Solar Update June 2014 – The sun is still slumping along

Guest essay by David Archibald

The following is a series of graphs that depict the current and past state of the sun.

image

Figure 1: Solar Cycle 24 relative to the Dalton Minimum

Solar Cycle 24 had almost the same shape as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, up to about six months ago and is now a lot stronger.

image

Figure 2: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 to 2014

The strength of the current solar cycle is confirmed by the F10.7 which is not subject to observer bias. Solar Cycle 24 is now five and a half years long.

image

Figure 3: Ap Index 1932 to 2014

The biggest change in solar activity for the current cycle is in magnetic activity which is now at the floor of activity for the period 1932 to 2007.

image

Figure 4: Heliospheric Tilt Angle 1976 to 2014

Peak of the solar cycle has occurred when heliospheric tilt angle reaches 73°. For Solar Cycle 24, this was in February 2013. It is now heading down to the 24/25 minimum.

image

Figure 5: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 to 2014

This looks like a more muted version of the Ap Index. The main difference between them is that the IMF was a lot flatter over Solar Cycle 20 than the Ap Index.

clip_image012

 

Figure 6: Sum of Solar Polar Field Strengths 1976 to 2014

This is one of the more important graphs in the set in that it can have predictive ability. The SODA index pioneered by Schatten is based on the sum of the poloidal fields and the F10.7 flux. This methodology starts getting accurate for the next cycle a few years before solar minimum. If Solar Cycle 24 proves to be twelve years long, as Solar Cycle 5 was, then the SODA index may start being accurate from about 2016. In terms of solar cycle length, the only estimate in the public domain is from extrapolating Hathaway’s diagram off his image. Hathaway’s curve-fitting suggests that the Solar Cyce 24/25 minimum will be in late 2022. If so, Solar Cycle 24 will be thirteen years long, a little longer than Solar Cycle 23.

It seems that Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7 remains the only one in the public domain. The reputational risk for solar physicists in making a prediction remains too great.


David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
vukcevic

This graph reproducing the AMO has its root in the solar magnetic cycle. Since than I’ve been trying to find out if there is any other way of reproducing the AMO, in case the science for some reason agrees with the ‘solar output’ variability has no influence.
Let’s assume that solar sunspot and magnetic activity are entirely random (no sunspot or Hale cycles), but activity is still present say at an averaged level experienced during the 24 cycles of the known observations.
Question is: Would the AMO exist? In such a case could the sun still be the driver of the multidecadal temperature variability? After more than a year of deliberation, I finally concluded yes; and it is possible to demonstrate it with the existing data.

Bloke down the pub

Those who have bet the house on cagw will be keeping a nervous eye on this.

The recent perkiness of cycle 24 may explain why there hasn’t been an actual cooling response in the atmosphere as yet.
Atmospheric cooling seems to start following the peak of the first lower cycle due to oceanic thermal inertia.
In the meantime, ocean heat content is no longer rising (may be falling) and El Ninos seem to be weakening.

MattN

We need to see some cooling, not just non-warming, and soon.

Jantar

MattN says:
“We need to see some cooling, not just non-warming, and soon.”

Unfortunately cooling is the last thing we need, although it is the more likely scenario. Our planet is always healthier when warmer, not when cooler.

It will be interesting to read the remainder of David Evans findings. These graphs show us (possibly) why we have the hiatus. If his work looks promising, it will go along way into creating models that can actually be of use for trending temperatures.

This would not on its own be very convincing without more cases. However 10,000 years of solar proxies show that there is a cycle averaging 208 years. Sunspot numbers for the last few hundred years show a maximum correlation at about 211 years.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

MattN, speak for yourself, mate! Here in England we were looking forward to warming. We are very disappointed. Sure, the BBC THINK it has warmed, but not so much, and everyone at the BBC is stark raving mad anyway. Sod cooling, we were hoping for a return to the summer of ’75 and ’76 here.

