From ICECAP
By Joseph D’Aleo CCM, AMS Fellow
2008 will be coming to a close with yet another spotless days according to the latest solar image.
This will bring the total number of sunspotless days this month to 28 and for the year to 266, clearly enough to make 2008, the second least active solar year since 1900.
See larger image here.
The total number of spotless days this spolar minimum is now at around 510 days since the last maximum. The earliest the minimum of the sunspot cycles can be is July 2008, which would make the cycle length 12 years 3 months, longest since cycle 9 in 1848. If the sun stays quiet for a few more months we will rival the early 1800s, the Dalton Minimum which fits with the 213 year cycle which begin with the solar minimum in the late 1790s.
See larger image here.
Long cycles are cold and short ones like the ones in the 1980s and 1990s are warm as this analysis by Friis-Christensen in 1991 showed clearly.
See larger image here.
In reply to the arguments made that the temperatures after 1990 no longer agreed with solar length, I point out that it was around 1990 when a major global station dropout (many rural) began which led to an exaggeration of the warming in the global temperature data bases. Also the length from max to max of 21 to 22 was 9.7 years and cycle 22 length min to min 9.8 years, both very short suggesting warm temperatures in the 1990s. The interval of cycle 22 max to cycle 23 max centered in the mid 1990s began to increase at 10.7 years and the min to min length of cycle 23 is now at least 12.3 years.
With the Wigley suggested lag of sun to temperatures of 5 years and Landscheidt suggested 8 years, a leveling of should have been favored around 2000-2003 and cooling should be showing up now. Looking ahead, put that together with the flip of the PDO in the Pacific to cold and you have alarming signals that this cooling of the last 7 years will continue and accelerate.
Please ignore this article and continue investing money in Al Gore’s green fund and paying him huge speaking fees. We need the money to pay for our huge electric bills.
Thanks - Tipper
That can’t be right, because the British Met Office says we’re in for warming, and they’re always right. Yes, that is sarcasm - and thoroughly deserved sarcasm at that. Hope you’re reading, Met Office! I know a lot of people won’t agree with me, but I actually really hope that we’re in for cooling. Because I just want to see so many people being shown up as complete idiots. There was a time when I hoped my warming scepticism was wrong, as no one could wish for a colder climate. But I’ve had enough of the Warmists, and I’ve had enough of the leftist green movement too. Here’s hoping for a freeze! [my apologies to all those who still hope they're wrong - and a happy new year].
Steve
I’m pretty sure that 2008 is the most spotless year since 1900 by far. Did we have the instruments we have now to monitor the sun back in 1913? Was there the same interest in counting the spots in 1913 that exists now? No on both. Back then only a few astronomers and some amateurs would do that. Now everybody seems to be doing it. Why, some people would count bad pixels as spots if the could get away with it.
and what does the Sun have to do with heating the Earth?
Drudge links this story to a Investors Business Daily editorial: The Warm Turns
“this cooling of the last 7 years will continue and accelerate.”
No need to worry, John Philip notes in the Pielke thread that 7 years is just weather so warming will continue as unabated as it has.
Can someone point me to a good paper (good = readable by a layman + plausibly true) on the dynamics of solar cycles, and what might contribute to it’s cyclical behavior? It will make interesting reading while I freeze my tucas off here in Saskatchewan.
This should be interesting, Gore and Hansen will look like morons.
Maybe we’ll get low solar activity also next year, and SC24 ramps up at late 2009 or 2010. This diagram was published in the solarcycle24.com forum:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/3146817105_af25c0ca5f_o.jpg
(The important difference between this cycle and the one ending 1913 is that SC23 is the longest since late 18th century, before the Dalton Minimum, or?)
–
BTW, and offtopic: An snapshot of the current status on the AGW side, which is best analyzed with a couple of glasses of champagne.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hJQ18S6aag
Thanks Magnus. A great laugh to round off 2008. No-one did it better than Monty Python, Peter Cook, Rowan Atkinson et al. Where are the comedians today to take the p**s out of AGW like they did? Any volunteers?
It’s actually pretty scary. I really don’t want to see a little ice age in my lifetime and it’s starting to look more possible. We’re all going to be hoping the AGW guys are right.
On another topic I just did a post on the practicality of algae biodiesel, if you’re interesed.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/what-about-algae-biofuel-hype/
I suggest you replace the erroneous graph by Friis-Christensen (1991) by the corrected one, the original contains some ‘convenient’ arithmetic errors!
The corrected graph doesn’t have the the impressive agreement since 1980, quite the contrary.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
From the Sun to the Earth. This is OT a bit, and not related to sunspots (as far as I have ever heard), but I thought that this was interesting. What it portends I cannot say. I’d like to say it’s unsettling too, but it may not even be that big of a deal. Looks like we may have a movement of magma in some shape given the cluster of quakes, but it might also be steam driven. I haven’t done much looking into it since I am on my way to work soon, but I thought I would post it for others to investigate. The strongest of the temblors looks like a 4 on the scales. Anyway, take a look for yourselves.
The Druge Report headline says: Earthquake swarm continues beneath Yellowstone…
Here is the Link: http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone.html
Steve Berry wrote:
“There was a time when I hoped my warming scepticism was wrong, as no one could wish for a colder climate. But I’ve had enough of the Warmists, and I’ve had enough of the leftist green movement too. Here’s hoping for a freeze!”
I agree with you Steve. I don’t want AGW to be proved “true”, whether it is or not, as I don’t want to have our economy ruined (more than it is now) by activists who know not, what they will have wrought. But, on the other hand, I don’t want to live through a drastic, or “Little Ice Age” type global cooling scenario.
Either way, human beings will be harmed.
Nothing like a good old Dalton or Maunder Minimum to gag forever the likes of Hansen, Gore, Mann and company. The hubris of these so called scientists (Gore, excepted) is breath taking. They should all be crawling under rocks and never be heard from again.
Looking at the 10 most sunspotless days that were noted in the post above and using CRUTEM 3 annual global surface temperatures I note that 6 of the 10 years mentioned were colder than the previous year, 4 were warmer.
O f the 4 that were warmer, strong El Ninos from 1911 to 1912 and moderate El Nino of 1913 -1914 seem to over-ride the apparent cooling of the higher sunspotless days of the years 1913 and 1912. The year 1944 was neutral but still warmer than 1943. Perhaps the lower number of spotless days[159 and the lowest of the 10 years noted] may be insufficient to cause cooling. The year 2007 was a mix of La Ninas and neutral and the warming was very slight from 0.654 to 0 .679 C [ year 2006 to 2007]
It would appear that the oscillations of both the sun and earth together need to be considered unless there are sustained number of consecutives years with low sunspot years like the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer minimum periods
The year 2008 [ mostly ENSO neutral] is good case to illustrate that for significantly more spotless days, the lower the global surface temperature is lower[ like 1933]
Phil,
While the original may contain errors, I really don’t have the experience with this yet, the link you reference uses temp curves from Mann98 as well as references to papers by Mann 99.
It is hard for me to trust anything by that guy or his group. A scientist who would reference it as recently as 2004 is in question to me as well. Are there cleaner articles available?
Phil:
I wonder if there are any graphs comparing suns cycle length and “global temperature” (whatever that is) that go past the year 2000? I always find it suspicious when I am being presented with a graph that proves a point one way or another when it conspicuously omits current or recent data.
The PDF you linked to goes on a length about the arithmetic errors in the previously presented graph, but doesn’t say what the error was other than the data used was improperly “filtered”. I’m confused on this point - the length of a cycle seems like a pretty straightforward thing to measure - and the corrections have the cycle lengths reduced dramatically in favour of their “no correlation” stance (disregarding the striking correlation in the other 80% of the graph). But these cycle lengths have been reduced why, and by what means?
The article then goes on to discuss political and sociological implications of the “incorrect” graph rather than merely discuss the matter in a purely scientific / mathematical manner. Sorry, but for me, this paper (already 4 years old) doesn’t pass the sniff test. Also, what was the response from Friis-Christensen to this questioning of their methodology and conclusions? Have there been any more recent papers or graphs from either side to prove or disprove correlation?
This is an incomplete picture, for me.
Phil. the paper you link too looks pretty dramatic except for the fact the data ends in early 2001 or 2002.
I think Friis-Christensen are redeemed by the recent cooling.
Thanks Magnus:
“Not quite the conflagration we’d been banking on”. Ha ha ha.
It’s not just the PDO. The AMO looks to have achieved maximum and is now starting to decline. The AMO decline/negative PDO look to be about in the same alignment as they were around 1950. The difference between that period and now is that 1950 was the last hurrah of lower solar activity and while AMO/PDO plunged in the following periods, solar activity increased. Right now, as AMO/PDO plunge, we look to be in the early stages of lwoer solar activity.
I addressed these observations in a post on my site:
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/a-look-at-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-amo-index/
Personally, I want global warming back, I’m getting too old for prolonged cold, much as I’d like to see Hansen et al with egg on their faces.
DaveE.
Mr. Hastings-Trew — The website http://www.co2science.org has a subject index that includes papers on solar-terrestrial effects. Some of the papers have a short abstract (’what it means’) by the Idso team of climate scientists here in Arizona.
The Idso site deserves more mention here; it is very good on biological topics such as growth stimulation by CO2, which they study. Planktonic dimethylsulfide production may be a strong negative feedback, for example, and means that biologic factors can be a major factor in world temperature.
Right now, the CO2 science site home page has a submission to the EPA which gives the skeptical case on that matter.
