The updates from NOAA’s SWPC are now available, and there are big jumps all around in February 2014.
Sunspot number reaches the highest ever for SC24:
10.7cm radio flux reaches the highest ever for SC24:
Ap magnetic index, while up, has not surpassed previously higher values in SC24
In other news, Davis Archibald offers this update:
==============================================================
Solar Update March 2014
David Archibald
Figure 1: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2014
With Solar Cycle 24 maximum in March 2013 (see the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle in Figure 5 below) and a one year lag between solar activity and neutron count, we have probably seen the minimum neutron count for this cycle. The minimum count is well above the minimum value for Solar Cycle 20.
Figure 2: Oulu Neutron Count for Solar Cycles 20 to 24 aligned on month of minimum
In terms of neutron count, Solar Cycle 24 isn’t much weaker than the previous four cycles at a similar stage of development.
Figure 3: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2014
What is really interesting is what has happened to the solar wind flow pressure. Despite a high sunspot number and F10.7 flux for this cycle, in January 2014 the solar wind flow pressure fell to a new low of 1.2 nPa for the instrumental record. With another 10 years of solar cycle fall time ahead of us, this suggests that the neutron count is going to be impressive by the end of the decade.
Figure 4: Ap Index 1932 – 2014
Similarly, despite high sunspot numbers and F10.7 flux values, the Ap Index appears to be in a new regime with current values around the previous apparent floor level of activity for the instrumental record.
Figure 5: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle
Based on the heliospheric tilt angle, Solar Cycle 24 maximum was in Carrington rotation 2134, which is March 2013. With the Solar cycle 23/24 minimum in December 2008, Solar Cycle 24 rise time was 4 years and three months.
Figure 6: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2014
The F10.7 flux is having a new peak of activity.
Figure 7: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2014
As with the solar wind flow pressure and Ap Index, the interplanetary magnetic field appears to be in a new regime in Solar Cycle 24 in which peak activity is at about the level of the previous floor of activity.
Figure 8: Solar Cycle 24 relative to the Dalton Minimum
Solar Cycle 24 had been tracking Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, quite closely in terms of monthly sunspot number. It is now somewhat stronger at the same stage of the cycle.
Figure 9: Solar Cycles 1749 – 2040
Livingstone and Penn’s forecast of a Solar Cycle 25 maximum amplitude of 7 is still the only prediction of the size of that cycle from the solar physics community. We are still a few years out before solar poloidal field strength can be used to estimate the size of the next cycle.
Figure 10: Predicted Solar Cycle 24 peak sunspot number
Of 54 predictions of Solar Cycle 24 peak amplitude, the six at the bottom of the range could be considered to be in the ball park of the achieved result. This suggests that the solar physics community’s understanding of the Sun, and thus climate, has the potential to evolve further. From: Pesnell, W.D., Predictions of Solar Cycle 24, Solar Phys., 252, 209-220, 2008
Waiting for Dr. Svalgaard 1….2….3….
“This suggests that the solar physics community’s understanding of the Sun, and thus climate, has the potential to evolve further.”
How polite – I mean, instead of saying the solar physics community doesn’t know its hindquarters from third base, or that it’s been corrupted by global warming politics, etc.
Why does this image show the little ice age ending in 1890.
and your image from this post shows that the solar cycles continued to trend lower until several decades after warming began (until 1915)???
it seems that the end of the little ice age has absolutely nothing to do with the solar cycles. . .what else could have caused it to end?
Figure 10 – Gee, I wonder which WUWT frequent poster on solar matters got it right?
Anthony, Can you mark Dr. Svalgaard’s prediction for SC 24 in that last graphic?
The infamous double peak has shown up. Who was it that was predicting that a while back? Good call whoever it was. Nice to see us break away from the Dalton Minimum trend. Here is hoping it doesn’t get that bad over the next 30+ years.
Long drawn out pole switch Phase II perhaps:
PFS: http://postimg.org/image/94wh5z4j1/full
NMS: http://postimg.org/image/uda5neizx/full
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/magbfly.jpg
Let’s see where we’re at in June and December. Interesting times.
David Archibald – you say”The minimum count is well above the minimum value for Solar Cycle 20.”. I note that the 23/24 maximum is a bit higher too. Is it the case (like the solar cycle minima) that the neutron count maxima tend not to change much? And if they don’t change much, at what point can changes be interpreted as an underlying GCR change? Do we know how today’s neutron count compares with eg. MWP or LIA? TIA.
Ttom in Florida : The difference between solar physicists and certain climate ‘scientists’ is hubris (lack of) and integrity (presence of).
The lesson here is that Solar physicists – and climate sceptics – dont have a good handle on predicting future solar activity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/
unlike the co2 deathstar warmists i’m happy to go where the evidence goes. i won’t be looking to explain away the actual data with wild conjecture. if its broken the dalton style pattern then it shows there is a failpoint in the design-unlike with the co2ers who have no fail point regardless of the data because ‘they know’ it to be true so will always look to explain away the divergences and failed predictions.
by analogy with the co2ers no one is going to be looking to explain away the actual because they ‘know it to be true’ that the dalton is on the way?
the chart would have to make a new low to suggest it was ‘back on track’?
jai mitchell says:
it seems that the end of the little ice age has absolutely nothing to do with the solar cycles. . .what else could have caused it to end?
Why don’t you tell us? While you’re at it, tell us what caused the LIA in the first place.
One thing is certain: it didn’t have anything to do with human emissions either way.
Projections vary quite a bit. You might be able to find a favorite in one of these:
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png
http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfjmms.php
http://sidc.oma.be/KalmanOutputs/ML/Current/figKFML.jpg
James Abbott says:
The lesson here is that Solar physicists – and climate sceptics – dont have a good handle on predicting future solar activity.
James, the lesson here went right over your head. Scientific skeptics do not have the job of explaining why something has happened. It is the job of skeptics to falsify a hypothesis or a conjecture.
Skeptics have done a damned fine job of falsifying the catastrophic AGW conjecture, haven’t they? You should be happy about that, because scientific knowledge is only what remains standing after all attempts to falsify a conjecture or hypothesis have failed.
Now that cAGW has been falsified, we know the cause of this variability must be something else. If you have any suggestions, by all means, post them here.
It would be nice if someone would put all/some of this data in perspective for those of us who are out of the loop. If one should do so please note points of controversy in any explanation.
Thanks in advance. I’m just trying to understand. It looks like we are in interesting times.
a trend is higher highers or lower lows. until one of them is taken out its just trendless. taking out the high would be significant but if it took out the low then u could start drawing trend channels again. if it stays under 100 its going to be in the weaker half of cycles?
I remember Leif pointing out that Cycle 14 had a lot of peaks, and I think he downplayed the concept of a “double peak”.
Here is Cycle 14’s noisy curve
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
Oh well; goes to prove other solar physicists, amateurs and myself included don’t have a @@@@@ clue what is happening to the sun and all predictions were wrong it appears. LOL
dbstealey,
as you wish. . .
abrupt onset of the little ice age triggered by volcanism
Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD. Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium. A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed. Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg.
Maybe this is the place to ask my question. One sunspot has just reappeared for the third time, and is still active. I have been trying to find data on how many times sunspots come back again, and still stay active, without success. Does anyone know where such data might be, and whether this measure correlates with anything?
Certainly has been interesting watching this cycle 24. And not just the sunspot number.
It will be also very interesting to watch the climate and those things with the sun that are markedly different from what is posed as typical; not that there is a norm. The declining solar wind, the magnetic field and AP index. Reduction in UV. Is there an increase in GCR (Galactic Cosmic Radiation), is there going to be a corresponding increase in cloud coverage? Where is Svensmark? Is there going to be a resulting increase in snow, continental ice and sea ice coverage resulting in an increase in total global solar reflection?
If the northern hemisphere is destined to have growing glaciation, we all can’t fit into the equatorial zone with out some food production. (Maybe penguin soup is good.) Of course that is assuming certain predictions regarding the inter-glacial period is nearing it’s end; to be followed by the 100,000 yr glaciation. That truly would suck.!!
jai mitchell,
Thanx for the carefully selected passage. But what you left out was the sentence preceding your cherry-pick:
…the causes of superposed century-scale cold summer anomalies, of which the Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most extreme, remain debated, largely because the natural forcings are either weak or, in the case of volcanism, short lived. [my emphasis]
Aren’t you embarassed being caught playing games like that? I would be.
dbstealey
You don’t appear to have looked at the link I posted which showed that WUWT stated, clearly, that the current cycle max had passed (last year) and that the current cycle was a flop.
My point was that such a statement can now be seen as clearly wrong and alongside the predictions of many solar physicists, the lesson is that the Sun is difficult to predict.
As to your total conviction that global warming “has been falsified”, that is not a very scientific approach is it – and is a similar “prediction” ?
It just looks like another “double peak” which has happened before. I think that it becomes more likely that a prolonged solar decline is upon us.
the co2ers of course ‘know’ why the heating ‘paused’ although they didn’t predict it. They just haven’t found evidence of the mechanism yet so we just have to believe them until they do lol.
James Abbott says:
March 3, 2014 at 4:24 pm
The current cycle is a flop.
I don’t think the direct sunspot count comparison with Solar cycle 5 means very much. If you compare what could be seen with a 40″ telescope back then with what can be seen with space-based telescopes today it is like comparing apples with oranges. I think you have to try and correct for these differences. Also currently there are nine distinct types of sunspots and no doubt this will be increased in a few years as scientists better understand their composition. If field A had a hundred animals on it being 30 horses, 25 cows, 20 rabbits, 15 sheep and 10 goats you could say it has the same number of animals as field B which has 100 cows and none of the other animals but that is the only comparison that is correct!
