Guest essay by David Archibald
Solar cycle length is one of the more important parameters, though difficult to judge even though the cycle is more than half over. The longer Solar Cycle 24, the colder the climate will be during Solar Cycle 25 according to Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory. The one true indication of the end of a solar cycle and the beginning of the next is the flattening of the heliospheric current sheet. That is likely to be at least four years away.
Figure 1: Heliospheric current sheet tilt angle
Figure 2: Interplanetary Magnetic Field
The interplanetary magnetic field has recovered from the record lows of the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition with a peak of activity post the Solar Cycle 24 maximum to levels equating to the 1970s colling period.
Figure 3: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016
For the last 18 months solar activity has been in a disciplined downtrend with well-defined activity bounds. There was a jump up in the lower bound of activity in July 2015 but still maintaining the same slope. What is interesting at the moment is that the F10.7 flux has been in a narrow band between 75 and 79 since October 17th.
Figure 4: F10.7 Flux less the decline
To better understand what was going on during that period of 18 months of disciplined downtrend, Figure 4 above shows the F10.7 flux since the beginning of 2015 with the slope flattened. There is a change in character between the first part of the disciplined downtrend period and the second part, with much less volatility in the latter.
Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2016
Figure 5 shows the whole of the instrumental record for the F10.7 flux. While Solar Cycle 24 is the smallest solar cycle in the record, no apparent climate response has been seen to date apart from the cooling of the North Atlantic water column to 700 metres. The greatest temperature response to changes in solar cycle length is seen in northwest Europe so the North Atlantic water column heat content may prove to be a leading indicator.
Figure 6: Ap Index 1932 – 2016
Activity in the Ap index is backloaded to after Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
Figure 10: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2016
The peaks of the solar wind flow pressure during the current solar cycle are also backloaded to after solar cycle maximum.
Figure 7: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2016
The cause of variation in the neutron count is the strength of the interplanetary magnetic field carried in the solar wind. A weaker magnetic field and solar wind allows more galactic cosmic rays to penetrate to the inner planets of the solar system. The galatic cosmic rays cause a shower of neutrons when they hit atoms in the atmosphere. In turn, those neutrons provide nucleation sites for cloud droplets, increasing cloud cover and the Earth’s albedo. Despite the higher values for the interplanetary magnetic field and the solar wind flow pressure post the solar cycle maximum, the neutron count has risen to the levels characterisitic of the 1970s cooling period.
Figure 8: Solar Dipole from the Wilcox Solar Observatory
It is apparent that a number of aspects of solar activity are not a random walk. That may include the solar dipole which appears to form one sharp peak during each solar cycle with the peak values for at least the last four cycles aligned.
Figure 9: Total Solar Irrradiance 1976 – 2016
Variation of total solar irradence over the solar cycle is said to be inconsequential in affecting climate with the change in neutron count being at least seven times more powerful. The total solar irradiance is down to levels of solar minima prior to the 23/24 minimum.
David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
F10.7 may at some near future point become the only daily go-to measurable quantity for current solar cycle magnetic activity. Sunspots may disappear, not for reasons of lack of underlying cycle activity, but because of waning umbral field strength,
REASON: if umbral magnetic strength drops to a point where the twisting flux tubes are not dislocated to surface of the photosphere, there will be no (zero) sunspots to record.
But that may not mean strong ploidial magnetic activity of the cycle leading to cycle peaking is not occurring. It just mans the overall strength of the solar field is not strong enough to make spots. Whether that is what actually happened during earlier Maunder, Sporer, or Wolf minimums remains to be seen as human technical measures are only long enough to make a fool of anyone who claims they know what happened at those times.
Sunspot number and area has been dutifully and regularly recorded on a daily basis for over 200 years, and on at least a weekly-monthly (but sufficient for Dr Svalgaard’s reconstruction and calibration) basis to accomodate cycle strength determinations (with adjustments) to modern standards going back to the designated Cycle 1 (the first 2 decades of the 1700’s). But our total sunspot observational records only go back to just before the Maunder minimum, i.e. early 1600’s. Solar activity reconstructions prior to that are simply based on proxies, like BE10, etc.
