Neutrons and the 1970s cooling period

Note: the original title Solar Neutrons and the 1970s cooling period was unintentionally misleading as Dr. Svalgaard points out in comments:

What produces Solar Neutrons?

the title of the post is misleading. The cosmic rays are protons, not neutrons, and are not produced by the Sun, but by supernovae in the Galaxy. The ‘neutrons’ are produced in the Earth’s atmosphere when cosmic ray protons collide with air. Neutron Monitors can detect those ‘secondary’ neutrons.

I meant to convey the modulation effect of the sun’s magnetic field on cosmic rays, and hence neutrons. So I’ve truncated the title to: Neutrons and the 1970s cooling period – Anthony

Guest post by David Archibald

The world’s most eminent climatologist was Professor Hubert Lamb, who founded the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Professor Lamb was guided by the principle that if a climatologist is to project future climates, he must understand what has happened in the past. In that vein, to understand the cool period coming post solar maximum of Solar Cycle 24, it is apposite to examine the last period of cooling that the Earth experienced. This was the 1970s cooling period. The CIA report on climate written in August, 1974, A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems, summarised it in these terms:

“Since the late 1960s, a number of foreboding climatic predictions have appeared in various climatic, meteorological and geological periodicals, consistently following one of two themes.

· A global climatic change was underway.

· This climatic change would create worldwide agricultural failures in the 1970s.

Most meteorologists argued that they could not find any justifications for these predictions. The climatologists who argued for the proposition could not provide definitive causal explanations for their hypothesis. Early in the 1970s a series of adverse climatic anomalies occurred:

  • The world’s snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent.
  • In the eastern Canadian area of the Arctic Greenland (sic), below normal temperatures were recorded for 19 consecutive months. Nothing like this had happened in the last 100 years.
  • The Moscow region suffered its worst drought in three to five hundred years.
  • Drought occurred in Central America, the sub-Sahara, South Asia, China and Australia.
  • Massive floods took place in the Midwestern United States.

Within a single year, adversity had visited almost every nation on the globe.”

There was a 1970s cooling period – the CIA left a record of it, and by some measures, the 1970s was the coldest decade of the 20th Century. This is one of those measures:

clip_image002

This is Figure 3 from a paper by Suckling and Mitchell in 2000 which examined variation of the C/D climatic boundary under the Koppen climate classification system for the central United States during the 20th Century (courtesy of Gail Combs).

The C/D boundary is the boundary between mild winters and cold winters. For the average of the 1970s, the C/D boundary was 200 km south of where it was for the rest of the century. Given that the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976 saw a sudden warming, analysis at a finer time resolution is likely to show a much larger move south for the first half of that decade.

What was the signature of the 1970s cooling period in the instrumental record? In terms of the changes in space weather that might have caused that cooling, what was different about the early 1970s was that the neutron count rose back to near-solar minimum levels relatively early in Solar Cycle 20:

image

If neutron count is a significant determinant of climate, what is happening now? That is shown in the following graph which inverts the neutron count and plots it against F10.7 flux:

clip_image006

F10.7 flux is preferred to sunspot number because it can’t be adjusted by the “sunspot fiddlers” amongst us. What this graph shows is that:

1. there is about a one year lag in neutron count from the F10.7 flux.

2. the divergence between the F10.7 flux and neutron count in the early 1970s.

It looks like F10.7 flux has peaked for Solar Cycle 24 and therefore the neutron count should start climbing again. The current count is not much higher than the pre-Solar Cycle 23 minima in the record.

The Ap index is currently 3.6 which is lower than the minimum monthly levels for pre-Solar Cycle 23 minima. For the last thirty years, the Ap index has been broadly tracking the F10.7 flux apart from the 1970s cooling period:

clip_image008

In the graph above, the Ap Index is shown as 11 month-smoothed. In the big picture, the Ap index did start rising from the mid-19th Century at about the same time that the glaciers started retreating in 1859. In the early 1970s though, the Ap index had a significant departure from the F10.7 flux and the neutron count. If a higher Ap index is associated with warming, then countervailing effects were much stronger than the high Ap index in the 1970s.