The sun’s absolute magnetic strength is, in my opinion, the key factor as it reflects the overall electromagnetic activity within the sun. Figs 4 and 7 are interesting indeed as are the figures on the Oulu neutron count – but there are other variables that create this count. The sun’s AP Index (fig 4) I think is another indicator that would be linked to the sun’s electromagnetic activity. As it also seems to be doing something way outside the normal range since it has been measured it also suggests the sun’s electromagnetic activity is quite different to anything experienced for many decades.
We certainly do live in interesting times. If I was relying on AGW money for my income I think I would become a skeptic and look for another job before I have to compete with 10’s of thousands of warmists who will eventually be retrenched.
a cycle has to be judged on its full cycle not at a random point thro it? who knows what the final profile will be? its too early to jump to any conclusions as to the character of a cycle?
James Abbott,
You can easily change my mind. Just post verifiable, measurable scientific evidence showing that human-emitted CO2 has caused X degrees of global warming.
Easy-peasy… if you have any such measurable, testable evidence.
But I don’t think you do. And that means you’re winging it. You believe in cAGW, but you have no evidence showing that it exists. None at all [and I’m sure you’re aware that ‘evidence’ means measurable data and/or verifiable, real world observations; not papers, or models].
So your belief in cAGW is nothing but a conjecture. An opinion. An evidence-free belief.
That is not nearly good enough, when such baseless belief is used to propose national and international Policy. Witch doctors operate on Belief. But scientists require evidence. See the difference?
jauntycyclist says:
March 3, 2014 at 4:40 pm
Predictability is a basic tenet of the scientific method. The predictions are made based on hypothesis (also conjecture), and they are borne out,…….or not. 🙂
Mike Jonas says:
March 3, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Tom in Florida : The difference between solar physicists and certain climate ‘scientists’ is hubris (lack of) and integrity (presence of).
==========================================================================
I was referring to Dr Svalgaard, who, as most long time readers of this blog know, was correct in his prediction. He based that prediction on his knowledge of how the Sun works. In an era where proof is demanded, his pudding on this matter appears to be mighty tasty.
dbstealey
I think the chances of any evidence changing your mind is zilch so I am not going to waste your time or mine going over old ground.
But I notice as ever you have ignored the main point – which was that WUWT commented on and predicted the solar activity trend which has proved to be wrong.
What counts is observations.
Anthony, this link shows the past four solar cycles all aligned, and is a good visual for comparison of cycles 21, 22, 23, and 24.
http://solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
Hi James Abbott,
Your original comment, which I responded to, was specifically aimed at skeptics:
“…climate sceptics – dont have a good handle on predicting future solar activity.”
Now you’re moving the goal posts to something else, and defining it as the “main point”.
How do I keep up?
Also, I agree with what Sparks said above:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image018.gif
Seems patently obvious that James Abbott knows he can’t produce the evidence dbstealey suggests. The “old ground” he refers to is either flawed or nonexistent.
dbstealey says:
March 3, 2014 at 5:24 pm
Hi James Abbott,
…..
How do I keep up?
>>>>>>
You’re too far ahead!
TRM says:
March 3, 2014 at 2:36 pm
The infamous double peak has shown up. Who was it that was predicting that a while back? Good call whoever it was. Nice to see us break away from the Dalton Minimum trend. Here is hoping it doesn’t get that bad over the next 30+ years.
—————————————————————————————–
When first looking at the 2,000 year tree ring study which was produced at JG/U some two years ago, it struck me that a gm landing in the middle of a Warm Period appeared to be subdued. This may be what is happening now. Another point is that cyclical events have endless variation for duration and intensity for any given reiteration of a similar event. In that light, if the next gm is strong that could signal the end of the Warm Period. If it is a weak event, then that would likely signal the continuation of the Warm Period.
Add me to the list of folks that think this will likely be a double peak. The timing is about right. The count should now start dropping rather quickly if this view is correct. By the end of the year we could be back below 50.
TRM says:
March 3, 2014 at 2:36 pm
===========
I remember reading that comment about a possible double peak before a downturn. I don’t know if it means anything though. I’m in a learning curve on this.
Something I’ve wondered about is if there are some force/forces of some type deep in space that could possibly effect the sun (ours) that has an effect on both the earth and sun. Those are just wandering thoughts.
actuator
Its not “patently obvious” at all. There is a shed load of evidence, which I have produced on this site many times. I just know what the response will be. I could equally ask you to produce evidence of sceptic assertions that there is no GW and no link between warming and GHGs. Warming has clearly taken place since about 1970 (all major global data sets) and the second is basic physics.
:
James Abbott says:
March 3, 2014 at 5:03 pm
—————————————-
There is no question that WUWT made wrong assumptions in that article. At least it is admitted to, whereas, the IPCC has resisted doing the same with their failed models for many years now. That is a big difference. Nature has falsified the contention of co2 being the major driver of climate change. Unless the consensus scientists can fully explain the ‘why’ of that, then their premise stands falsified.
“””What is really interesting is what has happened to the solar wind flow pressure. Despite a high sunspot number and F10.7 flux for this cycle, in January 2014 the solar wind flow pressure fell to a new low of 1.2 nPa for the instrumental record. With another 10 years of solar cycle fall time ahead of us, this suggests that the neutron count is going to be impressive by the end of the decade.”””
Yes, this is interesting, in light of, the last time it was that low (2008) there was a lowering of the lower ionosphere and lowering of the thermosphere.
Behaviour of the low-latitude ionosphere-plasmasphere system at long deep solar minimum
N Balan, CY Chen, JY Liu & GJ Bailey
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/14034/1/IJRSP%2041(2)%2089-97.pdf
from intro page 1 and 2
…”””A number of interesting observations has been reported covering the unusual solar minimum. The thermosphere contracted to record low levels.”””…
…”””The ionosphere also contracted to extremely low levels. Using the C/NOFS data Heelis et al. showed that the ionosphere contracted to a thin shell, with the O / H transition height and ion temperature reaching record low values..
..satellites also showed the ionosphere contracting by 50% in 2008 and by more than 60% in 2009 as compared to IRI2007 (International Reference Ionosphere) predictions.”””
..Tides and waves found their way to the thermosphere and ionosphere more easily in the 23/24 solar minimum than in previous mimima. The diurnal pattern of the vertical ExB drift velocity observed by the C/NOFS satellite shows downward drifts in the afternoon and upward drifts near midnight at some equatorial locations instead of the usual upward drifts during daytime and downward drifts at night..”””
It’s time to check the vortex progress..
dbstealy: “Witch doctors operate on Belief. But scientists require evidence. See the difference?”.
It’s very difficult for a believer to change his mind, dbs.
You’ll notice there was no attempt at all by J Abbott to come back with a paper supporting any hypothesis with CO2 as its variable, as requested. Not even a try. How hard is it to copy the name(s) of the author(s), date, name of paper and publishing journal?
Too hard for JAbbott, it seems.
And we all know why, he he.
Instead, there was the vacuous, “What counts is observations”. Observations as precursors to formulating an hypothesis? Observations as data (evidence) to support or negate an hypothesis under test?
What garbled and confused nonsense.
Walt Stone (@Cuppacafe) says:
March 3, 2014 at 3:36 pm
————————————————–
I think he did favor a double peak if I am remembering correctly. One thing that I have learned is that it is very difficult to get a ‘feel’ for solar interactions, where otherwise my thoughts can often penetrate partly into new concepts.
The increase in sunspot activity over the last few months has been primarily in the southern hemisphere. Will the new cycle high mean an extended cycle? Only time will tell. it is not the opinion of experts that count but the chaotic nature of reality. It is exciting to watch it though.
Hmmm. Isn’t on of the issues regards terrestrial weather, that while there are a reasonable number of sunspots, they seem to stop flaring once they swing round to face earth? Pretty well all the time the last year or so? Like monster spots that deliver X flares and multiple M flares on the backside and as they crest the limb, and then….nothing. And then as they are departing, off they go again.
And isn’t it the case that moderate range flaring is very good for our magnetosphere? (sp?) Sort of builds it, and the higher atmospheric levels, up – hence more protection from galactic gamma rays? Which is coupled with an apparent decrease in the ‘strength of our shields’ by some 15% in the last ‘x’ decades?
‘Cause I believe the last time we saw such behaviour by sunspots, was leading to and during the Maunder Minimum. And as much as it would be sweet schadenfreud (sp?) to put it to the CAGW fanatics, we really really don’t want that.
James Abbott says:
March 3, 2014 at 5:36 pm
“…I could equally ask you to produce evidence of sceptic assertions that there is no GW and no link between warming and GHGs.”
>>>>>>>>
James, how about the last 5-6 winters of new record low temps and snowfalls, with increasing CO2.
“…and the second is basic physics.”
>>>>>>>
No, James, you do not want to go to basic physics. You get busted way too early!
Eliza says:
March 3, 2014 at 3:39 pm
Oh well; goes to prove other solar physicists, amateurs and myself included don’t have a @@@@@ clue what is happening to the sun and all predictions were wrong it appears. LOL
____________
The piano graph of cycle predictions above, “Pesnell, W.D., Predictions of Solar Cycle 24, Solar Phys., 252, 209-220, 2008,” is how I ran into Dr. S. on another board..