Re:Steven Hill (09:55:46) :
This should be interesting, Gore and Hansen will look like morons.
Eventually perhaps, but not in the near-term. We have to keep in mind that the AGW hysteria has never been about climate or science in the first place, but about foisting a new social agenda upon America. The Hansens and the Gores see themselves as so close to the brass ring now that they won’t allow a silly thing like reality to stand in their way. Any cooling in the short-term will simply be brushed off as noise in the overall warming signal. Take a look at the GISS global temperature trend graphs. It will take many years of deep cooling before a trend line, no matter how it is averaged or smoothed, can no longer maintain a positive aspect. Unfortunately, I think we will be suffering the AGW fools for many years to come.
Solar irradiance also correlates well with sunspots: click
Notice that global warming and increased solar irradiance both ramped up beginning in the early 1900’s, when even rich countries were still mostly agrarian and therefore produced very little carbon dioxide compared with current levels. Today, CO2 continues to rise — but now the planet is beginning to cool.
It is clear that CO2 is [if at all] a very minor player in climate dynamics. But if the warm mongers continue to insist that “carbon” [meaning CO2] is the primary culprit, then the obvious way to counter global cooling is by encouraging the use of fossil fuels.
The fact that this straightforward solution to planetary cooling is never mentioned is more evidence that the AGW hypothesis is based on a political agenda, not on objective science.
Phil. (11:08:02) : [provided a link to Stephen Schneider's home page at Stanford]The corrected graph doesn’t have the the impressive agreement since 1980, quite the contrary.
I wonder, is this the same Stephen Schneider who said in Discover magazine, OCT 1989:
???
If he is, I wonder, why should he be trusted? Interestingly, the PDF paper at the link has a section entitled “Public Impact of Misleading Information”.
“what was the response from Friis-Christensen to this questioning of their methodology and conclusions?”
One at least from 2004:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/comment%20to%20EOS_28_Sept_04.pdf
DAV:
The name Stephen Schneider sounded familiar. Thanks for jogging my memory with that memorable quote.
Is it the same Steven Schneider, Phil.?
James Hastings-Trew (11:40:06) :
Phil:
I wonder if there are any graphs comparing suns cycle length and “global temperature” (whatever that is) that go past the year 2000? I always find it suspicious when I am being presented with a graph that proves a point one way or another when it conspicuously omits current or recent data.
It’s difficult to write a paper in 2004 including data for the cycle length of the current cycle which had not yet ended!
Jeff Id (11:39:10) :
Phil,
While the original may contain errors, I really don’t have the experience with this yet, the link you reference uses temp curves from Mann98 as well as references to papers by Mann 99.
Which has nothing to do with the point in question, that the graph shown by D’Aleo from 91 had already been corrected by the authors in 95 and even that graph still had errors. I’m sure that Leif could supply a correct curve?
Phil:
I can’t remember the last time I read such a biased and politicised article as that you link to. What the hell is a filtered cycle length?
Question:
Is there a lag between Solar Irradience/spotless days/ other factors and the mean temperature on earth?
Or, to restate the question: Does it take several years or months for the earth to lose the energy that is stored in heat sinks, and once that energy is depleted, would lower mean temperature result because of lower irradience and sunspots?
I am trying to phrase the question well enough for others understand my question, but I feel I may not be successful.
thanks
Mark my words, Al and his buddies will explain this cooling due to the economic slowdown ( ie. factories producing less CO 2 etc. ) in the world over the last couple of months and actually this slowdown started around the beginning of 2007. Thus AGW is alive and well still. Yes , idiots will believe him or should I say the mainstream media.
Brent in Calgary
Dav,
It’s hilarious that Schneider defended what he said by claiming that *all* scientists face the same “dilemma”, or in his words, a “bind”, and morphed his original statement of “need” to “forced to do media clips”. While at the same time being “unusually forthright”, no less:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats,
the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to
reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. Ihope that means being both.”
“It is strange that The News should accuse me of trying to hide scientific uncertainty through this quote, when by the very nature of explaining the dilemma I am being unusually forthright in trying to show how
all scientists face a bind when forced to communicate in short sound bites in the media what the essence of a controversial complex problem is.”
I’d like to hear Leif’s comments on this paper…
The best part of all of this is the sun is cooperating on testing solar cycle hypothesis. We have an anomalously long cycle which should lead to cooling according to the hypothesis (potentially quantifiable - Hathway I believe is calling for a 2.1 deg C decrease, if I recall correctly). We need testable hypotheses to move climate science ahead. Of course, those with purely political agendas will never acknowledge this, but the public will recognize what’s going on (via observable changes in the weather) & those with purely scientific agendas will be shown to the credible sources of information.
“It’s so cold that Al Gore is burning tires to keep warm”
~Larry The Cable Guy
http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com
The plot of solar cycle length versus temperature from
Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
E. FRIIS-CHRISTENSEN 1 and K. LASSEN 1
is very interesting.
However, how does this correlation plot look up to 2008 inclusive? Is it available?
Logan, Glenn,
Thank you.
Man I love this site. :)
Glenn (12:38:09) : *all* scientists face the same “dilemma”, or in his words, a “bind” … While at the same time being “unusually forthright”, no less:
Ah, yes! The old “Honestly, I’m a liar!” trick! The only “bind” is determining when he is and when he is not.
Hastings-Trew
You might read up on Cosmoclimatology developed by Henrik Svensmark.
Roughly, Svensmark’s thesis is that sunspots modulate the earth’s magnetic field which affects the cosmic rays that get through, which change the nucleation rate of clouds which affects the Total Solar Irradiance that is reflected vs absorbed.
Intro:
A brief summary of cosmoclimatology Danish National Space Center
Detailed paper:
‘Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges’, Henrik Svensmark, Astronomy & Geophysics, Vol. 48, Issue 1, pages 1.18-1.24, February 2007
Phil,
You said
“Which has nothing to do with the point in question,”
You are right, but if these people who found the math error can’t see the simple rubbish in Mann how can I trust them. BTW, I don’t disagree with your link as I don’t know the data. I just was hoping for a better source.
Diatribe guy
You have great web page. You have obviously done a lot of excellent research.
I found the ENSO INEX also useful http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
You will note that 18 of the last 33 years had an El Nino of at least 2 months or more . 15 had an El nino of 3 months or more . Record temperatures can clearly be seen with prominent El Ninos and cooling during La Ninas.
Glad to be reminded of that quote from Schneider. Lovely!
Have we got any logicians around the place that can deconstruct that for us? If I read it right: We are scientists and therefore we have to be honest and include all the doubts in what we publish but even if we have doubts global warming is so important that we don’t need to include them on this subject.
But if you have doubts surely there is a possibility that global warming is less important than you are trying to claim and therefore you ought to include your doubts in the published literature.
Or am I being naive, here?
Phil
When citing critics, recommend that you also include the reply of those criticized. Following up on Glen’s post, see:
Comments on the Forum article : ”Patterns of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity an Terrestrial Climate Data, by P. E. Damon and P. Laut E. Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark
Danish Space Research Institute, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Comments on Peter Laut’s paper: Solar Activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2003) 801-812
Phil: “It’s difficult to write a paper in 2004 including data for the cycle length of the current cycle which had not yet ended!”
What *data* did they include of the then current cycle? Explain this statement of yours. Did you read the original? Do you consider the results of techniques such as “filtering”, “smoothing”, “adjusting” as “data”?
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf
This is a NASA meeting from earlier this month. What amazes me in this is that Hathaway’s TSI number is a change from max to min of 2W/m2(page 5). And if you look at the overall trend in sun spotpage 25) number it trends are very similar (overall) to GISS trends from 1880, if you look since the MM it fits proxy trends well too. I am not saying that it matches GISS bump for bump just the trend. Then match this trend to CO2 and again it is close but CO2 lags. I think what we see is that the oceans act like a battery and charge up over time from the sun, after all the sun is the input of energy into the system and the argument is how much it varies. Then release the energy into the system as climate. Oscillation will occur and you get the PDO and AMO, while simplistic it does make you think. Many parts of the atmosphere are related and there has been an observed link between the ionosphere and the troposphere, the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. The sun does effect the upper to layers and varies with the solar cycle.
NASA Meeting
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/RHESSI/napa2008/talks/MonI_Hathaway.pdf
Ionosphere
http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/palmer/palmer.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/20/10512.full
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/09/14_weather.shtml
Further to Friis-Christensen 1991 paper see:
The cause-and-effect relationship of solar cycle length and the Northern Hemisphere air surface temperature
The cause-and-effect relationship of solar cycle length and the Northern Hemisphere air surface temperature Richard Reichel, Peter Thejll, Knud Lassen
apparently the Church of England has invested 250 million quid in the AGW Al Gore rhythm, Is Al Bore the next Benny Madoff?
For variety, here is a 2007 paper claiming the opposite:
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature
MIKE LOCKWOOD, CLAUS FROHLICH
However, they make no mention of the Pacific Decadal Oscillations etc. which may invalidate their conclusions.
‘And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place…’
So did Lenin.
Getting back to the C of E, a once noble institution which is now on its deathbed–death by anemia– if they sign on to something, it’s the Titanic redivivue.
Magnus!
Thank you for the Youtube video!
The context you established for it has me smiling broadly.
Happy New Year all!
Stay cozy chicks :0)
David Archibald has plots from specific regions/stations that show a correlation of sunspot cycle length and temperature
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
figs 4 and 5
I had not seen a global temperature chart before the figure above..
