Guest essay by David Archibald
One of the most accurate ways of predicting the amplitude of the next solar cycle is to derive it from the strength of the solar polar fields at solar minimum. And you don’t have to wait for solar minimum. An accurate assessment can be made four years before minimum, which is where we are at the moment. This graphic shows the last 40 years of solar polar field strength data:
Figure 1: Solar Polar Field Strength 1976 – 2016 (source Wilcox Solar Observatory)
And this graph shows that data averaged and all converted to a positive sign:
Figure 2: Solar Minima relative to Solar Polar Field Strength 1976 – 2016
It is evident from Figure 2 that solar polar field strength has an early peak and then relaxes by an average of 12 units to solar minimum before falling away. The recent peak value was 53 in 2016. Therefore the field strength is likely to be 40 at the 24/25 solar minimum. How that value translates to peak amplitude of Solar Cycle 25 is shown in the following graphic:
Figure 3: Deriving peak amplitude of the following cycle
A monthly smoothed maximum sunspot number of 62 is derived for Solar Cycle 25. This would probably be around 2025. This is almost down to Dalton Minimum levels.
In terms of other interesting aspects of solar behaviour, the F10.7 flux has settled into a narrow range:
Figure 4: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016
The F10.7 has been in a narrow range over the last two months and is now only just above the immutable floor of activity of 64, though it may be three years to solar minimum.
Figure 5: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2016
The neutron flux caused by galactic cosmic rays is at a rate equivalent to that three years prior to the 23/24 solar minimum. Skies should be getting cloudier according to Svensmark’s theory which will ameliorate the Earth’s “fever.”.
My prediction for the peak sunspot number of Cycle 25 is a monthly count of 62.
David Archibald’s next book is American Gripen: The Solution To The F-35 Nightmare.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This will probalbly lead to another thread on the effect of solar cycles on climate.
Queue the peleton…
Will be interesting to see how the global temps respond over the next couple of years. Thanks for the update.
My guess is up. Way way up.
It’s only a matter of time before they have to put the ‘fix’ in on those pesky satellite temperatures so they can finally match the models and get that global CO2 cap/tax in place. What happened at RSS was a bad harbinger of things to come.
RSS are already modifying their satellite temps toward the model predictions, as I understand
RSS and UAH temp series have had multiple adjustments…
And adjustments are bad, right?
I see Griff has finally gotten over his terminal case of embarrassment. Too bad he didn’t learn anything from it.
For once Griff, stop lying about what others have said. No one ever said that adjustments per se were bad.
What is bad are adjustments for which no justification is given and the methods behind them remain secret.
I would ask if you understand the difference, but we both know you are paid to not understand.
Well, temps rose during the period 2008 to 2015 when solar output, already low, was dropping…
That’s only true if you make the mistake of treating El Nino as climate instead of weather.
But then, any lie to support your religion is your style.
Griff, you are not qualified to speak or instruct on this subject. You cannot even read a chart.
Go back to lurking.
So the sun is dim, but the temp keeps rising?
As old Prof Julius Sumner Miller would say – “why is it so?”
“but the temp keeps rising?”
No they don’t.
Apart for the recent El Nino transient, which was an ocean COOLING event, there has been no warming this century.
I actually concede that the planet has incrementally been warming. It’s what to expect in an interglacial phase.
Manmade CO2 contribution to rising temps? Meh.
The National Geographic magazine begs to differ…
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure_files/image012.jpg
Unfortunately it started during the 1920’s before they knew how to adjust data properly…
There’s a bigger, more readable version of that National Geographic graph near the end of the article, here:
http://sealevel.info/NatGeo_1976-11_whats_happening_to_our_climate/
How would you like to have studied for many years, got your PhD and your reward is to work at the Oz BoM where you spend your days for the rest of your life tweaking and falsifying data to satisfy the priests of the Climate Cult? What a pathetic job!
Dear Mick,
I would suggest you read the previous article on Watts Up With That, titled “Homogenization of Temperature Data” I think that answers your question quite well
I follow Jennifer Marohasy’s investigations assiduously, and agree with her conclusions about the perfidy of the BoM.
The climategate emails laid bare just what “tricks” the chiefs there were prepared to pull in order to obscure and obfuscate open access to met records.
Likely the same effect that causes the Shortest day of the year, the winter solstice (today) NOT to be the coldest day of the year and that also causes the warmest day of the year several weeks after the longest day of the year
Jan 20. Usually considered to be climate mid winter
The 1st day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere is determined by the overhead or zenith position of the Sun being at its farthest latitude south of the equator in the Southern Hemisphere.
December 21st is therefore the day of the year that the Northern Hemisphere receives the least amount of Solar irradiance (heat energy), which makes it the shortest day of the year and also the 1st day of Winter in the Northern Hemisphere.
