Guest post by David Archibald
Solar Cycle 24 has already seen five consecutive colder winters. This is a link to a post about a German meteorologist who has seen the light. Eventually people will work their way back to where all the energy comes from. The amount and type of energy coming from the Sun varies on time scales up thousands of years. Now that we are somewhere near the peak of Solar Cycle 24, let’s see how things are progressing.
Figure 1: MF, TSI, F10.7 Flux and Sunspot Number 2009 – 2013
From Dr Svalgaard’s site, this figure shows that the F10.7 flux is hovering around 100, which is the breakover point between sea level rising and sea level falling. In turn that also means it is the breakover point between the planet warming and the planet cooling. Given that activity will drop once we pass solar maximum, cooling is in train from here.
Figure 2: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2012
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle was at 70.6° as at November 2012. Solar maximum occurs when it reaches 74° – so a little bit further to go.
Figure 3: Ap Index 1932 – 2013
The Ap Index has fallen back below the levels of previous solar minima.
Figure 4: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2012
The solar wind flow pressure has also seen its peak for this cycle.
Figure 5: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2013
The neutron count is likely to trend sideways for another year before rising to a new peak for the instrumental record.
Figure 6: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1968 – 2013
The Interplanetary Magnetic Field appears to have peaked for this cycle.
Figure 7: Solar Cycle 24 Sunspot Number compared to the Dalton Minimum
This chart compares the development of Solar Cycle 24 with the Dalton Minimum. The Solar Cycle 24 is tracking Solar Cycle 5 very closely.
Figure 8: Solanki Sunspot Number Reconstruction 9455 BC to 2035 AD
The data is from Solanki et al 2004 “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”, courtesy of David Evans. A projection to 2035 is included based on Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of an amplitude for Solar Cycle 25 of 7. The average annual sunspot number in Solanki’s reconstruction is 28.7. The average annual sunspot number for the second half of the 20th century is 72.
Figure 9: Solanki cumulative sunspot reconstruction
This graph takes the data from Figure 7 and is additive relative to the average sunspot number over the period of 28.7. It shows that solar activity trends for thousands of years at a time.
Figure 10: Steinhilber et al TSI reconstruction 7,362 BC to 2007 AD
Similarly, Steinhilber et al reconstruction TSI relative to 1,365.57 W/m2 with data courtesy of David Evans.
Figure 11: Steinhilber et al TSI reconstruction cumulative
This graph takes the data from Figure 9 and plots it cumulatively. It also shows that solar activity trends for thousands of years. The Steinhilber reconstruction does show the beginning of the Dark Ages cold period and the Little Ice Age quite accurately.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jeff in Calgary says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:27 am
@Bill H “magnetic rope holding the planets in their orbits”
What are you talking about? The planets are held in their orbit by gravity, and the inverse square law.
“two waves operating at closely the same frequency” The earths magnetic frequency is DC. it changes like every 10thousand years. There is no frequncy. The sun’s field changes ever 12ish years, again, no frequency.
==============================================
Frequency is a rate of change no matter how slow.. Also the earths poles flucuate daily so the frequencey is actually in the realm of 40- 70 min. Hard changes to the poles happens infrequntely. I believe were missing a whole level of interaction..
Gravity is subjective to mass = magnatisim….
Eleven Figure numbers, only ten figures. Something is off around Figure 6.
Hi Moderator, Try this link if the first one didn’t work:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers?feature=watch
If that doesn’t work type “SuspiciousObservers” in your favourite search engine.
My admittedly primitive maths says that a difference in the sun’s output (TSI) of 1 watt/m2 at top of atmosphere should change the surface temperature by roughly 0.045°C before any GHE and 0.086°C with the present albedo and GHG parameters.
If this is correct it would take a substantial change in TSI to have any noticeable effect on climate.
All the same, I’m looking at David Archibald’s first chart above and see a huge TSI departure between periods 2011-54 and 2011-61. This gives a fascinating picture of a constantly varying sun that I haven’t seen in the annual averages I’m accustomed to.
Jeff in Calgary says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:27 am
…..