A bit of poetry from the Dalton Minimum:
ST. AGNES’ Eve—Ah, bitter chill it was!
The owl, for all his feathers, was a-cold;
The hare limp’d trembling through the frozen grass,
And silent was the flock in woolly fold:
Numb were the Beadsman’s fingers, while he told 5
His rosary, and while his frosted breath,
Like pious incense from a censer old,
Seem’d taking flight for heaven, without a death,
Past the sweet Virgin’s picture, while his prayer he saith.
–John Keats
Jeff L (12:40:29) :
(potentially quantifiable - Hathway I believe is calling for a 2.1 deg C decrease, if I recall correctly)
… wait - that was Archibald, not Hathaway ( I didn’t recal correctly) :
See link at Icecap:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/fyingtheUSAgriculturalProductivityResponsetoSolarCycle24.doc
‘It will make interesting reading while I freeze my tucas off here in Saskatchewan.’
Where in Saskatchewan did you acquire that glorious NewYork Yiddishism?
How sad! Catching the typo just as the message has been irrevocably launched into cyberspace!
Reply: Fixed! ~dbstealey, mod.
“However, they make no mention of the Pacific Decadal Oscillations etc. which may invalidate their conclusions.”
So may their dependence also on global temperature data of the last 30 years.
How can anything that scientist Schneider publishes or says be trusted based on his statement quoted above? The only way is if he clearly and thoroughly explains his assumptions, methods, and data so they can be replicated.
Perhaps scientists that make statements like this or who perform what might be fraudulent work (like the hockey stick) need to be put on probation by their colleagues or on a special scrutiny watch list by all journal editors and reviewers.
Happy New Year from Western NY!
After a couple days with temps in the 60’s, all the snow we had (1-2 feet) melted. Now that the last of the flood warnings are ending, there’s another 10″ of that global warming on the ground waiting to be shoveled, with temps diving toward single digits, though quite warm compared to Fairbanks.
All this solar inactivity ought to translate into quite a few nasty winters in the next couple decades. Just what I’m not looking forward to…
Somewhat related story in Saturday’s National Post (Canada) about the Vendee Globe around the world single handed yacht race. The 30 boat fleet has been hit by the worst weather in the 19 year history of the race. Huge storm systems have battered the boats now for two weeks straight. 13 sailors have dropped out. One boat has been lost completely. The remaining yachts are currently south of Tasmania heading easterly. Happy New Year to all.
David L. Hagen (13:24:51) :
Thanks for the links. I see that the replies are not linked from Dr. Schneider’s site. Perhaps this is in keeping with his dilemma between honesty and effectiveness? Or perhaps he is simply awaiting a timely response from D&L — after all, it’s only been four years.
Maybe we should start a contest to come up with a name for the expected deep freeze . . . . a la the Maunder Minimum.
How about:
The Barak Ball Chiller
The Hansen Holy Crap it’s Colder’n a Witch’s Left Tittie
or ??
I hate to break in to your Holiday thoughts but Tamino’s last post calls Mr. Watt stupid and/or a Liar. He also implies that all readers of wattsup are stupid also.
What a ~snip~ head Tamino is!
A low energetic Sun plus the “hot water bottle effect” (http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1487) seems logical to me.
The following question: what makes the Sun lower its activity?, we know it has two answers: One from the Sun´s internal dynamo, the other (heretical) that of the barycentric movements (see: http://www.giurfa.com/charvatova.pdf)…For a naive,guileless, ingenuous, credulous, gullible and susceptible layman, it seems to me that both will coincide in the future by means of a field of forces we do not yet detect, and that will remind us again the “music of the spheres”.
Jim Arndt (13:40:08)
I reckon the time constant of the oceans, in response to a step change in insolation, is around 60 years. That means that solar cycles would have to be stronger over several, 5-6 11 year cycles, to have an impact; the current low cycle, if that is what it is, will only have long term effect if it is repeated for a few more cycles.
But regarding the oceans as giant accumulators, with their own resonant frequencies, is, I think, the right approach.
There are many intereacting cycles here: The solar cycles; the oceanic thermal “resonant frequencies”; the Earth’s orbit; cloud formation; jet stream motion. With so many intereacting variables, no wonder the planet’s “climate” appears chaotic, but slow but sluggish (no rapid changes).
Things will get really cold with a succession of weak cycles coinciding with la Ninas and -ve AMOs (if I have the terminology right).
Note to the above:
The term “thermal resonant frequencies” I threw in there is the best way I can describe the idea of warm and cold water sloshing around in an oceanic basin.
Yellowstone sits a top of a thin crust spot and at the end of a series of faults that stretch from southern Cal, thru Utah and Idaho to Yellowstone. The last time this fault line had activity here in Idaho it effected Yellowstone and dropped part of our landscape about 5 feet in one area. There has been increased activity all along those fault lines but usually thats a good thing in small doses because in the world of earthquakes a bunch of little ones let off pressure rather than letting stress build up and cause a massive one.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/index.php
This site lets you watch animations of earthquakes by area or even over the entire world. Its pretty cool to do the 7 day you can get a bit of an idea how the earth releases the stress of continental plate movement. While some would say , nothing to see here move along, I think with the recent eruptions along the ring of fire we might be seeing our plate movements a bit more dramatically over the next few years. Depending of course on what our lovely Earth has in store for us.
“The earliest the minimum of the sunspot cycles can be is July 2008, which would make the cycle length 12 years 3 months, longest since cycle 9 in 1848.”
Note above quote from the article. How will the end of the minimum be determined? The above statement looks back to July as the earliest it could be. Does this mean that after every month of solar activity data the we look back six months to see if the minimum has been achieved?
Also, is the 213 year cycle referred to related to the cycle of solar inertial motion?
As much as I like the sunspot duration/temp graph, it’s old. The last data is 1980. We now have 28 more years of data. Why hasn’t that graph been updated?
Richard deSousa (11:34:47) :
Nothing like a good old Dalton or Maunder Minimum to gag forever the likes of Hansen, Gore, Mann and company. The hubris of these so called scientists (Gore, excepted) is breath taking. They should all be crawling under rocks and never be heard from again.
I would expect at least an ongoing attempt to morph to “Man Made Emissions of CO2 Cause Extreme Climate Change Events”. Which would allow for either Warming or Cooling scenarios.
Then if/when it cools, they can claim a successful prediction.
The key point is to keep hyping the fear, maintain control and get the $$$ rolling in.
So no gag - sorry. What will gag them is to be roundly and publically discredited which hasn’t yet happend.
Arthur Glass (13:47:07) :
‘And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place…’
So did Lenin.
As do all Tyrants (and associated Psychopaths) - it’s better if it conforms to their personal vision of what is better.
Unfortunately for the rest of us - their visions are our nightmares.
Speaking of Tamino, can someone deconstruct this graph for me: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/5yr.jpg?w=489&h=361 . I thought that 1934 was the hottest year in the last century, yet this graph shows that this year, one of the coldest in recent memory, was far hotter. What’s up?
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (14:37:29) :
“Maybe we should start a contest to come up with a name for the expected deep freeze . . . . a la the Maunder Minimum.
How about:
The Barak Ball Chiller
The Hansen Holy Crap it’s Colder’n a Witch’s Left Tittie
or ??”
The new “Maunder Minimum” already is named after Dr. Theodore Landscheidt and it’s called the Landscheidt Minimum which will have it’s Maximum by 2030.
“THE RECOGNITION OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
Elected member of the American Geophysical Union, the New York Academy of Sciences, the European Science and Environment Forum, the European Academy of Environmental Affairs, and the Wittheit zu Bremen. Director of the International Committee for Research in Environmental Factors of Brussels University. In 1992 recipient of the. Award of the Edward R. Dewey Institute of Cycle Research, California, in recognition of “outstanding accomplishments in the field of Solar Cycle Research”, and for “many contributions to the study of solar-terrestrial cycles.” According to an offer of the group of geophysicists-climatologs from different countries the period of minimum of solar activity forecasted by Dr. Landscheidt around 2030 will be identified as “Landscheidt Minimum”.”
Source:
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/
Our best wishes for all the “greenies” in the next “warmest year of the century”, if they succeed removing all the CO2…they will surely die.
By the way, has anybody noticed the big,big contradiction in GW´rs beliefs which promote a decrease in CO2, and, at the same time, an increase of forests?
I believe the correct statement is “the second least active solar year since 1901. There were 287 spotless days in 1901. Or you could almost say “since the first year of the 20th century” (which was, contrary to popular misconception, 1901.)
Happy New Year and a hearty Nov Shmoz ka Pop!
I keep looking for this cycle to get off of the SC4-5 plot, but it refuses:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin.htm
If 2009 lies as flat as a pancake, we’re there.
What exact shape will SC24 then take?
I’m guessing the opposite of SC5, or not the double hump.
No science, just pattern matching.
SC24 max = 50 +_10 in 2014.
If the shoe (cycle) fits, wear it.
The Stephen Schneider paper refuting the Friis and Christensen paper didn’t use the “actual” solar cycle length data - they used a variation based on the 22 year Hale solar cycle versus the more common 11 year Schwabe cycle.
Friis and Christensen’s conclusions continue to stand.
You can do your own math here - although this page has solar cycle 24 starting in January 2008 when it is still not clear when and if solar cycle 23 has ended yet (probably July or August 2008 though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
Joseph (12:04:45) :
Your correct, I keep forgetting that politics is the opposite of truth and logic.
WOW, 273 earthquakes in the past 7 days!
CO2 causing this as well? Call Hansen, Gore and Obama asap.
