The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has updated their monthly graph set and it appears as if the slow downside from what looks like the solar max for cycle 24. Though, it is still possible we could see a second small peak like is visible at the upper left in cycle 23.
The 10.7cm radio flux continues downward:
The Ap geomagnetic index remains low, being at the same value as it was in November 2006. We’ve had over 6 years now of a lower than expected (for solar max) Ap index.
From the WUWT Solar reference page, Dr Leif Svalgaard has this plot comparing the current cycle 24 with recent solar cycles:
Another indicator, Solar Polar Fields from Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present show that the fields have flipped (crossed the zero line) indicating solar max has happened.
Image from Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source.
More at the WUWT Solar reference page.
In other news, Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 4/1/13. Perhaps he thinks a double peak might be in the cards:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012) due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.
========================================================
UPDATE: From: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80572
Given the tepid state of solar activity now, a maximum in May seems unlikely. “We may be seeing what happens when you predict a single amplitude and the Sun responds with a double peak,” says Pesnell. He notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
vukcevic says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:52 pm
But these people think it may be directly, just down the road from Stanford Uni.
Electromagnetic induction fields in the deep ocean off California: oceanic and ionospheric sources … implications for seafloor magnetotellurics may be profound
A little knowledge paired with enormous ignorance is a dangerous thing. What the those folks are talking about is the [well-known] fact that ionospheric electric currents induce electric currents in the ocean [and in the ground as well]. The ‘profound effect’ is what happens if you do not take these currents into effect when imaging the sea bottom. This has nothing to do with climate and the effects are in any event very small and require sensitive instruments to discover. Lay off the pseudo-science.
Does anyone the millimeter wave component above the atmosphere, so it can be compared to ground measurements and solar activity?
Does this mean anything?
http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/09/06/radiation_s640x466.jpg?4180073ee5adc95ed997f421cfad488a40196023
Leif,
If you suggest that the sun only has a minor effect and man’s CO2 has a trivial effect, what do you feel is the main cause of warming over the past century and lack of warming over the past 16 years ?
I can sort of understand those who dismiss the possibility that variations in the sun’s output affect the earth’s climate. Correlations are not perfect and the total power fluctuations are so small (0.1%) that it seems unlikely to be significant. However such arguments are unscientific. You should not dismiss something simply because you cannot understand what the mechanism might be particularly given the fact that the Milankovitch cycles clearly show that small changes in things like length of seasons and obliquity do have an effect over longer term. So how could the small changes in the sun’s output affect the climate without anyone noticing?
One possibility is the Svenmark cloud theory. This may be correct but I have another idea.
The majority of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the sea. But the way this is absorbed depends on the wavelength.
Infrafred radiation makes up about 50% of the 1000 watts of incoming radiation at the equator during the day and 100% of the downward radiation at night. All this energy is absorbed within a few millimetres of the surface and almost immediately released by radiation convection and evaporation. So fluctuations in the infrared part of the spectrum are balanced by a small and immediate change in surface losses.
The visible spectrum makes up most of the rest of the energy and is absorbed at depths down to at least 60 metres. I know this because I have seen the bottom of a 30 metre deep “blue lagoon” .For this to be possible the blue part of the light from the sun must penetrate down to the bottom and make its way back to the top. A total distance of 60 metres. So this energy is absorbed at much deeper levels on average and any fluctuation in the amount of this radiation will not immediately increase the surface temperature. Thus a compensating increase in the outgoing radiation and evaporation will not happen until the deep sea currents bring this energy to the surface. Without an increase in sea surface temperature the radiation balance cannot be achieved and therefore an increase in the sun’s output will not be seen in the climate measurements until the natural ocean cycles work their magic.
The remaining energy from the sun is in the UV part of the spectrum and about 3% makes it to the surface. This energy is absorbed very deep in the sea and therefore takes a long time to reach the surface where it can escape. Any fluctuations at this wavelength might therefore not be detectable at the surface for decades or maybe even centuries. Clearly the Argos buoys will now give us some insight into this but it will probably take a century of measurements to quantify any effects. This 3% is important since the 30 watts per metre sq does fluctuate by a large amount depending on the sun’s level of activity. Thus we have a small but highly volatile energy source which affects the accumulation of huge amounts of energy in the deep oceans over several decades without any compensating change to the radiation balance until maybe decades later.
