Guest essay by David Archibald
The following is a series of graphs that depict the current and past state of the sun.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Mr KD Knoebel
Despite your comment being somewhat incoherent, it has been noted. Tnx again.
vuk says:
June 22, 2014 at 7:32 am
Despite your comment being somewhat incoherent
Not at all. Very clear and concise debunking.
From ren on June 22, 2014 at 1:42 am:
Actually that was TSI not having an effect on tropical temperatures, which goes along just fine with Eschenbach’s Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis.
Are you sure you are not a bot that grabs keyed words, composes something English sounding, and spits out semi-related links?
Besides, as long as you’re throwing out graphs to show correlations and causality, it is easily shown the AMO precedes the SSN when the planet is warming, thus AMO could predict SSN thus solar activity. It is when the planet is cooling that SSN leads AMO.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900/to:2014/mean:61/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:2014/mean:61/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2014/mean:61/normalise
The PDO is more complex, but since the most recent warming phase starting 1979 which I think Tisdale called The Great Pacific Climate Shift (something like that), SSN clearly leads PDO:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2014/mean:61/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:2014/mean:61/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2014/mean:61/normalise
So there you have it. For the most recent planetary warming period, the AMO precedes the SSN which precedes the PDO. The graphs prove it. Figure out the mechanisms and your Nobel Prize awaits. Not the Peace Prize either, but a real one.
I’m actually eager to read how the AMO controls the SSN when the Earth warms. Please don’t write it up too complex.
lsvalgaard
Have you seen the new studies?
Six chronologies based on the growth of Scots pine from the inland of northern Fennoscandia were built to separately enhance low, medium, and higher frequencies in growth variability in 1000–2002. Several periodicities of growth were found in common in these data. Five of the low-frequency series have a significant oscillatory mode at 200–250 years of cycle length. Most series also have strong multidecadal scale variability and significant peaks at 33, 67, or 83–125 years. Reconstruction models for mean July and June–August as well as three longer period temperatures were built and compared using stringent verification statistics. We describe main differences in model performance (R^2 = 0.53–0.62) between individual proxies as well as their various averages depending on provenance and proxy type, length of target period, and frequency range. A separate medium-frequency chronology (a proxy for June–August temperatures) is presented, which is closely similar in amplitude and duration to the last two cycles of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO). The good synchrony between these two series is only hampered by a 10-year difference in timing. Recognizing a strong medium-frequency component in Fennoscandian climate proxies helps to explain part of the uncertainties in their 20th century trends.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jcli/2014/578761/abs/
ren says:
June 22, 2014 at 9:25 am
Have you seen the new studies?
Six chronologies based on the growth of Scots pine from the inland of northern Fennoscandia were built to separately enhance low, medium, and higher frequencies in growth variability in 1000–2002.
At least these people are smart enough not to attribute the variations they find to the Sun.
To the previous link.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_northsweden2.gif
lsvalgaard says: June 22, 2014 at 8:59 am
Not at all. Very clear and concise debunking.
Hi Doc
Nice to here from you.
As you may well know, Reykjavik atmospheric pressure doesn’t influence NA SST, one could consider it a precursor without a direct consequence. Reykjavik AP’s peaks and troughs during last century, were some years ahead of the NA SST, and consequently it is also unlikely that NA SST would change the RAP some decades later.
Reykjavik AP is a function of what is going on in Greenland and the Nordic seas, while more than 75% of NA SST is from many thousands of miles further south. Perhaps in your haste you failed to notice that the average NA SST (including winters) is just under 21C.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RAP-AMO.htm
As you also may well know, Iceland is most of the time well north of the polar jet stream, but to assume that the subtropical jet stream reaches Iceland is, well stretching it a big bit, even for the time of the MWP.
I’d suggest: the comment you refer to: it is not clear, it is not concise and for debunking, you are of course, as anyone else is, entitled to your views and opinions.
! force is with tectonics !
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“Solar activity does not have a clear effect on the temperature of the equator (the tropics).”
