees, thus no net effect.
Eco-geek commented on my Blog [which is not really active]
I guess I may have put this in the wrong place however I should have said the resistivity difference is six orders of magnitude i.e. 10^6. I also recall reading somewhere that induced currents are very rarely directly measured which suggests a very obvious experiment which has probably never been done.
Has been done: “Already in 1832, Faraday predicted a motionally induced electric field for the river Thames but failed to detect it, due to a lack of adequate instrumentation. Such fields were
then observed in 1851 by Wollaston in a telegraphic cable across the English Channel. Young demonstrated in 1920 the recording of electric fields in the oceans by ship-towed electrodes. Submarine cables and towed electrodes are still the principal methods of measuring ocean flow by electromagnetic methods” [Sanford, T.B., Motionally induced electric and magnetic fields in the sea, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 3476-3492, 1971]
mitigatedsceptic says:
December 10, 2012 at 11:15 am
OK – so, as many have suspected, a Little Ice Age is on the cards – where is Plan B?
———————————————————————————————————–
B. Buy an SUV;
C. Crank up the heating.
I wrote about this December’s sunspot number from NOAA, too:
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/the-fading-sunspot-cycle/
I don’t think Cycle 24 has necessarily topped out yet, but think my conclusions are equally important.
I made a comment that we need a Plan B to combat global cooling to supplement our plan A to combat AGW.
Willis and Chiefio upthread in effect said not to worry about the climate cooling as we would have plenty of time to take action.Sorry, I dont agree.
It has taken tweny to thirty years to put together a still evolving Plan A. It takes an awful long time for the Bureaucratic super tanker to turn round and for agriculture to adjust.
History shows us that one decade can be remarkably different from another. The late 1500’s and the period around 1660 all showed a rapod cooling as did the 1830’s. All I’m pointing out is that we need alternative plans and history demonstrates that IF things should deteriorate it can be a rapid process.
Personally I’m more worroed about Cyber attacks on our electrical infrastructure than I am about climatic changes but that isn’t the topic of this thread
tonyb
I seem to remember a post, some time ago, about this forthcoming cycle, as it was then, with a graph that looked remarkably similar to the one above. It was a forecast of the SSN to come.
The Great Frost (the coldest for 500 years) hit Europe in the winter of 1708-9 causing 600,000 deaths from starvation in France alone and a further 200,000 elsewhere in Europe.
It was so serious that the spring campaign in the War of the Spanish Succession was delayed until June because of the harsh winter! People lost their enthusiasm for killing each other and the was stopped altogether a couple of years later.
Mor Electric Heating (@morelectricheat) says:
December 10, 2012 at 11:56 am
Is there any voice anywhere that can be heard that can sound the alarm to all the world, LITTLE ICE AGE is coming? Shouldn’t the whole world stand in awe of descent into little ice age? Is Bastardi the loudest voice? What will we call the decades of Solar Slump and Global Cooling? Landscheidt Minimum, in the tradition of the Maunder and Dalton minima? If his paper is confirmed with eventual Maunder minimum character with deep minimum in 2022, when will it be time for the world to declare a new Grand Minimum?
It will probably be called the warming pause by 98% of scientists!
Just under 10 years ago (in the early 2003, published Jan 2004, no accepted physics buck up) I wrote a solar activity formula which suggested downturn in the solar activity, at the time when everyone was predicting the highest ever SSN.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Now I am going to contradict some of the current predictions.
Recently I developed a way of calculating relationship between the solar activity and N. Hemisphere temperatures trends (again with no accepted physics buck up):
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
What does its extrapolation say about future?
There are two critical factors:
Solar magnetic output closely related to the SSN, and multi-decadal ripple on the Earths magnetic field.
When two signals are in phase the 9-10 year cycles, as found in the AMO, goes positive, when out of phase it’s reverse. In addition there is a build up or decay of 60-ish year cycle from the same process. There is 15 year delay to whole affair (we are still benefiting from high-ish SC23.
If SSN is low in the next 2-3 decades, solar output end will not produce any significant warming or importantly any major cooling either. However a strong SSN with the wrong phase could produce significant cooling, as the high SC19 did around 1970.
The Earth’s signal is much more of a mystery, Data was worked out around 2000 by Andy Jackson (ETHZ) and Jeremy Bloxham (Harvard), but only going back to 1880.
I am not able to deduce if this is a more less regular oscillation or somehow linked to some other factors.
Assuming that variability is of constant amplitude (as it was applied in calculating waveform in the
link above), then a moderate cooling is on the cards, but no more sever than 1960-1980, but it will take 15-20 years to hit the bottom, i.e. the late 2020s.
We also have long CET record from which lot can be deduced. It’s multi-decadal trends are strongly underpinned by geological activity in mid-Atlantic ridge, all the way from equatorial Atlantic to the Arctic Ocean, beyond the N. Pole. This again (without taking into account any of the solar or geo-magnetic factors) suggest similar scenario, certain degree of cooling but no worse than 1970s:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
Hence, I would disagree with many, and exclude the LIA type scenario, or a reoccurrence of the Maunder type minimum (before 2150).
No physics just calculations based on the past trends from the best data I could obtain.
Thank you for your attention.
vukcevic
Day By Day says:
December 10, 2012 at 10:15 pm
and this: Steve says:It’s amazing to me that we have all these experts that think they know how the universe was created and nobody knows if a simple solar cycle will cause heating, cooling or nothing.
Leif says: Of course we know: a simple solar cycle causes a heating of 0.1 degree followed by a cooling of 0.1 degrees, thus no net effect.
That is true for theoretical TSI effects, but we do not know what all the individual components achieve through many and various reactions with the earths atmosphere ionosphere etc, that we really do not have much grasp on at all imo, eg proton depletion of ozone which effects the north and south movement of the westerly streams, etc, etc, nor the effects of thje different heat on ocean s which can transfer heat from surface to below and vice versa via ENSO, AMO, etc, nor the effects on changing jetstream orientation caused by solar changes. In effect we do not know in reality, but we shall certainly find out the temp effects in the next 5 to 10 years with solar(with lag) effects) really cuts in with the solar expected Maunder Type Minimum. We all await with great interest.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 10, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Burn wood ——> Extract heat from wood ——> Use heat to heat house ——> Heat atmosphere up chimney ——> Help demoisturize house with draft ——> Produce CO2 for growing more wood and food ——> Use ash to fertilise ground for growing more wood. Cant loose.
FWIW, the 20m ham (radio) band is as dead as a door-nail, more like a sunspot min than a max.
@vukcevic:
Sounds rather like the projected results from that “Moon Did It” paper I linked above. If you’ve not read that paper (lunar tide coupling) please at least look at the graphs (also linked above… just search on E.M. ) It might be very interesting if your formula matches there pictures…
I’m expecting (based on that paper) a bit cool to about 2020, then a shallow ‘flatish bump’ up and drop to 2050 (still minor) than a plunge into really cold in about 2300 ish AD.
So “not my problem”. Essentially likely a return to 1970’s through 2020, then a bit cooler to 2050. Don’t really care about 2300 😉
@TonyB:
Ok, ok already… 😉
Once Upon A Time, I was a ‘closet survivalist’. Later I outgrew it, and now I’m just “a citizen interested in urban preparedness”. Entirely different…
😉
First off, for any “scenario” you have to ask “what is the Bad Thing”, then you come up with ‘mitigations & adaptations’.
The “bad thing” you propose is a major cool event (say, of about 15 to 20 years duration).
I’ve pointed at ‘prior history’ for your reading pleasure, but maybe not pointed enough… The general pattern (and given that you are in the UK IIRC) is that there’s a boat load of cold, snow, and excess rains. Lots of crop failures (mostly due to water). Loss of life from hypothermia. Then a tendency to wars and social decline. (Eventually leading to collapse in very long lived events). As we’ve set this scenario at 20 ish years max (and pointed out that you have plenty of time it it goes longer – and as the longer was rejected…) we can ignore the ‘longer’ issue of social collapse… as both unlikely and outside the scenario interest range.
Mitigations:
1) Cold, snow, wet. Make sure your home is serviced for heating and roof and that you have a standby heat source. Depending on kind of home and location this can be wood pile, larger oil tank, standby generator, large propane tank, or just a couple of extra fluffy bed covers and an electric blanket. ( I have a freezing level sleeping bag in each persons ‘quake kit’ as we rarely get below freezing… you might want to get a ‘sub zero’ bag. I also have a rain rated tent as the quake may take the home down. I doubt you need that.) Keep the car full of fuel as it is a heater, too. Buy a snow shovel, if needed. Get thermal rain boots and a good Mac. Gloves. Long woolly underwear. Use them only if needed as otherwise you will run out of itch cream too soon 😉 Get a spare umbrella.
2) That eventually leads to food shortages regionally. You rejected my assertion that the global transport will likely keep the food flowing, so you need to have a food storage system. Plus stuff to prepare it with. Plus stuff to deal with the social and physical chaos that comes with food shortages.
The following lists everything you could need, kitted, in layers. Start with buying stuff for the small kit and work your way up. As you are in the UK, swap “firearm” for “bow and arrow” 😉
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/crisis-kits-and-preparedness-packs/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/food-storage-systems/
The food storage system says to use 1/2 Gallon Jars (in boxes with crumpled paper / ‘popcorn’ around them). As you are in the EU, use 2 L jars… The ‘rule of thumb’ is “one pound of dry food per person per day”. Change that to 1/2 Kilo of dry food per person per day. Yes, that gives you more to eat, but it’s colder in the UK than in California too… Store as much as your concern warrants and your wallet allows. If you don’t have a garden, start one. If really worried and living in an urban area with no land, move to a rural small town and get a garden. Focus your seed library on cold season and wet tolerant crops. (Peas, kale, cabbages, parsnips, turnips, potatoes… but you already do that, as you live in the UK…)
Per wars and social decline: Sorry, but Europe hasn’t dealt with that well over the centuries. Consider moving to Brazil or Australia… Or just lay in a supply of good books and some nice darts. Learn to extract various plant poisons from the directions in the books and apply it to the darts. When “unwanted” visitors with guns arrive, offer tea and a ‘friendly’ game of darts…
Get a ‘food dryer’. Good for turning large surplus of fresh meat into storable jerky. You never know when you might have a sudden squad of “dear sized animals” to put away for winter… Be careful to remove darts… If in Brazil, learn to use “blow darts”…
😉
On a global scale, things break into two scenarios.
a) It all goes to handbasket journey land.
b) Government stay intact and things get hairy.
