Its all quiet on the solar front. Too quiet. It has now been almost 2 and a half months since the last counted cycle 24 sunspot has been seen on April 13th, 2008. There was a tiny cycle 24 “sunspeck” that appeared briefly on May 13th, but according to solar physicist Leif Svalgaard, that one never was assigned a number and did not “count”. It is just barely discernable on this large image from that day.
The sun today: spotless
NASA’s David Hathaway updated his solar cycle prediction page on June 4th. The start of cycle 24 keeps getting pushed forward while the ramp up line starts to look steeper into 2009.
Click for full sized image
The most recent forecast ( June 27th, 2008 ) from the Space Weather Prediction Center says little that would suggest our spotless streak would end any time soon:
Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very
low.
Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 26/2100Z
to 27/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. No flares occurred during
the past 24 hours and the solar disk remains spotless.
So when will solar cycle 24 really get going? It seems even the best minds of science don’t know for certain. A NOAA press release issued last year in April 2007 calls for Cycle 24 to be up to a year late, but they can’t decide on the intensity of SC24. That argument is ongoing.
Meanwhile the NOAA SEC Solar Cycle Progression Page looks pretty flat in all metrics charted.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
nobody is even close about the Mt. Wilson plot. I’ll give the solution tomorrow pm [my time, of course].
I agree that this is a scientifically and climatologically exciting period. We are seeing evidence, but no proof yet of decreasing solar activity. These periods in the past coincided, but not fully correlated with cooler climates. At the same time the theory of CO2 caused warming is running into problems as steady increase in atmospheric CO2 not only failed to produce the predicted warming, but it is beginning to be contradicted by an emerging cooling trend. However, we know very little about the Sun’s magnetic activity. There have been century long attempts to link the observed behaviour of the Sun to the Earth climate, with relatively little success. Svensmark hypothesis, while it is very attractive and intellectually satisfying, is far from proven and it will not be proven even if the CERN Cloud experiments confirm Svensmark’s ideas. It will merely stimulate additional work and research. Ironically, the only thing that would demonstrate that the Sun’s activity is the dominant driver of the Earth’s Climate if in the next several year we experience a simultaneous large decrease in the both the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Global temperatures.This event may be very satisfying scientifically, especially if you are an AGW skeptic, but it would be a period of hardship for humanity.
Timo Niroma’s stat analysis of planetary motion, solar activity and climate is interesting reading: http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html. Quote: “Original alert 31.10.2007
Updated 26.02.2008 / added the window limits for the minimum
Update 2 / 07.04.2008 / backing to the original: minimum in 2009
According to my theory about Jovian effect on sunspots, based on facts measured since 1700 and estimated since 1500 (Schove)
– The Jupiter perihelion and sunspot minimum never coincide and the nearing perihelion will slow the rise of the height of sunspot cycle, as now is happening to the cycle 23.
– The Gleissberg cycle has almost reached its lower limit, which is 72 years.
— In fact this low it has not been ever after the Maunder minimum.
— So it must go up, the short cycles of the 20th century has created a debt that must be paid.
Now the next Jovian perihelion is in late March in 2011. I predict that the length of the cycle 23 is 13 years. This means a minimum in Summer 2009. The exact length depends on what we regard as the real minimum, the arithmetic 1996.4 or the agreed-upon 1996.8. Actually it seems that there were two minima. A late spurt of the cycle 22 stopped for a while the first steps of the cycle 23.
Either way this means that the cycle 24 will be very low, in the range of 30-60, or a Dalton level. This means that the maximum will be reached only in 2014. All this means there will be a cooling for decades, for 60 to 80 years.”
Oooh, this is like Jeopardy!
Leif, I’ll take “I have no friggin’ clue” for 1000 please.
Leif Svalgaard (16:47:32) :
“As an example on the failure of automatic counting see this one:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/images/mpsi_all.png
Can someone see what is wrong with this plot?”
1st: All other MSPI charts in whole numbers, first one listed in tenths?
2nd: Most recent data listed as 6/27/08, yet first chart shows predicted data (with plus signs) from about 05/08. No updated chart to go with data?
Leif Svalgaard (16:30:17) :
“He can do as he pleases and for now he is sticking with his prediction [some consider that a virtue – not to ‘flip-flop’ ], so he has to have an ever steepening curve [until it falls over …].”
And that’s my point – at what time will he be FORCED to re-predict his plot: when it has to go straight up?
Magnus: The problem with these ‘predictions’ is that should they turn out to be wrong, that will not cause the believers to abandon the ‘theory’ as they should, but to barrel on regardless. In addition, there are sound reasons to believe in at least a low cycle 24, so they cannot take the fulfillment of that as unique support for their theory. As an example of the darkness dripping from the post take this quote: “Actually it seems that there were two minima. A late spurt of the cycle 22 stopped for a while the first steps of the cycle 23.” What specific planetary alignment caused the late spurt of cycle 22 and the stopping of 23? So when kim says [i]When you consider how much more we know now than we did[/i], and one confronts that with your quote one wonders if we have progressed at all.
