From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
“Weakest Solar Cycle In Almost 200 Years”
The sun is acting bizarrely and scientists have no idea why. Solar activity is in gradual decline, a change from the norm which in the past triggered a 300-year-long mini ice age. We are supposed to be at a peak of activity, at solar maximum. The current situation, however, is outside the norm and the number of sunspots seems in steady decline. The sun was undergoing “bizarre behaviour” said Dr Craig DeForest of the society. “It is the smallest solar maximum we have seen in 100 years,” said Dr David Hathaway of Nasa. –Dick Ahlstrom, The Irish Times, 12 July 2013
The fall-off in sunspot activity still has the potential to affect our weather for the worse, Dr Elliott said. “It all points to perhaps another little ice age,” he said. “It seems likely we are going to enter a period of very low solar activity and could mean we are in for very cold winters.” And while the researchers in the US said the data showed a decline in activity, they had no way to predict what that might mean for the future. –Dick Ahlstrom, The Irish Times, 12 July 2013
“We’re in a new age of solar physics,” says David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, who analysed the same data and came to the same conclusion. “We don’t know why the Gleissberg cycle takes place but understanding it is now a focus.” As for when the next Maunder minimum may happen, DeToma will not even hazard a guess. “We still do not know how or why the Maunder minimum started, so we cannot predict the next one.” –Stuart Clark, New Scientist, 12 July 2013
Those hoping that the sun could save us from climate change look set for disappointment. The recent lapse in solar activity is not the beginning of a decades-long absence of sunspots – a dip that might have cooled the climate. Instead, it represents a shorter, less pronounced downturn that happens every century or so. –Stuart Clark, New Scientist, 12 July 2013
A number of authors think it is probable that the sun is headed for a grand minimum similar to the Maunder-Minimums of 1649-1715. That may already manifest itself in 2020. There have been studies that attempt to project the impacts on global temperatures. Included here is a study by Meehl et al. 2013. The authors look at an approximately 0.25% reduction in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 2020 and 2070: They fed this into a climate model. Result: global temperatures could drop around 0.2-0.3 degrees Celsius with local peak values of up to 0.8°C, especially in the middle and upper latitudes of the northern hemispheres. –Frank Bosse, NoTricksZone, 14 July 2013
When the history of the global warming scare comes to be written, a chapter should be devoted to the way the message had to be altered to keep the show on the road. Global warming became climate change so as to be able to take the blame for cold spells and wet seasons as well as hot days. Then, to keep its options open, the movement began to talk about “extreme weather”. Those who made their living from alarm, and by then there were lots, switched tactics and began to jump on any unusual weather event, whether it was a storm, a drought, a blizzard or a flood, and blame it on man-made carbon dioxide emissions. –Matt Ridley, The Australian, 10 July 2013
aGAIN THE BEGINNING STATE OF THE CLIMATE HAS MUCH TO DO WITH YOUR END RESULT ,EVEN IF THE SAME FORCINGS ARE APPLIED.
This is like talking to the wall for the most part . Time will tell.
Excuse me, excuse me..
Dr. S. wondering if you have seen this..
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Evidence of a long-term trend in total solar irradiance[*]
C. Fröhlich
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center,
7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Received 13 April 2009 / Accepted 16 June 2009
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/27/aa12318-09/aa12318-09.html
…3 Correlation with the open solar magnetic field
…The only parameter that does exhibit inter-cycle changes similar to TSI is the open magnetic field, B r, as observed on Earth by satellites since 1963 (Fig. 4b). We determine B r by taking the absolute value of the daily mean of B x from the OMNI2 dataset. The intra-cycle variation in B r is not similar to TSI, the main reason being that B r changes sign around the maximum of the cycle (during periods of the shaded areas in Fig. 4b), and since the northern and southern hemisphere may change at different times, it is a prolonged period during which the behaviour of the B r variability is dominated by the reversal.
Figure 4: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/27/aa12318-09/img18.png
Comparison of TSI and the open solar magnetic field. a) daily values of TSI (as Fig. 1); and b) those of the open magnetic field B r at 1 AU. The correlation between the minimum values of TSI and those of B r (blue points and the blue line) is shown on c). The green point is the extrapolated value not used in the regression…
Matt Marler/Leif.If Leif or you had read the post linked to
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/04/global-cooling-methods-and-testable.html
you would see that the cooling trend started in 2003 so that 2018 would be 15 years.Also I’m predicting a sharp cooling in 2016/17 . If it doesnt appear I would have to reconsider..
cba says:
July 17, 2013 at 8:13 am
How do think it is plausible that predictive modeling can be done when the temperature driver is atmospheric (clouds + atmosphere) and everything affects cloud cover?
