Solar cycle 24 contines to be lower than the vast majority of predictions that came out during the waning years of solar cycle 23. David Archibald gives an update on the current progress of solar cycle 24, showing that it remains quite low, and under-performs almost all of the “official”predictions based on models and other forecasting tools, some of which claimed as late as 2006 that cycle 24 would be 30-50% stronger that cycle 23. So far, solar Cycle 24 has been most like Solar Cycles 10 to 15 which started in 1855 and ended in 1923. It is noteworthy that solar cycle 10 produced the famed Carrington event, which if it occurred today, would likely wreak havoc with our sensitive electric grid and electronics.
Guest essay by David Archibald.
Figure 1: Sunspot Number
Source: SILSO data/image, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels
Solar Cycle 24 has been stronger for longer for about a year now. This plot of sunspot number that decline from the second peak is underway.
Figure 2: AP Index 1932 – 2015
The Ap Index, a geomagnetic index driven by the Sun’s magnetism and the solar wind, remains at levels of previous solar cycle minima.
Figure 3: Sunspot Area versus Ap Index 1932 – 2105
From Jan Janssens’ website Solaemon, this graph plots the Ap Index with sunspot area from 1932. Absolute lows in the Ap Index correspond to solar cycle minima but the peak in the Ap Index can be much later than peaks in the solar cycle. Note that the Ap Index was quite strong during the 1970s cooling period up to the Solar Cycles 20/21 minimum.
Figure 4: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2015
The F10.7 flux is not subject to observer bias and thus many prefer it to the sunspot number. This chart confirms a second peak in Solar Cycle 24 over the last year. A F10.7 flux above 100 is warming, below 100 is cooling. So the last few years have put a little pulse of warming into the climate system.
Figure 5: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2015
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle flattens at solar minimum. For the Solar Cycle 23/24 minimum, that occurred in October 2009. From that minimum, the tilt angle had the fastest ascent of the instrument record which happens to be only three and a half cycles. The peak in the tilt angle this cycle is also the broadest in the instrument record. If that means anything, it possibly means that there is not much drive behind it.
Figure 6: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1967 – 2015
This graph shows a rise from the low in the late 1960s to the peak at Solar Cycle 22 maximum and then the 23 year decline from that peak. It is this flow that modulates the flow of galactic cosmic rays in the inner planets of the solar system.
Figure 7: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2015
Galactic cosmic rays produce a continuous shower of neutrons in the lower atmosphere. The climatic significance of these neutrons is that they provide nucleation sites for cloud droplets. Clouds in turn reflect more sunlight than land or open ocean, cooling the planet. The neutron count follows solar activity with a lag of about a year, reflecting the time the solar wind takes to get to the outer parts of the solar system.
Figure 8: Sum of Solar Polar Field Strengths 1976 – 2015
This data is from the Wilson Solar Observatory and thanks to Dr Hoeksma for updating the data. As with the broad top in the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle, there appears to be a broad top and not much energy in the system.
Figure 9: Smoothed Sunpost Number in months from minimum
Also from Jan Janssens, this figure shows Solar Cycle 24 (green line) compared to the averages of Solar Cycles 10 to 15 (solid blue line) and Solar Cycles 16 to 23 (solid red line). In terms of analogue cycles, Solar Cycle 24 has been most like Solar Cycles 10 to 15.
Figure 10: Sunspot Latitude
Yet again from Jan Janssens, this figure shows the sunspot latitude of Solar Cycle 24 (green line) compared to the average of Solar Cycles 19 to 23. Note for the purpose of this graph, a different month of minimum is used. In this case it is August 2007. This graph is important in that it shows that Solar Cycle 24 is no faster or slower than the previous five cycles. That does not preclude Solar Cycle 24 from becoming a very long cycle if the tail includes a period of no sunspots.
David Archibald is a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington.
His most recent book is Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I keep telling everybody that those dudes in the 70’s had it right.
A F10.7 flux above 100 is warming, below 100 is cooling
There is no evidence for that, see e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstr-F107.png
from http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf
Newbie question here.