Both the neutron count and Ap Index are now quite close to solar minimum levels in the modern instrumental record, suggesting that they will be particularly weak when the fall of Solar Cycle 24 begins. The question then will be how far south the Koppen C/D boundary will move and what will that do to the Corn Belt growing season? As this figure shows, the Corn Belt is a movable feast:

clip_image010

Meanwhile, the fall of Solar Cycle 24 is upon us. This graph following kindly provided by Mike Williamson show the rise of solar cycles 18 to 24 from the month of minimum. Solar Cycle 24 is the bottom line and appears to be already in a steep decline.

clip_image012

Reference

Suckling, P.W. and Mitchell, M.D.  2000.  Variation of the Koppen C/D climate boundary in the central United States during the 20th century.  Physical Geography 21: 38-45.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rhys Jaggar

This is an interesting counterpoint to the letter in Nature this week, which is supposedly a definitive paper of climate economics scenario modelling. In their paper, they are apparently able to predict, through modelling, which interventions at which time periods are most likely to limit 21st century warming to 2 degrees Celcius.
Perhaps one of the site’s reviewers would be interested in comparing this article, which seeks to find causal relationships between certain physically measurable parameters and particular cooling periods in the past 40 years, with the devotion to models whose chief characteristics are the assumptions made to underpin them not being able to be verified experimentally.
I wonder which of the two papers will have the most impact on policy makers??

seth

Food for thought. The neutron count is influenced by another parameter – the angle of the solar current sheet. http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif. The current sheet and solar wind affect the neutron count.

Clay Marley

Seems to me we are seeing a wide variety of evidence from independent investigations all leading to the same conclusion. Its like many different forcings are all lining up to drive temps down. We have the weak solar cycle 24, the NH Summer Energy divergence from temperatures, a colder than usual NH ocean temp anomaly, and we may be due for the next Bond or Dansgaard Oeschger Event. Did I leave anything out? Winters in Alaska, Russia and Europe have been unusually cold, and glaciers everywhere are growing.
In a world of real science instead of post-normal Scientism, we would be discussing the possibility of global cooling, and whether or not we need to do anything to adapt.

eco-geek

It is looking rather worrying. With wamists taxing you cold and reality preparing to freeze the proverbial brass balls off a monkey we’ll have no choice but to…
Stay Cool….

Des

This article makes for an interesting read and complements this post well.
“Global Warming or The “New Ice Age”? Fear of the “Big Freeze””
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/30336

Interesting…. There was also a lunar tidal high point in the mid-70s as well, so more surface water mixing and cold water brought to the surface.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/lunar-cycles-more-than-one/
If sun and moon are both in sync from the same orbital resonance timings, we might need to sum the two…

Bob Shapiro

eco-geek says:
“…to freeze the proverbial brass balls off a monkey… ”
A brass monkey was a frame used on warships a couple hundred years ago, which allowed cannonballs to be stacked. When it got too cold, the brass contracting at a different rate from the lead balls caused the setup to fail. This is the origin of “freezing the (cannon)balls off a brass monkey.”

jlurtz

What produces Solar Neutrons?
In an atomic bomb, the neutrons are a result of the fission process, i.e., more fission more neutrons. More fission equates to more energy output. So more energy output equates to more neutrons.
But in the Sun, we are seeing less energy [both in TSI and UV/Flux], but [if I read the graphs correctly] more neutrons. There is a correlation between less Flux and more neutrons, and more Flux and fewer neutrons.
What are Solar Neutrons? What produces them? Does the Solar fusion process operate opposite to the Atomic fission process? Does MORE fusion “use up” more neutrons?