I don’t think we can do this at the present time [of course there are the people who claim that simple extrapolation of not-understood quasi-cycles has predictive power – go figure]. On the other hand, 150 years ago geomagnetic variations were a complete mystery too, but today we understand the physics well enough that we from measurements of the solar wind can calculate accurately what its magnetic effect on the Earth will be, so progress happens and in another 150 years I have some confidence that we will have the climate problem licked.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 17, 2013 at 9:55 am
My calculation is quite simplified and deals with 100 years
As my example with 100,000 years shows, your calculation is too simple and ad-hoc. Why would it work over just 100 years? Why just the 200 m upper layer? Your TSI per SSN is about twice as high as reality. etc.
The correct way to approach this problem is via energy balance: what goes in must come out, lest we get a run-away situation. So since (dS/S)/4 = dT/T, a dS = 0.1 W/m2 change on S = 1361, means a change of temperature dT of (0.1/1361)/4 = 0.00001837*T, which with T = 288K yields dT = 0.00528 deg K [or C] for a change of 10 in SSN, or 0.021 deg K for your ~40 change in SSN. Completely drowning in the noise.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 17, 2013 at 11:48 am
LEIF give us your solar flux predictions for the rest of this year and year 2014 and 2015. Let us see how correct or not you are.This is your field.
Four years ago [before the cycle even started] see Slide 42 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf I predicted a [yearly] SC24 flux maximum of 120 sfu. The average flux the past year [July 2012 – Part of July 2013] has been 120.2 sfu, so my prediction is not too far off. My prediction of the number of active regions per day was 6. We have observed 5.63 over the past year. Also not too shappy.
Carla says:
July 17, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Dr. S. wondering if you have seen this..
Evidence of a long-term trend in total solar irradiance
In this rapidly changing field Fröhlich’s paper is already obsolete, His colleagues reported [in 2011] that the calibration of the PMOD [Fröhlich] data is wrong and that there is no evidence for any long-term changes.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 17, 2013 at 5:59 pm
Also I’m predicting a sharp cooling in 2016/17 . If it doesn’t appear I would have to reconsider..
You have not quantified how much or how sharp so you can probably torture the result to fit as needed, but if you decide to ‘reconsider’, the honest thing is simply to concede that you were wrong and your method does not work. This is how the scientific method works.
“We’re in a new age of solar physics,”
While no fan, Dr. Hathaway has found firm ground here. ‘Solar Science’ is obviously in need of a new paradigm. It is little remarkable that wizened, dyspeptic practitioners of the bygone alchemy have only disdain for those searching out a new guide to prediction, one that will produce results needing no vital surgery.
In the meantime we are stuck with loopy statisticians attempting to supplant former era’s data with their own reconstructions, hoping to breathe life into their ‘Science’, much as astrologers added epicycles to Ptolemy.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 17, 2013 at 11:48 am
LEIF give us your solar flux predictions for the rest of this year and year 2014 and 2015. Let us see how correct or not you are.This is your field.
My prediction is it will not exceed 150 for the rest of this year(average 115) and likely will average around 100 for year 2014 andsub 100 the year after that.
Svalgaard has a problem here. He keeps telling us SC24 will be like SC14, shonky graphs and no real clue on whats really happening continue to haunt him.
The F10.7 flux values will need to rise over 200 many times in the next 2 years to follow SC14, did you notice he is shying away from predicting this?
Thanks Dr. S.
Thought for today..
If a galactic field line could be rather large..you said could take years for the heliosphere to cross..could it be like 10,000 years or more give or take..
Like around the length of an interglacial period length?
Just a stamp collector ..
Leif Using my approach I’m willing to forecast that a regression curve of the Had SST3 data from 2003 – 2018 will show cooling with a net cooling of about 0.2 degrees.
Using your approach. Is your temperature forecast a) dont like to speculate.b) flat c)cooling -how much d) warming – how much.
I’m not interested in a competition here I respect and am genuinely interested in your opinion.
Salvatore del Prete: Leif does not have a clue, when it comes to solar/climate relationships. If you believe in him, it is the blind leading the blind.
