Guest essay by David Archibald
There were two papers published in 2013 that, when considered together, paint a bleak picture of North American climate and agriculture for the rest of the century and beyond. Firstly from the abstract of “Multidecadal to multi-century scale collapses of Northern Hemisphere monsoons over the past millennium”1 by Asmerom et al.:
“Late Holocene climate in western North America was punctuated by periods of extended aridity called megadroughts.” And “Several megadroughts are evident, including a multicentury one, AD 1350–1650, herein referred to as Super Drought, which corresponds to the coldest period of the Little Ice Age. Synchronicity between southwestern North American, Chinese, and West African monsoon precipitation suggests the megadroughts were hemispheric in scale. Northern Hemisphere monsoon strength over the last millennium is positively correlated with Northern Hemisphere temperature and North Atlantic SST.” And “the megadroughts, including the Super Drought, coincide with solar insolation minima, suggesting that solar forcing of sea surface and atmospheric temperatures may generate variations in the strength of Northern Hemisphere monsoons.”
So droughts in North America are coincident with solar insolation minima. We already know of the cause and effect relationship between solar cycle minima and East African rainfall. West African drought has been found to be linked to Atlantic sea surface temperatures2.
With that knowledge, all we need to predict the timing of the next megadrought in North America is a long term solar activity forecast. That was also provided in 2013 by Steinhilber and Beer3. They predict a deep low in solar activity starting straight away and continuing for 150 years. This is Figure 4 from that paper:
Figure 4 from Steinhilber and Beer – Prediction of solar activity on the left axis and total solar irradiance on the right axis. M, D and G refer to the Maunder, Dalton and Gleissberg minima respectively. The lighter grey band is based on FFT (fast Fourier transformation) and the darker grey band is based on WTAR (wavelet decomposition using autoregression). As the paper demonstrates, amplitudes of solar activity are better predicted by the FFT method than by the WTAR method.
In effect, Figure 4 predicts a megadrought for North America from at least 2050 to 2200. Generations of people will experience what a Dalton Minimum is like, all their lives. In the meantime it will get colder and drier. In terms of the effect on agricultural productivity, productivity of corn production in the Corn Belt falls by 10% for each 1°C fall in annual average temperature. The Corn Belt also moves south by 144 km for each 1°C fall in annual average temperature. Soil quality declines to the south of the Corn Belt though so farms won’t be as productive. For example, one hundred years ago Alabama had four million acres planted to cotton. Today only 1.3 million acres are devoted to all agricultural crops. Unable to compete with the Corn Belt as it is now, a lot of acreage in Alabama has reverted to pasture and woodland.
A fall in annual average temperature of 2.0°C might decrease production by 20% and the southward move to poorer soils might decrease production by 10% (purely a guess, but I do have a botany major). What drought might do on top of all that is a 30% fall for a total decrease in production in the range of 50% to 60%. Two big corne states, Illinois and Indiana, had corn production falls of 30% in the 2012 drought year:
The US could then feed 600 million vegetarians instead of the current 1.2 billion vegetarians. Food that we would want to eat will become expensive with wide price swings. That is what these two papers are saying about what the future holds for us.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014).
References
- Asmerom, Y. et al., 2013, “Multidecadal to multi-century scale collapses of Northern Hemisphere monsoons over the past millennium” PNAS vol.110 no. 24 9651-9656
- Shanahan, T.M et al., 2009 “Atlantic Forcing of Persistent Drought in West Africa” Science, Vol. 324 no 5925 pp. 377-380
- Steinhilber, F. and Beer, J., 2013, “Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years” Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, vol. 118, 1-7
Particularly with solar forecasts It seems like there’s a scientific smorgasbord. You’re able to find a published study that says virtually anything will happen.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
While I think Professor Archibald is overly pessimistic, I hold his concerns. Cold kills. Warmer is better.
The current trend is similar to the trend that existed circa 1930. We seem to be in for some hard years in the near future, and perhaps even harder years, due to cooling, over the next several decades.
Pray for rain.
Drop the Ethanol fuel requirement.
Revise river management procedures.
Mandate Xeriscape horticultural practices.
Super insulate.
Bring back coal.
Pray that increasing CO2 levels really do cause Global Warming.
Pray.
This would agree with previous Russian papers. Buy woolies not swimwear.
Abandon energy taxes.
This may wake up the CO2 bunch to the fact that models are not scientific proof of anything.
Am I mis-reading the bit about vegetarians? It actually takes more land to grow crops for animal feeding than it takes to directly feed humans. So I’m not sure what David is on about there. It IS a fact that (like it or not) if the whole world went veggie, we actually would have enough land by some margin (if all the animals bred for meat were slaughtered first, of course). This isn’t airy-fairy stuff, the studies have been done again and again – it takes an awful lot of land to produce meat for consumption.
So warmer is better, at least for agriculture. Why didn’t somebody think of that before, you know, maybe looked at history? We could have been celebrating the impending AGW not twisting ourselves into pretzels trying to get rid of it. Now we have to hope it’s real.
Right now we have warm oceans and {due to a quiet Sun} cooler land temperatures. This will actually cause increased rain, especially near the coastal areas, until the oceans cool.
Yes Jim, you have misunderstood. David is saying that if we skipped meat we would be able to feed 1.2B people each year. If there is the type of cool weather/drought then we would be able to feed half as many. He says vegetarians in order to cut out any discussion about this type of diet vs that. He has assumed exactly what you stated.
Chalk this one up to my confusion. But it looks like the current solar maxima is one of the strongest in the last few centuries. yet others talk like there has not been one (even those not willing to jump on the AGW bandwagon). The impending minima will be detrimental, but why is no one looking at the current maxima as a prime mover of the recent moderate warming?
The amount of land capable of producing human-utilizable food stuffs is a fraction of the land that can produce fodder which can produce high-quality animal fat and high-quality animal protein via ruminant animals. Since many of these are cool-season forage crops, (grown for their vegetative yield) they would be better suited for this change than the grain crops. Many existing forage species are more drought tolerant than the human-utilizable grain crops. And drought suppressed pasture or rangeland can still produce utilizable feed, while a drought suppressed grain crop is a failure.
It is NOT a fact that it takes less land to feed vegetarians than omnivores, although that’s frequently stated. This conversation has been as thoroughly muddled as the climate change conversation, I’m afraid. Often by the same folks …
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
May 14, 2014 at 5:06 am
Let’s ignore the fact that humans can’t actually live very successfully on a purely vegetarian diet, and the fact that crops could only feed that number of people when grown as monocultures, While animals can successfully cohabitate with trees and other flora/fauna. Efficient horticulture precludes diversity. Let’s also ignore the fact that food animals can consume grades of feed and successfully graze on land that is not viable for horticulture, and just love to eat nitrogen fixing plant species that are not prolific enough for human survival. Like it or not, meat/fish consumption is necessary for the survival of our species.
The impending minima will be detrimental, but why is no one looking at the current maxima as a prime mover of the recent moderate warming?
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2000&starttime=00%3A00&endday=14&endmonth=05&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Regarding The Ghost’s comments, a lot of beef is raised on land that cannot be farmed; the Nevada desert, for example.
“Pray for rain.” I hope that is not what our children resort to. But with the Liberals dumbing down education with Common Core, it may be all they can do.
I for one would not recommend future generations simply resort to divine intervention to save their pink butts.
Solutions using human ingenuity in science and engineering :
1. Large scale nuclear-powered desalination plants along the California coast and Gulf coast to push irrigation water to farms.
2. Agreements with Canada for fresh water canals from abundant northern lakes to the lower 48 agriculture (Dakotas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa) in return for a portion of the wheat and corn. It is likely the Canadian growing season may be too shortened by Global cooling to sustain reliable wheat production.
3. Solar-driven desalination plants along Mexico’s Gulf of California/Sea of Cortez to push irrigation water to the very productive Mexican fruits and vegetable farms.
4. Feed liberals Soylent Green.
bobl says:
May 14, 2014 at 5:31 am
_________
Good points. One might add that vast sweeps of North America are unsuitable for crop production, yet are viable, if marginal, grazing land.
Thanks to David Archibald for another interesting thread, but I’m convinced that any future world hunger problems will not come from climate issues, but from political manipulations, just as we see now.
Dr. Archibald
As the paper demonstrates, amplitudes of solar activity are better predicted by the FFT method than by the WTAR method.
Indeed, but may not necessarily be correct.
Using just three components from the sunspot spectrum (corrected by the more accurate ‘Korte – Constable’ geomagnetic dipole, rather than low resolution ‘Knudsen’ dipole as used by Steinhilber, result indicates that the WTAR method may be the correct one.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Stein-Vuk500.htm
As Steinhilber said in his paper:
Note that the variation on the millennial time-scale of F depends on the geomagnetic field. If another geomagnetic field reconstruction like for example Korte M & Constable CG (2005) The geomagnetic dipole moment over the last 7000 years – new results from a global model.) were used F would show another (long-term) trend on millennial time scales.
@Big Jim. I’m not an expert at farming but my farmer friends always remind me that the land used to graze animals is not suited to raising crops. You can’t just take a beef farm and switch over to cash crops. I’m also told a cow has 3 lives, the longest of them spent grazing in open fields and drinking from natural groundwater sources (round these parts anyway). That land and water can’t be used for anything else. So please don’t try and convert beef resources to vegetarian resources in order to prove veggies beat beef in a resource-limited world. It’s a false comparison.
philjourdan asks, “The impending minima will be detrimental, but why is no one looking at the current maxima as a prime mover of the recent moderate warming?”
Answer: Simple. Because the sun cannot be taxed for liberal’s wealth re-distribution project. On the other hand, tax schemes to generate revenue in furtherance of political power and control via reduced carbons consumption are possible (For ex. see: California’s current path to its de-industrialization). They liberals also figured out how to buy the “science” they need via government grant dependency of most scientists.
I have a pond , 4 feet deep, 5 foot wide and 9 ft long, In the interests of science i threw in my fridges ice trays . Now scale that up and that would be a a vast size iceberg, bigger than the one that might break away in the Antarctic,
The pond water level went up zip, nada, nothing.
Predictions of future peril which are based on creative curve- fitting of historical data make interesting scary stories.
Whoa! Some frightening stuff there.
“Be prepared” would be a reasonable reaction.
Doesn’t fit the CAGW meme so the MSM will ignore it.
Joel O’Bryan says:
“Answer: Simple. Because the sun cannot be taxed for liberal’s wealth re-distribution project.”
Just because is hasn’t been tried doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be done. My grandparents would never have thought taxing carbon dioxide was possible. 😉
How long before a “breathing tax” on all of us for the crime of exhaling co2? I would never put it past those who control more (but not enough yet for them) of our lives.
Colder and drier is a positive feedback – clearly we’re heading for a tipping point. What is the UN doing about this plunge toward snowball Earth? We’re all going to freeze to death in the dark! Definitely worse than we thought.
The sad thing is, if this proves to be the reality we face then fools like Barack Obama are taking us 180º away from the path we should be on. Ignorance is difficult to reverse, especially when there is so much money in play to stay the course. That money will not be wisely spent creating technologies and policies that we’ll need in a colder climate. Those nations that will be home to vast numbers of cold climate refugees (Finland, pay attention) should be pissed at the waste.