Earth magnetic field has strong fluctuations superimposed on the long term ‘DC’ dipole.
Here is what NASA-JPL says:
“Although we do not observe the core directly, it’s amazing how much we can learn about Earth’s interior using magnetic field observations,” said Dickey.
……..
“The oscillations originated at the boundary between Earth’s core and its mantle and traveled inward toward the inner core with decreasing strength. Four of these oscillations were robust, occurring at periods of 85, 50, 35 and 28 years.”
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2420
I looked into shorter periods (higher frequencies) and here is what I found:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EMFspectrum.htm
Quiet Professional – look at a sine wave pattern: You can be on a downward trend but still be close enough to the peak for the most recent measurements to be the highest you’ve measured.
Bill H says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:58 am
Why do you discount the exchange of energy in both directions? Even on earth a minor weak radio station will disrupt a much larger one
Even on Earth we observe that some radio waves cannot penetrate a plasma [they are reflected from the plasma in the ionosphere and the reflection makes long-distance radio communication possible].
But in general magnetic and electric [not electromagnetic – e.g. light – we can see the sun and the stars] changes cannot propagate faster in a plasma than the so-called Alfven speed. The solar wind moves ten times as fast as the Alfven speed for it [at planetary distances], so any magnetic effects will be swept downstream ten times faster than they can move upstream [to the sun]. If you sit in a small boat in a slow-flowing river and throw a pebble into to water you can see the ripples from the splash move away from the point of impact and eventually reach points on the bank upstream of you at the time you threw in the pebble. But if the river is flowing very fast the ripples are swept with the flow and cannot move upstream to reach the bank at a point further upstream that where you were when you threw the pebble. .
I believe its a bit too early to just ignore them and throw them aside with slight of hand.
So, you see there are good reasons for ignoring them, and you should not accuse me of sleight-of-hand [very bad style to do so]. Now, some people refuse to learn [or cannot], so pseudo-science blazes on regardless. Try not to be among those.
Quiet Professional,
TonyG is right. Here you can see that we’re over the hump.
And here you can see that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature.
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 10:40 am
“The oscillations originated at the boundary between Earth’s core and its mantle and traveled inward toward the inner core with decreasing strength. Four of these oscillations were robust, occurring at periods of 85, 50, 35 and 28 years.”
The oscillations occur by interaction between the flows in the core and they rub against the bottom of the mantle and have nothing to do with the Sun. Your quote is a good example of your lack of understanding of this [and you inability to learn].
Either way, there’s less insulation between the ocean and the air. 🙂 It’s more complicated though because of wave action and evaporation.
The weather isn’t uniform. In any normal year, you should get numerous record highs and lows. By themselves, they don’t mean much. For some reason, the record lows kind of get ignored.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/08/low-temperature-records-overwhelm-highs-in-the-usa-this-past-week-wheres-the-media-to-tell-us-how-this-should-be-viewed/
I think you could probably make a statistical argument about the number of expected highs and lows. The resident statistician around here is William Briggs. He has done many posts on his blog about the uses and abuses of statistics. Here’s an example: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5928
@pottereaton: 7:44 am.
That link didn’t work for me earlier. Now that it works, the link says
Speaking dispassionately, you can probably find a string of five colder-than-normal winters, summers, autumns, or springs, for some country in the world at any time.
Given the link, David Archibald’s sweeping opening sentence
Solar Cycle 24 has already seen five consecutive colder winters.
is a little short of the mark on statistical significance and causality.
I’d LOVE to tie sun spot solar cycles to climate change. I’d love to explain the geological record as in part a function of a mildly variable star. But we have to follow the data and not read more into the statistics that what is there.
“Solar Cycle 24 has already seen five consecutive colder winters – ”
in good correlation with the step function drop of the AP index.
Doug Danhoff says:
February 25, 2013 at 7:29 am
Politicians do not give up manipulative tools such as CAGW easily. Only when it is forced upon them. Job security is far more important than honest service, so after 15+ years of no significant heating it is time those of us who have a say, vote out ALL politicians involved in this scam to control energy and lives. I would push for prosecution of the offenders but for the feeling that most politicans are not bright enough to see the truth.
