David Archibald’s elegant illustration of how late and weak solar cycle 24 is proving

David Archibald illustration

There is another way of looking at solar cycles.

Solar cycles actually start with the magnetic reversal near the peak of the previous cycle. The sunspots take seven years to surface and become visible. Almost all sunspot cycles tend to be about 18.5 years long, measured from the peak of the previous cycle.

The above graph compares the average of three cycles, 21 to 23, from the late 20th century with three, 14 to 16, from the late 19th century (which had much colder weather). Also included is Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum.

Given we are now 103 months from the peak of Solar Cycle 23, it is now too late to get a late 19th century-type outcome for Solar Cycle 24. Out of the 24 named solar cycles, Solar Cycle 24 is now the latest after Solar Cycle 5.

It is so late that it is now in no man’s land and its weakness is now more of a consideration than lateness in itself.

It is certain that we will be getting a Dalton Minimum-type experience.
David Archibald

39 comments to David Archibald’s elegant illustration of how late and weak solar cycle 24 is proving

  • John Finn

    “It is certain that we will be getting a Dalton Minimum-type experience.”

    I’m not sure what this is supposed to imply. It’s possible that sc 24 will be weaker than more recent cycles but whether that will have any impact on the climate is debatable.

    Even the period covered by the original Dalton Minimum does not seem to have been appreciably cooler than the years immediately before or after. There is certainly a downward spike in the CET record in ~1815 but that is more likely related to the massive Tambora eruption.

  • Gary Gulrud

    “whether that will have any impact on the climate is debatable”

    Whether Puce is a pink or a beige is also open to debate. We are about to get answers re: Dave’s predictions, about 2 years awaitin’.

    The Tambora eruption and another, unidentified eruption, about 1812, spiked atmospheric CO2 50% to 450ppm. It is being recognized of late that volcanism and electromagnahelic minima are positively correlated.

    If you have a prediction for global ave. temps in 2015(lets just go with satellites, please), better make a pitch soon. We’ll debate the facts later.

  • John Finn

    “If you have a prediction for global ave. temps in 2015(lets just go with satellites, please), better make a pitch soon. We’ll debate the facts later ”

    Depends on ENSO. There can be at least half a degree difference between El Nino and La Nina. IF PDO really has shifted to a cool phase then there’s more chance of La nina than El Nino so I’ll guess 2015 will have an average sat anomaly of ~0.15 deg.

    Re: DA’s predictions of 2 deg falls in temp in 2 years, 5 years or 10 years. Not a chance!

    Just another point on the Dalton Min. In 1817 (deep into the Dalton Min period), Ocean explorer Willliam Scoresby noted a “remarkable diminution of polar ice”. Later that year the President of the Royal Soc. spoke of the warming in the Arctic. So despite more than 2 decades of low solar activity the Arctic was noticeably warmer than noral. A warm PDO phase perhaps?

    In the short to medium term, ocean circulation has a greater influence that the sun. If the sun is indeed a factor you’ll need to wait aother 30 years or so to see the effect.

  • John Finn

    Sorry for the typos, e.g ‘noral’ for ‘normal’, ‘aother’ for ‘another’ etc.

  • John Finn

    ” We are about to get answers re: Dave’s predictions, about 2 years awaitin’.”

    I’m intrigued. why 2 years?

  • Ron de Haan

    John Finn,

    “I’m not sure what this is supposed to imply. It’s possible that sc 24 will be weaker than more recent cycles but whether that will have any impact on the climate is debatable.

    Even the period covered by the original Dalton Minimum does not seem to have been appreciably cooler than the years immediately before or after. There is certainly a downward spike in the CET record in ~1815 but that is more likely related to the massive Tambora eruption.”

    1. The late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt has made a prediction for a new Maunder minimum by 2030.
    bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

    2. The cooling effect caused by low solar activity is well explained by David Archibald and Svensmark
    (more middle altitude cloud cover resulting in cooling)
    The complete presentation of Archibalds findings and conclusions can be found at:
    www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-change-by-author.php

    “Just another point on the Dalton Min. In 1817 (deep into the Dalton Min period), Ocean explorer Willliam Scoresby noted a “remarkable diminution of polar ice”. Later that year the President of the Royal Soc. spoke of the warming in the Arctic. So despite more than 2 decades of low solar activity the Arctic was noticeably warmer than noral. A warm PDO phase perhaps?”