The best analogy for what is F10.7 is an understanding on the modern induction cookstove. Magnetic fields in the cookstove heat a ferromagnetic pan by conerting electrical energy to a generated magnetic field that then excites the Fe atoms in the pan. That makes the pan get very hot, very quickly to heat the liquid contents of the pan, without any radiative heat transfer across the stove surface. The stove surface remains relatively unheated except by the hot pan backradiating its heat to the glass cooktop.
The photosphere surface of our sun is “only” 5870 K or so. But the coronasphere, a few hundred kilometers above it, is at least at a million degrees K. That heating is accomplished by the magnetic induction originating below the photosphere surface that heats the plasma in the coronal region (above the photosphere) to very high temp where it gives off extremely shortwave UV radiation, EUV. This is also why looking at a solar eclipse (photosphere masked by the new moon, but corona “visible”) with your naked eyes will cause UV burning (and possibly permanent damage) to the retina. The physical process that magnetically heats the corona also produces a highly correlated microwave flux at 10.7 cm (2.8 GHz radio frequency).
Botomline, F10.7 may be the best quick measure in future cycles of what is happening magnetically with the sun. And F10.7 is a direct proxy measuee for the EUV generation that makes ozone in the Earth’s upper atmosphere and the near UV that efficiently pumps energy into the oceans. And both of those processes are likely critical in medium to long-term climate predictions.
Exactly and I looks like prolonged minimum solar conditions are here to stay for some time and if it pans out the climate should show cooling.
And if it continues to show the opposite?
Problem is Tony, it doesn’t show the opposite, unless you are trying to include a NATURAL El Ninio !!
WHY DOES THE CLMATE CHANGE?
I think we should look to the suns primary variability and the secondary climatic effects associated with that solar variability moderated by changes in the strength of the earths geo magnetic field, and lunar influences.
These factors bringing the terrestrial items that influence the climate either toward a warmer mode or cooler mode, and if these terrestrial factors are pushed far enough in one direction or another climatic thresholds could be reached which result in a complete reorganization of the climate.
THE TERRESTRIAL ITEMS
changes in atmospheric circulation patterns
changes in oceanic current patterns
changes in frequency of major volcanic activity
changes in sea surface temperatures
changes in global cloud coverage
changes in global snow coverage
changes in global sea ice coverage
Milankovitch Cycles yes, Continental Drift yes they do cause the climate to change but that is in the big very gradual climate change picture but these forces can not and do not explain all of the many abrupt climatic changes which have sometimes according to Ice Core evidence taken place in a decade or two. I mean swings of 4 or 5 or 6F, not necessarily for the entire globe but at least in the northern latitudes of the N.H. which is significant enough.
CURRENT SITUATION WILD THIS WINTER SEASON?
Even looking at the current situation in the N.H we have snow coverage way above normal and the area of temperatures below freezing way above normal. I have always said who cares if the Arctic is above normal because it is still far below freezing. Who cares if the N.H is above normal in temp. if much of it is due to the very high latitudes.
Is it not funny that the AO is tending more negative once again as solar EUV light has been on the decline. Is it not amazing that this also happened in the 2008-2010 period of time. My bet is look for -AO to be the rule gong forward , and let us watch global sea surface temperatures and see if any declines start to develop. I think they will if UV light remains weak enough and sunspot numbers average less then 40. I am talking about much longer wavelengths here in respect with UV light /sea surface temperature as opposed to EUV light which is more involved with ozone.
OTHER SHOE TO DROP ?
Right now half of the solar parameters have reached my criteria to cause global cooling those being cosmic ray counts, solar flux, EUV light , and sunspot numbers.
What is left is for the solar wind and AP index to plummet which should occur in the not to distant future if coronal hole activity on the sun subsides which it will if sunspot numbers stay low to non existent over a long enough duration of time.
GETTNG BACK TO ABRUPT CLMATE CHANGE MAYBE THIS EXPLANATION ?
