Allan MacRae says: Thanks to Alberta Jacobs
2
1
vote
Article Rating
A Gleissberg Solar Minimum?
475 Comments
August 11, 2014 11:16 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 3:21 pm
The quality of the data does not allow a finer determination.
…………..
Not exactly correct.
If data allows determination of 12.5 years that you found, then it does for 11.4 years which I found in the factual McCracken data.
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
(see page 25),
August 11, 2014 11:24 pm
Alan says
I still think my 2002 global cooling prediction will materialize, although I wonder if this cooling will start a bit sooner than 2020.
Henry says
It already did. Global cooling already started. Don’t trust any other data set but the ones that you have established yourself from trusted sources.
Look at all three graphs underneath my tables and tell me where we are going?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
Danger from global cooling is real and it will start with the droughts coming to the great plains of America, similar to 1932-1939, starting around 2020 or 2021.
BTW, if you take the time to look at my last graph, would you agree with me that there is no room for any AGW whatsoever? So don’t think that by putting morre GHG up in the air that we will escape global cooling. Global cooling will stay with us until around 2040. As per the current Gleissberg cycle.
August 11, 2014 11:35 pm
Leif said:
“The sunspot number is the lowest in a hundred years and the global temperature is at all-time highs. ”
===
That’s the continuously-adjusted historically-revised Orwellian temperature record.
But when did “all time highs” ever correlate with Niagara freezing twice in the same year?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572681/Niagara-Falls-comes-frozen-halt-AGAIN-subfreezing-temperatures-freeze-millions-gallons-water-normally-flow-Falls.html
When did “all time highs” correlate with record ice extent for the Great Lakes?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/great-lakes-ice-cover_n_5483993.html
When did “all times” correlate with a blizzard of cold weather reports in the UK?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2010
When did “all time highs” ever correlate with meridional circulation patterns normally associated with global cooling?
When did “all time highs” correlate with the polar vortex extending itself almost precisely over formerly glaciated regions of Nth America?
When did “all time highs” correlate with record lows outnumbering record highs by 10:1?
Why are those “all times highs” going to show up in the weather on Earth where people live?
August 11, 2014 11:59 pm
“The temperature will rise, our models say so.”
Baloney
“The temperature will fall, my prediction says so”.
Baloney
…..
Whatever happens, whichever camp turns out be right, it won’t be due to mankind’s present level of climate knowledge, just luck. We don’t know enough yet to know what we don’t know.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Go ahead and explain the pause.
We do have tremendous understanding in certain areas and we are getting better at formulating creative hypotheses while dismantling false ones, but we are still far from seeing the big picture. The more of us which exist, well fed and safe, with access to accumulated knowledge and inspiration, with easy and available communications, then the better able we shall be to peer beyond the edge of what we can not yet either conceive of, or perceive.
Fjord = (fewered + fee-ewe-erred + f’your’d) / 3
You see? Understanding can be achieved.
August 12, 2014 12:08 am
vukcevic says:
August 11, 2014 at 11:16 pm
“The quality of the data does not allow a finer determination.”
If data allows determination of 12.5 years that you found, then it does for 11.4 years which I found in the factual McCracken data.
It can’t be both. There is an error bar or uncertainty associated with those numbers.
August 12, 2014 12:29 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:11 am
Edim says:
August 11, 2014 at 11:25 pm
Leif, supposedly low sunspot numbers correlate with periods of cooling (temperature gradient, not level) with some lag.
—–
“With the proper lag [possibly even variable to fit] you can correlate anything. What lag do you prefer?”
_______________________
Why go through all the extra computational work? One can go right over to WoodForTrees and use their cool graphing tools. Any amateur can use that online etch a sketch to maneuver parameters around all over the place and fit just about anything.
August 12, 2014 12:51 am
Alan Robertson
Feel free to prove me wrong. Go ahead and explain the pause.
henry
the pause is explained by some idiotic idea of some [luke] warmist of going back further in time [when it was still warming].
The truth is that it has been cooling, since 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
There is no pause. It is either cooling or warming.