Bob Shapiro

Another comparrison might be looking at cycles 12-16 compared to cycle 24. It appears from the Solar Reference Page that this cooling time is closer to what we’re in for.

Green Sand

“Cycle 24 Sunspot Number Prediction (January 2013)”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
Looks like Dec 12 went low?

This piece is in almost complete agreement with my post Global Cooling -Climate and Weather forecasting at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
which was also posted on this site on 2012/11/19
I’m not so sure that cycle 24 has peaked yet .I think the jump in the neutron count will more likely come in 2014.

My previous agreement with the piece refers to the correlation with the neutron count trend as a general proxy for solar activity and an indicator of possible coming cooling. These are not solar neutrons however but incoming GCRs which increase as the solar magnetic field strength and solar activity in general weakens

Dr. Lurtz says:
January 4, 2013 at 7:27 am
What produces Solar Neutrons?
the title of the post is misleading. The cosmic rays are protons, not neutrons, and are not produced by the Sun, but by supernovae in the Galaxy. The ‘neutrons’ are produced in the Earth’s atmosphere when cosmic ray protons collide with air. Neutron Monitors can detect those ‘secondary’ neutrons.
seth says:
January 4, 2013 at 5:35 am
Food for thought. The neutron count is influenced by another parameter – the angle of the solar current sheet. http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif. The current sheet and solar wind affect the neutron count.
The shape and variation of the current sheet [and related phenomena, such as the co-rotating interaction regions] is the major modulation mechanism of cosmic rays, see http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/262766a0-HCS-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
Archibald:
F10.7 flux is preferred to sunspot number because it can’t be adjusted by the “sunspot fiddlers” amongst us.
Just shows Archibald’s ignorance.

Jim Clarke

Bob Shapiro says:
January 4, 2013 at 7:23 am
Sorry Bob, but Snopes disagrees:
http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/brass.asp
I really liked your explanation, but I had to check it out. I guess that is why they call us skeptics.

Denis Rushworth

For Bob Shapiro – Just a nit. I understand that cannonballs of the 18th Century were iron or steel, not lead. Both iron and steel have a smaller coefficient of thermal expansion than brass hence they would shrink less than the monkey as it got colder and could be “frozen off.” Lead, however, has a much larger coefficient of thermal expansion than brass and therefore would not have been frozen off the monkey.

Did I misunderstand?
I was under the impression that the overall solar flux (all energies) incident on the Earth governed the density of the ions above 60 Km. The ions, in turn, govern the penetration of cosmic rays. So: lots of flux = lots of ions = collisions at a great distance = lessened neutron flux (the neutrons get reabsorbed). Small amount of flux = fewer ions = collisions closer to the surface = greater neutron flux. Of course this is connected to the solar sheet.
What did I miss?
It is much the same story as the cloud formation. Big solar flux = cosmic rays collide at a distance = particle showers reabsorbed = lessened activity. Small solar flux = cosmic rays collide near the surface = particle showers = ion trails = cloud formation. That is why extant models of cloud formation fail so profoundly.
[Millikan’s cloud chamber showed how ions produce clouds over 100 years ago]
In other words, the Sun is a PLAYER in our weather cycle.
Unfortunately, the various solar cycles have not yet been fully explained; there are too many oscillations to keep track of; it is difficult to provide (on a fine scale) how the oscillations govern the transmission of energy from the Solar core to the surface. The Sun rings like a bell. What starts it to oscillate? …crickets
How can you doubt this?
In a few hundred years we will have better long-range neutron and F10.7 records, which can then be correlated with CO2 activity. Cannot do this yet; not enough data.

Don B

Dr. Leif
It is interesting to me to try to visualise the anomalous shape of the neutron curve (or other solar related curves such as sunspots) relative to what is “average.” Do you have such curves with the comparison relative to an average calculated on either the 11 or 22 year cycle?