While the current low sunspot activity might indicate we are near the start of a new Maunder minimum, nothing is sure yet.
From 2004 to May 2008 inclusively, there have been 344 spotless days. However, from 1910 to 1914 there have been no less than 993 (yes, more than nine hundred) spotless days, yet the following sunspot maximum, in 1917, was normal with a smoothed monthly mean of 112.
The fact that even solar experts disagree about the sunspot activity during the next months, proves that there is still no sure method for predicting this activity. The only “concensus” is that this is an exciting time.
Hi All,
Please excuse my interuption, but, in all these solar cycle discussions
the actual cause of them seems to be being errr, missed..
If a better idea of what caused the sunspots in the first place was behind the “predictions” wouls this make the predictions better.
I just read this and thought it rather interesting / relevant.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sun-jupiter-saturn-spin-orbit-coupling.html
– Sun, Jupiter, Saturn: spin-orbit coupling?
PASA, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. Ian Wilson, Bob Carter, and I.A. Waite propose a new, provoking mechanism that may influence the intensity of solar cycles:
Hope this helps,
Derek.
Dr. Svalgaard,
This is not my field, but I’ll give it a whirl. I have a variety of issues with this plot, starting with the farcical and trending to perhaps the issue you have in mind.
First, a couple of commendations. Their data appears to be available online, and they also have a pile of logbooks online. The online documentation appears to be in good order, and I think I’ve got a grasp of the steps taken to arrive at their values. There might be some observer-bias issues with the oldest data, as they were only performing “rough hand sketches” at the time. It wouldn’t appear to be an issue for the particular plot of interest though.
Second, a semi-farsical look at siting issues. They have a Google Map link, but it places the tower in the middle of a road, which just can’t be right. 😉 It’s also close to Los Angeles, and there’s a source of potential air-quality issues.
Third, I personally would not use a line graph for this type of data. When you’re looking at just a year or so it helps the eye track from point to point. Indeed, they have a couple of yearly or per-cycle plots lying around that look good. But when you shift towards multi-decadal, one’s up-and-down lines are obscuring data. In 1982, say, one can judge the minimum reading, and the maximum reading… but that about it. I’d strongly prefer a scatter plot here.
Fourth, we have this line from their explanations: “To determine MPSI we sum the absolute values of the magnetic field strengths….” I keep thinking I’m more interested in _not_ taking the absolute value. Let the strength cross zero, where ‘plus’ is one polarity, and ‘minus’ is the other. The even-and-odd cycles visually appear to prefer slightly different shapes, for instance.
Fifth, no trend lines or error bars. This is basically raw data though, so I guess the perennial complaint can be waived. Although it is interesting to note that either measurement error or MPSI variability seems to flex pretty strongly with the scale of MPSI. That is, in 1986 the total range is around 1, and in 1981 it appears to be roughly 3.5 or so.
But the sixth point is the one I really suspect: Magnetograph Equipment changes in 1974, 1982, 1994, 1996. Visual inspection of the graph in those years shows an apparent excursion or break-point at each. I haven’t followed through by reading the logbooks to see if there was an overlap period for calibration, testing etc. But the description of the spectrograph arrangement seems to imply that it wouldn’t be a simple matter to run ‘the old gear’ and ‘the new gear’ simultaneously for any length of time. The “gear” isn’t small – so I tend to doubt there was any overlap period at all.
The actual internal measurement device for their automated measurements is a photomultiplier tube. From what I recall, PMTs have their own list of quirks. Non-linear response, sensitivity to power supply fluctuations, and housing temperature all come to mind as possible additional issues. I haven’t checked to see _what_ equipment exactly was changed in 74, 82, 94 and 96, but sometimes minor changes trickle into the sensitive gear.
I’ve grouped the difficulties in predicting solar cycle maxima from solar cycle minima parameters in this document (15 June 2008): http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SCMinpredMax.pdf
I think (hope) it explains sufficiently well why we need a prediction method based on physical principles in stead of on statistics. Just like the evolution of the number of spotless days or the transition from old to new cycle groups, these are just statistical approaches applied onto a not entirely regular phenomenon like the solar cycle. These methods may “work” for this cycle minimum and the upcoming maximum, but they do not explain the principles behind this evolution and may be completely off-target in future cycle predictions.
Lief:
From my perspective I’m like Ptolemy with a sundial — I can predict the effect from the sun casting a moving shadow on a daily basis, even if my more-esoteric model is wrong. It’s sufficiently predictive, it worked for bronze age astrologers, etc.