That’s all of them then ?
richard verney says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:07 am
Cox spends a lot of his time contradicting himself. It’s a requirement for keeping the BBC Travel Credit card that he so enjoys.
The classic words from him came when asked directly whether AGW was real. His response was ” well the consensus says so”. A scientist fighting with his honesty and the trough.
commieBob says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:35 am
“The arctic sea ice melts from the bottom up. Its thickness can decrease 90% with no melt pools on the top to indicate that it is indeed melting. You actually have to measure it to tell that it’s melting.”
Do you have a reference to back up this statement?
So, Hansen may be correct?, just 35 years off?
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 11:00 am
The oscillations occur by interaction between the flows in the core and they rub against the bottom of the mantle and have nothing to do with the Sun. Your quote is a good example of your lack of understanding of this [and you inability to learn].
Hi doc, let’s see:
a) Vukcevic: Oscillations of the Earth magnetic field induce currents in the ocean and the upper mantle
b) Dr.L. Svalgaard -: Variations of the observed field at the surface of the Earth are syncronized with solar activity. Variations are caused by currents in the magnetosphere and ionosphere, and induced in the oceans and upper mantle
(Dr. S. also said that these are too weak to have an effect, I am not so certain)
Vukcevic: If two of above (a & b, both electric currents induced in the ocean) are combined the result is:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
I favour the Arctic ocean currents (where both Earth magnetic field and geomagnetic storms are at their strongest) flowing south through Denmark Strait. Any oceanography scientist will confirm that these currents are critical components of the N.Atlantic’s subpolar gyre, the engine of the heat transfer across the N. Atlantic, the home of the AMO and the regulator of the natural variability in the Northern Hemisphere.
@jon
>>“The arctic sea ice melts from the bottom up. Its thickness can decrease 90% with no melt pools on the top to indicate that it is indeed melting. You actually have to measure it to tell that it’s melting.”
>Do you have a reference to back up this statement?
The Arctic ocean is warmer than the ice floating on top of it, wihchi s in turn warmer than the frigid air above that. When the cooling on top (losing heat to space) moderates in spring, the warmth that has been seeping through the ice all winter starts to melt it. Combined with spring sunlight, the surface melts from ‘both sides’.
This is not at all like the melting of a puddle or a skating rink in the mid latitudes where the sun and air temperatures overwhelm heat rising from below. I am not sure if you need a reference for this, the Arctic ocean is not colder than the ice above it. That why it remains liquid.
An ocean current (for example through the Bering Strait) carries a huge amount of heat with it and provides a cooling system for the planet. As you are probably aware teh whle premise of CAGW is that hte air heats up from additional CO2 which heats the oceans and melts the ice from above with its increased air temperature.
That is simply not how the Earth works. The oceans are the great stores of heat and transport it to the Arctic Ocean when the gyres or wind is right (note, 2007). There is no mechanism by which hotter air will warm the oceans. Oceans are heated by the sun (if it is not too cloudy) and to a tiny extent, by heat from the centre of the Earth.
Quiet Professional says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:07 am
A couple basic questions:
How do we square the record high temperatures — “hottest summer on record, etc.” — of the past decade with a cooling trend, or at least a no warming trend, over the same period?
And with the rise in Arctic temperatures and consequent loss of sea ice there?
QP, if you compare the estimated Solar Number Reconstruction with estimated Holocene temperatures, you will almost immediately note the similarity in the curves. What’s more interesting, there’s a clear “hockey stick” marking the present, which is comparable in magnitude to the estimated spike about 9,000 years BP. So, that curve literally “predicts” that the present should be hot based upon solar criteria alone.
That said, there are several other aspects that could bear additional analysis. The data used in Figure 8 is C-14 data from dendrochronological studies. Unlike estimating temperature based on tree-ring width, the methods used really should measure the relative amount of carbon/radiocarbon in the atmosphere as a tree ring forms. However that doesn’t offer anmy causal explanation for the change, just the fact. I would like to see a comparison of Be-10 data over that same span. Be-10 is, like C-14, a cosmogenic isotope, so that would offer a control on whether the fluctuations of C-14 are due to extraplanetary events or to for instance changes in the carbon cycle.