Dr. S. cycle prediction has been doing pretty good. And the theory behind it, at that time (08) sounded pretty good to me. Seeing as how I had only discovered that the sun had a such a thing as a solar magnetic cycle, only 6 months or so earlier..or that solar magnetic flux transports to the solar poles and back..well if there is flux to transport, that is..
And clues there are many..sorting them all out, that’s another something else..
“…suggests that the solar physics community’s understanding of the Sun, and thus climate, has the potential to evolve further…” So, solar science and thus climate science isn’t settled yet? An amazing admission.
Nice set of graphs here. Would like to see a “global” temperature plot superimposed on the SSN and solar flux plots for illustration purposes.
Looking at Figure 9: Solar Cycles 1749 – 2040, the four top most active cycles out of all 24 occured since 1949, cycles 18, 19, 21, and 22. Add in cycles 17 and 23 to get the top 6 out of the top 11 of all 24 cycles, which puts us back into the 1930’s, when we had the highest recorded temperatures in the US.
Too bad Figure 6: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2014, doesn’t go back to 1749 too.
What happens when solar activity goes up? Flux goes up. Flux is the energy per second from photons. Solar activity goes up, flux goes up, and photon energy goes up. When more photon energy hits the Earth, it warms up.
“Global” warming resulted from the accumulated heating effect from the increased solar flux activity over several cycles, not from CO2 downwelling radiation. The overall modest warming slowed to a crawl if not a stop since solar activity started to decline. Extreme weather events such as tornadoes and hurricanes have dropped off too in number with the solar activity decline.
Here’s an experiment to try at home: go outside in the direct sunlight. Feel the heat. Now, wait for a cloud to pass in front of the sun. What happened? It cooled off! What! Why? Less photon energy made it through the cloud, delivering less heat.
If you think that’s wrong, then you have to explain the 1970’s cooling, the little ice age, or the Dalton Minimum on some other basis. More or less solar flux (photon energy) causes warming or cooling, and the solar wind (IMF, pressure) causes geomagnetics and extreme weather events.
James Abbott
… and the second is basic physics.
please, lay out for me your basic physics ? I would like to understand your detailed explanation of “basic physics” as it concerns GHGs and warming of the atmosphere.
The Sun must function and expel in its own way to maintain viability.
What are the odds the SUN defies its historic pattern?
James Abbott: . . . .and the second is basic physics
And what was the basic physics of the similar 30 year warming at the same rate 1915-1945?
Bob Weber says:
March 3, 2014 at 6:08 pm
Looking at Figure 9: Solar Cycles 1749 – 2040, the four top most active cycles out of all 24 occurred since 1949, cycles 18, 19, 21, and 22. Add in cycles 17 and 23 to get the top 6 out of the top 11 of all 24 cycles, which puts us back into the 1930′s, when we had the highest recorded temperatures in the US.
Taking into account and correcting for the over-count introduced by Max Waldmeier in 1947 [see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf ], the 30 years with the highest yearly sunspot number average since 1749 were [values in the last third of the 265 years covered are in bold]:
1778.5 199.7
1957.5 190.2
1958.5 184.8
1870.5 176.7
1837.5 176
1787.5 166.8
1788.5 164.9
1959.5 159
1779.5 157.9
1989.5 157.6
1848.5 156.3
1979.5 155.4
1980.5 154.6
1836.5 152.4
1947.5 151.6
1789.5 146.8
1991.5 145.7
1990.5 142.6
1937.5 142.1
1956.5 141.7
1981.5 140.5
1871.5 138
1948.5 136.3
1938.5 135.4
1949.5 134.7
1769.5 131.5
1917.5 128.1
1838.5 127
1872.5 124.3
1770.5 123.8
Too bad Figure 6: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2014, doesn’t go back to 1749 too.
But we have a good proxy back to 1844: slide 15 of http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic%20Calibration%20of%20Sunspot%20Numbers.pdf
About the Double Peak: weak cycles have several pronounced peaks. Cycle 14 had a dozen, and Cycle 24 will undoubtedly have several more peaks to go before it is done. Cycle 14 had three months with sunspot number greater than 100 [and that is not even correcting for the Waldmeier effect].
James Abbott says:
March 3, 2014 at 4:24 pm
dbstealey
You don’t appear to have looked at the link I posted which showed that WUWT stated, clearly, that the current cycle max had passed (last year) and that the current cycle was a flop.
++++++++++++
James: That you “deny” CAGW has been falsified, makes you unable to have a balanced discussion. You give up because you have no facts. As dbstealey stated, without skeptics, you get drivel like you see in the MSM and IPCC – and this is a sign that the so called science you believe in is broken. Science is not about belief.
Skeptics argue profusely with each other to find the truth. People like you want to believe in something without the advantage of critical thinking. You’re like a lawyer defending a client. You are not looking to find truth – you are looking for an outcome. SKEPTICS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE JURY – seeking truth.
dbstealey:
I should correct my sentence. My first paragraph should have been written:
“James: That you “deny” CAGW has been falsified, makes you unable to have a balanced discussion. You give up because you have no facts, as dbstealey showed you. Without skeptics, you get drivel like you see in the MSM and IPCC – and this is a sign that the so called science you believe in is broken. Science is not about belief…”
James Abbott says:
March 3, 2014 at 5:36 pm
actuator
Its not “patently obvious” at all. There is a shed load of evidence, which I have produced on this site many times. I just know what the response will be. I could equally ask you to produce evidence of sceptic assertions that there is no GW and no link between warming and GHGs. Warming has clearly taken place since about 1970 (all major global data sets) and the second is basic physics.
++++++++++++
James: You should know this, but I’ll help. You’re looking for only correlations over short time periods and are blinded by your “belief”. You do understand that throughout historical timelines where CO2 levels are plotted against temperature, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is that CO2 has followed –not led temperatures. Knowing this is all too inconvenient to you, but ignoring the evidence makes you look pretty bad here. How do you leave out the truth in your diatribes? Either you don’t know – or you deny evidence.
Mario Lento says:
March 3, 2014 at 6:41 pm
——————————————
Your analogy to a lawyer defending a client is excellent.
There’s really a pretty reasonable explanation for the climate changes we saw in the last 100+ years. Of course, AGW fanatics like James Abbott will deny them. The key to look at both the sun and the oceans (PDO) together.
-PDO and weak sun early 1900-1910s …. cooling
+PDO and active sun lasted until 1940s …. warming
-PDO and active sun of 1950s …. small cooling
-PDO and weaker sun in 1960s-1970s …. more cooling
+PDO and active sun of 1980s-2000s …. warming
-PDO and weaker sun should point to more cooling in the future
The PDO controls how much energy can be released from the oceans. The sun provides the energy but cannot warm without the oceans releasing the energy. The oceans alone cannot release much energy if the sun does not provide any.
Thank you goldminor… it just came to me… I have James Abbott to thank, as he was my inspiration.
Part two: Do the cosmic ray count maximum periods that are in phase with solar minimums (see Figure 1: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2014) cause increased cloud cover as Svensmark’s cosmoclimatology theory says, thereby cooling the planet (allowing fewer photons through to the surface)? And conversely, during solar max, do fewer cosmic ray counts create an atmosphere with fewer clouds that pass more photon energy to the surface?
It still comes down to the Sun as the driver/modulator.
Thanx Dr. Svalgaard. Still digesting previous information you provided. The more I look into solar and geomagnetics, the more interesting it gets.
dbstealey on March 3, 2014 at 4:11 pm
jai mitchell,Thanx for the carefully selected passage. But what you left out was the sentence preceding your cherry-pick:
Quote:
…the causes of superposed century-scale cold summer anomalies, of which the Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most extreme, remain debated,largely because the natural forcings are either weak or, in the case of volcanism, short lived.
End quote
Thanks dbstealy for putting the record straight.
How can climate scientists casually state that “natural climate forcings are weak” in a “science” that is utterly devoid of any serious hypothesis or understanding of what causes climate variation over all timescales. This is fatuous and banal wishful thinking, and exposes what is wrong and sick in climate science.
Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow by Ed Lorenz in 1962 was the high water mark of scientific understanding of chaotic climate variability. Since then the herd has moved in the wrong direction into a CO2 dark age.
The null hypothesis of climate science is that climate is always changing in a log-log fractal manner due to normal chaotic-nonlinear oscillation. CAGW not only fails to nullify this null hypothesis – its practitioners fail to understand what a null hypothesis is.
Richard M says:
March 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm
“The PDO controls how much energy can be released from the oceans. The sun provides the energy but cannot warm without the oceans releasing the energy. The oceans alone cannot release much energy if the sun does not provide any.”
Not to sure what you said. However….a lack of heat is why water becomes ice in your freezer. The cold does not freeze the water. Right? Likewise the oceans are constantly releasing heat they hold which has been absorbed from the sun. The oceans release energy independently of what the sun is providing in return. If there is no sun, the ocean heat just keeps on releasing until it is exhausted. At some point there is a balance of heat absorbed and heat released. At that point, the releasing of energy is in balance with the absorption of energy. If the sun did not vary in its output, and the orbits were circular and the earth axis not changing and the continents on roaming around, the oceans would be less variable against what we actually see. Much more complex than the freezer activity, but the same is happening.
So now that I have confused myself, I do believe the PDO is an artifact or product of the ocean dynamics. The PDO follows or is a result of something that has changed, not leading. The weather can be an artifact or product of the PDO or something that is changing, the weather follows, not leading. The temperature of the atmosphere is an artifact, the atmosphere follows it’s inputs; just as the oceans do. Just like the ice cubes do.