In “b” it’s a financial and political hardship, but you don’t really deal with it, the government does. Take your ration card and fill your basket at the relief station. (Look up what happened during W.W.II. Learn to love “SPAM and Crackers” again.)
In “a”, you will not have any control anyway. Most likely there will be a W.W.III type event which means that the Middle East / Asia will be a horrible mess. At that point it will be a Russia / China / India ‘3 way’ with Radical Islam in the wings and THE best place to be is as much “up wind” as possible. Say, UK over the water? Oh, wait, you are there already… Consider moving to Australia or Brazil if that isn’t comforting enough… Really. They are one of a very few places that will be warm and net food exporters. (Argentina / Chile is another, but Argentina is a ‘bit of a mess’ right now and Canada is another but they go ‘way cold’ so not comfy. USA is another but we’ll have 70,000,000 Hispanics grazing the MidWest in any disaster / collapse of order). Frankly, just look at who had it best during W.W.II and that’s likely where they will have it best. Modulo the USA being more overrun and less isolated.
That’s about it.
What? You wanted some scenario where some agency ‘fixes’ the cooling and some other agency ‘fixes’ the conflicts? “Facts not in evidence”. In severe collapse events, you are on your own. ( We’ve already rejected the “Don’t worry, be happy”, remember? Me? I’m going to be ‘not worrying’ in California…)
There is no fix to cold and wet climate. Just ship more food from not-cold and not-wet and try not to start any wars.
There is no fix to general social breakdown. Not the UN. Not some other country. Look at all of history and if you get to that point, it’s tribal / gang rules. Just try to be on a big, good gang.
Were I World Tsar what would I be doing? Building modular fail-safe Gen III and Gen IV nukes and building hydroponic greenhouses as fast as I could in Europe. (Consider moving to Southern France. In anything short of social breakdown, it will be better. Nuclear power, Mediterranean warmth and food, better wine. Just have to deal with the French and North Africans from Marseillaise 😉 I’d be building more bulk grain shipping and filling all the grain silos around the world. But I’m not Tsar, so that’s not going to happen.
Best you can do is put up a couple of tons of food on your own. (AND learn how to prepare it and rotate stock). It’s about 50 cents / pound for dried grains and pulses (Lentils keep longest – I’ve eaten 12 year old lentils just fine when 2 year old dried peas are hard rocks…) So that’s about $1000 / ton. That’s 2000 person days (or 4000 person days if you can continue to buy 1/2 rations ). So 5 to 10 years. 12 if you try just a little. If you are more worried than that I’ll tell you how to make a food storage system that looks like furniture (but over on my blog as this is seriously off topic here) but would really recommend that you buy a farm in a warm semi-tropical country. Perhaps North Island New Zealand…
That’s about as complete as I can cover.
But frankly, the odds that you will need much more than an electric blanket for daily use and a camp stove with instant cocoa and ‘space blanket’ or sleeping bag (for occasional power outages from too much demand) approach Nil. We’re just not going into a major climate collapse. IFF we plunged dramatically, we’d be all the way back to 1976. Hardly a catastrophe. IFF we could add on a really killer volcano, we get one year of “1800 and froze to death” issues. (So having 190 lbs of dry food added to 1/2 rations from the store gets you through. That’s 4 x ’50 pound bags’ of sugar, flour, rice, and beans. About $100 to $200 max. Fits in a closet.)
Industrial society is just way too ‘capital stock rich’ for much bad to happen. But too politically obtuse to plan ahead on major preparation.
Good enough?
Wikipedia – NASA defines the term (Little Ice Age) as a cold period between AD 1550 and AD 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.
E.M.Smith says:
December 11, 2012 at 5:32 am
Sounds rather like the projected results from that “Moon Did It” paper I linked above.
The Moon may have some climate effects, but attributing overall long term major climate deviations experienced during deep solar grand minima on lunar variations is perhaps a bridge too far?
If so the shape of the Holocene should follow lunar patterns?
Just my observation, but the southern hemisphere spots still have a way to go moving north toward the equator. That suggests to me that it’s still not at “max”, or perhaps at a plateau.
But it is strangely quiet again, magnetic-wise. Food for Dr S.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
December 10, 2012 at 10:26 pm
William says:
December 10, 2012 at 7:56 pm
During the reversal 41,000 years ago the field was very weak with only 5 percent of today’s field strength, researchers said, and as a consequence Earth nearly completely lost its protection shield against hard cosmic rays, leading to a significantly increased radiation exposure
Yet here was no detectable climate change at that time…
Your comment is correct. It appears Svensmark’s mechanism saturates.
The geomagnetic field intensity fell to 1/20 of current strength during that 41 k BP geomagnetic reversal. The other cycling cooling events the drop in geomagnetic field intensity was 1/2 to 1/3.
There is correlation of past abrupt climate change for example the 1500 year cycle D-O events (also called Bond events) and past geomagnetic field changes. There has most certaintly cooling during the Younger Dryas event, which is Heinrich event 0. The largest change in cosmogenic isotopes correlates with 1200 years Younger Dryas cooling event.
If I understand the mechanism, the solar cycle re-start triggers the geomagnetic field change. The event can increase or decrease the geomagnetic field depending on orbital configuration on the time of the restart. There is a time delay as the liquid conductive core integrates the surface field change which explains the rapid drop in field intensity followed by an increase or decrease in geomagnetic field intensity, in the geomagnetic field record.
The sudden increase in volcanic activity is the reason for the delay in cooling for cycle 24. The longer the delay in cooling the greater the increase in volcanic activity and the greater effect on geomagnetic field configuration/intensity. The field strength in the Southern Atlantic anomally was 30% less the main geomagentic field prior to the cycle 24 change.
If I understand the past record, there should be an anomalously quick drop off in sunspot activity, a continual increase in earthquake activity, in addition to the increase in volcanic activity. There is now some observed cooling. The significant record cooling appears to be 3 to 4 years out. Say in time for the next US election.
I appreciate your comments in this forum.
Best wishes,
William
eco-geek says:
December 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Landscheidt was of the opinion that there was a hidden mechanism by which heat was coupled into the first few hundred feet of the oceans which buffered global temperatures through the minima of the 11 year sunspot cycle….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Graph: Solar radiation
Graph: Solar radiation at various ocean depths
Note it is the visible wavelengths (all the short wave lengths available at the surface) that penetrate the ocean.
Independent check on the above:
William says:
December 11, 2012 at 6:15 am
Your comment is correct. It appears Svensmark’s mechanism saturates.
Or rather, never worked to begin with…
If I understand the mechanism, the solar cycle re-start triggers the geomagnetic field change. The event can increase or decrease the geomagnetic field depending on orbital configuration on the time of the restart. There is a time delay as the liquid conductive core integrates the surface field change which explains the rapid drop in field intensity followed by an increase or decrease in geomagnetic field intensity, in the geomagnetic field record.
The solar cycles do not control the main geomagnetic field. The field at the surface comes from three sources: the liquid core, fixed deposits of magnetic minerals, and transient [a few days] fields from the ring current.
Whoa – ENSO’s dropping.
Doug Proctor says:
December 10, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Even the Maunder minimum wasn’t an ice age, but it sure got cold in the northern hemisphere.
======
The southern hemisphere also got colder. However, the effect was masked because the southern hemisphere is mostly oceans, and the land that is habitable is on average much closer to the equator than in the northern hemisphere.
Look at a polar map of the two hemispheres and you will likely be amazed.
To be fair 23 had that second peak (a beat frequency of sorts that manifests only a higher amplitude of the main harmonic). However one must concede that second peak did not equal or best the first.
BTW – mere days until …. 21 … DEC … 2012!!
tonyb says:
December 10, 2012 at 11:45 pm
As John Lennon observed, life is what happens while you are making other plans … including plans for a new ice age.
If you think that you will get human beings to sit down thirty years in advance and actually put together a valid and viable plan for an invisible threat for which you have absolutely no supporting evidence, all I can say is “Hi, my name is Willis, you must be new to this planet”.
As you point out “it has taken tweny to thirty years to put together a still evolving Plan A”. Not only that, but Plan A (cut down on CO2) doesn’t work for beans, and yet despite that, countries have just signed up for another eight years of plan A. Yeah, that’s the ticket …
I see you starting down that exact same identical alarmist path. Sorry, Tony, I have no interest in replicating that scenario for Plan B. Because that’s the usual result of mindless alarmism such as you propose. People run around like headless chickens screaming “The sky is falling!”, and put together some cockamamie plan that doesn’t have a hope in hell of working.
Look, humans muddle through. We’re real bad about making plans, but in the event, we seem to figure it out. Not only that, but having a long long time to make plans, as in the current instance re the forecast heat death of the planet, doesn’t seem to help us in the slightest. It just gives us more time to disagree.
So no, Tony, I’m not interested in the slightest in getting all rah-rah-rah and running around mindlessly shouting about THE COMING ICE AGE and insisting that we have to make complex plans against a possible future occurrence.
Sorry, but for me, if and when the temperature actually starts to cool, that’s the time to do that. Here’s my plan for the timing of my response to a long-forecast but terribly coy coming ice age:
w.
PS—It takes a long time to turn a supertanker around. It doesn’t take long for agriculture to adjust to a colder climate, they do that kind of thing all the time as climates grow warmer and colder, often from one year to the next. Farmers who couldn’t react in time to the news that next year will be a cold one were Darwinned out of the farmers’ jean pool long ago …
w.
All very wise – but how exactly do you stop those riding the present bandwagon ruining the lives of millions with crazed ideas about saving the planet from warming? Their agenda is about social control and the abuse of power – stuff that we fought against not so long ago.
– – – – – –
Don Easterbrook,
Thanks for bringing a geologic perspective to assessing the evidence wrt the possibility of already being at the start of an imminent cooling period. How much cooling, as you say, still remains to ponder.
I agree with the thrust of your post.