Leif makes a good case and puts up comprehensive reviews of data. It doesn’t seem to me that you do either. All I believe is that I’ll have a much firmer opinion of what might be true 20 years from now.
Dr. Norman Page: If Leif or you had read the post linked to
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/04/global-cooling-methods-and-testable.html
you would see that the cooling trend started in 2003 so that 2018 would be 15 years.Also I’m predicting a sharp cooling in 2016/17 . If it doesnt appear I would have to reconsider..
I am awaiting the future, rather than betting on it. Would you like to clarify what you mean by “sharp”, and how you will decide whether it has or hasn’t appeared?
Dr Norman Page: I’m not interested in a competition here I respect and am genuinely interested in your opinion.
Think of it as a competition between ideas rather than a competition between persons. Naturally, people are in love with their ideas, but most of us can hold multiple conflicting ideas for long periods of time without cognitive strain if we put our minds to the task.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:05 am
Using your approach. Is your temperature forecast a) dont like to speculate.b) flat c)cooling -how much d) warming – how much.
I predict sunspots, not climate.
Carla says:
July 18, 2013 at 6:24 am
Like around the length of an interglacial period length?
Glaciations and interglacials are not caused by the galactic magnetic field or cosmic rays, but by variations in the Earth’s orbit and axis tilt.
Leif Fair enough . Do you think we are entering a Dalton or Maunder type minimum?
Dr Norman Page says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:53 am
Leif Fair enough . Do you think we are entering a Dalton or Maunder type minimum?
I’m guessing a Maunder type minimum. http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
Leif Thanks for very useful link.I am heavily influenced in my approach by the 10Be data – Fig 26
The NGRIP Be peak at 1675 -1710 represents the coldest temps for several thousand years.The NGRIP 20th century Be data matches the 20th century temp trends very well.
My temperature forecasts are partially based on a possible 12 year lag between the Oulu neutron count and global temps.
At this time I think a Dalton minimum is more likely based on correlating cycles 20 – 24 with 1-5
but I did say in my original post:
“9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.”
This decade( if solar conditions cooperate) will go a very long way in clearing up all the arguments and predictions all of us are making. I want to know one way or the other. I think with this prolonged solar minimum in progress that many questions are going to be answered.
I am most certain the AGW theory will be obsolete before the decade ends.
Dr. Page ,you are on the correct path.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 18, 2013 at 11:21 am
The NGRIP 20th century Be data matches the 20th century temp trends very well.
You must be confusing it with the Dye-3 data [he lower of the two which has problems and is probably contaminated with climate dependent factors.
There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent
Not at all. L&P pertains to the Sun, not to global temperatures. You are just blatantly assuming that the two are related.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:32 pm
I am most certain the AGW theory will be obsolete before the decade ends.
The solar connection is already obsolete.
Carla that is not so. Past history shows clearly that the earth’s orbit and tilt had zero to do with the large temperature swings both up and down over the past 20,000 years.
Maybe they have something to do with major glaciations over a period of time of 40,000 to 100,000 years but they can’t explain all the rapid short term up and down temp. changes.
Changes in temperatures during this period(last 20,000 years ) of time taking place in a decade or less, no way was it the earth’s orbit /tillt.
Much more likely it was changes in the solar magnetic /geo magnetic field strengths and all the secondary effects associated with them ,such as cosmic ray intensity changes, to name one of many which I listed in previous post.
Just look at the temperature changes over the past 20,000 years and show us how the tilt /and earth’s orbit changes can account for those temperature changes. They can’t.
Leif tell me what is the connection?
Leif No – The NGRIP data show the 1910 – 40 warming and then the 40 -70 coolinmore clearly..
Tell me Leif what has caused the many drastic temperature changes that have ocurred over the past 20,000 years.
I say it is solar, and I say this will be PROVEN before this decade ends.
I just sent a research article that shows all the solar /climate connections in an earlier post that came out LESS then a year ago.
Leif you are entitled to your opinion but it is wrong.
Leif ignores past history which shows very clearly that prolonged solar minimums are associated with temperature declines and active solar periods are associated with temperature rises.
This time will be NO different.
Again we can argue all we want, the proof will be on what the climate does in response to the prolonged solar minimum.
If we have a prolonged solar minimum and temperatures don’t go down Leif will be correct. On the other hand if temperatures do go down then I and others that agree,it is due to solar conditions will be correct.
It is that simple.