Solar cycle 24 has seen very low solar activity thus far, likely the lowest in 100 years.
Guest essay by David Archibald
Figure 1: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2017
The F10.7 flux shows that over the last three and a half years the Sun has gone from solar maximum through a bounded decline to the current stage of the trail to minimum. Solar minimum is likely to be still three years away.
Figure 2: F10.7 Flux of Solar Cycles 19 to 24 aligned on month of minimum
Solar Cycle 24 is sitting at the lower bound of activity for solar cycles back to 1964, the start of Solar Cycle 19. From here to minimum though, it looks like Solar Cycle 24 will have much lower volatility than the solar cycles that preceded it.
Figure 3: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2017
According to Svensmark’s theory, the neutron flux, with its effect on cloud cover and thus the Earth’s albedo, is one of the bigger climate drivers. For Solar Cycle 24, the neutron flux duly turned around and starting rising again in 2015, one year after solar maximum. It is a safe bet that the neutron flux is heading for a record high at solar minimum (+ one year) relative to the instrumental record.
Figure 4: Oulu Neutron Count aligned on month of solar minimum
The last weak solar cycle was Solar Cycle 20 which caused the 1970s Cooling Period. From the same stage in that cycle the neutron count flattened out to minimum. That could happen for Solar Cycle 24 but it is more likely to keep rising to minimum as 23 did and thus we can expect a count, at the end, of over 7,000.
Figure 5: F10.7 Flux and Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2017
If we conflate the F10.7 flux and the Oulu neutron count inverted, that shows they tracked each other closely up to 2004. Something changed in 2004 and since then the neutron count has been higher relative to its previously established correlation with the F10.7 flux.
Figure 6: Ap Index 1932 – 2017
Figure 6 shows that what changed in 2004 was the magnetic output of the Sun, shown in this instance by the Ap Index. Prior to that, there seemed to be a floor of activity at solar minima, just as the floor of activity for the F10.7 flux is 64. Three years to minimum and the Sun is now back to that level.
Figure 7: Solar Polar Field Strength 1976 – 2017
The best predictor of the amplitude of the next solar cycle is the strength of the solar polar magnetic fields at solar minimum. Figure 7, from the Wilcox Solar Observatory, shows that the solar polar magnetic fields at minimum have been weakening with each successive cycle.
Figure 8: Solar Polar Field Strength aligned on minimum strength at solar maximum
Solar Cycle 25 started from the blocks looking like it was going to be very weak and fulfill the prophecies of those predicting a Maunder-like experience for the 2020s. Then after a couple of years it caught up with Solar Cycle 24. Looking back over the previous three cycles, the solar polar field strength at this stage, three years before minimum, has been close to the value at minimum. On that assumption, Solar Cycle 25’s amplitude is likely to be two thirds of that of Solar Cycle 24, and thus 60. Further climatic cooling is therefore in store.
Figure 9: Sunspot Area 1985 – 2016
NASA has deigned to give us another nine months of sunspot area data by hemisphere, up to September 2016. The strong asymmetry between the northern and southern hemispheres continues. The fact that the hemispheric peaks of the last three cycles align indicate that there is a multi-decadal force operating in the vertical dimension. The chance that two sets of three points line up exactly by themselves is infinitesimal.
Figure 10: Hemispheric Sunspot Area and F10.7 Flux
As shown by Figure 10, total sunspot area tracks the F10.7 flux closely.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
What phase of the SC20 in the 70s and current SC? (+/- NH Sun)
The peak of solar cycle 23 at 2004 +/- is correlative with the peak in temperature and the peak of the Major El Nino at 2016.The solar decline from 2004 through 2009 suggests that a general cooling until 2021 is already built in.
Norman,
A “general cooling until 2021” starting from when, exactly? Which data set? Details.
And if this cooling doesn’t occur would you accept that your hypothesis is incorrect; or will such failure simply be attributed to further unforeseen circumstances?