    3. We have just experienced that Artic is an extremely dynamic environment.
    winds and currents determin position and extend of the sea ice.
    Open seas above 60 degree does not mean anything.
    The basic point is that we lack long term observation.

    4. My peronal worry is the fact that the western world has adopted legislation for the obligatory reduction of CO2 up to 60 PERCENT BY 2050.

    This legislation is irreverible even of a new ice age starts tomorrow.

    It will destroy our energy systems, our economy and our personal freedom.
    Carbon sinners will be confronted with a repressive system equal to a police state.
    It will create world wide havoc and mass starvation.

    http//green-agenda.com ?????????????????????????

  • John Finn

    Dear Ron

    Firstly we need to clarify what is meant when we refer to the various Minima, i.e. Dalton, Maunder etc. These are periods associated with Low SOLAR activity NOT temperature. Though, it is true there are indications that very prolonged periods of low solar activity seem to be linked to lower temperatures on earth (e.g. maunder).

    However, this does not appear to be the case with the Dalton Minimum as most temp records which go back that far don’t show any significant fall in temperatures over that period.

    Re: Theodor Landscheidt

    When I first read TL I thought it may have some merit. But Lief Svalgaard maintains that TL has no credibility whatsoever and I now tend to agree. But TL could still be right about a new solar minimum but wrong about it’s effect on climate.

    Re: David Archibald

    The fact that so many so-called sceptics are so ready to accept DA’s findings suggests that they are not, in fact, sceptics at all, but are simply those who want to grab any straw they can to counter the AGW argument.

    DA’s conclusions fall down at the first hurdle. Try this simple exercise yourself. DA claims that for every extra year in a solar cycle global temperatures drop by 0.5 deg (or some nonsensical figure). Please check out the change in temps between SC19 (~10 years) and SC20 (~11.5 years). According to DA, the average temp for the 11 years centred on 1976 should be 0.75 deg (0.5 x 1.5) lower than the average temp for the 11 years centred on 1964.

    I’ll post more on DA’s stuff later.

    Finally, Ron, from the final part of your post, you appear to have made an assumption commmon to a lot of “non-sceptical sceptics”. You assume (or appear to) that I support the catastrophic human-induced climate change position.

  • Ninderthana

    John Finn,

    www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf

    Here is another (possible) explanation for an apparent “connection” between solar activity and the earth’s climate (on decadal timescales).

    Ian Wilson

  • John Finn

    Here is another (possible) explanation for an apparent “connection” between solar activity and the earth’s climate (on decadal timescales).

    Ian Wilson

    I’ve had a quick look at your paper. I’m reasonably familiar with most of the stuff you’ve
    written. For example I mentioned the possible effect of the PDO in an earlier post when I gave a ‘prediction’ for 2015 troposophere temperatures.

    I’m a also prepared to accept that a prolonged period of low solar activity (~3 cycles) could result in lower temperatures on earth, ie. there is a cumulative effect.

    My argument, here, is specifically with the David Archibald paper which predicts temperature falls of 2+ degrees over the next “few years”. I’m surprised that the Lavoisier group and other sceptic bodies have not jumped on this paper and pointed out the obvious flaws in DA’s analysis.

    My real gripe is that David is not helping the case of credible sceptics of which Leif Svalgaard, incidentally, is one. (apologies to Leif for the typo on his name in previous post)

  • John A

    The fact that so many so-called sceptics are so ready to accept DA’s findings suggests that they are not, in fact, sceptics at all, but are simply those who want to grab any straw they can to counter the AGW argument.

    That’s a false dichotomy when I see one. The AGW argument stands or falls on its own merits (and if you can point me to some, please let me know)

    Whether the solar theory of David Archibald is correct, only time will tell. I don’t know whether he’s right (no-one does), but unlike the claims of some climate modellers, DA’s predictions can be falsified in a reasonable time period.