This is how I see correlational analyses like Jan Janssens’ spotless evolution trend analysis (used elsewhere in the real world to predict things), etc. You mentioned the hazards of extrapolating from SC 20 & 21, I suppose you’re saying the trend could’ve gone either way.
But what I see is after SC19 there was a change in the system, w/ shorter, less pronounced spotless day (SD) transit time between the cycles, with minima starting earlier in months 27 – 39 (SC16 to SC22), not in months 62-70 of SC10 – SC15. Since SC-20, progressive transit SD counts have been more stable & have continued to increase. This may look like Kremlin Watching but intuitively emergent patterns seem to speak volumes when many different metrics seem to agree (not just one or two).
I think the most profound characteristic of the ongoing SC transit is the rate of accumulation of spotless days, the SD count has piled up very quickly much akin to 19th Century SC transits. I’d also be curious to see the relative rate of old- vs. new-cycle spots parsed by hemisphere.
Hi again Lief,
As I understand it, as of SC22 average TSI started to decrease, on the order of -0.1 degrC since the early 1990’s. Your colleagues are suggesting another -0.1 to -0.2 degrC loss of solar irradiances (I assume from facular UV warming the tropopause & upper troposphere from stratospheric ozone cooling).
That’s a conceivable net of -0.3 C, which I think makes sense. You’ve said that TSI doesn’t vary as much as has been previously believed. I’m not sure how that totals up in degrees celsius (and we’ve wrangled over Drew Shindell’s 2001 study last round).
It has been conceded by many that a certain amt of global warming from the early 19th to mid 20th century was from solar irradiance, somewhere around +0.25 degrC before 1970 and at most 50% of warming since 1970, around another +0.15. That’s a total of +0.4 since the mid 19th C. If TSI alone isn’t that variable, what added all that extra solar influence? I might be picking on an extra +0.1 degrC there, but it puts the change in solar effects easily in the ballpark of +0.3 to +0.4 degrC during solar uptrends.
The spotless days evolution, your half-amplitude SC24 & Hathaway’s half-amplitude SC25 point to a marked change in UV heating. What if all that extra irradiance of the 20th Century were erased by 2020? That was in the range of Drew Shindell’s 2001 study on the LIA.
To me it’s easily believable we might (since 1992) net a -0.35 C decrease in solar effect by the 2020’s.
Let’s say I posed the AGW worst-case, I’d also feel it was important to qualify the risks with the possibility that a slackening of solar effect could widen a window of opportunity along with soot mitigation (a possible 20 year window of opportunity right there according to V. Ramanathan (Scripps Inst. UCI) and Charlie Zender (UC San Diego)).
This to me seems sensible.
That the AGWers are not speaking to these opportunities just puzzles me. This is much more tangible and credible than a paleo record that appears mostly anecdotal. And if we can’t find the errant heat in the seas (Kevin Trenberth, NCAR, re: Argo data), it seems to me the worst-case scenarios will be invalidated b/c there will less latent heat hiding in an oceanic pipeline and hence, although less than ideal, not catastrophic.
Oooops Apologies.
I read this post from an external link and had not realised
the next article /post here covers exactly this paper.
Please delete both posts if you want to.
Thanks, (somewhat slow off the mark…lol.)
Derek.
magnetohydrodynamic voodoo At least you didn’t say astrology. Really, Leaf, the use of snark in an attempt to belittle a legitimate scientific field is, at best, unbecoming of someone calling themselves a scientist. The implication is that you feel threatened by it, so the question is, why.
Well, overnight, it looks like several more rose to Leif’s challenge at finding out what was wrong with the MPSI. If he isn’t up too early, maybe I’ll get this in before he posts his answer.
I don’t know enough about the technical issues of producing the graph to know if there’s anything wrong with it in that sense. Could Leif be playing with us here, and using “wrong” in a different sense? Assuming the graph is technically accurate for what it represents, it shows declining activity over a period of time during which temperatures rose rather dramatically. Could that be Leif’s point? I.e., that what is “wrong” with the graph is that it appears at odds with the idea that solar activity is driving temperature?
If — and it is a real big if that is more than likely to be wrong — this is Leif’s point, I would simply want to point out while it might be at odds with an underlying upward trend in temperatures, it doesn’t disprove a solar effect upon cycles about that underlying upward trend.
But rather than say any more, I’ll humbly await Leif’s solution to the riddle.
Basil
Here’s a question for one of the pro’s.
I started checking the SoHo MDI Continuum page on a daily basis several weeks ago.
In the medium sized photo, the one you posted in this article, there are two, just barely visible “spots” that never move.
In the largest sized photo, which you can get at the SoHo website, these two spots are easily visible.
One spot is on the right side at the equator.
The second spot is “southwest” of the first spot, about 0.2 diameters away.
Are these camera flaws or real spots that actually never move?
