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.
David Archibald says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:37 pm
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?
No, that is simply not true. As I have shown many times, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:32 pm
………
You do go astray, in order to divert attention from the subject.
Point is that ocean currents in the Arctic are highly stratified (light fresh cold water is at the top, warm salty waters below)
http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/arctic/images/ArcticCurrents-labels.jpg
Lorenz forces are acting on every singular ion of salty water to a far greater extent than on the fresh water thus causing interference within the termohaline layers.
Combination of the solar and Earth’s magnetic oscillations produces correlation with the N. Hemisphere’s temperature which is beyond any doubt.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
Geomagnetic storms x Earth’s magnetic field > Arctic ocean currents > subpolar gyre > AMO > N. Hemisphere’s temperature natural variability:
Cause and consequence are fundamental tools of science.
Proclaiming ‘spurious’ and ‘coincidence’ are in the tools of an anxious detractor.
re Germany’s winters
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/25/collapsing-consensus-another-german-meteorology-site-wondering-about-the-global-temperature-stagnation/
David was 100% correct
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Lorenz forces are acting on every singular ion of salty water to a far greater extent than on the fresh water thus causing interference within the termohaline layers.
Total nonsense. The currents are of the order of 0.00001 A/m2. The resistance is 0.21 ohm m, now be an engineer and calculate the heating [hint: Q = i^2 R t].
Combination of the solar and Earth’s magnetic oscillations produces correlation with the N. Hemisphere’s temperature which is beyond any doubt.
You are vague on this. ‘Combinations’? ‘produce’ correlation is nonsense. True science doubt very much your spurious correlations. You have not even told us how you make up the data you claim to be correlated.
Cause and consequence are fundamental tools of science.
Then use those tools. You have not identified any cause and shown it is sufficient.
‘spurious’ and ‘coincidence’
Are the verdict of an experienced scientist [moi].
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 2:23 pm
“Study this http://www.leif.org/EOS/Ocean-Oscillations.pdf to learn what oceanographers can tell you about ocean oscillations and their cause.”
These models are highly theoretical … we find it hard enough to predict the weather!
Jon says:
February 25, 2013 at 2:51 pm
These models are highly theoretical … we find it hard enough to predict the weather!
The models explain the observed variations. What more can we expect? or is needed?
Crispin in Waterloo says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm
“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”
What a load of hog wash … warmth seeping through the ice in winter! Do you know what the water temperatures are below the ice in summer … in the areas I have worked in they are close to -1.8°C. Meanwhile the air temps are above freezing.
@David Archibald The suns activity is present in temperature records, I agree with the Idea that the Earth warms and cools in response to the Suns activity,
(If the sunspot number before 1957 is calibrated to Leif’s specification, the correlation becomes a bit tighter.)
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nov-ssn-v-feb-tmin-1875-20121.gif
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 2:51 pm
…….
vukcevic: Lorenz forces are acting on every singular ion of salty water to a far greater extent than on the fresh water thus causing interference within the termohaline layers.
lsvalgaard The resistance is 0.21 ohm m, now be an engineer and calculate the heating [hint: Q = i^2 R t].
Heating ? another of your diversions. For ions and Lorenz forces see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorentz_force.svg
You have not even told us how you make up the data you claim to be correlated.
One more diversion from the obscurant detractor
Anyone interested can google ‘vukcevic Geo-Solar oscillation’ or ‘vukcevic Geo-Solar cycle’
@lsvalgaard
Leif, I’m sure you know this, large magnetic fields can be effected by a body much smaller than the body producing the large magnetic field.
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Heating ? another of your diversions.
Ah, so now you have given up on that idea, and try to see what you can get out of the Lorenz force “causing interference within the termohaline layers”. What kind of interference? As a result of a force, stuff [water in this case] moves: acceleration = force / mass. So calculate the acceleration instead. A Lorenz force F = q(E+vxB) is indeed caused by water moving with velocity v across the Earth’s magnetic field B. The changes in B are minute dB/B of the order 1/1000 to 1/100, so the change is force will be correspondingly tiny. But, let us see first what you calculate the force to be. Faraday first explored this back in 1832.
Sparks says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Leif, I’m sure you know this, large magnetic fields can be effected by a body much smaller than the body producing the large magnetic field.
So? magnetic changes have to traverse the space between the bodies and if that space is filled with plasma moving away from the larger body with a speed much [10 times, in fact] exceeding the speed limit (the Alfven speed) then no changes can propagate from the small to the large body, right?