There is no pause or hiatus in global warming. It has stopped. Unless someone has categoric proof it will start again please let us stop using the warmies words of “pause” and “Hiatus” let’s use CEASED – If the global climate starts to move again one way or another – as it will – that will be a new movement.
Please let’s call a spade a spade – it has stopped.
Alan,
Couldn’t have said it better myself. We will only know that global warming has paused if and when it resumes. But until then, global warming has stopped for the past 17+ years.
So are sunspots what dooms us?
Vukcevic forecasts are accurate.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-latest.gif
Therefore, cosmic rays increase. Neutrons are only part of secondary radiation.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Jai Mitchell says:
March 3, 2014 at 2:26 pm
The 1890s were very cold due to weaker solar output due to a de Vries cycle low. We see that in the Be10 record. The aa Index had started increasing from the 1860s rising to its peak in the second half of the 20th century.
Mike Jonas says:
March 3, 2014 at 2:54 pm
We only have a few cycles of record. In the scheme of the variability of the Sun, even the 400 years of sunspot observations aren’t much. As with things like the Ap Index, there had seemed to be a ceiling. We are in new territory now. Given that there is a one year lag between solar activity and the neutron count, someone with the time and inclination could calculate what the count will be one year out.
We know that the neutron count was a lot higher in the LIA because the Be10 count was consistently higher. In fact that would be a good subject for a paper – integrating the neutron count with the Be10 record through the modern overlap.
James Abbott says:
March 3, 2014 at 5:36 pm
” There is a shed load of evidence… Warming has clearly taken place since about 1970 (all major global data sets) and the second is basic physics.”
So, your shed load of evidence is that warming has taken place since about 1970 and the fact that CO2 has been shown to be a “greenhouse” gas. Must be a really small shed.
Also, very few skeptics deny either of those assertions you claim as your shed load. What we are very skeptical of is the assertion that it is, or is going to be catastrophic. You have NO evidence for catastrophic… only models, which 95% of have already failed.
You cAWG cultists have predicted:
1) Rapidly accelerating sea level rise…. Is not happening, holding more or less steady at 1.8mm/yr since roughly 1850.
2) Complete loss of summer Arctic Sea ice by 2015…. prediction is looking very bad
3) Decrease in Antarctic sea ice… It is growing against the predictions of EVERY model
4) East Manhatten was to be going under water about now… still doing fine and no one panicking yet
5) Tuvalu was to be going below the ocean surface about now…. They just built a brand new +$100million airport and surrounding resort so doesn’t appear anyone really thinks its going under any day now
6) Hot spot in atmosphere…. not there
7) Surface temperatures according to the mean of the models was to have increased by 0.2C in last 20 yrs…. ouch, no change in 17yrs and counting
I can go on and on about all your failed predictions and projections. There is NOTHING that suggest catastrophic in ANY of the data. In fact, so far the increase in temperature and CO2 has been a net positive… that is unless you prefer temperatures of the LIA and 30% lower crop yields.
Chris Marrou says:
March 3, 2014 at 2:19 pm
There is another paper coming along which will be a significant advance. It vindicates my model output but with much higher resolution. I have already used it to predict annual crop yields for the Corn Belt out to 2040. Crop yield is proportional to heat when heat is the limiting factor. The nice thing is the aesthetics – instead of a blocky temperature forecast it is now a smooth line. Of course the hindcast match is good, including the pause.
Here is a plot of the SSN data with filter that does not get all the short term peaks in the wrong place:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=781
(Links to code provided)
There is a nice paper about predicting a double peak of solar cycle 24:
Kilcik, A. & Ozguc, A. (2014). One Possible Reason for Double-Peaked Maxima in Solar Cycles: Is a Second Maximum of Solar Cycle 24 Coming? Solar Physics, 289 (4), 1379-1386
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11207-013-0407-4
Preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4552
“… Thus, we conclude that i) one possible reason for a double maximum in solar cycles is the different behavior of large and small sunspot groups, and ii) a double maximum is coming for Solar Cycle 24.”
the 60 year cycle…30 years each of warming and cooling…cannot be caused by the 11 year sunspot cycle…it is deep ocean cycles…cooling started after 2010
The cycle is weak and long, as already observed (maximum should be at ~2014/15). The next minimum likely not before ~2021/22, assuming the cycle frequency remains low. Temperatures will plummet after the cycle maximum. The ‘postmodern’ minimum?
gopal panicker says:
March 3, 2014 at 11:37 pm
“the 60 year cycle…30 years each of warming and cooling…cannot be caused by the 11 year sunspot cycle…it is deep ocean cycles…cooling started after 2010”
Variations in the magnitude of the 11 and 22 year cycles over 60 year time-scales could be at least one factor affecting climate. It’s pretty clear that it’s not just one thing , whatever your favourite ‘forcing’ is.
Inter-decadal variations in horizontal displacement of water (and hence energy) by tides seem to be a significant factor but reductionist ideas like “it’s the sun, stupid” or “it’s not the sun” are very likely to be wrong.
Climate is complicated.
Erwin says:
There is a nice paper about predicting a double peak of solar cycle 24:
You would have needed to be a genius with a profound understanding of solar physics to “predict” that out come in 2011, However, the paper looks interesting. Thanks.
How terrible, no new ice age but instead the release of the giant virus, buried for 30.000 years in the fast melting ice….. Scaaaryyyy.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-giant-virus-revived-20140302,0,4662287.story#ixzz2uvwls53Y
Richard M:
I said this back in May 2008,
“1) Active sun in cycles 18 and 19 then a less active sun in cycle 20 plus a negative PDO = cancelling out of expected warming followed by cooling when the sun gets less active in cycle 20 (1940 to 1975).
2) Active sun during cycles 21, 22 and the double peak of 23 plus positive PDO = significant warming. (1975 to 1998)
3) Slightly quieter sun during extended tail end of cycle 23 plus positive PDO = stable temperatures. (1998 to 2007).
4) Quiet sun as cycle 23 fizzles out and cycle 24 is deferred plus a negative PDO = Rather chilly in my opinion. (2007 to 20 ?)
from here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-real-link-between-solar-energy-ocean-cycles-and-global-temperature/
The period of roughly stable temperatures is going on longer than I expected back then due to the thermal inertia of the oceans but cooling should become more apparent after the passing of the peak of cycle 24.
I am still baffled:
I remember as a youg boy and even not too many years ago, you could actually see ss with your naked eyes on sunrise or sunset (or on very dusty days like the last couple of days here in Israel).
In the last decade or more one could hardly detect any ss at all!
Yesterday I was straining to see one – but they were way too small to detect.
It seems to me in the 17th and 18th century this type of spots would be missed altogether.
Concidering this is supposed to be the peak of the sun’s activity, This cycle is defintely well below the previous ones.
There wasn’t any 1970s cooling. There was a cooling which began in ~1945 and ended in the 1970s. So the cooling began about 2 decades before the onset of Solar Cycle 20 (the weak one). Furthermore, the cooling continued throughout SC 19 (the strongest cycle ever recorded).
It’s the same story for the Dalton Minimum. If you look closely at some of the old longer temperature records, e.g. the CET, you will notice that there is a temperature decline which began before 1780 – i.e. well before the Dalton cycles. The decline was actually taking place during 1778 which was the year with the highest recorded sunspot count (See Leif’s post above).
CET record is here.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hos_1.png
Unless earth’s climate is able to predict future solar activity then I’m not sure there is much of a connection between the two.
Eyal Porat says:
March 4, 2014 at 12:38 am
I am still buffled:
I remember as a youg boy and even not too many years ago, you could actually see ss with your naked eyes on sunrise or sunset (or on very dusty days like the last couple of days here in Israel).
Be careful you don’t damage your eyesight looking at the sun. The mathematician Leonhard Euler lost the sight in his right eye by looking at the sun too much.
http://www.math.wichita.edu/history/men/euler.html
But the oceans are still gaining heat.
Also this is not correct
The cooling clearly began in the 1940s. The 1970s were, if anything, warmer than the 1960s.
Solar Cycle 20 began in 1964 and ended in 1976. Can anyone provide any data to show there was cooling over this period. Oh, and make that any data which covers more than 2% of the earth’s surface.
Edim says:
March 3, 2014 at 11:42 pm
“The cycle is weak and long, as already observed (maximum should be at ~2014/15). The next minimum likely not before ~2021/22, assuming the cycle frequency remains low. Temperatures will plummet after the cycle maximum. The ‘postmodern’ minimum?2
The solar maximum was reached in 2013, this is when the solar poloidal field reached a point of reversal, it’s not a forecast, prediction or model it’s an actual observation, once a solar cycle gets underway the forecasts are usually more accurate, there maybe another long deep solar minimum coming up, if there is then we should see another weak solar cycle for SC25. fwiw, it is my opinion that a long extended solar minimum is what occurred during the maunder minimum, resulting in no magnetic field reversal and incredibly low sunspot number, unfortunately, there is no way of confidentially forecasting prolonged solar minimums, only that our records show that they do occur and they do effect our climate.
lsvalgaard says:
March 3, 2014 at 6:35 pm
Cycle 14 had three months with sunspot number greater than 100 [and that is not even correcting for the Waldmeier effect].
I don’t like much the comparison between cycle 24 and cycle 14. Each cycle is different and has its own characteristics.
– Cycle 14: showed three peaks greater than 100 in a period of 1 year and 4 months: Nov 1905, Jul 1906, Feb 1907.
– Cycle 24 had until now only two peaks: 96.7 in Nov 2011 and 102.8 in Feb 2014, i.e. in a period of 2 years and 4 months.