If anyone has done any research that can dismiss this as a possible cause of multi-decadal
climate fluctuations I would be interested to hear from them.
jbird says:
April 9, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Does this mean anything?
http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/09/06/radiation_s640x466.jpg?4180073ee5adc95ed997f421cfad488a40196023
No: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
The red and blue curves are modern reconstructions of solar radiation.
Dr Burns says:
April 9, 2013 at 2:15 pm
what do you feel is the main cause of warming over the past century and lack of warming over the past 16 years ?
As the solar forcing is supposed to have a 10-20 year lag because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, it can hardly be the sun that is responsible. And besides, total solar output is now higher than at it was 13 years ago when our reliable data starts. So I must ascribe the variation is temperature to one of the normal fluctuations a complicated, non-linear system undergoes.
lsvaalgaard says
Or of all the other climate excursions over millennia. I don’t know [does anybody?], but it is typical for a complicated system with non-linear interactions like the climate to have stochastic fluctuations.
This is probably caused by the effects of the sun; the most likely cause, as outlined by Prof, Don Easterbrook. “Stochastic fluctations” are always caused by something. Changes of that magnitude are probably not caused by random movements of air currents or oceans. Browinian motion was caused by molecules colliding with the pollen.
Bob from the UK says:
April 9, 2013 at 2:43 pm
This is probably caused by the effects of the sun … “Stochastic fluctuations” are always caused by something.
If so, they wouldn’t be stochastic, but deterministic…
lsvalgaard says:
Lay off the pseudo-science.
…………..
Myself and many others are looking at various factors, it is as a kind of an experiment where conditions are varied in order to test hypothesis.
Some of the factors spoken of may have some effect, some may not, but something definitely has the effect.
In your wisdom you dismiss everything out of hand, but do not offer any constructive ideas in exchange. One gets impression that you are attempting your utmost to suppress what appear to be obvious. That may not be pseudo-science but could be, to put it in extreme terms ‘solar climate link’ science-icide. 🙂
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 10:21 am
“There is no good evidence of such influence over and above 0.1 degree C, so no need to worry.”
…And the SC10-22 data perfectly agree wirh you :
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855.9/to:1996.4/mean:514/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1855.9/to:1996.4/mean:514/normalise
(the 514 corresponds to 2 average Hale cycles for the given period)
I don’t worry, I just have an apprehension:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1775.5/to:1798.4/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1798.4/to:1964.8/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1964.8/to:1996.4/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1996.4/to:2008.9/trend
vukcevic says:
April 9, 2013 at 2:58 pm
Some of the factors spoken of may have some effect, some may not, but something definitely has the effect.
Almost everything has effect. The question is ‘how much’. If the answer is ‘very very little’ the effect is not of interest.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
April 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm
…And the SC10-22 data perfectly agree wirh you
We are in SC24, so why stop at SC22?
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
April 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm
…And the SC10-22 data perfectly agree wirh you
We are in SC24, so why stop at SC22?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855.9/to:2013.1/mean:514/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1855.9/to:2013.1/mean:514/normalise
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
April 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm
“We are in SC24, so why stop at SC22?”
That was for teasing illustration purposes of the past very close correlation and because since the end of SC22 there’s no significant warming, but no problem to go to the end of the SC23 (to go behind I think is not correct if we for obvious reasons chosed to work only with the whole solar cycles minimum-to-minimum):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855.9/to:2008.9/mean:514/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1855.9/to:2008.9/mean:514/normalise
What I see important is the steep downward SSN trend since the SC22 from the other chart. What I find wery interesting is the fact that the usual SSN charts well hide the fact that the average of the SC21-22 Hale cycle (SSN average 80.9) is almost the same as the SC18-19 Hale cycle (SSN average 82.9) and the SC22 average SSN was still 80.6. Now maybe already behind the peak of the SC24 is its average SSN 34.4 and if it will continue like that then its average will be <30. That's quite a decline comparable with the decline to the Dalton minimum (which had then Hale cycle SC5-6 average SSN 20.7). What I find interesting there is the temperatures from that time which we have in the unique Prague Klementinum instrumental record – during the decline of the SC4 we have had a very warm decade 1790-1799 here in Prague (the average temperature was 10.32°C) which is comparable even with the decade 1990-1999 (10.25°C after the conservative UHI correction 0.49°C – the Klementinum is the center of the center of the Prague – see my article here: http://www.sott.net/article/203282-Czechgate-Part-Two-The-GISS-rape-of-Prague for details). So maybe there's a lag of the temperature (quite consistently visible in the 1st chart) behind the solar activity and given the cancelling effects during the solar cycle I would think it is at least one solar cycle and during transient periods when the trends dramatically change direction maybe even more. That's why I think there will be no significant warming trend at least to the beginning of the SC25 (and if there will be the further solar activity decline in the SC25 there could be a significant cooling trend). This translates into the implication that there will be no significant warming trend next 10 years with almost certainty, which will have absolutely killing effect on all the CAGW political agenda even if all the UNFCC anthropogenic CO2 alarmist implications would be true. I think that the data we already have imply that it is already a riding of a well dead horse and I really wonder why some solar scientists still ride it.