The lower values don’t seem to vary much but at first glance there would appear to be a warming/cooling link if the peak is above or below 150. Is there a possible link?
Fix this…
Solar Cycle 24 has been stronger for longer for about a year now.
Here’s a scare story:
http://townhall.com/columnists/patrickmichaels/2015/02/15/untitled-n1957682
This story predicts that as a result of Global Warming there will be droughts in the US southwest due to lack of El Ninos. What may actually happen is that there will be no El Ninos not because of Global Warming but because of low solar activity. Then the droughts will be blamed on, who else? Nasty humans and their poisonous CO2.
David Archibald: As always, extremely useful material. David, since you have a very effective way of explaining your material it would be nice to see a more general decription in your words on the nature of the different parameters. For example, if you explained the nature of the tilt data im sure all – including me – would get the picture of why this parameter is scientifically interessting and important.
Thanks a lot.
Kind Regards, Frank
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
The sun has an impact, the question is what is the real impact of sunspots. Some information for your own evaluation.
Thanks, David.
I also look at the International Space Environment Service (ISES), Solar Cycle Planetary Index, Ap Progression:
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif
From Space Weather Enthusiasts Dashboard (NOAA-NWS Space Weather Prediction Center), at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/space-weather-enthusiasts
I think Archibald wants low solar activity to support his cooling predictions, but uses Ap fig2 , which is geomagnetic storm index driven by solar wind. Fig5 solar Flux reflects true solar activity, which not much different than sc20.
If low solar drives cooling why doesn’t it get cold during the minima between the cycles? I.e. no sunspots then!
There is no relationship between Ap and Temperatures, regardless of Archibald’s wishful thinking:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-and-Temp.png
“There is no relationship between Ap and Temperatures..”
In the shorter term, slower solar wind correlates well with negative NAO/AO and El Nino episodes/conditions. If the declining solar plasma pressure/density since the mid 1990’s is responsible for the strong warming of the AMO since then (by increasingly negative NAO increasing poleward ocean transport), the global mean surface temperature would naturally increase its warming rate for a period. Because of oceanic negative feedbacks, there should be no direct relationship between the solar wind and the global mean surface temperature at inter-decadal scales.
And why have you adjusted the Ap so high around 1870?
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now.png
Because of a correction of the Helsinki data around 1870: http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf
“Specifically, the adopted scale value of the horizontal force variometer appears to be too low by ∼ 30 % during the years 1866–1874.5”
The paper also says
“..and the adopted scale value of the declination variometer appears to be too low by a factor of ∼2 during the interval 1885.8–1887.5.”
I would expect to see a couple of warmer years on CET there if that were so, but there’s no sign of it. The 1866 to 1874.5 adjustments look ridiculously high, I don’t buy it.
It doesn’t matter what you buy. The upwards adjustment is a fact and is accepted by the most ardent critics of my work. As there is no demonstrated relationship between Ap and temperature, it is not surprising that you don’t see any.
Leif said: “As there is no demonstrated relationship between Ap and temperature, it is not surprising that you don’t see any.”
Makes sense. That would be similar to saying that Average Global Temperature is directly proportional to CO2 concentration.
Thermal lag
“To summarize, we find that both solar hemispheres have increased their rotation rate since the late 1990s until recent years. Moreover, the increase rate is fairly similar in the two hemispheres, so that the hemispheric asymmetry in rotation rates has been roughly constant, with the southern rotation being slightly faster. This period of recent solar speed-up coincides with
the decline of the Modern Maximum (a period of exceptionally high activity during most of the twentieth century), which is evidenced by the overall reduction of sunspot activity, vanishing of small sunspots, decreasing solar wind density and magnetic field, etc. We also note that similar albeit shorter and less significant periods of both hemispheres speeding up were only found during the two lowest solar cycles 12 and 14 at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth century. These results strongly suggest that, at least momentarily, there can be and, in fact, there currently is a negative correlation between the solar surface rotation rate and sunspot activity. The causes of these results can be found in the interaction between the solar differential rotation and the magnetic field. Simulations (Brun, 2004) have shown that low Maxwell stresses in weak magnetic fields lead to a high rotation rate at low latitudes where sunspots appear.”
