Solar flip

It's that time again

The sun's magnetic field is about to flip

I wonder if any of the non-mainstream solar scientists have predicted this? One would certainly hope so.

 

The predictions of the next solar cycle being lower than the current were based on the current one not getting nearly as high as it has. We have been through all that before (should I post again the link to solar-cycle records?). The prediction makers have been quiet, so the chirping crickets thing fits in that regard.

There were two weak cycles back to back around the turn of the 20th century and that did not lead to another maunder minimum nor a mini ice age. Thus it seems quite speculative that another weak cycle after this one would turn out that way.

Yet, we are all free to speculate.

Yes the solar magnetic field reverses every 11 years, except during Maunder minima. The latter really are a big deal. They remain unpredictable to science, and apparently so to 'almost science' as well.

Yet, we are all free to speculate.

I use my freedom to speculate that ocean heat redistribution patterns have much stronger climate effects than solar cycle. It has been that way since instrumental T records began, so it does rise a bit above speculation eh?

How much warmer the next decade will be than the current, appears to depend on the oceans. The CO2 increase is already locked in by economics, and its direct heat trapping effect is a matter of physics. Amplification of that effect by water vapor and biological processes remain uncertain, and one does not need to read a huge number of papers to find that out.

But again, the 'each decade warmer than the previous' has held up over the last 4 (or 5?) solar cycles, so it does not look like heavy speculation.

How much warmer? Aye. We are 'captains of the ship' in terms of CO2, but we do not command the currents beneath the keel.

 

Penn is the 'sunspots are going away' guy. He made a presentation at the 2013 SPD meeting, and if his presentation becomes available on line, it will be found here:

Solar Physics 2013 Meeting

Bonus link, get your 2012 'State of the climate' from BAMS:

BAMS State of the Climate | - 2012

 

I went again to the Montana SPD page and they have still not posted presentations. Frankly the only one I want to read is Penn and Livingstons so it might be simpler to just ask those authors for their ppt.

I just want to know the evidence that the next solar cycle might be less than the current. Or go to zero. What with CME causing typhoons (ask mojo and Piers Corbyn about that) it seems important.

 

Just so. In their 2010 manuscript

arXiv:1009.0784v1

the data looked like this:



I am interested in their 2013 solar physics workshop presentation but it hasn't yet been posted. I am interested specifically because these are forward extrapolations, from rather variable data, over a period equal in length to the data record. Not everyone would be comfortable doing that. Do data current through 2013 fit this extrapolation?

It appears to be just you and me, mojo, interested in this at PC. I wish it were otherwise. Perhaps if people read the 2013 Forbes article

Keep Your Long Flannel Underwear: Climate Scientists Predict Hell To Freeze Over! - Forbes

including the author's correction at the bottom, we could get some others interested.

 

Dr. Livingston replied to my email and sent the following graph. It is not yet in a peer-reviewed publication, but if he says it's the data then by golly it is, until further notice. He also sent additional material that explains how the measurements are made and their potential significance.

I do not interpret the data, average trend , nor extrapolation. I will mention that his email stated "too early to predict the next solar cycle", and I think that matters because Livingston (and Penn) are known outside the solar physics community because of extrapolations that have been made.

Look, he was quite approachable by my 'cold call'. I think he would be to your emails as well. I shouldn't approach him (or Mann, or anyone else) by saying "you're way off-base, justify your thinking to me". But that's just common courtesy.

 

I think it is explained in the other documents I received. But very briefly, there is no difference between the the brightness of the spot and that of the surrounding solar surface.

 

The endless hunt for something, anything that opposes the climate-change mainstream features grasping at things that to me, often resemble straws. Livingston's research looks like one of those, because the newest umbral magnetic field data look, well, pretty flat. It doesn't strongly support an upcoming collapse of sunspots. To be fair, neither does it exclude the possibility.

To what extent Livingston and Penn 'fueled the fire', I don't know. But one must look at the data first, and I think this is a good example. There are data, there are extrapolations, and there is affinity-website spin. Besides this one, we can see it by way of Grinsted, Alley, and gosh I don't know how many others. Most recently, Wyatt and Curry (ya'll haven't seen that yet maybe).

To me it makes sense to pay most attention to the data. We live in a world where extrapolations and spin offer a 'no-think' alternative and I oppose that. Data from different fields that 'hang together' and present consonant information is like gold in this troubled world.

The ocean long-term heat-transfer thing is still there, and still (in my view) interfering with casual acceptance of IPCC AR5 projections. But this is a solar thread, and we'd better talk about the oceans somewhere else. In that other place it would be fair to ask about the models presented by climate-change mainstream dissenters. I don't know of any; not even one. Perhaps that is a travesty.