It is looking more and more like a double sunspot peak for solar cycle 24.
Sunspot count is down again:
A similar drop occurred in radio flux.
The Ap magnetic index remains low, but is up 3 units from last month:
On July 1st, solar scientist David Hathaway has updated his prediction page:
|
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 67 in the Summer 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. The smoothed sunspot number has been rising again over the last four months. 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. |
The sunspot count in this low cycle has been inflated by the counting of tiny ‘pores’ which weren’t counted in previous cycles.
The reality is that this cycle is around the same magnitude as cycle 5 at the start of the 1800’s when the Sun went into the Dalton solar minimum.
I can’t wait till the Progressers realize they’ve been proven wrong by this current Grand Solar Minimum on the subject of Man-Made Climate Change/Man-Made Global Warming.
As I understand it Tallbloke, corrections are applied which are supposed to deal with this issue. Whether the corrections are correct is another matter. But in any case the situation isn’t as simple as your comment makes it seem.
@tallbloke
A website in Germany shows a comparison of SC5 and SC24, as well as the average of SC1-23.
http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=11437
tallbloke, that may have been the case at the beginning of the cycle, but is not true now, when all sunspots are quite big. So the low numbers may have been exagerated, but not the big ones that we have now.
BTW, the smoothed maximum may be higher, but we didn’t have any single month with average SSN>=100 yet, whereas cycle 14 did. So this one is smaller than Cycle 14… in a way.
Just multiply the older sunspot numbers before 1947 by 1.20 to get the current inflated adjusted sunspots.
It’s maybe better to display each hemisphere in SSN count to get a better picture of the progress.
magnetic vs sunspot,
it is a minimum
http://i.minus.com/iYUiVS5I3VEpI.gif
By my 10 year old calculation we are sailing through a SC24 max.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Polar magnetic field (lower graph) appears to have a more regular progression, on basis of which one could conclude that the PF is a proxy for the actual solar dynamo driver.
Vuk
Your post has been up nearly ten minutes now. Where is Leif? Is he ill?
Tonyb
It is an observational fact that sunspots are being replaced by pores. It is curious that there is no mention of that fact in the solar cycle 24 update. It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year if my understanding of what is happening to the sun is correct. That is not a double peak but rather an abrupt unexplained change to the solar magnetic cycle.
We know that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has been decaying linearly. There needs to be an explanation for why that is true and how that change affects the solar magnetic cycle.
The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has been decaying linearly which supports the assertion that sunspots are formed from magnetic ropes that are create at the narrow region in the sun that separates the solar convection zone from the radiative zone. The magnetic ropes then rise up through the convection zone to the surface of the sun where they form sunspots. Something has changed in the tachocline or the vicinity of the tachocline.
As the magnetic field strength of the ropes that rise up to form the sunspots on the surface of the sun decays, the ropes start to be affected by the turbulence forces in the solar convection zone and what forms on the sun is pores rather than the concentrated strong magnetic field configuration that is called a sunspot.
Eugene Parker did theoretical calculations to determine a minimum magnetic field strength for the magnetic rope to resist the turbulence forces in the solar convection zone. If the field strength of the magnetic ropes continues to decline the field strength will fall below that minimum strength and the magnetic ropes will be torn apart by convection forces. There will be no pores on the surface of the sun.
The consequences of magnetic ropes that are torn apart is different that a reduction in the number of sunspots.
The tachocline mechanism requires the remnants of past sunspots to form the ropes for the next generation of magnetic ropes.
Tonyb says:
July 11, 2013 at 12:56 am
//////////////////
He has been rather busy on, and perhaps thereby preoccupied with the article on the faint sun paradox
It would be fun to see this graph with all their previous predictions along with the date each prediction was made.
All we’re seeing here is their latest prediction, undated and still too high. Like a bad doctor they get to bury and forget their previous mistakes.
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 1:03 am
It is an observational fact that sunspots are being replaced by pores. It is curious that there is no mention of that fact in the solar cycle 24 update. It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year if my understanding of what is happening to the sun is correct. That is not a double peak but rather an abrupt unexplained change to the solar magnetic cycle.
We know that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has been decaying linearly. There needs to be an explanation for why that is true and how that change affects the solar magnetic cycle.
***********************************************************************************************
Leif will jump up and down after this.
Read up on the Electric Universe. It explains far more than the current theories explain.
We somehow thought the sun was getting quiet with the surface temperature plateauing but unfortunately we are not sure exactly what the various parts of the total solar spectra do to climate. Solar science is advancing, despite climate science, but we are still ignorant of much that goes on.
Yes Tallbloke a Dalton Minimum does seem more likely.
It will be a long plateau, the decline will start after 2014/15.
Could we see a list of predictions for SC24 from the very beginning for comparison? 2006 was the start was it not? I seem to recall some solar “experts” using a “mode”l to “accurately” predict SC24 with great precision by the “experts”, only for it to fall flat on its face!
Did Archibald predict this?
“Edim says:
July 11, 2013 at 2:48 am”
I recall a prediction like that being made by Russian scientists. We didn’t have too long to wait to see some evidence to support that prediction.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/155225/
Speaking of Leif: Do we know if the sun puts out more or less energy with lots of sunspots versus very few sunspots? It had always confused me that (if I recall correctly) people thought there was a correlation with lots of sunspots and high solar activity when the spots themselves were actually cooler. In a post the other day you mentioned the possibility that the sun is hotter when there are few sunspots and that the cold weather in some of the historic minimums was due to volcanos. Is this a serious likelihood believed by many solar scientists or is this just a possibility favored by a few?
We are currently 11 years since the end of the significant part of the last solar maximum period of sunspot cycle #23 which was the year of 2003 which had a peak sunspot number of 104 . This was part of a long solar cycle of #23 which lasted about 12.6 years. Global temperatures started to drop about 2004/2005 and the winters were cold in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2013. Looking back at similar historical solar cycle developments, we can compare 2013 with 1801 or 1873 when we also had 11 years without any major sunspot years and there were longer solar cycles involved, like solar cycle #4 which lasted 13.6 years and solar cycle # 14 which lasted 11.7 years. Global climate tends to drop at the end of long solar cycles and also during the decade following. One can see the global temperatures decline at the end of cycles # 9,13,14,20. If the next solar cycle or cycles continue to be low as they did after # 4 and # 11 , then lower global temperatures may continue for decades there after . This may be the case for the next several decades if the current solar cycle #24 and the next, namely # 25, and # 26 are all low as some are predicting. . Global oceans STT have been now flat for 16 years and are now showing a decline since 2005. Global cooling seems to be indicated. to me even if we do not understand the mechanism yet .
Bill_W says:
July 11, 2013 at 4:22 am
The sunspots are darker and cooler than the surface around the sunspots, but just outside the sunspots, the sun is brighter. The output in total energy is about 0.1% higher for an active sun. In the UV range that is 1% or a factor 10, influencing the ozone layer and the jet stream positions due to an increased temperature difference equator-poles in the lower stratosphere. That influences wind and cloud/rain patterns in each hemisphere…
Mchaelwiseguy: Simple, they will still deny they are wrong. AGW is a religion, not a science. Religion depends on consensus, it depends on having a holy book, on having saints and sinners, on having indulgences, tithes and holy causes. Science depends on skepticism and the willingness to go where evidence leads you. When Keynes was asked why he changed his mind on a subject he famously answered, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?” Can you imagine Al Gore or Michael Mann or Hensen changing their minds on Global Warming?
Bill_W says:
July 11, 2013 at 4:22 am
Do we know if the sun puts out more or less energy with lots of sunspots versus very few sunspots?
Higher magnetic activity, solar flares and x-rays form around areas where Sunspots are, the sunspots themselves are cooler than their surroundings.
In my opinion, during other solar minimums less clouds appear to form but during the height of solar activity electrical activity on earth increases, thunderstorms and related hail, floods etc… during summer, and snowier colder conditions during winter. Its a very complex system that’s for sure.
With nothing more sophisticated than my Eyeball(TM) 1.0, that doesn’t look like a double peak to me but as something that has peaked and is now on the downslope.
Ah, another solar thread. Here we go again!
Anthony,
Off topic but I noticed a couple of days ago that NSIDC has modified their Sea Ice extent pages for both Arctic and Antarctic ice extent so that if you link to them from http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png (as I do every morning) it redirects to the std deviation version of the extent. This has to be just a bit of serendipity, couldn’t have anything to do with your recent experience with that ‘gentleman’ from “Watching the Deniers”, now could it?
REPLY: yes well aware. Most of the changes to the NSIDC graphs in recent years have been spurred by WUWT, they didn’t even have date stamps until we pointed out they were missing, and hadn’t noticed their output went wonky due to a bad satellite until I pointed it out.
I’ve recently learned that NSIDC is mixing political activism with research, and I’ve stopped trusting them. – Anthony
This is the largest sunspot group ever recorded it reached its maximum on 8th April 1947. It covered an area of 18,130 million square kilometers.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/larsspgr.jpg
As you can see the solar activity of the northern and southern hemispheres were synchronized peaking at the same time, during this solar cycle the northern hemisphere has peaked before the southern hemisphere which is unsynchronized solar activity, unsynchronized solar activity is weaker than synchronized solar activity.
Judging by past solar cycles unsynchronized solar activity may last longer and be weaker exhibiting few or even no sunspots for longer periods during solar maximum, during synchronized solar cycles activity on the sun is greater and lasts the normal length of about 11 years.
This is quite cool – Solar Tsumani
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23241896
Alan the Brit says:July 11, 2013 at 3:34 am
Could we see a list of predictions for SC24 from the very beginning for comparison?
Here is up to February of 2012, I gave up trying to update it as it was too crowded. An animated GIF would have been better in hindsight, but who knew it would turn out this way?
http://i39.tinypic.com/34rufj9.jpg
Steve Keohane says:
July 11, 2013 at 7:11 am
Thank you!!!!! Experts???
“electric universe” – on this blog, isn’t saying that something like saying “Niagara Falls”?
“slowly I turned, Step by Step, Inch by Inch….”
Sunspots are fun to watch, but use the 10.7 cm Flux to get a “non-biased” value for Solar activity. Again, thermodynamics states that all energy moves “downhill”. In simple terms, extreme UV becomes less energetic and through various processes eventually becomes the lowest energy: cosmic background radiations. Therefore, all energy must pass through the “10.7cm Flux” measurement frequency. This makes the Flux a great proxy for total Solar energy output. TSI is flawed in that it is biased toward the easy to measure infrared. Before the Solar satellites, it was not even know that extreme UV varied wildly [but up 10x or more] during a Solar sunspot peak.
Lief and others use a simple formula to link Sunspots to Flux before actual Flux measurements began in 1949. After 1949, actual measured Flux values are used.
It is well documented that between a Solar peak and valley, the Global temperature varies by 0.1C. Ask Lief for his summaries.
We are now entering a 2×180=360 year cycle of reduced Solar output. The cooling has started and will continue for 30 to 50 years.
Again, without a decent physical model of how the Sun actually produces energy, we are forced to rely on a statistical model of what the Sun will do! The statistical models can not explain why in 1800s, 1970s etc. there were drops in Solar output.
As per the latest revision to the predicted Solar output and the double “hump”, after the cycle is over they will get it right…
For those who may have forgotten or do not know, a certain WUWT commenter predicted Cycle 24 SSN very accurately some time ago based on his understanding of how the Sun works.
(Hint: Svalgaard, et al. 2005 70 ± 2 )
Come on guys Leif has to sleep sometimes.
Instead of repeating the same cycle of discussion on grand solar minimum with cooling and lack of global temperature correlation, maybe its time to move on to more investigation of the regional effects of solar cycles on the jet stream etc. I would like to see more connections made like this with emphasis on regional impact. We already have opposite behavior in polar sea ice and temps.
W. Astley said “It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year if my understanding of what is happening to the sun is correct. ”
Looking back at the period of Dalton Minimum, sun was also hovering around low sunspot numbers or even spotless many months between 1807 and and 1812 which was at the end of the first low solar cycle #5. It was spotless all year in 1810, the year of the minimum. We are currently going to approach the end or minimum of the current first low solar cycle # 24 . So there seem to be some similarities between then now .There were some colder than normal winters according to CET between 1807 and 1817 during these very low solar sunspot numbers.
Tom in Florida says:
July 11, 2013 at 7:33 am
Svalgaard, et al. 2005 70 ± 2 )
at the time, the world’s best known solar scientist Dr. Hathaway: SC 24 – strongest ever.
vukcevic 2003 SSN monthly non-smoothed to hit 80 in 2012/13
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
calculation formula published 8th January 2004
Not a prediction but extrapolation from astronomic orbital parameters !
Derided by the current bunch of solar experts.
To answer ->
Resourceguy says:
July 11, 2013 at 7:58 am
1) Sun heats the Oceans directly under it [Equator +-24.5 degrees].
2) Hadley cells are formed.
3) Hadley cells created trade winds.
4) Trade winds piles up warm water in the Gulf of Mexico/Indonesia.
5) Ocean currents flow from the piled up waters.
6) Gulf Stream is one of the currents.
7) Currents eventually return to Equator.
Results ->
1) Less Sun, less warms currents.
2) Less currents less warmth for Europe/Antarctica.
If you follow all of these threads, you would know this. Why don’t you contribute?
Resourceguy
You said
” I would like to see more connections made like this with emphasis on regional impact.”
The average CET winter temperature during the period 1807-1816 or the last near solar spotless period was about 2.98C which is somewhere between the winter temperatures of 2010 and 2011 . I think the latest winter norm is around 4C. However there were some record cold months which were brutal like December 2010. The winter of 1814 is ranked as the 4th coldest per CET records
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
compares cycle #24 with with a number of other cycles. This set of cycles doesn’t include #5.
We can have a diminished cycle, but it doesn’t mean we will have a Dalton minimum.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
The polar fields haven’t flipped yet. So we are not on the downside.yet.