But just because the Northern Hemisphere’s month of December receives the least amount of Solar irradiance of any month during the year doesn’t mean that it also the coldest month of the year …… because it certainly is not the coldest month.
The coldest part of the Northern Hemisphere wintertime normally occurs between mid-January and mid-February, …… which is like 30 to 45 days after the Solar irradiance of the NH began increasing.
And likewise, June 21st is therefore the day of the year that the Northern Hemisphere receives the most amount of Solar irradiance (heat energy), which makes it the longest day of the year and also the 1st day of Summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
But just because the Northern Hemisphere’s month of June receives the most amount of Solar irradiance of any month during the year doesn’t mean that it also the hottest month of the year …… because it certainly is not the hottestest month.
The hottest part of the Northern Hemisphere summertime normally occurs between mid-July and mid-August, …… which is like 30 to 45 days after the Solar irradiance of the NH began decreasing.
Anyone care to explain that seeming abnormal “delay” in/of thermal activity?
Thermal inertia.
“Anyone care to explain that seeming abnormal “delay” in/of thermal activity?”
Actually it is pretty simple. For the NH, as daylight hours get longer after the vernal equinox the balance of energy in vs energy out increases. While it peaks at the summer solstice, the reality is that there is still more energy in than energy out each day until the autumnal equinox so heating still continues through September. That is why the oceans are warmest in Sep and the peak ice melt in the Arctic is in Sep. Visa versa for cooling from the autumnal equinox to the vernal equinox.
Tom in Florida – December 22, 2016 at 7:27 pm
Tom, me thinks that was pretty much an exactly right answer …… and t’was the answer that I sure was hoping someone would respond with.
And Tom, we shouldn’t be overlooking the fact that your above comment is also “Visa versa” for the seasonal changes in the Southern Hemisphere. Therefore, the cooling of the SH ocean waters still continues through September, …… and like you stated above, ….. the reason why the SH oceans are coolest in Sep.
And Tom, the next scientific fact to be considered is that the surface area of the Southern Hemisphere is 80.9% water, …… whereas the surface area of the Northern Hemisphere is only 60.7% water, ……. which means there is a 20.2% greater water surface area in the Southern Hemisphere …… that is subjected to “seasonal warming & cooling temperatures” ….. and …. ”seasonal ingassing & outgassing CO2” (as per Henry’s Law)
And that is EXACTLY what one sees via the Keeling Curve Graph, to wit:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
Mike Lewis
1930s were hotter than today.
But you wouldn’t know that from the cooked data.
From Climate Audit:
The 1930s are getting Colder:
https://climateaudit.org/2007/02/15/ushcn-versions/
This is skullduggery of the highest order. They are talking in tenths of degrees here and how you would know that 1934 should have been 54 .54 when all along we thought it was 54.91. Wow and 1999 just picked up an incredible.08 of a degree.
Incredible indeed. Gee I hope Trump Trumps these jerks.
The oceans make the last move.
With the temporary exception of the recent El Nino, the temperatures haven’t risen for almost 20 years.
Notch Theory?
I know there are solar cycles as described in this post, and I know there are solar clImate models. But I don’t think the next couple of decades can link the two convincingly, because multiple lines of evidence point to a ~65 year full cycle of natural climate variation driven by oceans (PDO, AMO, …) that happens to be a bit into a net down/cold phase like from ~1945-1975. Correlation if it occurs is not causation.
William Herschel noticed a correlation between wheat prices and sunspots and people have been trying use sunspots to predict the climate ever since. 🙂
commieBob December 21, 2016 at 1:41 pm
Trying unsuccessfully to use sunspots, as unsuccessfully as Herschel.
w.
For some reason that reminds me of: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story”.
Check out http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0312244
Not paywalled.
Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
Lev A. Pustilnik, Gregory Yom Din
(Submitted on 9 Dec 2003)
The database of Prof. Rogers (1887), which includes wheat prices in England in the Middle Ages, was used to search for a possible influence of solar activity on the wheat market. We present a conceptual model of possible modes for sensitivity of wheat prices to weather conditions, caused by solar cycle variations, and compare expected price fluctuations with price variations recorded in medieval England.
We compared statistical properties of the intervals between wheat price bursts during years 1249-1703 with statistical properties of the intervals between minimums of solar cycles during years 1700-2000. We show that statistical properties of these two samples are similar, both for characteristics of the distributions and for histograms of the distributions. We analyze a direct link between wheat prices and solar activity in the 17th Century, for which wheat prices and solar activity data (derived from 10Be isotope) are available. We show that for all 10 time moments of the solar activity minimums the observed prices were higher than prices for the correspondent time moments of maximal solar activity (100% sign correlation, on a significance level < 0.2%). We consider these results as a direct evidence of the causal connection between wheat prices bursts and solar activity.