Obviously from 2016 in the RSS data- ( ie the correlative to the Oulu solar activity peak in Cycle 23 at 2004.)
As to the future you must realize that we are dealing with a millennial cycle with an amplitude of about 1.8 degrees over the next 650 years or so.- see Fig 3 in the paper linked above. The annual and shorter term variability is substantial and actually incalculable .If my forecast to 2021 is correct it will strengthen my hypothesis For the sort of certainty one way or another that you mistakenly think is possible check back with me around 2120
Alarmist = Ecoterrorist
Maybe I will get to walk on the Thames again as I did in the Winter of 1963 ……. ???
Is Leif on vacation again?
NEXT YEAR WILL EVEN BE LOWER AND COLDER.
But it’s coal plants in the US (not China and India) and SUVs that are causing “global warming.”
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It may be that the natural solar cycles of more of less energy will be mitigated by our own pollution.
It is my fervent hope that a mini ice age ices off all of the glowbull worming idiots so that I do not have to hear their mindless chatter. The computer models never even took in solar variations as a cause or effect. Their entire thrust was a model that delivered a predetermined result and even then they had to lie about it and falsify data. Criminal prosecution and restoration of taxpayer money spent should be part of President Trumps agenda.
They’ll convert back to AGC, as quickly as they converted to AGW after the 70’s. Many of the exact same people, just as vehement as ever, always in search of a grant to support AGW/AGC. And of course, new acolytes, ready to jump on whatever bandwagon gives them money for tripe.
Global Temperature:
Flux at 80 sfu or less -> Global Temperature -0.1C / 2.5 years.
Flux at 100 to 120 sfu -> Global Temperature no change.
Flux at 120 sfu or more -> Global Temperature +0.1C / 2.5 years.
Watch position of Ozone layer, less Solar EUV, UV , Ozone thinner closer to Earth surface.
Upper Atmosphere cools.
This is why they had to change Global Warming to Climate Change so man-bear-pig (Al Gore) doesn’t look like more of an idiot than he already does!
Don’t be so hard on the guy. He invented the Internet. I actually used the ARPA net in early years of Internet…..Maybe he met some military guy in a bar and got the idea for the NET? Info was TOP SECRET then but who cares about classified anymore. Everyone know everything. Perhaps it makes for a more peaceful would. No dangerous secrets which might get a madman to destroy the planet.
Of course it would put millions of manipulators out of business too.
William Sturm
David Archibald, thank you for the essay.
Is there any relationship between any of these solar indices and the temperature(s) here on Earth? Your graphs make it appear that the answer is “no.”
1. The peak to trough difference in TSI is small, Physics predicts a change of roughly .1C
2. Over the last couple of hundred years there is no significant trend in solar.
3. Neither TSI nor GCR can explain the trend we see in temperatures.
TSI isn’t the most important metric for climate. Spectral composition is. The variation in UV is orders of magnitude greater than in TSI. UV makes and breaks ozone. Its higher energy wavelengths are absorbed by the air. Those reaching the surface penetrate farther in the ocean than visible light.
The variation of UV follows that of TSI and of the Sunspot Number, and the argument that its variation is much greater is like to claim that Bill Gates’s wealth is measured by the loose change in his pockets.
http://m.imgur.com/yvrMXFy?r
Mosh, one doesn’t need a significant trend in solar if higher than average tsi produces warming…
lsvalgaard June 7, 2017 at 12:36 pm
That’s not a valid analogy. It’s not the relative amount of total energy that matters, but the effects on climate that more energetic radiation has which lower energy photons lack. The qualitative difference matters, not the quantitative.