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/03/aa25169-14/aa25169-14.html
Rather than these short term cycles which many agree indicate a Dalton like Minimum … I am interested in the Milankovitch Cycle. On popular science documentaries I’ve heard the claim it will be 40,000 years until the next glaciation phase in the million plus year ‘ice age’ we live in. The more reputable person suggested precession entered a phase where the tilt range put us back into the cycles prior to the previous 5 cycles where the interglacials were 50 or 60 thousand years instead of 10 thousand years. I have yet to see this topic addressed directly however. As for the current “Dalton Like Minimum”, our advances in a whole range of technologies will mitigate most of the cooling and the contaminated surface data (UHI) will disguise much of the trends so that it is looking more like the ‘Climate Change’ movement will morph into an ‘Energy Tax’ movement without skipping a beat and once again the advance in technology subsequent average ‘standard of living’ will disguise the economically destructive activities of government. In summary, we can afford to purchase our illusions (a luxury good per say) and it will take a long time before we decide to know the truth, if ever. Thanks for keeping the discussion out there though.
Not a lot is right here. Yes the curren ice age is a million year plus – about 2.5 million years.
There hasn’t been 5 long 100 000 year cycles – the correct figure is 8.
The cycles before this time weren’t 50-60 thousand years – they were 40 thousand years.
OK, so I didn’t get the Neogene or whatever right off, now I’ll have to research the 8 cycles although it’s been 10 years since I’ve dug through this stuff. The information about the previous time previous to this is thin as I presume its based on the margins of glacial tills not over-ridden … but OK, I didn’t remember which was longer, the interglacial or glaciation which gives one or the other 20 thousand years ….
I just have to say … so what … now that we have the details are out of the way, are we in a new glaciation? … or has something changed as suggested vaguely in a few scientific documentaries. I appreciate the technical corrections, but you didn’t answer the big question.
Do we have 10’s of thousands of years to the next glaciation, or is it just a Heinrich Event away, which from what I’ve seen we don’t understand very well.
Apologize for not using Quatenary Period. Quick search with some clues inspired here and found … “More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.” OK, now I have something interesting to look at.
“An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?, A. Berger, M. F. Loutre (2002)”, given the date, I must not have been that interested in the past. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5585/1287 Appears to be universally referred to … by the way your 40 thousand year assertion is incorrect, there is no correct answer as it gets quite messy although less drastic in deviation from mean. Also there were not 8 ‘long Milankovitch Cycles’, there are 10 documented ones with a cursory glance with 4 being somewhat like the last. You did get the 2.5 million years close enough however.
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~born/share/papers/eemian_and_lgi/berger_loutre02.sci.pdf
SO much hand waving (and economic destruction) for one 20-yr period (1978-1998). Holocene is 11.5 k yrs and counting with hundreds of 20 to 30 yr up/downs (climate change?). Holocene is the 52nd ‘warm period’ of the Quaternary (104 MIS with 52 cold periods followed by 52 warm periods) and that’s IF we agree that the Quaternary started at 2.58 my (just as easily to claim that it started 3.1 my or 3.4 my based on MIS data set). Since 1950, we’ve gone from 4 Gtons of atmospheric carbon loading annually to the current 38 Gtons of carbon loading, yet in those 65 years, we’ve experienced only 20 years of ‘warming’, yet still “debate” the CO2, GHG meme.
Two references, Andre Berger calculated that the analogue to the present Holocene interglacial is the interglacial 400,000 years ago, Marine Isotope Stage 11.
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/3ICESM/3ICESM-11.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.U33B..01L
Various estimates give sea level during MIS 11 as high as 20 meters above the present, 66 feet.