I’m curious to see what happens to ocean heat content as a result of the solar decline. The effective time lag (ocean heat content warming the atmosphere) may be beyond my lifetime (+- 30 years) but maybe there will be a compelling theory introduced before then that will link the two. Since water has a much greater heat capacity than air, I’m inclined to believe the oceans play a much larger role in our weather/climate than that pesky CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.
Even James Hansen admits that you are correct.
Rud,
The 100-year solar cycle is very clear and has also a very clear effect on temperatures. However the present minimum is the least pronounced of the last four, and therefore its effect on temperatures will be the lowest. But you can kiss goodbye to global warming for the next couple of decades.
http://i.imgur.com/j2hbCiv.png
There is a stunning trend evident here, and it is becoming the harbinger of a climate pattern that will have severe consequences.
In years to come, the “Global Warming” mantra proponents will be seen as we now view 18th-century blood letters. I could say more, lots more, but readers of this weblog can fill in the rest quite nicely!
I couldn’t agree more. I have been attempting to convince the wonderful socialist government in Alberta, Canada, that their “Climate Action” plans are a complete waste of the taxpayers money. I liken the current
Global Warming” paranoia to the “witch hunt of our generation”.
And all I get in response is:
1. Dead silence (usually);
2. Canned response on how they are saving the planet (see witch hunt above).
The neutron count looks like an inverse of temperature. Complete with the sudden drop 0.5 C and an increase in neutron count.
So does this mean that I should not buy more sun screen?
… depends on location –
More if closer to earth’s poles because of the increased radiation due to the reduced magnetosphere of the sun protecting us.
Less at lower latitudes since more clouds.
I understand the the Polar Ocean Challenge last summer took a lot of sunscreen on their Arctic expedition before they got stuck in the ice trying to observe global warming and needed it for fuel to stay warm waiting for icebreakers to rescue them, same could theoretically apply closer to tropics as emergency fuel. From a historical perspective,there was a lot of coal burning where John Dalton lived and he did not have a need for any sunscreen due to soot. Walter and Annie Maunder spent much of their time at night in the Greenwich Royal Observatory and also had little use for sunscreen,
Hey, that reminds me; what happened to that gimp, Alex Bellini, who was going to live on an iceberg? Anyone know?
I remember similar claims being made about a decade ago when it was apparent that Solar Cycle 24 was going to be much weaker than previous cycles. David Archibald, himself, produced ‘papers’ in which he predicted a 2 deg temperature decline over the course of SC24.
If you’re confident of a cooler climate in the next decade or so then I suggest you contact James Annan about making a bet on this eventuality. He should have a bit of money to play with after he collects his winnings from the 2 Russian scientists who foolishly bet him that, because of the downturn in solar activity, 2012-2017 would be cooler than 1998-2003.
I love the fact you remember what I was doing a decade ago to protect Western Civilisation from the evil greenies and you take the effort to remind everyone of that fact. So I have may have been wrong in a case of degree but I got the direction right and if I helped stop one self-loathing fool from closing a coal-fired power station, then my efforts were not in vain. I expect Scott Pruitt to commission a report on climate science which will say there is nothing to worry about from CO2, as there isn’t. Then the whole business about consensus and established science will be on the other foot. For my part, I have gone on to geostrategic issues and defense matters. Instead of doing solar and climate science as a hobby, my main hobby now is terminating major defense projects that have gone bad, starting with the F-35.
Ah, the F-35 has only cost about $400 billion or so. What’s a few hundred billion more among friends. 🙂
I got the direction right
Not at all. 2016 and 2015 were the warmest in a long time.
I helped stop one self-loathing fool from closing a coal-fired power station, then my efforts were not in vain.
So, your argument was: since CO2 is such a strong GHG and the Sun is getting so much colder, we need all the coal-fired power stations we can get to belch out as much CO2 as possible to offset the deadly cooling the Sun will cause.
Right? I see no other [reasonable] way of interpreting your boast.
Dr Svalgaard, now you are verballing. We all know that the heatiness of C02 falls away rapidly from 20 ppm, at 400 ppm it is very slight to the point of being inconsequential. When we dig up all the rocks we can burn, and burn them, that will only be another 200 ppm and 0.2 degrees C. Lost in the noise of the system. I will put up another post on this whole topic to help you understand. In the meantime, the extra aerial fertilizer from the CO2 is the best form of aid to the Third World. We should all remember the good we are doing.
You are avoiding the issue by babbling.
Let me recapitulate for you:
1) you are proud that you have prevented the closure of coal-fired power plants
2) they produce CO2, so you are proud you have contributed to less CO2 being produced
3) you were predicting extreme cooling
4) you are proud you prevented that cooling by causing more CO2 to be produced
5) or: you were just being incoherent and we shouldn’t pay any attention to your utterances
Now, which of those 5 are true and which are false?