My thought is it is implausible to say that if we have entered a solar minimum like the Maunder then we will have another LIA. Rather I tend to think if a Maunder-like minimum occurs while some other natural phenomena are causing a cooling period then LIA is much more realistic; that is to say these solar variations we are discussiong are not major drivers of the climate changes being addressed on this thread. Having said that, however, there is a very persistent tickling in the back of my mind that says the relatively small magnitude variations in the sun should be researched much much more to look at additional possible physical mechanisms / causal connections to relatively significant changes in the Earth-Atmosphere system. I strongly recommend diverting a significant portion of current research funds from the myopic waste of the current ultra-excessive funding of Ax7. {Ax7 => AAAAAAA => the Alarmingly Anal Attention to the Absurd Assumption of Anthropogenic Armageddon}.
John
For those worried about another ice age, James Hansen, in his book, “Storms of My Grandchildren” ($3.03 Kindle), says we could easily prevent it with the greenhouse gases from a single chlorofluorocarbon factory. I don’t know if it’s true (mabe it would take two factories), but he is a NASA scientist and that’s what he says.
Canman says:
December 11, 2012 at 10:25 am
For those worried about another ice age, James Hansen, in his book, “Storms of My Grandchildren” ($3.03 Kindle), says we could easily prevent it with the greenhouse gases from a single chlorofluorocarbon factory. I don’t know if it’s true (mabe it would take two factories), but he is a NASA scientist and that’s what he says.
I’d take whatever James Coal-Trains-of-Death Hansen says with a pound of salt. He’s nuts, of course. There is no way in heck we could prevent an ice age. Delay it for a few years, maybe.
John Whitman said :-
Excellent. Lets just call it 7A for simplicity.
Canman said :-
Future generations may well seek to increase the greenhouse effect or to find other ways to warm the planet perhaps via mirrors in space, or on the moon, but any attempt to modify the atmosphere via man-made gases would be lunacy if there is no ready and proven method to remove or reduce them.
My automatic reaction to anything that James Hansen says is that he is invariably wrong.
From vukcevic on December 10, 2012 at 12:51 pm:
Earth solid core is apparently asymmetric and has a diff rot of (I think) about 2degrees/ annum.
Very old thinking, the solid inner core was thought to turn one degree per year relative to the rest of the planet.
Current research shows it’s much slower, one degree per one million years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110220142817.htm
As this is practically no rotation, I hope you do not think Earth’s magnetic field arises from the “spinning dynamo” of the inner core.
Willis and chiefio
The trouble is that our determination to implement plan A is having a profound effect on the need to have a plan B. for example in the uk we have an excess of 24000 deaths a year in winter due to cold.
Our plan A is deliberately forcing up the price of energy so there are now around 6 million homes in fuel poverty. That is some 15 million people who can’t afford to keep themselves warm and as a result of plan A therefore have to reduce the amount of heating, which in turn will increase the numbers who die. Our climate in the uk has been steadily declining for a decade–although still relatively high-so we are not talking about a problem in thirty years time but one that is happening now, this week with low temperatures, and through the rest of the winter.
So plan B is needed because plan A is counter productive to our well being and reality
Tonyb
E.M.Smith says:
December 11, 2012 at 5:32 am
……
Hi Mr. Smith
I have had look at some of the work, there are number of strong parallels, I shall go through the rest, need more time to get the complete picture.
However, there are some differences, on millennial scale Keeling may well be correct We propose that strong tidal forcing causes cooling at the sea surface by increasing vertical mixing in the oceans.
I was more interested at shorter decadal scale, distribution of tidal dissipation in the N. Atlantic (NASA Topex/Poseidon), did a test and got what appear to be opposite result
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-T.htm
Ray’s paper link http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4193.1
there is also pictorial presentation of the same title, (millennial) paper by Munk is also worth a look but has far too much maths.
@ William say
“… If I understand the mechanism, the solar cycle re-start triggers the geomagnetic field change. The event can increase or decrease the geomagnetic field depending on orbital configuration on the time of the restart……”
and
” ….If I understand the past record, there should be an anomalously quick drop off in sunspot activity, a continual increase in earthquake activity, in addition to the increase in volcanic activity…..”
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/michele-casati-volcanicity-earthquake-geomagnetism-and-the-heliosphere/
climatereason says:
December 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Thanks, Tony. The fact that plan A is counterproductive doesn’t say to me that we need a plan B. It says we need to get rid of plan A …
w.
For the simple minded, one multidecadal ENSO teleconnected cooling event appearing somewhere within the boundaries of a series of low solar cycles will send them scurrying for virgin sacrifices to the solar god.
Consider this. Two completely separate quasi-oscillating events will at one time or another, appear at the same time. But should that happen don’t let me discourage you from your panic. If you want to jump on that “I made the sun rise” bandwagon, sacrifice is at 9:00 for early service and at 11:00 for regular service. I accept Visa and Mastercard.
Since Leif has been busy in this thread, I am going to say a few words about him, mainly scientific.
1. He has been very kind to me on occasion, for which I thank him. OK, that’s ‘ad hominem pro bono’.
2. He has a _relatively_ closed mind to new ideas.
3. For example, he refutes (I believe) ideas of gravitational influences on the Sun, whereas I am convinced by Timo Nomura’s statistics on the timing of solar minimum relative to J’s position.
4. Still, he is right to point out the inconsistent position between those who think barycentric “forces” are at work (mainly J, S, U, N) and those who think tidal forces are at work (mainly J, E, V).
5. But his mind is not completely closed, as he responds to new data, and upthread he has given an example.
6. It is especially significant that he has changed his mind on the imminent future of the Sun. He used to say “this is no different from Cycle 14 (or was it 15) 100 years ago”, but now he has leaped across the Dalton divide and right back to the Maunder. In a different way from a young woman before him, he is pondering the Maunder.
7. He apparently doesn’t think that a new Maunder minimum will have a great effect on climate.
These are of course just my opinions and deductions, as I don’t know the inner workings of the mind of LS.
Rich.
See – owe to Rich says:
December 11, 2012 at 7:23 pm
6. It is especially significant that he has changed his mind on the imminent future of the Sun. He used to say “this is no different from Cycle 14 (or was it 15) 100 years ago”, but now he has leaped across the Dalton divide and right back to the Maunder.
You got point 6 a bit wrong. SC24 is still very much like SC14, it is the next cycle, SC25, that I think will be very small.
About open/closed minds: professional scientists are generally very conservative [in science, not necessarily in politics or life in general] in the sense that was is ‘accepted’ science is what has proven its worth in the past. Any new ideas must at the minimum still be consistent with earlier data and laws [within their domain of applicability], if not they new ideas will be given rather short shrift. Given overwhelming new data and a compelling new interpretation, a scientific discipline can ‘turn on a dime’ in a few years [e.g. as happened with plate tectonics]. Open/closed has nothing to do with it.
Lief says
It seems that now matter how hard I try to take that into consideration [going back several years], people just won’t listen. Here are some links to my taking these things into consideration, e.g.:
Lief, please go back and read what I said. TSI is not the be all and end all of the sun’s influence on climate. Your papers, and I went back and read them again, do not deal with the wavelength specific variation in solar output modulated by the solar cycles. I say again that the energy of a photon at 400 nanometers is far greater than the energy of a photon at 14 microns. There are several absorption lines by oxygen at the short end of the visible spectrum that would lead to thermal excitation of these molecules. If there are large variations of the flux it will have an impact on the atmosphere. We see this in the drag data in low earth orbit so it is not something to be casually dismissed.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 11, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Thanks, Tony. The fact that plan A is counterproductive doesn’t say to me that we need a plan B. It says we need to get rid of plan A …
_____________________________________
Unfortunately it sometimes take forcing their faces into the possibility of “B” (aka shoving their faces into a snow drift) before they turn loose plan A.
So far I see no indication of politicians letting go of A despite the UK’s problems and snow.
denniswingo says:
December 11, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Your papers, and I went back and read them again, do not deal with the wavelength specific variation in solar output modulated by the solar cycles.
I show that the amount of UV [to be precise Far Ultraviolet between 100 and 300 nm] has been modulated the same way in all cycles back to the 1830s [i.e. linearly follows the SSN]. In particular, that cycles 13-14 had the same UV flux as cycles 23-24. I would therefore expect climate a hundred years ago also to be similar if UV is a major part of the equation. This has nothing to do with TSI.
lsvalgaard says:
December 11, 2012 at 8:55 pm
denniswingo says:
December 11, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Your papers, and I went back and read them again, do not deal with the wavelength specific variation in solar output modulated by the solar cycles.
I show that the amount of UV [to be precise Far Ultraviolet between 100 and 300 nm] has been modulated the same way in all cycles back to the 1830s [i.e. linearly follows the SSN]. In particular, that cycles 13-14 had the same UV flux as cycles 23-24. I would therefore expect climate a hundred years ago also to be similar if UV is a major part of the equation. This has nothing to do with TSI.
I do not expect [at least there is no evidence] that UV between 300 and 400 nm behaved any different from that of 100-300 nm a hundred years ago. So, if you want to maintain that it did, you will have to come up with evidence for that.
Leif
This has nothing to do with TSI……..So, if you want to maintain that it did, you will have to come up with evidence for that.
By definition variations in a small segment of the solar spectrum is not the total solar irradiance. It is a fact of physics that absorption is wavelength specific and that the atmosphere is transparent to most visible spectrum wavelengths, thus though there is a lot of energy in those wavelengths they are not absorbed by the atmosphere. These wavelengths are absorbed by the ground and the atmosphere is heated by the thermal emission wavelengths. Wavelengths in the near UV and near UV are directly absorbed and or scattered by oxygen. Here is the full absorption spectra relative to the sun.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands_png
I understand what you are saying that this is similar to what happened during solar cycle 14 and other weak cycles but since we had no equipment to measure the atmosphere at altitude during that era we cannot quantify its effect on global temperature. Now we can, and we will obtain even more data in the years to come of the effects in this weak cycle versus the higher cycles of 19-23 that have been measured from space. We do know that there is an effect on the atmosphere and that during the latest minimum the atmosphere contracted the most that it had since the dawn of the space age.
