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.
Rik Gheysens says:
February 26, 2013 at 10:26 am
How can be explained the difference between the TSI values we find in http://www.pmodwrc.ch (1365.) and your TSI values (1361.)?
See, e.g. slide 29 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/10S1_0616_GKopp.pdf
By a design defect that allows a bit of scatted light to enter the detector and thus gives a TSI that is too high.
– – – – – – – –
I do not see the ‘breakover’ basis of Archibald.
In a similar vein, I do not see compelling evidence that we are entering a solar variation similar to the MM, but if we are then the conclusion there will be another LIA resulting from it does not reasonably follow.
The timing of the MM with respect to the LIA does not support MM causation of the LIA.
Also, consider the order of magnitude comparison of the estimates of the delta energies from the sun during the MM versus the estimates of delta energies of the earth-atmospheric system during the LIA. The comparison does not support MM causation of the LIA.
* * * * * * *
Now A Little Intellectual Excursion for Fun:
After numerous excellent solar post discussions in comments here at WUWT, I do a Feynman type informed ‘guess’ as follows. => At best the MM may have augmented and extended an already deep cooling that was caused by other phenomena. The total effect being the LIA.
Now in Feynman tradition I deduce some current behavior of our earth-atmospheric system that should be related to my guess So, for our current situation we have a relatively weak solar cycle activity period which I assume may extend to being similar to a MM; that will provide overall relatively small reductions in solar energy and thus a corresponding small cooling. That cooling will augment a slight cooling from a oceanic phenomena variation. We will have a relatively moderate period of cooling. The length of the cooling period will be approximated by both the length of continuing relatively low solar activity periods and by the length the cooling inducing oceanic phenomena .
Finally, in Feynman tradition I will sit back and observe if my guess is correct.
NOTE: Conspicuous by its absence is an AGW significance. Just like its absence of significance during the MM and LIA.
End of my Little Intellectual Excursion
¿Critiques? . . .
John
Hi John
As it happens there are some temperature records (CET)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
during the MM. If you plot the annual values (last column) against SSN for the period, it may help along with your Little Intellectual Assumption (LIA)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Are we on the way to seeing all year round ice in the Antarctic?We seem to be at the summer minimum and only one previous year had more sea ice at this time.
@lsvalgaard: 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.
+++++
I agree it is NOT simple 🙂 But there is ample enough correlation to consider that there is a tendency of solar variations to have notable affects on earth beyond just the TSI. So many things are changing that obscure the clarity, but that does not mean mechanisms do not exist; it means we have not perfected our understanding or ability to discern the relationships well enough.
We’ll soon see if the climate tends to cool over the remainder of sc 24. That will not be proof, but it will be interesting, as you say in some of your earlier posts. My bet is there will be a net cooling… the energy budget of the oceans will wane, and the atmosphere will follow. I think there is a much better than 50% chance of cooling. I’m usually right –based on a “hunch”… I know I know… hunches are not science, but I’m just saying…
donald penman says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Are we on the way to seeing all year round ice in the Antarctic?We seem to be at the summer minimum and only one previous year had more sea ice at this time.
++++
Uhm… there is always all year round ice in the Antarctic… Am I missing something here?
“lsvalgaard on February 26, 2013 at 9:54 am
This is typical for spurious correlations: they work for a while, then fail.”
And there we have CAGW summarised in a single sentence*
*I apologise for the lack of /sarc I am am still awaiting funding for my bogies caused by Co2 thesis
GingerZilla says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:24 pm
“This is typical for spurious correlations: they work for a while, then fail.”
And there we have CAGW summarised in a single sentence … I apologise for the lack of /sarc
No need for a \sarc as you are absolutely correct: the CO2 correlation also seems to have broken down, it worked for a while, but is now failing. Very astute of you to notice.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image2.png
Ap (a proxy measurement of solar wind changes, day average) at the so called peak of the solar cycle has fallen to a level that is lower than the lowest level of the solar cycle 23/24 minimum.