I agree with MattN, cooling would be disastrous for the health and welfare of the world’s people.
But I don’t think that Jantar meant the “world” needs cooling. I think he meant that to be plausible, the solar-variation theory of climate needs cooling. Otherwise, the theory may fail to explain the observed global climate.

vukcevic

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
June 18, 2014 at 4:38 am
Sod cooling, we were hoping for a return to the summer of ’75 and ’76 here.
Last week (on the hottest day of the year so far) I emailed TonyB that based on the CET’s daily maximum temperatures, that the forthcoming summer will be cooler than the 20 year average. I did similar estimate for the last winter being warmer than the average, that proved correct, this time we’ll see

David, UK

I would prefer cooling at the expense of lesser prosperity, in return for freedom from the current oppresive warmist agenda.
However, I’m not so naive as to think that anything would change much politically in either scenario. Let’s face it: warm or cold, the political elite will twist things either way to convince the useful idiots that whatever happens’s it’s worse than we thought and all our fault, and make us pay. This is, sadly, the nature of the beast.

Dan Sudlik

You might want to rethink that DavidUK. If cooling begins they will claim credit and say we have to double down to make sure we save the world. Never underestimate the power of power and money.

vukcevic

Hathaway’s curve-fitting suggests that the Solar Cyce 24/25 minimum will be in late 2022. …It seems that Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7 remains the only one in the public domain.
Dr. Archibald,
Do you have a number for SSN25?
Hathaway rejected as impossible my SC24 extrapolation of around 80 for SC24, at the time he was predicting ‘the strongest cycle ever’.
I would estimate that Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of 7 for SC25 is far too low, and would go for a symbolic SSN=25 for the SC25.

Jantar says:
June 18, 2014 at 4:32 am
MattN says:
“We need to see some cooling, not just non-warming, and soon.”
Unfortunately cooling is the last thing we need, although it is the more likely scenario. Our planet is always healthier when warmer, not when cooler.
==============================================================
Agreed – but were the real world to put a stake through the heart if CAGW with some real cooling, that would be a good thing in itself. Then perhaps we can start looking at adaptation to climate change rather than impossible mitigation (aka economic misery).

@The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley Ah, ’75 and ’76!!! Best sweet whites [Sauternes, Barsac etc] in living memory, another reason to pray for AGW.

We can always count on David A to bend the truth a bit. His Figure 1 does NOT show the SIDC sunspot numbers [but rather the – too low – Group Sunspot Number]:
http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA20.png

mikewaite

For those of us new to WUWT and the ongoing debates it is depressing to read here the sober and erudite contradictions of some of the more extremist alarms about AGW and then look around and see that the politicians and media are still operating with the same closed mind.
Perhaps a more focussed approach is needed.
There is in the UK , and also it seems in the US, a consensus (perhaps not 97% but close) that Hilary Clinton is the next US president . Her husband is still one of the most popular and successful of recent Presidents , partly because he was lucky in that there were fewer terrorist outrages and financial crises in his 8 years , but , to his credit , because he realised that he needed to concentrate on the aspirations of the average low – middle clas working family.
Knowing that I expect that she will be open to listening to the sceptics arguement on climate change if the Obama policies lead to a significant financial or employment loss to most US families.
She will not be able to disentangle from Obama’s ploicies until after the election because she needs the Democratic party machine , but afterwards perhaps a briefing session could be arranged with the best well known of WUWT contributers to put the case for a reduction in some of the sillier of the climate change proposals in the US and abroad.
She gives the impression of being a formidably intelligent woman and a change if not in mind , but at least in emphasis could have a global catalytic effect.

Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
“It seems that Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7 remains the only one in the public domain. The reputational risk for solar physicists in making a prediction remains too great.”

Tom in Florida

mikewaite says:
June 18, 2014 at 5:51 am
“She gives the impression of being a formidably intelligent woman …”
Make no mistake about Hillary she is an arrogant, progressive liberal. It’s just that by comparison Obama makes her look reasonable. Now Bill, having good political sense, compromised with the Republicans and moved things to the center, thus his legacy for being a good President.