Something strange can be seen in the double peaks of the latest solar cycles. See http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/SC21-23.jpg. The second peak (total smoothed sunspot number) is shooting up in comparison with the first peak: the difference with the first peak becomes smaller during each following cycle. Now, we see that the second peak is surpassing the first peak. It seems that some pattern can be discovered in this series of solar cycles. Is such explanation meaningful?
I think that the current solar cycle can be described as follows.
First the Northern Hemisphere was active, showing a peak from Sep to Nov 2011. From Oct 2013 on, the Southern Hemisphere showed a much greater activity. I expect that this high activity will still persist for about two or three months. After that period, (i.e. 5 years and 6 months after the beginning of the cycle, about the half of the cycle), the activity in both hemispheres will decrease gradually.
(See my update of the current cycle: http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/SunFeb14sm.jpg)
Roha
“So are sunspots what dooms us?”
sunspots are used as a proxy- “the increased/decreased magnetic activity which accompanies sunspot maxima/minima directly influences the amount of ultraviolet radiation which moves through the upper atmosphere.”
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=sunspots
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
so its not the sunspots per se but what that tells us about the activity of the sun and the potential impact on the earth. Sunspot cycles have been correlated with tree rings which would imply trees are sensitive indicators and shows sun cycles are in tune with plant life which usually means ‘what the weather was like’ during the cycle. So looking into a connection between sun cycles and weather is not barking. Climate would have to be some longer cycle?
.also right now the earth magnetic shield is weakening which protects the earth so one might assume more rays will get thro so that might be an added complication etc
so in one sense with a weakening shield a sunspot might doom us by blowing out the power grid for months [with huge political and social consequences]
co2ers say its all irrelevant as co2 will trump any other cause although the eco utopians would probably love for the power grid to be blown out so we can live in de industrialised mud hutted eco heaven where everyone is called by names like crow and raven and keeper of the talking stick 🙂
RoHa says:
March 3, 2014 at 9:41 pm
So are sunspots what dooms us?
———————————————-
No, the politicians have that responsibility.
John Finn duly ignores the modulating effects of the ocean cycles even though that modulating effect was the very point being made.
@Alcheson says: March 3, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Seems to this lay person that the further back you look the less significant the Late 20th Century Warming period would seem to be. Is it not true that the past 5000 years of the Holocene show cooling? In which case, the current furore is quite clearly nothing to do with science. We really should be spending money working out how to adapt to cooling, not warming.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
“Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."
daddylonglegs says:
March 4, 2014 at 1:28 am
Too late… 🙁
As a teen I tried to see a solar eclipse without shades…
I specificly said you can see the ss on dusty days.
Sparks, in spite of the difficulty with the criteria of defining when a maximum (or a minimum) really occurs (it’s somewhat arbitrary anyway), I strongly disagree that the SC24 solar maximum was reached in 2013. The solar polar field reversal does not define the cycle maximum, it only occurs around the maximum. Furthermore, this reversal is still ‘ongoing’.
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
This solar cycle seems to be very weak and that usually means very long. The previous cycle (#23) was weak and long too. Solar cycle frequency slowed and I think some type of a grand minimum will occur in the next decades. How grand depends on the next few cycles (#25, 26…).
highflight56433 says:
March 3, 2014 at 8:34 pm
Richard M says:
March 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm
“The PDO controls how much energy can be released from the oceans. The sun provides the energy but cannot warm without the oceans releasing the energy. The oceans alone cannot release much energy if the sun does not provide any.”
Not to sure what you said. However….a lack of heat is why water becomes ice in your freezer. The cold does not freeze the water. Right? Likewise the oceans are constantly releasing heat they hold which has been absorbed from the sun. The oceans release energy independently of what the sun is providing in return. If there is no sun, the ocean heat just keeps on releasing until it is exhausted. At some point there is a balance of heat absorbed and heat released. At that point, the releasing of energy is in balance with the absorption of energy. If the sun did not vary in its output, and the orbits were circular and the earth axis not changing and the continents on roaming around, the oceans would be less variable against what we actually see. Much more complex than the freezer activity, but the same is happening.
I wasn’t trying to imply an all or nothing situation. Just above and below average. And, there is yet to be determined the mechanism for the sun adding more energy. I suspect it has to do with clouds.
—————————-
John Finn, if you look at the raw data you will see it matches what I said much better.
And my point was that OHC is still increasing. More energy is entering the oceans than is leaving.
>goldminor says:
>>Mario Lento says:
Your analogy to a lawyer defending a client is excellent.
+++++
That is the difference between advocacy and judgment. A skeptic can be a pretty good judge, an advocate cannot.
jai mitchell says:
it seems that the end of the little ice age has absolutely nothing to do with the solar cycles. . .what else could have caused it to end?
==========
1. the same thing that caused it to start – which climate science hasn’t yet found an answer to
2. there is no evidence the little ice age has ended – that is simply an assumption
what we do know is that climate models cannot replicate the little ice age, which means that it is a result of a forcing unknown to climate science.
‘There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’
John Finn says:
March 4, 2014 at 5:34 am
And my point was that OHC is still increasing. More energy is entering the oceans than is leaving.
============
what you mean is that there is evidence to support this belief. and the belief may be correct, or it may not be, within the error limits of the measurements.
Just like Dr S predicted, a subdued but drawn-out, variable maximum just like some previous ones.
Ha. One spike in the sunspot number and we have some folks declaring victory and others pointing fingers all over the place. Be patient. It’s not a trend, yet. Anything could still happen.
@Jai Mitchell
Not search too simple solutions …
(http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/docs/Gonzales-Rouco%20et%20al._2011-1%287-8%29.pdf) Medieval Climate Anomaly to Little Ice Age transition as simulated by current climate models, González-Rouco et al., 2011.:
“Therefore, under both high and low TSI change scenarios, it is possible that the MCA–LIA reconstructed anomalies would have been largely influenced by INTERNAL VARIABILITY. […]”
(http://hakangrudd.blogspot.com/p/publications.html).
“The impact of volcanic eruptions is clear, and a delayed recovery from pairs or multiple eruptions suggests the presence of some positive feedback mechanism.”
Mid- to Late Holocene climate change: an overview. Wanner et al., 2008. (http://www.novaquatis.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_wanner.pdf):
“On decadal to multi-century timescales, a worldwide coincidence between solar irradiance minima, tropical volcanic eruptions and decadal to multi-century scale cooling events was not found.”
(http://folk.uib.no/ngfhd/Papers/otteraa_etal_2010.pdf) External forcing as a metronome for Atlantic multidecadal variability, Otterå et al., 2010.: “We find that volcanoes play a particularly important part in the phasing of the multidecadal variability through their direct influence on tropical sea-surface temperatures, on the leading mode of northern-hemisphere atmosphere circulation and on the Atlantic thermohaline circulation.”
The problem with the second peak in 24 cycle, lies in the fact that the theory of AGW proponents believe that despite the fact that it occurred, we have harsh winters in the U.S. … – the sun has no significant effect (according to theory of AGW proponents) on climate …
James Abbot:
The prediction was that cycle 24 would be a flop. Even with the current second peak, the current cycle is by any measure, a flop.
So please tell us how the predictions at WUWT have been disproven.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=781
Looking at the pretty regular short term bumps/cycles: the last one would peak just about the beginning of this year. Even allowing for the fair broad spacing between the double peaks which is the current pattern, I don’t see it going much higher from here on.
Next bump will peak around 2014.7 and the current spike will be done by then.
@Steele……I feel the same way. Time will tell….I’ll wait for the call.
I’m interested to see what this summer brings as far as temps go. Also, I wonder how the Arctic will look after the melt season is over. Again….in time.
Looking closer at short cycles: last 5 cycles =3.15 years : 0.63y period.
Next peak 2014.62 , 0.62*12=7.44 mo , mid July.
By the end of the year we’ll be into the steep drop.
Kenny: “Also, I wonder how the Arctic will look after the melt season is over. ”
More recovery , but less dramatic than last year. I will have more on that later.
“With another 10 years of solar cycle fall time ahead of us, this suggests that the neutron count is going to be impressive by the end of the decade.”
Pretty much clinched at this point. Winter in Central MN is looking past the 1930’s to the 1880’s for comparison. Last year saw all time record late ice-out in many northern lakes. That was just weather.
AGW is buried in a coffin of her native carbon sequester with a bristlecone stake thru her hypertrophic heart.
There has been no displacement of polar air into NA this winter. Siberia has been just as frigid as ever. As fraudulent as surface temperature data has self-evidently become, satellite measurements are not telling us anything relevant. Global average temperatures are worthless.
Jai Mitchell,
“Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg,”
Where were they, and when? Pretty precise information from 800 years ago. Looked for your name in the list of authors, didn’t see it, or did !?
John Finn says @ March 4, 2014 at 1:24 am
You stated “There wasn’t any 1970s cooling.” (Based on the Central England Temperature record)
England isn’t the whole world any more than the US. The “1970s cooling” I referred to was indicated in four of the graphs above. Perhaps the author of those graphs could explain the source of those captions.
A temperature plot superimposed on these solar charts would be useful, but which temperature plot do we use that will satisfy everyone, if such a plot exists? A better plot would be temps vs the integral of SSN or flux.
What is the explanation for the very last negative-going temperature bar (in green) on your link
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hos_1.png ? In your opinion, what caused the temps to drop so much if we supposedly live in a CAGW world with little to no solar influence on temperature change? If CO2 is driving temperatures upwards then why would the temps go down at all in an era of increasing yet miniscule CO2 concentrations?