Another thing that we know about the earth’s climate that our friends in the AGW world don’t buy into is that the global system, which includes the air, the land, and the oceans is quite stable and the heat stored in the oceans filter short term effects. With the effect on the upper atmosphere already noted that no one disputes, it will be interesting to see what the effect of an extended minimum/extra weak cycle will have. If we truly are moving into a Maunder type minimum it is beyond the experience of modern science and to singularly focus on TSI is to perhaps miss valuable science. My point to you is that you cannot dismiss the effect on the atmosphere and at least the possibility of an effect on climate by a large change in UV solar radiation.
denniswingo says:
December 11, 2012 at 10:28 pm
My point to you is that you cannot dismiss the effect on the atmosphere and at least the possibility of an effect on climate by a large change in UV solar radiation.
I don’t dismiss that, but since there is no evidence for a large change in UV, I don’t invoke that either. To reiterate: there is good evidence that UV the last two cycles was not any different than a century ago, hence I would expect its effect on the climate to be the same, yet the climate now is rather different from that a century ago. hence UV does not seem to be the main factor controlling our climate.
I am trying to get a grasp on the Northern hemisphere/Southern Hemisphere sunspot numbers. I checked out the sunspot area data from http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml for each half and found that the highest area in the southern Hemis, was around July 2012. ( http://awesomescreenshot.com/0c7pgs990 )
The Northern Hemisphere showed different trends, though. ( http://awesomescreenshot.com/0b1pgsded )
I am trying to figure out if in fact the southern half is declining now and if it is, how sure are you of a 2nd camel hump?
Regarding the “bactrian camel top” shaped maximum of the sunspot number times series, there is a nice paper about this topic:
Georgieva K. (2011). Why the sunspot cycle is double peaked. arxiv.org/abs/1103.4552
And another interesting paper from the same research group:
V. N. Obridko, Yu. A. Nagovitsyn, Katya Georgieva (2012). The Unusual Sunspot Minimum: Challenge to the Solar Dynamo Theory. The Sun: New Challenges Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings Volume 30, 2012, pp 1-17
Leif,
Another indicator that we are at solar max is that the polar magnetic fields are about to flip, as tracked in this graphic from Dr. Leif Svalgaard.
– The North pole has already reversed in 2011. I suppose that the South pole will not reverse in 2012 because of the current lack of any activity in the South.
– On the other hand, from the figure http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png, one could deduce that the crossing of the polar fields has to occur in 2012. Did it happen yet?
– Has the crossing of the polar fields something to do with the flipping of the poles?
I have added the following picture of the current state of SC 24:
http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/ComparisonSC24_14.gif .
Counting the peaks, one could deduce that the current solar cycle is not as active as SC 14 (already one peak instead of two). Of course, the solar cycle 24 is still going on. As one can read in your study Asymmetric Solar Polar Field Reversals: If later on, there is more activity in the South, then that flux will help reverse the South Pole. In this way, we get (in the ideal case) two humps in solar activity and a corresponding difference in time of reversals.
I didn’t see NASA prediction of Dec. 10, 2012 posted yet:
Solar Cycle Prediction
(Updated 2012/12/10)
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 72 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number (for 2012/02) is already nearly 67 due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently well over three years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906……….
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
Rik Gheysens says:
December 12, 2012 at 3:08 am
– The North pole has already reversed in 2011. I suppose that the South pole will not reverse in 2012 because of the current lack of any activity in the South.
The South pole is reversing right now
– Has the crossing of the polar fields something to do with the flipping of the poles?
One and the same. It is misleading language to talk about ‘flipping’. The poles don’t flip.
leif says
hence UV does not seem to be the main factor controlling our climate.
Nor did I claim it was, you know better than to extrapolate like that. What I did say is that there is a well known, measurable influence on the atmosphere modulated by the solar cycle. The papers that I have read before attribute this to variations in solar UV. This influence on the upper atmosphere is temperature related and at low orbital altitudes results in density variations of almost an order of magnitude. How far down the exosphere this extends and what are the results on climate is an interesting question. When gasses are compressed and or expanded there is an impact on convection of that gas. We simply don’t know the magnitude of these influences are on the planet’s atmosphere but we know that these influences exist and the nearly established fact that we are going into a period without sunspots means that there is some interesting science to be learned. That is my only point.
The larger point is that we know that climate has varied over short time scales, hundreds to thousands of years that are not Milankovitch forcing related and are not anthropogenic CO2 related. Understanding the causes of these variations is important to humanity as a whole and again to dismiss the sun’s role in this by only looking at one measure (TSI) does a disservice to the science.
“…. – solar max reached?”
Hard to tell by looking at sunspot counts, since they’re fading due to L&P effect. Better to look at 10.7 cm radio flux plots:
http://sidney.spaceweather.gc.ca/data-donnee/sol_flux/sx-6-mavg-eng.php
Looking at these plots and comparing to previous years, you can see that we have definitely reached the plateau region of the solar max, which normally endures for 4-5 years or more.
During that time there are spikes of activity, one of which will inevitably claim the title “solar max”.
But as you can see that the “winning” spike doesn’t necessarily occur at the beginning of the plateau. I’d say there will be several more spikes in SC24, one of which may exceed the first and only plateau spike so far (or not).
In any case, SC24 ain’t over yet.
Alec,
That’s interesting. I didn’t realize that Cycle 14 had already reached a maximum of 64.2 in February 1906. This is lower than the sun has reached in Cycle 24. If one transpose it in our Cycle 24, this would be December 2012.
The smoothed sunspot number for 2012/02 was 66.9. This is indeed higher than the number of Cycle 14.
I was impressed by the fact that the three strongest peaks of SC 14 are higher than the one peak of SC 24. But I had to know that higher peaks do not mean a higher smoothed SSN.
Remark: In my picture, the smoothed number is calculated according Meeus smoothed SSN.
Leif,
You wrote:
The South pole is reversing right now
Has it happened earlier that the South pole was reversing without any sunspot in the southern hemisphere?
You wrote in your study about reversals: If later on, there is more activity in the South, then that
flux will help reverse the South Pole. On the latest SOHO images of the sun, I don’t see any sunpot in the southern hemisphere.
denniswingo says:
December 12, 2012 at 8:17 am
we are going into a period without sunspots means that there is some interesting science to be learned.
Certainly, and we are all expecting to learn a lot.
to dismiss the sun’s role in this by only looking at one measure (TSI) does a disservice to the science.
As all the other solar indicators scale reasonably well with TSI. ‘TSI’ is just a proxy for these other ones. Actually since we have never measured TSI before 1978, it is really the other way around: the other solar indicators [which might influence climate] are used as a proxy for TSI [which then simply becomes ‘solar activity indicator’ on the TSI scale]. Since solar activity [measured by TSI, UV, sunspots, Calcium II, etc] now is the same level as it was a century ago, but climate is not, the primary conclusion to draw is that said solar activity is not demonstrated to be a major driver of climate. This is especially the case for UV, where we have a good reconstruction back to the 1780s [via its influence on the conductivity of the E-layer, controlling the variation of the Sq current system whose magnetic influence we directly measure on the ground]. So, UV has not been a significant driver of surface climate, but, of course, does control the density of the upper atmosphere.
Rik Gheysens says:
December 12, 2012 at 9:07 am
Has it happened earlier that the South pole was reversing without any sunspot in the southern hemisphere?
It is not important that there is a single [or a few] days with no spots; you have to look at a longer term average [e.g. a year].
Now this is not the max. It is not even beginning of the max. But it is perhaps the end of the min.
tonyb
I agree with you and Prof Easterbrook that global cooling is coming and that the climate cycle is just starting to turn down during this last decade . I personally prefer the template of the 1880-1910 era as a guide to the type of future climate development over the next 20-30 years, although it may not get quite as cold. I think there will not be a so called “ice age” type of situation but a 20-30 year global cooling anomaly or drop of about 0.2 C to 0.3 C The global anomaly may bottom around 0.2-0.1 C.Short term and regional anomalies can be much lower like inland areas of Asia, Europe and North America . I also agree with Willis Eschenbach in that no one will listen today to make any major adjustments until they start to be affected in a more significant way. [like UK was during the winter of 2010/11.] There was too much of the false ICE AGE warnings back in the 1970’s that has caused people to be more hesitant about any ice Age warning and it is unlikely that there will be any Ice Age conditions globally this time as well [ regionally there could be some very cold years still ] It will take some more cold years before the general population will see the wisdom of adjusting to global cooling plans whatever it turns out to be . I see this more in the post 2015 period. The observed global temperature curve and the IPCC predicted curve are diverging and the errors of supporting PLAN A[ preparing for unprecedented global warming] will be clear for all to see in just a few years .
Inreply to Isvalgaard,
lsvalgaard says:
December 11, 2012 at 7:18 am
William says:
December 11, 2012 at 6:15 am
Your comment is correct. It appears Svensmark’s mechanism saturates.
Or rather, never worked to begin with…
If I understand the mechanism, the solar cycle re-start triggers the geomagnetic field change. The event can increase or decrease the geomagnetic field depending on orbital configuration on the time of the restart. There is a time delay as the liquid conductive core integrates the surface field change which explains the rapid drop in field intensity followed by an increase or decrease in geomagnetic field intensity, in the geomagnetic field record.
The solar cycles do not control the main geomagnetic field. The field at the surface comes from three sources: the liquid core, fixed deposits of magnetic minerals, and transient [a few days] fields from the ring current.
Hello,
There are observations that do not support the standard geomagnetic field generating mechanism which is a self induced dynamo.
In the last 10 years geomagnetic specialists have found evidence of cyclic abrupt changes to the geomagnatic field that too rapid to have been caused by changes to the liquid core. A rapid core based change induces a counter EMF in the mantel that resists a core field changes. There are for example archeomagnetic jerks with a periodicity of roughly 400 years when the field orientation changes 10 to 15 degrees. The Heinrich events are larger geomagnetic field changes.
If I understand the mechanism both geomagnetic field changes are caused by a solar magnetic cycle restart.
If one accepts the earth evidence of rapid field changes and cyclic excursion (the geomagnetic specialist have over the last 10 years accepted it), then the conclusion is there is some external cyclic forcing function. The sun is the logical and perhaps the only possible external forcing function. Flipping the problem around how could the sun cause what is observed? What assumptions about the sun and basic fundamental physics assumptions are incorrect? No one has travelled to the core of the sun. What is fact about stars and what is assumed?