Do you understand probability theory?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1707364
August 12, 2014 12:51 am
Leif, I don’t prefer any lag. The weakish SC 23 already had an effect – the temperature plateaued and are cooling this century (roughly).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/plot/pmod/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1975/normalise/plot/wti/from:2002/trend
I expect the global temperature indices to start plummeting after ~2015. Furthermore, like Khwarizmi said, the reality is probably somewhat cooler than the ‘continuously-adjusted historically-revised’ records.
August 12, 2014 12:55 am
Leif,
Looking at the L&P graphs http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png:
– Is it still allowed to conclude that the next solar cycle would have no spots at all?
– Earlier you declared that the ‘flattening’ of decline is a consequence of the bottom of the distribution being cut off. Is the still an acceptable explanation for the persistent flattening of the curve?
August 12, 2014 1:00 am
Edim says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:51 am
Leif, I don’t prefer any lag. The weakish SC 23 already had an effect
And [according to your graph] when we went from the strong cycles 21 and 22 into the weakish SC23, temperatures shot up.
Rik Gheysens says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:55 am
Looking at the L&P graphs http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png:
– Is it still allowed to conclude that the next solar cycle would have no spots at all?
That is probably going too far. The behavior right now is consistent with losing the small spots, but how far that will go is anybody’s guess. We must just keep observing and learn.
August 12, 2014 1:49 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
“And [according to your graph] when we went from the strong cycles 21 and 22 into the weakish SC23, temperatures shot up.”
So what? Numerous factors influence global temperature indices (including AGW confirmation bias). Surface temperatures shooting up for a few years is short-term ‘noise’. It does increase the surface cooling flux though and helps with the upcoming cooling.
Sun seems to be the main knob, but it’s not the only influence. By ~2020 we will know much more.
August 12, 2014 2:29 am
vukcevic says: August 11, 2014 at 11:16 pm
If data allows determination of 12.5 years that you found, then it does for 11.4 years which I found in the factual McCracken data.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 12, 2014 at 12:08 am
It can’t be both. There is an error bar or uncertainty associated with those numbers.
…………..
Now, you are finally correct
indeed, it can not be both, but as has been demonstrated on more than one occasion your FFT spectrum analysis lacks good resolution.
See link bellow showing higher resolution output ; your McCracken data appear to be a bit fuzzy too.
vukcevic says: August 11, 2014 at 2:43 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1707088
Leif Svalgaard says:
you have never found anything of scientific value. The rest of your comment is garbage.
…………………..
Well that is rather funny, since your spectrum is of very similar content to what I found but lacks good resolution (hence your error of about one year in the principal component).
The world’s most prominent expert on the Maunder Minimum, Hiroko Miyahara from University of Tokyo, also found same frequencies as I did and ‘almost’ you did.
Here Maunder min spectrum Svalgaard, Miyahara, etc
I compare similarities and minor differences between findings from:Svalgaard, Miyahara and vukcevic. All three contain common elements, that you describe so figuratively as garbage .
August 12, 2014 2:50 am
M Simon says:
“And yet low sun spot numbers correlate well with periods of cooling.”
The decadal ‘cycles’ in surface temperature drift in and out of phase with SSN cycles. Not good for correlation. The period seems more clearly related to period of precession of lunar apsides:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
The centennial scale variability does seem to follow SSN reasonably well with a relaxation to equilibrium response. There is a divergence in this relationship starting around 1990, When temperatures fail to drop noticeably despite reducing solar activity.
This may be due to the surface warming effect of major volcanoes caused by the reduction in stratospheric ozone that they cause.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
The step nature of the drops in TLS and no significant long term trend since 1995 ( as opposed to the steady downward trend that would result from GH effect ) is now recognised by IPCC AR5 WG1 in chapter 10. But they avoid following through to what this implies for surface temps.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/tls_icoads_70s-20s.png
Thompson and Solomon, 2009 shows most of the change in TLS outside the immediate (warming) effects of volcanoes can be attributed to ozone variation. The biggest changes in ozone are coincident with the two major eruptions.
I derived the change in energy budgetat the tropopause after Pinatubo settled out to be 1.8W/m2 extra SW making it into the lower climate system ( ERBE data ) . Estimating El Chichon to have a comparable effect would account for much of the late 20th c. warming that was the cause for the initial alarm calling.