I am not convinced CO₂ would mitigate cooling much, but it certainly improves drought tolerance.
increase of co2 should increase the yield offsetting the loss from other causes.
we have seen an 11% increase of greening around the world in the most arid regions because of an increase of co2.
Data from the Great Plains of North America suggest that prior to 1500 dust bowl type droughts were the norm rather than once in a century occurrences. The high plains were covered in rolling sand dune fields and the tall grass prairies were short grass and semi arid. Fortunately for us, humans have seemingly adapted or invented and innovated our way through everything thrown at us thus far and since the rate at which we are doing so is increasing exponentially I don’t see us faltering just because of a little drought.
For those who believe in AGW but still have the ability to think and read (very few I fear) I see an
“Oh Sh’t” moment. Burn more stuff!!!
Weak solar cycles are nothing to be alarmed about, we maybe looking at a sequence of lower solar cycles to come (or maybe not), so during this period the thinking caps go on, therefor any climate papers that “Jump the shark” on this issue before the facts are in should be frowned upon severely.
Remember the point that solar physicist Leif Svalgaard made about how this is the weakest solar cycle anyone alive today has ever experienced?
Well, it’s true, and furthermore no one alive today with our level of technology has ever observed and studied such a weak solar cycle. This is new ground and new science. enjoy! 🙂
Exactly in the same areas of increased ionization creates a blockade polar vortex at an altitude of about 23 km.
http://oi57.tinypic.com/30u39e0.jpg
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2qa4tu0.jpg
Archibald’s hypothesis has a 2C drop in north-central US. That’s about a 1C global drop. He compares to Dalton of early 1800s. But Dalton was earlier in LIA recovery of temps. The next half century is an apple to his orange
A global drop of 0.4C would be extreme. A 0.6 drop in Iowa is proportionately reasonable. This would return us to the earlier part of the 20th century.
I am a climate skeptic but I find Archibald’s thesis alarmist and better for sales of his book than for planning.
With CAGW as an example, we should be mindful that arguments to “raise awareness” or “stimulate discussion” are opposed to reasoned consideration. Catastrophic global cooling deserves as much skeptical thinking as catastrophic global warming.
Average counts of neutrons in Oulu exceeds 6300.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
We feel this in California albeit for different reasons. We are not very dependent on the Monsoon here (in fact Monsoonal moisture is often a negative for our ag community). However the same forces that kill off the Monsoon make the NE Pacific cold, especially off our immediate coast. That is morphine for mid latitude systems in this part of the world.
Interesting, while the MSM hype a short sharp heat event in California, there are two evil fingers of Arctic Air, pincers of doom, into the middle of North America. Some really, really cold temperatures today especially in the Intermountain Region as well as the Great Lakes and Mid South.
It seems you guys are still not getting it.
I can feel (here in Africa) that the sun is sharper/hotter/lighter
It is the weakening solar magnetic fields
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
causing cooling by allowing more energetic particles to escape which in turn cause more ozone, peroxide & others to be formed TOA (to protect us) .
More of these substances TOA cause more light to be deflected to space….causing global cooling,
if you can predict what the solar magnetic fields will look like for the next 4 decades you are on your way to finding the truth…
Think of the Hale Nicholson cycle..
Excuse me, I just have to smile at this “food for fuel” stuff. It is true that a significant portion of our corn crop goes for animal feed; however, that is not its only use, and substantial portions are used for ethanol, oil extraction, dextrose production & other industrial uses.
Also, please realize that operators of confined animal feedlot operations (CAFOs) have many options to these feed crops. Cattle are basically walking fermenters and are being fed many waste products including dried chicken crap (poultry litter) with government approval, see: http://extension.missouri.edu/p/G2077
Our rendering industries produce tons of alternative feed materials, including hydrolyzed feather meal, which are high in nutritional value and lower in cost than corn or soybeans: http://www.americanproteins.com/hydrolyzed-meal.htm
Even many industrial waste products end up in our livestock, including waste food products, food processing residues etc. See “Moo Can Chew” about recycling chewing gum wastes in cattle:
http://www.engconf.org/pastconf/9akpre.html
I once testified to the USDA and FDA about the practice of some operations to feed their processing wastewater biosolids into cattle, which is pretty gross because of the chemical contamination aspects (wastewater coagulants and polymers). This violates AAFCO guidelines.
Folks, know your topics.
“This may wake up the CO2 bunch to the fact that models are not scientific proof of anything.”
***
Fat chance.
CRS, DrPH says:
May 14, 2014 at 9:41 am
Excuse me, I just have to smile at this “food for fuel” stuff.
_____________________
Please elaborate. The rest of your post has good info, but what “stuff” are you describing?
I find it absurd to be making predictions this far out, unless they are treated as speculative theories. Solar scientists only started getting a better grip on the current weak cycle in the last decade so it’s crazy to plot a prediction to the year 2500.
To me, this weakens the credibility of any good information based on connections that are legit.
There is a lot more speculating going on here too, which includes the shifting of major crop growing regions if global cooling occurred. One side is already stating that climate disruption is happening around us, including “corn farmers in Iowa” as Obama claimed last week.
Clearly, that side is conditioning everyone’s brain to imagine a future world with catastrophic global warming(and hypnotizing minds into thinking they live in it right now).
Since creatures and plants on earth have almost always done much better with warming than cooling and we are planning to spend trillions on preparing for the biologically better outcome, it’s a good thing to get minds thinking about the consequences of the risk that would truly create widespread catastrophic hardship……..global cooling.
The big problem (for me) is that when you make it part of a forecast out to 2500, it’s sounds even less credible than using a greenhouse gas predicting catastrophic global warming to the year 2100.
At least we can agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with some warming effect(beneficial so far) and the disagreement is over how much future warming will occur from it.
On the sun, I find it hard to believe that many scientists would go much farther than the next few cycles and even then, with low confidence.
Another way to put it. We know that CO2 levels have increased every year for many years and there is little disagreement about humans burning fossil fuels as the reason and that CO2 will continue to go up for a lengthy period……….unless we take extraordinary measures to cut down on emissions.
On the sun. The geomagnetic field and sunspot cycle only recently plunged and its hard to explain what the underlying cause is (what started it) and to apply a principle of understanding of that cause to project the effect very far out……..especially 500 years from now.
Mike Maguire says
……..especially 500 years from now.
Henry says
Agreed. Good comment. This post is absurd. They must rather look at the next few decades.
to quote from
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind, as was the case in Joseph’s time. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
Last winter was very cold, windy, and dry, dry, dry. We got all of about five inches of snow all winter. As a result there are scads of evergreens standing dead in everyone’s landscaping; I lost about half of what I had planted. Other places are worse off.
Usually, when we get a bout of cold weather there is a lot of snow I can use to cover my planting — but not last winter.
[snip – show a citation, and I’ll publish it. You simply stating it as such while lecturing people is just more of your usual drive by crypto comment leaving the reader trying to figure out where you are getting your information. I’m tired of it. – Anthony]
The data disagrees with you. I will trust the data over models every day.
Here in Central MN, last Summer was a disappointment for farmers. Not enough heating degree days. Statewide and in neighboring WI, median farm income was $44K.
If they don’t get into their fields soon they might as well blow this season off.
For comparison here are forecasts of the timing and amount of the coming cooling taken from my blog at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
“It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.
With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.
In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 (NH)
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13 ( Global)
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
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.”
With the threat of starvation and limited food supply, I guarantee that there will far fewer vegetarians and vegans.
“Looking hundreds of years ahead the greenhouse effect could become a serious problem.”
Good grief, if only he hadn’t felt the need to say that. Aliens from outer space could become a serious problem too.
David, firstly, thanks for your post. Always good to see other contributors work.
However, I have some difficulties with your claims.
First, the main work that you cite by Asmerom et al relies entirely on the rather pathetic work of Moberg. Moberg is famous in certain circles for refusing to reveal his data to Steve McIntyre … and now, simply because it fits your hypothesis, you claim that Moberg’s work is jes’ fine???
I have a rule of thumb in these matters which states …
As a result, as soon as Moberg’s work comes up in a list of references for some study, I toss the study in the trash. Moberg disowned it by not providing the data, it’s just advertisement at that point and not science of any sort.
The Asmerom work also depends on the reconstruction of past TSI values from 10Be values. As I showed here, these have large problems. And Leif Svalgaard provided these two references in total agreement with my findings.
In addition,the Asmerom work depends on flawed reconstructions of past sunspot activity. As Leif Svalgaard has repeatedly pointed out, pre-1949 sunspot numbers have been underestimated by about 20%. Or to be more precise, the counting method changed in 1949, and as a result, the counts prior to 1949 need to be adjusted to conform with the modern counting method.
Taken together, these cast very serious doubt on the Asmerom work. I would never consider citing it myself, on my planet it’s not science in any form.
Next, you point to a “Prediction of Solar Activity For The Next 500 Years” by Beer and Steinhilber … seriously? Well, I guess you are being serious, but seriously? Five hundred years? We can’t predict solar activity two cycles out, and these jokers say they can predict it for half a millennium? Give me a break.
In any case, I took a look at their cited work, which is here. They first made a reconstruction of the “solar modulation potential” back to 9400 BC. Then they did a Fourier transform of the data, and a wavelet transform of the data, and used that to forecast the next 500 years of the solar modulation potential.
They have only provided the most minimal testing of their method, by comparing it to white noise … white noise? Srsly? And since that appears to be their idea of “testing”, I would have discounted the paper entirely on that basis alone. They also only tested by calculating the “r” value, and not the statistical significance of that “r” value. I’d junk the study on that basis alone.
Next, they seem entirely innocent of knowledge of the effect of autocorrelation on the significance of statistical results. I suppose that may be related to the fact that they have not provided any tests of statistical significance at all … another reason to send the study to the circular file.
Next, they only tested their method against their own reconstruction of the “solar modulation potential”. Remember that the “solar modulation potential” is a measure invented by one of the authors (Steinhilber). It supposedly has some relationship with TSI. But as near as I can tell, the authors never tested their method against real solar data … say what? Another reason to put the study in the circular file.
Next, they keep referring to their reconstruction of the solar modulation potential as “data”. It is nothing of the sort. Near as I can tell, no actual solar data appears anywhere in their study.
Next, in a fit of terminal insanity, they’ve used 22-year running means on their “data”. here’s their description:
Here, they’ve combined two bad methods into one. The first bad method is the use of running means. The second is their choice of periods. They are sampling a signal which varies above and below 22 years, and they are sampling it every 22 years. That’s the worst sampling period imaginable. I did an analysis of another study that made the identical two mistakes in my post “Sunny Spots Along The Paraná River“, you should read it to see how their method turns even valid data into garbage.
Next, the reconstruction that they are trying to pass off as “data” is only one of several such historical reconstructions. In fact, there is little agreement on the past levels of solar magnetism. See the WUWT post here for a discussion.