“We found that the northern and southern hemispheres both have been speeding up since the late 1990s – the ending phase of the MM. The activity level in cycle 23 is significantly reduced compared with other cycles during the space era. The recent minimum between cycles 23–24 lasted rather long, and various solar activity measurements reached unusually low values. The solar wind density and the heliospheric magnetic field intensity were reduced by nearly one third, both reaching uniquely low levels since the measured time of about 50 years (Cliver & Ling, 2011; Jian et al., 2011). The sunspot activity in cycle 24 is even more significantly reduced and matches the low level at the beginning of the twentieth century. This supports the negative correlation between solar rotation rate and sunspot activity.”
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/03/aa25169-14/aa25169-14.html
Also, I show the International Sunspot Number Ri:
http://sidc.oma.be/images/wolfmms.png
From Monthly and smoothed sunspot number (Ri) (SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels), at http://sidc.oma.be/silso/monthlyssnplot
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/model-trend/scaffetta-2013-mwp-fig23.gif
Now if one looks at this chart(in the above) the bottom one with the blue temperature curve and compares it to the latest study showing the solar secular cycle one will see a good correlation between global temperature and the solar secular cycle.
The solar secular cycle trend from 1610-2010, and the absolute values of the solar secular cycle trend correlating with the global temperature trends (1610-2010), and absolute values of the global temperature.
The solar secular cycle trend also shows a distinct increase in solar activity from the period 1930-2005 period, versus the period from 1650-1930 in that the solar secular cycle through out that period of time never exceeds 125 ,in contrast to being above 125 from the 1930-2005 period of time, with a peak of 160!
In addition if one examines the data, at times when the solar secular trend breaks 100 on the down slide the global temperature trend is down although the global temperature value starting points may differ most likely due to other climate items superimposed upon the global temperature trend such as the state of the PDO,AMO or ENSO.
During the times when the solar secular trend broke 100 those being the period 1660 -1720 and 1780-1830 both corresponding to the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum ,the global temperature trend is in a definitive down trend. In addition even from the period 1880-1905 when the solar secular cycle approaches the 100 value, the global temperature trend is slightly down once again.
Then on the other hand, when the solar secular cycle trend exceeds 125 from 1930 -2005 the temperature trend is up and shoots really up when the great climatic shift takes place in 1978 which is when the PDO ,shifted from it’s cold to warm phase.
The data from the above shows quite clearly that when the solar secular cycle breaks 100 on the down slope look for a global temperature cooling trend to begin from what ever level the global absolute temperature is at, and when the solar secular cycle rises and breaks through 100 on the upside look for a global temperature trend to rise from what ever level the global absolute temperature is at.
A general rule I see is when the solar secular cycle exceeds 125 global temperatures trend up or are at a higher level and when it breaks 100 on the downside global temperatures trend down or are at a lower level.
If this latest solar information is correct and that is a big if ,but if it is correct, it shows the climate is more sensitive to primary ,and the secondary effects associated with solar variability.
In addition my low average value solar parameter criteria for cooling may be able to be adjusted up some , due to this latest information.
One last note, it looks like around year 2010 the solar secular cycle trend finally broke 100 on the down swing which would be the first time since 1830, when the solar secular cycle broke 100 on the up swing and had since stayed above that level until year 2010.
THE GRAPH SHOWING THE SOLAR SECULAR CYCLE IS ON PAGE 13 OF THE PDF I HAVE SENT . LOOK BELOW.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Maunder-Minimum-Not-So-Grand.pdf
Zolotova paper
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Maunder-Minimum-Not-So-Grand.pdf
extended planetary feedback correlation to full 400 years
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Now as far as solar flux values cooling should set in when that reading exceeds sub 90 but with the latest data which has just been presented(if correct) I may have to increase that number.
Neutrons are small magnets, although the sum of their electric charge is 0. Therefore, their energy is converged under geomagnetcznego field lines.
In the northern hemisphere it is a northern Canada and central Siberia.