Dr Isvalgaard Since you are following this thread and it is pertinent to the idea of a cooling trend perhaps you can tell us when the next Livingston and Penn measurements may be available?

seth

lsvalgaard says:
The shape and variation of the current sheet [and related phenomena, such as the co-rotating interaction regions] is the major modulation mechanism of cosmic rays, see http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/262766a0-HCS-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
Thanks for the link Dr S!
It seems to me -just eyeballing the graphs – that neutron counts are lowest on the trailing edge of the current sheet from maximum to minimum. I always thought that that was due to the lag nature of the Ap with respect to the solar maximum. Any comments Leif?

This is all very interesting. The flux plots show something. What that means is not quite clear. There seems to be correlation. We know that is not causation and I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. How or if this information can be used in some kind of predictive model is not clear either. If we view climate as a more or less wave form when plotted along an arrow of time, that operates within some as yet to be defined ± band width then warm and cool cycles should be expected. Using this kind of thought experiment I suggest, as do others, we are entering a cool cycle. How cool and how long the cycle is anything but clear.

Disputin

Bob Shapiro says:
January 4, 2013 at 7:23 am
Bob, that’s a bit dubious. For as start, there don’t seem to be any records of such usage, though that’s not really surprising, as bureaucrats were unlikely to use the same terms as the common sailors. Also, cannon balls were usually iron, lead being used for musket balls. Check the coefficients of expansion for iron and brass.
My guess is that the original phrase was “Cold enough to freeze the balls on a brass monkey” which is a bit more likely given the amount of water sloshing about.

@David Archibald
RE:
“Meanwhile, the fall of Solar Cycle 24 is upon us. This graph following kindly provided by Mike Williamson show the rise of solar cycles 18 to 24 from the month of minimum. Solar Cycle 24 is the bottom line and appears to be already in a steep decline.”
Not Exactly true, We should expect a second peak in activity before the fall of Solar Cycle 24, If you look closely at other Solar Cycles you will notice at each Solar maximum there are actually two peaks.
I have studied this in great depth and the data suggests that each of these peaks that make up one whole solar cycle are exactly one half of Jupiter’s orbital distance from Neptune during Jupiter’s perihelion and aphelion of the Sun. There is also a wildcard in the timing of these Solar Cycles and it is the Planet Uranus, it may in fact explain (which I believe it will) the unusual properties of it’s tilt and spin, where Uranus is tilted so far that it essentially orbits the sun on its side and it also spins in reverse, This unusual orientation is assumed to be due to a collision with a large planetary body soon after it was formed, yet there is no evidence for this mysterious phantom planet. Note that Neptune was discovered using mathematics, when astronomers observed that Uranus was not always in the position predicted for it, astronomers at the time came to the conclusion that there appeared to be signs of a more distant planet that was acting upon the the orbit of Uranus. There is well known evidence that other outer planets over billions of years have disturbed the orbit of planet Uranus.
Also hypothetically, if Uranus was to become erratic in regular intervals spanning thousands of years, it may influence prolonged solar minimum which would be the most obvious cause of regular Ice ages, without the need for fanciful catastrophic terrestrial events or to factor in a periodical extrasolar influence of a passing star or even galactic alignments of some-kind.

Dr Norman Page says:
January 4, 2013 at 9:21 am
when the next Livingston and Penn measurements may be available?
Now: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Unfortunately, the telescope that Bill is using is being decommissioned and in a few weeks no more measurements can be made. We have a proposal for several other observatories to participate in an intense campaign over a month to determine their calibration against Livingston’s data, so that the measurements can be continued elsewhere. Also, we are learning how to get the data from satellites [SDO/HMI]: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Watson2.pdf
seth says:
January 4, 2013 at 9:31 am
that neutron counts are lowest on the trailing edge of the current sheet from maximum to minimum. I always thought that that was due to the lag nature of the Ap with respect to the solar maximum. Any comments Leif?
The cosmic rays lag solar activity on average 13-14 months, which is the time it takes the solar wind to reach the edge of the solar system [the Termination Shock]. The lag in Ap has a different cause, namely that large coronal holes [giving rise to high-speed streams and increased Ap] have a hard time to form when sunspots are popping up all over the place [at maximum], but find a friendlier situation on the declining part of the cycle when spots become fewer.