Natural processes are really complicated. It causes us to play in our little sand pile and come up with endless speculation.
tallbloke says:
July 11, 2013 at 12:08 am
The sunspot count in this low cycle has been inflated by the counting of tiny ‘pores’ which weren’t counted in previous cycles.
That this is false has been pointed out many times. It is rather the opposite that is happening. A sunspot group contains spots of different sizes, most of them small. The number of spots per group should increase if the count has been inflated by small pores, instead the number of spots per group has been decreasing the past decade, see Slide 11 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 1:03 am
It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year if my understanding of what is happening to the sun is correct.
But since your understanding is not correct [judging from your comments], the Sun will not be spotless by the end of the year. At that time it will be prudent of you to concede that your understanding is wanting.
As the magnetic field strength of the ropes that rise up to form the sunspots on the surface of the sun decays, the ropes start to be affected by the turbulence forces in the solar convection zone and what forms on the sun is pores rather than the concentrated strong magnetic field configuration that is called a sunspot.
The ropes are [and have always been] torn apart by the convection, then when the debris reaches the surface, the magnetic elements reassemble to form spots. It is this reassembly process that seems to be weakening causing the Livingston and Penn effect [why it is weakening is presently not known]. This probably happened during the Maunder Minimum too. So: the magnetic cycle is not going away or changing abruptly, or ‘interrupted’, or anything like this. We know that because the Sun’s magnetic field is dragged out into the heliosphere where it helps modulate the cosmic rays. This modulation was as strong [or perhaps even stronger] during the Maunder minimum as during the past 70 years.
“It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year if my understanding of what is happening to the sun is correct.”
“But since your understanding is not correct [judging from your comments], the Sun will not be spotless by the end of the year. ”
This is an absurd and silly statement. Whether the sun is spotless (however unlikely) is not predicated on the first commentators understanding. If you are desirous of correcting a scientific point, please do so with class and precision. This foray into polemic simply leads you to make a frankly stupid remark and, in my opinion, makes is more difficult to read with value the important scientific points you have made through this blog (and, of course, published literature).
lsvalgaard
The minimum for solar cycle #24 looks to be about 2019. What is your best judgement? Do you see any period of spotless sun coming up around then ?
Poor Yorek says:
July 11, 2013 at 9:29 am
“It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year if my understanding of what is happening to the sun is correct.”
“But since your understanding is not correct [judging from your comments], the Sun will not be spotless by the end of the year. ”
This is an absurd and silly statement.
There are two issues here:
1) is William’s understanding correct?
2) even if correct, does it follow that the sun will be spotless in six months?
The answer to both is ‘no’, hence no absurd or silly statement.
As to the correctness one can only judge by his statements made, and they do not display any physical understanding of the problem.
My statement is not a ‘foray into polemic’ but a sober assessment of the merits of William’s ‘understanding’ as revealed by his comments.
herkimer says:
July 11, 2013 at 9:41 am
The minimum for solar cycle #24 looks to be about 2019. What is your best judgement? Do you see any period of spotless sun coming up around then ?
During the coming minimum the Sun will certainly be spotless for extended periods [just as it was during the past minimum]. For Cycle 25 and beyond, the sunspot number will [in my assessment] drop to levels not seen since the Maunder Minimum. The solar magnetic cycle will, however, continue as usual [as it did during the Maunder Minimum].
Wondering out loud…..
What about a metric that measures sunspot days ?
Suspect that the endurance of a sunspot is significant in terms of it’s effect on our climate.
While we can’t apply this to older observations, we can apply to modern measurements.
Anthony, May I suggest that you add the earlier predictions for SC24 to your Solar Reference Page. I think it underscores how meager our knowledge is on this subect.
It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of the weekend (it’s possible) never-mind the end of the year, it wont be the end of the cycle.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_HMII.jpg
As a matter of curiosity is the complete red plot available to present a complete view of the scale of error over time in the predictions? There appears to be yet another model failure here.
dp says:
July 11, 2013 at 10:56 am
As a matter of curiosity is the complete red plot available to present a complete view of the scale of error over time in the predictions?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
lsvalgaard
For Cycle 25 and beyond, the sunspot number will [in my assessment] drop to levels not seen since the Maunder Minimum.
… It is this reassembly process that seems to be weakening causing the Livingston and Penn effect [why it is weakening is presently not known].
Is there a relationship implied or theorized between whatever might be causing the Livingston and Penn effect and potential CMEs, (either size increases or frequency)?
lsvalgaard says:
“the Sun will not be spotless by the end of the year.”
“During the coming minimum the Sun will certainly be spotless for extended periods ”
So are you saying the minimum will not be with the end of the year and/or that the sun will not be spotless from now until such end of year? Will you be eating your shorts should you be shown wrong and thus shown to have a lack of understanding of said sun?
Walt Stone (@Cuppacafe) says:
July 11, 2013 at 11:04 am
Is there a relationship implied or theorized between whatever might be causing the Livingston and Penn effect and potential CMEs, (either size increases or frequency)?
It is too early to be more definitive as we have only observed those since about 1995, but one ting is clear: CMEs have not become rarer with the decrease of the sunspot number form cycle 23 to cycle 24; if anything CMEs have become a bit more common.
temp says:
July 11, 2013 at 11:43 am
So are you saying the minimum will not be with the end of the year and/or that the sun will not be spotless from now until such end of year?
Yes
Will you be eating your shorts should you be shown wrong and thus shown to have a lack of understanding of said sun?
Absolutely [and my old hat as well], and that should apply to William too.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/
For those of you interested in how wrong the predictions of the “experts” can be, here’s a link to David Hathaway’s 2006 prediction that Cycle 24 “looks like its (sic) going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago.”
I think the estimate is still high. I believe the peak has already occurred and the cycle will be shorter than usual. Instead of an 11 year period It looks like a 9.5 to 10 year period.
Just in time for a 2020 freeze-up.
Good to know we have some stored solar power (coal) to get us through the upcoming lean times.
Greg Locke says:
July 11, 2013 at 11:57 am
For those of you interested in how wrong the predictions of the “experts” can be…
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf slides 24-26 explains where Hathaway [as he now recognizes] went wrong. A wrong prediction [made on reasonable grounds] is valuable too as it eliminates a branch of the decision tree.
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20%28SORCE%202010%29.pdf
was mangled by wordpress
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2013 at 12:11 pm
“A wrong prediction [made on reasonable grounds] is valuable too as it eliminates a branch of the decision tree.”
____________________
Worth repeating.
Daniel Vogler says:
July 11, 2013 at 12:32 am
Just multiply the older sunspot numbers before 1947 by 1.20 to get the current inflated adjusted sunspots.
Here you can see how the SIDC-SSN record looks after the simple correction (made after Leif’s suggestions) – as we can se on the graph the SC24 SSN average (monhly SSN averages averaged for whole the cycles) so far (in the current peak of the cycle period) is higher than the SSN average of the SC5, but it is clearly already under the SC14 level, with further decline of course expected towards the end of the cycle – so we can conclude the SC24 indeed will have SSN average very likely closer to SC5 than to SC14 and it is still not impossible the SC24 could have the SSN average even lower than the SC5 – close to the level of the SC6.
So Talbloke is likely right “that this cycle is around the same magnitude as cycle 5” – although I’m really not sure about the validity of his argument why it is so.
Daniel Vogler says:
July 11, 2013 at 12:32 am
so we can conclude the SC24 indeed will have SSN average very likely closer to SC5 than to SC14 and it is still not impossible the SC24 could have the SSN average even lower than the SC5 – close to the level of the SC6.
The problem is that the uncertainty on the SSN for SC5 and 6 is too large for a simple comparison. Here is an estimate of the errors: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Groups-Small.png and those are 1-sigma error bars. We simply cannot make such comparisons with confidence and they are sort of meaningless anyway in detail. All we can say is that the cycles were small [similar within error bars] for SC 5&6 and SC 12&13&14 and SC 25&[25?&26?], or that we have had a group of small cycles every ~100 years.
All we can say is that the cycles were small [similar within error bars] for SC 5&6 and SC 12&13&14 and SC 24&[25?&26?]
Leif
Do you have any comment on the apparent asymmetry of the activity of this cycle between the northern and southern hemispheres? This would seem to be outside of the realm of the Livingston/Penn effect.
Also, in looking at the SSN for each month, only two out of the last 16 months have been over the putative SSN peak of 69 and many months have been well below. It is going to take several months of much higher activity to push the SC24 SSN peak over 69. Is that how you see it?
denniswingo says:
July 11, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Do you have any comment on the apparent asymmetry of the activity of this cycle between the northern and southern hemispheres? This would seem to be outside of the realm of the Livingston/Penn effect.
Such asymmetry is quite normal. See http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/Talking_Points_for_Asymmetric_Reversals.pdf for http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
I therefore don’t think the asymmetry is related to the L&P effect.
Also, in looking at the SSN for each month, only two out of the last 16 months have been over the putative SSN peak of 69 and many months have been well below. It is going to take several months of much higher activity to push the SC24 SSN peak over 69. Is that how you see it?
The south is picking up so we shall see. Here is what SC14 looked like http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Groups-Months.png but I think that SC24 is afflicted with the L&P effect and that the SSN thus is a bit too low [and the difference might get larger] compared to ‘true solar activity’ [whatever that is].
Thanks, Leif.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 11, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Here you can see how the SIDC-SSN record looks after the simple correction (made after Leif’s suggestions)
…….
Even after the Dr. S’s correction there is still somewhat disconcerting fact that the North Atlantic tectonics has closely followed solar activity for the last 130 years except for short period around 1960 (SC 19)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAT.htm
Correlation before 1880 is more sporadic, perhaps Dr.S needs to correct earlier data too.
Leif said “For Cycle 25 and beyond, the sunspot number will [in my assessment] drop to levels not seen since the Maunder Minimum.”
Sorry, just had to repeat that, I enjoyed it so much.
Sshh, don’t tell the climate modellers, then we can all laugh even more as the gap between their religious beliefs and reality grows ever starker.
vukcevic says:
July 11, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Correlation before 1880 is more sporadic, perhaps Dr.S needs to correct earlier data too.
It is the typical mark of a spurious correlation as it breaks down eventually. [and perhaps to require adjustments to the data – a la climate science – to make things fit]. To remind everybody: no public data, no science.
You can’t easily kill a religion. If the world doesn’t end on schedule you just claim you got the date wrong and think up a new date. I expect they will try to claim that the massive warming they predicted is merely being concealed by the ‘Svaalgard minimum’, and the world will end as expected when solar activity returns to normal.
cynical_scientist says:
July 11, 2013 at 4:13 pm
” I expect they will try to claim that the massive warming they predicted is merely being concealed by the ‘Svaalgard minimum’, and the world will end as expected when solar activity returns to normal.”
They pretty much are however they are being more vague and claiming its just some minor natural unaccounted for factors like the ocean and they promise in 20-30 years we will all die… again.
They will have a hard time claiming only the sun because they’ve been claiming the sun has had no effect on weather or climate for awhile now. Will be hard for them to retrace that path.
Do I remember seeing a chart of earth “mean” temperatures that ran parallel to the solar outputs? Could someone please point me to it?
Anthony: Given the timespan that has to be applied to represent the natural smoothing that the Earth does to the Solar input. Would in not be sensible to express the whole ~11 year cycle in overall RMS terms, with the sunspot contribution being the degree of ‘noise’? This IS just energy after all.
Wolfhound says:
July 11, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Do I remember seeing a chart of earth “mean” temperatures that ran parallel to the solar outputs? Could someone please point me to it?
You might be thinking about this one http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png where the ‘solar radiation’ is an obsolete TSI version by Hoyt&Schatten. The red and blue curves at the top shows modern reconstructions. Now, there is a new reconstruction by Shapiro et al. which also has a large variation, but this one is not generally accepted as it is in sharp disagreement with observations of the magnetic network on the Sun, see Slide 44 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf As Foukal concludes “iv) Arguments for a sharp TSI rise in the first half of the twentieth century (e.g., Shapiro et al., 2011) require complete disappearance of the photospheric magnetic network going back in time from the 1950s toward 1900. Such a disappearance is contradicted by the presence of a fully developed network in Ca K spectroheliograms obtained at Mt.Wilson and Meudon Observatories since the 1890s. This casts serious doubt on the basic model of Shapiro et al. and its claims for strong irradiance forcing through the Holocene.” http://www.leif.org/EOS/Foukal-2012.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2013 at 2:37 pm
That was actually me who did the comparison in reply to Daniel Vogler.
Fair enough to raise the question of uncertainty.
But I’m quite not sure if the error bars in your linked picture are really 1 sigma.
The SC14 corrected-SSN average is 38.74 and the calculated 1 standard deviation for the SC14 monthly corrected-SSN values comes out 31.74 while the SC5 corrected-SSN average is 27.11 and the calculated 1 standard deviation for the SC5 monthly corrected-SSN values comes out 22.64 – which nevertheless anyway means you’re right that all we can say for sure is that we have the small cycles every 100 years.
It however doesn’t exclude the possibility the current cycle could in reality have simmilar magnitude as the SC5 and 6 and in fact the statistical probablility it is so is really astronomically higher (like 10^100++ : 1 times) than that the real SC5 and SC14 SSN monthly values were really all at the 1 sigma boundaries and changed so the SSN averages considerably.
temp says:
July 11, 2013 at 11:43 am
lsvalgaard says:
“the Sun will not be spotless by the end of the year.”
“During the coming minimum the Sun will certainly be spotless for extended periods ”
So are you saying the minimum will not be with the end of the year and/or that the sun will not be spotless from now until such end of year?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If cycle 24 follows the pattern of other weak cycles it will stay at about this or a slightly lower sunspot number and drag on and on. In other words it plateaus for a long while before going back to a spotless state. It should also be longer than the average 11 to 12 year cycle. That is all based on what has happened in the past.
If someone bets that solar cycle will go to a spotless state by the end of the year I would gleefully take the bet.
Leif, The Maunder- and Dalton solar minima were also associated with some colder climate. Are there any solid reasons to expect any similar cooling with the anticipated Eddy Minimum?