Finally, I’ve never seen any reports of successes using either Fourier transforms or wavelet decomposition methods to predict the future evolution of chaotic systems. If that approach worked, people would be using it to predict everything from the stock market to sunspots to next month’s weather. Since they are not, I have to say that the odds of predicting 500 years of solar activity by Fourier analysis are zero.
David, note that up to this point I’m not taking a position on your underlying hypothesis. I’m saying that the evidence you’ve presented is … well, let me call it absolutely unconvincing.
Moving forwards, as to your underlying hypothesis. This is that weaker solar activity means colder and dryer conditions. Since the strength of the TSI and the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field vary on an 11 or 22 year basis, the simplest way to test this theory, one that doesn’t involve sketchy 9,000 year reconstructions that they are passing off as “data”, is to look for 11/22 year cycles in either temperature or precipitation. After all, if the earth’s climate responds to variations in solar magnetic intensity in the long term, since climate is just the average of weather, this long term response has to be the result of instantaneous responses in weather to the short run variations in solar strength.
However, despite people (including myself) looking very hard for such 11 or 22-year cycles in temperature and rainfall for the last couple centuries, I’ve never seen one single convincing example of such an 11-year or a 22-year cycle in temperature or precipitation. I’m not saying such evidence doesn’t exist … I’m just saying that I’ve never seen it.
And lacking that direct evidence despite centuries of searching, if you then claim that such a relationship exists in the long term but NOT in the short term, I fear we’re well into the zone where “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
And not only are we in that zone, but the evidence you’ve provided doesn’t even rise to the level of ordinary …
Sorry for the straight talk, David, but I have an obligation to view claims from both sides of the climate chasm using the same rules and standards. I hold that the Moberg study is simply an advertisement for their views, because they refused to release their data. As such, on my planet neither side of the debate gets to use it to buttress their claims.
And you need to seriously think about the history of predictions of just the next solar cycle alone, before you are so trusting of a 500-year prediction of future solar activity.
Best regards, keep up the good work,
w.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says: May 14, 2014 at 5:06 am
It IS a fact that (like it or not) if the whole world went veggie, we actually would have enough land by some margin (if all the animals bred for meat were slaughtered first, of course). This isn’t airy-fairy stuff, the studies have been done again and again – it takes an awful lot of land to produce meat for consumption.
________________________________
And i am calling BS on that. There are many regions where arable agriculture is impossible. The English fells, for one.
You would have to invent a machine that could crop upland grass and turn it into protein. Preferably a self-replicating machine, to make it cleaper. And then you would have to find a name for that machine.
I would suggest “sheep”.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 14, 2014 at 12:05 pm
Remember that the “solar modulation potential” is a measure invented by one of the authors (Steinhilber).
I don’t think we should make any great ‘science’ out of the Steinhilber and Beer prediction.
As Dr. Svalgaard will confirm (has done on so many occasions) and even his 7 year old grandson spotted it, sunspot cycles show a centennial quasi-periodicity somewhere between 100 and 105 years.
Let’s use 103 year period as a fundamental, than calculate its two sub-harmonics as T1=2×103, T2=5×103 and cross modulation product at (T1+T2)/2, add three Cosines in ratios of 3:2:2 respectively, the result is here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-V-prediction.htm
As it can be seen, the agreement with Steinhilber and Beer prediction is a reasonable one. To be fair any fundamental period between 100 and 105 years would produce very similar result.
Have Steinhilber and Beer produced great work of science? I dare say not.
G P Hanner says
Last winter was very cold, windy, and dry, dry, dry.
Henry says
What did you expect (from global cooling)?
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.
As the people in Alaska have noted,
the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. My own results show that it has been cooling significantly in Alaska, at a rate of -0.55K per decade since 1998 (Average of ten weather stations).
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
That is almost one whole degree C since 1998. And it seems NOBODY is telling the poor farmers there that it is not going to get any better. NASA also admits now that antarctic ice is increasing significantly.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/#more-96133
vukcevic says:
May 14, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Oh, that looks like fun, can I play too? Here’s my submission to the Most Egregious Cyclomania Competition:
Heck, I forgot to mention the precession time of the line of the lunar apsides …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 14, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Oh, that looks like fun, can I play too?…..
“Then the carousel started, and I watched her go up and down, round and round…”
Child’s carousel rides begotten belief in cycles…no belief, no play.
Cyclomania Competition:…
Cyclomania? No such thing, more like cyclophobia from the non-believers.
Willis Vukcevic You don’t need to do these mathematical calculations. Just see what is there in the actual proxy temperature record. There are obvious 60 and 1000 year quasi-periodicities. The 60 year balances out over longer times but is useful for decadal estimates. The 1000 year one is the one that is most significant for centennial and millennial forecasts see Figs 3 and 4 and resultant cooling forecast at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
The biggest uncertainty in my forecasts is the timing of the current peak or near peak in the 1000 year periodicity. I think that the current decline in solar activity suggests that we are over the hump – but nature being sort of fuzzy it might actually be somewhat late – another 20 years or so – we’ll see.
Well I didn’t quite get the gist of the Steinlager and Beer prediction of solar activity, but it seems they are well on their way to intoxication by 2,000.
Now I already knew that getting a bit soused, led to one having to recreate from lack of memory of past events; but it is news to me that it also scrambles one’s clear vision of the future too.
Hopefully they will sober up long before 2,500.
I forgot to add that this cooling / drought relationship, that is clearly well established, should put the kibosh on ANY notion, that clouds are in any way a warming positive feedback effect.
OH burn.. who unlocked Willis Eschenbach cage?
I agree, somewhat. but I’m laughing so hard right now I’ll refrain from commenting further.
Burrrrrrn…! lmgdao.
Looks like a lot of people who don’t want to believe models and predictions by scientists have decided to swallow this solar cooling prediction, which is based on models.
But note this important statement Steinhilber and Beer make about any effect of the solar minimum they predict. It’s in the Conclusion of the paper:
“As a consequence, the increase of global warming will be slightly attenuated until 2100 A.D. However, the subsequent increase in solar activity will further enhance the global warming.”
The paper’s right here. 2013_steinhilber.pdf
It seems Mr. Archibald forgot to include the fact that the authors themselves are not predicting cooling, just a slowdown in warming.
And if you look at figure 3 of the paper – the figure that uses their prediction method to compare to the previous solar activity recorded in their isotope-proxy reconstructions – both of their methods do a fairly poor job of tracking against the solar record over the last 1000 years. As they say in the paper “Overall, the three examples show that our methods are more successful in predicting the shape of the solar activity than its amplitude”. Amplitude matters.
Doug Proctor says:
May 14, 2014 at 9:02 am
The planet [average temperature] rose 0.7C in the last century so an equal fall would be small in the scheme of things. Solheim is predicting a 0.9C fall over Solar Cycle 24 (now a third over). Iowa gets more polar amplification than what you suggest – slightly above twice the global fall. There is a paper coming out in a couple of weeks from which it can be interpreted that most of the fall will occur over the next two and a half years. As regarding planning, I find that I am the only one that is pointing out what is obvious to me. Feel free to do some high quality work in this field. I won’t mind if you join me and show us all how it is done.
Dr Norman Page says:
May 14, 2014 at 11:35 am
“The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate”
This is a very good prediction. The cooling in train to mid-2016 will reverse most of the warming of the 20th century.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 14, 2014 at 12:05 pm
Thanks for your effort on this and you will be thanking me too. Because here is an unequivocal example of an eleven year effect on rainfall: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/22/solar-to-river-flow-and-lake-level-correlations/
Which means that the Sun has an effect on climate and that makes Dr Svalgaard a discredited element, to use the Marxist lexicology.
If another entity equally explains, mechanistically (without the use of fudge factors), temperature trends, you have at best a tie. When you have a tie, you must accept the null hypothesis. Solar and CO2 theories are currently in a tie with intrinsic natural variation. Therefore continuing to toot the trumpet of either theory makes the authors look rather foolish, or at least quite unfamiliar with gold standard scientific research methodology.
David, it is not Leif you fight against. It is Earth’s intrinsic variability re: its own ability to shutter out or allow in varying amounts of solar input and to store it up in varying amounts till it gets belched up onto land and temperature sensors. You must face Earth to state your case, not Leif.
Pamela – you refer to ” intrinsic natural variation” which is a meaningless phrase.
Earths climate is the result of resonances and beat frequencies between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. The long wave Milankovich eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles are modulated by solar “activity” cycles with millenial centennial and decadal time scales .These in turn interact with lunar cycles and endogenous earth changes in Geomagnetic Field strength ,volcanic activity and at really long time scales plate tectonic movements of the land masses.The combination of all these drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earths climate and weather.
To help forecast decadal and annual changes we can look at eg the ENSO PDO, AMO NAO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts of their effects for varying future periods. Currently the 60 year solar cycle (seen in the PDO) suggests we may expect 20 – 30 years of cooling in the immediate future. Similarly for, centennial and millennial predictions we need to know where we are relative to the 1000 year solar quasi periodicity . The best proxy for solar “activity” is the GCR produced neutron count .This solar index is particularly important past history which can be retrieved from the 10 Be data,
In a previous post on htpp://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com on 1/22/13 – Global Cooling – Timing and Amount(NH) I have made suggestions of possible future cooling based on a repetition of the solar millennial cycle.
. The 1000 year quasi-periodicity is the one that is most significant for centennial and millennial forecasts see Figs 3 and 4 and resultant cooling forecast at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
Mr. Archibald, can you please provide links to peer-reviewed papers that make you contradict the conclusions of the Steinhilber and Beer paper?
I believe I’m looking at the correct one.
It’s Journal Of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 118, 1–7, doi:10.1002/jgra.50210, 2013
Title is: Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years
Friedhelm Steinhilber1 and Jürg Beer
Received 18 May 2012; revised 18 February 2013; accepted 2 March 2013.
Here is the first paragraph of the Conclusions section of their paper: “Based on the past millennia of solar magnetic activity derived from cosmogenic radionuclides, our two methods predict a clear decrease in solar activity, reaching a minimum comparable to the Dalton minimum around 2100 A.D., in good agreement with previous predictions. This minimum will be followed by a slow more or less steady increase until 2400 A.D. As a consequence, the increase of global warming will be slightly attenuated until 2100 A.D. However, the subsequent increase in solar activity will further enhance the global warming.”
Please note the last two sentences, which predict that global warming will continue throughout their projected 500 year period, despite the steep minimum TSI they predict around 2100.
You titled your essay: “Studies: Weaker solar activity means colder, and colder also means drier”
And repeated in the essay itself: “In the meantime it will get colder and drier.”
You finish with: “That is what these two papers are saying about what the future holds for us.”
What extra information leads you to directly contradict what the authors say about future temperature trends? I’d be interested to read it.
Thanks!
b fagan says:
May 14, 2014 at 8:47 pm
Mr Fagan, in a number of your books you have referred to arrowheads weighing 1 kg. That betrays a lack of understanding of the physical world which detracts somewhat from your standing when scientific matters are under discussion. But perhaps you are operating at a sociological level rather than a scientific one. Your enquiry has given me the idea for a post on how to read between the lines in papers that have any reference to climate. Perhaps you have caught up with the latest news with respect to Lennart Bengtsson. You have had plenty of time to read the literature and if you still believe in AGW then that means you haven’t made enough effort yet. Do try harder.
