Interesting article at the Arizona Daily Star (Tucson, home to Kitt Peak and other observatories). (h/t to Ric Werme)
Picture for illustration only – not from article
Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood
By Dan Sorenson
arizona daily star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 05.19.2008
Many solar scientists expected the new sunspot cycle to be a whopper, a prolonged solar tantrum that could fry satellites and raise hell with earthly communications, the power grid and modern electronics.
But there’s scant proof Sunspot Cycle 24 is even here, let alone the debut of big trouble.
So far there have been just a couple minor zits on the face of the sun to suggest the old cycle is over and the new one is coming.
The roughly 11-year cycle of sunspot activity should have bottomed out last year, the end of Cycle 23 and the beginning of Cycle 24. That would have put the peak in new sunspot activity around 2012.
But a dud sunspot cycle would not necessarily make it a boring period, especially for two solar scientists with the Tucson-based National Solar Observatory.
Two years ago, William Livingston and Matt Penn wrote a paper for the journal Science predicting that this could not only be a dud sunspot cycle, but the start of another extended down period in solar activity. It was based on their analysis of weakening sunspot intensity and said sunspots might vanish by 2015.
The paper, rejected in peer review, was never published by Science. Livingston said he’s OK with the rejection.
“I accept what the reviewers said,” Livingston said. “‘If you are going to make such statement, you had better have strong evidence.’ ”
Livingston said their projections were based on observations of a trend in decreasingly powerful sunspots but reviewers felt it was merely a statistical argument.
Read the entire article here at this link
Starter for 10 to replicate the graph at the top of this article, if people want to play with it:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12
I should also give Jasper Kirkby credit for recognizing that “In earlier studies, long-term solar magnetic variability was assumed to be a proxy for irradiance variability [5]. However this assumption lacks a physical basis, and more recent estimates suggest that long-term irradiance changes are probably negligible [6, 7, 8].”
Good Morning! Snow coming to the Wallowa Mountains again. As much as 10 inches at 5000 to 6000 feet. That’s just a hike up one of the trails from the basin. That is if you could get to the trail heads. Last week a snow slide took out the road that leads to the only campsites and all the trail heads up South Fork.
Gee, that sounds familiar.
You forgot a fair amount of Uff Da! 😉
I am greatly mollified at the clarifications and credits being passed around but it was my inexpert opinion that evidence of a formerly excessive estimate in TSI variablility as orthodox belief within the Heliophysic literature is just a bit thin.
More obvious to the layman is an over-reliance on estimates for TSI in climate warming calculations and use of the solar sunspot cycle as a proxy for solar activity.
Perhaps my view isn’t abreast of the latest zeitgeist in the field, what with the SC24 embarassment.
Ric Werme
Pamela we are in for a world of hurt. There’s really no other way to put it. So I ask, where are the preps, on the parts of larger orgs? At this point, only some minuscule fraction of individuals are prepping for the “what if” of a serious minimum. By the time at large preps commence, it will be far too late. Assuming they ever commence at all.
Yikes – I just realized I forgot to include the URL for Jasper Kirkby’s Cosmic Rays and Cliamate paper.
I assume everyone interested managed to hunt it down, but it certainly needs a link here.
http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
Random weather note – it’s cool here, but much more interesting is that the barometer has been below 29.50″ for all but a few hours since the start of May 17th, the lowest being 29.26″. The cause is an upper level low, but generally we only see these sorts of pressures as nor’easters roll by. It’s also been quite sunny, also odd at these pressures. I’m not sure what to blame it on, but I’ll find something.
If I may comment upon MarkW’s “My big problem with Leif is his use of double standards. For example, he has no problem with assuming that water vapor is a strong positive feedback even though there is no science to back up such an assumption. (Indeed, the science that has accumulated shows at worst, a weak positive, if not an outright negative feedback). On the other hand, he has declared that any use of cosmic rays in climate studies must be avoided until the link is proven.”