Wolfhound says:
July 11, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Maybe it is not what you mean, but I know this chart. Unfortunately the page doesn’t give much information how exactly it was done and I never got a reply when asking.
lsvalgaard says:
“A wrong prediction [made on reasonable grounds] is valuable too as it eliminates a branch of the decision tree.”
And many thanks to those climate scientists that have helped by eliminating a number of branches off the old AGW tree that had really steep warming slopes.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 11, 2013 at 5:22 pm
But I’m quite not sure if the error bars in your linked picture are really 1 sigma.
The error bars are a result of recent assessment of the observations. The errors are themselves uncertain and it must be remembered that they are not random, but systematic, so do not diminish by averaging. Here are some of the earlier estimates for SC5: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png
But the obsession with which cycle is like which other cycle is somewhat off the mark to within fractions of a cycle size. What matters is the simple fact that the solar cycle since 1700 has had an about 100 year long-term variation. IMO, this is not a ‘cycle’ but just a temporary arrangement as the 100-yr cycle does not seem to stand out going further back in time [e.g. with cosmic ray proxies]. On the other hand there are people claiming a whole bunch of cycles coupled to planetary alignments. I have some comments on that and the attendant ‘cyclomania’ http://www.leif.org/resarch/Comment-Planetary-Peaks.pdf
Make up your own mind.
‘cyclomania’ http://www.leif.org/research/Comment-Planetary-Peaks.pdf
John Day says:
July 11, 2013 at 5:35 pm
The Maunder- and Dalton solar minima were also associated with some colder climate. Are there any solid reasons to expect any similar cooling with the anticipated Eddy Minimum?
I don’t think so, but such cooling seems to be the prevailing dogma among skeptics.
here we go again!!!
Leif says sunspots are counted to high (few agree) {(he will have some paper)}, Leif says sunspots are…cold?? produce less heat??..have less energy??..Hmmm not sure but he says black is cooler than yellow. (me i think a tunnel into the sun will release some Fracking energy…..Just saying) Leif says none of us here are as smart as he…I think he doth protest to much.
I say: ” Watch the Sun, use todays technology to learn the Sun, record ACCURATLLY the Sun, Be scientists and tell me what has happened when this is done! Predictions are for those who wish and accurate predictions are for the lucky.
to paraphrase Yogi Berra, “predictions are tough especially if they are about the future”
Ben Darren Hillicoss says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Hmmm not sure but he says black is cooler than yellow. (me i think a tunnel into the sun will release some Fracking energy…..Just saying)
sunspots are not black, they are in fact very hot [some 4000K or 7000 deg F], but the surrounding areas are hotter [6000K or 11000 deg F], so sunspots only appear ‘black’ by contrast with the surroundings. If you took the smallest sunspot we can see and removed all the rest of the Sun except that tiny spot hanging in the sky, the spot would shine brighter than the full moon, that is how hot it is. A sunspot is not a ‘tunnel’ into the Sun. It is cooler because its magnetic field interferes with the transport of heat from the deep up to the surface [the heat is diverted to the surrounding matter at depth]. So many sunspots diminish the heat we get from the Sun [in the short term]. We see that by measuring accurately with today’s technology the energy output from the Sun: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
The big dips you can see occur when large sunspots are on the solar disk.
Leif says none of us here are as smart as he
Two men hiking in the woods see a bear coming towards them. “Run” shouts one of the men. “Silly you, you cannot outrun a bear” says the other. “I don’t have to” responds the first, “I just have to outrun you”.
@Leif-
>… but such cooling seems to be the
> prevailing dogma among skeptics
Anyone have any theories why a decrease in visible sunspots would lead to cooler climate on Earth?
Yes, I know that sunspot counts are normally considered a reliable proxy for measuring cyclic solar magnetic activity (along with 10.7 cm radio flux). But these sunspot cycles don’t seem to cause any big variance in the total solar irradiance (TSI) captured by our planet.
Also, the Livingston – Penn Effect seems to have diminished the correlation between solar magnetic activity and sunspot counts (but not radio flux). So, the true reduction in magnetic activity is not as dramatic as the “disappearance of sunspots” would suggest visually.
Perhaps something about extreme ultraviolet (EUV)? Because EUV variance(and atmospheric ionization) is notably affected by magnetic activity on the Sun? But what is the actual cooling mechanism on Earth?
Ben Darren Hillicoss says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:59 pm
sunspots are…cold?? produce less heat??..have less energy??.
That tiny spot I told you about outputs 5 times less energy than an area of the same size of the surface where there is no spot.
Maybe one more upswing of that higher frequency harmonic, then that’s all she wrote.
John Day says:
July 11, 2013 at 7:40 pm
Perhaps something about extreme ultraviolet (EUV)? Because EUV variance(and atmospheric ionization) is notably affected by magnetic activity on the Sun? But what is the actual cooling mechanism on Earth?
The energy in the EUV emission is very small and the ionization is only above 80 km altitude, so it is ahrd to explain climate variation that way. My take is that there is a solar activity influence to the tune of 0.1C, so the sun is not a major driver of climate in the short term. Jupiter is on the time scale of tens of thousands of years.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm
‘cyclomania’ http://www.leif.org/research/Comment-Planetary-Peaks.pdf
############
what a tidy demolishing of crack pottery. I really enjoyed that Leif
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm
what a tidy demolishing of crack pottery. I really enjoyed that Leif
the world-famous cosmic ray physicists that authored that paper do not think it is crack pottery, but I think they grossly overplayed their hand. Once you get bitten by the ‘planetary bug’ you are beyond rescue. Now, it is science to examine those things critically, c.f. Charbonneau’s remark http://www.leif.org/EOS/493613-Charbonneau-Planets.pdf but it is not science to be carried away.
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm
what a tidy demolishing of crack pottery. I really enjoyed that Leif
the world-famous cosmic ray physicists that authored that paper do not think it is crack pottery, but I think they grossly overplayed their hand. Once you get bitten by the ‘planetary bug’ you are beyond rescue. Now, it is science to examine those things critically, c.f. Charbonneau’s remark http://www.leif.org/EOS/493613-Charbonneau-Planets.pdf but it is not science to get carried away.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2013 at 8:53 am
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 1:03 am
It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year if my understanding of what is happening to the sun is correct.
Leif: But since your understanding is not correct [judging from your comments], the Sun will not be spotless by the end of the year. At that time it will be prudent of you to concede that your understanding is wanting.
William: Tit for tat.
As the magnetic field strength of the ropes that rise up to form the sunspots on the surface of the sun decays, the ropes start to be affected by the turbulence forces in the solar convection zone and what forms on the sun is pores rather than the concentrated strong magnetic field configuration that is called a sunspot.
Leif: The ropes are [and have always been] torn apart by the convection, then when the debris reaches the surface, the magnetic elements reassemble to form spots. It is this reassembly process that seems to be weakening causing the Livingston and Penn effect [why it is weakening is presently not known]. This probably happened during the Maunder Minimum too. So: the magnetic cycle is not going away or changing abruptly, or ‘interrupted’, or anything like this. We know that because the Sun’s magnetic field is dragged out into the heliosphere where it helps modulate the cosmic rays. This modulation was as strong [or perhaps even stronger] during the Maunder minimum as during the past 70 years.
William: Yes there are always turbulent forces in the solar convection zone. The issue is the magnetic field strength of the ropes is decaying. Unfortunately if the magnetic field strength for the magnetic ropes falls below the minimum value to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone the magnetic ropes will be torn apart and there will nothing left to form sunspots on the surface of the sun.
Your comment concerning the Maunder minimum is warmist wishful thinking. In addition to the sun being spotless the earth will cool. The warmist gig is up.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml
The Interface Dynamo
Early models of the Sun’s magnetic dynamo worked on the idea that the dynamo activity occurs throughout the entire convection zone. It was soon realized, however, that magnetic fields within the convection zone would rapidly rise to the surface and wouldn’t have enough time to experience either the alpha or the omega effect. Since a magnetic field exerts a pressure on its surroundings, regions with a magnetic field should push aside the surrounding gas and make a bubble that would continue to rise all the way to the surface.
This buoyancy is not produced in the stable layer below the convection zone. Within the radiative zone the magnetic bubble would rise only a short distance before it would find itself just as dense as its surroundings. This led to the idea that the Sun’s magnetic field is being produced in the interface layer between the radiative zone and the convection zone. (William: The tachocline) This interface layer is also a place where we find rapid changes in rotation rate as we look inward or outward across it.
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 9:03 pm
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml
The Interface Dynamo
If you read the whole thing [rather than just quote out of context] you will find that Hathaway says just the opposite: that the sunspots are not generated near the tachocline: “This suggests that the variations in the meridional circulation are the source of variations in sunspot cycle amplitudes – neither the differential rotation (the Omega Effect) nor the convective motions (one source of the Alpha effect and the source of diffusion) vary as much.”
Perhaps this will be clearer: http://www.leif.org/EOS/20111212_NSO-Hathaway.pdf
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 9:03 pm
In addition to the sun being spotless the earth will cool.
spots decrease the amount of energy we get from the Sun, just looks at these dips when big spots were on the solar disk: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
So with no spots, we would not have those dips and we would get more energy from the Sun, and you say that will cool the Earth…
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Unfortunately if the magnetic field strength for the magnetic ropes falls below the minimum value to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone the magnetic ropes will be torn apart
They are always torn apart, no matter what the field strength is. The question is about how do spots form from the [always] shredded flux ropes.
Leif, anyone: Can you tell me what the relative power (RMS wise) is between the main solar output (over the ~11 year cycles) and the sun spot ‘speckle noise RMS’ that it adds?
If there is less solar energy then why do we have more cosmic rays at solar minimum Leif.
Just asking
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:12 pm
That is not how science should be conducted. c.f. Phil Jones’s refusal to hand over his data. You are just in that same boat.
July 11, 2013 at 4:00 pm
To remind everybody: no public data, no science.
Nonsense. Let’s have this clear, my research is my own, I have never received a single penny from taxpayers in whole of my working career, but have contributed through my substantial tax payments to the Jones’s and Met Office research. That is the difference. Not in the ‘same boat’ !
Now to the matter of interest:
I have assembled geological data exactly 3 years ago, and have regularly updated,
data since show rapid decline in the tectonics. Releasing the data file now may raise some superficial interest from one or two scientists and most likely only from the Stanford spoilsport and duly forgotten.
In another 2-3 years the ‘global warming’ will be totally rejected by N.W. Europeans because our climate here is controlled by the N. Atlantic temperature, which is strongly correlated to the tectonics
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN_NAP.htm
Hunters for the true ‘European climate forcing’ may be more inclined to take notice.
Stanford spoilsports will be ignored while ‘in that same boat’ that is currently paddled or is it peddled by Mann and co.
vukcevic says:
July 12, 2013 at 1:12 am
“Europeans because our climate here is controlled by the N. Atlantic temperature”
I beleieve that I too have demonstarted that with this presentation of the CET data series.
http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b550/RichardLH/CET-Recent4YearAnomaliestoMay201328daylowpassfiltered_zpsdb370a86.png
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2013 at 10:01 pm
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Unfortunately if the magnetic field strength for the magnetic ropes falls below the minimum value to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone the magnetic ropes will be torn apart
They are always torn apart, no matter what the field strength is. The question is about how do spots form from the [always] shredded flux ropes.
William:
Hathaway in his presentation ignores the 1000 lb gorilla in the room. Sunspots are being replaced by pores. Why is that observational fact so? The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. Why?
A dynamo mechanism cannot explain the current observations. There are fundamental errors in the solar model.
The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. Extrapolate the reduction: What comes next?
What will happen next to the sun, will have a profound effect on cosmological theory and on fundamental physics theory, in addition to causing a Heinrich event. The Heinrich events on the earth have a physical explanation; a powerful cyclic event caused what is observed. The sun caused what is observed.
The magnetic ropes are not always torn apart. The normal solar magnetic cycle is a variation of the number of sunspots and the length of the solar magnetic cycle not an interruption to the mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes that rise up to the surface of the sun to form sunspots.
The principal mechanism that forms the magnetic ropes at the tachocline is not a dynamo mechanism. The principal mechanism that forms the geomagnetic field is not a dynamo mechanism.
Solar cycle 24 is a special once in 10,000 year cycle.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/20111212_NSO-Hathaway.pdf
David Hathaway
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center 2011 December 12 – NSO
Dynamo Dilemma #2
The toroidal magnetic flux produced in the convection zone should be buoyant and rise rapidly (weeks) to the surface (Parker, 1975). This short residence time would not allow the Ω – effect to intensify the field enough …
Dynamo Dilemma #2
The internal rotation profile determined with helioseismic methods shows shear layers at the top and bottom of the convection zone with nearly constant rotation rate in between – unlike the rotation profiles produced in the hydrodynamic models or assumed in the kinematic dynamo models ….
All three dilemmas (too much α – effect, buoyant flux tube rise time, and wrong radial shear) could be circumvented if the dynamo was placed at the base of the convection zone. Parker (1975) made this suggestion early on to solve the magnetic buoyancy dilemma….
William Astley says:
July 12, 2013 at 2:50 am
“Solar cycle 24 is a special once in 10,000 year cycle.”
And where, in which thermal history record, did you find that information? You got one THAT long?
I mean, I can get RMS values out for some time bands, but that far back the span width is starting to get very large.
Based on a x^1.3371…. Digital RMS Power series for running average time spans on the data which would appear to be the way that natures disapates energy whe forced to ‘keep time’.
(my new name for the presentation I think.)
vukcevic says:
July 12, 2013 at 1:12 am
Let’s have this clear, my research is my own, …
Releasing the data file now may raise some superficial interest
Nobody is interested in the data file. What is of interest is how the data file is constructed so that the research can be evaluated and replicated. Without that you have nothing and your ‘findings’ are worthless. You sound just like Jones: “why should I give you my data so that you can shoot holes in my research”.
William Astley says:
July 12, 2013 at 2:50 am
A dynamo mechanism cannot explain the current observations. There are fundamental errors in the solar model.