There are burn marks on the surface of the planet that correlate with the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change event and there is a geomagnetic excursion that correlates with that event. Accept for that the sun caused the burn marks, with a special CME that its not electrically neutral. The burn marks are created, by electrical strikes and re-strikes. There are also burn marks that correlate with the 41 kyr BP geomagnetic excursion. The electrical discharge explains the bio hemispheric increase in volcantic activity that correlates with termination of the glacial phase and the increase in strength of the geomagnetic field by a factor of 2 to 3 during the interglacial phase. (The ice sheets are insulators.).
I have been investigating this problem from the standpoint of the sun as a class of stars and looking for observations to support the hypothesis and have found astronomical evidence to support it. This appears to be one of the most interesting and far reaching discoveries in cosmology.
This is not a academic issue, if the above comments are correct. If there is observational evidence to support the above comments I will present an explanation of the mechanisms.
I think the most probable global climate template for the next 20 -30 years is the past climate period from 1880-1910. The period had three low solar cycles, something like pattern which is starting with our current sun cycle #24 and which could be the first of three such low solar cycles in the immediate future. Low solar cycles seem to cluster in 3’s.During that past lower solar cycle period the global SST anomaly dropped steadily as did the global air temperatures and they bottomed around 1910. AMO or Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation went negative or cool in 1900 .The probability of an AMO interval change of around 20 years is about 70%. It last changed in 1995 so we could see a negative AMO by 2015. We could also see fewer climate changing strong El Ninos, perhaps only one per decade compared with 2 per decade during the warmer three decades of 1970 -2000.During the period , 1880-1910, there were 4 El Ninos of which only 2 were strong
William says:
December 12, 2012 at 11:30 am
If I understand the mechanism both geomagnetic field changes are caused by a solar magnetic cycle restart.
Apart from the use of the nebulous word ‘restart’, your understanding is not correct.
The rest of your post is not valid physics.
The cause of geomagnetic jerks is still debated. Bloxham (2002) suggests that jerks are surface manifestations of a superposition of torsional oscillations [sorry for the jargon: a special class of axisymmetric, geostrophic, hydromagnetic waves] in the liquid, outer core. Nagao et al. (2003) suggest that differences in the mantle conductivity could explain why the two hemispheres exhibit jerks at different times [they appear with a delay in the Southern hemisphere]. In any event, they are of internal origin for the simple reason that external changes cannot penetrate deep into the Earth [skin-depth too shallow].
(the geomagnetic specialist have over the last 10 years accepted it)
I am a geomagnetic specialist 🙂
Leif, thanks for all of your explanations here. I have a question.
Regarding the sun, you say:
So clearly, we don’t completely understand why the sun does what it does.
On the other hand, you have come out very strongly to say that other than minor tidal effects, the planets have absolutely no effect on the sun’s cycles, changes, or variations.
I’m curious, given your lack of certainty about the cause of geomagnetic jerks, why you are so certain that the sun would have exactly the same cycles and changes whether or not it had planets? Upon what does that oft-repeated and seemingly rock-hard certainty rest, when we don’t completely understand how the sun works?
You have said before that you don’t know of any mechanism that could cause such changes in the sun due to the motions the planets, and neither do I.
But surely, lack of understanding of a possible mechanism would not lead to your solid certainty that the planets have no effect on the sun.
So what is the basis of your certainty on that question? Be aware that I am not saying that the planets do influence the cycles of the sun … I’m just asking why you are so sure that they don’t influence it. I just find it hard to believe that a sun without planets would have exactly the same cycles and variations that it would have if it had planets.
My best to you, and again, thanks for answering questions.
w.
Leif, thanks. The open/closed thing can be quite subtle.
For example, in response to Dennis Wingo you said “Since solar activity [measured by TSI, UV, sunspots, Calcium II, etc] now is the same level as it was a century ago, but climate is not, the primary conclusion to draw is that said solar activity is not demonstrated to be a major driver of climate”, and then later on, with a slight sleight of hand, you turned it into an assertion that UV definitely is not a major driver of climate. “Not demonstrated” is not the same thing as “demonstrated not to be”.
Your argument that global temperatures a century ago should match what they are now (if similar Sun rules the climate) ignores the fact that climate is a sort of integral. Now the mean Hadcrut3 during Cycle 14 was 0.13K cooler than during Cycle 13, and we _may_ see something similar in Cycle 24 (first 4 years’ values are 2009:0.44, 2010:0.48, 2011:0.34, 2012:~0.42) compared to Cycle 23 mean 0.38 – not yet lower but also not as high as the Met Office have forecast (which is that half the years 2010-2019 should exceed 0.55; oh, I suppose it _could_ still happen). So, we don’t know yet: let’s keep an open mind on it shall we?
Rich.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 12, 2012 at 12:51 pm
“The cause of geomagnetic jerks is still debated.”
So clearly, we don’t completely understand why the sun does what it does.
We are quite certain [as certain as you can be in science] that the Sun is not causing the jerks in the geomagnetic field.
when we don’t completely understand how the sun works?
But we do understand how tides and celestial mechanics work. The simple answer is one of magnitude. The effects of the planets is extremely small. There are many stars with much bigger planets much closer to the star [so tidal effects are millions of times stronger] and we have not yet found any with stellar activity synchronized with the planets. There is a small exception to this: Jupiter’s moon Io is within the planet’s magnetosphere and does electrically cause aurorae on Jupiter, and there are a couple of stars that may show a similar effect, but that is an external effect and not a modulation or generation of the basic activity cycle. The Sun’s ‘magnetosphere’ only goes out to about a tenth of the distance of the innermost planet. The solar wind is plasma that has left the Sun and is moving ‘supersonically’ away from the Sun, about 10 times faster than any electric or magnetic disturbance can move back to the Sun.
You have said before that you don’t know of any mechanism that could cause such changes in the sun due to the motions the planets, and neither do I.
I’ll modify that to say that none of the proposed mechanisms are adequate. I don’t buy the existence of [unspecified] amplification or feedback processes to compensate for the inadequacy.
So what is the basis of your certainty on that question? Be aware that I am not saying that the planets do influence the cycles of the sun … I’m just asking why you are so sure that they don’t influence it.
The observed lack of stars with planetary effects is a good starting point for that ‘certainty’. The lack of sufficient energy is another. And thirdly: the correlations are lousy [in spite of the claims to the opposite]. A lousy correlation can be tolerated if the mechanism is known and the energy is there. An example is the lousy [but real] relationship between sunspot numbers and geomagnetic activity.
but climate is not, the primary conclusion to draw is that said solar activity is not demonstrated to be a major driver of climate.
That is a pretty definitive statement to make, especially considering that if you take that statement as gospel you have to look within the Earth’s climate system for a reason for the known climate shifts between the Roman Warm Period, the cool period of the following mid millennia, the warming of the MWP and the subsequent cooling of the LIA and now our own warming. None of those climate fluxuations can be explained by industrial activity or even the more flimsy evidence of land use changes by the Romans and other societies.
To casually dismiss the sun as a driver of these climate shifts requires a much more complicated explanation related to internal feedback loops that are also missing greenhouse gas feedbacks. That seems to be a much taller order than to look at coupling in the sphere of solar/terrestrial influences.
We need to be looking that the couplings between vertical lighting and the solar cycle. We need to look at atmospheric density variations and how that influences the atmosphere’s denser layers. We should even look at Schauman resonances between the ionosphere and the ground that would be influenced by large variations in atmospheric density. These these studies revolve around studying what is jokingly called the “ignorosphere” between low orbital altitudes and the reach of high altitude balloons.
There is much we don’t understand about the solar/terrestrial interface but the good news is that if we are going into a Maunder minimum type period of solar activity this can be studied in detail and we will learn things that we don’t currently know about solar influence on climate, and that strong potential should be enough on its on to preclude definitive statements of the kind that you just made.
In the Northern Hemisphere there is a bit ‘less lousy’ correlation between the Ap (geomagnetic index) and major volcanic eruptions
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
There is even more intriguing correlation between solar activity and geological non magnetic records in the mid Atlantic ridge
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
and in the Antarctic reasonable correlation of magnetic field changes
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
But most important of all, there is a correlation between combining the Earth’s and solar magnetic field changes and the N. Hemisphere temperatures.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Could all the above be spurious correlations, I am not certain, but am inclined to think not.
.
Time will tell.
denniswingo says:
December 12, 2012 at 1:41 pm
you have to look within the Earth’s climate system for a reason for the known climate shifts between the Roman Warm Period, the cool period of the following mid millennia, the warming of the MWP and the subsequent cooling of the LIA and now our own warming. None of those climate fluxuations can be explained by industrial activity or even the more flimsy evidence of land use changes by the Romans and other societies.
Any complex system has internal fluctuations. You seem to deny that the Earth’s climate has such, so invoke internal fluctuations of the Sun…
To casually dismiss the sun as a driver of these climate shifts
My dismissal is not ‘casual’, but based on decades of thought about this.
There is much we don’t understand about the solar/terrestrial interface but the good news is that if we are going into a Maunder minimum type period of solar activity this can be studied in detail and we will learn things that we don’t currently know about solar influence on climate, and that strong potential should be enough on its on to preclude definitive statements of the kind that you just made.
Or to confirm my statement. If we come into a new Maunder Minimum and no LIA ensues, then what? Either you will say as I that that shows there is no climate relation, or you might say “there MUST be a solar connection, so now we have new and disturbing unknown reason for this seeming failure, and if you took that into account we can restore the sun to its a priory master driver”. Which shall it be?
vukcevic says:
December 12, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Could all the above be spurious correlations, I am not certain, but am inclined to think not.
Out of the infinitude of spurious correlations you pick five. That they are picked out, does not make them non-spurious.
Out of the infinitude of spurious correlations you pick five.
So how many of those are between the solar and Earth’s magnetic fields. Could you quote one that is not generally known?
Thanks for the explanation, Leif. The only parts I didn’t understand were these:
lsvalgaard says:
December 12, 2012 at 1:16 pm
If the sun is not causing the geomagnetic jerks, and you are sure that the actions of the planets are not geomagnetic jerks … what’s left?
The other question I had related to this:
The observed lack of stars with planetary effects is a good starting point for that ‘certainty’. The lack of sufficient energy is another.
Sufficient energy to do what?
If I have a hose on top of a building spraying lots and lots of water, moving prodigious quantities of energy around, it takes almost no energy to move it so it falls in an entirely different place …
My point is that the energy needed to alter the actions of a system can be quite small, and doesn’t require what you call “unspecified amplification or feedback processes” to work. For example, there are no unspecified amplification or feedback process involved in changing the aim point of my hose in the example, it takes very little energy, and despite both of those things being true, it can radically change the action of the system.