Experience shows the weather and climate vary regionally, this winter being no exception.
Bob Weber says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:32 am
A better plot would be temps vs the integral of SSN or flux.
This is a common misconception, which seems to be impossible to eradicate [so I shall not even try].
Michael Moon says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:24 am
Next year it’ll be two centuries since the last VEI 8 eruption. I’m thinking we’re about overdue.
Freezing rain on the LA Gulf Coast, in March. How unexpected!
Richard M says:
March 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm
It really is elementary, ain’t it? In an era of 404Care you’d think AGW shamans would take care throwing just anything against the wall with emphasis. Untreated, tendinitis is debilitating.
My statement was based on all (local and global) observational data.
None of those graphs above represents a temperature series. The author of those graphs constantly appends solar data graphs with the “1970s cooling” label. I assume he thinks it will support his claims for a strong solar effect. One of those claims, incidentally, was that we would see a 2 degree decline in temperatures in “a few short years” which later became “over the course of solar cycle 24”.
Well, the oceans seem to be integrating something.
===============
highflight56433 says:
March 3, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Certainly has been interesting watching this cycle 24. And not just the sunspot number.
…..Reduction in UV. Is there an increase in GCR (Galactic Cosmic Radiation), is there going to be a corresponding increase in cloud coverage?…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For what it is worth Earthshine Albedo inflection point: % Change in Earth’s Albedo – GRAPH around 1997 -1998
See Figure 7: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2014 in the post above and note the changes in the interplanetary magnetic field began with cycle 23.
Calmly Such are the up to date.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zz6ip4.jpg
lsvalgaard says:
March 4, 2014 at 9:02 am
Bob Weber says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:32 am
A better plot would be temps vs the integral of SSN or flux.
This is a common misconception, which seems to be impossible to eradicate [so I shall not even try].
================
Eradicating misconceptions is a pretty tall order. Coming up with a credible physical explanation should be less so.
In fact, it would seem incorrect to think either SSN or a straight integral would be correct unless some unstated assumptions become stated and justified.
If SSN is taken to be a proxy of some kind of power output variation that may act as a “forcing” on climate. Then one would not expect it to correlate directly to temperature unless climate equilibrates to such changes on a time scale much shorter than the circa 11y period.
Equally, unless climate takes centuries to equilibrate, then the integral would not be correct either.
Assuming the climate system takes somewhere from a few years to a few decades to equilibrate some kind of response function needs to be determined. The simplest response to a change in input power is probably a linear relaxation response. In this case an exponentially weighted integral would be a suitable approximation. The time constant of the exponential needing to be determined.
If the time constant is longer than a couple of years, there will be phase lag in the response. The longer the response time, the less will be the magnitude of the direct correlation to the 11y variations and the most the result will reflect the multi-decadal scale variations, ie grand maximum and extended lows like the Maunder minimum.
Anyone with a preconceived position intent on dismissing any possible link between surface temperature and SSN will insist of seeing a direct correlation to short term cycle, with zero phase lag and ignore any correlation on a longer time scale.
This is equivalent to an unstated assumption that climate reacts and equilibrates to any change almost instantaneously with respect to the basic period of circa 11 years.
That is an unwarranted assumption but will likely not be a problem in climate science where unwarranted assumptions are trade stock.
Someone, last year, looked at a more sophistical response with an active feedback which is possibly a more realistic model but I can’t find a link to his blog now.
So concluding there is no link to SSN based on the absence of a trivial correlation of the two time series is simplistic to the point of deliberate misdirection from anyone with a knowledge of physics.
On climate change, the greatest impact has the power of the magnetic field of the Sun, and this is clearly decreasing from 23 cycle. It is closely related to the detention temperature increase, and soon notice a drop. The temperature does not drop sharply through the oceans.
Greg Goodman says:
March 4, 2014 at 10:18 am
So concluding there is no link to SSN based on the absence of a trivial correlation of the two time series is simplistic to the point of deliberate misdirection from anyone with a knowledge of physics.
Time to wash your mouth out with soap. The integral idea is worthless without specifying [and justifying] the interval over which to integrate.
Every time there is an article on the sun it is begging for a punch line like “… and this means that the solar radiance receiver at the earth will be xyz watts/meter.”
However the punch line never comes, so we non-helio types are left wondering if this all mean anything real here on the third planet?
Can someone “splain it?” 🙂
Hi everyone,
I’ve built a solar app for windows that I personally use for keeping up to date with current solar activity, it’s packed full of features that give ease of access to many sources of on-line data and more, in one place, which I’m adding to all the time, before I release a version of it (for free) for educational purposes and for solar enthusiasts at the end of the month, does anyone from the WUWT community have any suggestions? is there any data, images or solar related links you would like to have integrated into this program?
Here are two screen shots which includes a viewer, complete with zoom, scroll and drag of near real time solar images.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/001013.jpeg
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/001014.jpeg
Also let me know of any features you would like to see added.
Walter Allensworth says:
While I certainly have no answer to your precise quey perhaps I can explain the silence with an analogy. Let’s compare radiant energy in watts per meter squared with US GDP, the goods and services produced plus government spending minus imports, etc.
We know despite all the revisions, US GDP rises inexorably roughly 2% every year. Yet we also know the Federal Reserve is currently printing 10% of GDP from thin air.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual_2013
Despite the fact that your taxes did not decrease the economy is obviously not growing. I respectively suggest you forget BLS and BEA statistics and just believe your unsophisticated eyes.
The trend is for less all over.
Walt Allensworth says:
March 4, 2014 at 11:21 am
Every time there is an article on the sun it is begging for a punch line like “… and this means that the solar radiance receiver at the earth will be xyz watts/meter.”
However the punch line never comes, so we non-helio types are left wondering if this all mean anything real here on the third planet?
Can someone “splain it?” 🙂
If you ever invent time travel, travel back in time and ask all those futurists who claimed that our current solar cycle would be the most active ever, which would exacerbate Global warming.
Don’t forget to come back and give us all a good laugh!!
OLD SUNSPOT: The lifespan of a typical sunspot is two to three weeks. This one is about to turn three months: Carried around by the sun’s 27-day rotation, AR1990 is making its third transit of the visible solar disk. In previous apparitions it was known as AR1944 and AR1967. Each time it has appeared, the sunspot has unleashed at least one strong flare, the most recent being the X4.9-class blockbuster of Feb. 25th.
Because it changes daily, click on archives and change to March 5.
http://spaceweather.com/
ES says:
March 4, 2014 at 7:18 pm
Sunspots during last month were small, weighted the same as huge sunspots, but there were more small sunspots for a period. A typical sunspot should only be recorded on terrestrial instruments, viewing more of the solar disk is another cheat. btw sunspots are an indication of activity and not what you think they are. 🙂
John Finn says: March 4, 2014 at 2:07 am
No cherry picking method. The Sun is a messy place. So is Earth and the bit in between. You cannot pick apart complex chaotic systems using standard linear regression and associated numerology. It is a nonsense, period. Timing is everything and all there is to work with. These timelines are well aligned and deltas are consistently year on year using monthly data (the quality of which I cannot know). Start from the bottom and work up looking for inflection in preference to amplitude. The sunspot record is deliberately not smoothed. Ozone production and destruction looks suspiciously like a two-way street operating at high frequency, which is obscured by smoothing.
http://postimg.org/image/nxpfsxpyf/full
Rats, forgot to replace the source literal on HadCRUT4.2 stuff. Here is the correct one:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
Carla very interesting study the behavior of gas in the stratosphere.
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/#introduction
Sparks says:
March 4, 2014 at 5:23 pm “”””
That looks amazing. Could you add solar wind speed and density, etc?
“You cannot pick apart complex chaotic systems using standard linear regression and associated numerology.”
When the only tool in your kit is a hammer, the Sun and its history appears as a nail.
Jai Mitchell says:
March 3, 2014 at 2:26 pm
“Why does this image show the little ice age ending in 1890.
and your image from this post shows that the solar cycles continued to trend lower until several decades after warming began (until 1915)???”
CET average for 1900-1909 is colder than 1890-1899.
Fine – so what was the climate effect of SC20. I assume you accept that whatever it was it cannot have taken place before 1964. You saying “the sun is a messy place” simply confirms what It is clearly evident, i.e. on close analysis, there is little or no correlation between solar activity and climate.
Further to my post above
I should have added that I was responding to this comment.
I maintain there was no cooling. The cooling began in the 1940s. Warming began in the 1970s. This comment, therefore, is irrelevant.
No matter how “complex” or “chaotic” there is no way the earth’s climate can respond to solar activity 20 years in the future.
John Finn says:
March 5, 2014 at 5:26 am
-PDO and weaker sun in 1960s-1970s …. more cooling
I maintain there was no cooling. The cooling began in the 1940s. Warming began in the 1970s. This comment, therefore, is irrelevant.
The raw data shows quite a bit of cooling. All the data published in 1970s show a strong cooling. As long as you continue to believe the manipulated data you will continue to be confused.
Bob Weber says: @ March 3, 2014 at 6:08 pm
…What happens when solar activity goes up? Flux goes up. Flux is the energy per second from photons. Solar activity goes up, flux goes up, and photon energy goes up. When more photon energy hits the Earth, it warms up….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bob,
You might like this GRAPH
(H/T to Sleepalot)
Richard M says: @ March 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm
There’s really a pretty reasonable explanation…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Water plus the sun, (don’t forget clouds, snow and ice) that sounds about right.