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2013 at 5:15 pm
“The decline in PMOD TSI is not real, it is an artifact caused by uncompensated degradation of the instrument, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Diff-PMOD-SORCE.png. TSI has not declined since accurate measurements by SORCE TIM began in 2003, in fact TSI is now the highest ever measured by SORCE/TIM http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-not-following-SSN-F107.png”
Too short period of TIM operation to say anything about long trends – and I’m quite not sure now with the TIM, because the TSI departure up on your 2nd picture looks to me quite very suspicious too.
And if I just have a glance at the TIM data (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt) it surely doesn’t look to me it now measures the “highest ever TSI” – as the PMOD at WFT is with the last values from the mid 2011 some 4+W/m2 higher than TIM in the same period and it was not better throughout the whole TIM/PMOD comparison… 🙂 Moreover if I look into the TIM data little deeper it doesn’t look to me one can tell with sufficient certainty the TIM is now measuring higher TSI than at the beginning of of the data from Feb 2003.
…I usually prefer SSN as it is not so much relying on the expensive and to epic failure prone composites of the satelite instruments. And if one looks how the older TSI composite was put together I suspect it is not too reliable for really reliable longterm trend comparisons and it is anyway to short for anything like it. So you’re at least partially right with pointing out the PMOD “unreality” and I think my TSI implications from the 5. should be taken with a grain of salt.
Nevertheless to me the overal amplitudes of the TIM and PMOD for the same period look quite simmilar and when I look at your first image then I see the TIM/PMOD difference shift from the beginning of the graph to the peak of the SC24 ~0.14W/m2 (I don’t say it is not significant), so it is the value you can subtract from the trends ending at the SC24 peak I derived from the PMOD and for the blue trend ending in the SC24 beginning if I look at your picture it would be the subtraction of the ~0.04W/m2, so the trends using your correction would be ~0.7W/m2 decline trend of the TSI since the SC22peak and from the SC23peak to the SC24peak ~1.05W/m2 decline trend and ~0.7W/m2 decline trend between SC23beginning and SC24beginning – which are still quite very considerable numbers…
Svaalgard
If so, they wouldn’t be stochastic, but deterministic…
No that´s not true. You seem to be implying that there are “purely” random processes. In nature no such process/phenomen exists..
@NZ Willy
Aye, I think it was in 2006 where a massive CME headed straight for earth while I was working in Seattle. A couple days later, I flew home to Nevada, and headed out into the desert scouting a new way to get to one of my favorite places. I was driving with my buddy at night, and noticed a faint red glow to the north east resembling the glow you would see coming from a large far away city (such as Reno). There are no towns in that direction (except maybe Lovelock, though Lovelock wasn’t exactly in the right direction, and it could not have been Winnemucca as there were to many mountain ranges in the way), so at the time, it was just an oddity. We drove up through a tight canyon, crested the top, and suddenly got a full view of the sky, at which point the brakes on the old ’66 FJ40 got locked and we lurched to a very quick stop. The entire sky was covered with shimmering curtains of flourescent turquoise, constantly changing shape and size. It was the first (and only) time I had seen the northern lights and according to the paper the first time they had been seen in Nevada since the 1800’s. We sat there in the Landcruiser with the windshield down on that mountain top transfixed for hours. Some time after midnight the show became less spectacular, though still pretty awesome, and we then continued forward eventually reaching the Black Rock Desert, which was a treat, crossing the Black Rock at night is like crossing the sea, it is one hundred percent flat with no roads for 25 miles, the ribbons in the sky gave plenty of light to see the distant topography so I could easily keep my course correct. Though the drapes faded over time, the northern sky looked like the sun was going to rise at any moment all the way till dawn. I will say however the sudden unexpected view of the northern lights in all their glory just as I crested a mountain pass fully stunned me in its magnificence, and I was lucky enough to be in one of the darkest places in the US..