I was disappointed by Dave Archibald’s book. It makes just as wild unsubstantiated claims as the climate change establishment. Whereas they say we’re heading for runaway warming, he predicts a mini-ice age.
Just as they mix in their left-green opinions with science, so does Archibald with his neo-conservative agenda.
Mr. Archibald, you must have me confused with archaeologist Brian Fagan. I’m not him, though I did buy one of his books years ago.
So please, you contradict Steinhilber and Beer’s paper where they state that the global temperature will continue to rise even if their predicted decrease in TSI takes place.
They say “As a consequence, the increase of global warming will be slightly attenuated until 2100 A.D. However, the subsequent increase in solar activity will further enhance the global warming.”
Yet you say “cooling” multiple times. Again, please provide whatever other information let you to disregard their conclusion. I’d be interested to read it.
Interesting correlation between cooling cycles and drought. S I understand it, the desertification of the Sahara apparently took place mostly after the end of the Egyptian 3rd Millennium BC warm period; before that, much of what is now the Sahara was prairie and steppe.
Mr Fagan, here’s a couple:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1202.1954&ei=0WJ0U43BFcijkAWR8oHwBA&usg=AFQjCNElWkIX6BKHsRIptlxBJZhYfBC72w&sig2=5gBpSU2hgtVKLseUL7IhVA
‘predicting’ centuries ahead based on cycles is silly. At best we can observe the recent past, say, 200 years where we have reasonable data and try to extrapolate [if we must]: http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-200yrs.png Perhaps there is a ~100-yr ‘cycle’ in the sizes of the regular 11-yr solar cycles and perhaps it is allowed to extrapolate that using the principle that ‘the past is the guide for the future’. In any case, solar activity the past 200 years has not resembled the climate variation observed, so why would we expect it to do so in the future. This post is just alarmism that does not seem to serve a purpose other than peddling D. A’s views to the gullible.
3 Cheers for Anthony!
I agree isvalgaard! pure speculative spurious and dubious nonsense. This very website said that solar minimums increase cloud and rain(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/), so they want it BOTH ways now!
This leaves the anti AGW argument looking like this ‘I’m right and you are wrong and here is another dodgy graph to prove it’
After all the critisism of the hockey stick by the anti AGW band , they do no better and Archibald is a prime mover and shaker for dodginess, and cant apparently spell corn.
It may well get cooler, as cloud cover increases due to more nucleii caused by more cosmic rays as the solar protection decreases if the sun really is entering a grand minimum,(if i really understand the theory!) but more clouds means more rain! The truth of the matter is nobody predicted a twin peak 3 years ago in this cycle so how can we predict drought in 500 years time!
Even Joseph in the Bible could only do 14 years, and that was with the help of God!
The only thing you could predict is the date!
There are too many ifs and buts here to publish.
lsvalgaard says:
May 15, 2014 at 12:31 am
‘predicting’ centuries ahead based on cycles is silly. At best we can observe the recent past, say, 200 years where we have reasonable data and try to extrapolate.
I think most of us should agree on that one.
However I would like to here your opinion of the previous Steinhilber’s paper , on which this prediction is directly based.
I think the Steinhilber’s past (9,400 years bp) solar activity reconstruction is wrong, and here is why:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GCR-etc.pdf
( page 8: 2pi insertion required)
We have but one source of heat, that our little blue ball we live on varies somewhat between ice ages and warm periods would tend to suggest that something modulates our heater.
Those such as Willis and Lief who denigrate those looking for the modulator should be a tad embarrassed, as some where in the music of the spheres and cosmos lay’s the key.
The key is not on the Earth, it responds to the inputs only as an unplumbed chaotic air-conditioning unit trying to reach equilibrium. Those thinking outside the square are looking for the harmonics that bring stability from chaos that are inherent in the entire universe, they should be encouraged.
David Archibald is a ..Guest.? . Poster?.
Why does management set him up in order to pull him down.
Dr Archibald you have been framed. What are you doing in the lions den?
There is no whiff of measured consideration of your assessment.
noting from above. Management says
“This post is just alarmism that does not seem to serve a purpose other than peddling D. A’s views to the gullible.”
so why employ David As a guest poster. . ?
This is just a cycle phobic site …so just what you might expect David
I
idreamofthought says:
May 15, 2014 at 3:59 am
Criticising spelling – well we have to be grateful to people who keep up standards. But to misspell “can’t” in the same sentence.
[But “misspelled” is always misspelled, or else it would be spelled properly and not be misspelled. 8<) Mod]
During the weaker solar cycles 12 to 14 (1878-1913), there were very frequent drought episodes in the Great Plains, with the worst years corresponding very well to the colder years in CET through the period.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
US corn production 1000’s tons
2000 251854 (1000 MT) 5.14%
2001 241377 (1000 MT) -4.16%
2002 227767 (1000 MT) -5.64%
2003 256229 (1000 MT) 12.50%
2004 299876 (1000 MT) 17.03%
2005 282263 (1000 MT) -5.87%
2006 267503 (1000 MT) -5.23%
2007 331177 (1000 MT) 23.80%
2008 307142 (1000 MT) -7.26%
2009 332549 (1000 MT) 8.27%
2010 316165 (1000 MT) -4.93%
2011 313949 (1000 MT) -0.70%
2012 273832 (1000 MT) -12.78%
2013 353715 (1000 MT) 29.17%
Mr. Archibald, thank you for the links to the work from Solheim and crew. If that’s what you decide to use to ignore the expectation of continued warming that was stated in the paper you based your essay on, I’m unconvinced.
The Solheim papers deal with a very local area of the North Atlantic and Arctic north of Norway.
In one, they somehow conclude that the local, homogenized weather station temperatures at 4 sites in Svalbard are tied to the length of the previous solar cycle. Local weather trends in the area north of Norway might very well trend along – but they make no global prediction, as the following quote shows: “This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed.” .
They also say this in one paper: “We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.”
Attempting to use a range of 25%-72% of -local- pattern matching to make -global- predictions is really thin.
I’m not convinced. You contradict the Steinhilber and Beer conclusions directly, and for further backing you present some very localized, short-term pattern matching of dubious robustness.
Here’s a good paper to read – and Beer is a co-author on it. “Solar Influences On Climate”
Gray, L. J., et al. (2010), Solar influences on climate, Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282
The paper is available here: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html if you scroll down to “Solar Variability & Global Warming” and click the link “Solar Influences on Climate”
They cover sunspots, UV, cosmic rays, the whole range of possible solar influences. And as the web site states: “Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.””
So again, a very long, detailed analysis paper, which includes one of your essay’s authors, concludes that anthropogenic forcings have overtaken solar forcings as a primary climate driver.
Vukcevic You say
“lsvalgaard says:
May 15, 2014 at 12:31 am
‘predicting’ centuries ahead based on cycles is silly. At best we can observe the recent past, say, 200 years where we have reasonable data and try to extrapolate.
I think most of us should agree on that one.”
I would absolutely disagree. The 1000 year quasi-periodicity seen in the proxy temperature data is the most obvious and simplest key to forecasting temperature trends for the next thousand years .See Figs 3 and 4 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
Using Occam’s razor the idea that the cycle from 1000 – 2000 (see Fig3 )is about to repeat is
an obvious working hypothesis. By comparison Leif’s notion of extrapolating the last 200 years is a non starter- for forecasting 1000 year periodicities – you need to go back 2-3000 years at least to make sense. That is why climate models tuned to the last 40 – 50 years are a joke.
On fig 4 the 1000 year peak appears several times during the Holocene – and will likely appear again at about 3000.Obviously nothing repeats exactly because there the are underlying longer Milankovic cycles to be taken into account .I would add that for forecasting purposes it is not necessary to understand the processes involved. Ancient astronomers did not need to know Kepler’s laws to make useful forecasts of eclipses.
David Archibald says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/studies-weaker-solar-activity-means-colder-and-colder-also-means-drier/#comment-1636631
Henry says
Just before they started with the nonsense about (more) life giving carbon dioxide causing (additional) warming, the link between a “100” year weather cycle and the flow of the river Nile was already clearly established by William Arnold in 1985 and most recently confirmed by myself.
For some odd reason he was out by about 7 years. However, for a “100” year cycle that error is OK by me.. ..
As a result of my own investigations I predict drought conditions similar to the dust bowl drought 1932-1939 to start in 2021 on the great plains of America.
Tell me why, if you think I am wrong.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Dr Norman Page says:
May 14, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Nonsense. We invented statistics for a good reason, which is that humans are very good a fooling ourselves, and we are most practiced at finding patterns where none exist. If you choose not to use those tools, it doesn’t make you a fool … but it does mean that you’re not a scientist.
w.
David Archibald says:
May 14, 2014 at 5:59 pm
David, I begin to despair. Your link is to the Parana river study. Not only did I point out the huge problems with that study in my post called “Sunny Spots on the Parana River”.
I also linked to that study in my comment to you above, by name, viz:
For you to now cite the Parana River study in support of your position just proves that you’re not paying attention. The Parana River study is fatally flawed. Read my study to see why. Their analysis is based on erroneous methods and bad math.
The other claim in your link is that you can show a good correlation between sunspots and Lake Victoria levels … well, actually you claim that you can show a good correlation between sunspots and Lake Victoria levels as long as you throw away the middle third of the record.
Is that some kind of joke I’m not getting? Throw away a third of the data?
David, if you throw away the part of the data that doesn’t agree with your hypothesis, the rest of the data will most certainly agree with your hypothesis … you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t find that impressive or persuasive in the slightest.
My friendly advice for you in that regard would be that you emulate the rooster, and wait until it is actually dawn before you start crowing …
w.
Willis It is statisticians who fool themselves into creating patterns that exist only in their clever mathematical minds.
One of the basic problems of present day climate science is the unwillingness or inability of most establishment scientists to accept the blindingly obvious in the record ie at its simplest ,the present high – the MWP and the Roman maximum separated by the LIA and the Dark Ages .I suppose doing the obvious would not produce many academic papers that the IPCC could use to support its political agenda or generate much grant money or academic positions and the great boondoggle conferences of the whole IPCC circus.- to say nothing of in the UK Knighthoods Lordships -Government jobs etc etc see.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/05/climate-forecasting-basics-for-britains.html
You and Leif need to get a longer term time perspective so that you can distinguish the wood from the trees.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley: I tried being a vegetarian for two years. I had, er, problems, so I tried vegetarian. I won’t go through all the permutations, to keep the post short… yeah, vegan, ova-lacto, all of it… Now I eat meat, lots of it, little of anything else… I’m doing great. If you have eyes to the side of your head, go veggie. My eyes are to the front, I’m not an herbivore. Inuit folks’ traditional diet is meat and fat. They do well. Might be fine for some folks, but not me.
Dr. A: You are saying today is special, a game-changer, an end-of-times. Almost as special as the alarmist says (except theit science is special also). I agree with a temp decline is upon us, I just see the observations you quote as reflecting at most a pre:Dalton cycle cycle, I.e. we are entering the oeriof before the serious ninimum – if it even occurs.
