The sun on 08/12/2008 just before midnight UTC – spotless
As many of you know, the sun has been very quiet, especially in the last month. In a NASA news release article titled What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) solar physicist David Hathaway goes on record as saying:
“It does seem like it’s taking a long time,” allows Hathaway, “but I think we’re just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last.”
No argument there. But it does seem to me that the purpose of Hathaway’s July 11th article was to smooth over the missed solar forecasts he’s made. Here is a comparison of early and more recent forecasts from Hathway:
Click for a larger image
He also seems intent on making sure that when compared to a grand minima, such as the Maunder Minimum, this current spotless spell is a mere blip.
The quiet of 2008 is not the second coming of the Maunder Minimum, believes Hathaway. “We have already observed a few sunspots from the next solar cycle,” he says. (See Solar Cycle 24 Begins.) “This suggests the solar cycle is progressing normally.”
What’s next? Hathaway anticipates more spotless days1, maybe even hundreds, followed by a return to Solar Max conditions in the years around 2012.
I would hope that Hathaway’s newest prediction, that this is “not the
second coming of the Maunder Minimum” or even a Dalton Minimum for that matter, holds true.
1Another way to examine the length and depth of a solar minimum is by counting spotless days. A “spotless day” is a day with no sunspots. Spotless days never happen during Solar Max but they are the “meat and potatoes” of solar minima.
Adding up every daily blank sun for the past three years, we find that the current solar minimum has had 362 spotless days (as of June 30, 2008).Compare that value to the total spotless days of the previous ten solar minima: 309, 273, 272, 227, 446, 269, 568, 534, ~1019 and ~931. The current count of 362 spotless days is not even close to the longest.
Though, Livingston and Penn seem to think we are entering into a grand minima via their recent paper.
As mentioned in “What’s next?”, we are now adding to the total of spotless days in this minima, and since the last update in that article, June 30th, 2008 where they mention this, we have added very few days with sunspots, perhaps 3 or 4.
Adding up every daily blank sun for the past three years, we find that the current solar minimum has had 362 spotless days (as of June 30, 2008).
So it would seem, that as of August 12th, 2008, we would likely have reached a total of 400 spotless days. The next milestone for recent solar minimas is 446 spotless days, not far off. It will be interesting to see where this current minima ends up.
h/t to Werner Weber
Mary Hinge (11:08:05) :
Pamela- if Solar output was more important wouldn’t we see an 11-year pattern of cooling and warming on Earth?
Trouble is, Mary, that some people think we do [e.g. Jared and his La Ninas]. The reality is that there may be such cycles, but their effect is so small that they don’t do much for Pamela’s fanny. And if they are small, they are not significant drivers of climate.
RE: Pamela Gray (22:17:31) : and Robert Bateman (22:37:27) :
By my reckoning, based on the apparent starting point of a series of record lows affecting the Far West, many areas of the region started their de facto climatic autumn on or around July 19th. Last year it was July 30th.
Robert, notice something interesting about the deciduous trees? Notice both wild and irrigated ones in landscaping. Our eyes do not lie.
By the way, there was a Bobcat foraging at my place yesterday, the first I’ve seen in 10 years.
MarkW (10:02:35) :
Small periodic changes can cause a much larger output in a target system, if the periodicity happens to hit one of the harmonic frequencies in the target system.
Does the solar cycle match one of the harmonic frequencies of the earth’s climate system?
The solar cycle is not strictly periodic and varies enough that is hardly can hit anything. AFAIK, the Earth’s climate system isn’t strictly periodic either [looks even less periodic that the Sun], so further diminishing the chance of being hit by a solar cycle.
Leif
Solar switching vs forcing.
Cf: Scafetta and West:”. . .The complexity-matching effect in the Sun–Earth network is evident in the equality of the inverse power-law indices.”
Leif: “In my book, the mere equality of such indices does not constitute cause.”
Observations:
Most thermal energy is in the oceans and major temperature oscellations appear to be impacted by ocean currents.
With a simple model, Roy Spencer has shown that changes typical of historic climate changes can be obtained by combinations of the various oscillations. PDO etc.
Scafetta and West show a number of correlations between solar flares and climate.
Svensmark is proposing solar regulation of cosmic ray cloud nucleation.
What if these were combined. e.g., that Scafetta and West’s solar flare observations were regulating clouds via Svensmark’s nucleation & via ultraviolet impact on poles, which in turn influenced the clouds which influenced the ocean currents which affect the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic oscillations and thus the observed temperature.
