This is prompted from a discussion from the Modern Winter Thread concerning European Weather Patterns - however there's some in-depth stuff regarding the upcoming Solar Cycles that I wanted to discuss in more detail here.

I've been following the progression of the the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23 over the past year, and was a little intrigued that we are still recording 5 days in a row (as of last week) with Zero Sunspot activity. This is the 13th month now of Minimum, which began in January 2006. Predictions had March 2007 as the ending of this and levelling off at a Minumum of 8. This is an average figure taken over the month.

Up until last year all the reports I had read were predicting Cycle 24, which should swing into action this year, was going to peak at the highest in over 400 years. Then, in the past 2 months I've come across a split in the scientific community. Some papers now say cycle 24 is also going to be a minimum of only 50-75 whilst others are still saying over 250, which as far as I'm aware is still NASA'a position. Everyone is still predicting Cycle 25 as being a low since Cycle 4 with only a peak of 50. This is mainly based on the analysis done by a NASA Scientist last year. He published the results here in an article from last May:

http://www.physorg.com/news66581392.html

What intrigues me more about this scienific study by NASA is that last May it knew that in just the last couple of years the Two Conveyor Belts within the Sun had slowed to levels not seen before in Modern History since the 19th Century. The two belts which effectively control the inensity of Solar Cycles had been running at a steady 1.0m/s. These belts are thought to have 40ish year turning cycle - which I think matches the less well know 80-90 year Sun Cycle. The Northern arm had slowed to 0.75m/s and the Southern Arm had dropped to 0.35m/s. This is the basis on which the prediction of Cycle 25 due to peak around 2022 was to be very weak.

What I then find stange is that I've tried to search the NASA site and more generally about these two conveyor belts and yet I come up with nothing. I then see predictions that Cycle 24 is now going to be weak, the most extreme paper is this one pointed out to me by user 'nouska':

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf

The guy who wrote this paper, goes even further and matches all the evidence into a temperature profile based on what we understood of past Dalton Minumum events.

But what then intrigues me even further is that when I look at the recent IPCC update on Climate Change there is absolutley no mention of anything about this. Is this because no scientists anywhere in the world submitted any work, including NASA? Or is there another reason. I can't quite fully understand this. A real possibilty exists that over the next 20-30 years we could enter a phase which has been shown to reduce average temperatures by 1.5 C to 2.0 C, even if it is only for two decades, it would surely be the most significant event to happen in over 100 years, and yet it completely overlooked and ignored.

Here's a graph of past Solar Cycles since 1750 clearly showing Dalton Minimums every 80-90 years like clockwork:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/zurich.gif

I see this almost as a Get Out Of Jail Free Card. If we get a potential 20-30 year breathing space in the effects of Co2 pushing up average temperatures, this is surely something we can use to our advantage. If this does happen and the IPCC ignore it, surely it will make their work seem untenable. Surely it is in their own interests to take this seriously, if for no other reason than to give an explanation as to why GW may actually be about to be put on hold and reversed for a few decades.

What is so good about all this is that we don't have to wait long at all. The trend in the rise of Cycle 24 by 2008 should give a clear indication as to whether we can expect Dalton Minimum sooner, as in before 2010, or after 2012. The effects of this will be measureable whenever it starts(if it hasn't all ready), and I hope all the guys that have put their eggs in one basket have some pretty good answers.

It is very interesting that other solar scientists now corroborate Dr Landscheits work predicting declining solar activity in solar cycle 25 and now include cycle 24 to be low. I wrote to some solar scientists about 2 years ago to see if they would support Dr Landscheits preidictions but I received no reply. Now it appears his predictions do have some support which adds weight to them.

However, this Archibald paper has not been rigorously refereed as I have spotted several presentational errors and it has some dubious unsupported extrapolations to global temp from European & US temps but if the link between global temp & solar activity is sound (it is easy to find correlations between the two), then the paper has huge impliactions for climate change should these solar predictions be accurate.

Errors 

Figures 4 & 5 do not specify they refer to De Bilt temperatures (the text does).

It is not clear how the decline of 1.5 C by 2020 for the US has been computed.

And the fall in temperature of 1.5 C for De Bilt based on Solar amplitude should based on Figure 4 and not Figure 5 as the text below says and again the equation used to make this prediction is not presented.

I had a look at Meteo France data on cold spells over the last 56 years and compared it to the solar cycles graph linked by Waterspout. The coldest spells have all occurred at or near solar minimum with the exception of that in Dec 70/Jan 71 which looks to have been solar maximum. Some other event have an impact on the weather that year?

http://www.meteofrance.com/pub-adm/display/000/001/610/16102.pdf

http://www.meteofrance.com/pub-adm/display/000/001/610/16100.gif

Here are the 10 coldest and the 10 warmest winters of the last half century.

http://www.meteofrance.com/pub-adm/display/000/001/610/16103.pdf

nouska:

The coldest spells have all occurred at or near solar minimum with the exception of that in Dec 70/Jan 71 which looks to have been solar maximum. Some other event have an impact on the weather that year?