Sparks says:
January 4, 2013 at 9:54 am
I have studied this in great depth and the data suggests that each of these peaks that make up one whole solar cycle are exactly one half of Jupiter’s orbital distance from Neptune during Jupiter’s perihelion and aphelion of the Sun….etc
Please, get real. About the two [or more] peaks, see http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf and its Figure 7.

seth says:
January 4, 2013 at 9:31 am
that neutron counts are lowest on the trailing edge of the current sheet from maximum to minimum. I always thought that that was due to the lag nature of the Ap with respect to the solar maximum.
Continuation from previous comment: so there is no causal relationship between Ap and cosmic rays. [thus Archibald does not really know what he is talking about]. Both phenomena follow the solar cycle [in a sense] but are otherwise not related.

Doug Danhoff

eco-geek…I believe it is more correct to say” Freeze the balls off a brass monkey”. A “brass monkey” being the metalic plate cannon balls were stacked on prior to an engagement. Extreme cold cold cause the plate to contract and force the balls off.

Steveta_uk

Sparks says:
January 4, 2013 at 9:54 am
hmmmm… this reads very much like astrology.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’d have thought the gravitational impact of Neptune on the Sun is very similar to the gravitational effect on me of a 5 ton truck driving past about 16 metres away – i.e. bugger all.

Doug Danhoff

Trusting Snopes is like trusting the alarmists to be scientific. Check out snopes and you will find it is a two person outfit with its own agenda.
I have a number of nautical books, and ships logs, dating back to the early 1800’s and in several of them the term “brass monkey” is used as I noted. The idea stated that freezing them “on” a brass monkey is possible and interesting but not stated in that way in any data I can find

Stephen Wilde

It is looking more and more likely that one way or another the level of solar activity or more specifically the precise mix of particles and wavelengths can alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere by interfering with atmospheric chemistry.
The composition of the various layers in the atmosphere can clearly alter the lapse rate in those layers. The most obvious example is the stratosphere where ozone is present and actually reverses the lapse rate so that temperature increases with height.
That inevitably affects the height of the tropopause and more specifically the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so as to allow the climate zones and jet stream tracks to slide latitudinally to and fro in the atmosphere’s attempts to balance the energy budget at top of atmosphere.
More poleward / zonal jets reduce global cloudiness and allow more energy into the oceans as was observed in the late 20th century warming period.
More equatorward / meridional jets increase global cloudiness and reduce energy into the oceans as now, during the 1970s, during the late 1800s, during the Dalton Minimum and during the Maunder Minimum.
Nice to see a reference to Hubert Lamb. He was the last climate expert that I took seriously.
It is now time to ditch the radiative theories and start building on Lamb’s work and there have been others whose work should now be taken more seriously.
The work of Marcel Leroux and Hans Jelbring need more consideration and I am sure there are others who are equally deserving but whose output has been suppressed.

lsvalgaard says:
January 4, 2013 at 10:01 am
“Please, get real. About the two [or more] peaks”
Just two Peaks, You added the “or more” part. I’ll be happy to discuss it further with you, once I read what your reply is about in the link you supplied, either way we shall see if there will be a second peak soon enough.

Re: ‘Brass Monkey’ and 19th century brass cannonball racks. Not so. The US department of the Navy records no such device. There is also no record of such a device used by the British Royal Navy. Wooden shot racks were more often used to keep cannon balls and other shot in readiness.
In the slang lexicon I grew up with, the phrase derives from either the commonplace brass gift shop monkey souvenir, or more frequently the iconic three suspended brass balls of a pawnbrokers sign, derived in turn from the Heraldic symbol of the Italian Lombard banking family. Legend has it that when the weather is really cold, the differing thermal expansion rates lead to the brass balls on these signs literally dropping off the iron fittings to which they are attached.