Ak is a better proxy measurement of the solar wind bursts (3 hour average comparing different locations on the planet).
Both Ap and Ak are caused by solar wind bursts. Solar wind burst create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which remove cloud forming ions from specific latitudes on the earth.
Solar cycle 24 is an interrupted to the solar magnetic cycle (if I understand the mechanisms). The solar wind density and wind speed will continue to drop, as will the solar polar large scale magnetic field. It appears solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle rather than a Maunder minimum.
There is a 10 to 12 year delay in planetary cooling when there is a change from a series of very active solar magnetic cycles to a Maunder minimum.
Sharpest reversal of direction ( not the polarity ! ) for the polar magnetic field in the recent years
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
“sun is a messy place” – Dr.S.
William says:
February 26, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Both Ap and Ak are caused by solar wind bursts. Solar wind burst create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which remove cloud forming ions from specific latitudes on the earth.
No, that is not correct. Read here what Ap and friends are: http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf or a shorter version http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
Solar cycle 24 is an interrupted to the solar magnetic cycle (if I understand the mechanisms). The solar wind density and wind speed will continue to drop, as will the solar polar large scale magnetic field. It appears solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle rather than a Maunder minimum.
You do not understand the mechanism. What do you mean by ‘interruption’? I have asked you many times, but you refuse to answer.
vukcevic says:
February 26, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Sharpest reversal of direction ( not the polarity ! ) for the polar magnetic field in the recent years
What you plot is the difference between North and South which is on a short time scale somewhat meaningless as the two hemispheres operate rather independently, so no particular conclusion of any significance should be drawn. A correct plot would be http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png . Again you pontificate on things you do not understand.
Solar cycle 24 rules. We would be paying a global carbon tax right now if not for the exaggerated solar minimum of cycle 24. I hope we can come to a consensus and somewhat reliable climate change effect as a matter of solar activity, so we can adapt accordingly. I’m getting tired of counting the high body bag numbers from global freezing conditions.
The expert I put my money on is Piers Corbyn for his good track record.
The Greenest Event – Piers Corbyn
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 2:55 pm
What you plot is the difference between North and South which is on a short time scale somewhat meaningless
It appears you do it too
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
(right hand graph)
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 9:54 am
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.
William: There is a third mechanism. The solar cycle change is removing ions from the earth’s ionosphere and from the other planets in the solar system.
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?
The sun is causing what is observed. It is physically not possible for a earth core change to cause what is observed in the paleo magnetic record. There are burn marks on the surface of the planet that have been dated to 12,900 years BP (Younger Dryas abrupt climate change event and geomagnetic excursion) and around 40,000 years (another geomagnetic excursion) before present. The 40,000 before present burn marks (the Caroline Bay burn marks) all point in the North-west direction, are elliptical, and overlap showing evidence of restrike. There are roughly a million Caroline Bay burn marks. Accepting the earth based evidence of what has happened in the past it appears there is no other explanation.
The largest geomagnetic field changes are caused by a solar magnetic cycle restart.
I have hundreds of papers that provide astronomical observational evidence to support what I am stating. There are anomalies in field upon field that not explained and that are logically connected when a mechanism is added to explain what is observed. I looked for the alternative hypothesis which is connected with the ignored anomaly and then worked with it to develop the explanation.
Large stars form about the core of collapsed matter, super nova cores and ejected condensed matter from large collapsed objects. Collapsed matter is not stable. It evolves in a manner to resist the collapse. The same phenomenon explains the rotation anomaly of spiral galaxies. Large stars are a subset of each spiral galaxy.
For example there is 25 years of quasar observations that shows the quasar pulsates monotonically increasing in amplitude. The process stops when there is an ejection from the quasar.
A classical black hole does not form when massive objects collapse. I would assume most people have heard about ejected collapse matter ejections from super massive objects at the center of galaxies. The observed (quasar) phenomenon depends on the stage in the quasar cycle. The objects ejected from the super massive object in the center of each galaxy form galaxies. There is an observed evolution of spiral galaxy properties as the process proceeds.