The Laut paper was discussed in passing by Nir Shaviv here:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
To the solar experts -
It is often argued that TSI has not changed enough to explain global temperatures. Of this Total Solar Irradiance, is there a component of it (perhaps a few wavelength bands) that does vary, plus others that make up the total, such that the oscillations of the more important bands are varying but the total is not much? i.e., is there a component that is mostly reflected that doesn’t matter much, but another that is absorbed that does? - and what are the oscillations of these components?
Thanks… And Happy New Year!
Warren over at climate skeptic has a good article about the same thing except he has added ocean circulation.
Isn’t it strange that if man is controlling the climate, why can he only sit and watch what will be. Shouldn’t we be doing something other than sit here and freeze? Warm is far friendlier to mankind.
Communism and it’s brethren, from socialism to outright skull crushing tyranny, killed by some estimates, between 100-125 million people in the 20th century. I doubt that any worst case scenario of AGW or a natural ice age either, can top that mark. Man seems to have his own ways. I note, isn’t it warming that we don’t know how many millions died, because of socialism/Communism, to better than +-10 million?
Rather than trying to control the uncontrollable, maybe man should try to control what he can — His own lust for power and ruthless domination of others.
May I suggest to this extraordinary site an idea?
Make the following experimental test, which could be seen through a live cam:
Build two crystal boxes, put a plant (or several) in each box. Remove all CO2, continuously, from one box, circulating the air through a Lithium Hydroxide filter, and connect the second one to a CO2 cylinder, keeping CO2 concentration above 5000 ppm or more. Then name the first one: Al´s world, and the second one: Human´s world.
Everybody will watch how life decays in Al´s world and flourishes in Human´s world.
A cool cold next year for all of you!!
David L. Hagen (13:45:07) saith: “For variety, here is a 2007 paper claiming the opposite: ‘Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature’ –MIKE LOCKWOOD, CLAUS FROHLICH”
Very interesting. On first reading, I see no obvious flaws, and it’s well written. Definitely worth another read or three, and a thread. Thanks for the link! Anybody else read it?
anna v (13:53:52) wrote
David Archibald has plots from specific regions/stations that show a correlation of sunspot cycle length and temperature
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
Thank you for the link to this paper Anna. He states his case quite succinctly, but I really, really, hope he is wrong.
MattN (15:58:54) :
As much as I like the sunspot duration/temp graph, it’s old. The last data is 1980. We now have 28 more years of data. Why hasn’t that graph been updated?
It has been but the newer versions don’t fit D’Aleo’s story so he chose to use the old discredited one!
Cary (14:37:31) : I hate to break in to your Holiday thoughts but Tamino’s last post calls Mr. Watt stupid and/or a Liar. He also implies that all readers of wattsup are stupid also.
Says more about Tamino, I think. The high road obviously isn’t his usual route.
I liked the comment there from TCO’s alter ego which Tamino has left unanswered: “how many years decline or plateau would be sufficient to make you decide major problem with AGW” Of course, Tamino’s whole post was that every year this century has been the hottest on record so he would be in a real bind to answer it.
And, while railing about misleading statistics, he stops at 2001 with his 5-year and 10-year averages claiming insufficient data for those following. I guess he feels that “stupid” people won’t notice anyway there is no real need to start on a year divisible by 10 although one commenter did point it out. Tamino’s response: “I started with 1880 because that’s an even multiple of 10, and that’s when GISS data begin. I suspect that anything else would compromise the ‘keep it simple’ principle.” — not to mention it might contradict his argument.
Nor does he see anything wrong with allowing one exceptional year to be propagated to the surrounding years. He has a LOESS curve but neglects to tells us how he got it (although implies he used the annual averages). What he should have used instead was monthly data and even then, it may not be enough data. The last thing anyone should do when using LOESS is eliminate local structure. Here are some thoughts from NIST on using it. Read the section regarding pitfalls.
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmd/section1/pmd144.htm
One is the general caution regarding outlier affect on regressions and another is “LOESS needs good empirical information on the local structure of the process in order perform the local fitting”.
His methodology almost completely eradicates the cooling trend from 1940 until almost 1980. A trend which caused nearly as great alarm then (among fear-mongers, that is — one of them named James Hansen — though not as much media attention then) as the trend at the end of the last century has.
So, who is using misleading statistics on the unwary?
REPLY: Ask Tamino about Ian Joliffe, and why no other scientists and contributors guest publish on “Open Mind”, like they do on WUWT. The answer will help you decide. - Anthony
Thank you Google Books. Here’s a month-by-month account of Philadelphia weather from 1790 to 1847. First surprising bit of info: in January 1790, the temperature reached 70, and boys were seen swimming in the Delaware River.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yXkWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=temperature+philadelphia+1790&source=web&ots=kDcJ9xhG8H&sig=ocb5JfGI5A8j5ApWfBacyRyY2pY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result
Robert Wood: Do you have any references for the 60-year ocean time constant you mentioned?
The latest version of the Southern Ocean SST (ERSST.v3b) has it rising for 75 years from ~1920 to ~1995, before it started its decline.
http://i44.tinypic.com/2uen29u.jpg
But in the earlier version (ERSST.v3), the rise lasts until the early 1980s, making it approximately 60 years, hence my question.
http://i35.tinypic.com/s3djds.jpg
Michael S (17:21:31) saith: “To the solar experts - It is often argued that TSI has not changed enough to explain global temperatures. Of this Total Solar Irradiance, is there a component of it (perhaps a few wavelength bands) that does vary, plus others that make up the total, such that the oscillations of the more important bands are varying but the total is not much?”
I’ve studied astrophysics and orbital mechanics at school, but I’m surely no expert. What the heck, why should that stop me?
Yes, there is another solar ‘component,’ I believe. Pick one: u.v. radiation, x-rays, and magnetic flux. UV flux has dropped by about 1/2 lately; x-rays are down by 10000:1; magnetic flux varies by about 3:1 over a solar cycle. There is also the interplanetary magnetic field, which has dropped off by 10:1 since July of 2003 (peak value 35 –> 3.5). TSI is a constant; these others are wild-ass variables, as you can see.
Read that Lockwood & Froehlich paper referred to above for some good stuff. What’s really happening? Nobody knows. My favorite is this: {woo-woo ON} Moving a conductor in a magnetic field produces current. The Earth core and oceans are both conductors, one strong, one weak. As the Earth orbits the Sun, electricity flows from core pole to core pole via the ocean, warming it. The oceans store this heat and give it up periodically, according to laws that we know not.
Another candidate is raising of the blackbody temperature of the night-time sky by refracted uv/x-rays/cosmic radiation. {woo-woo OFF}
Does this help?
jorgekafkazar (18:00:20) :
The Earth core and oceans are both conductors, one strong, one weak.
I’m not so sure the ocean as a conductor would be considered weak. Resistance should increase with distance linearly, but decreases with area of the conductor linearly as well. It’s a long distance but also a huge area. Just guessing here but I would be inclined to think that current would flow very easily through the oceans especially if you consider all the possible paths of the circuit… Has anyone published anything on this concept? Looking up the conductivity of ocean water…
Anyone know where to find examples of the cyclical nature Jorge mentions?
Long cycles are cold and short ones like the ones in the 1980s and 1990s are warm as this analysis by Friis-Christensen in 1991 showed clearly.
Certainly not in all cases, perhaps his graph needs to go back further. Assuming extra activity=more temperature….we have had several long cycles (over 11.9 yrs) with varying modulation strengths SC5 & 6 are a product of Grand Minima so are controlled by outside forces, SC4 & 23 (could be the 2 longest) were strong cycles that were/are precursors to Grand Minima. SC9 was a medium strength leaving SC13 & 14 which were low activity (expected at the time of lowest angular momentum)
Ron de Haan (16:40:07) :
The new “Maunder Minimum” already is named after Dr. Theodore Landscheidt and it’s called the Landscheidt Minimum which will have it’s Maximum by 2030.
Landscheidt doesnt predict the next grand minimum to start at SC24, he infact states less than 80 SSN with most of the action around 2030…so who will it be named after if it starts now?
‘nobwainer (19:16:10) :
SC4 & 23 (could be the 2 longest) were strong cycles that were/are precursors to Grand Minima. ‘
Sure is shaping up that way.
They already do.
He should call it Open Skull, because the cold air is definitely getting in.
James Hastings-Trew (11:40:06) saith:
“Phil: …The article then goes on to discuss political and sociological implications of the “incorrect” graph rather than merely discuss the matter in a purely scientific / mathematical manner. Sorry, but for me, this paper (already 4 years old) doesn’t pass the sniff test….
I, too, smelled a rat as I read the Damon & Laut paper, probably based on the grotesque, insulting and unprofessional phrasing. On re-reading it, I kept wondering if I sensed the hand of at least one unlisted author. It took a while to notice that M. Mann was one of the referenced data sources.
Anyone else notice that a couple of those low spot years occured at, or around, the time of intense cold in Europe? Times that saw alot of people freeze to death? Specifically World War I, The Ukranian Famine of ‘32-33 and World War II. Correlation may not be causation, but it sure as heck is concidental.
I was going to refer to this before, but some time ago I did a correlation analysis to HadCrut anomaly changes versus the length of time elapsing since the min/max antecedent to the most recent min/max (among other correlation analyses I did).
The study I did generally agrees with the relationship of solar cycle length versus temperature change. The reason for the above correlation study was that the temperature is positively correlated with time elapsing since the most recent min/max with time, but as the successive cycles lengthen, there is a definite negative correlation. These two effects will somewhat offset, but as the cycles lengthen, the negative correlation dominates. Multiple lengthy cycles will drive temperatures down.