    There is an alternative to both AGW and DA’s theory: It’s called “we don’t know”

  • John Finn

    There is an alternative to both AGW and DA’s theory: It’s called “we don’t know”

    Spot on. And I’m not sure why you don’t see that this supports my point as it’s pretty much precisely what I was saying. I’m sceptical about a ‘large’ AGW effect but I’m also very sceptical about DA’s theory.

    DA’s theory is attractive to those who are hoping for a quick end to the debate and are just itching to rub AGWer noses in the dirt. It has nothing to do with serious scepticism. Unfortunatley, for them at least, they are going to be disappointed. This one is going to run for a good while longer yet.

  • Gary Gulrud

    “DA’s predictions of 2 deg falls in temp in 2 years, 5 years or 10 years. Not a chance!”

    Mr. Finn, the paper in question “Climate Outlook to 2030″ is posted here by Warwick. Please be less cavalierly fuzzy about that with which you have issues.

    A Dalton-like minimum is likely and for that just peruse Jan Janssens Solaemon site (Jan is not ready to say any such thing, BTW).

    Beside the bifurcation of cycles into at least two sets (24 falling into the weaker set), the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule is also being broken by 23, last so for the Dalton.

    The 2 degree decline, beginning now, would finally be achieved following cycle 26 by 4-8 years.

    I.R.G. Wilson’s work is significant in that it is a synthetic model of the Jose cycle perturbing the Hale cycle and reinforces the Clilverd findings.

    Your estimate of 0.15 degress off the trend to 1979 based on the negative PDO alone is hardly objectionable. The AMO is scheduled to move into negative territory in the early to mid 2020’s. We will see a more agressive drop in the trend after that time.

    Your assumption that volcanism is independent of the solar magnetic, IMF and geomagnetic fields, all in steep decline, and moreover, Arctic open water is not consequent on this confluence and the NAO (rather than your global temps), is not granted. Multiple papers have come out this year alone on these correlations and proposing mechanisms of causation.

    “My real gripe is that David is not helping the case of credible sceptics of which Leif Svalgaard, incidentally, is one.”

    Please, Leif has made a noteworthy career out of his avocation, Solar Physics, on top of being an historically significant programmer, but cycle 24 is not looking to be his bellwhether. Rather more likely it will be a whipping post. He is unquestionably in the AGW camp, more irascible than sceptic.

  • John Finn

    Mr. Finn, the paper in question “Climate Outlook to 2030″ is posted here by Warwick. Please be less cavalierly fuzzy about that with which you have issues.

    Gary this is from the first DA paper I found on ths site

    “Now let’s look at Hanover again and plot up where we are currently in terms of solar cycles. Solar Cycle 22 was 9.6 years long. On the basis that Solar Cycle 23 is thirteen years long, there will be a 2.2 degree celcius decline in temperature in Hanover, New Hampshire over the next decade.

    I admit there is a problem with fuzziness – bit it’s not from me. David is the one who talks in terms of a “few years” but here he does actuall say 2.2 deg fall in a decade. And I know how he arrives at that figure and let me tell you it’s twaddle.

    “A Dalton-like minimum is likely and for that just peruse Jan Janssens Solaemon site (Jan is not ready to say any such thing, BTW).”

    Just to repeat what I wrote earlier: A Dalton-like minimum means lower solar activity – NOT necessarily lower temperatures. e.g the Dalton Min itself did not result in markedly lower temps if in fact they were lower.

    The 2 degree decline, beginning now, would finally be achieved following cycle 26 by 4-8 years.

    Well at least we agree, more or less, on the timescale of any temp decline due to lower solar activity. You are suggesting at least 3 weak cycles (24-26) which is what I said earlier and a wait of at least 40 years for the full effect – though I still doubt it will be as much as 2 degrees.

    Whether a temperature decline has actually begun or not is far from clear. Now that we are nearing the end of the temp lag from the recent La Nina, temperatures do now appear to be returning to the elevated background levels.