It is very valid. Regardless of the mechanism, if UV trend follows the TSI trend and the magnetic field, the influence of UV should be parallel to that of TSI [of which the UV is but a minor part, BTW]. All solar things we know off vary in concert with the sunspot number [and TSI and the magnetic field and (inversely) cosmic ray flux, etc]
Dr Svalgaard, a while ago you and i had a discussion regarding the above graph (of Javier’s) and the concept of an equilibrium state temperature… There exists no “magic” equilibrium state temperature which the earth is trying to achieve. The equilibrium state temperature is slowly shifting over time. We were last at the equilibrium state temperature circa 1900 when sea level rise was zero. If we remain in a pause in temps for a long enough time, then sea levels will eventually cease to rise, the pause becoming the new equilibrium state temperature. The further temps get away from the equilibrium state, the faster ice melts, water vapor rises and CO2 as well. Thus solar forcings would be greater over the last century than in previous centuries…
The very concept of an equilibrium temperature requires a ‘restoring force’ that forces the temperature to approach equilibrium if it strays too far away. No such force is known or even plausible.
Svalgaard, that’s absurd… Do you actually doubt that if the pause were maintained indefinitely then sea levels would eventually cease to rise?
There are so many factors in play that such a simplistic question has little meaning.
What is your quantitative, physical theory that connects all the dots? I’m all ears.
Then boil it down to just one of those factors (say just thermal expansion) as a hypothetical… Say we have the ocean with no sea level rise due to thermal expansion, the only thing (in our hypothetical) that causes sea levels to rise. The ocean would then be in a state of thermal equilibrium, sea levels neither rising nor falling. We then raise and maintain the sea surface temperature 1C. The ocean expands (sea levels rise) for hundreds of years as the thermal expansion then dwindles and finally stops altogether, a new equilibrium temperature having been reached. I’m just trying to demonstrate the concept here (and such a hypothetical will do)…
This isn’t that hard a concept to grasp. At least i hope you can see by the sea level graph (above) that the further we get from the temps around the turn of the century, the faster sea levels are rising (and i hope you don’t think that if we maintained the pause that sea levels would rise indefinitely). Furthermore, if temps were to drop back to where they were at the turn of the century then sea levels would cease to rise as well. A bit awkward trying to explain this as i think of it as being self explanatory, common knowledge. (a wee bit more than a wee bit obvious… ☺) Let me know if you’d like me to give this a better shot. Bye and bye, i should be better able to get my point across.
Reply is held up in moderation (should be forthcoming)…
As a footnote, the same principal is apparently at work with atmospheric carbon growth. Recall rud’s recent salby piece where he (rud) claimed that with the pause in temps we should have seen a pause in carbon growth. That is false. With the pause in temps should come a pause in the carbon growth RATE. (at least that’s the salby claim) The growth rate being determined by the temperature in and above the current equilibrium state temperature (which incidentally occurs around the turn of the century just as the sea level rise equilibrium temp)…
Steven Mosher, thank you. I was hoping for a reply from David Archibald.
lsvalgaard June 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm
While the trends may be similar, the facts remain that 1) UV varies orders of magnitude more than TSI, and 2) the effects of the high energy end of the solar spectrum are qualitatively different from those of visible and IR light, which vary far less.
When you put actual numbers to this you’ll see that the energy scales are so different that the qualitative differences don’t matter. The way to deal with this is to present a physical quantitative theory for why the differences matter. I don’t know of any, so I’m awaiting to be educated.
lsvalgaard June 7, 2017 at 8:30 pm
You shouldn’t need further education beyond your acceptance of the reality that UV radiation has properties different from those of visible and IR light, and that these bear directly upon climatic phenomena.
Among these qualitative differences are the ability to make and break ozone molecules, the difference in absorption by air molecules and the significant differences in penetration of seawater.
You are confusing several issues.Perhaps the most important one is that the variability of the[not so energetic] UV that reaches the sea is tiny. The UV that varies a lot is absorbed in the upper atmosphere and have no significant effect on the climate
LS,
I’m confusing nothing. I’ll repeat and perhaps clarify.
Yes, the UV which reaches the sea is generally less energetic than that which is absorbed in the atmosphere. That doesn’t mean that it has no effect on climate.
The more energetic UV which is absorbed and also varies more has even more of an effect on climate, thanks to its impact on ozone and other aspects of the chemistry of our air.