The full study I did is here:
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/solar-cycle-length-sunspot-count-and-temperature-an-insurance-pricing-analysis/
The specific charts that show the negative correlation are here:
http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/parameter22.jpg
http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/parameter42.jpg
I hope to build on this study. I am currently compiling the Ocean Index data, Carbon Dioxide data, as well as the sunspot data. Through a similar correlation and minimum bias analysis, I hope to improve on eliminating cross biases and painting a truer portrait of what elements truly have a significant impact on temperature.
jorgekafkazar,
here is an interesting way for the sun to transfer energy to earth:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
haven’t seen any articles on how much difference this might make!! With the sun at a low phase, they may be seeing a rather low level of effect!!
The older I get the more the Plasma Universe guys seem to have a better handle on “things”. The Plasma guys say they can explain the universe without the modern day Phlogiston called dark matter and energy!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html
http://plasma.lanl.gov/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm
In the Tertiary, after 25 million years of global cooling, there was a slight warming trend, in the mid-Miocene, from 17.5 to 15 mya. Rainfall increased, too, called the Miocene pluvials. Forests were everywhere in North America, coast-to-coast, the Caribbean to the Arctic.
The warm bump is associated with the incredible outpouring of molten rock known as the Columbia River Flood Basalts. There is some debate as to what caused them, meteor impact, thinning continental crust, mantle plume, or all three. Whatever it was, it was big. The Earth cracked from Washington to Nevada, and a lava lake formed in eastern Oregon. It overflowed within hours and liquid rock flooded into the Columbia River Basin, filled it up, and turned it into the Columbia River Plateau.
The lava, so hot, so liquefied, and seemingly unending, flowed all the way to the Pacific Ocean, 600 kilometers to the west. It pushed the ancestral Columbia River 200 km north to the Okanogan. Over 164,000 square km were flooded by molten rock, in places over 2 km deep.
The original lava lake became a recumbent volcano, so-called because when one blows, it explodes with such fury that it destroys its own mountain. The terrain is blasted flat and bathed in floods of hot lava that spread over thousands of square miles. Over the next few million years the Columbia hot spot erupted again and again, spewing out dozens of monumental lava floods. In volume, the Columbia River Basalts contain over 175,000 cubic km of rock.
The single cause theory is suspect because at nearly the same time the Steens Mountain Basalts also flooded a vast region, apparently bursting from a different hot spot 400 km south. Two meteor impacts? Multiple hot spots? Plate thinning over there, too? The Steens hot spot vent moved east as the NA continental plate drifted west. Subsequent eruptions then may have formed the Snake River Plain Basalts. The problem with this theory is that the Snake River basalts are evidently somewhat older. The geology is confusing. At any rate, the Steens hot spot, or one of them, is under the Yellowstone recumbent volcano now, and due for another big blow. When it does, the lava will run for hundreds of miles, and the atmosphere will receive a healthy dose of carbon dioxide.
Miocene flood basalts warmed the climate nicely for two million years or so, a respite from the inexorable Big Chill. But then in the Oligocene global temperatures started plunging again. In the Pliocene, about 4 mya, global temps dropped past the Point of No Return. Our planet has not been that warm, or rainy, or forested, or productive, or biologically rich and diverse, ever since.
Leif has been very clear that the difference in average energy coming from the sun within the sunspot cycles is too small to directly affect the climate.
Nevertheless, the little pendulum site he pointed us to http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/explore/michaelspages/Coupled.htm gave me another image.
Imagine how many coupled “pendulums” the climate is” PDO etc ocean currents, clouds, storm systems, etc that I do not know. One of these pendulums is the change in local insolation during the day/night and the year. Day/night, though enormous, seem to me too fast to be seen in the system, but winter/summer, which on overage may be 7% but between poles again it is enormous, certainly surface currents, storm systems and cloud systems can be coupled to these oscillations and have resonances appear and disappear.
Within this framework, the small difference in energy between solar maximum and solar minimum, might be the straw that broke the camel’s back at certain points where the coupled system is either on an upswing or a downswing, similar to the the way that close to a metastable state, a very small change in parameters can push a system one way or another.
It is good that Anthony does not discourage speculations :).
James Hastings-Trew (16:28:08).
I believe that graph is for Mars, James. Odd how these boffins forget the simple things, isn’t it.
I wished that the following paper gets more attention:
Solar activity and its influence on climate by Prof C. de Jager
Free abstract can be found on http://www.njgonline.nl/index.html
Prof de Jager is an eminent scientist with impeccable credentials. See http://www.cdejager.com/about/
According to de Jager the Sun’s polar activity (as opposed to the equatorial activity) has always been neglected in Sun-climate studies. In this paper he does take account of the polar magnetic fields.
He also makes a prediction for cycle 24: ” These analyses, together with observations of the polar magnetic fieldstrength during the past few years, in combination with considerations of the long-term and short-term components of solar variability enable us to forecast the maximum strength and time of maximum of the next solar cycle #24 (de Jager and Duhau, 2008). We predict a maximum sunspot number of 68 +/- 17 in 2014.”
On the climate-sun relationship: “In a preliminary investigation, that is presently repeated and improved, we found that about half of the Sun’s equatorial magnetic fields and one third of the Sun’s polar fields contribute to tropospheric temperature, with in addition a small gradual temperature increase.”
I hope Leif could explain to us why he never mentioned the polar fields in his posts and whether he thinks they are of any importance.
phil.
This isn’t Anthony’s document, so I don’t think he can switch graphs.
Also you didn’t mention the reply by Svensmark [1]. The document by Laut you link is just a stupid rant (which complete its stupidity by “proving” CO2 is the main climate force with the hockey stick graph).
It was no error with Svensmarks graph. That was the official numbers proper to use when the document was released. (Laut didn’t had correct values to defend his criticism either, which you can see here below, in Svensmarks anwer, and Lauts answer on that [2]).
Laut actually recieved money from the government to humiliate Svensmark, and Laut recieved gratitudes for this by the former chairman of IPCC. Read it here (in Danish; I suggest you to use a good translator) :
http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20071215/danmark/712150037/
–
[1]
http://www.dsri.dk/getfile.php3?id=290
[2]
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003a.pdf
–
Q about The Real Issue: How can we come through in the media and political world with the facts that AGW is junk science — from the accumulation oof CO2 in the atmosphere to the totally unlikely positive feedback, which also are large?
My link to the answer by Svensmark was wrong. This one will hopefully work:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/Comments%20on%20Peter%20Lauts%20paper.pdf
Phil. (17:38:12) : “It has been but the newer versions don’t fit D’Aleo’s story so he chose to use the old discredited one!”
You rely on this old poor accusation from Laut? In fact a positive argument: Palle et al in this peered document shows a correlation betwen CR and low level clouds at a significance rate at 99.5 percent:
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
Palle et al has also showed that ~5 percent less clouds between 1993 and 2001 dedreased the albedo with ~2 percent (during temperature increase) :
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
They writes: “a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7+-1.4 W/m2 (Palle et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5+-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850″
-
Other scienetist (mentioned by Svensmark have also showed a CR cloud correlation, and Sloans and Wolfendales critics was poor with an obvious error:
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/applying-monte-carlo-simulation-to-sloans-and-wolfendales-use-of-forbush-decrease-data/
Spotting the solar signal in the temperature date is easy if you average it over 1/3 of the cycle length. This example shows 1950-2008 detrended to remove positive PDO, Phil Jones effect etc.
Here’s the link: :o)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1950/mean:43/detrend:0.5/offset:0.6/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/scale:0.0015/mean:12
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (19:33:04) : “Landscheidt doesnt predict the next grand minimum to start at SC24, he infact states less than 80 SSN with most of the action around 2030…so who will it be named after if it starts now?”
The temperatures we have now isn’t a grand Minimum (or even a little one).
You’re right about Maunder Minimum conditions 2030 [1], but due to Landscheidt a substantial drop in temperature will start 2014, after the maximum of SC24 [2].
[1] http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/17
[2] http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/44
“The relative positions of U,S,J,E and V start to fall into diminished configurations from late 2013/early 2014, leading to a lower sunspot count in second half of the cycle. This will be accompanied by increasingly lower global temperatures from 2014 to 2020.”
Maunder Minimum conditions (no sunspots) from now on I don’t think anyone believe in, but already 2015 we may see if Landscheidt is right. (He’s right about the El Nino 1998, or? Interresting times…)
Chris Schoneveld (02:01:27) : I hope Leif could explain to us why he never mentioned the polar fields in his posts and whether he thinks they are of any importance.
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Thought I’d save Leif another posting of this site as he just sent me there a couple of days ago:)
Mike D. (00:23:37) :
Glad you brought the flood basalts up. The vulcanologists aren’t sure whether an ‘effusive’ eruption like this would chuck enough into the atmosphere to affect world wide climate.
Seems to me that a few degrees of solar heating over a few hundred sq. miles sets off pretty respectable hurricanes. Would anyone care to speculate as to the weather system that would build up over 100s,000 sq miles with a ground temp of > 100C say.
Surely it would dominate weather world wide?
I’m seeing some kind of hyper-hyper-hurricane probably spinning off very respectable storm systems in their own right?
Magnus (03:13:47) :
The temperatures we have now isn’t a grand Minimum (or even a little one).
