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.
pkatt: 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.
Not so. I asked a simple question that he declines to answer and he does not address the empirical claims made by Leif Svalgaard.
Leif, The outer mass (plasma) of the Sun, is effecting the magnetic field produced by its core, the relative physical mass to create this dynamo, you discuss is plausible, correct?
Therefor no-other physical interactions are possible? is this correct?
Sparks says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Leif, The outer mass (plasma) of the Sun, is effecting the magnetic field produced by its core, the relative physical mass to create this dynamo, you discuss is plausible, correct?
Therefor no-other physical interactions are possible? is this correct?
The little body can obviously affect the magnetic field locally where the body is, but that is different from affecting the magnetic field globally, e.g. at its source in the large body. Whether it is possible to affect the global field or the field at the large body depends on many factors, one being the dynamics of the bodies and their environment. In case of the Earth and the Sun there is a plasma between the two moving away from the Sun faster than an Alfven wave [changing the magnetic field] can move towards the Sun. In this case, there can be no effect at the source. In the case of Jupiter and its moon Io, the magnetosphere around Jupiter is not moving away from Jupiter and plasma from Io can move along magnetic field lines and produce aurorae on Jupiter so can affect the field close to its source, albeit only very little. So it all depends on the particular circumstances.
Leif, Thanks, I think you know where I’m coming from and what I’m getting at, so to speak. Explore what we have touched upon, It will be interesting.
Sparks says:
February 25, 2013 at 10:54 pm
Leif, Thanks, I think you know where I’m coming from and what I’m getting at, so to speak. Explore what we have touched upon, It will be interesting.
I think I have said what there is to say about the subject. Is there anything specific you need to have clarified?
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 11:05 pm
I think I have said what there is to say about the subject. Is there anything specific you need to have clarified?
You have not gave a straight answer.
@lsvalgaard: I often am set back with the statement that the TSI is too small to affect our temperatures here on earth, with the explanation being that the TSI is where all the energy is and it changes too little. Are you suggesting that the other changes to the sun’s output do NOT or can NOT have any other affect which causes feedbacks?
I am not talking specifically of the cosmic ray theory or hypothesis, but it does come to mind. I often say, just because we do not find the smoking gun, doesn’t mean there is not one. You seem to be sure that (maybe I am projecting) it’s nonsense to think that all climate effects from the sun can only be measured by TSI –period. Am I correct in my assumptions here?
It is obvious that SC24 has almost reached it’s peak. So far Vukcevic is the only one on this blog that has predicted SC24’s max and I am confident that his prediction for SC25 will follow suit.
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:38 pm
(vukcevic : Heating ? another of your diversions.)
Ah, so now you have given up on that idea
Hi Doc
Straying again, are we?
1. I never suggested that any significant heat is released by electric currents inductions. As you well know, what you imply is totally incorrect, and I am sure with your ‘inventiveness’ you can find more suitable counter-argument.
2. 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].
I am talking about Arctic currents (see my link again)
http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/arctic/images/ArcticCurrents-labels.jpg
Note the ice covered area and the currents vertical positioning, not much evaporation under the ice, is there?
Fresh water comes from the huge Siberian and Canadian rivers inflow. The only active factors there are magnetic fields (from both sun and the earth) and some geological activity. The long term variability of Earth’s field here (moving in step with the solar ) determines directly the temperatures of whole of the Arctic region:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.htm
Most likely cause is change in the balance of Arctic’s currents, the outflow via Denmark Strait and the AMO, the heart-beat of the N. Atlantic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
Dr. S. this ‘conversation’ makes sense only if one does not misinterprets the other, but even more importantly, without introducing non-existent attributions (e.g. ‘electric heating’).
I shall leave last word (right or wrong) to you, but do remember that one ‘spurious’ correlation may be coincidence but half a dozen only points to what the nature is the best at: cause and consequence.
Over and out.