    Gary

    You have no idea what what the NAO, PDO, AMO or any other aspect of ocean circulation will be doing in the mid 2020s and to be honest it’s seems a bit desperate to be relying on such uncertainties. If this sort of thing were put forward by an AGWer to support the AGW cause, sceptics would be ripping him/her to pieces.

    RE: Ian Wilson’s paper. I’ll hold fire until I’ve read it properly but I suspect that the key findings have no physical basis. By which I mean there is no physical reason why the alignment of the planets in any particualr way should affect the activity of the sun.

    Dr Svalgaard has predicted a low sunspot count for the upcoming cycle 24. I’m not sure why you have a problem with that.

    PS you asked me for a prediction for UAH temps in 2015. I said +0.15 for the year. So what’s yours?

  • John Finn

    Ian Wilson

    I apologise if I appeared dismissive in a previous post.

    I’ve now read your paper and I do find it interesting. You have certainly shown that a plausible ‘mechanism’ (link) exists which may explain PDO, NAO shifts etc and I’d definitely like to take a look at any follow up papers you are involved with. Sadly, my russian is a bit rusty (i.e. non-existent) so that might be a problem. [ Why Russian, BTW ?]. However, I’ve always accepted that ocean circulation is a major climate driver. My argument on this thread, though, is the validity of David Archibald’s predictions.

    To make it easy let’s break it down to a single item at a time.

    DA says we’re in for Dalton Minimum-type experience. I’m saying that the DM might have been a time for low sunspot count but there’s no evidence this had a significant effect on global temperatures.

    Right then, Gary, Ron, David and whoever else

    Show (not prove) that the Dalton Minimum was a significantly cooler period than similarly length periods before and after.

  • Gary Gulrud

    “a 2.2 degree celcius decline in temperature in Hanover, New Hampshire over the next decade.”

    I’m more interested in the global temps. I was looking at the graph in the March 2007 paper. I indeed said cycle 26, which DA may take to be out too far, preferring after cycle 25 is complete. I don’t believe he would endorse my caution.

    “Dalton Min itself did not result in markedly lower temps if in fact they were lower.”

    This is a disagreement over the facts, is it not?

    “You have no idea what what the NAO, PDO, AMO or any other aspect of ocean circulation will be doing in the mid 2020s”

    I do not have an idea about the NAO. The AMO is indeed somewhat unstable leading some to call a toggle imminent. My “scheduled” indicates when on average it should so switch, as it certainly must at some point. Your preciosity here is curious.

    “Dr Svalgaard has predicted a low sunspot count”

    He has indeed the lowest North American prediction, in 2004 saying 75(+/-8), now saying 71. I expect, along with the ‘cylcomaniacs’ something under 50 which will invalidate his model.

    “you asked me for a prediction for UAH temps in 2015. I said +0.15 for the year. So what’s yours?”

    For the year? Between now and then, Jan. 2015, using a 3rd order polynomial fit commencing with 1979, I’ll guess greater than 0.3 degrees C down in the long-term trend.

  • David Archibald

    How did I get 2 degrees? I read it off the graph. It is a powerfully predictive tool. There isn’t much of a spread around the line. The relationship between solar cycle length and temperature was first determined by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991. Butler and Johnson applied it to a single data series, Armagh, in 1996. I revived that ten years later in 2006. At the time, I thought that everyone will copy this, it is such as easy way of generating publishable papers. But no, nothing and I had to do the rest of Europe and the US myself.

    The shape of the spotless days curve has a best fit with a July, 2009 minimum. Which reminds me. If you are good, I am mean really good, you get to make predictions, plenty of predictions. I have a paper coming out in January 2009 which includes the following predictions:

    Month of Solar Cycle 23/24 minimum: July, 2009
    Year of Solar Cycle 24 maximum: 2016
    Amplitude of Solar Cycle 24: 45
    Temperature Decline Solar Cycle 24: 2.2° C
    Oulu Neutron Count Monthly Peak: 6,900
    Month of Oulu Neutron Count Peak: July, 2010
    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level: Relatively flat 2010 – 2030

  • David Archibald

    Hit the wrong key. John Finn, if you didn’t like my temperature prediction, there are now a total of seven to complain about.