Bob from the UK says:
April 9, 2013 at 3:50 pm
No that´s not true. You seem to be implying that there are “purely” random processes. In nature no such process/phenomen exists..
Apart from Quantum Mechanics [where nature at the bottom is random] you may consider a process that is non-predictable to be random [this is the definition of random]. Since we cannot really predict the climate, the climate qualifies as a random process. Now imagine that we could predict the climate from solar activity, then climate would no longer be a random process, but it has not been shown that we actually can do this [apart from the fact that it is hard to predict solar activity].
lsvalgaard says:April 9, 2013 at 1:51 pm
“The Sun does influence the climate to a minor extent [nobody denies that], the issue is whether [as most here seems to think] that the sun is a MAJOR driver of climate which it clearly is not [Jupiter is], regardless of all the wishful thinking that goes on.”
So in what form does the major driving of Earth’s climate by Jupiter take?
Does the Sun in any way influence Jupiter’s driving mechanism of Earth climate?
Suffice it to say …. none of you “KNOW” squat [including the good Dr.]. All can point to their little graphs, full of assumptions, or lacking in assumptions, … [specifically the correct assumptions that are not known], and make empty claims.
Soooo … as I said way back when SC24 began .. we’ll all just have to wait. Collect the data, record observations, …. then torture them to say what you want them to say.
We do know this …. CO2 is still going up .. the Sun is going down, and Temp is FLAT.
Ben D. says:
April 9, 2013 at 4:21 pm
“The Sun does influence the climate to a minor extent [nobody denies that], the issue is whether [as most here seems to think] that the sun is a MAJOR driver of climate which it clearly is not [Jupiter is], regardless of all the wishful thinking that goes on.”
So in what form does the major driving of Earth’s climate by Jupiter take?
Jupiter [with some smaller help from the other planets] changes the orbit of the Earth which in turn changes the climate [and bring glaciations].
Does the Sun in any way influence Jupiter’s driving mechanism of Earth climate?
No
Dr. Deanster says:
April 9, 2013 at 4:35 pm
All can point to their little graphs, full of assumptions, or lacking in assumptions, … [specifically the correct assumptions that are not known], and make empty claims.
And in ten [or twenty, or …] years all can [and will] do exactly the same. The question has long left the domain of science [to wit some of the claims made above] and is now about what one ‘believes’.
In reply to
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:56 pm
William Astley says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993.
No need to respond to all the rest of your missive as the correlatrion you mention no longer holds, as is typical for spurious ones: e.g. Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
In a formal debate, one is not allowed to ignore logical points that do not support you position.
The 2012 paper you quoted ‘A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations’ did not disprove the solar modulation of planetary clouds. It presented multiple technical reasons why it was difficult to measure planetary cloud cover. You ignored the paper you quoted and then presented cloud data that ignores the effect of solar wind bursts on planetary cloud cover and state that graph disproves the modulation mechanism which it does not.
You ignored the fact that there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climate record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes, Dansgaard-Oscheger cycles. What caused the D-O cycles?
The EAGW theory predicted the majority of the greenhouse gas warming would be in the tropics and that there would be tropical hot spot. The majority of the warming occurred in the North Hemisphere at high latitudes. If you look at the graph I linked to which is Greenland ice core data you can see Greenland repeatedly warmed and cooled, the D-O cycles. The 20th century warming is in the same region.
Not understanding how the solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary temperature is very different. That is what the paper you quoted try to convince the reader.
Solar changes have a very large affect on planetary temperature. It appears the majority of the 20th century warming has caused by solar changes rather than increases in atmospheric CO2.
1. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record, which are called Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles. As each D-O cycle correlates with a solar cycle changes the question is not if the solar magnetic cycle changes caused the past observed D-O cycles but rather how. The 20th century warming matches the pattern of warming that was observed in other D-O cycles. (Has there been warming and cooling in the past? Yes. Does it appear the sun caused the past warming and cooling? Yes.)