The dynamo mechanism generates the magnetic field, the magnetic field is always torn to pieces by the convection, the re-assembly into spots is not part of the dynamo.
What will happen next to the sun, will have a profound effect on cosmological theory and on fundamental physics theory, in addition to causing a Heinrich event.
What happens next has happened many times in the past. Last time it was called the Maunder Minimum. Heinrich events are not caused by the Sun: http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf
The normal solar magnetic cycle is … not an interruption to the mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes that rise up to the surface of the sun to form sunspots.
Nobody says it is.
The principal mechanism that forms the magnetic ropes at the tachocline is not a dynamo mechanism. The principal mechanism that forms the geomagnetic field is not a dynamo mechanism.
The magnetic ropes are probably not generated at the tachocline, but in the shallow shear layer much closer to the surface. All magnetic fields are generated and maintained by self-sustaining dynamos, if not they decay away with time.
Solar cycle 24 is a special once in 10,000 year cycle.
Similar cycles probably occurred during the Maunder Minimum.
All three dilemmas could be circumvented if the dynamo was placed at the base of the convection zone. Parker (1975) made this suggestion early on to solve the magnetic buoyancy dilemma….
Is again taken out of context. What Hathaway is describing is what he thinks does not work. He supports instead a shallow dynamo. However, the location of the dynamo is not critical to its working.
Ian H says:
July 12, 2013 at 12:29 am
If there is less solar energy then why do we have more cosmic rays at solar minimum Leif
In the most general terms you could say that it takes energy to turn the cosmic rays away. The cosmic rays are not generated by the Sun, but comes to us from the Galaxy, solar activity results in obstacles to the propagation of the cosmic ray particles.
John Day (July 11, 2013 at 7:40 pm) asked “Because EUV variance(and atmospheric ionization) is notably affected by magnetic activity on the Sun? But what is the actual cooling mechanism on Earth?”
Ferdinand alluded to a possibility above: “influencing the ozone layer and the jet stream positions due to an increased temperature difference equator-poles in the lower stratosphere. That influences wind and cloud/rain patterns in each hemisphere…”
My belief (not quantitative) is that meridional flow (i.e. blocking patterns and/or “wavering” jet) causes net cooling. It may not be substantial since the warm side of blocking patterns tend to have positive feedback from warming and drying.
Solar modulation of the jet seems to make a lot more sense than the “low Arctic ice” theory, which I have never seen written up with any formality. Related to that is the “Arctic Amplification causing reduce gradient causing wavy jet” theory (e.g. by Francis) that may have some merit in the autumn, but should be inapplicable in the spring and this spring and summer in particular.
I also understand there is dominating terrestrial feedback into the upper air patterns. So we cannot expect that the sun exerts lots of control. Nor can we rule out GHG influences within the weather patterns. But it is clear that these patterns (blocking, wavy jet, etc) are mostly natural.
“Based on a x^1.3371…. Digital RMS Power series for running average time spans ”
Based on a x*1.3371…. Digital RMS Power series for running average time spans – duh!
Eric1skeptic says:
July 12, 2013 at 3:58 am
I claim to have been the first to set out a hypothesis whereby changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun acting via ozone quantities in the stratosphere alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles thereby allowing the jets and climate zones to slide latitudinally beneath the tropopause.
The effect is to alter global cloudiness and the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
That process is then heavily modulated by the lagging oceanic response such that the climate trend at any given time is a result of the netted out effect of the top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences.
GHGs may have some effect but indiscernible in comparison.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 12, 2013 at 6:07 am
I claim to have been the first to set out a hypothesis whereby changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun acting via ozone quantities in the stratosphere alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles thereby allowing the jets and climate zones to slide latitudinally beneath the tropopause.
The effect is to alter global cloudiness and the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
That process is then heavily modulated by the lagging oceanic response such that the climate trend at any given time is a result of the netted out effect of the top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences.
GHGs may have some effect but indiscernible in comparison.
There is no way that you are the first…perhaps time to get off your high horse.
There are many that recognize in literature that low solar conditions affect atmospheric changes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 3:43 am
Nobody is interested in the data file. What is of interest is how the data file is constructed so that the research can be evaluated and replicated. Without that you have nothing and your ‘findings’ are worthless. You sound just like Jones: “why should I give you my data so that you can shoot holes in my research”.
You might be sooner than you think. Most of people here think that the SSN number reduction will lead to the temperature fall.
You do not.
When the N. W. European winters get much colder, either you will have to support ridiculous notion that ‘warming cases cooling’, scramble for some new ideas, or eat your hat.
If you look at the second graph here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN_NAP.htm
you could see how the data file is constructed
t = time
n = number of events in a unit of time (already known)
k = integration period
Value for k is only questionable, but since it gives very good correlation with two known and as yet considered independent variables: sunspot number and the long term variability of the N. Atlantic temperature (see link above) than conclusion is that the k- factor is most likely correct (represents kind of an ‘ocean currents time constant’ which indeed may change somewhat over period of many decades or a century.
k- factor establishes link between the two above mentioned variables.
I suspect you may respond in your customary manner:
“N. Atlantic temperature does not cause the SSN fall”, and I say ‘indeed it does not’.
66. I think I read that in a paper a few years ago.
In reply to:
RichardLH says:
July 12, 2013 at 3:36 am
William Astley says:
July 12, 2013 at 2:50 am
“Solar cycle 24 is a special once in 10,000 year cycle.”
And where, in which thermal history record, did you find that information? You got one THAT long?
William:
There are two types of cyclic and pseudo cyclic climate change events: 1) Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and 2) Heinrich events. The Medieval warm period and the Little Ice age is an example of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, a warm period caused by a series of active solar magnetic cycles. The warming of the planet is caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover rather than an increase in total solar irradiance. The regions of the planet that have warmed in the last 70 years are the same regions of the planet that warmed in past Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. The warm period is followed by cooling when the sun enters a Maunder minimum.
The Heinrich event is also caused by a special solar magnetic cycle change. The mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes that rise up to the surface of the sun is interrupted. The planet then cools due increased cloud cover that is caused by an increase in cosmic flux (high speed protons) as the solar heliosphere (name for the pieces of solar magnetic flux that ejected by the sun) is very weak and hence does not deflect as many high speed protons. The high speed protons create ions in the atmosphere which increase the amount and the albedo of the low level clouds.
The effect of the solar magnetic cycle restart is dependent on the earth’s orbital parameter at the time of the restart. The current configuration is optimum to create a geomagnetic excursion which explains why there is currently rapid movement of the North magnetic pole and the rapid increase in the Southern Atlantic geomagnetic anomaly.
ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM
Abrupt shifts between warm and cold states punctuate the interval between 20 to 75 ka in the Greenland isotope record, with shifts of 5–15C occurring in decades or less (Figure 1). These alternations were identified in some of the earliest ice core isotopic studies [e.g., (22)] and were replicated and more precisely dated by subsequent work (23). Further analysis of diverse records has distinguished two types of millennial events (13). Dansgaard/Oeschger (D/O) events are alternations between warm (interstadial) and cold (stadial) states that recur approximately every 1500 years, although this rhythm is variable. Heinrich events are intervals of extreme cold contemporaneous with intervals of ice-rafted detritus in the northern North Atlantic (24–26); these recur irregularly on the order of ca. 10,000 years apart and are typically followed by the warmest D/O interstadials.
Both Heinrich and D/O events exhibit clear global impacts. ….
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
The Younger Dryas (YD, 12.9}11.6 ka cal BP, Alley et al., 1993) was a cold event that interrupted the general warming trend during the last deglaciation. The YD was not unique, as it represents the last of a number of events during the Late Pleistocene, all characterised by rapid and intensive cooling in the North Atlantic region (e.g., Bond et al., 1993; Anderson, 1997). During these events, icebergs were common in the N Atlantic Ocean, as evidenced by ice-rafted sediments found in ocean cores. The most prominent of these episodes with ice rafting are known as Heinrich events (e.g., Bond et al., 1992, 1993; Andrews, 1998). A Heinrich-like event (H-0) was simultaneous with the YD (Andrews et al., 1995). Moreover, the YD seems to be part of a millennial-scale cycle of cool climatic events that extends into the Holocene (Denton and KarleHn, 1973; Harvey, 1980; Magny and Ru!aldi, 1995; O’Brien et al., 1995; Bond et al., 1997). Based on analysis of the 14C record from tree rings, Stuiver and Braziunas (1993) suggested that solar variability could be an important factor affecting climate variations during the Holocene … ….Estimates for the increase in 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise: 40}70& within 300 years (Goslar et al., 1995), 30 to 60 %/% in 70 years (BjoK rck et al., 1996), 50} 80&in 200 years (Hughen et al., 1998) and 70 %/% in 200 years (Hajdas et al., 1998). This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records (Goslar et al., 1995). Hajdas et al. (1998) used this sharp increase of atmospheric 14C at the onset of the YD as a tool for time correlation between sites.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Gulf.pdf
vukcevic says:
July 12, 2013 at 7:17 am
you could see how the data file is constructed
No, it does not specify what the variables are and how they are constructed.
William Astley says:
July 12, 2013 at 7:32 am
The Medieval warm period and the Little Ice age is an example of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, a warm period caused by a series of active solar magnetic cycles.
No, the OD-events have a much simpler explanation [nothing to do with the sun]: http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf
The warming of the planet is caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover rather than an increase in total solar irradiance.
There is no good evidence for such a link: http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
The Heinrich event is also caused by a special solar magnetic cycle change. The mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes that rise up to the surface of the sun is interrupted.
You have never defined was ‘interrupted’ means and there is no ‘special solar magnetic cycle change’
The effect of the solar magnetic cycle restart is dependent on the earth’s orbital parameter at the time of the restart. The current configuration is optimum to create a geomagnetic excursion
Pure speculation with no physical content. Even worse than Vuk’s.
William Astley says:
July 12, 2013 at 7:32 am
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
Estimates for the increase in 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise … This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records
Unfortunately the timing is wrong. The newest version of the INTCAL series [INTCAL09] shows no increase at the start of the YD: http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL09-and-YD.png but much later and not particularly sharp. There are many such increases in the record.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 9:07 am
The newest version of the INTCAL series [INTCAL09] shows no increase at the start of the YD: http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL09-and-YD.png but much later and not particularly sharp
earlier, of course.
Now, the event around 13,000 was not designated as a Heinrich event, by Heinrich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heinrich-events.png and doesn’t fit the ~7000 years recurrence.
Heinrich events do not correspond to any special changes in 14C: http://www.leif.org/research/Heinrich-Events-and-14C.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 9:07 am
earlier, of course.
Jeez, should be later. Better go get that cup of coffee to wake up.
@vuk
Vuk,
I looked at your wiggle-gram, and I think I understand the ‘mechanism’ underlying this amazing precursor prediction. It’s called the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy”, named after a Texan who claimed to be a sharpshooter by firing random shots at a barn, then drawing a bullseye centered around the holes which formed the tightest pattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
So, you overlaid two different plots and slid them back and forth until you could fit a few peaks in an “interesting” way. That occurred at a shift value of 7 years, right?
But I may be mistaken about this. If there actually are some new discoveries in geophysics and solar science involved here, then please explain where your data came from and exactly how you prepared this plot, including the formula which predicts the 7-year shift strictly from the independent variables, i.e. no fudging.
In other words, show us some science, not wiggle-grams.
😐
Leif said ” I don’t think so, but such cooling seems to be the prevailing dogma among sceptics.”
Pretty reasonable dogma, though. Given the correlation with the Dalton and the Maunder.
Any Jupiter effect is too drawn out, so unless you have any alternative explanation as to why it shouldn’t be different this time then it seems reasonable to stick with the cooling dogma until such time as events show otherwise.
There is always superstition, 3rd time lucky perhaps. Guess that church is closely related to the co2 church.
I look forward to reading a paper on Jupiter authored by Leif. If you aren’t already working on it then please do.
Stephen Walters said:
“There is no way that you are the first…perhaps time to get off your high horse.
There are many that recognize in literature that low solar conditions affect atmospheric changes.”
It is not enough to simply note that low solar activity affects the air circulation. I agree that many have done that on a regional basis including James Hansen until he switched to CO2 as a primary influence.
As far as I am aware nobody else has suggested that it is global, that it affects the latitudinal positioning of both jets and climate zones and that the solar variations cause a change in the slope of tropopause height between equator and pole so as to allow such changes.
Nor that the resulting cloudiness changes affect the amount of energy entering the oceans to drive the climate system
If you know of someone else then please specify.
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm
‘cyclomania’ http://www.leif.org/research/Comment-Planetary-Peaks.pdf
############
what a tidy demolishing of crack pottery. I really enjoyed that Leif
Are you saying that a fast Fourier transformation of Synthetic Sunspot numbers disproves empirical observation of both the solar system and solar activity made by astronomers and solar physicists?
So are astronomers and solar physicists now crack pots for pointing out there appears to be a link between the timing of the solar system and the suns activity.
I hope that I have read this the wrong way.
John Day says: July 12, 2013 at 10:32 am
It’s called the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy”,
But I may be mistaken about this. If there actually are some new discoveries in geophysics and solar science involved here, then please explain where your data came from and exactly how you prepared this plot, including the formula which predicts the 7-year shift strictly from the independent variables, i.e. no fudging.
John
Thank you for your thorough appraisal. I know little about Texas and even less about sharp-shooting, so you lost me there.
I’m sure Dr. S. is more than capable of shooting down, whatever needs to be shot, not to mentioned all the collateral damage around too.
Your request is way beyond my meagre ability (D&K you know), my apology but I won’t even bother to try. Have a nice day now, or whatever they say down south.
J Martin says:
July 12, 2013 at 10:50 am
I look forward to reading a paper on Jupiter authored by Leif. If you aren’t already working on it then please do.
Such paper was written long ago by Milankovitsch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles “The Earth’s eccentricity varies primarily due to interactions with the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Saturn”
Sparks says:
July 12, 2013 at 11:12 am
Are you saying that a fast Fourier transformation of Synthetic Sunspot numbers disproves empirical observation of both the solar system and solar activity made by astronomers and solar physicists?