    I believe that cloud-driven albedo is a big enough force to explain temperature variations. The Oulu neutron count is the highest it has been for 50 years and is still climbing.

    I starting studying climate science three years ago when it was evident that this wacko religion of AGW was going to thrash my country. I am amazed that I was able to make original contributions in a field that has attracted so much interest and research funding. I am amazed that I am still able to make original contributions. Thank you to everyone who has said good things about my work.

  • John Finn

    Gary:

    I said

    Dalton Min itself did not result in markedly lower temps if in fact they were lower.

    then you said

    This is a disagreement over the facts, is it not?

    I’ll now repeat what I said in an earlier post and invite you or anyone to Show (not prove) that the Dalton Minimum was a significantly cooler period than similar length periods before and after.

    David:

    Thank you for your contribution and, in particular, for providing us with a list of your predictions one of which is the following:

    Temperature Decline Solar Cycle 24: 2.2° C

    Gary (et al):

    David has now told us clearly what is predictions are so how does this differ from what I wrote originally. It appears that your interpretation of a 2 deg decline over 2 (or 3) cycles is wrong.

  • John Finn

    Now to address some of David’s comments

    “The relationship between solar cycle length and temperature was first determined by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991.”

    I was originally quite impressed with F-C & L correlation but it turns out to be false. They need to ignore earlier data (pre ~1850) to get the model to fit. If they include the early data then their model under-estimates late 20th century temperatures.

    “Butler and Johnson applied it to a single data series, Armagh, in 1996.”

    Yes, they did. But I’m not sure they’re wanting to draw too much attention to their work at the moment because Armagh temperatures in recent years are suggesting that the cycle length/temperature relationship is not valid. Read what B&J did . They plotted SC length with 11 year averages at the solar minimum of the cycle in question . That is, they were expecting the temperature effect for SC23, say, to reveal itself by the end of 2008. To be precise, what B&J’s model actually predicts is that the average temperatures for the 2003-2013 period** are ~1.5 deg lower than for the 1991-2001 period**. If I now tell you that the 4 warmest years in Armagh all occurred between 2003-2007 I’ll leave you to decide on the likelihood that the predicted temperature decline will come about.

    I will cut B&J a bit of slack here. As well as plotting solar minima they aso included data for solar maxima so they do have a second bite of the cherry. The Armagh SC/temp relationship could be validated if the average temperature for the 2008-2018 period** is ~1.5 deg lower than the average temperature for the 1996-2006 period**

    But to be fair to B&J I’m not sure they actually used the relationship to make any predictions at all – unlike Mr Archibald.

    [** data is calculated from the 11 year temp averages centred on soalr max/min]

    I revived that ten years later in 2006. At the time, I thought that everyone will copy this, it is such as easy way of generating publishable papers. But no, nothing and I had to do the rest of Europe and the US myself.

    Why do you think that is, David?

  • David Archibald

    Re 19, you are somewhat confused. Butler and Johnson did not make any predictions. You have made all that up. I am the first one to say that solar cycle length can predict the temperature over the next cycle. No one had used it as a predictive tool before.

    We rationalists used to operate in a knowledge vacuum. We knew the warmers were overstating their case but not by how much. We now know the whole chain from the planetary influence on the Sun through to the CO2 uptake by the oceans. Our integrated model now has no gaps or shortcomings.

  • Gary Gulrud

    “We’ll debate the facts later.”

    Mr. Finn, reaching agreement with you on the ‘facts’ is a fool’s errand.

  • John Finn

    David

    In #20, You wrote

    Re 19, you are somewhat confused. Butler and Johnson did not make any predictions. You have made all that up. I am the first one to say that solar cycle length can predict the temperature over the next cycle. No one had used it as a predictive tool before

    In #19, I wrote

    But to be fair to B&J I’m not sure they actually used the relationship to make any predictions at all – unlike Mr Archibald.

    Yes, David, I know it was YOU who used the relationship suggested by B&J and decided it could be used to make future predictions.

    Sheesh – this is hard going.

  • John Finn

    Gary

    Re: #21

    “We’ll debate the facts later.”