Re Comment from Richard Verney about Brian Cox tv program
“He also briefly touched upon the earth acquiring water. It may be the case that there was no water on earth during the faint sun epoch, and that water was aquired (by whatever mechanism) only later in earth’s history”
Oldest sediments on the planet are in Greenland. 3.9 billion years old, so there was water around then. Plenty of sedimentary rocks found around 3.4 to 3.6 billion years old in North America , Africa and Australia. Possible fossils [still a bit of dispute here] from northern Western Australia are 3.5 billion years old.
The oldest minerals on the planet have been dated to around 4.2- 4.3 billion years so water was around early in the planet’s development and life started up fairly quickly.
The so called faint sun is used as a “cause” for a lack of warming much later in earth history during the Devonian [350Ma-420Ma] when CO2 was about 10 times current levels. Instead of warming there was glaciation. Interesting as well that ocean acidification didn’t seem to be a problem then.
Matthew R Marler says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:32 pm
Because it was such a simple question, Mr Marler. Logic dictates that there is a breakover point. Through my own research I have determined that the level is 100 in F10.7 flux. You are always free to determine the level yourself.
We should have a closer look to the TSI. See
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant, figure 5.
Minimum 20/21: 1365.496 W/m²
Min 21/22: 1365.579 W/m²
Min 22/23: 1365.493 W/m²
Min 23/24: 1365.253 W/m²
From May 2008 through March 2009 the average TSI was 1365.267 W/m². This low value must have its implications on earth.
I refer also to the paper of Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc, “The Sun Defines The Climate”, November 2008. (http://www.giurfa.com/abdu2009.pdf). He speaks of a drop in the value of TSI (and solar activity) which is accelerating, indicating the beginning of a decreasing phase in a 200 year solar cycle. He predicted a maximum of the sunspot number of 65 +/- 15 in the 24th solar cycle. We have to wait until 2014 to take definite conclusions.
In the subsequent cycles he predicts a further decrease of the SSN. If Penn & Livingston are right, no sunspots should be seen from the next cycle on.
Absussamatov expects the onset of the phase of deep minimum in the present 200-year cycle of cyclic activity of the Sun to occur at the beginning of solar cycle 27; i.e., tentatively in the year 2042 plus or minus 11 years, and potentially lasting 45-65 years.
Sunspot says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:11 am
…..
It is just straight forward extrapolation. If the SC25 does follow the trend, than the solar science has seriously to consider possible role of ‘electro-magnetic’ feedback.
Mosher Svaalgard etc..
All of above is nonsense re arctic, global ice melting and arctic temperatures rising
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php Arctic ice = NORMAL
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Arctic Temperatures = BELOW anomaly haha
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png Antarctica ice =WAY ABOVE NORMAL
GLOBAL ICE = NORMAL
ALL FROM PRO AGW SITES LOL (maybe finally they have given up trying to “adjust” anymore as it aint going the way the want)
An appropriate quote from a totally different subject :
“Any discussion should have as its starting point the basic, axiomatic assumption that any one of us can know with certainty only a part, and that part is likely to be partially wrong.”
This is, I think, particularly relevant to the studies of the sun, climate, and man’s activities: so many variables, so little time, so little firmly known, so much feedback, both positive and negative…
Let us learn humbly from one another.
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:45 am
the arctic air temperature, per se, isn’t particularly strong evidence for global warming.
But would [by most people here] be considered strong evidence for global cooling if the Arctic were cooling…
But it’s almost per definition so, since the funny measure “global temperature” is, as a measure of global lower atmospheric heat content, very sensitive to Arctic temperature changes (since a degree higher or lower in the cold Arctic desert corresponds to a far smaller change in enthalpy than a degree higher or lower in warmer and more humid regions).
very interesting…….guess we will find out in the coming years.
REgarding the question as to whether ice melts top down or bottom up, a few considerations:
1. It is much easier to observe pooling than bottom melting.
2. The heat carrying capacity of water is 3 orders of magnitude greater than air.
3. Sea water melts ice at -2 degrees C.
4. Arctic sea ice begins melting in March, before appreciable insolation.
5. Ice is a good insulator.
It seems to me top melting is the easily visible exception to the rule, and that the thicker the ice, the more important bottom melting becomes. Of course in the case of ice bergs deep water does the melting. I suppose new sea ice in June melts top down, rather trivially. –AGF
You seem to be sure that (maybe I am projecting) it’s nonsense to think that all climate effects from the sun can only be measured by TSI –period. Am I correct in my assumptions here?