David had previously stated his belief that solar cycle 24 would be at least 17 years long, now he mentions it being, perhaps, 13 years long. David, have you changed your prediction?

James Strom

mikewaite says:
June 18, 2014 at 5:51 am
Shouldn’t you also have included “I am Hillary Clinton and I approve of this message”?

dc

Bill Clinton is only popular due to the continual promoting by the media. The media only promotes liberalism/progressivism. Conservative or limited governmental concepts are demeaned and attacked. Reagan was the only one to overcome the onslaught of attacks from the media and remained popular. The media needs to do its job, remain neutral and keep the leaders in line of both parties. No politician should ever be defended or popularized by the media. The media needs to stick to reporting the news. Climate change is another idea of the left that is being promoted by the media lap dogs to control/minipulate the public into giving more power to the government. It is all by design to grow government and change the world towards progressive ideals.

Resourceguy

@mikewaite
You comment about the luck of the former President Clinton is quite correct but slightly misses the target. It is a very common oversight in the media and among many voters not to acknowledge the fact that the Asian financial crisis was a late stage economic cycle stimulant for the U.S. economy by prompting Fed rate cuts in sympathy with the Asian countries for coordinated policy action and a late cycle plunge in commodity costs like oil (at $20) that act like cocaine in the veins of U.S. consumers. All of that extended the expansion rather unnaturally. The earlier Clinton moves consisted of a huge tax increase that lost the majority in the House for the first time in modern history and some moderation on spending and (or) with the benefits of post-Cold War savings in the military budget.

Taphonomic

mikewaite says:
“There is in the UK , and also it seems in the US, a consensus (perhaps not 97% but close) that Hilary Clinton is the next US president .”
That claim to consensus is as bogus as the 97% of climate scientist claim.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/17/5_reasons_hillary_wont_run_123015.html

michael hart

MattN, not sure if that’s what you meant, but how about some gentle unprecedented unchanged-ness?
That surely has to be the worst possible scenario for doomsters and charlatans predicting the end of times. [It also seems to correlate fairly well with what is often termed peace and prosperity.]

DavidR

David previously predicted a decline in average annual temperature of -2.2° C for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24 [Archibald, Solar Cycle 24: implications and expectations, 2009].
NASA says solar cycle 24 began in January 2008. According to UAH satellite temperature data for NoExt (covers 20-85° N) that region has been warming at a rate of +0.22° C/dec since Jan 2008. In the SoExt (85-20° S) the warming rate has been +0.39° C/dec since solar cycle 24 began.
That makes a net average warming of about +0.2° C for global mid-high latitudes during the first half of solar cycle 24. In order for David’s prediction to be right, we’d now need to see a decline of -2.4° C in these regions over the next 6 years (assuming a 12 year cycle).
Does David now acknowledge that the prediction has already failed?

William Astley

In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
June 18, 2014 at 5:49 am
“We can always count on”
William:
Any comments concerning the disappearing solar large scale magnetic polar field? The polar large scale magnetic field of Solar cycle 24 is curiously stalling at or near zero. Why is that so?
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
Any predictions concerning the maximum magnitude of solar cycle 25 if the solar large scale magnetic field is say 10 microtelsa?
P.S.
The sunspots are not only disappearing large sunspots are being replaced by tiny pores.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
As the magnetic field intensity of the magnetic flux tubes continues to decline, the magnetic flux tubes no longer have sufficient strength to resist being torn apart by the turbulent forces in the convection zone. There are peculiar (unexplained) very, very, large abrupt climate changes every 8000 to 10,000 years that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The last abrupt climate change was the 8,200 year event at which time the planet cooled 2C.

beng

The sun is comparatively quiet, but there have been a number of significantly active sunspots and resulting auroras last couple months — not Maunder-Minimum like.