    Mr. Finn, reaching agreement with you on the ‘facts’ is a fool’s errand

    Gary, if you go back to Post #2 (your post) you’ll notice it was you who wrote “We’ll debate the facts later”. It might now be best if we concentrate on one issue at time.

    So I’ll start by again asking you or anyone else to address the following:

    Show that the Dalton Minimum was a significantly cooler period than similar length periods before and after.

    Now then, Gary, there are possible responses. ie.

    1. I can show it and here is the data.
    2. I can’t show it and I admit it does look as though there is little difference between the DM and the decades both before and after.
    3. I can’t show it with data but there is a wide range of anecdotal evidence from a number of locations throughout that period which indicate significant anomalously cool conditions in the early 19th century. [Note the year wthout a summer (1816) doesn’t count as that was due to the Tambora eruption]

  • John Finn

    Gary

    There is actually a 4th possible response and it’s one which may have some merit.
    Hint : look back at some of the earlier posts (e.g. #2 & #8)

  • John Finn

    Sorry that should be #1 not #2

  • John A

    David Archibald:

    We rationalists used to operate in a knowledge vacuum. We knew the warmers were overstating their case but not by how much. We now know the whole chain from the planetary influence on the Sun through to the CO2 uptake by the oceans. Our integrated model now has no gaps or shortcomings.

    Let’s file that one under “Hostage to Fortune”, shall we?

    Your “integrated model” has no full theoretic underpinning and no successful predictions (yet). Its a hypothesis at best. Only time will tell.

    How anyone can hope to treat the Earth’s climate as a deterministic system despite all that we know about forecasting loosely-coupled chaotic systems, I’ll never understand. The best we can hope for are falsifiable predictions with probabilities attached to them.

    I don’t know which is worse – the false certainties of climate modellers or the equally false certainties of solar coupling hypothesizers. It’s a ridiculous world we live in where dogmatic assertion is taken to be Revealed Truth.

    Such dogmatism in the face of clear unknowns about the future behaviour of Earth’s climate is hardly at all (or not at all) rationalistic.

  • David Archibald

    John A, the grog hasn’t been agreeing with me recently, and one of my remaining pleasures is baiting warmers. They froth at the mouth so easily, and have no curiosity about the world.

    I am serious about having figured it all out. The last piece of the puzzle was the fate of CO2 in the oceans. By my calculations, a 2 degree decline in ocean temperature will soak up the increased anthropogenic emissions, leaving atmospheric CO2 flat.

    By the way, climate is not a random walk. Predict the Sun and you can predict climate. Cloud modulations by GCRs is probably the most important of perhaps half a dozen ways that the Sun affects climate.

    As for a deterministic system, all you need is that Hanover, N.H. graph (or Armagh or the CET). Why should it be during Solar Cycle 24 that the relationship breaks down? Can’t think of a reason? Then the predictive ability of the graph holds.

    You don’t need anything else, don’t need to know in detail why or how it works. Warmers will mention anything else but the graph. High school students would be able to replicate it. I have a complete climate model in one graph.

  • John Finn

    As for a deterministic system, all you need is that Hanover, N.H. graph (or Armagh or the CET). Why should it be during Solar Cycle 24 that the relationship breaks down? Can’t think of a reason? Then the predictive ability of the graph holds.

    David, it doesn’t work. Armagh & CET data will not only show that your ‘system’ has failed it will show that it failed horribly. In fact both data sets at this very moment in time have already confirmed that your system doesn’t work. And there is one very good reason (among lots of other reasons) why it will fail, ie.

    When you use the graph you make the incorrect assumption that the temperature is dependent on the length of just the solar cycle in question. To illustrate lets say we have a series (A) of 3 cycles with lengths 10,10,13 respectively and another series (B) with lengths of 13,13,13. According to you, the temperature at the end of cycle A3 would be the same as at the end of B3. It won’t – not if cycle length really is a factor (think heat storage capacity of the oceans).

