Comments on: David Archibald on – The State of the Sun – 16th June, 2009

By: David Archibald

David Archibald — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:04:03 +0000

HarryG,

If you mean the one on the F 10.7 flux, he is being a bit disingenuous. There are several things different about this minimum. For starters, the preceding cycle is very long. Hathaway published on this and it means that the following cycle will be weak. The IMF and the Ap Index are still in strong declines. The F 10.7 flux has a theoretical minimum of 64 and thus cannot fall much further itself. Then there is the heliospheric current sheet. We don’t have enough cycles to say that it definitely has to get down to 3 degrees before the month of minimum is reach but my guess is that it does. At its established rate of decline, the month of minimum is still a year away.

The plunge into solar somnolence continues.

By: gary gulrud

gary gulrud — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:47:51 +0000

Good work as always DA.

Side note on the global temperature from Central MN. The AGW apologists
were(are) hoping that El Nino conditions concurrent with PDO neutral
conditions preceding solar ramp(as expected) would give them some
Denialist bashing momentum going into a weak SC24.

Well, it is rather cool and though regular rains are light so harvests
still look to be off.

Having lived through the 50’s on here I can say we are no longer feeling
the heat. Our few days in the 90’s here were actually pleasant with
moderate dew points. July 4th high is forecast to be at long term ave.

By: HarryG

HarryG — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:48:12 +0000

David

What is your take on Leif’s post at WUWT?

By: John A

John A — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:28:17 +0000

David A:

On another matter, Frank Hill of NASA is saying that sunspots will be with us very soon

I dealt with this particular news release on my Solar Science blog. I am far from impressed with the prediction which appears to have already been falsified.

By: David Archibald

David Archibald — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:44:15 +0000

Re John A, no I can’t as it belongs to someone else and is undergoing fine tuning. When I started out in this field in 2005, there were a range of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude predictions ranging from Dikpati at 190 down to Clilverd at 45. Just a casual look at the climate implications of those predictions indicated that they represented a 2 degree C range in temperature outcome. The climate science community was ignoring the Sun at the time and was completely oblivious to what might happen in a few short years. We get up to the present day and the Sun is behaving as predicted, and in fact exceeding expectations.

In the meantime, we have had four more years of data but there have been no forecast updates. So I have been trashing about trying to get some up to date guidance. The model I refer to hindcasts very well. It explains why the Maunder was diferent. It says the next two cycles will be very interesting. The minimum we are entering may be of Dalton-like length with Maunder characteristics, and from then on 19th century like behaviour. So I am very happy to have become acquainted with this model. I am no longer looking blindly into a fog. We can see backwards and forwards with very good clarity. It is a big improvement on the sum of waveforms approach of Clilverd, which is currently the Solar Cycle 24 amplitude prediction winner, even though it looks like it will be out by 45, ignoring the error margin. There are reports that some glaciers have started advancing in the last few years. From here on, they will all start advancing. Few people are aware that the average amplitude of solar cycles over the last 10,000 years was only 30. We baby boomers lived in a special time.

On another matter, Frank Hill of NASA is saying that sunspots will be with us very soon. The Ap Index is telling me that there will be no sunpots.

By: John A

John A — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:12:16 +0000

David Archibald:

Solar activity modelling that I have recently become aware of suggests that the Sun will have very low activity until 2016.

Can you name those models?

By: Peter Mills

Peter Mills — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:00:12 +0000

I propose that the new global temperature minimum period be called the “Gore Minimum”, to honour a man who has been trying to achieve this for some time, as well as make a lot of money and destroy the world’s economy.

By: David Archibald on – The State of the Sun – 16th June, 2009 « An Honest Climate Debate

Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:03:53 +0000

[...] June 16th, 2009 by Warwick Hughes [...]

By: WSH

WSH — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:56:02 +0000

Henry, little can be read into media reporting re Sen. Fielding position on any given day – it was amazing he spoke out like he did and a huge effort by the Carbon Police to nullify him was never in doubt. You ask about any cruncher observation – for me the Table Main characteristics per solar cycle 40% down the page – suggests we are reverting to a solar state similar to cycles of a century ago. Stay an interested onlooker Henry.
I enjoyed John Finn’s putting a brave front on saying the AGW camp were in a win-win situation. John – temperatures have ALREADY stalled for a decade. We have had the warmers claiming aerosols were killing the warming – I can not see them easily finding comfort in a solar cycle induced cooling or prolonged plateau.

By: Mom2girls

Mom2girls — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 05:45:22 +0000

Warmers aren’t about science in the traditional sense. No. They practice ’social justice science’. Feelgoodaboutwhati’mdoingfortheplanet science.

Bears little relation to the real thing.

Hate to hear that Leif is wrapped up in the cult.

John Finn, the warmers have pretty much already ‘won’ the dialogue with the general public. At least in this country. Now that they’ve morphed ‘global warming’ into ‘climate change’ they win no matter what.

It’s amusing to me anyways that a solar minimum should show up just now. It’s almost as if G-d is poking the warmers in the eye.