It demonstrates that all the peaks observed can be explained as harmonics of a single period and therefore are not necessarily independent and that the calculation of 99.999999999% confidence under the assumption that they are independent is not correct.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 11:31 am
It demonstrates that all the peaks observed can be explained as harmonics of a single period and therefore are not necessarily independent and that the calculation of 99.999999999% confidence under the assumption that they are independent is not correct.
So its basically demonstrating that the equations are Synthetic sunspot numbers. Wave matching?
Can it be useful?
Dr. Svalgaard, I would like to express my thanks for your active participation on this thread, as well as the many others where you have shared your expertise and knowledge. I would also like to congratulate you for the accuracy of your Cycle 24 SSN predictions. If I recall correctly, even prior to the Cycle 23-24 minimum you predicted a Cycle 24 SSN count that looks like it will be very close to dead-on. At the time, I believe that your prediction was quite the outlier, as most (including D. Hathaway) had predicted a very intense Cycle 24 with very high SSNs.
I also sincerely appreciate your attitude as a scientist. You seem to always to be skeptical-to my mind one of the hallmarks of a true scientist. My impression is that you go where the data takes you, instead of looking for the data that supports your hypothesis. (While I quite enjoy reading some of the other commenters here on this thread, several other commentators seem to be emotionally attached to their ideas – a serious drawback in anyone claiming to follow the scientific method.) You share your data and your methodology (numerous examples on this thread alone) and are prepared to defend them in an open forum such as this, absent the insults and ad hominem arguments (for the most part, anyway.) You seem to be willing to continue to engage others on the thread until all questions are answered or issues addressed – that is a significant donation of your time (obviously).
I have learned from this thread, and other threads you have joined. You have the knack of writing about a very complex subject in a way that allows a layman of moderate intelligence to grasp the basic concepts, and to begin to understand how they may fit together. I am sure that there are many others who feel as I do: I sincerely appreciate your participation and contributions, and I extend you my sincere thanks.
Dan Murphy
Dan Murphy says:
July 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Ditto!
vukcevic says:
July 12, 2013 at 11:24 am
“John
Thank you for your thorough appraisal. I know little about Texas and even less about sharp-shooting, so you lost me there”
Vuk,
What he means is that normally one would set up a target circle then shoot at it to see if one could hit the inside the circle thereby demonstrating how good a shot one is. In John’s example, a bad shot would shoot first and then see where most of the shots hit. He would then place the target circle around those shots thereby falsely demonstrating that he intended the shots to go there.
Milankovitch may set a part of the background conditions, but given the many well documented problems with the Milankovitch cycles there are clearly other missing factors, certainly for the 100k world, although the 41k world was clearly governed by obliquity.
I have read on this site that some are convinced the 41k world hasn’t gone anywhere and that we are within 500 years of the point where changing obliquity starts the Earth’s trip down to a glaciation. If that is the case it ties in quite nicely with work I have seen on another site that also suggests that a glaciation will start in about 500 years, this work was not based on obliquity if I recall correctly. Aside from the 41k world, I remain sceptical about the rest of the Milankovitch stuff.
With regard to the small reduction in TSI when there are no sunspots, other factors need to be examined, Svensmark for one, though this is contentious but is at least being examined at CERN. Another factor may be EUV and it is thought by NASA that the current reduction in EUV has had an effect on dropping the height of our atmosphere. Does a thinner layer of insulation allow more heat out ? And does the difference in height of the atmosphere between the tropics and the poles emphasise any effect ? Questions for the mathematicians and physicists perhaps.
What I was meaning earlier Leif isn if you say that the sunspots are cooler than the normal sun areas in sunspot min how come the cosmic rays are more. obviously more solar output action from sunspots is causing at max is causing more destruction of cosmic rays. Therefore there must be more solar outputs from sunspot activity than from normal solar non sunspot areas and more solar outputs at solar max
Sparks says:
July 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm
So its basically demonstrating that the equations are Synthetic sunspot numbers. Wave matching?
What it demonstrates is that if there is a 1024-yr wave that is not a pure sine-wave, then automatically the can be many other peaks [happen to match the ones claimed to be in the real data] so that these other peaks are not independent and that therefore the probability that there are all there by chance is not so astronomically small.
J Martin says:
July 12, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Milankovitch may set a part of the background conditions, but given the many well documented problems with the Milankovitch cycles there are clearly other missing factors, certainly for the 100k world,
I think those problems have been resolved: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
Ian H says:
July 12, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Therefore there must be more solar outputs from sunspot activity than from normal solar
The cosmic rays are deflected out of the solar system by the increase of the solar magnetic field [not really in ‘power output’] in combination with the changing shape of the corona over the solar cycle. The basic mechanism is explained here http://www.leif.org/EOS/262766a0-HCS-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
Dan Murphy says:
July 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm
You seem to be willing to continue to engage others on the thread until all questions are answered or issues addressed – that is a significant donation of your time (obviously).
My way of paying something back to society for the support I have enjoyed over the years at taxpayers’ expense.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 5:01 pm
My way of paying something back to society for the support I have enjoyed over the years at taxpayers’ expense.
>>>>>>
Ma’am, can I get another barf-bag???
geran says:
July 12, 2013 at 5:32 pm
Ma’am, can I get another barf-bag???
That way you can keep your effluvia to yourself instead of spilling it here.
That is the purpose of a barf-bag–duh….
Thanks for the link Leif
geran says:
July 12, 2013 at 5:44 pm
That is the purpose of a barf-bag–duh….
So, look in the bag: perhaps you delivered, if so, rejoice.
I am rejoicing that someone that has sold out to the government funding is willing to revert to 12 year-old rhetoric.
geran says:
July 12, 2013 at 6:37 pm
I am rejoicing that someone that has sold out to the government funding
Perhaps you will step up the plate and provide some untainted funding. Gladly accepted. Or just keep the contents of your barf-bag to yourself rather than embarrassing yourself by displaying it here.
Perhaps you will step up to the plate and provide some detailed facts, as in FOIA. Gladly accepted. Your website is useless. It only glorifies your ramblings. Yet, as a publicly-funded employee, you have access to plenty of info. Please provide us with things you have unavailable to you. Such as TSI vs sunspots for X years in the past.
(And please, no more references to Vuk’s leg. I do not want to know about your sexual preferences. Nor does Vuk,)
Aside to others–sentence should read “Please provide us with things you have available to you.’
But, let’s see if he can figure it out….
geran says:
July 12, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Aside to others–sentence should read “Please provide us with things you have available to you.’
FYI, everything I use is available from the open literature to everyone.
I come across much filth directed my way on these pages, but you are in a class of your own. Happy barfing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 4:49 pm
What it demonstrates is that if there is a 1024-yr wave that is not a pure sine-wave, then automatically the can be many other peaks [happen to match the ones claimed to be in the real data] so that these other peaks are not independent and that therefore the probability that there are all there by chance is not so astronomically small.
Leif, I don’t work with probabilities or statistical likelihoods to prove a fact, how is it that you are defending Steven and supporting fantasy.
You seem to me to be using a model to disprove a reality, my sincere apologies if this is incorrect.
Sorry leif, but you are the barfer. You are in denial. You think that you know it all. You imagine you come across much filth. In your mind, you are the abused. But, you are the abuser. You are the filthier, you are the trasher.
Think your comment about Vuk’s leg.
You may need to see a therapist.
geran says:
July 12, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Sorry leif, but you are the barfer
Well, who asked for a barf-bag? But it appears you have more coming, so make sure it is a big bag.
LMAO, the imp threatens….
geran says:
July 12, 2013 at 8:52 pm
LMAO, the imp threatens….
It seems your mouth is too close to what you are laughing off. But from filth, your comments are beginning to turn into entertainment. Can’t wait until the next installment.
Not the first time I have sent an elitist professor running…
geran says:
July 12, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Not the first time I have sent an elitist professor running…
keep it coming.
geran,
Calm down, Leif is on his funny half hour.
Sparks says:
July 12, 2013 at 9:09 pm
Oh, so we kwow….
Sparks says:
July 12, 2013 at 9:09 pm
geran, Calm down, Leif is on his funny half hour.
I say: let him. WUWT can serve as his therapist where he can continue to reveal all those lurid details about himself and his anger, frustration, and small nasty accomplishments. It is good for people to vent sometimes. And, as I said, it can be entertaining, just like people laugh when a circus clown falls down repeatedly.
Leif,
that’s lol funny.
Sparks says:
July 12, 2013 at 8:37 pm
You seem to me to be using a model to disprove a reality
The power spectrum of cosmic ray intensities with time has very many small peaks. Random noise also has such, and the problem is to separate the ‘real’ peaks from the ‘noise’ peaks. One way is to see which peaks correspond to a model or theoretical expectation. If ten such peaks are found, the chance that they are random instead is like tossing a coin and getting heads 10 times. That is if the peaks are independent [as coin tosses]. What my little example showed was that if you have just a single cycle which is not a pure sine wave, then that single cycle has harmonics that are not independent [as they all derive from the same underlying single cycle] and the fact as you have [say] ten of them is not a surprise and is not as improbable as 10 heads in a row.
Leif,
I think the solar system has a integral relationship with the sun.
Sparks says:
July 12, 2013 at 10:32 pm
I think the solar system has a integral relationship with the sun.
I think not as the solar system is accidental. Another star otherwise just like the Sun somewhere in the Universe would in all likelihood have a very different ‘solar’ system. Now, IMO, the Sun ‘runs’ the planets, but the planets do not ‘run’ the Sun. Resolving this is not possible at present, but when we finally find a star very sun-like with a planetary system very different from ours, then we can test if the planets control solar [stellar] activity. Image that that other sun also has a solar cycle [otherwise it would not be like the Sun] of length near 11 years, but that its ‘Jupiter’ has a period of 15 years [say – or 7 years or some such] then we would know that the planets do not control solar activity. So it will be possible to find out. Up to now, no such system has been found where the main planet’s orbital period is near the length of the activity cycle.
J Martin said:
“Another factor may be EUV and it is thought by NASA that the current reduction in EUV has had an effect on dropping the height of our atmosphere. Does a thinner layer of insulation allow more heat out ? And does the difference in height of the atmosphere between the tropics and the poles emphasise any effect ?”
There are a number of processes that can affect atmospheric chemistry so EUV variations alone may not be sufficient. Hence my suggestion that one should consider the changing overall mix of both wavelengths and particles when the level of solar activity changes.
When such solar changes occur the atmosphere as a whole does indeed expand and contract which is where the Ideal Gas Laws come in.
A lower atmosphere is a denser atmosphere so energy flows through it more slowly.
A higher atmosphere is less dense so energy flows through it more quickly.
When the atmosphere expands or contracts the gradient of tropopause height also changes between equator and poles so that allows the climate zones and jets beneath it to shift latitudinally.
It is that latitudinal shifting which is the physical sign that the rate of passage of energy through the atmosphere has changed.
So we can tell from jet stream behaviour what the trend is during a specific period of time.
Thus:
i) An active sun expands the atmosphere and in doing so steepens the tropopause height gradient between equator and poles. The climate zones push poleward and the jets become more zonal. This is associated with less clouds because the lines of air mass mixing are shorter and more solar energy gets into the oceans to warm the system. At the same time the expanded and less dense atmosphere, reduced cloudiness and faster zonal circulation allow energy out to space faster but the system still warms slowly until the oceanic time lag has been worked through and then stabilises if the sun stays at the same level of activity.
ii) A quiet sun contracts the atmosphere and in doing so causes a shallower tropopause height gradient between equator and poles. The climate zones fall back towards the equator and the jets become more meridional. This is associated with more clouds because the lines of air mass mixing become longer and less solar energy gets into the oceans.
At the same time the contracted and more dense atmosphere, more cloudiness and slower meridional circulation allow energy out to space less quickly so the system cools slowly as the oceanic time lag is worked through then stabilises if the sun stays at the same level of activity.
In practice the sun varies on a 1000 year or so time scale so there is a sine wave curve from one warm or cool period to the next.
Hence Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and the Current Warm Period.
Interestingly the successive peaks have been getting lower by some accounts so the scale of millennial solar variation may be declining at present.
Tom in Florida says: July 12, 2013 at 3:20 pm
…………….
Hi Tom
May I start by saying that here in the UK, we are currently enjoy glorious summer weather not seen for some decades, contrary to the Met Office forecast of only a month ago.
Re John Day’s request:
Thanks Tom, I do not mind being put down by Dr.S, who I assume for the most of the time knows his stuff., but demands, even from someone called John Day, may not be responded to.
However 7 to 8 year delays in the N. Atlantic’s Sub-Polar Gyre are well known, which obviously Mr. Day is not aware of, but if he has desire to put people down, perhaps should read stuff related to the matter, for a start I would suggest the SPG feedback papers : Treguier et al 2004, Levermann et al 2007 and Born et al 2011.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 9:30 pm
Wow, this is Svaaaaaaal at his best!
Mods. There are times when I feel you are a smidgen over tolerant. Geran being a case in point. I was beginning to wonder if might develop Repetitive Strain Syndrome just using the keyboard to get past Geran’s pointless verbiage.
He seems to have stopped for the time being, but if he re-appears with more, then please give him a time-out.
Leif. Thanks for the Gerard Roe pdf. I have read it before and will now re-read it. I think that Roe’s contribution could be regarded as a potentially seminal work. However, he missed a golden opportunity by not using the work he had done to make a projection as to when and at what pace the next glaciation might occur. Something that is arguably of crucial importance to mankind.
If a projection of some sort can be made from Roe’s work then not doing so is a tragedy.
Gerard Roe states in his paper that “variations in atmospheric CO2 appear to lag the rate of
change of global ice volume. This implies only a secondary role for CO2”
Good job he doesn’t work for one of those Australian universities, Whacky or James Cook, otherwise he would no longer have a job. Mind you there are also some US universities that abuse procedure to get rid of professors and lecturers who’s views they consider to be politically incorrect.
