POSTING UNDER REVIEW SEPT 8 2017
POSTING UNDER REVIEW SEPT 8 2017
Solar Cycle 24 is on its way to a “minimum” . That Minimum will probably be in late 2019 or early 2020. The video illustrates several issues that are newsworthy.
Solar Cycle 24 continues to become less active. The June 2017 International Sunspot 30 day average number was 19.4. The maximum for Solar Cycle 24 occurred April 2014 at 116.4. The following chart illustrates how the solar cycle activity has dropped off. Solar Cycle 21 was larger than 22 which was larger than 23 which was larger than the current Solar Cycle 24.
The three charts above were posted on WUWT website titled “Trends in the Revised Sunspot Number Dataset“. From that posting comes the following analysis:
In an earlier posting, the case for CO2 controlling global temperature change was discussed. Several cases were examined that suggest that CO2 probably is a minor factor. Yes, I do have a bias that the Sun is most likely the main driver of global climate. But I believe that bias is well founded.
As I began to prepare a posting on this topic, on 10 June a new posting on WattsUpWithThat by Mike Jonas appeared. It covers, most of what I had planned to say. He says it very well, albeit in a lot of words. His Figure 7, “Correlation of sunspot cycle length with temperature” is thought by some to have been disproven, so you may want to tread lightly on that. I also think that he should have used an article from December 2016 CERN publication that strengthened his case for the Svensmark theory of galactic cosmic rays/cloud formation/cooling. See my comment on that by clicking here.
My thoughts on this topic would be less informative than those by Mike Jonas. Thus I am reblogging his posting:
Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth’s Climate
By Mike Jonas 10 June 2017
For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of excuses for ignoring the possibility that there might be any indirect effects from the sun. For example, in AR4 2.7.1 they say “empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change” but there is nothing in the models for this, because there is “ongoing debate“, or it “remains ambiguous“, etc, etc.
In this article, I explore the scientific literature on possible solar indirect effects on climate, and suggest a reasonable way of looking at them. This should also answer Leif Svalgaard’s question, though it seems rather unlikely that he would be unaware of any of the material cited here. Certainly just about everything in this article has already appeared on WUWT; the aim here is to present it in a single article (sorry it’s so long). I provide some links to the works of people like Jasper Kirkby, Nir Shaviv and Nigel Calder. For those who have time, those works are worth reading in their entirety.
Table of Contents:
1. Henrik Svensmark
3. Galactic Cosmic Rays
5. The Non-Linear System
6. A Final Quirk
To read the entire posting click here
Dr. Norman Page believes that natural cycles of 60 and 1,000 years are the principle drivers of Global climate. He has recently published a study relating his beliefs. From that study “The coming cooling: usefully accurate forecasting for policy makers” I will begin with one of his charts:
Here Dr. Page compares forecasts by the IPCC, another forecaster S. Akasofu and his own. The IPCC forecast which you have probably seen many time predicts a global temperature rise of 4C by 2100. Akasofu is much below the IPCC forecast at about 1C by 2100. Page’s forecast is for a reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.
Dr Page’s Abstract to this paper lays out the big picture:
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
The four basic trends in play here according to Page:
“To summarize, the forecasts which follow rely on four basic working hypotheses. First, the solar millennial activity cycle peaked in 1991+/- as seen in Fig 10 in the Oulu neutron count. Second, the corresponding millennial temperature cycle peaked in the RSS data at about 2004-Fig. 4.Third, the 60 year temperature cycle peaked at about the same time and fourth, Ockham’s razor would suggest that the simplest working hypothesis currently available, based on the weight of all the data, is that the trends from the 990 Millennial peak to the 2004 Millennial cycle peak seen in Figs 3 and 4 will, in general, repeat from 2004 to 3004.”
Those charts are as follows:
Figure 10 has had some enhancements so I am showing you that chart. Note how the cosmic ray theory/clouds cooling are illustrated.
Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003.6 (14)
Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003.6.
Fig.3 Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012. (9) (The red line is the 50 year moving average.)
Good view of the 1000 year cycle that Page refers to.
Dr. Page also predicts the next Little Ice Age will likely occur about 2640+/-
Page’s study is about 15 pages long but is definitely worth your time to read it.
There are two recent papers indicating that global cooling will begin soon. Both studies believe that more cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere will be responsible for reduced global temperatures. The cosmic rays produce lower level clouds which reduce temperatures by reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space.
“Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’ Climate is by a group of Russian scientists led by Y.I. Stozhkov. The Paper considers Milankovich theory on global temperatures but dismiss it for this study saying that “…… (Milankovitch) changes happen on a long -term scales and are unlikely to be related to the contemporary process of global warming.” The three orbital factors in this theory are:
They considered solar luminosity but feel that the changes in total solar irradiation (TSI) are too small to alter average global temperature by no more than 0.05C.
The study also looked at the cosmic rays. The team compiled monthly Δ T* data for the period from 1880 to early 2016. Using that data, they made a spectral analysis for the same period. The result is shown on the chart below: (*Δ T often called the “temperature anomaly”.)
The team looked at cosmic rays versus Δ T and found a relationship. Cloud formation is a function of cosmic ray presence in the Earth’s atmosphere. That is illustrated from the team’s chart shown below:
The team interestingly does not attribute cosmic ray intensity in the Earth’s atmosphere to solar activity. The study reports:
“Another influence on the Earth’s climate is solar activity; the main period of its variations is ≅11 years. Despite numerous attempts to find a connection between different solar activity indices and temporal variations in delta T values, no such link has been firmly established.”
Their contribution is —-an increase in cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere will lower global temperature. Thus, leaving the reason the cosmic rays increase or decrease as an unknown. Their Figure 1 seems to suggest they see a drop in global temperature beginning soon and lasting until at least 2060.
The second study will be posted next.
This posting combines the March global temperature anomaly and the Solar Cycle 24 stats. Below are the UAH satellite global temperature anomalies from Dr Roy Spencer’s website. The stats below the graph show the summary since 2016 through March 2017 for the regions.
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
The anomaly drop of 0.16C was a substantial change. This has been happening without a La Nina following the El Nino.
Solar Cycle 24’s to-date April International Sunspot number is 26.6 versus March’s number of 17.7. So, this month is a little more active but still things are quiet. Cycle 24 began in January 2008. The mean Cycle length is 11.1 years so it should be over around January of 2019.
As noted in previous postings the solar polar field strength following a maximum is currently a popular way to predict the following Cycle strength. The Black line in the chart below is the line to watch. That line is the combined North and South solar polar field strength. So far it is slightly smaller than the size of Solar Cycle 23—thus using this theory,
it Cycle 25 should be about the same size as 24 or maybe just a bit smaller. Amended for clarity on 4/20 cbdakota