Edim says: @ March 3, 2014 at 11:42 pm
The cycle is weak and long, as already observed (maximum should be at ~2014/15). The next minimum likely not before ~2021/22, assuming the cycle frequency remains low. Temperatures will plummet after the cycle maximum. The ‘postmodern’ minimum?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The L@ndersheit minimum since he is the one who predicted it many years ago. However he is a b@rycentric cyclo-mania pariah so it will probably be ‘Officially’ the Eddy minimum.
From WIKI – “In 1989, …. forecast a period of sunspot minima after 1990, accompanied by increased cold…. “
(Even if his basic theory is all wet he did predict the current minima and cool winters.)
John Finn says: @ March 4, 2014 at 1:43 am
The cooling clearly began in the 1940s. The 1970s were, if anything, warmer than the 1960s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not quite the 1970’s were cooler and it did not start warming up until the 1980s.
Quantity spots depends on the strength of the magnetic field of solar, and it tends to decrease.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-latest.gif
Raw data is available – so can you show that this raw data actually supports your assertion that there was cooling in the 1970s. Several independent researchers has produced their own global temperature index. All show pretty much he same result.
Perhaps you’ve got an alternative?
While I agree the cooling is miniscule, I didn’t suggest anything of the sort. Nor do those timelines show that. Sorry I missed the up thread part but I’m not with you here at all. What I’ve tried to point out is the exact opposite – a possible connection between sun spot activity and ozone that appears to be very fast acting (weeks or months, days even). Look again: When you see a marked rising edge to the sunspot count, total ozone drops and visa-versa (the ozone vertical axis is inverted to make it easier to follow). But you have to consider the range. If it’s flacking about fairly consistently ozone remains flat. The lower edge of the range is as important as the upper and the amplitude is secondary. It’s the relative localised amplitude that matters, not the change over the entire solar cycle. Yes it’s fuzzy and ill-defined but keep looking and mulling it over. Perhaps something to do with the photochemistry of ozone (or the timing thereof) I know nothing about. What we need first is a smarter filter; then perhaps we can come at it with regression. A clue at best, the data is understandably rough.
Nonsense, you’re blinded by traditional numerology. Get back to physical units of measurement and look harder, the essence is always in the detail. If the solar system was full of simplistic linear correlations it would be a very boring place.
John Finn says: @ March 4, 2014 at 5:34 am
…And my point was that OHC is still increasing. More energy is entering the oceans than is leaving.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not to worry John.
Earthshine % change in Albedo Graph note inflection point during the 1997-1998 Super El Nino.
Kenny says: @ March 4, 2014 at 7:11 am
@Steele……I feel the same way. Time will tell….I’ll wait for the call.
I’m interested to see what this summer brings as far as temps go….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Keep track of them. The temperatures at my local airport from last summer have been adjusted UP twice already ~2 to 4°F each time.
Instead of five days 90°F and over there are now fifteen days. (The temperatures are always adjusted up by 2-4°F within 24 hours because it is a rural station and it is ‘matched’ to the nearby cities.)
gary gulrud says: @ March 4, 2014 at 9:12 am
Next year it’ll be two centuries since the last VEI 8 eruption. I’m thinking we’re about overdue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DON”T SAY THAT!
(Now go knock on wood. /sarc)
Actually it is the He 3 /He 4 ratio that is of interest.
If Yellowstone ever blows we are all in a world of hurt and no I do not think it is going to blow but it is worth watching since it is a geologically active area just as Iceland and the Kamchatka Peninsula are.
Many thanks for the link. I’m nowhere near done but learning a good deal.
ren says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:30 am
That is.
Gail Combs says:
March 5, 2014 at 8:46 am
Actually, VEI 8 is open ended. I only had in mind another Tambora, VEI 7 I’m corrected. Sorry for the needless concern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano
BTW, your’re a treasure, Ma’am.
John Finn, I remember the 1970s (and not from the TV show) – I was a teenager then. This winter’s record temperatures and snow are comparable to the winters from the 70’s, especially 1972-73, and 77-78, 78-79 (in Michigan). It appears this year will be listed at the top with the last two winters in the record books. So while the CET graph doesn’t show it necessarily, the many years during the 1970s are remembered here as “COOOLD and SNOWY”.
One year during the 1970s, our N-S road was drifted over completely, the snow drifts were so high they reached the edge of our single story ranch house roof, and a guy with a payloader had to dig out the entire mile stretch of road, including our driveway. Our town this year looks like it did then: mountains of snow piled up everywhere. We’ve had no melt yet. Provided spring ever returns, it’s going to be a doozy in terms of flooding.
I suppose though that after “smoothing” my memory of the weather during those winters with an orwellian 11-year triple double running average mean statistical machine, I’ll then recall the 1970s as a time of “warming”. /sarc off
Gail – isn’t that amazing: block the sun and the heat does a disappearing act! Wow, who would’ve thought that with all that CO2 warming us up!
John Finn says: @ March 5, 2014 at 8:16 am
Raw data is available – so can you show that this raw data actually supports your assertion that there was cooling in the 1970s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another GRAPH showing 1975 was very cold. Since I almost got killed in a snowstorm in SOUTH CAROLINA at that time (see: COLUMBIA, SC: SC’s ‘Blizzard of ’73’ memories still vivid) and the headlines were screaming about a Coming Ice Age, I remember that time very very well. (Got shipped to Germany in 1975 too.)
gary gulrud says: @March 5, 2014 at 8:59 am
Just pulling your leg, I couldn’t resist since I had just read the story yesterday.
Bob Weber says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:25 am
John Finn, I remember the 1970s (and not from the TV show) – I was a teenager then….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I too remember the 1960s and 1970s and the numb toes, frost bite and 30 degrees below zero (F). I rode my horse bareback with his blanket on in the winter it was so cold and he was not even clipped. Never turned a sweat either. (1966-68 in Rochester NY)
John Finn says:
March 5, 2014 at 8:16 am
Richard M says:
March 5, 2014 at 6:41 am
John Finn says:
March 5, 2014 at 5:26 am
-PDO and weaker sun in 1960s-1970s …. more cooling
I maintain there was no cooling. The cooling began in the 1940s. Warming began in the 1970s. This comment, therefore, is irrelevant.
The raw data shows quite a bit of cooling.
——-
Raw data is available – so can you show that this raw data actually supports your assertion that there was cooling in the 1970s. Several independent researchers has produced their own global temperature index. All show pretty much he same result.
Perhaps you’ve got an alternative?
The raw data works fine for me. I suspect the various errors average out pretty close to zero over time. Hence, my alternative already exists. Just look at the raw data.
Unfortunately, no tool exists to plot this data that I have seen. The climate cartel hides it pretty well.
Bob Weber says: March 5, 2014 at 9:25 am
Exactly so. To say there’s no cooling over that period is a nonsense. Just look at the increasing amplitude of the diffentials (HadCRUT4 – Annual Signal) as the cycle progressed and the downturns got deeper. Wilder extremes – exactly what’s happening now.
You don’t plot temperature and draw a bloody line over it – it hides the truth. What is the difference between weather and climate? Climate is not the average of weather, it’s the consistency of weather – big difference!
AJB says:
I remember Mr. Finn on this Solar cycle 20 was not associated with cooling kick at Warwick Hughes’ site back in 2008 when David Archibald was just getting rolling.
He appears still to be working out the bugs. GLWT.
Gail Combs says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:30 am
A Solar connection is just speculation but the Dalton was kicked off by the high Arctic VEI 6 eruption of Laki. Mr. Finn is fond of saying the Earth was simply emerging from it a cooled condition when the Dalton happened along.
But the backend of the Dalton was occasioned with the eruptions of Soufriere in 1812, Mayon in 1814 and finally Tambora in 1815.
David Archibald says:
“The 1890s were very cold due to weaker solar output due to a de Vries cycle low.”
There was an increase in cold shots to the mid latitudes through the weaker solar cycles 12 to 14.
Two to three weak cycles occur together on average every 10 solar cycles (110.7yrs), as in late Spörer (1570’s on.), late Maunder, and Dalton minimums. Cycles 12-14 came earlier than the average placement, the reason for this can be demonstrated astronomically. Cycles 24&25 are back on track at the average interval for the weaker cycles. Twice the 110.7yr period does not actually fit the de Vries periodicity.
gary gulrud says: @ March 5, 2014 at 2:25 pm
Gail Combs says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:30 am
A Solar connection is just speculation….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are a heck of a lot of papers out there that disagree with that.
Unfortunately if I put up more than two URLs the comment gets booted into the ether so I will use Poptech’s link to his listing of papers LINKY
Here is one that is on target and from 2013.
Gail Combs,
You are an encyclopedia of information!
I would be tempted to say that I would like to know as much as you may have forgotten but then you may not have forgotten anything. I always look forward to your contributions. Thank you.
Gail Combs says:
March 5, 2014 at 5:21 pm
Why looky here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/180/4082/185.abstract
Dr. S is so self-effacing.
I suspect using fourmilab’s orrery a deep minimum 1750 BC possibly dating a hapiru vizier in Egypt.