Not nonsense. And TSI does have an effect [of the order of 0.1 degree] via a well-established physical mechanism. The problem with all the other proposed effects is that their energy is on the order of a million times smaller and their mechanisms are either unknown or controversial. The observations are, however, as always what ultimately determine what is going on, and the data have not compelling to convince me. They may convince you or other people, but that does not do much for me.
vukcevic says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:48 am
I am talking about Arctic currents
Which are still salty, not fresh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temperature_and_salinity_profiles_in_the_Arctic_Ocean.svg
Not much lower than the usual average salinity of 35 promille.
Over and out.
And you still evade explaining how the Lorenz force would work, and even to calculate it. So, you have no mechanism. And you have still not explained how to make your [as you put it] ‘confidential’ data. So it is understandable that you bow out.
David Archibald says:
February 26, 2013 at 1:37 am
Logic dictates that there is a breakover point.
No, it does not.
Rik Gheysens says:
February 26, 2013 at 1:56 am
From May 2008 through March 2009 the average TSI was 1365.267 W/m². This low value must have its implications on earth.
That low value is an artifact due to uncompensated degradation of the detector. There is no evidence of a lower value at the recent minimum.
I refer also to the paper of Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc, “The Sun Defines The Climate”
Since there was no lower value, extrapolating the non-existent lower minimum is wrong from the output. And Abdussamatov has already been falsified by subsequent evolution of TSI, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png In fact TSI right now [average 2013] is higher [1361.5] than it was in 2003 [1361.3].
vukcevic says:
February 26, 2013 at 2:24 am
It is just straight forward extrapolation. If the SC25 does follow the trend, than the solar science has seriously to consider possible role of ‘electro-magnetic’ feedback.
Extrapolation has no predictive power, and a low SC25 does not show possible ‘electro-magnetic’ feedback. Two problems even with you word: it is in quotes, so is not the usual physical concept, and there is a hyphen which also shows that it is not a recognized concept. Magnetic and/or electric changes cannot travel upstream to the Sun because of the Alfven speed limit, so no feedback is possible.
Leif provides an interesting link: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011RG000375.pdf
I’m reading along about the sun and then this:
The natural greenhouse effect is the cause for global average temperatures above the freezing point of water over much of the Earth’s history, while the anthropogenic component resulting from the continuing emission of greenhouse gases by humanity is responsible for the observed global
warming since the 19th century [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007].
You can see that the warming theme has affected or should that be infected science at many levels, even in an otherwise good article about the sun.
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 7:46 am
Which are still salty, not fresh
1. Read what experts in the field ( WHOI ) have to say, and get it right:
The present state of the Arctic Ocean and its influence on the global climate system strongly depend on the Arctic Ocean freshwater budget, because fluctuations in the freshwater export can significantly influence the depth and volume of deep water formation in the North Atlantic (NA) and ultimately the strength of the global thermohaline circulation.
2. And you have still not explained how to make your [as you put it] ‘confidential’ data.
Again, read what I had to say, and get it right:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/solar-update-february-2013/#comment-1232606
‘electro-magnetic’ feedback. ….and there is a hyphen which also shows that it is not a recognized concept.
Absolute tosh !
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wEMinduc1.html
At the rate you are going, even on the matters that you speak with undoubted authority readers will start ignoring, which would be a great pity.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 7:46 am
You seem to be sure that (maybe I am projecting) it’s nonsense to think that all climate effects from the sun can only be measured by TSI –period. Am I correct in my assumptions here?
Not nonsense. And TSI does have an effect [of the order of 0.1 degree] via a well-established physical mechanism. The problem with all the other proposed effects is that their energy is on the order of a million times smaller and their mechanisms are either unknown or controversial. The observations are, however, as always what ultimately determine what is going on, and the data have not compelling to convince me. They may convince you or other people, but that does not do much for me.