I also noticed this from the other thread concerning the Winter of 69. As I pointed out there, the only unusual thing about this Solar Max was that it wasn't particularly strong. It has a long rise and fall and peaked only moderately at just over 100. It does stand out when you look at the other peaks around it. Apart from this I find all the matches amazingly striking - I'm just waiting for someone to dispute them actually. I anticipate our peaceful and logical thread to be infiltrated soon by the usual suspects.

I can hear them now in the background formulating their plan of attack.

Waterspout:

nouska:

The coldest spells have all occurred at or near solar minimum with the exception of that in Dec 70/Jan 71 which looks to have been solar maximum. Some other event have an impact on the weather that year?

I also noticed this from the other thread concerning the Winter of 69. As I pointed out there, the only unusual thing about this Solar Max was that it wasn't particularly strong. It has a long rise and fall and peaked only moderately at just over 100. It does stand out when you look at the other peaks around it. Apart from this I find all the matches amazingly striking - I'm just waiting for someone to dispute them actually. I anticipate our peaceful and logical thread to be infiltrated soon by the usual suspects.

I can hear them now in background formulating their plan of attack.

Easy, there is no need to be so provocative.

In this months Weather magazine there is an interesting article about recent cold winters from 1948-2004. I certainly didn't know that 68/69 was, by a considerable margin, the coldest winter across a vast area of Asia from Moscow east to Vladivostock, south to Uzbekistan anf north to all of western Siberia. By comparison the area where 62/3 was the coldest is really just the UK and W Europe.

Waterspout:

Here's a graph of past Solar Cycles since 1750 clearly showing Dalton Minimums every 80-90 years like clockwork:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/zurich.gif

TBH, I can't see it's 'clearly'. Which years/cyles are the clear mimimas?  

Devonian:

TBH, I can't see it's 'clearly'. Which years/cyles are the clear mimimas?  

Oh, there you are!!!

I did read the Weather article yesterday when it dropped through my door. It is interesting isn't it. Obviously they didn't make any mention of Solar Cycles, but I thought it was interesting to overlay the data on it.

If you look at that series, you can see Peaks in the period up to around 1790, you can then see about a 30 year period of quiet peaks. That is a Dalton Minimum. The next one in not so clear, but it is there. Activity rose again from 1830 and then as we approached 1900 where you see some Peaks it then dropped off again about 1880 to 1910. We then have another rise in activity throughtout the 20th Century, with some impressive recent peaks. So, next scientists expect the trough again hovering 50-75. It is still thought this will commence at Cycle 25 in 2022, but big question marks have very recently now surfaced concerning Cycle 24. If Cycle 24 is going to be big it will ramp up rapidly from 2008 to 2010 and peak early, instead of 2012.

This is all normal behaviour we know about, but the NASA readings of the Great Conveyors back this up further.

If you are claiming a cause and effect between the solar cycles and some weather phenomenum then you have to show a statistically significant relationship and /or you have to establish a mechanism that links the cause and effect. Again, however, this needs to be quantitative. This is always the difficulty.

 There is work by Jo Haigh from Imperial College concerning solar effects on atmospheric circulation which has been published in top class journals. She was a newsnight the other day

Waterspout:

Devonian:

TBH, I can't see it's 'clearly'. Which years/cyles are the clear mimimas?  

Oh, there you are!!!

I did read the Weather article yesterday when it dropped through my door. It is interesting isn't it. Obviously they didn't make any mention of Solar Cycles, but I thought it was interesting to overlay the data on it.

If you look at that series, you can see Peaks in the period up to around 1790, you can then see about a 30 year period of quiet peaks. That is a Dalton Minimum. The next one in not so clear, but it is there. Activity rose again from 1830 and then as we approached 1900 where you see some Peaks it then dropped off again about 1880 to 1910. We then have another rise in activity throughtout the 20th Century, with some impressive recent peaks. So, next scientists expect the trough again hovering 50-75. It is still thought this will commence at Cycle 25 in 2022, but big question marks have very recently now surfaced concerning Cycle 24. If Cycle 24 is going to be big it will ramp up rapidly from 2008 to 2010 and peak early, instead of 2012.

This is all normal behaviour we know about, but the NASA readings of the Great Conveyors back this up further.

Dalton Minima? No doubt. Dalton cycles "clearly showing Dalton Minimums every 80-90 years like clockwork", I'm not convinced such a cycle is there, or perhaps more to the point that it's significant. And it's either 80/90 years ir it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Solar_cycles 

Here is a Science paper on the subject of solar forcing published by NASA, you do need a subscrition to study the full paper.

Reports

Shusshh

http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/Shindell%202001.pdf 

TomC:

However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.