Its not about temps although we seem to be heading south quickly, its about the Sun falling into grand minimum( my view is less than 50SSN). I am predicting SC24 will be the start of the next grand minimum which is happening now even though its early days and will will prob start to climb out around 2030. The positions are very good right now and will be at full force at Feb 2010. Expect SC25 to be the same.
Maunder Minimum conditions (no sunspots) from now on I don’t think anyone believe in
We wont get Maunder Min conditions this time around…perhaps even less than Dalton conditions I think, more likely 2 low cycles followed by a recovery, the J+S positions are now weakening and this might be the last grand min for some real distance into the future….we are on the tail end of a truly golden era.
BTW you are quoting links from the site I manage….see my theory here. http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58
Landscheidt has done some great work, but I believe what Carl Smith has extracted might go further.
keith (09:36:33) :
“and what does the Sun have to do with heating the Earth?”
and what does my boiler have to do with heating my home?
Concerning Yellowstone:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/4032098/Yellowstone-Park-shaken-by-hundreds-of-earthquakes.html
My own simple calculations (using data from relatively remote temperature stations with long, unbroken histories) indicate temperature tracks the sunspot cycles (with a physically based delay of a few years). Credible scientists, like Leif, indicate changes solar energy cannot be the “basis”. Thus, I assume there is some other mechanism. However, not knowing the mechanism (yet), does not make the phenomenon disappear, I think.
Is that a spot down there?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/1024/latest.html
Shame - that IBD article starts out with a statement that misinforms the public:
When the sun is active, it’s not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month.
Folks just starting to pay attention will read that and see a feeble start as back to business as usual.
Magnus: Geoff is probably aware of what Landscheidt said (since he runs the website you link to), but it should be noted that Landscheidt’s predictions based on planetary alignment considerations should be reconsidered in the light of Ching Cheh Hungs paper which considers V,E,J to be sufficient to account for most of the effect. This shows the syzurgies going out of phase earlier, around 2004.
I can’t get Leif Svalgaard to comment on Hung’s paper despite many attempts, he always dismisses anything to do with the planets effect on the sun as ‘Astrology’ despite the successful predictions of solar flares and the substantial correlation presented, and despite Ching Cheh Hung’s status as a published NASA scientist. Leif is adamant that gravity is too weak, and electromagnetism is too ‘WOO WOO’ to be considereed.
I think he is wrong to dismiss the interesting and as yet unfalsified theoretical and hypothetical mechanisms on offer.
New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Let’s see, we are starting off 2009 with the possibility of a grand minimum and Yellowstone is rocking like crazy. Interesting times we live in.
I am curious, how does 2012 affect the sun, I understand the earth is at the center of the galaxy or something?
Those values from max to max of 21 to 22 of 9.7 years and cycle 22 length min to min 9.8 years were based on the data not the graph. They fit the original graph. They both are very short suggesting warm temperatures in the 1990s. The interval of cycle 22 max to cycle 23 max centered in the mid 1990s began to increase at 10.7 years is nearere normal and the min to min length of cycle 23 now at least 12.3 years is well above normal.
Also all the arguments/questions (Phil et al) seem to focus on the cycle length plot but not with the global temperatures. Remember all the other posts here showing the warming in the global data bases is likely exaggerrated for a number of reasons including bad siting, lack of urban adjustment, station dropout. This exaggerration may be 50% (at least 5 peer review papers suggest values 30-50%).
pkatt (03:27:33) :
Many thanks for Leif’s PDF link
:Issued: 2009 Jan 01 0927 UTC
:Product: documentation at http://www.sidc.be/products/ri
#——————————————————————–#
# MONTHLY REPORT ON THE INTERNATIONAL SUNSPOT NUMBER #
# from the SIDC (RWC-Belgium) #
#——————————————————————–#
Provisional International monthly mean Sunspot Number for
December 2008 : 0.8 (zero point eight)…
I’ve wondered often about “harvesting the crop” that is raised, tended and matured on so many threads here.
Phil’s request for the “faulty” graph of Friis-Christensen to be replaced has flushed out the questionable antics of Schneider and the scurrilous behaviour of Damon and Laut: but has Phil taken this in, let alone checked it? And though no much-desired update to Friis-Christensen has appeared, TallBloke rose to the occasion with a graph at WoodForTrees. Both TB and WFT are examples of citizen science at its best IMHO. I plan to add TB’s graph to my Climate Science Primer - TB as you ok with that?
James Hastings-Trew has been helped by various readers and has expressed appreciation. Magnus has been in great form with a funny U-tube and serious comments. Leif’s absence is noticed - but his “double pendulum” image for multiple cycles is working away in people’s minds! We’re reminded that the coming minimum deserves to be - or has been - named after Landscheidt whose pioneering solar work is inspiring many scientists to take the solar cycles seriously as climate drivers.
My high spot of learning was from jorgekafkazar: UV flux has dropped by about 1/2 lately; x-rays are down by 10000:1; magnetic flux varies by about 3:1 over a solar cycle. There is also the interplanetary magnetic field, which has dropped off by 10:1 since July of 2003 (peak value 35 –> 3.5). TSI is a constant; these others are wild-ass variables.
I feel, as do many others no doubt, that though TSI has remained too constant to explain our climate variations, the longer-term variety HAS to go back to the Sun - somehow - and if TSI won’t do it, then it must be factors as yet not spotted, or not correlated, or not shown as reasonable cause-and-effect, or not demonstrated as amplifiers of weak signals.
I ponder the sad degradation of Climate Science that has happened, and what can little me do when there should be thousands of university students, PhD graduates, professors, and Nobel Prizewinners up in arms about this. I remember the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. I ask for help from Source.
There is far, far more than I can name or appreciate. We all keep on working at it all.
Michael S (19:08:32) said:
“jorgekafkazar (18:00:20) :
‘The Earth core and oceans are both conductors, one strong, one weak.’
“I’m not so sure the ocean as a conductor would be considered weak. Resistance should increase with distance linearly, but decreases with area of the conductor linearly as well. It’s a long distance but also a huge area. Just guessing here but I would be inclined to think that current would flow very easily through the oceans especially if you consider all the possible paths of the circuit… Has anyone published anything on this concept? Looking up the conductivity of ocean water…
Anyone know where to find examples of the cyclical nature Jorge mentions?”
Michael-san: Yes, the oceans are a dandy conductor, though probably not as good as the Earth’s core. I’m not sure how to quantify any of this, as yet. It’s also possible that the Earth’s crust also is an effective conductor on this scale.
I’m not aware of this particular speculation having been proposed anywhere else or by anyone else, though it seems a rather obvious place to look for explanations of a connection between solar cycles and terrestrial heating. I should point out that if this terrestrial dynamo exists, we may be in for some significant geological effects. Moving a conductor (the oceans or Earth’s core, in this case) in a magnetic field creates forces. As the solar flux dissipates, any stresses built up in the Earth’s crust since the last solar-magnetic reversal would now have the lid taken off, so to speak.
Chris Schoneveld (02:01:27) :
Leif’s SC 24 prediction is based on the solar polar field, he just draws the
line between that (and most other things solar) and temperatures on Earth.
Anthony’s reply to DAV (17:46:36) :Ask Tamino about Ian Joliffe, and why no other scientists and contributors guest publish on “Open Mind”, like they do on WUWT.
I remember that. Joliffe demanded an apology from Tamino — and got it — but then Tamino effectively said Joliffe was full of it ; leaving it all in the comments section without altering the main post. Posting at Tamino’s is an exercise. in futility. A perhaps more appropriate title for his blog: “Closed Mind.”
I wonder if Tamino is aware of the irony in his oft repeated refrain: “you *know* your amateurish claim is bullshit, but you’re *counting* on readers not having the expertise to catch your lie.”
Mike D., thanks for the overview of the Columbia River Flood Basalts, of special interest to me since I live in that vacinity - there’s lava all over the place, helping to create some giant canyons as well as plateau, etc. - and for the interesting lava flow-climate connection. I still don’t quite believe that the Earth’s core/sub-mantel heat energy has nothing significant to do with climate or that it can instead be considered as some kind of stable background given.
I have been mulling over the “driver” question. It has occurred to me that I have not considered an enormous source of heat. Is the earth itself not a magma filled balloon? The earth’s crust is not very thick ( relatively speaking) compared to the huge volume of molten rock and metals within. It is also a huge dynamo ( magnetic field and liquid metal core). The dynamo would also be affected by the suns magnetic field which varies as well. We clearly do not have all the pieces of this puzzle. Purely speculation on my part, but one that I find interesting. Comments? Keep the abuse to a minimum, please !! :^)
“though no much-desired update to Friis-Christensen has appeared, TallBloke rose to the occasion with a graph at WoodForTrees. Both TB and WFT are examples of citizen science at its best IMHO. I plan to add TB’s graph to my Climate Science Primer - TB as you ok with that?”
Fine by me Lucy, just make sure the detrending is clearly labelled. The purpose of the graph was to show the clear solar signal in the temperature data. It doesn’t update Christensen as such, but I’d have thought any competent statistician could do that accurately anyway, having made suitable adjustments to the temperature data to allow for the Jones/Hansen effect. Given the bucket adjustment fiasco for postwar sea surface temps and the overblown post 1975 warming figures, I’d say the solar signal is stronger in relation to the other longer term oscillations than has been estimated, maybe around .2C for an average cycle. This leaves us with the question of how the extra effect arrives in the earths climate. Clouds, geomagnetic effects, the interplanetary magnetic field. All these things need much more research money putting in to them.