    The problem is that weak/strong cycles tend to occur in clusters and you therefore tend to get a cumulative effect on the later cycles (again assuming SCL is a factor). There are a number of other problems so it might be best to abandon your efforts on this, but if you insist on persevering you might try using the temperature change (DeltaT) over a cycle rather than the actual temperature. I’ve no idea what this will produce but it might be something which better reflects the effect of that cycle. Another possibilty is to place weightings on previous cycles.

    David, no-one has yet come back with anything which shows that the Dalton Minimum was anomalously cooler than other periods around that time. That’s because it wasn’t so your system is falsified already. However there may be a reason that the DM wasn’t as cool as might have been expected.

    Let’s just say you adapted your system in some way such that it predicted a temperature decline of ~1 deg (still a lot) during the DM, but noted that there might have been a strong PDO warm phase in effect at the time (~1800)** which suppressed the cooling effect. I might be more inclined to buy into that.

    ** the Scoresby anecdote I referred to in #2 and Ian Wilson’s paper which is linked to in #8 might lend some support to this hypothesis.

  • John A

    John Finn,

    I throw this into the mix. This is the Armagh record from 1796 compared to solar cycle length:

    (Original page: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we11.htm )

    The Dalton Minimum can be discerned in the early part of the record as a period of low temperatures.

  • John Finn

    John A

    The Dalton Minimum can be discerned in the early part of the record as a period of low temperatures.

    They’re low but they were already low to begin with. The graphic above actually hints at this. Plot the CET record between, say, 1780 and 1820. If anything the 1780s were cooler than the DM. There is actually a slight warming in the early 1800s just at the time David’s system says there should be cooling. The dip in the Dalton Min occurs in the middle of the 1810s and in particular in 1816 & 1817 just after the Tambora eruption.

    Notes:

    1. CET and Armagh track each other closely.
    2. Cycle 4 (the long one) ended in 1798; according to DA temperatures cooled (or should have) in the following years.
    3. John A: I’m not sure I understand the graphic. There appears to be at least 15 solar cycles in the 19th century. It’s probably me not reading it properly.

  • Robin

    In contribution 15 Gary Gulrud writes ..” Between now and then, Jan. 2015, using a 3rd order polynomial fit commencing with 1979, I’ll guess greater than 0.3 degrees C down in the long-term trend.”

    I’d like to see the confidence intervals for that 3rd degree polynomial, or, alternatively the original data so that I can produce them for myself. All my experience tells me that extrapolating polynomials for more than a small fraction of the range of observed data is a /very/ hazardous procedure. Can you supply a reference, please?

    Robin

  • Gary Gulrud

    “extrapolating polynomials for more than a small fraction of the range of observed data ”

    This is a prediction; the data are to be supplied in 2015. Extrapolation is not proposed.

    We could argue all day about a linear regression on non-linear, cyclic data.

  • Gary Gulrud

    ‘Gary, if you go back to Post #2 (your post) you’ll notice it was you who wrote “We’ll debate the facts later”. ‘

    No kidding?

    “They’re low but they were already low to begin with.”

    This is the sort of response that elicited my original comment. Re: The Dalton temps, the Lassen relation of Schwabe cycle length inversely proportional to global temps is and was good enough for me.

    My prediction depends first on the negative PDO, second on high and rising albedo, and third on an extra year of a suprisingly weak solar minimum. These elements are part of DA’s argument however he might assign confidences.

    Now if you have another heat source you have currency with which to haggle.

  • Timo Hämeranta

    Please see the following new study

    Abreu, J.A., J. Beer, F. Steinhilber, S. M. Tobias, and N. O. Weiss, 2008. For how long will the current grand maximum of solar activity persist? Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20109, doi:10.1029/2008GL035442, October 30, 2008