I think primary solar variability is a little greater then what is being portrayed, and I also think the geo magnetic field of the earth when in sync with solar variability can magnify given solar effects which I think could go a long way in explaining why the climate at times changes so abruptly. It does because the terrestrial items which control the climate are pushed to such limits that cause the reorganization of the whole climatic system from atmospheric circulation changes to ocean current circulation changes and those will translate if changes are dramatic enough to major climatic changes.
THE UPSHOT OF WHAT I AM SAYING.
I am not saying this will occur in the present situation but I am saying this is the greatest potential for such an event to occur since the end of the Dalton Solar Minimum. More likely at the very least I think things are in place to at least bring enough global cooling going forward which should put an end to AGW theory which will satisfy me immensely.
“I am not saying this will occur in the present situation but I am saying this is the greatest potential for such an event to occur since the end of the Dalton Solar Minimum. More likely at the very least I think things are in place to at least bring enough global cooling going forward which should put an end to AGW theory which will satisfy me immensely.”
haha.. thats almost a prediction
But the emotions in Science run the other way.. You should actually want to be proven wrong. In fact you should work to prove your own theory wrong. Which is difficult because you have no theory of the climate.
no theory on precipitation.
no theory on the cryosphere
no theory on Sea surface salinty
no theory on extreme weather
no theory on Sea levels
no theory that even attempt to explain regional variation
no theory that explains paleo data
no theory whatsoever.
Further, IF we cool as a result of the sun being weaker for a long time THAT IS WHAT AGW THEORY PREDICTS
read that again
AGW theory simply states that the temperature of the planet is a function of radiative forcing.
Thats forcing from the sun and forcing from GHGs.
We would expect that if we return to a quiet sun to see some cooling. The question is
1. How much cooling?
2. Will that cooling OFFSET the warming from GHGS
So quiet sun? AGW says “It will be cooler than it would be otherwise”
No Steve AGW theory states the temperatures will be increasing with no regard for solar activity.
As far as the other areas you mention that I have not mentioned you should look at my website.
Mosher, AGW says that “all things being equal, the human contribution of GHGs will make things warmer than they would be otherwise.” The idea that the sun has some effect on weather is there regardless of the “A”. Without the “A” it’s simple(!) natural climate variation. In fact, the “W” vanishes as well during a “cooling” period.
You have a very good comment, as usual, but seem to have missed a few items that could explain a majority of the “climate change”.
I’d hate to think I’m the only person who thinks about these possible “causes” of what is now called climate change:
Measurement errors #1
— 1800s thermometers tended to read low (low starting point)
Measurement errors #2
— there were few measurement in the 1800s (inaccurate starting point)
Measurement errors #3
— even today approximately half the surface of our planet has wild guess (infilled) data every month … infilled by people WHO WANT TO SEE MORE GLOBAL WARNING because that is exactly what they predicted.
Measurement Politics
— Repeated “adjustments” to historical data result in approximately half the claimed warming from the raw data, and the other half from the “adjustments” to the raw data.
If historical data really has to be repeatedly adjusted to become “more accurate”, then why should anyone believe the current data?
Why not wait 20, 30, or even 50 years before considering the “current” data … wait for all the repeated adjustments that we already “know” will be needed to get the numbers “right”?
In time the 1930’s Dust Bowl will be “adjusted” into the 1930’s Snow Bowl, assuming the “cooling” adjustments to 1930s raw data so far … are extrapolated into the future!
I don’t want to nitpick your comment, because you add a lot to the comments section, but I may not have understood one phrase of yours: “… a complete reorganization of the climate.”
My only thought about “reorganization” was that smarmy climate modelers, and other climate people on government payrolls, ALREADY “reorganize” the climate every year through their use of “adjustments” to historical data.
The “reorganize” the data to better match their climate catastrophe predictions.
For years I have been calling them: “smarmy climate modelers using their confusers to make wrong wild guesses about the future climate.”
A liberal friend was insulted — insisted that they were “climate scientists”.