“Since neutrons are neutral particles, they do not have to overcome Coulomb repulsion as they approach charged targets, as experienced by protons or alpha particles. Neutrons can deeply penetrate matter. On the other hand, without an electric charge, neutron beams cannot be controlled by the conventional electromagnetic methods employed for particle accelerators. The magnetic moment of the neutron allows some control of neutrons using magnetic fields, however,[24][25] including the formation of polarized neutron beams.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment
The increase in of neutrons since 1990.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1990&starttime=00%3A00&endday=15&endmonth=02&endyear=2015&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Using planetary feedback formula devised and published more than 10 years ago, extrapolation suggested non-smoothed SC24 to peak at approximately SSN =80. At same time re-phased version tracks polar magnetic field with well over 90% accuracy.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.gif
As before, the correlations are exceedingly poor.
Have you got better or simpler one?
No. OCCAM’S RAZOR states that a scientific rule interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex, explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
Only hypothesis that are plausible need be considered. Crackpot theories don’t count.
Sometime it takes a crackpot to shout “the emperor has no clothes”.
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake after proposing that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own planets, and moreover the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own (a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism).
Now 400 years later we know he was correct.
Actually, it also cooled during the 1950s – 1960s. Until ~1975 it was a negative PDO. I think the solar advocates may be making the same mistake of misattribution as the aerosol guys.
It could be some sort of two or three way combo, I suppose. But I think PDO is the better explanation.
Many who do not have a good understanding of the climate system are guilty of the following, which is why all the data they put up trying to show no cause and effect is misrepresentative. They have no understanding of the dynamics and the interplay of those dynamics.
The problem with so many in climate science is that the scientist in this field try to prove their points as to what may or may not effect the climate with specific items, as if they are in ISOLATION, rather then in the context of the entire climatic picture.
Again a given force and magnitude changes of that force which may impact the climate has to be taken into consideration with the entire spectrum of items that are exerting an influence on the climate at that given time ,along with the state of the climate at that given time in order to get a sense of what impact that specific force may or may not exert on the climate.
This is why it is so hard to prove and show a simple cause and effect relationship between the climate and items exerting a force upon the climate even though it does exist.
No need to guess at least one who you are referring to.
Cycle 24 most closely matches Cycle 12 (1878-1890). Nothing else comes close:
http://www.pbase.com/image/159141997.png
Typo
Figure 3: Sunspot Area versus Ap Index 1932 – 2105
I don’t think the graph projects out to 2105
As well as being “low” in various measures, this cycle also looks like it will be quite a bit longer than the average. Hasn’t that also in the past been correlated with cooler temperatures and does this hold up?
lSvalgaard: I believe your arguments are closely tied to at belief that effect from Sun should be reflcted in Earth climate immideately rather than (logiccaly) on an accumulated basis.
ONE (or just half) weak Solar cycle cannot be expected to cool down Earth Oceans over night. Only when more weak Solar cycles have been observed you can seriously question the role of the Sun if temperature development has not been affected.
Indeed see Del Prete above.
Perhaps – but I’m not sure we’d expect the oceans to continue warming either.
There is another thing that puzzles me. David Archibald shows the 1970s cooling period on Fig 3 above. The implication being that the weak solar cycle 20 (which began in 1964) caused the cooling. But the cooling actually began in the mid 1940s and ended in the 1970s.
So, not only did earth’s climate respond immediately to solar cycle 20, it anticipated it 20 years before the event. I can see that this solar/climate link is pretty complicated.
Sorry – should be Fig 4 not Fig 3. in above post.
Yet Total Solar Irradiance from the Sorce TIM instrument has recently been in the 1,362.3 W/m2 range which rivals the peaks of solar cycle 19 (the largest one) in 1958 from its most recent reconstructions.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/sorce-total-solar-irradiance-plots/
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
TSI is relatively tame animal. Solar initiated geomagnetic storms are far more effective, colliding with the Earth’s magnetic field short term oscillations in the polar regions (particularly in the Arctic, where the field is split) modulates the high altitude atmospheric density, in turn interfering with polar vortex.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC.gif
http://s23.postimg.org/691bp3lln/Sun_SST_AMOC.png
Along the lines of Solar Secular Cycles and correlations with global temperatures we have SCD ,in the above graphs which is solar cycle deceleration. One can see very strong correlations. Look at the data.
There were lots of weak cycles in the past. And you should really question Archibald here.