Dr Svalgaard, Why do you need incoherent babbling when you are producing plenty yourself. Coal-fired plants produce CO2 as you say, so if you keep one going then more CO2 is produced, not less. Perhaps all your hate of CO2 over the last ten years and more has been misplaced because of a basic misunderstanding.
Indeed, point 2) was mistyped. Should have been
2) they produce CO2, so you are proud you have contributed to more CO2 being produced
But you still evaded a straight answer to my comment. Try now.
Nah, I’ve got bored.
@ur momisugly John Finn
December 21, 2016 at 1:38 pm: Hold your horses there- SC24 is still going, untainted T data is dropping….. and there should be plenty of SC24 left yet.
More good news. When Scott Pruitt kills the global warming religion, what is going to fill the vacuum so created in lefty brains? Something will. Whatever it is, it could be more malevolent that global warming. Such a matter should not be left to chance. So I have taken it upon myself do formulate a new religion for the likes of John Finn. To that end I have acquired a copy of “The Golden Bough” by John Frazer. First published in 1890, it is a comparative study of belief systems including all the pre-Christian pagan ones. Hopefully there will be enough bits and pieces from ancient animist practices for a new and harmless belief system to be put together.
I have postulated, as you do here, that there will need to be The Next Big Thing (TNBT). The biggest mistake in the Global Warming scam was that there was actual data from actual phenomenon that could be measured and experienced. Predictions to be made, against which results could be compared. This simply won’t do. The TNBT will need to be something that can be used as a boogeyman, but impossible to measure without being special in some way, as in a palm reader or other carnival psychic type. The first person who thinks up a good one can rule the world. God is already taken, as is Nibiru.
DA does not know whereof he speaks.
The best estimate of the polar fields is from the HMI magnetograph on our satellite SDO:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Polar-Fields.png updated yesterday [see also: http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/ ]. The real North polar field is still increasing.
The Wilcox observations have an annual variation and the North pole is now disappearing behind the solar limb so the field is artificially too low [as happens every year]. The South pole has stabilized and the annual variation is now clearly defined:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
A similar difference between hemispheres also happened in 2003, when the North pole showed the annual variation while the South did not. We should wait until next year to see where the North polar fields end up, as described in http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Cycle 25 will probably be a bit stronger than SC24. Perhaps SSN = 125.
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Polar-Fields.png
Damn WordPress;
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Polar-Fields-now.png
Damn WordPress
I could not have said it more clearly.
I wonder how many will argue with you about this.
Hi Leif. Happy holidays to you and yours.
Cheers.
Bob
And one cannot update a plot. So let me change the name a bit:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-Since-2003.png
This is a severe flaw in WordPress.
One more freaking time:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-2003-2016.png
To take the difference between North and South only makes sense when both fields have stabilized. So let’s wait until late next year to make a firm prediction. But so far, SC25 does not look weaker than SC24, probably a bit stronger.
Yes, Anthony has commented on this a number of times
“But so far, SC25 does not look weaker than SC24, probably a bit stronger.” If that is so, would you like to elaborate on how that strengthiness is manifesting itself?
There is a lot of positive flux at lower latitudes still waiting to make it to the pole, so the North polar field will increase significantly resulting in a larger dipole moment and hence a larger cycle. Of course, this is still guesswork, but at least well-founded guesswork.
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Synoptic-View-2016.png
Isvalgaard, as much as it runs counter to what I think, you might be right. So I’m not arguing. I’m just going to watch. This solar cycle may not be what some of us were expecting. You’ve made your case, at least to me. I think we can learn a lot from this upcoming solar cycle.
As for remaining north polar magnetic flux that Leif points out, a SC24′ (prime), like the postulated SC4′ that led into the Dalton needs to be considered. Not saying that what it is, but it needs consideration.
That small patch of blue won’t make it to the pole in time, or have much effect when it gets there.
The movement of flux can be modeled successfully which shows that indeed the North pole will strengthen, as it has over the past several months. You see, there is a difference between science and your wishful thinking.
Thanks for the prediction.
Some more material for you:
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-Solar-Cycles.pdf
If the umbral magnetic field decays below 2000 gauss by 2020 that will make SSN metrics unreliable. F10.7 will still tell whats happening underneath the photosphere. Too much emphasis on SSN.
BTW: Science mag has good (open access I think) expose on a paper that will come out in January as to mechanics of why the solar skin spins more slowly than the convection layer beneath.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/sun-s-surface-spins-more-slowly-rest-star-may-be-why
Cool stuff.
When you’re a carpenter, you hammer nails.
When your a sunspot counter, you count spots.
It’s what you do.
The Sunspot Number is not the best metric. The Group number is:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf
Nicely put. I’ll set out my lawn chair and wait.
Happy holidays, Leif.
“My prediction for the peak sunspot number of Cycle 25 is a monthly count of 62.”