There is roughly 20 years of data that shows close correlation of GCR and planetary cloud cover up until roughly 1995 at which there is suddenly a reduction in low level planetary cloud cover.
There is in the paleoclimatic record cycles of warming followed by cooling that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes. The past warming and cooling cycles were not caused by changes in greenhouse gases. The sun appears to be driver of past climate cycles.
The 20th century warming was not evenly distributed; the tropics and the southern hemisphere did not warm. If the 20th century warming was due to rise of CO2 in the atmosphere the warming would have been evenly distributed with majority of the warming occurring in the tropics.
As I noted there are unexplained very large and very rapid geomagnetic changes in the paleo record. The geomagnetic field changes (both intensity and sudden changes in the tilt of the geomagnetic field) are too large and too rapid for a core based cause. The geomagnetic field changes correlate with abrupt and cyclic climate change.
There are burn marks on the surface of the earth, throughout the Northern Hemisphere, that correlate with Younger Dryas abrupt climate change event and there is a geomagnetic excursion that correlates with the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change.
Hi lsvalgaard: Thank you for your reply: “They may convince you or other people, but that does not do much for me.”
You always make such cogent points based on your expert interpretation of the facts. I’m still not convinced that there is not a relationship. Considering the total amount and type of energy rising and falling (from the sun), and all the lags of stored and released energy in the oceans, the complex interactions between our atmosphere, land, and space, and observed weather – I think there is a certain link which is far greater than could be caused by only looking at TSI in terms of watts/m2.
Just looking at the ENSO process and how cloud formation and weather patterns affect El Nino and La Nina for example puts solar cycles and weather into the spot light for me.
I think climate is more complex than even Macro Economics… and no one can tell you if the market will go up or down tomorrow with certainty (except people pulling the strings perhaps…) That said, I’ve played the market exceptionally well for the past 15 years… hardly every losing and always taking the rides up.
vukcevic says:
February 26, 2013 at 8:49 am
1. Read what experts in the field ( WHOI ) have to say
All that is well and good. But your quote of this is typical for pseudo-science: quoting something correct and then misusing it. The difference in salinity is so small that it makes almost no difference to the Lorenz force. And you still evade to explain your Lorenz-mechanism, here.
2. And you have still not explained how to make up your [as you put it] ‘confidential’ data.
Again, read what I had to say, and get it right:
All you said was ‘One more diversion from the obscurant detractor’
The various other attempts of illumination fall short.
Absolute tosh
Again you do not know what you are talking about, The link talks about ‘Those are electromagnetically induced currents, originally discovered by Faraday’. The dumbing down to electro-magnetic might be suitable for your level. The induction is the production of a voltage across a conductor when exposed to a varying magnetic field. So it comes down to communicating a change of the magnetic field back to the Sun, which is not possible due to the supersonic solar wind.
William says:
February 26, 2013 at 9:12 am
There is roughly 20 years of data that shows close correlation of GCR and planetary cloud cover up until roughly 1995 at which there is suddenly a reduction in low level planetary cloud cover.
This is typical for spurious correlations: they work for a while, then fail.
The geomagnetic field changes (both intensity and sudden changes in the tilt of the geomagnetic field) are too large and too rapid for a core based cause.
And how you do deduce that? and what would explain those too large changes if not changes in the core?
Mario Lento says:
February 26, 2013 at 9:23 am
I think climate is more complex than even Macro Economics
And yet, the solar enthusiasts claim the solar connection is clear and simple.
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 7:46 am
Since there was no lower value, extrapolating the non-existent lower minimum is wrong from the output. And Abdussamatov has already been falsified by subsequent evolution of TSI, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png In fact TSI right now [average 2013] is higher [1361.5] than it was in 2003 [1361.3].
Leif,
How can be explained the difference between the TSI values we find in http://www.pmodwrc.ch (1365.) and your TSI values (1361.)?