Like the IPCC reports that focus on the high end, I feel you focus on the extreme, but low end. Planning for a cold disaster is no less disturbing than doing so for a warm one and not appropriate before the signs are clear. Society cannot afford false alarms any more than the children of Harold Camping’s followers could afford the ones he pitched.
@ Doug Proctor
All our results show that warming came to a top in 1998 and that now (since 2002) it is cooling
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
What makes you think that the cooling will stop, especially when looking at the polar [field] strengths of the sun?
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
Pamela Gray says:
May 14, 2014 at 7:30 pm
If you mean that there is almost no support for either theory, I’d agree. The problem with the solar theory is that it is easier to find contradictory evidence for that than for CO2, because there is a clear 11-year cycle in the solar data. Not finding that 11-year cycle in the temperature data is significant.
But log(CO2) is basically a straight line, so it is very hard to find contradictory evidence for that.
Me, I’m climate heretic, I don’t believe either hypothesis, either CO2 or solar. Instead, I say that the temperature is thermally regulated by a variety of emergent phenomena. I say that is why if there is a solar signal in the temperature, it’s vanishingly small.
w.
Willis says
Me, I’m climate heretic, I don’t believe either hypothesis, either CO2 or solar. Instead, I say that the temperature is thermally regulated by a variety of emergent phenomena. I say that is why if there is a solar signal in the temperature, it’s vanishingly small.
Henry says
CO2 does not make energy. It makes crops and trees and other stuff that we want which trap some energy (from the sun).
Clearly, the record
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
shows that the sun and the planets / stars around us are in charge?
btw
I do believe in a GH effect
but not by an increase of 0.01% CO2 in the atmosphere
If you are interested you can read some of my musings here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
Dr Norman Page says:
May 15, 2014 at 8:32 am
I would add that for forecasting purposes it is not necessary to understand the processes involved.
It is absolutely necessary to know the mechanism to have confidence in the forecasting, unless the cycles are strict and sharp and you have many of them. This is not the case for any of the cycles longer than 100 years. The Milankovic cycles are different animals and there we actually do know the mechanism. I do not share your naive cyclomania, but then there so many other things that do not convince me, so one more does not keep me awake at night. Especially not on a 1000 yr time scale.
Leif Minds work differently – I submit that it would be naïve ( not wise perhaps?) to ignore the approximate 1000 year periodicity seen in the Holocene in Fig4 at 10000,9000 8000 7000 5000?2000 1000 and the present
see http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
Dr Norman Page says:
May 15, 2014 at 1:42 pm
Leif Minds work differently – I submit that it would be naïve ( not wise perhaps?) to ignore the approximate 1000 year periodicity seen in the Holocene in Fig4
Ignore or not. On the timescale of decades a 1000-yr wave is not of significance.
Leif I think you have things backwards the Amplitude of the 1000 year wave is greater than eg the 60 or 22 year cycles. It is the smaller amplitude high frequency cycles which are really the noise and not so significant on time scales most relevant to humanity which I would suggest is centennial Similarly the 1000 year cycles are noise relative to the Milankovic cycles .If you get the 1000 year scale right then it is relatively easy to modulate that for decadal frequencies via the 60 year cycle.
“..the simplest way to test this theory, […] is to look for 11/22 year cycles in either temperature or precipitation.”
The way to test it is to check temperature and precipitation during solar grand minimums. Whether there is a 11/22 signal is not the issue.
Dr Norman Page says:
May 15, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Leif I think you have things backwards the Amplitude of the 1000 year wave is greater than eg the 60 or 22 year cycles.
As Willis has pointed out there really are no 22 or 60 yr cycles in climate nor in solar activity, so your statement is trivially true, but perhaps you are confusing solar activity and climate. This confusion is often exploited by peddlers. The issue is whether a strong 1000-yr cycle exists in climate and that you have not demonstrated.
I agree with you on what is the main issue. I suggest that Fig 4 at
see http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
suggests strongly enough that a 1000 year cycle exists that it is the most reasonable working hypothesis to use in forecasting. Fig 3 can be used for more detailed forecasts.
For the 60 year cycle see Fig 6 global at the same link The 30 year segments from 1910 – 40 – 70 -2000 are certainly good enough for reasonably supposing that a cooling trend from 2000 – 2030 +/-related to the 60 year cycle is a reasonable working hypothesis.
As to mechanism – as you know for forecasting I consider knowledge of process,while it would be desirable is not necessary. I’m reasonably sure that this 60 year cycle is solar related but I say
“NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV,solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.”
The 60 year temperature cycle is there. It is probably solar. You are better qualified to tease out the processes than I am – Get Busy!! Seek and ye shall find .You might start by looking at the
Saturn /Jupiter lap cycle of 19.589 X 3 = 59.577
Of course such an heretical suggestion is probably unlikely to arouse your interest I just put it out there to stir the pot a bit.
Dr Norman Page says:
May 15, 2014 at 5:38 pm
see http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
suggests strongly enough that a 1000 year cycle exists that it is the most reasonable working hypothesis to use in forecasting.
There are other peaks that you ignore. And the most recent peak is not yet at its maximum, so ‘common sense’ calls for continued warming for a hundred years, but, again, that is just speculation and has no physical basis. I recognize that for some people their conviction is so strong that all caution is thrown to the wind and that further arguments are fruitless.
Changes in solar activity have a strong influence on the temperature changes in the stratosphere and air circulation. Here is how blockade the southern polar vortex affect the temperature of the Pacific Ocean.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-119.89,-37.55,419
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-119.89,-37.55,419
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-119.89,-37.55,419
Leif I don’t see anything in Figs 3 or 4 to suggest that warming will continue for another hundred years. Common sense and the recent sharp decline in solar activity suggests that it is just at or a little past its maximum. I don’t see anything in Figs 3 or 4 to suggest that warming will continue.
As to conviction I say
” How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.”
Hardly “cyclomania”.
Is the temperature of the stratosphere and solar activity affects the climate, or not?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-91.62,56.82,635
Dr Page says
If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate
Henry says
there is another problem
from 4 major global data sets it does look like we already dropped a little less than 0.1 from 2002
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
However, my own data set (which has been artificially balanced) shows we already dropped 0.2
I am now busy updating that set, adding the last two years. So far, it seems to me the decline is continuing, even steeper, so we might end up more than -0.2 from 2000.
The point is: it looks to me they keep fiddling with the data, trying to hide the decline.
HenryP
So why scientists do not see? Approaching the solar minimum. Do you think that now the temperature rises? Solar activity will not increase.
It will be El Ninio? It will not be because the Pacific is cooled.
Doug Proctor says:
May 15, 2014 at 11:01 am
As far as I can tell, the first solar physicists to suggest that we are heading into a Maunder Minimum were Schatten and Tobiska in 2003. 2003 was the second peak of Solar Cycle 23. Nevertheless, they look ahead, sniffed the wind, and said Maunder. Why they felt compelled to say that and put the word Maunder in the title of their paper isn’t made completely clear in that paper. Perhaps they felt something in their waters, something unsettling, an uneasiness that necessitated a desire to put their thoughts to paper and warn the rest of us. They spoke once, and have been silent since. Others on their own efforts have subsequently attempted to untangle the solar record and derive a prediction from it. Thus Steinhilber and Beer, and from the tree rings, Libby and Pandolfi and the Finnish foresters. All are pointing down, steeply down from now. By the time of the CIA climate report in 1974, there was still a living memory of the colder years of the early 20th century, and an appreciation that humanity was in a special time of warmth and abundance. Now forty years on, the cold years that preceded the current warmth are less than a distant memory. Most think that this is the new normal. But the world wasn’t made for us to be comfortable. That we are comfortable now is only an accident of happenstance. In the absence of better quality forecasts, Maunder stands. Disregard the warnings of the wise ones at your peril.
Bonus prediction: 0.6 degrees C down by mid-2016, reversing most of the warming of the 20th century.
David Archibald says:
May 16, 2014 at 12:59 am
The first solar physicists to suggest that we are heading into a Maunder Minimum were Schatten and Tobiska in 2003.
They were not alone, the formula I written in the early 2003 with some relevant comments, I emailed to Dr. Joan Feynman (sister of RF) solar scientist at JPL.
Here is a brief extract from her reply:
Joan Feynman Jun 16, 2003
To vukcevic@……
…..
I would suggest that you write a draft paper on your work and discuss it in person with some local solar or space scientists. I’d suggest looking at the Journal “Solar Physics”.……
………..
Best of luck to you,
joan Feynman
Vukcevic
Here’s part of an earlier comment I made above addressed to Leif
“The 60 year temperature cycle is there. It is probably solar. You are better qualified to tease out the processes than I am – Get Busy!! Seek and ye shall find .You might start by looking at the
Saturn /Jupiter lap cycle of 19.589 X 3 = 59.577
Of course such an heretical suggestion is probably unlikely to arouse your interest I just put it out there to stir the pot a bit.”
Any Thoughts?
Mr. Archibald.
I’m confused about your recent post –David Archibald says: May 16, 2014 at 12:59 am–
It starts with:
Doug Proctor says:
May 15, 2014 at 11:01 am
But none of the rest is from the Proctor post with that time stamp. It looks like you may have accidentally(?) put a lot of words in his mouth.
And it concludes with predicting a very sharp cooling before 2016 – with no physical basis for that unrealistic assumption. Do you have Mt. Pinatubo loaded and ready? That’s what it would take.
Your first answer to my questioning your reversing the conclusion of the Steinhilber/Beer paper was to launch a personal attack on someone you incorrectly guessed was me. (see May 14, 2014 at 9:13 pm)
Then you provided links to a paper that makes very short-term claims (just the remainder of this solar cycle) over a very small area (4 weather stations in Svalbard).
In either case, I still feel that the compelling evidence is, as quoted from the Steinhilber and Beer paper you used as the basis for your essay: “As a consequence, the increase of global warming will be slightly attenuated until 2100 A.D. However, the subsequent increase in solar activity will further enhance the global warming.”
At this point I agree with what Doug Proctor said May 14, 2014 at 9:02 am
“I find Archibald’s thesis alarmist and better for sales of his book than for planning”
b fagan says:
And it concludes with predicting a very sharp cooling before 2016 – with no physical basis for that unrealistic assumption. Do you have Mt. Pinatubo loaded and ready? That’s what it would take.
Is the temperature of the oceans are the physical basis or not?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
I have a basic question about the solar dynamo and formation of sunspots.
over the course of a solar cycle, the sunspots are formed (in theory) due to differential rotation between the polar regions and the.suns equator, here is a standard representation of the process below.
http://www.astro-photography.net/images/figure%201-660.jpg
Why is it that sunspots always appear at the polar regions at the beginning of a solar cycle and gradually move towards the suns equator while increasing in number, and then continue to recede back towards the polar regions again?
Looking at various differential rotation models like the one above, they suggest that sun spots should form at the equator and move towards the polar regions while decreasing in strength along the way.
If we model how this differential rotation should behave, the faster moving equator should always cause a ripple of sunspots from the inside out or from the equator to the polar regions. But this is not what is being observed, Why?
