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 Archibald says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:29 pm
“…. God knows what is going on.”
See; Steven Mosher says: June 18, 2014 at 9:51 am
Green Sand
Everything is correct.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2007&starttime=00%3A00&endday=04&endmonth=01&endyear=2010&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
David Archibald says:
June 18, 2014 at 9:47 pm
I asked you how you determined an F10.7 flux of 100 to be the threshold for cooling. That was a softball question that you ought to be able to hit out of the park. Care to step up to the plate again and hit a homer? Explain in detail please without reference to sea level. Do you agree with NOAA/NASA that SC24 has peaked?
lsvalgaard says:
June 18, 2014 at 10:27 pm
You said, “Over time there is a balance between warming and cooling. One has to do the calculation right…”
Do you know how much time it takes under what conditions to arrive at the balance point between warming and cooling? Do you know how to “do the calculation right”? and if so, how do you do it? if you don’t know how specifically, who does in your humble opinion?
There is no pink curve on Figure 1. There is a red curve. The red curve can be verified to be SIDC monthly sunspot data. It necessarily follows that SIDC sunspot data are shown on Figure 1. This contrasts with Leif S’s statement:
Leif’s statement is therefore necessarily false. Leif should own up to his false statement, especially after making snotty pedantic comments against poster William Astley (Leif S – June 18, 2014 at 7:47 am). But apparently, snotty Leif feels the privilege to look down his nose at others and admonish them for posting “imprecisely”, while unapologetically playing fast and loose with words himself. Leif is a snotty hypocrite.
Uh, no. There I state that what you claim to be Group Sunspot Number on Figure 1 is demonstrably higher than the SIDC Total Sunspot Number for SC 5. This leads to the question: Is the Group Sunspot Number Higher than the Total Sunspot Number?” BTW, your snotty use of “admit” would have been inappropriate, even if I had said what you falsely claimed I had. As I have never said that D.A. didn’t plot GSN, there would have been nothing to “admit”.
Which does not answer the question – Is the Group Sunspot Number Higher than the Total Sunspot Number? Well, is it? If so, for what periods?
Comparison of SDIC Monthly Total Sunspot for SC5 vs SC24 shows that SC5 is lower. So, you are accusing Dave of trying to cover up the fact that SC5 is lower, by substituting another dataset for SC5 that is … 50% too low. That’s … special.
Bob Weber says:
June 19, 2014 at 6:42 am
Do you know how much time it takes under what conditions to arrive at the balance point between warming and cooling? Do you know how to “do the calculation right”? and if so, how do you do it? if you don’t know how specifically, who does in your humble opinion?
Here is a good introduction:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php
JJ says:
June 19, 2014 at 7:15 am
There is no pink curve on Figure 1. There is a red curve.
I plotted the SIDC sunspot number for 1796-1826 in pink here http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA20.png
As you can see the dark blue curve does not match the pink curve, so so much for your careful absolutely true statement. Enough said on this.
As I have never said that D.A. didn’t plot GSN
You said he plotted the SIDC numbers…
For the rest of your comment: not worth laboring on.
JJ:
Leif is correct. You will see this if you use his link, which you appear unable to do. There the curve is pink and is distinct from the blue curve.
It is true that Leif shows little patience with those such as you who are obstinately obtuse, but so much for the better, as it keeps the thread interesting. To avoid further bruises, best drop your petulance. Also, you might work on your reading comprehension skills. And your manners.
Cheers, mpainter
Leif – from “Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget ” (2009) at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php
“Earth’s Energy Budget
Note: Determining exact values for energy flows in the Earth system is an area of ongoing climate research. Different estimates exist, and all estimates have some uncertainty. Estimates come from satellite observations, ground-based observations, and numerical weather models. The numbers in this article rely most heavily on direct satellite observations of reflected sunlight and thermal infrared energy radiated by the atmosphere and the surface.”
“Determining exact values for energy flows in the Earth system is an area of ongoing climate research. ” – so then, the science isn’t settled after all….!?!?!?!?
I disregard all commentary as vacuous on Earth’s temperature sensitivity to “greenhouse gases” because temps in fact don’t follow CO2 increases. Proof: since 1998, delta T = zero, while CO2 has risen. End of story. Trenberth’s Energy Budget is like the US government’s fiscal budgets – out of balance – and officialdom doesn’t want to listen to those who see it’s out of balance.
Back to our energy source… David Archibald claims there is an F10.7 flux “level” of 100 that is the fine line between warming and cooling. Is he wrong? if so, why? I’m waiting on him to explain why he is right. I’m waiting on you to explain in your own words why he is either right or wrong.