Still no comment o’ mine showing up (lately i’ve seen it take up to 24 hours and it happens often these days), but i’m hopeful…
Matthew, good luck with that. AFAIK, archibald rarely if ever comments (saw just one above, i think). Hope you got a looksie at javier’s graph which i posted above. One picture says a thousand words (it’s a gem)…
See comment at 7:05 AM above. Temperature is driven a combination of the various orbital cycles and the cycles in solar activity with the millennial cycle being the most significant.
As a child I used a yellow crayon to color the sun, now one must use a white crayon to represent the suns color. Crayons drive climate changes!
Yikes! Let me know when you start using a red crayon. I don’t want to be swallowed by a giant red sun!
God answers the prayers of innocent children. Now, which way do you want Him to twist the nob?
William Sturm
What is the expected time delay from Svensmark cosmic ray effects? A change in solar output has to propagate out to the heliosphere boundary, although the cosmic ray blockage is probably based on change within a volume of space rather than at a specific distance.
Any ideas about how earth magnetic field changes might effect this predicted solar weather impact, if at all? There have been studies over the past few years about significant changes lately, and here’s a study about dramatic changes in the past:
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/199/2/1110/618671/Extremely-rapid-directional-change-during-Matuyama?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I wonder if flux changes, magnetic pole movement and past reversals somehow shows up in the climate data, but am not a student of that field by any means – anybody have a comment?
Some comments:
1) Oulu is an outlier. Most other cosmic ray stations do not show the strong increase that Oulu had the last minimum.
2) There is a 22-yr variation in cosmic rays. Every other solar minimum [such as in 2020, 1996, 1976, 1954, …] have lower flux than the minima around it. So the cosmic ray flux in 1920 will be lower than that in 2008.
3) The polar fields now are higher than they were at the last minimum, so cycle 25 will be a bit larger than cycle 24. WSO polar fields the last half-year are too small by a factor of two.
4) Archibald’s temperature prediction was completely wrong [he should admits that]
5) The cosmic ray mechanism [Svensmark] does not work [as Javier points out].
“WSO polar fields the last half-year are too small by a factor of two.” This is a new information for me, thanks. WSO should mark the inconsistencies?
It does:
http://wso.stanford.edu/
scroll to bottom of page.
Also on my website:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Problem.pdf
Thanks Leif, the info is IMO very hidden and no hint on the website which was updated on the 7th of June. Let’s hope that the data in question are soon recalculated. This will change the SC25 forcast game from 25% lower to 40% stronger than SC24. All due to a dirty lense… a very terrestrial challenge 🙂
Thanks.
1. raises the question, why is Oulu different? I’m still not ready to write of CR as a factor. I don’t think we know enough about variation of the direction and types of CR over time.
Shaviv’s hypothesis only claimed up to about 1/3 of the trend from 1950-early 2000s.
Oulu is also a function of local conditions and of adjustments and improvements of the monitors.
Here are some other stations:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic%20Ray%20Count%20for%20Different%20Stations.png
Note the variations from station to station.
The primary cosmic ray intensity outside the solar system is very constant over millenia and their arrival directions are almost completely random varying only a few parts in a thousand across the sky..