@sparks
My theory is that it is not really the sunspots that are important if you want to know what it is going on. Just keep an eye on the strengths of the magnetic fields of the sun.
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
As the fields become weaker, more energetic particles are able to escape. Generally this means a “hotter sun”. For some reason (I believe it is intelligent design) earth has molecules in the upper atmosphere that react with these more energetic particles, causing more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides to be formed. In turn, (more of) these compounds deflect more sunlight to space, protecting us from certain death. So a “hotter” sun causes a “cooler” earth.
Hence the reason why we are (globally) cooling
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/studies-weaker-solar-activity-means-colder-and-colder-also-means-drier/#comment-1637756
Dr Norman Page says:
May 16, 2014 at 7:29 am
Yeah, I’ve got thoughts on that suggestion … but I suspect you don’t want to hear them, as they involve anatomically improbable acts …
I do note that you are using that perennial favorite, the Jupiter-Saturn synoptic cycle that I mentioned above …
w.
PS—As an indication of your lack of attention to detail, 19.589 X 3 is actually 58.767 … but I’m sure that won’t change your claim in the slightest. It’s one of the infallible marks of cycloholics. When you point out the holes in their math, they’ll cooper them up immediately with new claims.
@ren
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/studies-weaker-solar-activity-means-colder-and-colder-also-means-drier/#comment-1638112
Willis says
It’s one of the infallible marks of cycloholics. (this is not a word that the dictionary says does not exist)
When you point out the holes in their math, they’ll cooper them up immediately with new claims.
Henry says
I have stuck with mine from the point that my own investigations led me to the Gleissberg cycle.
Generally speaking I donot believe in a 60 year cycle, looking at the amount of energy coming in.
There are several investigations that will lead you to the Gleissberg, a 87/88 year cycle, namely
1) assuming Gleissberg himself (no reference?)
2) my own investigations
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
3) other people’s results
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
4) Same 88 year solar/weather cycle was also calculated from COSMOGENIC ISOTOPES as related in this study:
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes.
end quote
5) Without mentioning Gleissberg, it appears that William Arnold found it,
(in hindsight admitting that there is a lag between energy in and energy out)
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
he was only out by about 7 years
\
again@Willis
now bring your science to prove that Gleissberg is not real.
henry says
“cycloholics. (this is not a word that the dictionary says does not exist)”
Henry says
sorry
that should read
cycloholics. (this is a word that the dictionary says does not exist)
I like it, though
Thanks HenryP,
I’m trying to understand the limits of the solar dynamo in regard to what works and what does not.
The graph of the North-South polar field you posted above for example, I’m able to build a program and map out or simulate a physical process that matches the North-South Polar field and it has the correct sequence of sunspot formation and the Heliospheric current sheet, all three have the timing and are intrinsically linked to a single explainable “physical process”. The only issue I have with replicating solar cycles is the current explanation that I mentioned (in the comment above).
btw, I’m able to simulate the differential rotation between the suns equator and polar regions as part of the same process that produces the “shape” of the North-South polar field, sunspot foration and the Heliospheric current sheet.
(The process I’m referring to here is not planetary in nature).
Regarding Planetary orbital resonances and timing.
The most accurate match to the sunspot cycle is the planet Uranus, Its unusual rotation is an exact match to the suns polar field reversal.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/uranus-solar-4-rbg2.gif
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/ssn-1600-2012-uranus-n-s-poles-equator-degrees-rbg.gif
Dr Norman Page says:
May 15, 2014 at 10:03 pm
Leif I don’t see anything in Figs 3 or 4 to suggest that warming will continue for another hundred years.
In your Figure the several earlier ‘1000-yr’ peaks have a certain size. The last one [which we are in now – see that one?] has a much smaller size. This suggests to ‘common sense’ that it still has some way to go [see that?], say another 100 years at least.
Sparks says:
May 16, 2014 at 9:39 am
I have a basic question about the solar dynamo and formation of sunspots.
If we model how this differential rotation should behave, the faster moving equator should always cause a ripple of sunspots from the inside out or from the equator to the polar regions. But this is not what is being observed, Why?
Although the details are wrong, the old Babcock model contains enough of the basic ideas to provide you with an answer: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Babcock1961.pdf
Of cycles, Sun, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus …
Two Cyclo(p)s, sons of Uranus and Gaia, were Brontes who was a cyclophobe and Acmonides a cyclophile, suffered from one eye debilitating vision of the heavens, continuously arguing who did see the correct one
Their father Uranus got fed-up with this cyclomania from both of his sons and duly locked them up.
Cronus (Saturn), another son of Uranus and Gaia, freed the brothers, but they still carried on with the everlasting cyclo-arguments, so Cronus ordered for them to be separated and guarded by a female dragon known as Camp-e.
Saturn’s son Zeus (Jupiter), thought this to be far too cruel, after all discussing the cycles of heavens should be a matter of free speech, and freed his cyclo-uncles.
As a token of their gratitude they empowered their nephew Zeus with the command of lightning bolts, which became Zeus’ main weapons.
As Zeus was getting old, his lightning bolts become more and more rare, to remedy this his grandson Helios decided to help out with his ’wind’, since then became a well known phenomenon, but I digress and strayed into subject of the ‘Solar wind to lightning link discovered’ thread.
lsvalgaard says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Thanks Leif,
That’s somewhere along the lines of my point.
In Fig2
“The submerged lines of force have been drawn out in longitude and wrapped around the sun by differential rotation, With a consequent amplification of field strength that depends on latitude.” and the paragraph below it.
It physically describes the formation of sunspots and by this process sun spots should form along the lines moving away from the equator, but in reality sunspots form along the lines from the polar regions first and they move towards the equator, then move from the equator to the polar regions during one average 11 year cycle.
A toroidal field as described would have greater interaction nearer the equator and will always dissipate local magnetic fields toward the poles. Yet this is not the case.
Sparks says:
May 16, 2014 at 2:45 pm
That’s somewhere along the lines of my point.
No, not at all. Equation 9 and Figure 4 show how spots move from higher latitudes towards the equator as the cycle progresses.
lsvalgaard says:
May 16, 2014 at 4:25 pm
“No, not at all. Equation 9 and Figure 4 show how spots move from higher latitudes towards the equator as the cycle progresses.”
It does explain how sunspots can move from the equator to the polar regions and how they are magnetically balanced and conforming to known principles, it does not explain however, how the solar cycle begins with sunspots at the polar regions that follow these theoretical lines towards the equator and then travel from the equator to the polar regions.
Please read and try to understand my question before you throw stones.
I read every stone you throw Leif. 😉
Sparks says:
May 16, 2014 at 5:38 pm
It does explain how sunspots can move from the equator to the polar regions
No, it explains how sunspots move from higher latitudes towards the equator. It even has a Figure 4 that shows that. In ‘stages 4 and 5’ it explains how the magnetic field moves from the equator back to the poles to complete the cycle.
Leif,
Through ropes, catch yourself on 🙁
Leif.
I Said,
It does explain how sunspots can move from the equator to the polar regions and how they are magnetically balanced and conforming to known principles, it does not explain however, how the solar cycle begins with sunspots at the polar regions that follow these theoretical lines towards the equator and then travel from the equator to the polar regions.
Leif,
Are the timing of these “ropes” a coincidence?
There is a differential rotation on sun, cause and effect?
I am missing some of my comments
(I am sure I made them)
Might it be because I am a cyclist
and the moderator is not?
[might be because they were off-topic -mod]
might be because they were off-topic -mod
henry says
no
Sparks says:
May 16, 2014 at 8:10 pm
It does not explain however, how the solar cycle begins with sunspots at the polar regions that follow these theoretical lines towards the equator and then travel from the equator to the polar regions.
I don’t know how many times I must say this, but the theory calculates [i.e. explains] where the sunspots should occurs and they do just as calculated [i.e. explained]. The calculation is the explanation.
Leif Fig 4 is scaled to the Holocene and cuts off about 1940. For the amplitude of the latest warming see fig 3. Also on fig3 compare the width and amplitude of the current warming to the 1000 peak. Looks like we are probably now just past peak – as the drop in the neutron count for 24 v 23 would also suggest.Glad you admit the relevance of the millennial cycle – could it be that looking at Fig 3 again you might be close to agreeing with me?
Dr Norman Page says:
May 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Leif Fig 4 is scaled to the Holocene and cuts off about 1940.
The only relevant Figure is your Figure 4. That it ends in 1940 is irrelevant on a 1000-yr time scale.Your use of ‘admit’ is a standard cheap trick to garner some dubious relevance. My severe criticism of your speculation stands. As Feynman used to say: “the easiest person to fool is oneself” and you succeed spectacularly.
Willis, you are right. I overstated a bit. You caught me being generous. Maybe I was giving the best case scenario to prove a point (which neither camp actually has yet), which still means that the null hypothesis wins. If you cannot rule out the null hypothesis driver you cannot reject it. I think CO2 and solar parameters effect land temperatures to about the same part of a degree, give or take, and when up against intrinsic natural variation swings, are reduced to signals that cannot be “seen” with the naked eye in the intrinsic driven noisy trends.
Leif . Fig 4 is relevant for showing the occurrence of several 1000 year peaks during the Holocene. Your last point concerned the amplitude of the current peak relative to other 1000 year peaks and for that Fig 3 is obviously the most significant .Readers may wish to check the link given at Leifs post on 15/5:38pm to form their own opinions. Fig 3 shows that Leifs comment on 16/1.25 pm is incorrect because he looked only at Fig 4 and not Fig 3
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2014 at 11:33 am
I don’t know how many times I must say this, but the theory calculates [i.e. explains] where the sunspots should occurs and they do just as calculated [i.e. explained]. The calculation is the explanation.
Leif, The Math is correct, it however describes a magnetic toroidal feature, all I’m saying is that observed solar activity does not match the calculation, don’t misunderstand what I’m saying tho, the math works on paper from solar maximum to solar minimum, It does not fit observations from solar minimum to solar maximum, regardless of a polarity reversal the math should work both ways.
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Leif, The Math is correct, it however describes a magnetic toroidal feature, all I’m saying is that observed solar activity does not match the calculation,
The Babcock model is credited with providing an excellent match between the theory and the observations, so you are incorrect in believing that there is no match.
Dr Norman Page says:
May 17, 2014 at 1:30 pm
because he looked only at Fig 4 and not Fig 3
You claimed they both show the same thing. now you are saying that they don’t. Not very impressive,
Leif Any objective reader looking at Figs 3 and 4 together can see that there is a 1000 year cycle which probably peaked in the 1st decade of this century.I’m happy to let others judge for themselves. Your problem like most of the establishment scientists is that you can’t , or simply refuse to see the wood for the trees.
lsvalgaard says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:05 pm
The Babcock model is credited with providing an excellent match between the theory and the observations, so you are incorrect in believing that there is no match.
I’ll point out your deliberate omission.
I clearly said “The math works on paper from solar maximum to solar minimum, It does not fit observations from solar minimum to solar maximum, regardless of a polarity reversal the math should work both ways.”
I do disrepair when you take my comments out of context and reply to it!