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
2. The 20th century warming does not match the pattern predicted by the extreme AGW (EAGW) theory. The EAGW theory predicted that the majority of the warming due to the increase in CO2 should be in the tropics, as this is the region where there is the largest amount of long wave radiation emitted off into space, rather than in high Northern Latitudes. (Hansen specific mentions the surprised warming in the high latitudes in his book but provides no physical explanation.) The EAGW theory also predicted that there should be a hot spot created in the tropical troposphere at roughly 10 km above the surface of the planet. There was no warming of the tropics and there was no hot spot. These two observations invalidate the EAGW theory. (Is observation of any warming proof of EAGW? No. Does the AGW theory predict a pattern of warming? Yes. Is that pattern of warming observed? No.)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
New paper that again finds the upper troposphere is not warming as predicted.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018
Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites by Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu
Link to Joanne Nova’s summary of the issue.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
Roy Spenser’s analysis that shows the tropical sea surface temperatures are not warming.
Tropical SSTs Since 1998: Latest Climate Models Warm 3x Too fast
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/
3. Lindzen and Choi found by analyzed top of the atmosphere radiation Vs planetary temperature changes and found that the planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases to resist forcing changes, by reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. Point 2 and Point 3 are logically connected, physically supportive. (EAGW requires amplification of CO2 forcing in tropics. If there is no amplification the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 1C or less. No global warming problem.)
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
0.1% TSI against 0.039 Co2
There see? We’ve now broken the sun. Maybe it’s too many solar panels. Dunno, but someone’s getting a research grant as we speak to investigate further.
PS… since it’s something we’ve been watching, it just HAS to be human-caused, just like O3 and CO2.
SC24 is going to continue to behave the same way it has been behaving for over 4 years. I see nothing to indicate a change in behavior, and since the L&P Effect is undaunted and the N&S Active Region belts refuse to coalesce any further towards the equator, it’s all downhill from here.
There is no dispute that explosive volcanic eruptions affect temperatures on Earth. There have been many demonstrations – the latest obvious one being the Pinatubo eruption. There is a higher incidence of volcanism during and for quite a time after periods when GCRs are higher than “normal”. These higher incidences of volcanism (and associated earthquakes) are caused by the increases in muons generated when very high speed protons impact atoms of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere (Radiocarbon 14 is also one product from these impacts as is Be10. The sun is not powerful enough to generate the energies the protons have to have to produce muons, radiocarbon 14, etc.
A paper by a multi-disciplinary team of Japanese scientists drawn from Riken Advanced Science Institute, the Institute of Cosmic Ray Research (University of Tokyo), The Japan Atomic Energy Agency and the Riken Computational Science Research Program showed how muons can affect the calderas of certain volcanos and how increased densities of muons can cause explosive eruptions. They do this by changing the chemical composition of matter within silica rich magma, particularly when it is cool, so that aerosols are formed, which eventually lead to increased pressure within the magma chamber and hence explosive eruptions. Presumably a steady state is reached with normal muon penetration of the caldera but with significantly more than usual muons and perhaps when they have higher energies than normal then disequilibrium occurs. Extinct volcanoes are also affected hence there can be increased earthquake activity around extinct volcanoes at these times. See ToshikazuEbiska, Hiroko Miyahara, Tatsuhiko Sato, Yasuhiro Ishimine: Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber- – Godwana Research, November 2010
This means that GCRs indirectly have an effect on climate but this can be delayed sometimes by years – possibly even decades. I think we should stop looking for direct effects and concentrate on the subtleties of nature.
William Astley says:
April 9, 2013 at 5:09 pm
In a formal debate, one is not allowed to ignore logical points that do not support you position.
I don’t think this is a ‘formal debate’. You are just spouting reasons why you don’t believe CAGW.
What caused the D-O cycles?
They don’t exist. The ‘cycles’ are just artifacts of smoothing of ‘bimodal’ climate fluctuations.
The rest of your comment is just argumentation against AWG. And has nothing to do with the Sun.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
April 9, 2013 at 5:46 pm
“We are in SC24, so why stop at SC22?”
That was for teasing illustration purposes of the past very close correlation and because since the end of SC22 there’s no significant warming
Using all the data [rather than to cherry-pick a subset] shows that the correlation breaks down http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855.9/to:2013.1/mean:514/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1855.9/to:2013.1/mean:514/normalise
Same if you go back in time.
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Using all the data [rather than to cherry-pick a subset] shows that the correlation breaks down http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855.9/to:2013.1/mean:514/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1855.9/to:2013.1/mean:514/normalise
Same if you go back in time.