Also, there is the question of how much energy from successive strong cycles ends up ’stored’ in the oceans, contributing to longterm trends in the PDO etc.
More like Benny Hill.
No, wait, I liked Benny Hill…
Lucy Skywalker (08:24:34) :
Phil’s request for the “faulty” graph of Friis-Christensen to be replaced has flushed out the questionable antics of Schneider and the scurrilous behaviour of Damon and Laut: but has Phil taken this in, let alone checked it? And though no much-desired update to Friis-Christensen has appeared,
Yes I have checked it and unlike you I read past the ad hominem whining. F-C acknowledged that the point about the mixing of filtered data and unfiltered data was correct but that he shouldn’t be criticized for it because he said that’s what he’d done in the paper. “For the last two extrema [two solar minimum and two solar maximum values], the available data do not allow full smoothing. Therefore we filtered the second to last extrema by estimating the next extremum (because this is included in the filtering with a weight of one-eight only), the last extrema express the unfiltered epochs.” In other words they used a guess which is responsible for that sharp up-tick on the graph used by D’Aleo. My objection the the use of such graphs out of context is that the caveats made in the paper are left behind, had D’Aleo presented the original graph with its caption the mixed data would have been apparent.
In fact as I said above F-C did publish a later paper in which they point out “LFC showed that until 1985, corresponding to the last published data point in the FCL 1991 paper, the solar activity as calculated by the cycle length was indeed increasing in parallel with the temperature. But they also specifically stated that after this date the Northern Hemisphere Land surface temperature variations did no longer follow the solar activity variation expressed by the solar cycle length.” So F-C explicitly states that the agreement “showed clearly” in the 91 graph doesn’t hold past 85 (and that data point relied on a guess).
F-C also disclaimed responsibility for the miscalculation of the period lengths, the “trivial arithmetic error” because it did not come from the Lassen & Friis-Christiansen paper, but from a paper by Thejll and Lassen (yes the co-author of F-C).
So D’Aleo used a graph whose authors admit hasn’t been relevant for more than 20 years without the caveats that those authors saw fit to include in the figure caption when they produced it originally.
Damon & Laut are not the only ones to have taken issue with this data, for example: M. Lockwood and C. Frӧhlich “It should be noted that the solar cycle length L presented here does not appear as similar to the inverse of the global temperature anomaly as has been reported elsewhere ( Friis-Christensen & Lassen 1991).”
David Ball: Yes, the Earth is rather molten down there. A cooling and thereby shrinking crust might crack. Or it could shrink non-uniformly and let a bunch of shallow magma out. We have been fooled by geologic time scales before, no reason to expect we won’t again.
This is an article stating that many scientists are looking for ways to back out from the AGW hoax without damaging their careers!
The wall is falling…
Now it’s the turn for our politicians.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Cooling+global+warming+hysteria+just+story/1128586/story.html
Tallbloke (06:46:33) :
I can’t get Leif Svalgaard to comment on Hung’s paper despite many attempts, he always dismisses anything to do with the planets effect on the sun as ‘Astrology’
Leif and I had long discussion re Hung and also Desmoulins here (starts about half way through)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/even-quieter-on-the-solar-front-another-all-quiet-alert-issued/
The recumbent volcano beneath Yellowstone is the tip of a mantle plume. It not some dinky Mt. Saint Helens; it is a major hole in the mantle ala the Hawaiian Islands. It has erupted 3 times
in the past 2 million years, two of those among the largest eruptions known to have occurred on Earth. The last big one was ~600 kya and caused ash flows to the Mississippi. As much as 20 feet of airborne ash was deposited as far away as Texas. The entire continent was impacted in one way or another.
When (not if) the Yellowstone “hot spot” erupts again, it will be devastating to any civilization that exists here. And undoubtedly global climate will be affected, although whomever survives in NA will probably not notice it that much, given the enormity of the direct destruction from the eruption.
Still and all, it will not cause the seas to boil, proof being that previous eruptions did not induce the Venus Effect. That particular Creation-ending phenomenon will be caused by SUV’s, cow flatulence, and coal-fired power plants according to the exploding climate models of eminent NASA “scientists” and Algorites.
Phil thanks for replying. I am already pretty well aware of everything you said - but didn’t spell it out. What I meant originally was, have you taken heed that Damon & Laut were out of order? (and there are a few others). I found out about the limits of Friis-Christensen’s graph, and what he said in acknowledging this, when I discovered a Wikipedia article that mentioned D&L but signally omitted the reply that one would expect, and had other issues that all made me smell a rat - so I did some in-depth research. It’s because I am aware of the limits of the F-C graph that I want to make use of TallBloke’s graph which is uptodate and shows the ongoing correlation that essentially upholds the validity of Friis-Christensen’s original observation of correlation.
Thanks TallBloke. I’m not a statistician but trust I can recognize enough of the difference between good/relevant data and bad/irrelevant data.
Jeff L (12:40:29) :
Your observations are correct.
The lab experiment continues with a lazy sun as you point out.
In addition, CO2 will continue to climb as the Chinese and Indians will NOT do anything to slow their production of cheap energy, via coal burning plants. My understanding is the Chinese are bringing a coal plant every week. Both countries understand economic growth is dependent upon cheap and reliable energy. Both countries are poor and they are really not too concerned about liberals in this country think about their programs.
So the great experiment will continue with not only a lazy sun but growth in CO2, putting the AGW hypothesis in a double test.
All of this will take a few years to work out, so sit back and relax.
The only question is, how much financial muscle will be put behind the AGW theories? My personal opinion, and it is only that, is Obama is too pragmatic an individual to sacrifice an economic recovery on the altar of AGW. To be sure, there will be a lot of lip service to AGW mantras, but when push comes to shove, there will be no carbon tax schemes.
Just imagine how the American public would react to any moves resulting in an increase of 50% on utility bills or a dollar per gallon gas tax. If Obama is silly enough to attempt such a thing, there will be a violent political reaction to such a miscue.
Al Gore is pushing this agenda as we type. His is a pure economic motivation. A carbon tax or cap and trade scheme will benefit his investments. Simple enough to understand. Hansen is out there for ego and pride. Perhaps there are some economic incentives as well.
Both will be disappointed.
Just imagine a carbon tax proposal as the snow flies, temperatures drop, and poor people can’t pay their utility bills.
Don’t even want to contemplate such a scenario.
Anybody catch the new ‘energy czar’s’ commission she’s on?
Carol Browner is on the Socialist International’s ‘Commission For A Sustainable World Society.’
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1845&&ModuleID=34
Here’s what this group stands for:
(1) To design and put forward proposals for democratic forms of global goverance as the foundation for building a peaceful and sustainable world society overall;
(2) To map out the ways in which social imbalances and economic inequality can be redressed through new forms of governance;
A principal task of new global governance must be to ensure that the benefits of global economic growth and the opportunities for economic development are distributed fairly
Too many people in different regions of the world are being left behind, exacerbating social divisions, cultural differences and inequality within and among nations.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/133110.php
If I’m reading the above right, this commission she’s on wants a world government and one of the things this government is going to do is address world economic disparity.
Ric Werme (09:33:41) :
My knowledge of sunspots is limited but I have never come across posts that make the distinction between equatorial and polar solar activity. Admittedly, I am not a very regular visitor and may have missed it. Generally, when solar activities are discussed one always refers the visible manifestations, namely the “sunspots”, which I always thought were the equatorial features (up to 35 degrees latitude). They show this typical butterfly pattern between 35N and 35S latitudes.
Michael S and jorgekafkazar.
I too have been thinking of “offbeat” mechanisms to explain the apparent correlation between sunspots and temperature over the last couple centuries. I wonder about gravitational forcing. I.e. energy from gravitational distortions of the earth resolving as heat or somehow increasing heat flow from the core — distortions caused by the same mechanism that causes sunspots — i.e. its not the sunspots themselves, rather the common cause — perhaps the change in the sun’s orbit around the solar system center of mass.
As you suggest, why not energy from magnetic field interactions also adding perceptibly to the planet’s stored heat?
However, I have not tried to calculate the magnitudes of energy involved; so, I do not know if the above mechanisms are plausible — i.e. could possibly explain a few tenths of a degree of global temperature change.
Perhaps its the additive effect of multiple mechanisms having a common cause.
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (14:37:29) :
Al Gore Minimum.
‘Ron de Haan (14:11:49) :
This is an article stating that many scientists are looking for ways to back out from the AGW hoax without damaging their careers! ‘
Oh, no problem there. Let me demonstrate how to do this:
All you have to do is say that we believe that in times of Great Solar Activity, CO2 has been implicated as having a distinct possibility of adding insult to injury factor when it comes to overheating our beloved Planet Earth.
But in times of Miniscule Solar Activity, it’s the pollution and toxins factor from buring fossil fuels that becomes the major source of irritation.
In either case, we are concerned with making our finite supply of fossil fuels last as long as we can make them, and at the same time, take care of our home.
That do it?
Need more?
What to name the Grand Minima if it occurs?
Badalyan had a 50 for SC 24 in 2000.
Svalgard has a 70 for SC24 in 2005.
And Cliverd has a 42 for SC24 in 2006.
Depends on where we land.
Lucy Skywalker (14:51:10) :
Phil thanks for replying. I am already pretty well aware of everything you said - but didn’t spell it out. What I meant originally was, have you taken heed that Damon & Laut were out of order? (and there are a few others). I found out about the limits of Friis-Christensen’s graph, and what he said in acknowledging this, when I discovered a Wikipedia article that mentioned D&L but signally omitted the reply that one would expect, and had other issues that all made me smell a rat - so I did some in-depth research. It’s because I am aware of the limits of the F-C graph that I want to make use of TallBloke’s graph which is uptodate and shows the ongoing correlation that essentially upholds the validity of Friis-Christensen’s original observation of correlation.