* despair 🙂
Dr Norman Page says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:26 pm
can see that there is a 1000 year cycle which probably peaked in the 1st decade of this century.
Probably? Either it peaked or it did not. I’ll say that it didn’t.
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:29 pm
* despair 🙂
You mean that you are unable to show that the observations don’t match the theory?
If you take my comments out of context and reply to it in that form, from now on I will believe it is your intention to do so, whereby you are intentionally causing distraction deliberately. 😉
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:37 pm
If you take my comments out of context and reply to it in that form, from now on I will believe it is your intention to do so, whereby you are intentionally causing distraction deliberately. 😉
Don’t we all say everything deliberately?
You say the theory and the observations don’t match. I point out that for more than half a century everyone in this business have agreed that the Babcock theory [although too tough in details] provides an excellent fit. Perhaps you could try to be specific about what you don’t understand.
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:28 pm
I clearly said “The math works on paper from solar maximum to solar minimum, It does not fit observations from solar minimum to solar maximum, regardless of a polarity reversal the math should work both ways.”
The theory predicts that solar activity begins a high latitudes ant solar minimum, then as we approach solar maximum, the sunspots should appear increasingly closer to the equator. This is what is observed.
lsvalgaard says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:48 pm
The theory predicts that solar activity begins a high latitudes ant solar minimum, then as we approach solar maximum, the sunspots should appear increasingly closer to the equator. This is what is observed.
The Math does not, look again.. this is my point.
Don’t tell me that it assumed that it does!
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:55 pm
The Math does not, look again.. this is my point.
The top plot shows the theory [published in 1960]. The bottom plot shows the data observed for twenty years after the predicted variation. http://www.leif.org/research/Babcock-vs-Observations.png
What was your point again?
You’re preaching your dogma again Leif, I’ve pointed out a fault, if you believe and ignore the fault you will resolve it with distraction, won’t you.
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 9:34 pm
You’re preaching your dogma again Leif, I’ve pointed out a fault,
What fault? The theory and the observations are in good agreement:
http://www.leif.org/research/Babcock-vs-Observations.png
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 9:34 pm
You’re preaching your dogma again Leif, I’ve pointed out a fault, if you believe and ignore the fault you will resolve it with distraction, won’t you.
You are not making much sense. I’m comparing theory with observations and find excellent agreement:
http://www.leif.org/research/Babcock-vs-Observations.png
What was your point again?
lsvalgaard says:
May 18, 2014 at 9:53 pm
“What was your point again?”
Babcock is half right for the wrong reason, what is your point?
If your putting me into moderation, it’s time to part company. good bye 🙁
@Sparks
No, its the spam filter, Babcock contains the word “cock” which is a trigger word.
Thanks Anthony, I appreciate that. 🙂
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 10:20 pm
Babcock is half right for the wrong reason, what is your point?
As you can see from the Figures, Babcock is right all the time, whatever the reason.
lsvalgaard says:
May 18, 2014 at 11:11 pm
As you can see from the Figures, Babcock is right all the time, whatever the reason.
His work is very good, If I could sit down with him and explain the part that didn’t work, after he overturned the coffee table in a fit I think he would agree.
There will come a time in the not to distant future when you will be censored for saying “Babcock” albeit selectively… lol
David, you’re just trying to sell your book. There no science here!
I misspelled can’t? Quite! put a different vowle in and its correct.
Any comment on this 970yr peak Leif?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3617729/figure/f0035/
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 11:45 pm
His work is very good, If I could sit down with him and explain the part that didn’t work, after he overturned the coffee table in a fit I think he would agree.
Well, you have not explained here the part that you think does not work, so I doubt Babcock would react other than by shaking his head. Try again.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 19, 2014 at 6:30 am
Any comment on this 970yr peak Leif?
Part of the 2000-yr, 1000-yr, 500-yr, … series. Harmonics and sub-harmonics. And not stable in phase. People find all kinds of cycles. Some find 1470-yr cycles and swear they are real. What say you?
lsvalgaard says:
“What say you?”
I would expect many repeat events at a pitch of 953 years.
just in case
I am not sure if all the people here understand that “weaker” solar activity
means a “hotter” sun, at least as far as the most energetic particles coming from the sun are concerned – there would be more of them during a period of low magnetic strength
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
in turn this (these more energetic particles) causes global cooling due to the reaction of these particles TOA>
HenryP says:
May 19, 2014 at 11:18 am
I am not sure if all the people here understand that “weaker” solar activity
means a “hotter” sun, at least as far as the most energetic particles coming from the sun are concerned – there would be more of them during a period of low magnetic strength
It would be good if people don’t understand this as it is not true.
Says you
And who else?
HenryP says:
May 19, 2014 at 12:50 pm
Says you And who else?
Everybody who knows anything about this/
Leif Don’t you think that the decline in the solar magnetic field strength evidenced in the increase in the neutron count between the cycle 23 and cycle 24 sunspot peaks strengthens the working hypothesis that the 1000 quasi periodicity is past its latest peak and that we can therefore anticipate a cooling trend.
I’m really not much interested in making debating points with you – I genuinely would like to know what evidence suggests to you that the 1000 year peak is ahead rather than just behind.
One of STEREO A B accomplishments is a contribution to the understanding of the penetration of interstellar neutrals into the solar system..forming a 180 degree “Interstellar Crescent,” at 1 AU.
This crescent looks a lot like what we see happening in stellar accretion models, Dr. S., except it is our solar system..
pg. 14
Figure II-12. A schematic of the pickup ion flux (color-coded
contour). Interstellar neutrals enter the heliosphere from the right
and generate regions of enhanced interstellar material in the well
known focusing cone and the newly discovered crescent.
pg. 17
Figure II-13. Four orbits of the STEREO-A providing longitudinal observations for pickup ions C+, O+, and Ne+. The
focusing cone for interstellar neon is seen near 77o, similar to that for He+ (not shown). The newly discovered interstellar
crescent for He+, Ne+ and O+ spans nearly 180o in the upwind region, and provides a best estimate inflow direction
in the range of 78.9 o – 80.4 o. Both structures are aligned around the inflow direction of interstellar neutrals. In contrast,
pickup carbon is statistically consistent with an isotropic distribution, as expected for an inner source.
STEREO : “What lies behind the Sun”
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/publications/stereo_sr_2013_proposal.pdf
pg. 17
“””The crescent formation results from the enduring depletion of interstellar neutrals during their flight
through the heliosphere combined with a geometric effect. Neutrals at ecliptic longitudes that are not
aligned with the axis of the inflowing material have had a longer exposure to solar radiation and to
the solar wind if they are observed at a fixed distance from the sun. As a result the observed PUI
intensity shows a clear longitudinal dependency that resembles the form of a crescent if viewed in
polar coordinates (thick red line in Figure II-12). Both the focusing cone and interstellar crescent are aligned
along the inflow axis of the interstellar medium, with some modest deviations from systematic transport effects.
The STEREO results of inflow directions for the cone and the crescent (Figure II-13) are important for
interpreting earlier results from Ulysses, Prognoz 6, and ACE in the context of the recent IBEX results
for the inflow direction.”””
Rosine Lallement et al is making corrections to Priscilla Frisch et al on the 6 degrees in 40 years of the flow variation of interstellar neutrals through the system. Something about the math and the hydrogen not checking out.. Wonder if R. Lallement et al have seen the Stereo results above and the “Interstellar Crescent?”
Dr Norman Page says:
May 19, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Leif Don’t you think that the decline in the solar magnetic field strength evidenced in the increase in the neutron count between the cycle 23 and cycle 24 sunspot peaks strengthens the working hypothesis that the 1000 quasi periodicity is past its latest peak
Since the Sun now is where it was a hundred years ago [and a hundred years before that] it does not seem to be connected to anything on a 1000-yr time scale, so, no, I see no such evidence for ‘strengthening’.
and that we can therefore anticipate a cooling trend.
The climate warms and cools all the time. Sooner or later it will start to cool. This is regardless of any putative cycles. I see no reason to even think there even is a cycle, but if we assume by extrapolation [which is always dangerous when you don’t know the cause of assumed variation] that there is one it is not evident that we have past its maximum.
Carla says:
May 19, 2014 at 6:13 pm
One of STEREO A B accomplishments is a contribution to the understanding of the penetration of interstellar neutrals into the solar system.
All very interesting but irrelevant for the variation of solar activity and thus for the topic of this thread.
lsvalgaard says:
May 19, 2014 at 9:56 pm
Carla says:
May 19, 2014 at 6:13 pm
One of STEREO A B accomplishments is a contribution to the understanding of the penetration of interstellar neutrals into the solar system.
All very interesting but irrelevant for the variation of solar activity and thus for the topic of this thread.
————————————————————-
Dr. S., the penetration of energetic neutrals, pickup ions and neutrals accelerated to cosmic ray levels (ACR) are appropriate for this topic.
A newly found 180 degree crescent (equinox to equinox) inside 1 AU, on the upwind side of the heliosphere, composed of He, Ne, O and Carbon and dust should be of great import to climate discussion. ACR are found in the radiation belts as a belt..
And also for solar science, these particles are reconnecting in the inner system..
Any expansion of the solar outer corona? That you are aware of? What about changes in solar differential rotation?
lsvalgaard says:
May 19, 2014 at 9:09 am
“Well, you have not explained here the part that you think does not work, so I doubt Babco*k would react other than by shaking his head. Try again.”
I think the toroidal explanation for the solar dynamo is wrong, at solar maximum the polar field may take the shape of a toroid and obviously the physics of magnetic behavior in a toroid is the template for the for sunspot activity, The toroid explanation is flawed because it assumes that it is the currents and electrical activity that cause the suns polarity reversal even though currents and the electrical activity always have to travel in one direction being east to west on the sun (therefor the right hand rule applies and sunspots should always be moving away from the equator) they do not.
In my opinion it is the suns polar reversal that produces the toroidal shape during solar maximum and it is also the cause of the differential rotation between the poles and the equator, and therefor the cause of observable sunspot activity and magnetic behavior.
The Strength of sunspot activity is dependent on how quickly the north/south polar field interacts with itself at the equator, when the suns N/S Polarities are moving faster there is a more active interaction at solar maximum, greater sunspot number and a more pronounced semi-circular shape to the observed magnetic activity that even your work verifies, It also means weaker solar activity has a slower N/S Polarity reversal and it has a weaker interaction with itself at the equator and produce a less pronounced semi-circular shape to the observed magnetic activity.
I’ve worked out a way to mathematically simulate the timing and shape of the N/S polar reversals and I have explained to you the correct sequence of events and I hope I’ve cleared up the issue somewhat for you in this comment, I look forward to your reply! 🙂
Carla says:
May 20, 2014 at 5:53 pm
A newly found 180 degree crescent (equinox to equinox) inside 1 AU, on the upwind side of the heliosphere, composed of He, Ne, O and Carbon and dust should be of great import to climate discussion.
Except that it is not of any consequence as the energies involved to extremely minute.