William Astley says:
June 18, 2014 at 7:12 am
Any comments concerning the disappearing solar large scale magnetic polar field? The polar large scale magnetic field of Solar cycle 24 is curiously stalling at or near zero. Why is that so?
That happens at every solar maximum, just look at the Figure you linked to. The reason is explained here http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Any predictions concerning the maximum magnitude of solar cycle 25 if the solar large scale magnetic field is say 10 microtelsa?
You are not being precise. Before you used the phrase ‘the large scale magnetic polar field’. Now you dropped ‘polar’. I don’t know what you mean by the phrase ‘solar large scale magnetic field’. Assuming you mean the polar fields at minimum, then the predicted cycle size would be Rmax = 10*2*0.63 = 13, but I don’t think that the polar fields would get that low at the next minimum. We would know in about 5 years time.
As the magnetic field intensity of the magnetic flux tubes continues to decline, the magnetic flux tubes no longer have sufficient strength to resist being torn apart by the turbulent forces in the convection zone.
The flux tubes are ALWAYS torn apart in the convection zone, then re-assemble in the photosphere to form sunspots.
There are peculiar (unexplained) very, very, large abrupt climate changes every 8000 to 10,000 years that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
There is no evidence for that. No need to recycle your standard citations for that.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

From vukcevic on June 18, 2014 at 4:03 am:

This graph reproducing the AMO…

“North Hemisphere (de-trended) Temperatures”, removed trend unknown, could have been anything.
And the special “Geo-Solar Cycle” sauce of proprietary recipe is in there.
By the labeling I can’t tell if you plotted “Geo-Solar” and manipulated NH temps which somehow congealed to a reproduced AMO, or if you plotted AMO and NH to get “Geo-Solar”, or AMO and “Geo-Solar” for NH!
Either way, since about 1975 “Geo-Solar” goes better with a linear or possibly exponential fit, “Geo-Solar” ain’t a cycle by that presentation.

William Astley

In reply to David R.
William:
The high latitude cooling has started due to increased GCR and a reduction in magnetic field strength of solar wind bursts.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=27&startmonth=03&startyear=1979&starttime=00%3A00&endday=14&endmonth=05&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
It is interesting that the pattern of warming observed in the last 30 years (high latitude warming with almost no warming in the tropical region and there is no observed tropical troposphere 10km hot spot which is predicted and causes the tropical region warming) does not match the pattern of warming if CO2 was the forcing function. Curiously the same pattern of high latitude is observed in the paleo record cyclically with correlation to solar magnetic cycle changes.
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 16 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
Leif:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html
http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/geog41066/7-Overpeck.pdf
ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM

JJ

lsvalgaard says:
We can always count on David A to bend the truth a bit. His Figure 1 does NOT show the SIDC sunspot numbers [but rather the – too low – Group Sunspot Number]:

False. Dave’s Figure 1 does show the SIDC monthly sunspot number, as advertised.

JJ says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:14 am
False. Dave’s Figure 1 does show the SIDC monthly sunspot number, as advertised.
He commits an even worse sin: for cycle 24 he uses SIDC, but for the important cycle he wants to compare with [cycle 5] he does not use the SIDC SSN, but the group sunspot number. So be careful when you make statements. I have plotted the SIDC numbers in pink http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA20.png

william

It’s whatever Leif says it is. No one here has the proper level of understanding to argue otherwise.

William Astley says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:01 am
Leif: http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html
No evidence that that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes
William Astley says:
The high latitude cooling has started due to increased GCR and a reduction in magnetic field strength of solar wind bursts.

And no evidence for that too.

Matthew R Marler

lsvalgaard: We can always count on David A to bend the truth a bit. His Figure 1 does NOT show the SIDC sunspot numbers [but rather the – too low – Group Sunspot Number]:
that does not seem to me to change the message much, namely using the numbers you provided, a modest change in 1 graph. What difference does it make?

Joel O'Bryan

reply to beng:
We don’t know how the sun behaved heading into the Maunder Min, i.e. 1630-1645.

Matthew R Marler

Stephen Wilde: Atmospheric cooling seems to start following the peak of the first lower cycle due to oceanic thermal inertia.
Do you have a link or a citation for that?