It seems that the biggest temperature spikes are from around a year after the sunspot minimum where the Ap index drops off:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4tr/from:1980/to:2014/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1980/to/normalise
Ulric Lyons says:
June 22, 2014 at 9:57 am
It seems that the biggest temperature spikes
Things are not always what they ‘seem’.
vuk says:
June 22, 2014 at 9:41 am
! force is with tectonics !
nuts, as usual.
lsvalgaard says:
June 21, 2014 at 7:54 pm
Carla says:
June 21, 2014 at 7:31 pm
In that case you make our star the only exception to what rules in the rest of the stellar systems around the galaxy.
Here is the deal: find us a SINGLE paper that shows and explicitly claims that the interstellar medium controls contemporary solar activity. Then we’ll discuss that and the arguments employed.
———————————————————————————————————————–
And I will do just that, as soon as I find a model/simulation that includes the role of the interstellar magnetic field in the accretion process. lol
Until then, first article has some interesting stellar magnetic field models used in it to show matter accretes to a star. And how this accretion process by differing magnetic field strengths of the dipoles and octupoles produces spots on the star. Don’t miss all the fun Dr. S.
Of particular interest is what the models reveal in the case of parallel and antiparallel accretion and the solar magnetosphere asymmetry that occurs under each case.
Now How might a parallel or antiparallel interstellar magnetic field play a role in that?
I’m saturated and need to retreat to a different topic.
MRI-driven Accretion onto Magnetized stars: Axisymmetric
MHD Simulations
M. M. Romanova, G. V. Ustyugova, A. V. Koldoba, R. V. E. Lovelace
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1089v1.pdf
8 February 2011
Accretion onto Stars with Octupole Magnetic Fields: Matter Flow, Hot Spots and
Phase Shifts
Min Long, Marina M. Romanova, Frederick K. Lamb
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.5455.pdf?origin=publication_detail
24 November 2011
Two issues with Ren’s linked article:
1. A bigger problem than what Ren creates (attempting a Sun-connection, which there was none) has to do with treemometers that appear to be, based on the article Ren links, capable of telling the researchers that this amount of growth in this ring back in the day was caused by natural factors but this here other amount of growth, though extremely similar to the former, was caused by in part or whole, anthropogenic factors. How does the tree know to tell us?
2. In addition, the funding source is an environmentally sustainable focused organization though the authors state no conflict of interest. Bullsh**. Researchers are likely “encouraged” to toe the line and make their teat payment somewhere in their published article. Too bad. I thought the research was quite good. That is until the teat payment came passed my eyes. The focus of the research was primarily focused on creating a high-quality treemometer data set, which I think it did. It spent very little time on researching the AMO signal as a correlating piece, and no time at all researching anthropogenic factors. Yet their final paragraph spends quite a bit of time on both.
A proper conclusion or summary provides an overarching summary of researched findings without putting in something new that was not part of the focused research. The body of the text gave no mention of studying anthropogenic CO2 and a sidenote on the AMO. Why put it in the conclusion? Why make it the last statement that will invariably stick in your mind like the last song you heard? Here’s why: Teat sucking payment.
Here is the last paragraph of the article which goes too far in my opinion and makes statements not supported by their research:
“We can explain the otherwise peculiar general view of the 20th century by presuming that the growth surge and corresponding warming in the early half of the 20th century are part of a widespread dominant cycle taking place along a rising centennial trend (both types are evident in the l-f and m-f series). It is within reason to link the early multidecadal features more closely to natural phenomena and the overall 20th century rise to external forcing. Analyzing different frequency ranges in proxies will potentially help in meeting a major future challenge to separate the externally forced from internally driven variations (both natural and external components integrated in long records) for the detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change.
Conflict of Interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.”
Carla says:
June 22, 2014 at 10:56 am
And I will do just that, as soon as I find a model/simulation that includes the role of the interstellar magnetic field in the accretion process. lol
So far you have nothing. And the cases you peddle are not applicable to the Sun in the first place as the Sun is not accreting in the sense the term is used in stellar astronomy.
Maybe we should require authors to state that, “The authors declare no conflict of interests regarding the conclusions of this paper.” And until we can force tax payer dependent funding sources to remove bias as a requirement for funding, we will continue to get teat payments.
lsvalgaard says:
June 22, 2014 at 10:56 am
vuk says:
June 22, 2014 at 9:41 am
! force is with tectonics !
nuts, as usual.
———————————————–
I’m glad Vuks said that, it reminds me.