Bob Weber says:
June 19, 2014 at 9:25 am
I disregard all commentary
Wrong attitude. You have to actually do the calculation in order to disagree.
You ‘proof’ just shows that there are other forcings at work that need to be taken into account.
Back to our energy source… David Archibald claims there is an F10.7 flux “level” of 100 that is the fine line between warming and cooling. Is he wrong? if so, why? I’m waiting on him to explain why he is right. I’m waiting on you to explain in your own words why he is either right or wrong.
He is much too simplistic [i.e. ‘not even wrong’]. BTW, F10.7 average for 2014 so far has been 147, so we are ‘warming’??
Variations on different time scales are evident in the final low-noise cosmic radiation (radionuclide production) record (Fig. 3 B, C, and D). A comparison with changes in the geomagnetic dipole field strength (21) (Fig. 3A) shows that the geomagnetic dipole shielding is the main cause of the observed multimillennial variability; the stronger the geomagnetic field, the lower is the cosmic radiation. On multidecadal to centennial time scales the cosmic radiation variations are mostly due to solar modulation (Fig. 3 C and D) as indicated by the coincidence of cosmic radiation maxima and grand solar (sunspot) minima like the Maunder minimum (Fig. 3D).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341045/bin/pnas.1118965109fig3.jpg
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341045/#B21
Leif – credit to you for answering. Maybe David A is too aloof to answer on his own post.
“…there are other forcings at work that need to be taken into account.”
MY POINT EXACTLY (I’m getting to it.)
Given the choices: a positive GHG sensitivity, a zero sensitivity, or a negative sensitivity – and given the major forcings we know for sure have the ability to increase temperatures, ie, ocean heat content and solar variability, we have a range of scenarios that are possible.
A. For instance, if GHG sensitivity is positive, it is mathematically possible, and this is what the warmists do, for an increase in temps, to neglect or minimize all other forcings such as ocean heat and solar variability, and assume GHG are the sole or main cause of the whopping few tenths of a degree increase over 30 some years that we’re all supposed to be freaked out over.
B. It is also mathematically possible to describe a zero sensitivity to GHG, whereby only ocean heat content and solar variability matter to temperature. Then we’re left to wonder where the oceans got the heat in the first place (duh), and how does solar variability accomplish that.
C. Then the last choice of a neg GHG sensitivity would mean a larger than scenario B ocean heat content and/or solar variation influence is needed to show the observed overall temp increase.
Considering the temps have been flat for almost 18 years, using IPCC-speak, it is very LIKELY that scenario A is completely out of the question. Are you agreed on that?
You asked, “..F10.7 average for 2014 so far has been 147, so we are ‘warming’??” Good question. Maybe we are, and maybe David A is right!
Bob Weber says:
June 19, 2014 at 10:21 am
Considering the temps have been flat for almost 18 years, using IPCC-speak, it is very LIKELY that scenario A is completely out of the question. Are you agreed on that?
No, without doing a detailed calculation we cannot say. The other forcings will have to be understood and quantified and I don’t think we are there yet.
You asked, “..F10.7 average for 2014 so far has been 147, so we are ‘warming’??” Good question. Maybe we are, and maybe David A is right!
D.A. has always advocated cooling and impending ice age.
David and JJ. If the two of you were riding in the backseat of my car, I would be whacking you with my fly swatter. Such immature petulance should be further away from scientific discourse as the Earth is to the next galaxy. You do your solar and climate speculations and responses to plainly stated corrections no amount of good.
David, you have been asked by me to provide a corrigendum wrt your poorly labeled fig 1. I have included what that means below in case you are not aware of this word. If you fail in this I have to ask, what else have you been so sloppy with?
cor·ri·gen·dum (kôriˈjendəm)
noun: corrigendum; plural noun: corrigenda
1. a thing to be corrected, typically an error in a printed book.
David Archibald: Perhaps I did it deliberately just to get certain people upset.
Are you saying that it was a waste of my time and energy to take this post seriously and read it?
Pamela Gray: David, you have been asked by me to provide a corrigendum wrt your poorly labeled fig 1.
Please let me second the request. That is just a start: what other “deliberate” exaggerations and stuff need to be corrected?
Matthew R Marler says:
June 19, 2014 at 11:00 am
“David, you have been asked by me to provide a corrigendum wrt your poorly labeled fig 1.”
Please let me second the request.