The same is true about say an athlete taking a jump. You put a finger on his shoulder at takeoff, and the whole jump goes awry … again despite any “amplification” or “feedback” mechanisms.
One more point about energy. Large changes can come from tiny pushes over a long period of time. It is this long-term accumulation of tiny forces, for example, that stopped the moon from rotating with respect to the earth … and to stop the moon from rotating would require a huge, huge amount of energy. But that energy is provided only in the small tidal forces. Despite that, and without any “amplification” or “feedback”, the rotation of the moon w.r.t. the earth was entirely stopped by just those tiny forces. The gravitational force of the Sun-Jupiter combination is about 2,000 times as strong as the gravitational force of the Earth-Moon combo, so why could it not have a corresponding effect?
Given all of those examples, I would say that the idea that tiny forces cannot possibly have large effects without amplification or feedback is simply wrong.
So … perhaps you can give us an estimation of how much energy it would take to slightly modify the circulation regimes in the sun, and some idea of how you estimated those numbers?
Finally, consider the Maunder Minimum. If it was not caused by the sun, then once again we’re back to a lack of a known physical mechanism to make the world that cold … so all that saying “it’s not the sun” does is to push the unexplained mechanism from the Sun to the Earth. Since whichever way we go we have an unexplained mechanism, I don’t see how that the lack of explanations favors one side or the other in any but a weak manner.
Again, please note that basically I agree with you (but without your certainty) regarding how much the variations in the sun affects the climate, because of the poor correlations and the lack of a known physical mechanism … but not for the other reason that you advance, that of insufficient energy. It doesn’t seem to me that we could even begin to say how much energy, applied exactly when, where, and for how long, it would take to make a detectable change in the sun.
w.
PS—The main reason I don’t think the changes in solar forcing are directly responsible for changes in the climate is that I don’t think that the temperature is controlled by the amount of forcing. Instead, my research shows that climate is determined by a variety of homeostatic mechanisms (clouds, thunderstorms, El Nino/La Nina alterations, etc.). As a result, I don’t think the slight solar changes make much difference to the earth … but for reasons that are located on the Earth, not in the heavens.
@Geoff Sharp:
Ah, the perils of talking about one part of a complex process for brevity (having been accused of being too prolix many times) and then getting slapped for not being complete enough… Can’t win.
OK, I’ll try to be as absolutely brief as possible while giving a h/t to other processes that matter on other time scales.
Solar Grand Min: I think that UV modulation of the stratosphere / ocean penetration heat matter here. Happens about once ever 180 years. OK, I didn’t dwell on a sporadic thing that we seem to be starting now. Why not? As it looks like it syncs with lunar tidal due to orbital resonance and the effects are known from prior cycles and we’ve got a pretty good history, it’s reasonable to look at the lunar ‘size’ this cycle and not worry about if the “moon tide” is the active agent or the “solar UV” as they both go together when they go (near as I can tell) so one being modest tells you the other ought to be modest too…
Moon Did It: As I was speaking specifically to the projection by Mr. Vuk., and how they matched a lunar model I’d seen, I figured it was reasonable to only point at something that might be a mechanism behind the cycles he found. I have no idea if / how-close those two (lunar / Vuk) will match the solar UV cycles too nor how much one is bigger or smaller than the other. We’ll know in about 30 years though, I suspect… But generally, I think the lunar tidal is about as big, or perhaps somewhat bigger than the solar-UV.
Most Likely: Some mix of (all working in the same direction) lunar / tidal changes, solar-UV changes, clouds via solar mediated Svensmark Theory. I.e. “The Sun Did It” is only a partial answer, and perhaps a minor one, so focus on it to excess (and certainly to exclusion) was a waste of many months of my life. I needed to look more broadly (though not to the exclusion of solar effects.)
Milutin Milanković: Yes, on 10,000 year time scales the full orbital mechanics set matters. Sun, moon, earth, precession, obliquity, etc. etc. etc. So? But no, the Holocene isn’t JUST a lunar shaped curve. The 10,000 ish year scale is Milanković shaped. Inside that is a 1500 ish year cycle that looks to be lunar shaped (with 200 and even some faster lunar cycles) influenced. Inside that there are (oddly synchronized) 180-200 year solar cycles that MAY be any of: Bigger, Smaller, Irrelevant coincidence, additive, or not. While I suspect they are additive and coordinated via orbital resonance, that is yet to be confirmed. (Rather like the volcanic lunar-tidal couple that could be anywhere from random to coincidence to correlated to causal lunar-> volcanic via magma and crustal tides.)
One hopes that make things more clear, while not being too “prolix”…
@climatereason:
I fully agree, but to quote one of my favorite and deep philosophers: “You cain’t fix stupid!”
So you have a stupid government. Buy a good set of sleeping bags and hang some insulting blocks in the window. i.e. depend on yourself. Nobody in government will be useful to you. (See BOTH of New Orleans and New York as existence proof…)
That’s WHY I’m “into urban preparedness”…
Oh, and reality doesn’t care if you like it or not… just sayin’…
Per the UK specific issues:
What part of ‘move to {Brazil, France, Australia} was unclear?
😉 Though I’d also suggest Florida. It’s very comfortable there and nobody thinks a person with an English accent is anything but yet another tourist… so you can stay forever and nobody notices… visa or not… Besides, get here soon and we’ll likely grandfather you in with free citizenship in the next round of ‘amnesty’ (by any name…)
But seriously. Your choices are:
Change your government. (Either the one you have, or via leaving to a different one)
Change your location. (Go to a warm one, and can fix #1 at the same time, but don’t need to.)
Change yourself. (Be self reliant and creative. Find ways to stay warm without that house heater. From electric blankets to making a sytrofoam igloo out of old shipping materials in your living room.)
http://www.amazon.com/Browns-Guide-Suburban-Survival-Field/dp/0425091724
helps. (I have Tom Browns older “Guide to Urban Survival”)
Anyone who dies of the cold INSIDE a home is just not being creative enough… Heck , just crumpling up the “pay your bills” paper notices and stuffing them between inner and outer pants / coats can make you warm 😉 (Variation on using leaf stuffing of clothing to survive outdoors in the snow…)
Yes, it’s a PITA and ought not to be that way. Your choices are:
1) Wallow in that and die.
2) Be self reliant and bitch about it while making your own solution.
I’ll take #2…
My Mum came through W.W.II in an England with very little heat available. “We talked”. She was absolutely thrilled with California and never thought any winter was all that cold… but one story was about how they would get one small lump of coal and cherish it. Waiting for the moment .. the day.. when they could put it in the stove and light it…
So you folks (and “my folks”) have dealt with this before, and worse.
Frankly, I think one could likely collect enough fuel from public waste baskets to avoid death from cold. Just put on a jumper that looks enough like the legit guys and even being caught on camera ought not raise flags… I can make a decent “rocket stove” in about one afternoon (and it needs all of trash tin and mud…) and put the vent into a removable window fitting so you only ‘deploy it’ when not subject to observation. (Clay can hold heat for most of a day…)
A crying shame? A horrid statement about governance? Yes. Your point? See choices 1 and 2 above…
(Maybe it’s an American thing… this not expecting anyone else to fix it for you and expecting your government to be more hindrance than help…)
@vuk: OK you’ve seen it..
@denniswingo:
AND the UV is differentially sorted. UVC into the upper stratosphere warming, UVB / A lower stratosphere, then skips down to deep ocean depths than the visible / IR that stay in the upper little bits.
Shifting TSI to less UV and more visible IR also means shifting stratsopheric warming profiles, ozone production / distribution and depth of ocean solar heating.
Not to mention I don’t need sunscreen now 😉
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/
@Herkimer:
Well put. Personally, I don’t expect more than a ‘return to mid 1970’s’ level. Cold enough to botch PlanB but not a “little ice age”… I think that’s about all that lunar tidal / solar UV can give us this go round… To get further will likely take a lot of added volcanoes. IMHO of course.
@Deniswingo:
An important point to keep in mind:
Looking for the dominant cause may fail.
What happens if there is NO dominant cause? You never find anything using that measure.
So, say, you have all of:
1) Solar (UV or TSI or whatever)
2) Lunar / tidal.
3) Svensmark Clouds.
4) Natural oscillations of systems.
5) Volcanic cycling
6) Some gas dynamics.
7) Land use changes (Hey, cut down the N. H. forests and think nothing changes?)
8) Albedo changes
9) Comet / asteroid impact events
10) Orbital mechanics changes
and each one has an 10% effect. What are the odds you will ever figure that out looking for THE dominant cause? (Especially if several of them act in concert but each can be ruled out one at a time…)
Leif says
Any complex system has internal fluctuations. You seem to deny that the Earth’s climate has such, so invoke internal fluctuations of the Sun…
Not denying anything and I have never been one of those that scream about one cause or another. Yes any complex system has internal fluctuations. That is a reasonable position to take and it may very well be that the temperature variations of the last few thousand years can be perfectly well explained by ocean currents, which is where most of the internal heat at the surface is in the terra sphere. I scoff at the notion that an increase in CO2 that represents less than 0.013% of the atmosphere is driving these fluctuations. I am extremely interested in the solar/terrestrial connection having worked for S.T. Wu and the Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research (CSPAR) for several years and have watched the evolution of our understanding of the solar/terrestrial interface and just how little we do know about the complexities of the interactions between the two. I was in the room when the incredulous results from the Gamma Ray Observatory’s BATSE showing a correlation between vertical lighting and terrestrial gamma ray production was first revealed so I have a pretty good feeling about what happens when a paradigm is overturned.
Leif says
Or to confirm my statement. If we come into a new Maunder Minimum and no LIA ensues, then what? Either you will say as I that that shows there is no climate relation, or you might say “there MUST be a solar connection, so now we have new and disturbing unknown reason for this seeming failure, and if you took that into account we can restore the sun to its a priory master driver”. Which shall it be?
I will be happy as a clam because one strong variable will be removed from a very complex equation. That is what science is all about. However, lets turn that around, what will you say if SC-25 is a Maunder type minimum and temperatures dive? I would hope that you would be happy as a clam and would seek diligently to understand what you missed in your understanding before. We have watched Hathaway be seriously humbled in the last few years as nature is far more surprising than what we think it is.