But I replied: Wild guessing the future climate, and being wrong for 40 years, has nothing to do with science.
I now know what they are thanks to Mr. Salvatore del Prete.
They are not “climate scientists”.
They are CLIMATE REORGANIZERS !
Climate blog for non-scientists at link below:
Free — No ads — No money for me
Leftists should stay away to avoid high blood pressure — I think the climate in 2016 is great — and I know how much that belief annoys leftists!
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
While I thank David Archibald for his solar cycle updates, I think there is no reason to have them on a monthly basis as nothing much changes in the Sun in a month. Bi-yearly would be more than adequate.
And it is really a curiosity, because solar activity has zero predictive value for short term temperatures on a global scale. That is not the way solar variability affects climate. The most reasonable hypotheses propose that solar variability affects climate mainly through an atmospheric top-down mechanism that starts in the ozone layer of the stratosphere. The effect is then transmitted to the troposphere affecting pressure and wind patterns that have a small but cumulative effect over decades. The closest correlation has to be looked in the High pressure systems of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly the Siberian High and the Azores High. One or two years after a solar minimum the number of winter blocking days appears to be higher producing very cold conditions over Western Europe, like during the 2010 snow storm.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/08/article-1241576-07CC6E28000005DC-182_634x650.jpg
The Cosmic Ray-Cloud theory has a big gasping hole. Earth’s magnetic shield is 90% due to Earth’s magnetic dipole, with only 10% wiggling due to solar variability. Why would the climate respond to a 10% wiggling and ignore a 90% variation?
http://i.imgur.com/OBP3Nan.png
The actual measure of Cosmic Rays is the upper panel (check the scale). The climate of the earth for the past 12,000 years has had nothing to do with the Cosmic Ray variation.
…Clouds!!!
Look at the waves in the upper stratosphere. In the summer, they are mitigated by UV radiation.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_NH_2016.png
In my opinion, they have a relationship with jumps of the solar wind.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/swind.png
Such a pressure distribution (weak polar vortex) causes a violent attack of winter in Europe.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_nh/500gz_anomalies_nh.gif
The sharp jumps of the solar wind.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00838/y6fcz20hon71.gif
From all previous studies, models and speculation, it is evident that science wandering in this area like a fly without a head. There is no attempt to find out the true cause of climate change, not only on our planet, but on all planets in our solar system. Many invent some problems that come from the universe, and of them knows anything.
Why is science abandoned all logic and run to know something from the PC and the “golden calf” called MODEL. And some data obtained through telescopes, radiation and God knows what else.
E, my scientists, have to give some logical information as an educational tool to help orientation with the true causes of any phenomenon, including this relating to climate change. I tried many times to get involved in solving these puzzles, but without any success, because there is no one who is interested to know the truth, because the truth has no earnings. Earnings are high only on fraud, deceit and imaginary phenomena intimidate the masses, in order to give them more money.
Remember, everyone !! Climate change on the planets are due to the mutual influence of the planets and the sun, having its origins in mutual exchanges, mainly magnetism, and based on that and the forces that influence the behavior of how the core of the planet and the sun.
Sunspots do not contribute to climate change, these are just indicators of the above changes. The cycle of about 11 years, causing four planets, while others give more cycles with a much stronger influence. Cycles of about 44 to 46 years, can cause more changes, and those of hundreds and even thousands of years, can cause ice ages as well as the reverse effect.
Javier said:
“The most reasonable hypotheses propose that solar variability affects climate mainly through an atmospheric top-down mechanism that starts in the ozone layer of the stratosphere. The effect is then transmitted to the troposphere affecting pressure and wind patterns that have a small but cumulative effect over decades”
Which is proposed in detail here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
Or perhaps a more reasonable hypotheses is that God makes it happen.
Of course He does 🙂 but we are trying to figure out what method He uses.
Thanks. This is great. I had to think about an ocean current being an early indicator, but I guess it works. We need more examination of the time lags involved in such ocean response.
another blank day on the sun
Lordy. It’s like watching twins engage each other.