I never assumed anything about water vapor [I couldn’t care less, so I don’t actively oppose the idea, either – maybe that’s his problem]. About the cosmic rays, I don’t say that you should not ‘use’ them. You can use anything as long as you acknowledge that the link is not proven and you are just making an assumption. What I’m against is to act as if the ‘science is settled on CRs and climate’. Lastly, Mark should stop having problems with a person’s character rather than with the science. I have never seen a comment from MarkW with a scientific content, only sarcastic comments and ad-hom missives. Mark, your venting is not productive.
Mark W above makes a point I think should be taken to heart. The double standard applied betwen the hypothesis you want to be true and a competing explanation is very notable in this CO2 vs CR issue. especially regarding the supposed feedback effects.
I don’t think there is any way a strong positive feedback for CO2 increase can be honestly reconciled with the paleo record.
Response to Wondering Aloud: That may be true, but that is not Mark’s point. His point is to accuse me of that. If A has a scientific point, then B can dispute the science or can try to cast doubt of A’s point by attacking A’s character. This is what is wrong with that ‘double standard’ remark.
Who was it that said, “When some people think they are thinking, they are really just rearranging their prejudices.”
Love that saying.
I have been following Leif’s posts on CA and he has answered a number of my questions. I have found he has been a very good teacher to those interested in Solar Science. In my opinion he has demonstrated extreme patience and has tried to be dispassionate about AGW. But he is human and has displayed a small amount of preference in my opinion to the AGW theory. But I believe he is open and about as objective as a human could be.
REPLY: I agree and Leif is welcome to post here any time – Anthony
Sorry Leif, I must not have read everything closely enough, I saw his comment as just being about the tendancy to hold AGW by CO2 to a much lower standard than any other idea.
I was not addressing that thought at you or anyone in particular it is just a general observation. I have no reason to think you do it more than any of us and I missed whatever was said that made you come to that conclusion. I was apparently typing my comment at the same time you were typing yours right above it and mine was not a comment on it but only on the fact that I think there is a double standard that is messing up the entire discussion.
I don’t know what causes climate to vary the way it does, but it is pretty clear that Carbon Dioxide is not the driver in the paleo record. This makes me mighty skeptical of all the hype.
Pamela,
I like Basil’s quote. ” if you torture the data long enough it will tell you what you want.”
[…] write up for an actual scientist (instead of an eccentric crackpot like me) go read “Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood” at the excellent Watts Up With That? Share this site with your favorite social bookmark […]
They publish by the internet, repository of all suppressed knowledge.
Bob B said: “But he is human and has displayed a small amount of preference in my opinion to the AGW theory”.
I don’t think this statement makes much sense. One cannot have a ‘small’ preference. If AWG says that 2XCO2 gives 4 degrees of warming and I say it gives 0.04 degrees, then that is a small amount, but most AGW’ers would not accept that as being AGW. It is like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren’t.
I could use a bit of 2XCO2 right now ‘cuz I am flat out of cut wood for my stove.
AGW isn’t even a theory, but a quasi-religious belief system based on a long-discredited hypothesis. The belief in AGW is fundamentally anti-science, very much like creationism.
Solar flux is now at 68. It can go as low as 50 but I don’t believe it has yet during cycle 23. During activity peak, flux can rise to 300 or more, which it hasn’t for quite some time, and I don’t think it ever did during cycle 23. As quiet as it is now, the sun is not yet in rem sleep. When it does laps into its deep sleep it may be groggy from such a deep slumber for many cycles. This winter will be extraordinarily cold and you can kiss your ham radio buddies goodby for a while.
[…] previously highlighted a news story on this paper on May 21st, but didn’t have the actual paper until now. If anyone has an update to this paper, which […]
Boats Fishing Boats Boat Seats…
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…
The tiny ‘pore’ that was briefly observed the 22nd August, was measured by Bill Livingston to have a magnetic field of only 1931 Gauss, thus being right on the continued downward trend line [towards oblivion in 2015 🙂 ].