Sparks says:
January 4, 2013 at 11:02 am
either way we shall see if there will be a second peak soon enough.
there will very likely be a second peak as the southern hemisphere catches up. This has nothing to do with the planets, so no discussion along those lines will be fruitful [and has already been done ad nauseam here on WUWT].
I added the ‘more peaks’, because many cycles have several peaks. Cycle 14 [shown in Figure 7] had about a dozen peaks.

richardscourtney

Doug Danhoff:
I am writing to add to your post at January 4, 2013 at 10:22 am because – although I know it is off-topic – the issue of ‘brass monkeys’ is amusing and a serious discussion such as this thread can benefit from some comic relief.
You say

I have a number of nautical books, and ships logs, dating back to the early 1800′s and in several of them the term “brass monkey” is used as I noted. The idea stated that freezing them “on” a brass monkey is possible and interesting but not stated in that way in any data I can find

Cold weather in the UK is often said to be,
“Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey”.
And this is often shortened to become a phrase such as “It’s brass monkeys outside” when describing cold weather.
As this thread shows, the origin of “brass monkeys” is not documented – and so is disputed – but is often said to have a naval history. Many similar phrases do have a naval origin (e.g. ‘show a leg’, ‘swinging the lead’, etc.). And these phrases derive from the British humour of using an innocuous phrase in a manner which could be thought to be rude (i.e. double entendre).
I understand that the full story about “brass monkeys” goes like this.
Warships prepared for battle by – among other things – stacking cannon balls alongside their cannons. The lower layer of balls needed to be constrained or the entire stack would collapse and roll away. Initially, this was achieved by putting the balls in flat trays with low walls around their edges, but lifting balls from the bottom layer of the trays was difficult (fingers could not get under a heavy iron ball). This was solved by replacing each tray with a thick, wooden board which had round depressions in its top surface. The iron balls would key into the depressions which were called ‘moons’ because their appearance resembled the Moon when they were seen in the dim side-lighting within a ship.
The Royal Navy liked to place cannons beside the entrances to its shore installations and to stack pyramids of cannon balls beside the cannons. The wooden moon-keys for the balls soon degraded, so they were replaced by brass ones (and sailors were required to polish them daily).
However, brass has a much higher coefficient of thermal expansion than iron. So, as temperature drops the brass moons contract relative to the iron balls. This squeezes the balls up so they are less well keyed into place. Indeed, on very cold nights it could become cold enough to ‘freeze the balls off a brass moon-key’ and the balls would roll down the street.
Slurred pronunciation changes ‘moon-key’ to ‘monkey’.
Richard

Steveta_uk says:
January 4, 2013 at 10:18 am
“hmmmm… this reads very much like astrology.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’d have thought the gravitational impact of Neptune on the Sun is very similar to the gravitational effect on me of a 5 ton truck driving past about 16 metres away – i.e. bugger all.
The Late Sir Patrick Moore used a similar analogy on the BBC program “Sky at night” during the late 1990’s to explain the effect of what the gravitational force would be on the earth during the up coming planetary alignment. He said that there was a gravitational force but that it was small and that it was insignificant to us on earth, I was not discussing a the small direct gravitational force that planets have on earth, I was commenting about the timing of this force that the large outer planets have on suns internal mechanics, which is a fact that it is much greater. If this principle isn’t a fact, then you need to let a lot of astronomers know because it is being used around the world by astronomers to discover new extrasolar planets.
Is this what you call astrology? lol 🙂