    Abstract

    Understanding the Sun’s magnetic activity is important because of its impact on the Earth’s environment. The sunspot record since 1610 shows irregular 11-year cycles of activity; they are modulated on longer timescales and were interrupted by the Maunder minimum in the 17th century. Future behavior cannot easily be predicted – even in the short-term. Recent activity has been abnormally high for at least 8 cycles: is this grand maximum likely to terminate soon or even to be followed by another (Maunder-like) grand minimum? To answer these questions we use, as a measure of the Sun’s open magnetic field, a composite record of the solar modulation function Φ, reconstructed principally from the proxy record of cosmogenic 10Be abundances in the GRIP icecore from Greenland. This Φ record extends back for almost 10,000 years, showing many grand maxima and grand minima (defined as intervals when Φ is within the top or bottom 20% of a Gaussian distribution). We carry out a statistical analysis of this record and calculate the life expectancy of the current grand maximum. We find that it is only expected to last for a further 15–36 years, with the more reliable methods yielding shorter expectancies, and we therefore predict a decline in solar activity within the next two or three cycles. We are not able, however, to predict the level of the ensuing minimum.

  • WSH

    Thanks for dropping in Timo and for the reference. I trust you are keeping well. We do not have that many years to wait before the character of cycle 24 reveals itself.

  • John Finn

    Looks like we’re through the SC 23/24 minimum – so DA’s prediction of July 2009 minimum has bit the dust. Satellite temperatures are also starting to show a strong upward surge. A return of La Nina could buy David a bit more time but that’s only really delaying the inevitable conclusion that his predictions about a major cooling event have no substance whatsoever.

  • Gary Gulrud

    “Looks like we’re through the SC 23/24 minimum”

    What, on the strength of Herr Doktor Rainmensch’s surmise? The dyspeptic relic hindcast March 2008 as the month of smoothed 13-month SS minimum on July 27, 2008, four days before the month’s radio flux sum came out as a new cycle 23 low, and then August reprised the value.

  • WestHighlander

    To have an intelligent debate — We need to separate 3 aspects of the discussion:
    1) Policy / politics
    2) Models / Data
    3) Fundamentals (i.e. no numbers)

    Of the above — we really only have a good handle on #3 as we understand the basic principles of:
    a) what happens to fluids and solids that are heated; b) radiative, convective and conductive heat transport; c) absorption and reradiation of molecular gases; d) propagation electromagnetic waves; e) motion of charged and neutral particles in the presence of magnetic fields; f) and a few others

    However, such an understanding (e.g. fluid flow and convective heat transport over a heated metal plate, absorption and reradiation of IR by CO2 uniform pressure and temperature environment) is not sufficient as the Sun-Earth Climate System is a fiendishly complex highly-non-linear coupled system

    Unfortunately, #2 doesn’t really help either — as a) all the data that we’ve collected is flawed (some much more than others) and even the data that we will collect in the future (even if done perfectly) is not predictive — just descriptive of the past and b) — the true dirty secret — models tell you nothing unless you already know the answer (i.e. know all the physics involved including the horrendous number of “off diagonal” matrix elements which describe coupling between (for example heat and mass transfer ice and water, water and air, aerosols effect on molecular absorption and reradiation, etc)

    So then we are left with #1) — and here the fundamental principle must be “First Do No Harm” — in other words unless you really know that you are about to do — DON”T!!

    I’m all for:
    I] Collecting data (let’s take part of the stimulus to design, site, fabricate, install and operate the state-of-the-art distributed observatory — accessible to everyone on the web — similarly to monitor the earth and the sun from near and not so near space (as well as a couple of other planets just for fun)
    II] Improving our understanding of fundamentals at the controlled laboratory experiment level — supplemented with better theory and controlled models
    III] Building better and more data-volume-capable computers and computational tools to build better models for weather and short-term climate forecasting
    IV] Taking advantage of 1, II, and III to try to build more realistic models (if not precluded by Lorentz effect) – IV a) start by using our next 20 to 30 years of much better data as “ground truth” to test the ability of our improved models to predict the evolution of the say next years (10 -30) of the past – if we can do that credibly –then we might think of believing the models

    In the mean time — if its too hot for you — move north– if its too cold — move south (always worked for humanity in the past)

    Westy

  • Ulric Lyons

    Given that the sunspot cycle is due to syzygies of Jupiter, Earth and Venus, C23 was very early, with its astronomical center at Aug 2003, C24 is centered at Jan 2014, so it could easily reach max. before then. We have yet to see how weak or strong it will be.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>