That could use some added context. I gather this is a valid monthly count chart for the last 250 years:
http://spaceodyssey.dmns.org/media/13471/sunspot-number.png
So you are predicting cycle 25 will be lowest since the early 1800’s.
A bold prediction indeed. If so, it will be very interesting to see what the climate impacts are.
I know I read some hypothesis around 5 years ago that Svalbard as an example followed solar activity, but delayed around 12 years. It was the length of the solar cycle that I recall being well correlated with Svalbard temps. Since the current cycle has been so small, does that also mean it will be short? Same for cycle 25.
I gather this is a valid monthly count chart for the last 250 years
It is not. This is:
http://www.sidc.be/images/wolfaml.png
So Leif…
using your graphic, and your prediction of 125 for ss25.. It seems that other than ss24, it will be the weakest Solar cycle since 1900?
SC14 was lower still. So, since 1900 we shall have three very low cycles: SC14, SC24, and perhaps SC25.
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycles1_24.png
Anyone else hear there is a wave of gamma radiation from a magnetar due to pass through on December 25th, much like the one that passed by on Dec 27th, 2004? That even took place one day after the major Sumatra earthquake.
I ask because there is no predictive ability in knowing when galactic or cosmic waves will hit us right?
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/570863/starquake-magnetar-earth-boxing-day-earthquakes-tsunamis
Is this what you’re thinking of? 🙂
Ok that’s what I thought, no one knows when these waves will pass with current knowledge.
How would we know of a lightspeed event before it arrives? Albert is laughing somewhere.
Crying and sobbing is more likely ….
Leif,
Undoubtedly that is the better assessment of Einstein. I stand corrected.
Entanglement
Rish,
That’s spooky….
RWturner :watch the first 38 min where he explains the 2004 plasma wave caused the major Sumatra earthquake
.Oct 6, 2009
Dr Paul LaViolette is the measured counterpart to Patrick Geryl, whose interview we have released simultaneously. A brilliant and maverick astrophysicist, Paul is best known for his research into a new theory of matter he calls Subquantum Kinetics – based on systems theory, which he studied for his PhD thesis – and for his carefully argued hypothesis, first formulated in 1983, that our galactic center periodically emits devastating waves he termed superwaves.
Galactic superwaves are intense cosmic ray particle bombardments that originate from the center of our Galaxy, and that last for periods of up to a few thousand years. Paul explains that astronomical and geological evidence indicates that the last major superwave impacted our solar system around 12,000 to 16,000 years ago, and produced abrupt changes of the Earth’s climate.
Paul explains that less intense superwaves, which recur with considerable frequency, could also pose a threat. He cites evidence that the galactic center has erupted as many as ten times in the last 2,000 years, the most recent event occurring about 700 years ago. While these low intensity events could have passed unnoticed in earlier centuries, today they could be extremely hazardous. The EMP [electromagnetic pulse] accompanying such a superwave could knock out electrical power grids and communication networks on a global scale. Consequently, argues Paul, study of this phenomenon deserves a very high priority, and he founded The Starburst Foundation to do this.
Of some considerable interest is the testimony from our insider source Jake Simpson, who told us in October 2008 that there was a ‘wave’ coming – but that it would not arrive here for quite a few years: possibly around 2017-2020. When asked how he knew, his response was that highly advanced and classified superluminal [faster-then-light] craft had been out to “take a look”, and had then returned to report back with the information. Jake told us that the effect could either be cataclysmic, or “just a puff of wind”… and that exactly what would happen, and when, was simply not known.
RWturner , watch the first 38 min of this highly interesting and brilliant interview where Dr Laviolette links connection with climate change/ global cooling and the superwave /gravity wave/ gamma rays , he explains the 2004 Sumatra earthquake.
Dr Paul LaViolette is the measured counterpart to Patrick Geryl, whose interview we have released simultaneously. A brilliant and maverick astrophysicist, Paul is best known for his research into a new theory of matter he calls Subquantum Kinetics – based on systems theory, which he studied for his PhD thesis – and for his carefully argued hypothesis, first formulated in 1983, that our galactic center periodically emits devastating waves he termed superwaves.
Galactic superwaves are intense cosmic ray particle bombardments that originate from the center of our Galaxy, and that last for periods of up to a few thousand years. Paul explains that astronomical and geological evidence indicates that the last major superwave impacted our solar system around 12,000 to 16,000 years ago, and produced abrupt changes of the Earth’s climate.
The land animal extinction episode which occurred during this interval was the worst in several million years, and Paul estimates that approximately one or two superwaves strong enough to trigger an ice age are presently on their way to us from their birthplace at the galactic core… 23,000 light years away. Paul states that there is a real chance that one such event could arrive within the next few decades. Importantly – because they travel at the speed of light – we would not see them coming.