It is my personal opinion, backed by some data, that we seriously misunderstand the nature of coupling between solar radiation sources and terrestrial sinks. We are still ignorant children in the realm of quantum mechanics and I laugh when AGW proponents as well as scientists think that classical physics alone can explain our climate. There are some surprises coming from this direction and it is my opinion, based on evidence that is already out there, that this is the direction from which the linkage will be made….
Such is science, hypothesize, theorize, observe, confirm or not….. The journey is fun either way!
vukcevic says:
December 12, 2012 at 2:40 pm
“Out of the infinitude of spurious correlations you pick five.”
So how many of those are between the solar and Earth’s magnetic fields. Could you quote one that is not generally known?
From the infinitude? if not generally known, how would I know it?
Perhaps stop wasting time on this would do you good.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 12, 2012 at 3:11 pm
If the sun is not causing the geomagnetic jerks, and you are sure that the actions of the planets are not geomagnetic jerks … what’s left?
As I noted upthread: “Bloxham (2002) suggests that jerks are surface manifestations of a superposition of torsional oscillations [sorry for the jargon: a special class of axisymmetric, geostrophic, hydromagnetic waves] in the liquid, outer core. Nagao et al. (2003) suggest that differences in the mantle conductivity could explain why the two hemispheres exhibit jerks at different times [they appear with a delay in the Southern hemisphere]. In any event, they are of internal origin for the simple reason that external changes cannot penetrate deep into the Earth [skin-depth too shallow].”
Details are still debated.
Sufficient energy to do what?
To change the ongoing process significantly
If I have a hose on top of a building spraying lots and lots of water, moving prodigious quantities of energy around, it takes almost no energy to move it so it falls in an entirely different place …
But to repeat that process ‘forever’ [as the sunspot cycle does] and have the water always fall in the same place is what is at stake here.
So … perhaps you can give us an estimation of how much energy it would take to slightly modify the circulation regimes in the sun, and some idea of how you estimated those numbers?
This is a big topic. A starting point would be http://www.leif.org/EOS/jagerversteegh-20063.pdf
Finally, consider the Maunder Minimum. If it was not caused by the sun, then once again we’re back to a lack of a known physical mechanism to make the world that cold … so all that saying “it’s not the sun” does is to push the unexplained mechanism from the Sun to the Earth.
It does not matter where we put the unexplained mechanism. Some fluctuations are just natural, and don’t need specific mechanisms.
Since whichever way we go we have an unexplained mechanism, I don’t see how that the lack of explanations favors one side or the other in any but a weak manner.
This is also an argument for no solar relationship.
(but without your certainty) regarding how much the variations in the sun affects the climate
Don’t overdo the ‘certainty’ bit. What I’m saying is that to ‘my satisfaction’ it has not been demonstrated that the sun is a major driver, on the contrary there are several reasons why it is not as we have discussed. Absolute ‘Certainty’ is rarely found in science, and on a scale from 0 to 10, my opinion on solar activity not being a major driver of climate is only an 8, on the lack of planetary influences a 9.5, on the Earth being 4.56 billion years old a shining 10 [46% of Americans disagree].
E.M.Smith says:
December 12, 2012 at 3:17 pm
………..
Mr. Smith
Also consider fact that the lunar tides act on all fluids, this would include effect on the outer core thermal convection, where the Earth’s magnetic field is generated.
http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~marrk/Tidal94.pdf
denniswingo says:
December 12, 2012 at 3:22 pm
I scoff at the notion that an increase in CO2 that represents less than 0.013% of the atmosphere is driving these fluctuations.
The issue of CO2 has IMHO nothing to do with whether the sun controls the climate and has no place in this discussion. Often people invoke the Sun in order just to combat AGW and that is wrong. The solar issue stands on its own.
what will you say if SC-25 is a Maunder type minimum and temperatures dive?
‘dive’ has to be specified. I would say that a 1.5 degree dive would cause me to seriously reconsider my position. Now, there are some that will invoke lags of unspecified lengths [ocean thermal inertia and all that], so if temps do not dive, they will say: just wait another 20, 50, 100 [whatever] years and you’ll see.
Such is science, hypothesize, theorize, observe, confirm or not….. The journey is fun either way!
But, please [and that was what irked me] do not think that I dismiss anything ‘casually’ [except the obviously nutcases – they know who they are]. The sun-weather-climate issue I have thought deeply about and investigated for forty years.
I see people here predicting a substantial cooling over the next 2-3
decades, because of the decline of solar activity and AMO.
But what if temperatures largely hold steady or decrease only slightly in
the next 2-3 decades?
As for effects of AMO: I did see a periodic component `in HadCRUT3.
I worked out its period as 62 years and amplitude (peak to peak) of about
.215 degree C, assuming it’s sinusoidal. The most recent peak of this
cycle was in 2004 (by using Fourier on several 2-cycle trials). I suspect
this is mostly AMO.
So, it appears to me that AMO or whatever that periodic component is
explains about .21-.22 degree C of the warming. Solar activity was
fairly steadily high since before 1950, so I doubt that explains the warming.
I think what remains is largely anthropogenic effects, measurement errors
and adjustment errors. A somewhat significant bit of the manmade
increase in “greenhouse gas effect” was from gases other than CO2,
whose increase was largely stalled in the early or mid 1990’s.
Increase in CO2 appears to me to explain about .2-.25 degree C of the
warming from 1973 to 2004. I expect increasing CO2 to roughly balance
or slightly outweigh the effect of AMO from 2004 to 2035. Whatever cooling
occurs in this period appears to me likely to approximate or be slightly less
than what solar variation alone would do.
The upcoming solar minimum, likely to be close to a ~11-year-cycle
minimum around 2032-2033, appears to me to be a combined dip of the
~210-year cycle and a somewhat irregular one that lately has had a period
around or a little over 60 years. I expect it to be steep and deep, fair chance
significantly deeper than the Dalton minumum – but briefly. I expect its
duration to be like that of the Dalton minimum or shorter. And, I expect
the upswing from the minimum to be as quick and steep as the descent.
I suspect TSI could decrease by 1.5 W/m^2 from 1,366 W/m^2 – which would
be quite a drop as far as TSI goes. This would be a roughly .542 W/m^2
decrease in solar and back-from-atmosphere radiation reaching and being
absorbed by the surface. (Assuming the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget
model).
If feedbacks to this are the same as for CO2, then I expect this to have as
much effect as 22 years worth of increase of CO2. However, I am aware that
the lapse rate feedback is more negative to change of greenhouse gases
than to change in radiation factors (but negative to both). Also, changes in
solar activity could fairly directly cause changes in cloud cover. I have heard
of “Hale Winters”, where dips in solar activity cause harsh winters in some
regions where regional feedback is more positive than global-average. A bit
of the regional- specific feedback probably has a bit of effect on the world as
a whole.
So if the NH has reversed previously and the SH is in transition now would it still be possible to have maximum after the “flip”?
Project722 says:
December 12, 2012 at 7:00 pm
So if the NH has reversed previously and the SH is in transition now would it still be possible to have maximum after the “flip”?
The maximum will likely be long and drawn out, so it will be difficult to assign a precise date to it, and the polar field reversals are only one indication of a maximum. There are other solar indices and they all show slight;y different dates. “The sun is a messy place”.
A theory must be first understood before any judgement of “lousy” correlations is put forward.
I have created an instructional video that might help some.
There are now well respected scientists that are seriously looking at the very good correlations.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07k6yrPegV0&w=560&h=315%5D
Also a graphic that might help Willis with the “trident” analogy below.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/trident.png
Geoff Sharp says:
December 12, 2012 at 10:16 pm
A theory must be first understood before any judgement of “lousy” correlations is put forward.
I have created an instructional video that might help some.
In addition to the erroneous first clause, the video does not present a theory or mechanism or physics, but is just an exercise in Astrology. Undoubtedly it will find fertile ground in unsuspecting viewers just like the horoscopes in your daily newspaper.
Its going to be cold, and get colder.
I told you so in 2008/2009
http://blog.chess.com/Rickj/towards-a-new-maunder-minimum-dalton-minimum-or-just-the-end-of-cycle-23
http://blog.chess.com/Rickj/more-on-the-maunder-minimum
But hey, what do I know?
lsvalgaard says:
December 12, 2012 at 7:16 pm
“The maximum will likely be long and drawn out, so it will be difficult to assign a precise date to it, and the polar field reversals are only one indication of a maximum. There are other solar indices and they all show slight;y different dates. “The sun is a messy place”. ”
So what are these indices and where can I find them? I would like to see the dates. Also, it is not uncommon judging from the past that reversals happen before the maximum. We had SSN peaks in late 2011 and once again in 2/2012. The 3 metrics of F10.7 flux, SSN, and AP continue to fall short of predictions month after month. So if the sun does not start posting fatter numbers soon what more will it take for a concensus that max has already passed and we are on the downhill slope?
Typo – I meant “Also, it is not uncommon judging from the past that reversals happen AFTER the maximum.
Project722 says:
December 13, 2012 at 5:25 am
So what are these indices and where can I find them?
You just mentioned some.
So if the sun does not start posting fatter numbers soon what more will it take for a concensus that max has already passed and we are on the downhill slope?
We won’t know until the maximum is over that we were there.
See http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf for when reversals were.
Project722 says:
December 13, 2012 at 5:25 am
So what are these indices and where can I find them?
You just mentioned some.
So if the sun does not start posting fatter numbers soon what more will it take for a concensus that max has already passed and we are on the downhill slope?
We won’t know until well after the maximum that it has passed. Look at cycle 14 and tell me when maximum was [and to what degree the concept of a distinct maximum makes sense]:
http:/www.leif.org/research/SC14.png
See http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf for when reversals were.
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14.png
****
E.M.Smith says:
December 12, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Solar Grand Min: I think that UV modulation of the stratosphere / ocean penetration heat matter here. Happens about once ever 180 years. OK, I didn’t dwell on a sporadic thing that we seem to be starting now. Why not? As it looks like it syncs with lunar tidal due to orbital resonance and the effects are known from prior cycles and we’ve got a pretty good history, it’s reasonable to look at the lunar ‘size’ this cycle and not worry about if the “moon tide” is the active agent or the “solar UV” as they both go together when they go (near as I can tell) so one being modest tells you the other ought to be modest too
****
As an engineer, the first question about UV would be: How many W/m2 are getting into the water via UV? And to what extent does it change from solar cycles?