It would also explain why temperatures failed to drop noticeably and hence the divergence between the surface SST record and SSN relaxation response.
August 12, 2014 3:52 am
Greg Goodman says: August 12, 2014 at 2:50 am
The decadal ‘cycles’ in surface temperature drift in and out of phase with SSN cycles. Not good for correlation.
Good quote, but incomplete, I would say:
The decadal ‘cycles’ in surface temperature drift in and out of phase with SSN cycles. Not good for correlation until the geomagnetic effect is taken into the account
Sun-Earth link
Why? You might ask
As my early ‘mentor’ Dr. J. Feynman says (quote from above)
The “aa” index of geomagnetic activity carries information about the two components of the solar magnetic field (toroidal and poloidal), one driven by flares and CMEs (related to the toroidal field), the other driven by co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind (related to the poloidal field). These two components systematically vary in their intensity and relative phase giving us information about centennial changes of the sources of solar dynamo during the recent CGC over the last century.
( on Jun 16, 2003 she also said: Best of luck to you, joan Feynman, since than I took a long pause, but recently have more time available to pursue the hobby)
Then NASA adds their recent discovery:
Solar coronal mass ejections CMEs in the even-numbered solar cycles tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such CMEs open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm .
August 12, 2014 4:08 am
I always enjoy a blog here about the sun, it is interesting reading. The fact that the sun is our only source of heat, and the world varies wildly between glacials and interglacials, gives me pause to imagine that the sun, our companion planets and our place in our galaxy must interplay to vary our climate. TSI is probably the only thing about the sun that is nearly a constant and seems irrelevant to our constantly changing climate.
People such as Lief seem incapable of seeing the forest for the trees and to my mind the information in data he is capable of accessing and analysing is wasted on what appears to me to be a closed mind. Unless one thinks outside the square occasionally in science nothing ever changes and nothing new is discovered. Superiority in attitude is a failing not an attribute.
August 12, 2014 5:03 am
Vuk’ says: Not good for correlation until the geomagnetic effect is taken into the account
Sun-Earth link
What is your point here? This shows exactly the phase drift I referred to.
You’re in phase around 1965; anti-phase in 1935; in phase in 1915 and anti-phase in 1885
Over that time I see 8.5 “geo” cycles and 11 SST cycles. The phase drift is fairly steady, not random back and forth.
That seems to be a fairly clear indication of a period mismatch. I don’t see anything in your graph that goes contrary to what I posted, it is essentially showing the same thing. Whether you want to measure it using SSN or ‘geo’ , you get the same answer: this decadal SST pattern is not solar induced,
In a recent paper “The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle and its Association with Extended Minima”, to be soon published in JGR/Space, Feynman and Ruzmaikin discuss how the recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMs in the 19th and 20th centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910.
Edited abstract:
Such extended minima also were evident in aurorae reported from 450 AD to 1450 AD. The paper argues that these minima are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGC), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at the Earth and throughout the Heliosphere. The occurrence of the recent XSM is consistent with the existence of the CGC as a quasi-periodic variation of the solar dynamo. Evidence of CGC’s is provided by the multi-century sunspot record, by the almost 150-year record of indexes of geomagnetic activity (1868-present), by 1,000 years of observations of aurorae (from 450 to 1450 AD) and millennial records of radionuclides in ice cores.
The “aa” index of geomagnetic activity carries information about the two components of the solar magnetic field (toroidal and poloidal), one driven by flares and CMEs (related to the toroidal field), the other driven by co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind (related to the poloidal field). These two components systematically vary in their intensity and relative phase giving us information about centennial changes of the sources of solar dynamo during the recent CGC over the last century. The dipole and quadrupole modes of the solar magnetic field changed in relative amplitude and phase; the quadrupole mode became more important as the XSM was approached. Some implications for the solar dynamo theory are discussed.
* Says The Hockey Schtick: If it is true that the current lull in solar activity is “consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles,” and the Gleissberg Cycle is a real solar cycle, the current Gleissberg minimum could last a few decades before solar activity begins to rise again.
* Solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue until about the middle of the 21st century and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.