Matthew R Marler says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:32 am
i>that does not seem to me to change the message much, namely using the numbers you provided, a modest change in 1 graph. What difference does it make?
David A said “Solar Cycle 24 had almost the same shape as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, up to about six months ago and is now a lot stronger”
Since the comparison is flawed it is not clear what the message is. My point is that one should not mix oranges and apples. My take on this is that SC24 does not look like SC5, so any conclusion based on a similarity is moot. But perhaps, it is just D.A. rambling and no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from his [sloppy] musings.

Matthew R Marler says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:32 am
that does not seem to me to change the message much, namely using the numbers you provided, a modest change in 1 graph. What difference does it make?
David A said “Solar Cycle 24 had almost the same shape as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, up to about six months ago and is now a lot stronger”
Since the comparison is flawed it is not clear what the message is. My point is that one should not mix oranges and apples. My take on this is that SC24 does not look like SC5, so any conclusion based on a similarity is moot. But perhaps, it is just D.A. rambling and no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from his [sloppy] musings in the first place.

ren says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:45 am
Well, that ralizm wins. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
It is instructive to take a longer view. Here is Ap since 1844:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png

JJM Gommers

I noticed that DA made the remark discussing the F10.7 “that this is not subject to observer bias”
so comments about fig 01 are not important

ren

lsvalgaard
Thank you very much.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png

JJM Gommers says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:55 am
I noticed that DA made the remark discussing the F10.7 “that this is not subject to observer bias” so comments about fig 01 are not important
If comments about Figure are not important, then – the lead-in – Figure 1 is not important either. And BTW, the Sunspot Number is not subject to observer bias. Different observers see different things, but there are dozens of observers and their differences are understood and corrected for.

DavidR

Re various comments above:
It would be easier for the average person to take David Archibald more seriously if he just came out and admitted that his previous predictions of rapid cooling during solar cycle 24 were simply wrong.
Since solar cycle 24 began, temperatures in the regions that David predicted would cool rapidly have so far warmed slightly.
How is anyone expected to take further ‘predictions’ from David Archibald seriously when it seems that previous mistaken predictions aren’t even acknowledged?

“We can always count on David A to bend the truth a bit. His Figure 1 does NOT show the SIDC sunspot numbers [but rather the – too low – Group Sunspot Number]:”
it is hard to undo mis information once it is spread.
REPLY: Perhaps then you and Leif should petition to prevent the group numbers from ever being published, so they they are never used in any capacity. I’ll look into getting Archibald to provide an updated graph. – Anthony

Peter Sable

Which is worse for the human race – the economic destruction caused by CAGW – induced policies, or actual cooling of the Earth? Hard to determine which one would be worse…

vukcevic

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“North Hemisphere (de-trended) Temperatures”, removed trend unknown, could have been anything.
Hi Mr. Knoebel
Thanks for showing interest.
Correct, it could be anything; in the relevant article data link is given as : http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts+dSST.txt
“Geo-Solar” ain’t a cycle by that presentation.
You are correct again; in this case ‘cycle’ is an abbreviation for a ‘pseudo multi-periodic signal’ resulting from my calculation.
I hope the above clarified the relevant ambiguities. Thanks again.
m.v.

“william says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:27 am
It’s whatever Leif says it is. No one here has the proper level of understanding to argue otherwise.”
Well if you have been following Leif since 2007 as I have, and if you see time after time
when know-nothings get things wrong and leif gets things right, the safe conclusion is this
1. If you are unwilling to check the data for yourself
2. If you are unwilling or unable to explain your version of solar physics
3. And you want to improve your understanding without doing the work
4. Then, chance are great that Leif is right and know-nothings are wrong and you should
trust him.
So yes, this is an appeal to authority. But its a pragmatic appeal and not an epistemic appeal.
its not right because Leif says so, But rather, if I am unwilling to do the work myself, and I want the best chance of improving my understanding, then its a pragmatically wise move to believe Leif.
Every time I have checked him, he was right. Every time. So I have a choice: Do the work myself
or trust Leif. you are free to do either. Both are rational. After a while you understand that you only advance by actually trusting another scientist.