If what is stated above is correct there will solar observation data to support it.
vukcevic says:
February 26, 2013 at 3:20 pm
It appears you do it too
Of course, but I don’t make silly comments on it. As long as the poles both have sizable fields, their difference is a reasonable approximation to a ‘global’ dipole. When the North Pole [as now] has no field left, the difference just shows the South pole [which still has not reversed] and does not have its usual meaning. If anything your plot shows an increasing falsification of your ‘formula’. You should learn to argue less and learn more. There are many good things here at WUWT. I suggest you [as tallbloke and Sharp] set up your own blog to attract a band of admiring sycophants instead of diluting the quality of WUWT.
Why is the Neutron flux highest at minimum? http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image4.png
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm
“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.”
You are very arrogant, which at times clouds your reasoning … I remember the whisky barrel vs oil production argument you tried to make some time ago. Instead of thinking critically about what the author was saying, you took his word for it (bad science) … if you’d done some research you would have found that a lack of whicky barrels was not the problem … there were cooperages popping up all over the place. But instead of accepting or even debating this, you replied “take it up with the author” … a refusal to learn???
David Archibald: Through my own research I have determined that the level is 100 in F10.7 flux.
Could you provide a link, or summarize the research? Have you always been correct in the past, so that we can believe everything that you write? Of course not, so this bald assertion is no more worthwhile than the unsubstantiated postings of anybody.
I just want to know: is it going to get cooler or warmer?
Mike says:
February 26, 2013 at 5:31 pm
I just want to know: is it going to get cooler or warmer?
—————————————————————
Yes, it is going to get cooler or warmer!
Matthew R Marler says:
February 26, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Consider that WUWT is the repository of all climate data worth knowing on the planet. To find what you seek, simply type in “Archibald sea level F10.7 flux” in the search function on the upper right.
Jon says:
February 26, 2013 at 4:21 pm
I remember the whisky barrel vs oil production argument you tried to make some time ago.
I don’t, but you could be right [since I don’t remenber, and don’t consider it important.
Instead of thinking critically about what the author was saying, you took his word for it (bad science)
One usually do when it is outside of one’s knowledge base (especially in science). The default assumption is that the author is right, unless you know positively that he is wrong..
William says:
February 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm
The sun is causing what is observed…There are roughly a million Caroline Bay burn marks. Accepting the earth based evidence of what has happened in the past it appears there is no other explanation.
The sun leaves burn marks?
The largest geomagnetic field changes are caused by a solar magnetic cycle restart.
since you have not explained what an ‘interruption’ is, the ‘restart’ does not make sense. And, in any event the Sun does not cause large, permanent geomagnetic changes. They come from the core.
Large stars form about the core of collapsed matter, super nova cores and ejected condensed matter from large collapsed objects.
No, they don’t. They form from contraction of interstellar gas.
Collapsed matter is not stable.
It is very stable. White dwarfs and black holes virtually live forever [longer than the age of the Universe so far]
A classical black hole does not form when massive objects collapse.
Yes, they do. That is how nature works.
If what is stated above is correct there will solar observation data to support it.
But since all of the above is not correct, we cannot expect solar data to support it.
BORIS MOHAR says:
February 26, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Why is the Neutron flux highest at minimum?
Because the Heliospheric Current Sheet http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/HCS.html is rather flat at solar minimum allowing cosmic rays unhindered access to the solar system, while at solar maximum the ‘warps’ you can see extend to the poles and cosmic rays have to cross many warps [each warp reflects some cosmic rays back out of the solar system because the solar wind is compressed and turbulent near the current sheet].
BORIS MOHAR says:
February 26, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Why is the Neutron flux highest at minimum?
Because the Heliospheric Current Sheet http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/HCS.html is rather flat at solar minimum allowing cosmic rays unhindered access to the solar system, while at solar maximum the ‘warps’ you can see extend to the poles and cosmic rays have to cross many warps [each warp reflects some cosmic rays back out of the solar system because the solar wind is compressed and turbulent near the current sheet].