Jan Janssens (00:34:58) :
” http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SCMinpredMax.pdf
I think (hope) it explains sufficiently well why we need a prediction method based on physical principles in stead of on statistics.”
Lovely, just lovely. Now I have no idea what to expect from SC24. Guess I’ll have to take may own advice, sit back, and enjoy the ride.
OT: Heck of a way to start off this gloomy Sunday, weather that has national implications – I live about 10 miles from the New Hampshire International Speedway, where this week’s NASCAR race is scheduled. One early AM Tstrm skirted by use just to the north, more will be around this PM.
On Mt. Wilson: the clue is that although solar cycles 21 and 22 were almost of the same size, the Mt. Wilson index shows SC21 to be ~40% larger than SC22. The equipment was upgraded [‘rebuilt’] in the summer of 1982 which changed the calibration. For more details see http://www.leif.org/research/MWO%20MPSI%20-%20F107.pdf Alan was getting close.
So, although the MWO index is completely automatic and computer generated, it still fails as an objective index. For obvious reasons, the old and new equipment could not be run in parallel for several years. Luckily we had other indices, like SSN, f10.7. etc.
Jan asks for a prediction method based on physics, Luckily we have such, although we don’t know all of the parameters yet.
Jan Janssens (00:34:58 ) :
Hi Jan
Thanks for joining us!
Yes I could see the statistical spread in the spotless days evolution raw data. I think your analyses coupled with a stand-in reference physical models of Hathaway’s and Svalgaard’s can lend to a better prediction of where the sun is trending.
The behavior of the magnetic dynamo is at the basis of all this. Hathaway’s convection belt model mightn’t agree with Lief’s model during transition phases but might point to phenomonological aspects of a gravitomagnetic-plasma system that’ll take yet more time to understand. If the convection bands seem to “disappear” might invalidate Hathaway’s circulation model, or (I”ll guess here just for fun) it could be an artifact of dynamo transition.
This is all neat stuff!
I was wondering about your problems with getting smaller error ranges in the multivariate analysis. I proffer this suggestion as a purely naive lay person, so forgive me if I’m covering something already known or obvious: Are there any trend data that’d help by looking at SP/SSG hemisphere, hemisphere vs. SP SC # (requires polarity), SP count by SC #, prominence, solar wind, etc.? Can magnetic perturbations (magnetic phase) be applied to your analyses?
The fact that SP groups vary in speed and have slowed to a relative crawl migh be telling, reflective of either the convective belt *OR* the magnetic dynamo. So even Hathaway can cite a trend here, even if he might be in for a missed prediction on SC#24 but not SC#25. Hah hah!
IAC, your analyses have great intuitive appeal, it’d be grand if there could be something to narrow the predictive band.
henry (22:49:14) :
It’s curious that Hathaway’s model seems to get the greatest attention.
Well, that’s what the IPCC is facing. The longer the current temperature plateau continues while CO2 levels accelerate upward, the bigger the game of climate “catch-up” would be required of the Earth to match their theories.
http://i27.tinypic.com/25fuk8w.jpg
What’s next? Epicycles?
That the IPCC’s and Hathaway’s predictions seem to be headed toward a similar wall in 2013 might be rather ironic, or more broadly point to the limits of our contemporary science.
It was Voltaire, I believe, who wrote “God is a comedian playing to an audience that’s too afraid to laugh.”
I find all this stuff great fun. It’s made talking about the weather just as riven with bafflegab as before, but now we have scientists to keep us guessing!
I predict that July is the month the 24 cycle sunspots begin to come on.
Alan S. Blue (00:29:51):
Isn’t that plot type simply a matter of preference? Here are both forms side-by-side. They look pretty much the same to me. As for the equipment change breakpoints: I plotted a line at each year and, for fun, 1972. 1974 looks like a break but it’s also similar to the non-equipment change year, 1972. The only obvious break IMO is at 1982 but I note that similar ‘breaks’ occur in 1992 and 2001 (2002?).
Perhaps, but then it wouldn’t be a strength index. Taking the average of the absolute value is similar to using the RMS value. The RMS value is more tractable mathematically, though. This is done to average the peaks in both directions. A straight average on cyclical data is often unhelpful.
—
Now I’ve got my curiosity up.
I keep typing a comma between href and title in my likes. Apparently, it confuses wordpress. So, second try: Here are both forms side-by-side.
REPLY: Or you can simply put in the URL without any HTML and WP will do the work for you.
http://www.dvavra.com/pics/MPSI/MSPI-20080627.jpeg
Yeah, but then I don’t get the advantage of in-line links. I usually think of the link itself as parenthetical. The one in my last post was a toss-up. I used to post on a board that allowed in-line linking with something like: /link(url, text). Not as awkward to type. I got used to expressing myself this way.
REPLY: The other option is to use an external HTML WSIWYG editor, and paste in the comment form. I sometimes do that when I need to post a detailed comment.