Stephen Richards says:
February 25, 2013 at 11:38 am
richard verney says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:07 am
Cox spends a lot of his time contradicting himself. It’s a requirement for keeping the BBC Travel Credit card that he so enjoys.
The classic words from him came when asked directly whether AGW was real. His response was ” well the consensus says so”. A scientist fighting with his honesty and the trough.
Reply:
Taken from the new statesman cox had this to say on global warming denial specifically
“Science is the framework within which we reach conclusions about the natural world. These conclusions are always preliminary, always open to revision, but they are the best we can do. It is not logical to challenge the findings of science unless there are specific, evidence-based reasons for doing so. Elected politicians are free to disregard its findings and recommendations. Indeed, there may be good reasons for doing so.”
He’s never had a problem with evidence based challenges to anything, it’s pseudoscience he has a problem with. He can be quite flippant about it. I believe he’s intellectually honest enough that if pressed and evidence was presented he would privately admit the IPCC over played it’s hand. I’d love to know what HE thinks about CO2 sensitivity which he surely would have to admit is where the real debate lies these days.
I’ve been directly asking over twitter these champions of rational thought, with whom I agree on a great many thinks as a limp wristed lefty liberal, that specific question “What do you think the sensitivity to CO2 is” to see whether I really disagree with them. I never get a response though.
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm
b) Dr.L. Svalgaard -: Variations of the observed field at the surface of the Earth are syncronized with solar activity. Variations are caused by currents in the magnetosphere and ionosphere, and induced in the oceans and upper mantle
(Dr. S. also said that these are too weak to have an effect, I am not so certain)
That is your problem, you have no grip on the basic physics. ‘not so certain’ is just a euphemism for ‘having no idea’.
The solar induced currents are strong in the magnetosphere and ionosphere, but are much smaller in the ocean and the upper mantle. And as all induced current [dB/dt] are transient and short-lived. There is a useful concept called the ‘skin depth’. which is the depth to which a magnetic change will effectively induce a current. The depth depends on frequency and conductivity. For changes on a time scale of 1 hour the depth for upper mantle is 300 km, for the lower mantle 9 km, and for the core 0.043 km. For a time scale of a magnetic storm, the depths are 1500 km, 47 km, and 0.209 km, so there is no way any effect can influence the circulation in the core. So solar and core processes are completely decoupled. The core is effectively a super conductor and does not allow external magnetic field to enter.
The heating of the ocean from the tiny induced currents is unmeasurably small as any competent electrical engineer can easily verify. Show your competence and calculate it yourself.
With respect to Figure 8, the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th Century than it had been in the previous 11,000 years. Is it any wonder that the planet warmed in response to that?
Something I have been thinking about for some time. Gulf stream flow with lower oceans levels. The gulf stream with the last ice ages would of been almost be non existent and ice could build very fast in the northern Arctic and stay around until the sun goes into a warm phase. Higher sea levels is the reverse and faster Arctic ice melting with good gulf stream flows. The sun has to go through cycles that are much larger then we know of today. Our solar system is like a hurricane floating in space and it has to go through areas where the sun takes in more something to release more energy.over longer periods of time.
Also a large asteroid hit could hit changing everything from axis to time of day light. Just think if there was no sunlight at the Arctic at all for 1 million years while the southern hemisphere had sunlight all the time. Could of happened in the past until the Sun’s gravity put earth back on track. Even if the moon was in different placement from a good sized hit climate would be different. So many things.
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Any oceanography scientist will confirm that these currents are critical components …
Study this http://www.leif.org/EOS/Ocean-Oscillations.pdf to learn what oceanographers can tell you about ocean oscillations and their cause. Read and learn [if possible]. I might quiz you on the contents, so pay attention to it.
One of the figures is missing. You have tags for Fig1-11, but I only see 10. One of them is missing, and I think Fig 6 is the one.