He [and Anthony] is welcome to use my updated version
http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA20.png
With the correct labelling.
lsvalgaard says:
June 19, 2014 at 10:39 am
“No, without doing a detailed calculation we cannot say. The other forcings will have to be understood and quantified and I don’t think we are there yet.”
Ice core data clearly indicate CO2 increases follow temperature increases historically, indicating causality runs opposite to the IPCC warmists’ conjectures. Unless someone wants to declare a change in physics happened in the modern era in atmospheric physics, it is incumbent we understand CO2 increases come from not just fossil fuel use, but from the release of it along with heat from warmer oceans. The oceans didn’t warm up all by themselves. Where did the heat in the oceans come from originally? The Sun turned up the heat during the Modern Maximum peak.
I think we have not yet seen low enough solar activity long enough for a clearly incontrovertible negative cooling trend (from today’s temperatures), which I think will come later in SC24 and further on, a negative trend that will last until solar activity reaches higher levels, who knows when. David A gave a solar activity “level” at F10.7 =100, my only questions of him are how and why?
David A: now is the time. Please give us more of your insight.
Steven Mosher says:
June 18, 2014 at 9:51 am
… After a while you understand that you only advance by actually trusting another scientist.
One of the themes running throughout the climate debate has been a tacit demand by folks like Jones and Mann to trust them. The withholding of data, methods, and code is nothing but a demand to trust the “expert.” It is pretty clear that many of the team feel that they are being denied status they “deserve.” The irony is that their own behaviour engenders the very mistrust they resent.
A poorly articulated aspect of the scientific ethos is the necessity to make it possible for other scientists to trust your work. The most important criterion by which we measure the trustworthiness of another scientist is how open they are with their data, methods, and critical details that lead to results they considered important enough to publish.
Leif, your version of fig 1 is very enlightening and would bring to a reasonable person’s mind a pause when comparing cycle 5 with cycle 24. Why? While I would not compare one cycle to another (I would rather base my decision on mechanics, not cyclomania) it does, in this case, become an instructive method in that it clearly casts doubt on using cycle comparisons, without at least listing the caveats of choosing that method, to understand anything at all about the current cycle.
Bob asks: “David A: now is the time. Please give us more of your insight.”
Please don’t.
Duster, to leave a graph poorly labeled is one of “their” tricks. Let us hope we do not do the same. Or else we cannot trust the other side of the debate either.
David Archibald says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:24 pm
… Perhaps I did it deliberately just to get certain people upset. One of life’s little pleasures is aggravating lefties…
This indicates that Leif was quite right, and further that, far from being informative, the essay is malicious and lacks any substance that other readers would find useful or informative. Is that your real intent? It is clear you and Leif don’t share much in common, but you are implying that you took a page out of Michael Mann’s book in composing that graph. Further, you imply that the enjoyment you would get out of irritating Leif makes the collateral damage you do to the rest of readers worthwhile. Seriously?
Pamela Gray says:
June 19, 2014 at 12:17 pm
Duster, to leave a graph poorly labeled is one of “their” tricks. Let us hope we do not do the same. Or else we cannot trust the other side of the debate either.
I quite agree. The entire point is that while Mosher is correct that we need to “trust” at some point, science does offer ethical and methodological procedures that provide guidance for both earning and evaluating [scientific] trustworthiness. A major handicap of “climate science” is the tendency for meany practitioners to to reject those guidelines and a consequent subsidence into childishness as an alternative.
Bob Weber says:
June 19, 2014 at 12:07 pm
The Sun turned up the heat during the Modern Maximum peak.
The Sun did not turn up much, only a few tenth of a Watt/m2.
lsvalgaard says:
June 19, 2014 at 12:49 pm
The Sun did turn up the heat. Not Much? Is the measly few tenths of a degree registered here where we live considered “much”. So, why don’t we all call it a day, stop the panic, and enjoy life!
Bob, you need to add Leif’s Modern Maximum change into the “delta-t” calculation in order to determine what amount of temperature change would occur in the global average beyond its already known solar cycle oscillation. You will find that based purely on mathematics, the change attributed to the solar variability Leif referred to is a smaller fraction of the overall change during the warming period we are discussing in other threads. My recollection is that it is smaller than the change attributed to CO2. That is not to say that the standard set of calculations fully translates ENSO processes. So with that caveat, there was a recent paper done that attributes the various components of the rise to various processes. Again, that is not to say I agree with the in-situ translation of the mathematics involved, but it is a starting point to further refine our understanding and I appreciate the thoroughness of that paper.