,
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:00 pm
“The models explain the observed variations. What more can we expect? or is needed?”
Oh please … the observed variations over millions of cubic km’s of ocean …. so where is the data. I’d be interested to know how large the database is! Are you suddenly an oceanographer???
If Svalgaard were as polite and restrained as Vukcevic, I would be inclined to believe him more. But as it is, he is his own worst enemy.
Leif, my comment isn’t directed at magnetic field interactions with each-other, I Understand that a small body can effect the magnetic field of a much larger body. this is true is it not?
Jon says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:44 pm
so where is the data. I’d be interested to know how large the database is! Are you suddenly an oceanographer???
Are you all the sudden? Try to read the paper, and follow the references [there are lots of them – and that is what they are there for] and discussion.
Tony McGough says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:53 pm
If Svalgaard were as polite and restrained as Vukcevic, I would be inclined to believe him more. But as it is, he is his own worst enemy.
It is easy to be restrained in face of my science-based physical arguments. When repeatedly confronted with nonsense and refusal to learn, some of the restraint wears thin.
Sparks says:
February 25, 2013 at 4:03 pm
Leif, my comment isn’t directed at magnetic field interactions with each-other, I Understand that a small body can effect the magnetic field of a much larger body. this is true is it not?
Whether it is true depends on the circumstances. So precisely which are those that you have in mind. Let me take an example where it is false: the much larger body Earth has a magnetic field. My little finger is a small body. I wiggle my little finger. That does not affect the magnetic field of the Earth to any measurable degree.
Leif, scale it up to a degree where it is measurable and describe that, I understand the physics behind this, as do you, If you’re uncomfortable discussing this, you can use my e-mail.
You are correct, wiggling your little finger about does not effect the magnetic field of earth to any measurable degree. If you meant that as a bit of intellectual humor at my expense, Ha Ha!
[Video] just [released] by NASA 23 Feb
This was a cool clip, thanks crispin, but i started to giggle because of the sound track…so that is what the sun sounds like; thanks NASA.
Wow hard to follow this thread, like alphabet soup, sheesh, i need a nap ’cause i don’t think GCR is Great Canadian Rebates and i don’t think MM is numbers and measure. I will try again tomorrow.
oh does anybody look at the spectrum of wavelengths emitted from the Sun, is this constant in at all times?
Do plants and algae and the like heat or cool their surroundings or does that not have an affect on the latent heat of oceans and/or land?
Sparks says:
February 25, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Leif, scale it up to a degree where it is measurable and describe that
I’m not sure which circumstances you are referring to. Give me a specific example.
Kajajuk says:
February 25, 2013 at 6:00 pm
oh does anybody look at the spectrum of wavelengths emitted from the Sun
Yes, it is looked at all the time [and it does vary] … [not by much though, except at very short wavelengths which we cannot see on the Earth, [because] they are absorbed high in the atmosphere]: e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 7:28 pm
[Because I can sometimes figure it out, but “andores” ? “And or data varies” ? Mod]
Just got new keyboard 🙂 Fingers not trained yet. ‘And does vary’
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Lorenz forces are acting on every singular ion of salty water to a far greater extent than on the fresh water thus causing interference within the termohaline layers.
First of all, the surface water is not fresh, it is still almost as salty as deeper down [in the subtropics even saltier, because of evaporation]. And the conductivity depends so strongly on the temperature and the pressure that it is some 3 times larger for the warmer surface water than for the colder bottom water, just the opposite of what you claim. You really cannot do science without knowing the basics: the conductivity increases equally by a salinity increase of 1 gram per liter, a temperature increase of 1° C, or a depth (i.e. pressure) increase of 2000 m. But, let that slide for now, so you can calculate the Lorenz force for us and show us how that force ‘interferes’ with the circulation.
;
Thanks for the interesting article David Archibald. It’s too bad most of the comments turn into the same old arguments but I’ve just learned to skip and ignore some folks.. why feed the sun troll.
pkatt says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Thanks for the interesting article David Archibald. It’s too bad most of the comments turn into the same old arguments but I’ve just learned to skip and ignore some folks
Yes, indeed, it is easier to believe what you want to believe [even if wrong] and ignore the skeptics.
DA: The solar wind flow pressure has also seen its peak for this cycle. No,
Statistically, the flow pressure is at its minimum at solar maximum [after allowing for a long-term trend]: http://www.leif.org/research/Space-Climate-n-B-V-Flow.png so its peak is still to come.