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

The Ap Index is heading down sharply.
Ap time series
The F10.7 flux is flatlining. Note that the volatility has gone out of it
F10.7 flux
The rate of decline of the heliospheric current sheet suggests that the month of solar minimum may be still a year off.
heliospheric current sheet  time series
Like the Ap Index, the Interplanetary Magnetic Field recently headed down sharply.
Interplanetary Magnetic Field
The Oulu neutron count is trending up steeply. If the month of solar minimum is still a year off, the neutron count can be expected to continue rising for another two years.
Oulu neutron count
Solar wind flow pressure is going to new lows.
Solar wind flow pressure
The Sun has gone very quiet and several indicators of activity are still heading down. Solar Cycle 23 may end up being 14 years long. Solar activity modelling that I have recently become aware of suggests that the Sun will have very low activity until 2016.

21 thoughts on “David Archibald on – The State of the Sun – 16th June, 2009”

  1. The graphs of consequence for the moment at the Ap Index and IMF. They both started heading down sharply from June 2008. The Sun is now bleeding magnetic flux and transitioning to a lower ground state. When normal baryentric stimulation kicks back in, it will be to a Sun that is operating at a much lower magnetic flux level. So it is very likely to be like the Maunder Minimum. We will have solar cycles as evidenced by variation in the F 10.7 flux, but not enough magnetic flux for a lot of sunspots.

    The heliospheric current sheet chart is also significant. It suggests a year to the month of minimum, which would make Solar Cycle 23 fourteen years long. Neutron count usually peaks one year after month of minimum. That might be less if the heliopause collapse due to a weaker solar wind. It could collapse to the orbit of Jupiter. But on that one year lag, the Oulu neutron count could peak in two year time at about 7,250. The real life GCR-climate experiment could be completed before the CERN one.

  2. Today on NPR John Podesta, who is a shill for the Obama administration, pontificated that there is “consensus” with re to AGW. Too bad we could not have gotten you onto that show.

    David, at a 14 year Solar Cycle 23, I project a 33% reduction in Canadian and northern midwestern US grain/corn/soybean yields.Am I far off ????

  3. C’mon. You didn’t think NPR would be unbiased did you? And why would you be listening to them? Silly rabbit.

    I’m interested in the idle speculation that the cycle may be at *least* 14yrs long. And the implications for agriculture. Can’t imagine the outcome if it ended up being nearly 20yrs. Is this the implication of ‘low activity till 2016?’ Ouch.

    David, why is it that mention of ‘barycenter’ drives Svalgaard batty?

  4. I think that when David refers to 2016 – he is saying we should be prepared that the cycle 24 solar max could be that far away.

  5. Thanks – I had not seen it – It is a pretty graphic – not quite a Jackson Pollock – but surely if NASA really had some earthshaking revelation from their $Billions “toys for the boys and girls” – I would expect it to be rushed thru a peer reviewed journal.

  6. David

    Why do you keep referring to the 1970s cooling period? There wasn’t a 1970s cooling period. There was a cooling period which began in the 1940s but which was pretty much over by the 1960s. After that the trend was fairly flat until the mid-1970s when the late 20th century warming period began.

    I realise you are trying to link cooling with the ‘weak’ solar cycle 20, but the cooling began at least 20 years earlier during a time which included the strongest cycle (SC 19) ever recorded.

    Incidentally, is there any update on how well Armagh is tracking the Cycle Length/Climate link prediction. Depending on the date of the solar minimum we now have at least 5 or 6 years data.

  7. Jim Papsdorf

    Yes, that would be in the ballpark.


    Dr Svalgaard’s role is to run interference for the AGW camp. It is logical to expect that variation in solar activity drives climate, and that the only thing that can cause the Sun to vary is barycentric motion. On that NASA announcement, they are trying to take attention away from the data that is the basis of the above graphs. We concentrate on sunspots because we see them, for the moment. The IMF and the F 10.7 flux is where the action is. The heliospheric current sheet chart says that minimum is a year off.

  8. Re Mom2girls,

    That illustration at science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm?list970792 – I’m sure I’ve seen something like it before. But being NASA, it’s sensitive.

    Warwick, many of us are noting the correlations between solar indices and earthly measurements, but there is complete stonewalling from some authorities. Even Sen Fielding came away from his Parlt House meeting stating he was now convinced that variabilty in TSI was not a significant driver of temperature on Earth. Are you aware of any cruncher observation that would cause people like me to shift from interested onlookers to more interested involvement or, alternatively, lack of further interest?

  9. Dr Svalgaard’s role is to run interference for the AGW camp.


    I’m not sure what your point is here. The AGW camp are perfectly happy to accept that the we have a ‘quiet’ sun and that we are in a particularly deep solar minimum. They are in a win-win situation. It gives them the perfect ‘get out clause’ if temperatures do happen to stall for a few years. And if temperatures continue to rise – It’s Game, Set and Match the warmers. But I’m sure they’ll shake you warmly by the hand, David.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *