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).
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?
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.
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.
From vukcevic on June 18, 2014 at 4:03 am:
“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.
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
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
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.
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?
reply to beng:
We don’t know how the sun behaved heading into the Maunder Min, i.e. 1630-1645.
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.
Well, that ralizm wins.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
Jump ice in 2008.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Southern ocean temperature anomalies.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-73.73,-75.23,318
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
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
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.
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
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…
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.