Leif,
In 2011 you wrote on your webpage http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png : “Welcome to Solar Max”. I admit that I also thought a long time (until the end of 2013) that the maximum of this cycle was behind us. But the sun’s behaviour is unpredictable…
rikgheysens says:
March 6, 2014 at 12:34 am
In 2011 you wrote on your webpage http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png : “Welcome to Solar Max”. I admit that I also thought a long time (until the end of 2013) that the maximum of this cycle was behind us. But the sun’s behaviour is unpredictable…
I rather think the Sun is somewhat predictable. Again, compare with cycle 14 [and others]: The ‘maximum can be a long drawn-out affair taking several years to unfold. SC24 is no exception. The ‘flaw’ comes in when one thinks that the ‘maximum’ is a well-defined moment in time. It is not.
lsvalgaard says:
March 6, 2014 at 5:29 am
rikgheysens says:
March 6, 2014 at 12:34 am
In 2011 you wrote on your webpage http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png : “Welcome to Solar Max”. I admit that I also thought a long time (until the end of 2013) that the maximum of this cycle was behind us. But the sun’s behaviour is unpredictable…
I rather think the Sun is somewhat predictable. Again, compare with cycle 14 [and others]: The ‘maximum can be a long drawn-out affair taking several years to unfold. SC24 is no exception. The ‘flaw’ comes in when one thinks that the ‘maximum’ is a well-defined moment in time. It is not.
+++++++++++
Being “somewhat predictable” to some is like being somewhat pregnant. But I understand what Leif says here. For example, it is known that there are cycles, we just don’t know precisely what the shape (magnitude) of all the plotted parameters is going to be.
Mario Lento says:
March 6, 2014 at 8:27 am
Being “somewhat predictable” to some is like being somewhat pregnant.
I disagree. ‘Predictable’ can be quantified to degrees, while pregnancy cannot, so the two things are fundamentally different.
lsvalgaard says:
March 6, 2014 at 8:55 am
Mario Lento says:
March 6, 2014 at 8:27 am
Being “somewhat predictable” to some is like being somewhat pregnant.
I disagree. ‘Predictable’ can be quantified to degrees, while pregnancy cannot, so the two things are fundamentally different.
++++++++++
Agreed – that’s why I wrote “Being “somewhat predictable to some… “. I agree completely with what you’re saying. I just did not say it as well as you.
Henry Galt. says:
March 5, 2014 at 2:03 am
“That looks amazing. Could you add solar wind speed and density, etc?”
Thanks Henry,
I’ve added all the usual sources for daily viewing, There’s actually a lot more than just an image viewer, I’ve been working on many different tools to add to the program.
I’ll be adding the simulator tool as demo (for feedback), it’s unfinished but it can be used to view custom STEREO Heliographic Maps or satellite cloud mosaics etc…
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/001015.jpg
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/001016.jpg
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/001017.jpg
It’s an on going project and It’s basically a new toy for the solar geeks to play with. lol
Dr.Svalgaard, so basically the sun is not in sinc this cycle, right?? The northern hemisphere changed polarity first and now the south is changing giving us the “double peaks” correct?? Also, I understand the northern hemisphere is drifting back to ‘neutral’ polatity. Is it possible for a hemisphere to be neutral in polarity …how about the sun as a whole, or can both hemisphere’s be of the same polarity ?
Dominic Manginell says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:00 am
“Is it possible for a hemisphere to be neutral in polarity …how about the sun as a whole, or can both hemisphere’s be of the same polarity ?”
During solar minimum either north or south geographical region has either positive or negative magnetic polarity, during solar maximum the magnetic polarities cross each-other at the geographical equator, there are always two polarities, positive(+) and negative(-).
Dominic Manginell says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:00 am
Dr.Svalgaard, so basically the sun is not in sinc this cycle, right?? The northern hemisphere changed polarity first and now the south is changing giving us the “double peaks” correct?? Also, I understand the northern hemisphere is drifting back to ‘neutral’ polarity. Is it possible for a hemisphere to be neutral in polarity …how about the sun as a whole, or can both hemisphere’s be of the same polarity ?
All of this has happened before and this cycle is not especially abnormal, see e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202012%20SH12A-07.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
March 7, 2014 at 6:15 pm
“All of this has happened before and this cycle is not especially abnormal”
The current cycle is weaker, not “abnormal”, and it’s certainly not a cycle that would exacerbate global warming.
Leif thinks I’m pushing a theory.
lsvalgaard says:
March 6, 2014 at 5:29 am
I rather think the Sun is somewhat predictable. Again, compare with cycle 14 [and others]: The ‘maximum can be a long drawn-out affair taking several years to unfold. SC24 is no exception. The ‘flaw’ comes in when one thinks that the ‘maximum’ is a well-defined moment in time. It is not.
I can only ascertain that, after about 60 months, SC 24 resembles much more to SC 12 than to SC 14. See http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/Comparison_betw_SC24_SC12_14.pdf. According to http://www.solen.info/solar/, the smoothly monthly maximum could be reached in October 2013 (consultation on March 8, 2014). I don’t see the many repeating peaks of SC 14 in SC 24.
lsvalgaard says:
March 7, 2014 at 6:15 pm
Dominic Manginell says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:00 am
Dr.Svalgaard, so basically the sun is not in sinc this cycle, right?? The northern hemisphere changed polarity first and now the south is changing giving us the “double peaks” correct?? Also, I understand the northern hemisphere is drifting back to ‘neutral’ polarity…
All of this has happened before and this cycle is not especially abnormal, see e.g.
——————————————————–
Maybe dis will help Dominic..
According too…
http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
Asymmetric Solar Polar Field Reversals
…”””the strongly asymmetric solar Cycle 19, when the Southern
Hemisphere was most active before sunspot maximum and the South Pole duly
reversed first, followed by the Northern Hemisphere more than a year later, when
that hemisphere became most active. Solar cycles since then have had the opposite
asymmetry, with the Northern Hemisphere being most active before solar
maximum. We show that polar field reversals for these cycles have as expected
all happened first in the North. This is especially noteworthy for the present
solar Cycle 24. We suggest that the association of two or more peaks of solar
activity when separated by hemispheres with correspondingly different times of
polar field reversals is a general feature of the cycle”””,…
And Dominic one hemisphere will dominate for over 65years sometimes.
For me .. a clue.. to the Interstellar magnetic field and wind background. May be, showing signs of some periodicity? Go figure interstellar clouds located inside super rotating shell (current sheets). Surrounded by other rotating super shells. Showing alternating polarity on a 65 to hundred or so years periodicity? That changes the the GCR direction with IMF (interstellar M F) polarity.
Dominic .. why not ask Dr. S., if he thinks that the hemispheric asymmetry is now changing back to southern dominate?
Oh boy .. now wondering about the evolution of sectors and boundarys over the solar surface for a 65 to a 100 years or so … period.
The solar heliotail continues hundreds of AU in the downwind, showing ‘its’ alternating polarity, we have learned.
Carla says:
March 8, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Oh boy .. now wondering about the evolution of sectors and boundaries over the solar surface for a 65 to a 100 years or so … period.
some info here: http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf and here
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
rikgheysens says:
March 8, 2014 at 7:53 am
I don’t see the many repeating peaks of SC 14 in SC 24.
Part of the reason is that we are not done with SC24 yet. So far we have only seen three peaks, more to come.
lsvalgaard says:
March 8, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Carla says:
March 8, 2014 at 12:13 pm
———————————–
Thank you Dr. S.
Fig. 4 page 9 of “Long Term Evolution of Solar Sector Structure”
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
Is showing pretty much what I was wondering. What is the overall drift I’m seeing there?
Anyone modeled that wrt to how that might appear moving across the solar surface in time..?
Carla says:
March 8, 2014 at 5:06 pm
Anyone modeled that wrt to how that might appear moving across the solar surface in time..?
We can see the drift of the pattern at the surface. It is not understood why it lives so long [decades or centuries]
lsvalgaard says:
March 8, 2014 at 2:28 pm
“Part of the reason is that we are not done with SC24 yet. So far we have only seen three peaks, more to come.”
Leif, that’s fine call a spike a peak.
I believe this part of your argument is sound.
Poptech says:
March 9, 2014 at 6:42 pm
“If SSN is taken to be a proxy of some kind of power output variation that may act as a “forcing” on climate. Then one would not expect it to correlate directly to temperature”
I believe this part of your argument is sound.
so you would regard all reports that there is a direct correlation as spurious and invalid?
Greg Goodman says:
March 4, 2014 at 10:18 am
“If SSN is taken to be a proxy of some kind of power output variation that may act as a “forcing” on climate. Then one would not expect it to correlate directly to temperature”
Poptech says:
March 9, 2014 at 6:42 pm
“I believe this part of your argument is sound.”
lsvalgaard says: March 9, 2014 at 10:31 pm
“so you would regard all reports that there is a direct correlation as spurious and invalid?”
If the question is, if the sunspot proxy as a whole is an indicator of when the suns magnetic poles positive(+) and negative(-) are directly facing us? then yes, it does effect weather and there is direct effects which are very dangerous, the weather can effect regional temperature trends. Which are currently interpreted as anthropological driven climate.
The difference between the suns magnetic poles rotating while facing towards us and when they are rotating at right angles to the elliptic plane, produces a 100% increase in energy output. Peak intensity also has a slight variable known as TSI (Total Solar Irradiation).
The Sun drives it!
Sparks says:
March 10, 2014 at 3:06 pm
The difference between the sun’s magnetic poles rotating while facing towards us and when they are rotating at right angles to the elliptic plane, produces a 100% increase in energy output.
No, that is just nonsense [as written – you may obscurely mean something else].
lsvalgaard says:
March 10, 2014 at 3:44 pm
So.. it’s not what you call nonsense then, just written differently from how you would put it. I don’t have a problem with making “one liners” and giving a link to some lengthy research! where would fun in that be? 🙂
You do know I’m correct tho, maybe a bit obscure, I’ll give you that one!