Sparks says:
May 20, 2014 at 7:12 pm
because it assumes that it is the currents and electrical activity that cause the suns polarity reversal
You may think so, but that is not how it works. The polarity reversal, as Babcock explains, is caused by small magnetic flux bundles carried to the poles by a circulation of material much like the Hadley cells on Earth. These magnetic elements cancel out the old polar fields slowly over time and then establish the new polar fields with the opposite polarity. The process is also discussed here http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
May 20, 2014 at 8:42 pm
The polarity reversal, as Babco*k explains, is caused by small magnetic flux bundles carried to the poles by a circulation of material much like the Hadley cells on Earth.
That scenario is incorrect, the trajectory and speed of the suns N/S polar reversal is a primary cause over the cause of “magnetic flux bundles”.
These magnetic elements cancel out the old polar fields slowly over time and then establish the new polar fields with the opposite polarity.
Again incorrect, the polar field interacts with itself at the equator and produces a sporadic chaotic appearance, the magnetic field and the polarities are never canceled out, they produce activity such as sunspots until this interaction subsides.
Sparks says:
May 20, 2014 at 9:28 pm
That scenario is incorrect, […] Again incorrect,
What I described are based on direct observation of the process. If you have a different theory then know that data trumps theory. If there is any discrepancy your theory is wrong.
lsvalgaard says:
May 20, 2014 at 9:33 pm
If you have a different theory then know that data trumps theory. If there is any discrepancy your theory is wrong.
Theories evolve and improve, facts are not built on theory. 🙂
Sparks says:
May 20, 2014 at 10:07 pm
Theories evolve and improve, facts are not built on theory. 🙂
If your theory does not agree with the observations, your theory is wrong, regardless of how much you love it.
lsvalgaard says:
May 20, 2014 at 10:21 pm
If your theory does not agree with the observations, your theory is wrong, regardless of how much you love it.
What theory? have you elevated my correction to a theory?
Theories are notions with banner unfurled
Data is observations of the world
Both can be wrong! When data is indirect
They use theories too, and should thus be suspect
When people record, or translate, or observe
Occasions are frequent for data to swerve
When hypotheses disagree with what you see
Check the notion and data both. Don’t you agree?
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Sparks says:
May 20, 2014 at 10:33 pm
What theory? have you elevated my correction to a theory?
What correction? None of what you say makes any sense, so there is really nothing to discuss.
lsvalgaard says:
May 20, 2014 at 11:11 pm
“What correction?”
Would you like me to remind you? scroll up!
Leif,
Fact.
The Strength of sunspot activity is dependent on how quickly the north/south polar field interacts with itself at the equator.
Keith DeHavelle
I think you’re full of it.
Sparks says:
May 21, 2014 at 12:17 am
Fact.
The Strength of sunspot activity is dependent on how quickly the north/south polar field interacts with itself at the equator.
Nonsense
@Sparks,
That sounds somewhat insulting
(It’s only a suspicion)
If so, it’s rather odd, resulting
From my defending your position.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
What is suppressing the sunspots from forming?
What is suppressing the rush? to the poles?
Where is the magnetic flux?
What is happening now that wasn’t before or what is not happening now?
What is necessary to form new magnetic flux?
Has rotation slowed down, hemispherically, polar, equator regions?
How big can galactic magnetic flux tubes get? What becomes of galactic magnetic flux?
wow my fingers got away on me…
Carla says:
May 21, 2014 at 5:04 pm
What is suppressing the sunspots from forming?
What is suppressing the rush? to the poles?
Where is the magnetic flux?…
All of these are interesting questions under active research,
How big can galactic magnetic flux tubes get? What becomes of galactic magnetic flux?
The solar wind prevents the galactic magnetic field from interfering with the solar system
@Keith. DeHavelle
No Insult intended, being in a rush for work I forgot to add a tag 🙂
@sparks
note my comments to you from here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/17/the-tip-of-the-gleissberg/#comment-1642086
Leif,
If the suns polar field reversal is slower and less sunspots are produced then there is obviously a very clear relationship between the timing of the polar field reversal and sunspot activity, If you give some consideration to my “correction” that the correct sequence of events are that the Polar field reversal drives the differential rotation between the polar regions and the equator and produces sunspot activity, we can then move on and build a very precise model which accurately simulates the suns behavior.
I’ve already begun writing a program (similar in precision to planetarium software) for testing the timing of the polar field reversal and its role in shaping magnetic and spot activity.
I’ve mentioned before that I noticed when the sun has very weak or no sunspot activity during a polar field reversal because the reversal itself is slower, I’ve noticed that there is also another possibility, a slowing down of the polar field reversal may result in no reversal for a extended period, this extended period with no polar field reversal does not appear to have a limit, during extended periods of no polar field reversal there maybe periods of very slow moving polar field reversal producing very weak spot activity and even rare possibility of partial polar field reversals.
Clearly such a process is a mechanism for a solar-system wide reduction in solar energy and an excellent mechanism for driving Ice ages and interglacial periods.
Sparks says:
May 22, 2014 at 1:12 pm
the correct sequence of events are that the Polar field reversal drives the differential rotation between the polar regions
you have all this backwards and therefore your ideas are invalid and don’t need to be considered any further. What drives what is something called the ‘plasma beta’ which is the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure. If beta is greater than one, the gas moves the magnetic field around. If beta is less that one, the magnetic field drives the gas. In the photosphere and below, beta is larger than one so the differential rotation determines the magnetic field [not as you claim the other way around], see e.,g. http://www.vega00.com/2011/03/what-is-plasma-beta.html
Leif,
[The ‘plasma beta’ the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure. If beta is greater than one, the gas moves the magnetic field around.]
This is correct with what I have said, bar the sequence of causality, the polar field reversal begins the interaction between the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic strength, which ‘distorts the polar magnetic field at the equator, when the polar magnetic field is at either geographic polar region it is ‘at rest’ and the strength of the polar field does not interact with the direction the ‘gas’ (or ‘matter’) is moving in. it is only when the polar field reversal is underway that this process takes place.
Sparks says:
May 22, 2014 at 5:06 pm
This is correct with what I have said, bar the sequence of causality, the polar field reversal begins the interaction between the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic strength,
No, the polar field reversal does not influence the gas pressure. As I said you have causality reversed. Or worse, as the ‘process’ you describe does not take place, no matter the direction of causality.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2014 at 7:43 pm
“the polar field reversal does not influence the gas pressure.”
Gas pressure does not influence the polar field reversal. Do you remember all your own wise words that you would lecture me with “your theory is wrong, regardless of how much you love it” have a look into that sometime yourself. 🙂
Leif,
My argument is not backward!
Sparks says:
May 22, 2014 at 8:51 pm
My argument is not backward!
It is un-physical, contrary to observations, and perhaps best described as ‘not even wrong’..
. Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2014 at 9:09 pm
“It is un-physical, contrary to observations, and perhaps best described as ‘not even wrong’..”
It is based on physical observation, and best described as correct or if you prefer frigging awesome!
Sparks says:
May 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm
frigging awful!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Leif,
The “Wikipedia” actually is awful.
Did you know Encarta 95 had no Irish inverters listed lol
*inventors or inverters, Encarta 95 sucked! 😉
Leif,
Are you promoting the “Kruger effect” as a form of oppression? are you trying to put me man?
…are you trying to put me [down] man?
Leif,
That awkward moment when you referred to wikkipedia and it was about the “Kruger effect”.!
Leif,
Having qualifications in psychology does not overrule the qualification of being a snail.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Sparks says:
May 22, 2014 at 1:12 pm
the correct sequence of events are that the Polar field reversal drives the differential rotation between the polar regions
..What drives what is something called the ‘plasma beta’ which is the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure. If beta is greater than one, the gas moves the magnetic field around. If beta is less that one, the magnetic field drives the gas. In the photosphere and below, beta is larger than one so the differential rotation determines the magnetic field [not as you claim the other way around], see e.,g. http://www.vega00.com/2011/03/what-is-plasma-beta.html …
——————————————————————————–
Thank you Dr. S.
The link mentions mid, upper and super corona..
So then, we need to know what kind of rotation might be present and low and behold the corona rotates and there is an asymmetry in the corona rotation. Now why wouldn’t I thought that before..
Now why would the asymmetry change sign in odd and even activity cycles?
How far out past 5 solar radii does the, is it super corona extend? In this present solar cycle period?
North–south asymmetry in the solar coronal rotation
Hari Om Vats1,* and
Satish Chandra2,*
7 MAR 2011
ABSTRACT
…The solar images at 17 GHz by the Nobeyama Radio Heliograph and in X-rays by the soft X-ray telescope (SXT) on board the Yohkoh satellite have been of particular interest for the estimation of solar coronal rotation using the flux modulation approach. These studies established that the solar corona rotates differentially. The radio images estimate an equatorial rotation period lower than those estimated by the X-ray images. The latitude profiles of the coronal rotation have temporal variability. It is very interesting that the space–time plots of sidereal rotation period clearly reveal north–south (NS) asymmetry. The asymmetry appears to change its sign in odd and even activity cycles of the Sun….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01025.x/abstract
I think the toroidal explanation for the solar dynamo is wrong, at solar maximum the polar field may take the shape of a toroid and obviously the physics of magnetic behavior in a toroid is the template for the for sunspot activity, The toroid explanation is flawed because it assumes that it is the currents and electrical activity that cause the suns polarity reversal even though currents and the electrical activity always have to travel in one direction being east to west on the sun (therefor the right hand rule applies and sunspots should always be moving away from the equator) they do not.
In my opinion it is the suns polar reversal that produces the toroidal shape during solar maximum and it is also the cause of the differential rotation between the poles and the equator, and therefor the cause of observable sunspot activity and magnetic behavior.
The Strength of sunspot activity is dependent on how quickly the north/south polar field interacts with itself at the equator, when the suns N/S Polarities are moving faster there is a more active interaction at solar maximum, greater sunspot number and a more pronounced semi-circular shape to the observed magnetic activity that even your work verifies, It also means weaker solar activity has a slower N/S Polarity reversal and it has a weaker interaction with itself at the equator and produce a less pronounced semi-circular shape to the observed magnetic activity.
Sparks says:
May 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm
I think the toroidal explanation for the solar dynamo is wrong…
You may think so, but as we have discussed so [too?] many times, just about every statement you make is dead wrong, observationally and theoretically [physically].
@sparks
to go back to the argument, which was that when it becomes cooler it also becomes drier:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/19/the-effect-of-gleissbergs-secular-smoothing/#comment-1646077
not that I find (again and again!) that there is a turning point, or deadend stop, if you please, at the sun around 2015 or 2016 indicating that some process comes to an end and another one starts up.
for clarity (due to mtype error: note that I find (again and again!) that there is a turning point, or deadend stop, if you please, at the sun around 2015 or 2016 indicating that some process comes to an end and another one starts up.
HenryP says:
May 28, 2014 at 11:42 pm
This is what our solar system currently looks like:
This what our sun currently looks like:
This is what our solar system looked like in 1947:
This what our sun looked like in 1947:
lsvalgaard says:
May 28, 2014 at 10:03 pm
“Just about every statement you make is dead wrong, observationally and theoretically [physically].”
Really? 10+10=20
Your statement about me is falsified.