Harvard had an article a while back discussing rotations compressional and extentional forces.
As rotation begins to increase the north pole experiences more compressional force.
An incremental increase in rotation by 1999 might be manifest, when a volcano, under the ocean, at the North Pole, on Gakkel ridge, went off with the force compared to when Pompeii was destroyed by Vesuvius. They have since found a mini continent growing. Compression and broken ice also come to mind.
In the Southern hemisphere, extensional forces sounds like glacial calving.
Extending its influence through vortex duct vents all the way to 13.47 deg. S. of the equator
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-61.24,-47.27,410
13.47° S, 27.06° W
There seems to be a tendency for the AMO to be in unison with the sunspot cycle when the AMO is in its cold phase, and the inverse of the sunspot cycle when the AMO is in its warm phase:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1800/normalise
Ulric Lyons says:
June 22, 2014 at 11:59 am
There seems to be a tendency
Things are not always as they seem…
Better view of the battle between the South Pole Vortex and the Equator. (10 hPa)
Speed of the vortex at 64.21° S, 127.38° E, 224 mph
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/equirectangular=-75.00,0.00,261
Speed of the equator at 4.72° N, 44.64° E, 105 mph
And that is related to the solar update how?
Not quite what I was looking for, but still interesting.
http://www.iau.org/science/meetings/future/symposia/1120/
April 27 – May 1, 2015, Atlanta.
I wonder why Carla is going on about stellar accretion with interstellar media, when our local region has “relatively low density” thus there’s little out there our Sun could pick up anyway.
And now I’m getting lost.
“Local bubble” 100 parsec = 326 light years = 3,100,000,000,000,000 km (3.1E15).
Voyager 1 had crossed the heliopause in 2012 at about 121 AU = 18,000,000,000 km (1.8E10)
We are in the Local Fluff which is about 30 ly wide = 2.8E14 km (ly = 9.46E12 km)
So we are in the heliosphere bubble which is in the Fluff, which is in the bubble of high-pressure supernova leftovers and/or the “local bubble” of relatively low density interstellar media?
Is the high-pressure leftovers bubble the same as the low-density bubble?
lsvalgaard says: June 22, 2014 at 10:56 am
nuts, as usual.
Dr. Svalgaard here are some facts you are well aware of :
– Iceland is most of the time to the north of the polar jet
– Reykjavik atmospheric pressure leads AMO by 6-8 years
– North Atlantic average SST as high as 20.8C
– Subtropical jet stream, south of which the most of the SST comes from, never reaches anywhere near Iceland.
What tectonics has to do with it?
Well, as it happens an awful lot: Iceland with its extremely productive volcanic activity, 2% of volcanic eruptions since 1600s, but with 30% of total volcanic ejected material, during the same period; millions of m3 of volcanic ash settling on the Arctic ice (albedo factor). Denmark Strait with 1000m deep volcanic and glacial sediments spread over more than thousands of km2, Reykjanes and Kolbensey ridges with only recently discovered submarine volcanic eruptions, rise of a micro-continent to the south of Svalbaard; the Nordic Seas, the most likely location for initiating the Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events, etc, etc
A bit disappointed from a scientist, who is not only well familiar with Iceland, but also spent a part of his scientific career in the nearby Greenland, and what you offer to the readers is ‘nuts, as usual’.
Funny, my childish imagination just pictured a benevolent God blowing bubbles out of a child’s toy.
Pamela Gray says:
June 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm
And that is related to the solar update how?
—————————————————————–
better than
“useless information, supposed to fire my imagination,
I can’t get no, oh no, no, no
hey hey hey that’s what I say”
lsvalgaard says:
June 21, 2014 at 6:41 pm
In http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf we study solar rotation since 1878 and find [as expected] that the more magnetic the sun it, the more rigid its differential rotation. In any case, all this is controlled from inside the sun, not from the outside.
—————————————————————–
Thanks for the link Dr. S. Just looking now..
Carla says:
Better view of the battle between the South Pole Vortex and the Equator. (10 hPa)
More interesting will be in July and August, when there are spikes in temperature. Now the vortex accelerates. If you will fall clearly solar activity vortex will be inhibited.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2013.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/10mb6590.gif