Paul explains that less intense superwaves, which recur with considerable frequency, could also pose a threat. He cites evidence that the galactic center has erupted as many as ten times in the last 2,000 years, the most recent event occurring about 700 years ago. While these low intensity events could have passed unnoticed in earlier centuries, today they could be extremely hazardous. The EMP [electromagnetic pulse] accompanying such a superwave could knock out electrical power grids and communication networks on a global scale. Consequently, argues Paul, study of this phenomenon deserves a very high priority, and he founded The Starburst Foundation to do this.
Of some considerable interest is the testimony from our insider source Jake Simpson, who told us in October 2008 that there was a ‘wave’ coming – but that it would not arrive here for quite a few years: possibly around 2017-2020. When asked how he knew, his response was that highly advanced and classified superluminal [faster-then-light] craft had been out to “take a look”, and had then returned to report back with the information. Jake told us that the effect could either be cataclysmic, or “just a puff of wind”… and that exactly what would happen, and when, was simply not known.
Of interest also is the anonymous testimony from a senior Electrical Engineer, whose wife contacted us in April 2009 to report an anticipated major breakdown of national power supplies a few years from now. These reports – and others (such as that from Dan Sherman) – all weave together to form an unsettling picture. While we have said separately that we do not agree with Patrick Geryl’s conclusions, it does seem that the Earth, and the human race, may possibly be in for a bit of a rough ride… from a number of different causes.
Ooooooo-eeeeeeee-ooooooooo!
I need another polar bear to keep me warm in my igloo, it is a three bear night.
Throw another log on the fire and crack open the Ménage à Trois.
If you like Ménage à Trois you might enjoy Bogle Essential Red
… and read Jack London’s short story, “To Build a Fire.”
The planet is cooling. Record low temperatures in both hemispheres since June 2015. All predicted by many, many respectable scientist. If another maunder minimum occurs you should know that in the last event it is estimated that one third of all humans died of starvation (crop failure) and cold. (It played a major roll in the French revolution. “Let them eat cake” because there was no bread, because there was no wheat.)
I note that crop failures are now happening all over (easily googled).
The planet is warming. Record high temperatures in both hemispheres since June 2015. All predicted by many, many respectable scientist.
The last below average month was February 1985.
This is what will probably happen in the next few years regardless of sunspot activity.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/mohippo/media/image/p/p/decadal_forecast_february_2016.jpg
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
Climate is always changing. So what? The story that CO2 causes it is only smoke and mirrors plus professional/political intimidation.
So, converting the Arctic from a frozen desert into a temperate ocean in a couple of decades is a “story” that is unlikely to have a happy ending.
As usual, no valid physical uncertainty bars, Tony. That makes UKMet’s modeling work physically meaningless. Just like all the other climate modeling by the consensus.
The arctic is a temperate ocean? Are you high or merely stupid?
The arctic is a temperate ocean
That’s not what I wrote. Are you an ignoramus or just drunk?
Frank, I don’t think it is totally meaningless. If you don’t like theirs guess what are your expectations for the coming few years?
Tony,
By every metric of volume and global effect, the 97-98 ElNino was larger and more disruptive than the 15-16 event.
Where is it on that chart. That anomaly is so bastardized and adjusted, if you trust it, the you are stupid.
As a clue, The GCM modellers do not use the adjusted temps (that that graph uses). They know better. They know the data corruption going on. They use raw, unadjusted temps to initialize their model runs.
“Where is it on that chart.”
Um, in 1998. Seems I’m stupid if I don’t agree with you and Paul…and who could argue with that.
@ur momisugly tony mcleod
December 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm: MetOffice! – oh Tony, how sad to see such a noble mind o’erthrown…..
That is night time warming when plants are sleeping, not day time warming when they’re arguing ignorantly on climate blogs.
Chris, somewhere in a deep dark basement someone already knows, .. if that happens. They’ve messed around with this so much, that I am uncertain. Once, however, I was reasonable certain that within a solar cycle or 2 of cycle 23, we would be in a cooling trend. How deep or how long were unknowns. It could be different degrees ranging from mild with not much happening to severe and lasting a while. Actually I was very surprised at the deep and long duration of the previous minima. I had dropped out of this debate principally because the solar forecast was suppose to be more of the same. I had to be notified that the sun changed. Whatever the data, I don’t think the sun changing is in doubt. In the current modern period, we are in uncharted territory.
The other possibility is that they truly believe the stories they are telling, which is extremely scary for us as a species. I’ve seen that with nuclear energy. And they wonder why there are so many regulations. There is nothing wrong with nuclear energy, it’s the humans running it.
Australia had a bumper wheat crop this year, 35% more than the prior year. …http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-06/abares-december-crop-report/8078938
In an ElNino year as well.
Crop failures? Australia is having near record harvests, storage and transport issues serving the volume and prices are not fantastic due to high crop levels elsewhere. Where are all these failures of global impact? even when easily googling I didnt see them?