I find it amusing that some are arguing that a second peak is going to happen because of past solar cycles behavior but I say that THIS current cycle is not like most of the past solar cycles at all thus a single peak is a possibility.
Recall how often many solar scientists have been downgrading their sunspot counts and even once thought this cycle would be full of sunspots beyond the usual level.
This cycle is very different compared to the last 6 and one that shows lethargic reactions to changes that NONE of the previous 6 shows.
Admit it people this solar cycle is way off the usual track and that is why it is generating unusual interest!

sunsettommy says:
January 4, 2013 at 11:37 am
Admit it people this solar cycle is way off the usual track and that is why it is generating unusual interest!
Actually not, it is very much like several cycles in the past, especially cycle 14. And cycle 24 was predicted to behave just as it does: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

Reduction in the North Atlantic’s geological activity preceded the1970’s drop in the SST by 15 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm
Cross-modulation between the Sunspot magnetic cycle and fluctuations of the Earth’s magnetic field also heralded the1970’s temperatures drop by 15 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
There are two ways of looking at the above:
– Dismiss it; those who arrogantly assume that they know everything worth knowing, the proponents of the status quo of the once for all settled science.
– Accept that the current boundaries of our knowledge are not immovable, that the fundamental laws of nature are not necessarily in conflict with our incomplete understanding of the laws of physics.
Bureaucrats of science will always use all their ‘might’ to suppress anything that could even remotely threaten the carefully cultivated ‘lego brick box’ thinking.

RACookPE1978

lsvalgaard says:
January 4, 2013 at 11:59 am (replying to)
sunsettommy says:
January 4, 2013 at 11:37 am

Admit it people this solar cycle is way off the usual track and that is why it is generating unusual interest!
Actually not, it is very much like several cycles in the past, especially cycle 14. And cycle 24 was predicted to behave just as it does

I usually understand your statements, but this one is dead wrong:
The “consensus, published, and plotted” predictions about solar cycle 24 in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, and (now 2012) were consistently dead wrong; on the other hand, they were all consistently predicting the peak too high, too soon, and lasting too long. The first predictions of solar cycle 24 were for a peak in 2012 higher than cycles 22 or 23…..
Look at the plots: None predicted a peak last summer (as appears to have occurred, and even the latest “consensus” plot shows Dec 2012 sunspots now crossing the bottom of the low half of the bottom “two std deviations” of minimum value curve – at a time when sunspots should be at the maximum of the re-re-re-revised plots of the peak of the cycle.
You had said before, when this came up before, words to the effect of “We had predicted solar cycle 24 based on old theories, and those theories have been updated, so the predicted sunspot curve was re-drawn.
Politely, and sadly, unless you can show released papers detailing the revised theory that required a revised prediction, I’m more inclined to believe that all the solar community is doing is replotting replotted their graphs every six months to “catch up with the data” ….

Dave D

I thought that David’s position was it was the length of a sun cycle which dictated the temperature drop or increase in the cycle immediately following. Wasn’t it because that sun cycle 23 was nearly 13 years long that he was predicting 1-2 degrees of declines over the next 15 years, then (potentially) another small (low sunspot), but long sun cycle 24 that would lead to declines for really the next 30 years, which should started maybe what – 4 years ago to 2 years ago, forget the lag he postulated… I’m not poking fun, but we have had 3 of 4 heaviest December snow records for the NH in the last 4 years and this (record) one may be the start of the 3rd heavy snowfall winter in the Northern Hemisphere for the same last 4 years (last year was lower), so he may have had something. But what I’m saying is this: Sun Cycle 24 looks to be very short, with it’s “steep decline”, that peaked maybe last year? Doesn’t that mean, by his original theory, that the lower temperatures will be shorter in duration, maybe not decline as far and that the next Sun Cycle 25 should see higher temps as a result? I am only asking if I got his logic wrong before and why this article – which clearly focuses on a different aspect of the sun, doesn’t re-state and correct that original theory, if this diverges…
I’m all well and good with new theories – they are the stuff of life. But I think you need to say they either fit or contradict with the last one…