IMO the “barycenter theory” is bunk, but there is something potential from lunar tides. Something I read long ago analyzed the Keeling cycles. It discussed that mixing of the ocean top-layer was sensitive to tidal changes in a number of sea-mount areas — Hawaiian Island chain, Indonesia, & others due to irregularities of the underwater surfaces at critical mixing zone levels. Greater tides increased the mixing-rate in these regions & cooled the upper ocean layer, including the surface. Haven’t seen anything lately, but at least it’s plausible.
Project722 re when will maximum be?
I was the first to point out in this thread, but two others including Edim reiterated it, that we are unlikely to be past maximum until the butterfly diagram closes its wings. In other words, near the time when we see southern sunspots close to the equator there will be an opportunity for sunspots at a wide variety of latitudes and hence more of them. I would expect that in 2013 or 2014. But as this is an unusual cycle, perhaps even later?
HTH,
Rich.
New ideas in the Solar activity (from competing blog)
lsvalgaard | December 13, 2012 at 1:35 am | Reply to stefanthedenier | December 13, 2012 at 1:19 am
…they made the ‘’Sunspots Forgery’’ to support the biggest continuous con, since Darwin published his book…
Very amusing, almost Vuk-or-Mann quality.
…………………
Nobel Price certificate is on the way ?
I had no participation in that particular bit, but I am guilty of framing the two Stanford’s PhDs so shouldn’t complain.
Dr. L. Svalgaard : I tried to educate Vuk…
Dr. V. Pratt: “Educating Vukcevic.” that could work as the name of a Belorussian play.
Dr. Prat is a Stanford University expert who claimes that the Glob Tems follow CO2 curve to a milliKelvin, today discussed on WUWT too.
So here is the play:
Minsk
Stanfordski office of the Byelorussian Party Commissar:
Vukcevic: Comrade Svalgaardovich what is your opinion of the work of Comrade Pratovich ?
Svalgardovich: : Comrade Pratovich has done a diligent analysis, followed my orders to perform the Lysenko type experiment. The experiment was great success, temperature rise tripled, few peasants froze to death, but the temperature rose of 4 degrees was within milliKelvin.
Comrade Vukcevic you are to stop making-up data that sun has anything to do with climate change in of Brotherly Socialist Countries. In decadent West that may be the case, but here Our Supreme Commander and the Party Commissariat are in charge of the climate change. Last warning comrade.
Gravely anxious Vukcevic exits.
Pratovich enters.
Svalgardovich: Comrade Pratovich excellent work, Our Glorious Motherland, Our Supreme Commander and Our Ever Victorious Party to which you serve so faithfully will present you with a copy of your black& white poster, colour inks are in a short supply at the moment.
Pratovich: Thank you, thank you Comrade Svalgardovich. What are we to do with Comrade Vukcevic.
Svalgardovich: No problem, I have ordered a Denning-Kruger syndrome diagnosis.
Pratovich: You are a very wise man Comrade Svalgardovich. What is my next task Comrade Svalgardovich?
Svalgardovich: get me timetable of the next Siberian cattle transport train. Our methods of dealing with ‘enemies of the Motherland’ are indeed well tested.
Pratovich: Educating Comrade Vukcevic we owe to Our Supreme Commander. .Long live Our Supreme Commander.
The end
I was intrigued by the extraordinary claim made by Byelorussian Party Commissar Svalgardovich regarding ‘climate change in the Brotherly Socialist Countries. In decadent West that may be the case, but here Our Supreme Commander and the Party Commissariat are in charge of the climate change’.
I contacted NASA and they forwarded detailed proof:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2012&month_last=2&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1969&year2=1971&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg
As you can see the ‘West’ was indeed freezing to death 1969-1961, while the ‘Glorious Motherland at the order Supreme Commander and the Party Commissariat’ was basking in the heath wave.
Therefore all should stop with their persistent questioning of Dr. Pratt, about temperature drop in 1960-70 becoming invisible. As you can see from GISS data such a thing never happened in Byelorussia, the good Dr. Pratt is telling it as it is.
Oh God. The solar polar fields are going flip on December 21, 2012 aren’t they? It all makes sense now!
(Doooooooooooomed!)
Fellow dumbcluck here.
I can’t follow the science once it’s in details, good historian/liberal-arts guy that I am. So I don’t know who’s right.
But I DO live in TX. So I’m predisposed to have an emotional bias towards ANYTHING that gives us more clouds and lower temperatures.
BRING THE ICE!!
The last run of my hobby spreadsheet that approximates solar data from about 1650 to the present with a constant plus a twenty-four element array of cosine terms that sum to represent the signed square root of the smoothed sunspot number, now extrapolates the next peak (cycle 25) around 2025.960 at about 53 and the one after that (cycle 26) around 2037.489 at about 104. Take these extrapolations with a very large grain of salt. The current smoothed peak estimate is around 2012.719 at 85.76 (-9.26, signed square root)
My optimization process concentrates on matching peak values using the Excel Solver function to adjust amplitudes, phases, and the frequency of each term. The initial values came from the constant and largest 24 terms of a 4096 term FFT of the data. While the FFT had a 60 year zero pad added to the end, Solver only operates on real data.
Spector says:
December 14, 2012 at 11:53 pm
Sounds like fun, care to share the spreadsheet?
I strongly support your statement that such results need to be taken with a VERY large grain of salt … such cyclical reconstructions are NOTORIOUS for fitting the past perfectly, and doing horribly, terribly, catastrophically on the future.
Since you have the spreadsheet, you might try the following.
1. Divide the data in half, and run the full optimization program on each half separately.
2. Use the coefficients of each half to see how well it can recreate the other half …
Typically, it’s very, very hard to beat raw chance by the method you describe. It’s god’s way of keeping people from making easy money in the stock market …
w.
PS—I apologize for doing what folks often do to me, the “why don’t you try this analysis” thing. My usual response is to give them the data and say “go for it” … but it is a good test of the stability of the underlying cycles.
Here’s my understanding. The problem with natural data is not a lack of distinct cycles. They are there, you can see them in the data.
The problem is that those freakin’ cycles appear and disappear out of the aether without warning or fanfare, like a bunch of Cheshire cats. You’ll find a perfectly good 64-year cycle, it will run for a century or two … and then it will fade into the background leaving only its smile, and you’ll be looking at a perfectly good 43-year cycle.
So yes, when using your system, I recommend pounds rather than grains of salt regarding all forecasts … my brother once told me, “It’s easy to predict the future … as long as it looks like the past.” Unfortunately, natural flow systems change and evolve, so the future often looks unlike the past.
much simpler just add to Cosines
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
vukcevic says:
December 15, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Sunspots as an indicator of activity are just that! I know of no way at present you or I can predict the future. Activity on our sun should not be underestimated or overestimated. we can’t predicted the future.
7th November, I asked the Met Office about the possibility of a Little Ice Age within the next decade emphasising the need for science to inform public policy as now millions are facing fuel poverty due actions to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Here is the response I received today. I found it very interesting indeed.
“It is very unlikely that there would be a little ice age within the next decade based on our current understanding. However, there are complex processes of our Earth system that are not yet fully understood so the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. In fact the exact cause of the Little Ice Age, which began in the 16th century and ended during the 19th century (by about 1850), is not fully understood. Some scientists have suggested that the Gulf Stream slowed down during this period, causing the Little Ice Age, while others have suggested that solar output was reduced. Much research is being undertaken to improve our understanding of the complexities of the Earth system in order to gain a better understanding of what occurred in the past and what may happen in the future. Based on our current knowledge, it is very unlikely that an ice age will occur within the next 10 years.”
I believe that every word in such responses is carefully selected and I note that we are talking now about the Earth System rather then the Global Climate.
“Very unlikely” in IPCCspeak is <10%
I note that "… others (scientists) have suggested that solar output was reduced." I had understood that there was empirical evidence that demonstrated reduced solar output during the Maunder Minimum and that it implied a hemispherical, if not a global, cold period.
Is there any evidence for a slowdown' in the Gulf Stream? I assume that this would confine the cooling effect to UK and Northern Europe.
RE: vukcevic: (December 15, 2012 at 2:18 pm)
“much simpler just add to Cosines”
In the end, that is basically what I do–where each cosine has an independent absolute amplitude, an independent center-date (the nearest positive peak to the center of the data range), and independent period/frequency. In my solutions, the relatively low values of the two near third harmonic terms, which have periods around seven years, would seem to indicate that the signed square root of the traditional sunspot number may be a better measure of the force that is actually driving the production of sunspots.
Predictability depends on whether or not solar activity is being produced by a series of regular periodic processes or if it is, at least in part, due to a sequence of random events. There may be huge internal explosions that progressively add randomness to solar dynamics.
I often see a minor term with a near 19.9 year period in the Solver selected parameters that may be attributable to the sidereal Jupiter-Saturn alignment interval.
As I’m reading through this blog, it’s obvious we should believe the atmospheric and climate scientists, no one else. They’re the experts, not our local politicians, profiteer and certainly not any company representative. Here is something I’d like to share about the Himalayan glaciers receding. I challenge a single person to attempt to tear down this evidence. Also take some time on this site. It’s exquisite. Zoom in to see the orange and blue tents at base camp to Mt. Everest. See the before and after of the glaciers to view how they have receded from photo the overlays (then and now). http://www.glacierworks.org/the-glaciers/pumori-spring-2012/
Penny Melko says:
December 23, 2012 at 11:42 pm
… Here is something I’d like to share about the Himalayan glaciers receding. I challenge a single person to attempt to tear down this evidence….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a bit late.
Some Himalayan Glaciers Growing, study suggests a negative sea level rise adjustment
As far as trusting scientists? Not until I read their papers.
I suggest you read in its entirety: Scientific fraud and the power structure of science
PAPERS:
US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
NEWS:
A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers
Tenfold increase in scientific research papers retracted for fraud: Study of 2,047 papers on PubMed finds that two-thirds of retracted papers were down to scientific misconduct, not error
From a blog: Top Science Scandals of 2011
Retraction Watch a blog that collects scientific retractions and fraud.