Global wheat crop this season just ending. Just sayin’…
Correction:
Global record wheat crop this season just ending. Just sayin’…
I think you protest too much Brett.
With Trump in charge, the climate change science is of no further interest to the ordinary mortals, even the academics with their research budgets drying up will have to go back and do honest day of work.
Is it sun? Is it CO2?
No one cares any longer stu..d !
..I hope you’re right
After 8 years of liberal doom and gloom about everything…
…I have a feeling most of the good news from now on will be a self-fulfilling prophecy
I hope you’re right too, but for the first time in a loooong time, there’s legitimate cause for optimism.
I think the economic engine is about to be fired up like it hasn’t in my lifetime.
Is it the number or the size of sunspots that is important ? let’s say 2 really big ones have more impact on earth than 40 small ones.
Would a Carrington-class Solar Superstorm have a cooling or warming effect ? Is it a coincidence that the Little Ice Age ended in the same time period ?
Would a Carrington-class Solar Superstorm have a cooling or warming effect
Such a storm is too transient and short-lived to have any lasting climate effect
And so what would kickstart the move into an ice age, even a little one?
A very large volcanic eruption, perhaps.
Saw an article that said Campi Flegrei was starting to wake up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4054208/Is-SUPERVOLCANO-Naples-blow-Campi-Flegrei-crater-shows-signs-reawakening.html
Michael,
A tilt angle of the Earth’s axis approaching 24deg would be my bet for building a Laurentide ice sheet.
The incremental reduction in Earth’s axis obliquity aided by the next cluster of Grand Solar Minima in about 2000 years. We are getting there.
http://i.imgur.com/1n9EY8W.png
I must have missed something. I was expecting the amplitude prediction for solar cycle 25? 62? as in graphical form, anyone can pull a number out of our ass and be close, I’ll go with 74.
More like 125, IMO.
One problem is the DA probably prefer the obsolete sunspot scale of Version 1.
Everybody should begin to use the new official scale, to avoid confusion:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/home
If I use the “new official scale”, I’d be in line with 125, this seems like a pretty high estimate, in context it’s a conservative estate, Interesting…
The facts are, the suns polar reversal has slowed down, cycle 25 in theory should have less sunspots, unless the speed and timing of the polarity reversal as it slows down, can produce a large amount of sunspot activity ten/eleven years from now, as always when the polarities are reversing across the equator, but lets say, the poles will move and reverse slower, and that the ‘solar circuit’ will not produce an el nino, not for another 22 years at this stage, we are left with only one fact, the suns polarity reversal causes various levels of sunspot activity when it reverses, the suns polarity, at times does not reverse.
What if the suns polarities didn’t reverse, I’m not saying they will not for cycle 25, this is the case I believe for other periods in the past. What if the suns poles remained at the geographical north and south respectively, would there be any sunspots recorded? My guess is there would be nothing notable, maybe a few along 30 degrees or so for a limited amount of time,
How long can the suns polarities remain at its geographic poles? How long before having no sunspot activity does earth respond to this?
If xrays and UV drop of the scale due to no sunspot activity alone, some thought will need to be explore this area.
the suns polar reversal has slowed down
On the contrary, it had progressed as usual, and is now complete and a new polar field is building. As far as we can observe the new fields are not weaker than the old ones before the reversal, and possibly will be stronger as the field is still growing in the North.
The rest of your comment does not make any sense to me [at least].
A line of thought I have been pursing… to help you understand this Lief, I’m describing the polar reversal over many solar cycles and not just SC24, any thoughts on this are appreciated?
Thought/inquiry 🙂
*pursuing, My spelling really takes a nosedive after a long day when I rely on a spell checker, apologies Lief.
Will be needed to explore this area!
1: I believe as several solar scientists have stated that so far, at the present time, it looks like 25 will be a little stronger than 24 was. 2: as for heating or cooling, I believe that has less to do with solar radiation that it does from secondary effects of the magnetic field strength (GCRs reaching the inner solar system). 3: It has not had its impact felt yet because there seems to be about a 10 year lag in the climate response that is not currently understood.
If the increase in GCR counts does have a significant impact on climate with at 10 year lag, we should be seeing clear evidence of it very soon that would be able to directly test the hypothesis. One complicating problem is that we just experienced a rather strong El Nino condition that boosts atmospheric temperatures as ocean dumps heat to air. Since the peak of that event in the spring of 2016 we have seen a rather rapid fall in global atmospheric temperatures. While this drop will likely not be enough, soon enough, to avoid a record for 2016, it does appear that 2017 will be a cool year and as we are not having a “La Nina” condition required to recharge the Western Pacific Warm Pool, it is likely to remain cool for a while.
I’ve been watching SuspiciousObservers channel on utoob for quite a while now. Isn’t the ejecta from sunspots, or the lack of them of late, included in any effect? As he has so often commented, sunspots aren’t ejecting our way anywhere near what they used to. Or some such.