vukcevic says:
January 4, 2013 at 12:28 pm
There are two ways of looking at the above
there is only one way: dismiss. Not all pseudo-science is worth even discussing. Of course, the pseudo-scientist(s) get upset, just look at O. Manuel, and yourself, for that matter.
RACookPE1978 says:
January 4, 2013 at 12:36 pm
I usually understand your statements, but this one is dead wrong
I showed you already the peer-reviewed [as some people seem to like] published prediction made in 2004. Here it is again: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Try to read it. The physics behind it was explained my myself and colleagues back in 1978, and has not changed.
The “consensus, published, and plotted” predictions about solar cycle 24 in 2004, etc
If you refer the Hathaway’s, that is not ‘consensus’ and not even ‘published’.
I’m more inclined to believe that all the solar community is doing is replotting their graphs every six months to “catch up with the data” ….
Hathaway updates his [private] forecast every month as any forecaster must do. Would you believe a weather forecast not based on continuous updates with the latest data?

RACookPE1978

Now, David Archibald’s published predictions here ( http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Solar%20Cycles%2024%20and%2025%20and%20Predicted%20Climate%20Response.pdf ) which do mention that shorter solar cycles coorelate with higher earth temperatures, and longer cycles coorelate to cooler earth temperatures – but he does not offer any reason for the effect – are much more accurate than Hathaway and his NASA cohorts here ( http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/ ) on the NASA website.
Hathaway predicts a peak of 160+ in late 2012, and it is Hathaway’s oft-revised plots that I see duplicated most often on the solar cycle websites and references. I have not seen nor heard about Archibald’s 50 sunspot peak prior to this afternoon. (Dr Archibald predicted a peak nearer today’s reality at 50 sunspot count in his 2006 paper, and predicted a net cooling of 1.5 degrees through solar cycle 24, or solar cycles 24 and 25. It is not clear what period he is covering.)

RACookPE1978

Yes, we crossed posts. Your prediction in the linked paper was for 75 sunspot peak around 2011.

RACookPE1978 says:
January 4, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Now, David Archibald’s published predictions here ( http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Solar%20Cycles%
Is mainly based of my and Schatten’s predictions from 2004:
Hathaway predicts a peak of 160+ in late 2012
Hathaway has long ago seen the light: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

David Archibald

Dave D says:
January 4, 2013 at 12:40 pm
Solar Cycle 24 is going to have a long, flat tail with the 24/25 minimum in 2025. With respect to the methodology of predicting climate using Friis-Christensen and Lassen’s cycle length-temperature relationship, everything remains on track.

Stephen Wilde

Strange how many outside the climate establishment predicted the current solar inactivity long before the ‘establishment’ did.
Though I was interested to see that Leif and his colleagues anticipated a weak cycle 24 back in 2004.
That viewpoint certainly didn’t percolate to the media which gave us scare stories about accelerating warming and an exceptionally strong cycle 24.
What say Leif if the sun stays quiet and global temperatures do distinctly fall over the next 5 years ?

RACookPE1978 says:
January 4, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Yes, we crossed posts. Your prediction in the linked paper was for 75 sunspot peak around 2011.
Unless you were born yesterday you should have known this…

Dave D says:
January 4, 2013 at 12:40 pm
I am only asking if I got his logic wrong before
when has it ever been right?

Tilo Reber

Leif: “And cycle 24 was predicted to behave just as it does:”
Actually, it was predicted to behave in every way immaginable if you looked at all the predictions. Somebody was bound to have it right. In fact, some people predicted that it was going to be the biggest solar cycle in 400 years.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/
Yes, yes, I know – “we have learned so much since 2006 and we don’t make mistakes any more.”

Gail COmbs

David that graph was originally posted by The Pompous Git here at WUWT, I just took note of it.
All thanks should go to him.

Tilo Reber

Leif: “Hathaway has long ago seen the light:”
Yes, one must give Hathaway credit for being smart enough not to have his predictions contradict current data.