Further on, Roe does add this, presumably to be on the safe side “This certainly does not rule out CO2 as a primary cause of tropical or other climate variations, or of the apparent synchronization of the ice-age signal between hemispheres
Roe also admits that a number of the Milankovitch problems remain;
“The Milankovitch hypothesis as formulated here does not explain the large rapid deglaciations that occurred at the end of some of the ice age cycles. ~ Nor do the results explain the mid-Pleistocene transition between an earlier interval characterized by40 kyr dura-tions of ice ages and a later interval with 80 kyr to 120 kyr durations:
One day someone will use Roe’s work to project forward in time and steal his thunder. It will be that person who will then be recorded in history as more associated with the work rather than Roe.
If you think its been fun watching the AGW ants twist and squirm under the magnifying glass of “the Pause” in recent years , just wait for the downside of Cycle 24 folks. Its only gonna get better! And the Cycle 25 …….. the noncycle to finally sweep away the nonsense of CO2 dominated AGW? Be patient meine liebchen.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Now, IMO, the Sun ‘runs’ the planets, but the planets do not ‘run’ the Sun. Resolving this is not possible at present, but when we finally find a star very sun-like with a planetary system very different from ours, then we can test if the planets control solar [stellar] activity.”
We can find out what we need to know by analysis of the relative positions of bodies within our own solar system. Looking only at the period of the major Jovian body of a system is fruitless.
geran says:
July 13, 2013 at 1:20 am
Wow, this is Svaaaaaaal at his best!
You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Slump or not, there’s a fairly impressive sunspot group now:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130710.html
Is it impressive ?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.jpg
***
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 3:43 am
Heinrich events are not caused by the Sun: http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf
***
Thanks for the link. That’s the best explanation I’ve seen for D/O events.
***
J Martin says:
July 13, 2013 at 8:31 am
Is it impressive ?
***
Well, it was. Sun rotation can cause that. 🙂
@vuk
>… but demands, even from someone
> called John Day, may not be responded to …
Vuk, I don’t think I ‘demanded’ anythiing, I said ‘please’, didn’t I? :-]
But the Scientific Method is very demanding, and requires you to make your research reproducible by others.
Yes, your wiggle-grams are ‘annotated pictures’ and we’ve been told that that pictures are worth a thousand words. So they’re useful for summarizing observations and results, and illustrating other facets of a theory. But research represented that way is incomplete without futher explanation.
Put yourself in our position: Vuk says he has some ‘proof’ of something, and gives us a ‘talktalk’ link to click on. Invariably it is only a wiggle-gram, showing all kinds of extrapolations, sinuoidal fittings and correlations. Very “busy-looking”, but not including any written explanations to explain how the chart proves anything, or solves some problem.
So, I wasn’t trying to put you down, but just make you aware of how your presentations appear to your audience. It really is like talking to the Texas Sharpshooter. Did he paint the bullseye before or after shooting at the barn? Can’t tell by just looking at wiggle-gram.
Now in your last response you did provide a few references. So, as you suggested, I googled “spg feedback treguier”. Surprisingly, the very first paper returned on this search was a paper title “North Atlantic Oscillations – I An overview of the AMO (SST)–NAO data embedded relationship”. The author is M.A. Vucevic.
So at least Google thinks you’re a world-class expert on this subject (ahead of Treguier).
But in this paper you shift the data by 11 years, so still don’t understand your 7-year shift. And most importantly, I’m still sure if this is not some ‘accidental’ correlation. Please explain why the 7-year lag.
Why didn’t you include a link to this paper in your original posting?
😐
Sunspot Data Analysis
If we consider the published NOAA sunspot data without regard to the data type or source and simply apply rigorous digital data analysis techniques we can obtain a clearer view of the trends.
First, the magnitude of the scatter in these data follows an expected decline in amplitude as the mean of the data approaches 0.0. In fact, since the data cannot be negative, there is a floor on the scatter. This need be considered in any statistical analysis. But, I digress…
Second, we consider the smoothing used by NOAA. The use of a running 13-month smoother is a non-rigorous way (read “poor”) to remove high-frequency content. In fact, some high-frequency content is enhanced. (It does do a decent job removing some stochastic content.) You can see this clearly in the high-frequency content in the smoothed plot shown above in the article. One can obtain the desired result by filtering the data with a stable, non-recursive low-pass filter in which the filter is set to a frequency of 0.923 yr^-1 (13 months). (The plot is publicly available at “https://www.icloud.com/photostream/#A15oqs3qGcal2A”.) This filter is NOT smoothed using only “past” data. It uses a large fraction of sunspot data set to filter each point in a mathematically rigorous fashion. The bigger the data set the better! The FORTRAN code is available upon request. (Other rigorous approaches are possible, say using Wavelet decomposition techniques.)
The issue of double peaks in the present sunspot cycle (given the data to date) is laid to rest. I look forward to the upcoming data.
Enjoy.
John Day says:
July 13, 2013 at 8:51 am
But in this paper you shift the data by 11 years, so still don’t understand your 7-year shift.
John
Since you did not even bother to read properly let me say:
the shift of 11 years is between sub-arctic atmospheric pressure (11yr ma) and the AMO (3yr ma), which is a distinctly different variable!
That paper also gives extracts and links to Treguier, Levermann and Born papers, if you are interested to know then you can read the experts in the field.
so still don’t understand your 7-year shift.
John
It is simple, and I am sure you knew it long before you even wrote first post, but here it is:
In this link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN_NAP.htm
the second graph contains note about 7 year shift, forcing formula and regression diagram quoting correlation R^2=0.682 which is not spectacularly high, but it is a good number.
7 years shift gives highest correlation. Simple!
I research for my own enjoyment and a hobby and post or publish what I think may not be generally known.
However, I do understand that it may not be the kind of science that you and many others like to follow, but since my name and link to the server a relatively distinct, it is easy to avoid. I am not in here to win debating contest with you, Svalgaard or anyone else.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 11:20 pm
Sparks says:
July 12, 2013 at 10:32 pm
I think the solar system has a integral relationship with the sun.
I think not as the solar system is accidental. Another star otherwise just like the Sun somewhere in the Universe would in all likelihood have a very different ‘solar’ system. Now, IMO, the Sun ‘runs’ the planets, but the planets do not ‘run’ the Sun.
If you have the opinion that the sun “runs” the planets, then you also think the sun has an integral relationship with the solar system, (its not a trick question) I also agree with the rest of your comment, the solar systems relationship with the sun or vise-versa is what I mean by an “integral relationship” when you say you think the solar system is accidental, these timing features must then also be accidental and a product of the formation of the solar system itself, but it would also be fantastic to have the ability to study a distant star and its solar system, recently I have been plotting “fantasy” planets and measuring the resonance, perturbations etc… Its an interesting exercise that helps me understand planetary orbits better, but I wouldn’t use it to prove a point (regarding models etc…).
Dr. Rick B. Spielman says:
July 13, 2013 at 9:10 am
One can obtain the desired result by filtering the data with a stable, non-recursive low-pass filter in which the filter is set to a frequency of 0.923 yr^-1 (13 months).
I did some research few years back, results are I found rather interesting:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC17.htm
13 months is Earth-Jupiter synodic period.The Earth’s proximity to sun gives it strong magnetic interactions (reconnections), Jupiter is 5 times further away but it has 20 times stronger field.
This led me to think that the sunspot cycles are result of electromagnetic feedback, but that is long and debatable story, best left well alone.
The post of the old 3 stooges bit by WWS is worth all the angst the climate fight causes
Great stuff
Stephen Wilde says:
July 12, 2013 at 6:07 am
“A quiet sun contracts the atmosphere and in doing so causes a shallower tropopause height gradient between equator and poles. The climate zones fall back towards the equator and the jets become more meridional. This is associated with more clouds because the lines of air mass mixing become longer and less solar energy gets into the oceans.”
Weaker solar cycles or a “quiet sun” coincide with less clouds. when you say more clouds are associated with weaker solar activity are you discussing a solar minimum between two strong solar maximums or a weak solar maximum?
vukcevic says:
July 13, 2013 at 10:00 am
I do understand that it may not be the kind of science that you and many others like to follow
It is simpler than that: it is not science at all.
Leif Svalgaard @ vukcevic
It is simpler than that: it is not science at all.
you mean It is not science results of which should be known.
In 2009 you declared: ‘vukcevic is a danger to society’.
Get a cartload of fire wood, burn the heretic!
vukcevic says:
July 13, 2013 at 3:20 pm
“It is simpler than that: it is not science at all.”
you mean It is not science results of which should be known.
No, it simply is not science. Spreading pseudo-science is detrimental to society.
Now, if you cannot, as you said – “it is beyond me” – describe how your ‘data’ is defined and collected then you are not doing science, period. You are not being a heretic, just a fool [if you think anybody will seriously pay any attention to your ‘enjoyment’].
vukcevic says:
July 13, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Leif Svalgaard @ vukcevic
It is simpler than that: it is not science at all.
–
you mean It is not science results of which should be known.
___
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm Any chances that you are going to be bring this up to date, Vuks?
Double peaks? in SC15 + SC17 in geomagnetic data?
Is there a discrepancy in the geo magnetic data for SC14? Or is it something else? And is this why you want Dr. S. to go back a little further in time with Sun Spot series..?
I’m still hung up in the Van Allen Belts.
The fairly recent document below is written without respect to solar magnetic activity or accompanying magnetospheric interactions. So a somewhat Earthly origin to this Van Allen belt reaction. As there are other interactions that can cause particle precipitation from the radiation belts. I was Very surprised to anything anthropogenic in this mess.
ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 55, 1, 2012; doi: 10.4401/ag-5365
Special Issue: EARTHQUAKE PRECURSORS
Characteristics of flux-time profiles, temporal evolution, and spatial
distribution of radiation-belt electron precipitation bursts in the upper
ionosphere before great and giant earthquakes
http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/viewFile/5365/5677
Georgios C. Anagnostopoulos1, Efthymios Vassiliadis1, Sergey Pulinets2,3
1 Space Research Laboratory, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece
2 Fiodorov Institute of Applied Geophysics, Moscow, Russia
3 Space Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
ABSTRACT
The analysis of energetic electron observations made by the DEMETER
satellite reveals that radiation belt electron precipitation (RBEP) bursts are
observed in general several (~1-6 days) before a large (M > 6.5) earthquake
(EQ) in the presence of broad band (~1-20 kHz) VLF waves. The EBs show
in general a relative peak-to-background flux increase usually < 100, they
have a time duration of ~0.5 – 3 min, and their energy spectrum reach up
to energies 6.5).
The main results of our study are the following:
(1) Earthquake precursory RBEP (Radiation Belt Electron Precipitation)
events show flux-time profiles with: (a) two EBs at middle latitudes, with one burst
above the future epicenter and a conjugate one in the other hemisphere
(Japan, Chile); (b) only one EB at north middle latitudes, when the SAA affects
the south hemisphere (south-eastern Europe/Greece); (c) one EB above an
earthquake epicenter at low latitudes (Haiti); and (d) one EB above an earthquake
epicenter at low latitudes and two symmetric EBs at north and south latitudes (Sumatra).
(2) For earthquakes in Japan, a standard temporal variation of the number of EBs was found,
which begins with an incremental rate several days before major earthquakes,
and which after a maximum, decreases so that electron precipitation ceases above
the region of the future epicenter a few hours before the occurrence of the earthquake.
(3) The analysis of the spatial distribution of the EBs for the earthquake of
August 16, 2005, in Japan reveals that the RBEP bursts were reduced in the space near the
epicenter before the earthquake occurrence.
(4) Strong RBEP bursts above the Chile earthquake were observed not only in
the nightside, but also in the dayside upper ionosphere. The present study was
based on results from a systematic study of the DEMETER satellite measurements
at low and middle latitudes before very strong earthquakes (i.e. M >6.5),
but the results from an investigation not yet published suggest that such events
are also observable before earthquakes with lower magnitudes (M >~5).
We understand the radiation belt energetic electron precipitation related
with an earthquake as a ring in the chain of electromagnetic processes
that can start above the Earth surface with the anomalous electric field,
which can cause an increase in the VLF electric field wave activity in the
magnetosphere. It has been suggested that a cyclotron resonance interaction
between VLF waves and radiation belt energetic electrons is responsible
for variations in the electron velocity phase space, and as a result, a part of the
trapped electrons of the radiation belt change their pitch angles and travel
towards the Earth, where they are recorded by low orbit satellites in the
topside ionosphere. It is important to note that the ionization produced by the
precipitation of electrons from the radiation belts in the lower ionosphere
produces disturbance in the D region of the ionosphere at night, which is then
observed both from ground and space instrumentation [Pulinets 2011].
The results of the present study might open a new window in earthquake prediction
research. We note that the methodology of radiation belt energetic particle events
earthquake precursor signals has the particular advantage of
studying distant earthquake preparation regions…
Wondering now if Daniel Baker, (Van Allen Belt Probe lead?) has read some of these articles concerning bottom up interactions with the radiation belts. Seeing as though he knows about the top down interactions that are simultaneously occurring in the radiation belts.
That Beatles song, “Fixing a Hole,” is still playing in my head..
Ursus Augustus says:
July 13, 2013 at 3:06 am
If you think its been fun watching the AGW ants twist and squirm under the magnifying glass of “the Pause” in recent years , just wait for the downside of Cycle 24 folks. Its only gonna get better! And the Cycle 25 …….. the noncycle to finally sweep away the nonsense of CO2 dominated AGW? Be patient meine liebchen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And by that time the CO2 tax will be well entrenched and the scammers will have moved on to another boondoggle and fright scheme to fleece the masses of their wealth.
Sparks says:
July 13, 2013 at 10:10 am
..I also agree with the rest of your comment, the solar systems relationship with the sun or vise-versa is what I mean by an “integral relationship” when you say you think the solar system is accidental, these timing features must then also be accidental and a product of the formation of the solar system itself, but it would also be fantastic to have the ability to study a distant star and its solar system, recently I have been plotting “fantasy” planets and measuring the resonance, perturbations etc… Its an interesting exercise that helps me understand planetary orbits better, but I wouldn’t use it to prove a point (regarding models etc…).