So you knew that F-C’s graph that D’Aleo used was dodgy so why don’t you support my position that it’s inappropriate to use it? Just because F-C and Laut don’t like each other is no reason to ignore the flaws in the use of that graph.
You do realize that Tallbloke’s graph is not an update of the one under discussion, it plots a different variable? In fact it disproves F-C’s original thesis since it is detrended.
Mike D.:
When (not if) the Yellowstone “hot spot” erupts again, it will be devastating to any civilization that exists here. And undoubtedly global climate will be affected, although whomever survives in NA will probably not notice it that much, given the enormity of the direct destruction from the eruption.
Hilarious! That, and the rest of your post certainly shows the intellectual value of applied sarcasm. Thanks, again.
Eddy Minimum.
==========
“Leif and I had long discussion re Hung and also Desmoulins here (starts about half way through)”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/even-quieter-on-the-solar-front-another-all-quiet-alert-issued/
Thanks Geoff, waded through that. It’s obvious from Leif’s comments that he still hasn’t read the Hung paper properly, and is getting the mercury link to solar flares mixed up with the syzygy’s of V,E,J and their correlation with sunspot cycle intensity, after rejecting the V,E,J,M correlation.
Oh well, his loss.
Anyway, I’ve read your stuff on the Landscheidt repository site, great progress, and all the best for 2009. I’m looking more to lgl’s suggestions about resonance, and wave modulation in spin tanks to get a handle on how the planetary motions produce cancelling and amplifying patterns in solar activity.
Leif wants nice clean numbers, he obviously never had to do studies in fluid dynamics involving perturbatory flows. Still, scientists tend to leave that sort of nitty gritty to engineers…
Phil
The data points on the solar cycle length extending the FC plot forward are clear now with length from max to max of 21 to 22 (mid 1980s) 9.7 years and cycle 22 length min to min 9.8 years (centered arounf 1990), both very short supporting warm 1990s and much in line with the 1991 FC plot. The interval of cycle 22 max to cycle 23 max centered in the mid 1990s is also known at 10.7 years but the min to min length of cycle 23 is still TBD but at least 12.3 years.
What is not clear is the surface temperatures which because of station dropout around 1990 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Stationdropout.jpg and other factors http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DataIntegrity.doc is likely exaggerrated. Instead of thinking temperatures proving the solar connection incorrect, maybe we should use the long term solar correlation to prove the Hadley/NOAA/NASA temperatures are faulty. I chose the FC chart that ended at 1990 before most of the temperature issues arose.
In other news, globaloney hits Malibu!
Feel the envy:
Magnus and others
Thank you for your links to the two Landscheidt’s documents. It answers my earlier question (15:32:55) regarding the 213 year period and solar inertial motion. You are likely aware of the Richard Mackey presentation of Rhodes Fairbridge’s work on SIM http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
I’m curious as to your take on the relationship between the two.
I am still also interested in a brief explanation of how the end of the minimum will be established. Can you or fellow expert provide such?
Mark (15:14:04) :
You think that’s bad, we finally have it from the horse’s mouth - the real purpose behind the AGW myth, redistribution of wealth: (letter from James Hansen to Barack Obama).
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/01/nasas-hansen-obama-use-global-warming-redistribute-wealth
QED.
Robert Bateman (16:04:40) :
What to name the Grand Minima if it occurs?
Badalyan had a 50 for SC 24 in 2000.
Svalgard has a 70 for SC24 in 2005.
And Cliverd has a 42 for SC24 in 2006.
Depends on where we land.
There’s a big difference in proposing a next low min based on precursor methods or whatever and predicting a full solar grand minimum…how many have done that?
Tallbloke (16:44:49) :
Anyway, I’ve read your stuff on the Landscheidt repository site, great progress, and all the best for 2009.
Thanks…might be an interesting year
Ron de Haan (16:40:07)
‘The new “Maunder Minimum” already is named after Dr. Theodore Landscheidt and it’s called the Landscheidt Minimum which will have it’s Maximum by 2030.’
Darn, I was hoping for the name Gore’s Minimun.
If we do go into a mini ice age (which I hope we don’t), It should be named Gore’s little ice age.
Folks, attendance to family matters [I was a Santa Claus impostor] has left me off the keyboard for while. It has been fun to see the unbridled speculations that apparently can thrive when left alone. I do have a few general comments:
1) use of polar fields [deJager]: he said polar ‘activity’ not polar fields, and I have no idea what he is taking about.
2) F-C&L was a poor paper. It is usually considered inadmissible [or just plain wrong] to mix filtered and unfiltered data. If the effect was present for the last few of the unfiltered data points, it should also have been present in the unfiltered data as a whole, so the need to ‘jack up’ the correlation by filtering over several cycles is a severe weakness. In addition, the ‘length’ of a solar cyle is a somewhat artificial concept [that the Sun doesn't really know about. A cycle typically lasts ~15 years overlapping with previous and next cycles.
3) Re Hung's paper: I don't known what a 'proper' reading of a paper is. My main objection to his claim is that if the planetary tides [or positions] can trigger major flares, they should be even more effective for triggering smaller flares [of which we have thousands]. People looking at flare statistics [myself included] have not observed any clear periodicities in the occurrence. Hung also notes that the syzygies and the solar cycles are getting out of sync [with the sun leading!]. His conclusion is that the solar cycle is not caused by tidal forces, but only weakly modulated. Yet some people that claim Hung as supporting evidence ascribe the cycle itself to tides of ‘angular momentum’ and such. The various ‘planetary’ theories are not mutually coherent and are [as Hung notes] energy challenged.
It is every scientists dream to overthrow the standard paradigm, so papers [well, it was only a 'report'] like Hung’s are often studied to see if there might be something there. Scientists quickly learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, and I have seen precious little wheat, and chaff is not something anybody wants to spend time refuting, because it is not necessary: chaff advertises itself as such.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (17:50:25) :
There’s a big difference in proposing a next low min based on precursor methods or whatever and predicting a full solar grand minimum…how many have done that?
My seven-year old grandson [Peter] for one. I was looking at http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html and he looked over shoulder and commented: “it sure looks like the next one will be small as the three drawings look pretty much alike”.
Interesting SC24 presentation from Hathaway on solarcycle24.com for those who havent seen it.
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/RHESSI/napa2008/
Here’s a controversial graph showing the past grand minima going back 11,000 yrs from Usoskin. It only shows major grand minima (misses the Dalton etc) but it certainly shows some very big gaps in between. All the blue troughs line up with Neptune/Uranus conjunctions but do start to drift out as the records get older….perhaps the conjunctions could be used to re calibrate the carbon dating process?
Here’s a controversial graph showing the past grand minima going back 11,000 yrs from Usoskin. It only shows major grand minima (misses the Dalton etc) but it certainly shows some very big gaps in between.
All the blue troughs line up with Neptune/Uranus conjunctions but do start to drift out as the records get older….perhaps the conjunctions could be used to re calibrate the carbon dating process?
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/previousgrandminima.png
That grandson of yours is very observant, Leif. When you look at all those cycles squished down into tiny shapes, it makes it hard to pick out the patterns amidst all the data clobbering.
And when I split and rejoin that graph the result is mind blowing.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/11000c14.jpg
Check the background curve that is now easy to see…far from something a random number generator could do, I bet its the angular momentum curve that controls when we have Grand Minima as well as the strength of each solar cycle.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (21:04:28) :
Check the background curve that is now easy to see…far from something a random number generator could do,
And even further from a periodic orbit-driven generator. But, actually, the spacing of minima has a random character with both large and small gaps. If they were more equally spaced they wouldn’t be random. And the Sun has ‘persistence’: low groups often go together and high groups often go together, but the transition between them is pretty unpredictable. The Earth’s dynamo has similar randomness.
Joe D’Aleo (17:00:30) :
Phil
The data points on the solar cycle length extending the FC plot forward are clear now with length from max to max of 21 to 22 (mid 1980s) 9.7 years and cycle 22 length min to min 9.8 years (centered arounf 1990), both very short supporting warm 1990s and much in line with the 1991 FC plot.
Oh really did you apply the same filtering?
Also if you’re going to post figures from papers it’s considered good form to include the caption.
So you used dodgy data from a paper which had been repudiated by its authors who said “Northern Hemisphere Land surface temperature variations did no longer (since 1985) follow the solar activity variation expressed by the solar cycle length” as support for your title “Portends Cooling”.
I chose the FC chart that ended at 1990 before most of the temperature issues arose.
And yet the MSU data agree with the surface data as far as the trend since that time is concerned. Basically you cherry-picked a graph that fitted your prejudice and used it regardless of the science.
Leif Svalgaard (22:38:53) :
And even further from a periodic orbit-driven generator.
That would depend on the period i would think…how long does it take for the solar system take to come back to exactly the same positions? if someone has worked that out, “that would be the orbit period”….and the C14 graph and matching 10Be graph are probably in tune with J+S+N+U most aligned days.
Sounds like a great job for our friend Jean-Pierre Desmoulins.
Leif Svalgaard (22:38:53) :
But I suspect that the “orbital period” will be around 100,000 yrs just like the Milankovitch cycle that controls our own orbit shape around the Sun…..and you know that cycle is caused by Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune & Uranus.