I live in Texas and can tell you unequivocally that is is June and we haven’t had but a couple of days of 90 deg so far this year. The last 2 years have been unseasonably cool. We have had several weeks with average temps in the 60’s. I’m 66 yo and can remember summers when the tar roofs had black icicles of roof tar dripping off the roofs by the middle of June. I also remember temps reaching 113 at the peak of the summer. Now they try to tell me it’s hotter that it’s ever been. A quick look in Google gets you 1937 as the hottest year on record. Glacial ice has been melting for 20k years according to scientists speaking of the end of the ice age. As I went to school in the 60’s, the solar cycles were blamed for the cycles in temperatures. They last 11-17 years on average. Temps have remained the same for 20 years now with lower average sunspot activity. Global warming IMO, has proven to be a hoax. Polar bears can swim hundreds of miles and they are doing fine. Ice has been melting and will continue to melt no matter what car I drive. CO2 is NOT a pollutant! Plants need it to grow properly. BY reducing CO2 we could be doomed to starving by strangling our crops. Global Warming is either a sign of mental illness or has become a religion to confine to buildings and remove from civil conversation. I refuse to spend $trillions of dollars and destroy the economy and strength of America because the same As$holes that collaborated with the N Vietnamese and ran to Canada are now running the country. They were traitors then and traitors now. The very traitor that went to Hanoi to sell out America negotiated the Paris Climate treaty. The object of the game is to steal American wealth and send it to 3rd world hell holes, preferably communists like China. Today we have a whole generation that will have to be deprogrammed to become useful citizens.
I’m 66 yo and can remember summers when the tar roofs had black icicles of roof tar dripping off the roofs by the middle of June.
Interesting observation, but I suspect the lack of them today is almost entirely improvement in the manufacture of shingles.
It is all about the money and control of the people, the Sun can warm the earth if the solar flux that is coming contains more IR rays then UV rays, The cloud cover is as important as the Sun flux is, some clouds can reflect back into space IR and some can reflect UV, depending on the thickness and movement.
Brilliant! I love your insights. Those polar bear pictures were old too. The bears know it but they are not telling….. Hoax is a great word. ” Global Warming is either a sign of mental illness or has become a religion…” Mental illness in most cases is a spiritual problem and should never have been given to the folks in mental health to treat with drugs and shock treatment and whatever else they use…ice baths???
Of course, religion and Christian counselors are responsible to assist the suffering sheep to get well using the Word of God.
The clergy surrendered that responsibility to Drug Dealers, MDs, Psychologists and Psychiatrists. Acquaint yourselves with the first 70 pages of “The Christian Counselor’s Manual” by Jay A. Adams. 1973, Baker Book House. The Drug Dealers (Pharmaceutical Companies) make the big dough. MDs and Psychiatrists hog most of the business (responsibility of the Christian world) get wealthy by writing prescriptions and the poor Psychologists end up sucking hind tit because they can not write prescriptions. They have not been to medical school so they are not allowed to prescribe medication. I didn’t know that until recently and I am 78.
I wondered out loud….If I went to medical school could I prescribe my own medications????
These comments could lead to some real Global Warming.
Hey just check into the recent Mice results reported in Washington Post on May 22, 2017. Shocked the brain is loaded with lymphatic paths…didn’t know that for 300 years. Some dozen diseases were mentioned that could be helped. Cure: Get the lymphatic system working. (No pump…they say sleep on your side.)
Spend 5 minutes a day on one of these small trampolines and you will clear the body of toxins and wastes
and pass on all those dreaded brain problems! Better not tell the medical community or they will ban those little suckers. They need us. The drug companies need us. The hospitals need us. The undertakers need us. They need our bodies for medical research. Donate yours.
But, we are locked in a stupid battle over Global Warming. Our next problem may be the need to control the growth of the population. And what do you do with all those empty hospitals?
William Sturm
[The mods point out that, if you use one of those little trampolines with no safety guards, one will be able to avoid all future hospitals and doctors (after that last trip and fall), and will be able to donate all the remaining organs of one’s body during that same (last) trip. .mod]
Yes mod…that’s possible. But, some come with a bracket one can hold onto for safety reasons. We are not talking about large jumps…just soft ones in the center of device. Yes, if you fall its about 8 inches to the ground. Hey one could always bounce with a partner and enjoy the company together at the same time.
If one would like to avoid such things as ALZHEIMER’S, MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, STROKE, TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, HUNTINGTON’S, PARKINSON’S, NEURO DEGENERATIVE DISEASES, AUTOIMMUNE, GLAUCOMA, FLOATERS, OPTIC NERVE DAMAGE AND MIGRAINES….. one would figure out some way not to be hurt bouncing. Build a rack. Arrange for a safety harness…. Get 6 friends to join you….with each taking a 5 minute turn with the other five surrounding them to be sure someone would catch them if they started to fall.