Not that anyone has been able to show, no. There is SOME change in total solar irradiation but it is not enough to account for the change we see in climate that seems to track with GCR rates (with a lag of about 10 years). The change in cloud cover that has been observed during periods of high neutron counts would be enough to account for the change in climate so we are in a period where this hypothesis can be directly tested. So Svensmark’s hypothesis is testable.
And has failed the test, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
“it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”
I will disagree that there is no link with cosmic rays and clouds because there is very robust experimental and observational evidence that there is. The issue is whether it is enough of an impact to cause the change in climate that we see that very closely tracks with it.
I will disagree that there is no link with cosmic rays and clouds because there is very robust experimental and observational evidence that there is.
The point is that, unfortunately, there isn’t.
“it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur
Is this not La Nina?
Nope. “La Nada” the NINO3.4 index has to go below a -0.5 anomaly. It hasn’t.
That plot shows a long swathe of below -0.5 anomally. Large areas are ca. -1.0.
SUSTAINED below -0.5 http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Thanks, I’m grateful for the answer..
Cheers
Note Michael that the phenomenon of El Nino / La Nina was initially noted by changes in fish catches well before people thought climate was a science. The climate ‘scientists’ then agreed that the geographic box Nino 3.4 was the only thing that mattered and defined the El Nino and La Nina solely on a metric for that box for a particular number of months; this is regardless of the fish catch which was the original metric. So vast swathes of the Pacific can go cold or warm with various unnoticed meteorological effects while the world climate ‘scientists’ stare fixedly at the SSTs in the Nino 3.4 ‘box’. So this cold Pacific is no-true-Nina regardless of its impact on current weather. Thus all comparison with previous ENSO events based on fish catch metrics are invention.
Although Sun spot numbers SC24 are much lower than for SC23, the solar radiation data at the SORCE web site shows that solar radiation for SC24 peaked well above SC23. This begs the question, “are we finally seeing the influence of the Jovian planets in the radiation data?” or, is the NASA algorithm that is used to calculate the top of Atmosphere figure removing the evidence of the Jovian planets influence on the Sun and Solar System’s rotation around the barycentre. SORCE has been recording data for over 13 years now so should provide a great opportunity for further research.
No such luck 🙂
But there is good evidence that the SORCE TSI measurements are not quite correct, perhaps suffering from over-correction of sensor degradation:
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf
so solar radiation in SC24 is, indeed, lower than in SC23. Slide 59 of my link:
http://www.leif.org/research/SORCE-TIM-Over-correction.png
Thanks, I had not previously seen the presentation at your link
Not sure how to rectify David prediction of 62 when we surpassed that already.
That was a _prediction_ for Cycle 25 which has not started yet.
100% cloud cover today. But then that is simply a nice cherry plentiful this time of year.
Leif,
Robertvd above queried whether size or number of sunspots was more important as to potential ultimate consequences and I have not seen an answer? It is something I have also wondered about say surface area involved or some other measure other than simply number irrespective of size. Seems you may have addressed this before but I do not recall.
The total area of the sunspots vary closely the same as their number, so should have the same influence if any. Very large spots are rare, so have really no lasting influence.
The following chart from NOAA shows the predicted F10.7 at the very right to be 65, and the downward slope is still pretty steep.http://legacy-www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/f10.gif
I understand the debate over sunspot activity and global temps is ongoing, but it will be VERY interesting to see what happens to global temps over the next 5~7 years when sunspot activity continues to collapse, and if SC25 (starting in 2021) turns out to be as weak as the 1790~1820 Dalton Minimum…
Regardless, the PDO/AMO 30-yr cool cycles will both be in effect from 2019, so by 2022, the disparity between CMIP5 model ensemble global warming mean vs. satellite/radiosonde global mean should well exceed 3~4 standard deviations for 25 years, which is more than sufficient disparity and duration to toss CAGW in the trash…
Trump’s administration will eventually hold Senate hearings and order an independent scientific audit of the “YUUGE” disparity between CMIP5 model projections, GISTEMP, HADCRUT4 and Satellite/Radiosonde global datasets and will implement changes to US policy based on these scientific findings.
It’ll be VERY interesting to see what this graph looks like in 2022:
Leftists will not be pleased… Which, in and of itself, is a very strange reaction… One would expect jubilation knowing CAGW is a disconfirmed hypothesis… but, alas…
Regardless, the PDO/AMO 30-yr cool cycles will both be in effect from 2019, so by 2022, the disparity between CMIP5 model ensemble global warming mean vs. satellite/radiosonde global mean should well exceed 3~4 standard deviations for 25 years, which is more than sufficient disparity and duration to toss CAGW in the trash…
Yes SAMURAI, however if there is a continued rise in temps and continued loss of global ice then that, for reasonable people, would put a lot of other postulations to bed.