—
You might enjoy this image than Sparks, depicting nearby stars with astrospheres, and stars with planets..
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2012/02/clouds.jpg
The originating link,
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2012/02/13/redfieldibex/
This has been a very interesting thread so long as I skipped over the pissing contests.
Sparks said:
“Weaker solar cycles or a “quiet sun” coincide with less clouds.”
Apparently not. Global albedo declined during the late 20th century period of active sun and is now recovering with the less active sun.
@ Stephen.
Though there seems to be some (weak ?) evidence for an increase of cloud cover during the little ice age, at least in Europe. Perhaps some regions, ie. Europe get more cloud cover during minimums. I guess we are going to find out over the coming years.
NASA and other such organisations should be planning satellites to study all the likely factors that are going to be impacted as we slowly enter this forthcoming minimum. This is a once in many generations opportunity coming up and it may well be wasted.
Do we have everything we need pointed at the Sun, Stars, Earth ?
We certainly don’t know enough about clouds and albedo due to inadequate satellite coverage.
Leif could tell us if we have everything we need to study the Sun or whether there are any extra satellites that the solar science community would like to see get built and deployed.
Instead of building windmills which are well documented as failing to meet their design aims by over 100% (ie. they increase co2 not reduce it), we should be spending the money on providing our scientists with better research tools. I am sure Leif will agree with that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2013 at 4:00 pm
describe how your ‘data’ is defined and collected then you are not doing science, period.
There is no mystery to either data or description, it is straightforward, even certain 10 year old could do it. Moving one step forward, the N. Atlantic SST relation to is a matter of hydro-thermo-dynamics
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm
which oceanographers may define correctly. I just had a simple stub at it by suggesting ‘process of the Denmark Strait’s silting’ which may or may not be correct.
The big puzzle is why geological data are correlated to the solar activity , it may be resolved in future by another generation. If you were a bit more cooperative you would have it long ago.
Carla says:
July 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm Any chances that you are going to be bring this up to date, Vuk..
Data has been around since mid 1990s, it was just matter of simple filtering. I will eventually write something, but the academic stalwarts of ‘sun has nothing to do with it’ are determined to kill stone dead any progress in that direction.
Thanks for the link , may have some new and useful info.
Carla says:
July 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Double peaks? in SC15 + SC17 in geomagnetic data? Is there a discrepancy in the geo magnetic data for SC14?
SC17 is an interesting one, see my post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/11/the-solar-cycle-is-still-slumping/#comment-1363236
Re SC14: may be, there is always possibility of a reverse, i.e. that geomagnetic field may have internal 22 year oscillations but they are suppressed by the solar field (see SC18 & SC19)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
Magnetic data relating to the Earth’s core prior 1860 appear to lack resolution (magnetometer invented by Gauss in 1830’s), SC24 would resolve the ambiguity if geomagnetic data is brought up to date (it terminates in 1995).
still some energy left from the wobble
http://www.sibet.org/solar/sc24_forecast_jusa.jpg
However the tidal cycle did not impress after the May 2013 top, suggesting that there is little energy left. The tidal peak this fall is very weak, and the strong peak in January 2014 has little energy from the wobble cycle.
http://www.sibet.org/solar/sc24_forecast_tidal.jpg
So this SC still may have some energy into Feb-March 2014, but the solar maximum seems to have been passed
JAn 🙂
Leif, I’ve heard that the Maunder Minimum spots were ‘large, sparse, and primarily southern hemispheric’.
It seems to me that the ‘large’ and the ‘sparse’ may well be explained once the Livingston and Penn mechanism is elucidated, but I’m still curious about the ‘primarily southern hemispheric’. This was a prolonged period of assymetry, was it not?
================
Heh, Geran’s a foil and a pedagogically useful one. I’ll back up Leif’s assertion that this is public service. I’ve also long suspected he’s hoped to find the answer we all seek which is climate understanding, and so far he’s been as disappointed as the rest of us. But his service here, ah, that demonstrates greater faith that answers will be found than most have.
=======================
Kim
see here
That’s just gotta be a big clue.
=====================
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:38 am
“describe how your ‘data’ is defined and collected then you are not doing science, period.”
There is no mystery to either data or description, it is straightforward
Then provide the definition. If you cannot [will not] then your ‘research’ is not science and is worthless.
kim says:
July 14, 2013 at 4:01 am
I’m still curious about the ‘primarily southern hemispheric’. This was a prolonged period of asymmetry, was it not?
Yes it was. See slide 33 of http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
So its basically demonstrating that the equations are Synthetic sunspot numbers. Wave matching?
What it demonstrates is that if there is a 1024-yr wave that is not a pure sine-wave, then automatically the can be many other peaks [happen to match the ones claimed to be in the real data] so that these other peaks are not independent and that therefore the probability that there are all there by chance is not so astronomically small.
In addition, there is almost certainly sufficient nonlinearity in the system (plus substantial non-Markovian state memory) that the system could do almost anything — exhibit a 1000 year peak for three or four peaks in a row and then completely change to a mode where it peaks in 700 years for a few cycles, then shift to a mode where it peaks in 1900 years for a few cycles, or worse. That is, there could be many peaks not really there by “chance” but at the same time only weakly and inconsistently coincident with any natural drivers one might look for.
We persist on linearizing the climate system and for that matter the sun and the rest of the solar system because our minds naturally perceive and extrapolate linear trends, and because we are professionally overtrained in normal calculus and analytic functions (e.g. Taylor series, power series, functional bases).
IMO, the Earth could at any time initiate a return to glaciation, regardless of the state of GHG concentrations, as it has demonstrated repeatedly in the past. It could OTOH rocket up to an interglacial peak, also independent of GHG concentrations. It could remain nearly stationary for at least a time. It could fluctuate up and down on a mixture of annual, decadal and centurial time scales that has no particular meaning outside of some local linearization or poynomialization or fourier analysis that could at any moment shift to a different one.
In decades, perhaps a century, we might accumulate enough data and learn enough of the science to reduce all of the many GCMs to just one, “the” GCM that actually works. Or, perhaps not even then — there may be fundamental limits to our ability to extrapolate the chaotic climate system, limits that prevent us from ever being able to go out more than a few decades before the moral equivalent of the butterfly effect smears the phase space of future probability out all over the range of the physically plausible. We don’t even know the correct density of phase space proliferation, although even the crude GCMs of today suggest with their spaghetti snarl per model that it is remarkably broad, probably 2-3 times broader even than the range of the spaghetti.
As you note below, we are hampered in our studies of the sun by a lack of stars where we can obtain observational data anywhere near as good as we have in our own solar system, possessing a moderately variable star and a moderately similar planetary system all with the right general age that its dynamics MIGHT be similar to the Sun. We are even more hampered by our lack of any sort of reliable picture of the Earth’s earlier climate. We have only low-resolution proxy-based data, much of which is itself multivariate and hence corrupted by confounding causes (e.g. tree rings, which can be thick or thin for any of many reasons, not just temperature variation).
We have between 30 and 60 years of halfway decent planetary climate data for the Earth, and almost none at all for other planets, let alone other Earth-like planets. For the oceans that cover 70% of the Earth’s surface, the reliable record is just beginning, with perhaps a decade’s worth of data that — once various problems have been resolved — give us a sufficient picture to begin to appreciate the role of the ocean in the evolution of the climate. I doubt that we will accomplish this in less than 30 years, however, and it might well take 100 or even more. It depends in part on just how complicated the answer is, and we don’t even know that.
Separating signal and noise isn’t easy in a system that really is periodic and has a fourier signal there that can be resolved. How can one separate signal and noise in a chaotic, non-periodic or quasiperiodic system? “Signal” begins as nucleating “noise”, grows to become dominant for a few quasiperiodic cycles, then is superceded by a new behavior altogether as noise re-nucleates and grows.
I think that the best that can be said for the GCMs is that they are, in their failure to agree internally one at a time, externally amongst the collection, or statistically with the actual time evolution of the climate, sound evidence that we do not yet know enough to be able to even approximately predict climate trends or system responses to linear perturbations in the drivers. And without the GCMs we are quite literally presuming a linear response to a nonlinear system with an observed scale of natural variability far greater than the predicted linear response, at least so far. We don’t even have a chance of resolving most of the climate issues yet.
In the meantime, looking for periodic coincidences in “ancient” (pre-electronic, pre-satellite) data is sheer numerology. We cannot re-perform the measurements made by others a century ago with far cruder instrumentation than we have today. All we can do is look at the data record produced at that time and guess how it might relate to a related record taken today.
Patience is a virtue in science, but sadly we have allowed the scientific establishment en masse to become a grant-fed fishbowl where almost no work is done where progress cannot reliably be measured in at most three year increments, and where career progress depends on finding somepositive result, not merely eliminating possible hypotheses or publishing “I looked for X but found nothing interesting”. This is a problem not just in climate science but in medical research, general physics, and many other places as well. Worse, the research usually has to be presented somehow as if it might be useful — produce a new technology, cure cancer, save the world — to get funded. One cannot just study something interesting for its own sake and with little hope of making instant progress anywhere outside of pure mathematics (and God knows, probably not even there).
Sigh.
rgb
Another interesting essay by another Brown from Duke University at
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/13/unforced-variability-and-the-global-warming-slow-down/
Unless a relative, an appraisal would be appreciated.
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:38 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2013 at 4:00 pm
describe how your ‘data’ is defined and collected then you are not doing science, period.
There is no mystery to either data or description, it is straightforward, ..forward, the N. Atlantic SST relation to is a matter of hydro-thermo-dynamics
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm ..
..The big puzzle is why geological data are correlated to the solar activity , it may be resolved in future by another generation. If you were a bit more cooperative you would have it long ago.
Carla says:
July 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm Any chances that you are going to be bring this up to date, Vuk..
Data has been around since mid 1990s, it was just matter of simple filtering. I will eventually write something, ..
Thanks for the link , may have some new and useful info.
—
Now you got my brain tinking about hydro-thermo-dynamics.
But it couldn’t get past the ‘magnetic element.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magneto fluid dynamics or hydromagnetics) is the study of the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water or electrolytes. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén,[1] for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.
The fundamental concept behind MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which in turn creates forces on the fluid and also changes the magnetic field itself. The set of equations which describe MHD are a combination of the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics and Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism. These differential equations have to be solved simultaneously, either analytically or numerically.
Earths overall field has been in decline for some time now. The solar system is showing signs of its age? Shrinking and slowing down. But so slowly, that it is incomprehensible to our longer range measurements of parameters like field strength or cosmic rays etc.
I’ll be back..
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2013 at 5:42 am
Kim
see here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMb.gif
—
Woweee Vuks, my interstellar magnetic field coupling of the inter planetary magnetic field is seeing the interstellar field CHANGING SIGN ? ? ? With the ah f ah transition effect??
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2013 at 5:53 am
kim says:
July 14, 2013 at 4:01 am
I’m still curious about the ‘primarily southern hemispheric’. This was a prolonged period of asymmetry, was it not?
Yes it was. See slide 33 of http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
—
Thanks Dr. S. has Vuks seen slide 33?.. Vuks you had better see slide 33, please.
But all the articles are stacking up around me and Windows wants to restart (always a hassle) my computer for updates. ick
Then is 70 – 100 years the interstellar magnetic ‘cycle?’ When we see it manifest through the hemispheric asymmetry in our solar cycle?
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 11:17 am
Then is 70 – 100 years the interstellar magnetic ‘cycle?’ When we see it manifest through the hemispheric asymmetry in our solar cycle?
No, Carla, there is no 70-100 yr interstellar magnetic cycle. The interstellar field changes on time scales thousands of times longer. Here is some information about the interstellar medium: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1307-2899-ISM-pdf
about the interstellar medium: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1307-2899-ISM.pdf
half the period 35 – 45 years, then twice the period giving us 70 – 100 years
Warning “Mantra On”
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2013 at 11:36 am
about the interstellar medium: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1307-2899-ISM.pdf
—
woo woo great link so far, thank you.
from the abstract
…While common absorbers are consistently seen in most sight lines,
significant spatial variation is
also detected, even between closely spaced sight lines. This pervasive evidence
of small-scale structure not only speaks to the complexity of the morphology or
physical properties of the gas in the ISM, but also
emphasizes that dramatic structural changes to the heliosphere are common
and it is important to understand
the implications of such changes, such as the modulation in the cosmic ray
flux, on planets…
Might I add, modulation to the heliosphere might imply having an affect on solar cycle. They say the interstellar field is coherent locally.
Have you seen the models of the heliotail and the distribution downwind of alternating magnetic field sign of the suns interplanetary field. It becomes elongated for some distance..
Try to visualize a galactic arm and how that distribution might cycle outward..
And that distribution of “small scale structure,” clusters around a coherent field line of alternating magnetic sign.. 35-50 years for a total swing of 70-100 years.
And you say NO.
Ok “Mantra off.”
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Might I add, modulation to the heliosphere might imply having an affect on solar cycle.
No, the other way around. Changes to the heliosphere cannot travel upstream against the supersonic solar wind.
And that distribution of “small scale structure,” clusters around a coherent field line of alternating magnetic sign.. 35-50 years for a total swing of 70-100 years.
You have to specific: small scale structure of what? if of ISM, then ‘NO’
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 11:04 am
Vuks you had better see slide 33, please.
In wards of Crocodile Dundee
‘That ain’t a slide, this is a slide mate !’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMa.htm
South will lead starting in 25 and 26 from p. 33. Thanks Lief.
==================
kim says:
July 14, 2013 at 1:49 pm
South will lead starting in 25 and 26 from p. 33. Thanks Lief
Only under the speculative assumption that the Zolotova et al. suggestion is in fact a regular cycle.
Yup, and clearly the Maunder is something other than the usual cycle. Seems awfully tidal to me, don’t you see the waves beating higher on the cliff than usual?