Yes Tom, this fits nicely with what I had heard regarding one of the reasons why N Europe was particulalry badly affected in the Maraunder Minima. Also, the 4 cold spells indicated above in this thread seem to coincide with Minimum Cycles which tend to produce -ve NAO and a blocking high scenerio extending out from NW Russia.

What are you thoughts, Tom, on why in the IPCC Summary there is no mention of - at the very least - Cycle 25 (2022) being low and the probably start of a period of minumum acitivity as fits the 88 year(ish) cycle? Do do you think they were not aware of the data now available pointing towards Cycle 24 now being suspect - which would advance the start of the event by at least 11 years? Or is it that they examined the data and thought a potential reversal of 1.5 C - 2.0 C was just beyond any possibilty of happening? Do you have any concerns at the moment regarding the way thoughts within the Scientific Community are now swinging towards Cycle 24 now being a Low and not a 400 year high, bringing in the potential of an early start to a Minimum period than was thought? Do you think we need to wait till 2008 for more data?

Devonian:

Dalton Minima? No doubt. Dalton cycles "clearly showing Dalton Minimums every 80-90 years like clockwork", I'm not convinced such a cycle is there, or perhaps more to the point that it's significant. And it's either 80/90 years ir it isn't.

Well if that's what you believe then you go against all current thinking within the Solar Science community, and the evidence as shown in the historical record. NASA very clearly state the two arms of the Conveyor turn at an interval of approximately 40 years. As explained above, these arms have weakened substantially over the past few years to low levels never before seen in modern times and since the ending of the 19th Century. It is established Solar Science that the movement of these two Conveyors control the Solar output and sunspots in the following years. No one precisely knows what controls the speed of the two conveyors. Some think it is a complex interactions of forces from all the planets in the Solar System. It is just unknown. What is known is that the effect of the conveyors has a direct relationship to Solar Output and Sunspots. As to "It has to be 88 years or nothing" then what a ridiculous statement. This may surprise you but the 11 year Solar cycle is only called that as it is the average of a cycle varying from 8 to 14 years. Do you deny this also as it doesn't fit 11 years every cycle?

You'll need to argue the case with the NASA scientists if you want further convincing.

Waterspout:

TomC:

However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.

Yes Tom, this fits nicely with what I had heard regarding one of the reasons why N Europe was particulalry badly affected in the Maraunder Minima. Also, the 4 cold spells indicated above in this thread seem to coincide with Minimum Cycles which tend to produce -ve NAO and a blocking high scenerio extending out from NW Russia.

What are you thoughts, Tom, on why in the IPCC Summary there is no mention of - at the very least - Cycle 25 (2022) being low and the probably start of a period of minumum acitivity as fits the 88 year(ish) cycle? Do do you think they were not aware of the data now available pointing towards Cycle 24 now being suspect - which would advance the start of the event by at least 11 years? Or is it that they examined the data and thought a potential reversal of 1.5 C - 2.0 C was just beyond any possibilty of happening? Do you have any concerns at the moment regarding the way thoughts within the Scientific Community are now swinging towards Cycle 24 now being a Low and not a 400 year high, bringing in the potential of an early start to a Minimum period than was thought? Do you think we need to wait till 2008 for more data?

You seem to be misreading the paper , the global cooling produced by the Maunder Minimum was 0.3C to 0.4C according to this paper. I fail to seee how the upcoming sunspot cycles, whether large or small, which appears to be in debate, will have an impact on global temperatures that are significant.

TomC:

You seem to be misreading the paper , the global cooling produced by the Maunder Minimum was 0.3C to 0.4C according to this paper. I fail to seee how the upcoming sunspot cycles, whether large or small, which appears to be in debate, will have an impact on global temperatures that are significant.

Hi Tom. I did read the report you posted, and it seems in more details than you did! The figure you quote was the estimated Global reduction. The Local variations in both Northern Europe and North America were in the region of -1.5 C. There was always mystery sourrounding the LIA - in that until a few years ago it was always thought it was local to Northern Europe and North America, and then reports and statistics starting filtering in from Australia, South East Asia, at al. Indicating it had a global effect but certainly with regional variations. But then, you would expect this as currently the Southern Ocean is cooling and Antartica is also cooling - so regional variations are common place even in the current climate of co2 driven warming. It's always hard to reconstruct the Climate even from a few hundred years ago - you should know this as you have often used this as an argument against believing certain theories as concrete. I would suspect the data we have for Northern Europe and North America has probably been more widely analysed in more detail, hence may be it is open to accuracy in other regions of the world and on the global scale - like any construction from the past would be.

Anyway, at the very least you admit to a probable 0.4C decrease - which is worth 20 years of co2 driven warming - and you think this is not significant. I think your stance is quite clear.

Thanks for you input anyway - I always value your opinion. However, I did notice how cleverly you have dodged my earlier quesitons to you regarding this being missing from the IPCC summary in any form. May be you are under secracy, so I won't push the point further.