1. I cannot go back in time at WFT because HADCRUT4GL is there only from 1850 so it is quite pointless argument – also because there is no reliable instrumental global surface air temperature composite before 1850.
2. There’s an obvious purpose why to work with the whole solar cycles if we use long running average smoothing, so I think it is not cherry-picking. (if you make any linear trend beginning and ending at ad-hoc nodes with SNN, you can obtain very dubious results)
3. There’s no significant correlation of the CO2 average surface air temperature either since the beginning of the SC23 – it completely broke down or in the last decade it is even an anticorrelation. (And I don’t say it is a causal anticorrelation nor that it is significant!)
4. I strongly suspect there’s a lag of the average surface AIR temperature behind the solar activity during the periods when its trends dramatically change (a lag is consistently present in all real thermodynamic systems and especially in those where the latent heat intervenes – for example an ice floating in the ocean water will have under melting point temperature so long until all of it is melted) – due to huge heat content stored in liquids and solids at the surface of the Earth and due to the partial cancelling effects during the rise and then again descent of the solar activity in the frame of one solar cycle.
5. If there is indeed the causality solar activity > average surface air temperatures – as it very much looks from the bulk of the instrumental data available for comparison, especially the SC10-SC22, then if there wouldn’t be the lag, then we should already experience a significant average surface air temperature decline since the SC22 peak, because we since then objectively experience ~0.85W/m2 decline trend of the TSI and since the peak of the SC23 even ~1.2W/m2 decline trend – as you can see when examining TSI data SC22peak-SC24peak and ~0.75W/m2 decline trend is also visible from the SC22 end to the SC23 end:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1989.5/to:2012.16/trend/plot/pmod/from:2000.25/to:2012.16/trend/plot/pmod/from:1996.41/to:2008.93/trend
(And it would not much change even if there would be a “second peak” in the SC24 – which I now doubt for multiple reasons)
6. The volumetric heat capacity of the air is typically thousands of times lower than the heat capacity of the liquids and solids. All the heat in the atmosphere has its equivalent stored in just ~1/4000th of the ocean volume – in other words in less than 1 meter of its surface, so the ocean is a huge heatsink (the simmilar is the green biosphere which also sinks both heat and CO2 – which is well visible at its periodic seasonal fluctuations), but it is also a huge heat reservoir, substantially able to heat the air whenewer it has a lower temperature than the ocean water, not speaking about the interesting effects of the water dilatometric anomaly, which makes the heat sink all the way to the bottom of the sea (although it takes loads of time) where nobody is systematically measuring anything.
7. We don’t see a significant upward trend of the surface ocean temperature at least for 13 years (if we remain ultraconservative and we do not go back to the strong 97-98 El Nino). For simmilar periods we don’t see any significant upward trend of the average surface air temperature in any of the composites. We also don’t see a significant upward trend of the ocean heat content for more than half decade and already over 3 years there is an accelerating upward trend of the sea ice area http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2010/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2010/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2011/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2011/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2012/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2012/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2009/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2009/to:2012.99/trend – moreover at the southern hemisphere (offsetting the NH loss) it is gaining ice at a very considerably lower latitudes then are the latitudes of the northern sea ice – making the two hardly comparable.
All this more or less coincides with the very sharp decline of the longterm bipeak 3 Hale cycle solar activity maximum in SC17-22 (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1902.16/to:2013/mean:126/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1933.6/to:1996.41/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1944.16/to:1996.41/trend). This all still can be just an insignificant fluctuation, or, as I suspect, it can indicate a trend change of the total heat in the system, even it is most probably partially slowed down and ofsetted by the ocean heat equilibrium change, latent heat and GHE. Where the trend goes it remains to be seen. But if we will not see a significant surface air temperature upward trend in the next 20 years (for example due to further decline of the solar activity in the SC25), then all the superexpensive CAGW mitigation was an exercise in futility, because then the problem of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions will solve itself with the general fossil peak.
pokerguy says:
April 9, 2013 at 11:51 am
Professor Svalgaard, Really appreciate your contribution to these solar threads. Of course I hope you’re right about solar minima and climate, otherwise it will likely be a very different world if damaging cooling sets in. How many years would you say, before we know if you’re correct or not (assuming we do find ourselves in a Maunder or Dalton type minimum)?
>>>>>>>>>
The “peer review” has not gone too well, huh Professor?