===========
Slide 33:
Prediction’ from this: South will lead in cycle 25 or 26 and beyond. We shall see..
Hmm, no reason, no science, just a guess, heh…
On the other hand, ‘vukcevic planetary formula’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/N-S.htm
published in Jan 2004 gives a clear planetary link to the N-S excess.
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 11:04 am
Vuks you had better see slide 33, please.
In wards of Crocodile Dundee
‘That ain’t a slide, this is a slide mate !’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMa.htm
—
Good job Vuk’s, that parts was a amiss on slide 33
http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMa.htm
Figure C and D the dipole status over the Maunder period..
And the still more changes to come from the current solar cycle as it begins cycling down..
Could be more heliospheric boundary changes..
Carla says:
July 13, 2013 at 7:04 pm
“You might enjoy this image than Sparks, depicting nearby stars with astrospheres, and stars with planets..
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2012/02/clouds.jpg
The originating link,
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2012/02/13/redfieldibex/
Thanks Carla, I use this Extrasolar planet catalog. If you don’t know about it, then its worth checking out http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/
Sparks says:
July 14, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Carla says:
July 13, 2013 at 7:04 pm
“You might enjoy this image than Sparks, depicting nearby stars with astrospheres, and stars with planets..
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2012/02/clouds.jpg
The originating link,
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2012/02/13/redfieldibex/
Thanks Carla, I use this Extrasolar planet catalog. If you don’t know about it, then its worth checking out http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/
—
Thanks Sparks, quite an impressive collection.
The link I gave you, was part of a NASA IBEX mission press conference..
What’s particularly cool about the image was a comment from one of the guests, senior Scientist Priscilla Frisch.
“One of the reasons we know that we are at the edge of the clouds is that, G cloud is in front of galactic center. When we see Alpha Centauri we see it behind the G cloud. We do not see Alpha Centauri in the Local cloud.”
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“One of the reasons we know that we are at the edge of the clouds is that, G cloud is in front of galactic center. When we see Alpha Centauri we see it behind the G cloud. We do not see Alpha Centauri in the Local cloud.”
We are inside the G cloud and near the edge, but will not cross the boundary for several thousand years.
kim says:
July 14, 2013 at 4:12 am
I’ll back up Leif’s assertion that this is public service.
I’ve also long suspected he’s hoped to find the answer we all seek which is climate understanding, and so far he’s been as disappointed as the rest of us.
=======================
I don’t think he’s disappointed Kim. He lives in one of the most technologically advanced times in the planets history. So many tools at his fingertips.
Disappointment might be in that the population growth over the last 1000 years and subsequent ‘IMPACTS’ to the Earthly environment is not fully understood.. he may understand those impacts alittle differently than those who only see changing gas in the atmosphere.
WUWT is a lucky bunch, to have Dr. S. here.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Might I add, modulation to the heliosphere might imply having an affect on solar cycle.
No, the other way around. Changes to the heliosphere cannot travel upstream against the supersonic solar wind.
And that distribution of “small scale structure,” clusters around a coherent field line of alternating magnetic sign.. 35-50 years for a total swing of 70-100 years.
You have to specific: small scale structure of what? if of ISM, then ‘NO’
—
Well our heliosphere is squashed at the poles and bulging up the middle. And that’s just the cycle in slow down?
Cosmic Ray distributions around Interstellar Magnetic Field Lines. These are found in clusters and maybe organize themselves in an asymmetric fashion around a Very local coherent Interstellar Magnetic Field line(s). Kinda like what we see in the heliotail being downwind and having more cosmic rays on the downwind side of the heliosphere.
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Cosmic Ray distributions around Interstellar Magnetic Field Lines. These are found in clusters and maybe organize themselves in an asymmetric fashion around a Very local coherent Interstellar Magnetic Field line(s). Kinda like what we see in the heliotail being downwind and having more cosmic rays on the downwind side of the heliosphere.
No, you have the scales wrong. In the interstellar medium the coherent structures are huge, much larger than the heliosphere. And it takes thousands of years for the solar system to traverse one of those structures.
Another interesting essay by another Brown from Duke University at
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/13/unforced-variability-and-the-global-warming-slow-down/
Unless a relative, an appraisal would be appreciated.
Not my relative, no. Interesting article. I think it is still missing a central point — that the climate is not, in fact, at all likely to be linear. That means that in addition to short leash and long leash fluctuations around a presumptive linear trend slaved to CO_2, there are at least two additional possibilities. One is that the dog is leading the dog walker — CO_2 may be trying to pull the temperature up but negative feedback from clouds and massive non-Markovian effects may overwhelm this and make it the small (but systematic, sure) perturbation. The natural variability of the climate might be a metaphorical Newfoundland pulling around a small child of CO_2 forcing, as opposed to the picture of CO_2 as a Sumo wrestler pulling around a Chihuahua (whatever the length of the leash).
Indeed, in this view the “long leash” merely means that for a while it may LOOK like the small child is in control as it gets to walk for a bit unpulled by the dog. But the instant the dog sees an interesting bush, or another dog — is the small child going to stop the dog from going where the dog wants?
The second possibility is wrapped up in the fact that the climate is really a dog on MANY leashes (if we must stick to the metaphor). CO_2 may be pulling it one way, but the poor mutt is also pulled by lots of other leashes, some long, some quite short. Perhaps we don’t really know all of the leashes that are important. That’s not that unlikely — as this article rather refreshingly acknowledges, we don’t really know even the LENGTH of the natural variability leashes, let alone just how powerful and weighty the being on the other end of them. We don’t really know if the dog is a Chihuahua or a Newfie or a Kodiak bear cub that is about to grow up and drag the entire planet wherever it wants. One big question that the top article clearly relates to is: Is solar state relevant? There is some reason to think that it might be, and that the magnitude of the natural variability associated with it might indeed be very large. There is also ample historical evidence that the real, observed range of natural variability is more than large enough to explain 100% of the observed warming if the proxy reconstructions of Holocene temperatures have any validity (they may, they may not — lots of disagreement, and a very hard problem) or if the ice core and other reconstructions of the Pliestocene are correct. Indeed, those reconstructions strongly suggest that if we did manage to stabilize the Earth’s temperatures back in pre-Pliestocene warm phase, it might be the luckiest catastrophe to ever befall us, because no warming scenario can compete with the nightmare of a rapid descent into an ice age, and the LIA (coldest temperatures in some 10,000 years) was evidence enough that the Earth is rather precariously balanced over a 6-10 C pit of extreme glaciation that will accompany the end of the current interglacial in this ice age that we live in.
All of human civilization has arisen in the Holocene. Not just in the Holocene, in the last half of the Holocene. Civilization itself has never had to withstand glaciation.
I am not, of course, suggesting (as some do, rather often on this site) that we are certain to descend now into a LIA and possibly end the Holocene if we have another prolong Maunder type minimum. As I said, if solar state is an important and incorrectly computed driver, it is possible, but it is far from proven and belief so far is based on numerology more than on stuff that can be measured and that is physically plausible. It is not ruled out — how can it be, as the only thing that will rule it out is it not happening in the future. At the moment we are just guessing, with more or less educated guesses.
The one good thing about the reposted article is that it indicates that a fair amount of energy is being expended on explaining why the climate is not apparently warming as predicted by the GCMs. If Brown’s article has a flaw, it is that he doesn’t go into the internal mechanics of the GCMs whose “physics” he blithely accepts and apply hypothesis testing to them, one at a time, he apparently accepts the concept of an average over many GCMs (and ability of one GCM in particular to be “tuned” to produce a good fit to at least some of the past climate) as predictions of the underlying trend, the “master” leading the climate dog by the leash of unknown proportions. This, as I’ve noted many times now, is a basic error. The length of the “leash” in a GCM is not an unknown quantity — it is inferred from the spread in model predictions when one does a Monte Carlo spread around its parameters and initial conditions. When the actual climate goes outside of the range of 99% of the runs in a given SINGLE GCM, that isn’t evidence of a long leash, it is fairly convincing evidence that that GCM is wrong, that its physics and computation are not valid representations of the actual climate.
One GCM at a time. One gains absolutely zero additional confidence by averaging over many GCMs that fail this simple test, one at a time, that somehow collectively they don’t fail where individually they do. One cannot solve this problem by simply lengthening the leash, so to speak — one has to go back to basics and rewrite the entire computation and adjust the parameters so that they describe and explain the lack of climate warming. Otherwise, how can one have any confidence in their future predictions? Perhaps the “leash” is hundreds of years long (full ocean turnover times), so that one will never see the linear signal of CO_2 warming before everything has changed beyond our ability to predict anyway. Or, as he notes, perhaps the very simplest of heuristics is sufficient, and the future climate will, as he suggests, fluctuate around the linearized CO_2 driven line with a “leash” of only a decade or two. Or four. Or eight.
D’ya see where our ignorance comes in here? What is it? A decade? A century? We have no friggin’ idea. The climate clearly varies by degrees centigrade over centuries, and worse, it doesn’t do so anything like consistently — the northern hemisphere can be warming while the southern hemisphere is cooling, for example. We don’t know why. We cannot explain the past. We cannot explain the present. How, then, can we accurately predict the future?
rgb
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Cosmic Ray distributions around Interstellar Magnetic Field Lines. These are found in clusters and maybe organize themselves in an asymmetric fashion around a Very local coherent Interstellar Magnetic Field line(s). Kinda like what we see in the heliotail being downwind and having more cosmic rays on the downwind side of the heliosphere.
No, you have the scales wrong. In the interstellar medium the coherent structures are huge, much larger than the heliosphere. And it takes thousands of years for the solar system to traverse one of those structures.
—
Now that’s big. Now you are tinking big. Is there a ‘goldilocks’ size in here somewhere. gn
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Is there a ‘goldilocks’ size in here somewhere.
Wishful thinking can always posit one, but I don’t think there is any ‘just right size’. The Galaxy is big, the solar system is small.
rgbatduke says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:03 pm
……………..
Thanks for that, it does clear some of the ambiguities. Your previous post with some earlier ones if all pulled together could be a useful orientation reference .
Good stuff, rgb@d; I read this first as a link from Judy’s rather than finding it today in this lovely conversation with Leif et al. TNX to all, you much gracious.
=============
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Is there a ‘goldilocks’ size in here somewhere.
Wishful thinking can always posit one, but I don’t think there is any ‘just right size’. The Galaxy is big, the solar system is small.
—
A similar example maybe seen in our own radiation belt. Cosmic rays organized in belts and trapped within ‘a’ magnetic field. Formally from chaos now organized. A distribution of protons and electrons and antiprotons.
hi ho hi ho
rgbatduke says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:03 pm
“All of human civilization has arisen in the Holocene. Not just in the Holocene, in the last half of the Holocene. Civilization itself has never had to withstand glaciation.”
If humans evolved the ability to sweat wouldn’t this be because of an adaptation to a warm environment and not a cold one? We live on a warm plant but it can get very cold on occasions mostly due to changes in the planetary orbits. The likelihood that the planet could get warmer, get cooler or remain much the same is all normal and natural variability with out limits.
salvatore del prete says:
July 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM
I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of solar cycle 24 maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.
My question is how does the decline take shape, is it slow and gradual or in jagged movements as thresholds are met. I think some jagged movements then a leveling off then another jerk etc etc. Will thresholds be met?
I KNOW THEY ARE OUT THERE.
I think the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends within 6 months, and once the sun winds down from this maximum it is going to be extremely quiet.
Solar flux sub 72, although sub 90 is probably low enough.
Solar Wind sub 350 km/sec.
AP INDEX 5.0 or lower 98+ % of the time.
Solar Irradiance off .2% or greater.
UV light off upwards of 50% in the extreme short wavelengths.
This condition was largely acheived in years 2008-2010 but the number of sub- solar years of activity proceeding these readings back then was only 3 or 4 years, this time it will be over 8+ years of sub- solar activity, and no weak solar maximum will be forthcoming.
Lag times come into play mostly due to the oceans.
It is clear that the greenhouse effect ,how effective it is ,is a result of energy coming into and leaving the earth climatic system. The warmer the oceans the more effective the greenhouse effect and vice versa.
With oceans cooling in response to a decrease in solar visible light the amounts of co2/water vapor will be on the decrease thus making the greenhouse effect less effective going forward. At the same time the albedo of earth will be on the increase due to more low clouds,ice and snow cover.
ROUTE CAUSE OF THE CLIMATE TO CHANGE
Very weak solar magnetic fields, and a declining weak unstable geomagnetic field, and all the secondary feedbacks associated with this condition.
SOME SECONDARY EFFECTS WITH WEAK MAGNETIC FIELDS
weaker solar irradiance
weaker solar wind
increase in cosmic rays
increase in volcanic activity
decrease in ocean heat content
a more meridional atmospheric circulation
more La Ninas ,less El Ninos
cold Pdo /Amo
I say the start of a significant cooling period is on our doorstep, it is months away. Once solar cycle 24 maximum ends it starts.
This has happened 18 times in the past 7500 years(little ice ages and or cooling periods ) ,number 19 is going to take place now.
Two of the most recent ones are the Maunder Minimum(1645-1700) and the Dalton Minimum(1790-1830).
I say this one 2014- 2050??
Reply
Leif Svalgaard you are CLUELESS when it comes to solar/ climate relationships and why and how they occur.
Well, S D P, that’s because so few of the mechanisms have been worked out to his satisfaction, or to mine.
======
Well Kim that is becasue we have not had this solar situation since the Maunder Minimum / Dalton Minimum, and past history supports low sunspot numbers support colder temperatures, while high solar activity results in warm temperatures.
Also the essence of climate change for you and Leif are the solar magnetic /geomagnetic field strengths and all the secondary effects that come as a result.
If you don’t want to accept that fine, come up with an alternative theory to explain all the many abrupt large climatic changes earth has had in the past. I will be waiting.
It, erl Happens I’m inclined to Ultraviolet and/or ozone, but cosmic rays are so seductive. Tectonics make me shudder, and strangely, shiver.
==================