Like I say…people are smarter than we may realize….they will think of something. If they get Mr. Alzheimer’s they will never think again…. Do something before it is too late.
I am reminded folks who refuse to use safety belts in vehicles or wear safety helmets have decided in advance that they are not restricted with a vehicle fire or downing in water due to a belt and the their hard heads can beat a collision with a guard rail or a tree………
William Sturm
Someone needs to let Al Gore know about this so he can fix it!
The graph on the NOAA Solar Cycle webpage is wrong. The sunspot number for May is not included even though the graph says it was updated. I have been waiting for them to fix it but it has been wrong all week. The Australian space weather site is more accurate and updated in a more timely fashion
I kept counting the dots too and getting a wrong number but what do I know? I’m just a ‘civilian’ at best a kibitzer. How about a link to that Australian site?
Only one thing we have to remember, including the skeptics and believers in global warming,
the Earth rotates around a variable star and there are fluctuations in the distance from the Sun depending on the strength of the solar wind and the coronal mass ejections, which means even the gravity of the Sun fluctuate.
Also, a cloudy earth can create both, warming and cooling depending of the movements of the clouds and the thickness of the clouds. The CO2 is just a distraction to keep the sheeple nimble and scared and to submit to the globalists as financial backers for their own and self destruction.
I think I’ll fire up the SUV just to be sure . . . .
“The strong asymmetry between the northern and southern hemispheres continues. The fact that the hemispheric peaks of the last three cycles align indicate that there is a multi-decadal force operating in the vertical dimension.”
I wonder if Al Gore knows about this?
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
SH
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2017.png
Did you forget Gore got a D in Science?
Now that the pollution has reached the sun will all the climate deniers finally be brought to heel? How can these anti-science jerks continue to pretend the data is faked?
Re Leif on Mr Archibald admitting being wrong. He certainly makes no attempts to defend his earlier work, such as as 2006 prediction of a 1.5 degrees drop by 2020 compared with 2006, which suggests an implicit admission. His excuse seems to be that he came up with this prediction ten years ago, and that he is now much wiser. Not so sure about that since his 2014 prediction was a drop of 2 degrees by 2020 – even worse – due to something called Factor X, because nobody knew or knows what it is.
ENSO
Not only did DA predict in 2006 that there would be a drop in global temperature of 1.5 C by 2020; he did so with such confidence that he didn’t even bother to include error margins. A more complete predictive failure is difficult to even envisage.
Imagine, for one second, what posters on this site would be saying about the scientific models if the CMIP5 multi-model average had got its forecast since 2008 ‘that’ spectacularly wrong…!
By comparison to David Archibald’s 2006 forecast the IPCC multi-model mean is a virtual bullseye. At least it got the direction of travel right.
Solar activity low, and 8 ft of snow still on the ground in the Sierras. 6 inches more predicted tonight for The Bitterroots.
Interesting… Maybe…just maybe…. my Honda Civic has less impact on global temperature than the HUGE FLAMING BALL OF GAS WE CALL SOL!!!
We and all cows need to be more concerned about the environment and stop passing gas. They should be forced to capture it and maybe they are doing it in the dead of night. Cows are smarter than humans.
That’s why the price of beef is so high. We don’t have a clue what these bovine are doing to us!
William Sturm
william: cows (etc) contribute
to global warming by what comes
out their front end, not their
back end. lots of people get
this wrong!
O.K. You got me. I am old and not thinking right. Yup out of their mouths…….. As someone said about abortion and being a Christian: “You can’t be right about everything”….. a Democrat who was also a Christian…. So, I will take my lumps…
ws
Regardless of the charts and graphs, where have the glaciers gone and why are the polar bears starving to death?
[??? There are more polar bears now than before “global warming kicked in” in the mid-70’s. .mod]