In this scenario, Scafetta and West’s observed solar-climate correlations would be brought about by small solar “switching” of clouds which impact ocean currents rather than by macro “solar forcing” per se.
Hi Leif,
tht was what I was trying to say, if these cycles are hidden by so much noise then isn’t the effect of solar cycles actually very small. As I understand it the suns output is about 30% higher now than during the carboniferous (relying on memory so any links/figures very welcome) and the global climate was a lot hotter than it is now. Even allowing for the very different topography of the earth then and the huge expanses of warm shallow seas/swamps the high temperatures of the time were most probably because of the very high levels of CO2 in the atmosphereof the time,the inference being that the Earths mean temperature is more influenced by atmospheric make up than solar output.
David L. Hagen (13:05:27) :
In this scenario, Scafetta and West’s observed solar-climate correlations would be brought about by small solar “switching” of clouds which impact ocean currents rather than by macro “solar forcing” per se.
You may assume that I’m fully aware of all these things, pros and cons and maybes. The effect of the clouds would seem to be through modifying the Earth’s albedo [the amount of solar radiation reflected back into space and thus not messing with our climate]. Direct measurements of the albedo [e.g. by measuring Earthshine reflected off the moon] show variations that are not correlated with the solar cycle, so that settles that argument, at least for me and for now. There has been no changes [apart from the solar cycle variation] in cosmic ray intensity since the 1950s [for sure] and since the 1930s [less sure], so no long-term climate changes can be ascribed to cosmic rays and their proposed effects. You can always claim otherwise by invoking the argument of ‘ignorance’ : we don’t know what other mechanisms may be involved masking/helping/triggering/amplifying/modifying/whatever the effects from cosmic rays or the solar wind or the Sun in general. I tend not to worry much about such.
Leif,
You tell us what the flaw is, since you seem to have figured it out.
Given your history, it’s hard to tell whether this was sarcastic or merely clueless.
The flaw is that there are more things under heaven and earth than just TSI and CO2.
Leif,
From my degree in electrical engineering, when dealing with a noisy signal, you don’t have to hit the harmonic perfectly in order to excit it.
Mary Hinge (13:17:23) :
that was what I was trying to say, if these cycles are hidden by so much noise then isn’t the effect of solar cycles actually very small. As I understand it the suns output is about 30% higher now than during the carboniferous .
Not quite, but much earlier [4.5 billion years ago] when the Earth was born, the Sun was 30% dimmer and it has slowly increased in luminosity since. Nevertheless the temperature of the Earth has managed to stay more or less the same, probably due to greenhouse effects.
MarkW (13:29:04) :
Given your history, it’s hard to tell whether this was sarcastic or merely clueless.
I am never sarcastic [bad form in serious discussion], so I plead clueless as to what TSI and CO2 have to do with each other. And why CO2 was brought in to a discussion of what the Sun is doing.
The flaw is that there are more things under heaven and earth than just TSI and CO2.
And so what? I don’t think that that is earth shattering news. Sounds like a trivial point to me.
From my degree in electrical engineering, when dealing with a noisy signal, you don’t have to hit the harmonic perfectly in order to excite it
True enough, but we are dealing with two noisy signals, so there is no harmonic to be excited, especially since the harmonic is the Earth’s climate system that is a VERY noisy signal with no clear underlying signal – the harmonic. But, hey, if you believe that anyway, what does it matter what I think?
Leif Svalgaard (13:31:52) :
“Not quite, but much earlier [4.5 billion years ago] when the Earth was born, the Sun was 30% dimmer and it has slowly increased in luminosity since. ”
Thanks Leif, I was typing from memory and new 30% was there somewhere! Only over 4 billion years out!
There was a huge amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere during the carboniferous (now being liberated as fossil fuels.The late Carboniferous and early Permian, with resulting lower CO2 levels, were noted for their ice ages.
Leif
Thanks for the reference to measuring earthshine to measure albedo.
I found this 2006 presentation on it:
Recent changes in Earth’s albedo and implications for climate change, Enric Pallé
Leif, I did refer to day and night temps: see “fanny freezing”. What is your take on a constant source of [insert name of stuff] energy eventually changing that which it is impinging on? Why are we looking for changes in the Sun? I don’t change the dial on my oven. I wait for the oven to heat up. I also understand how the atmosphere shields us from the full impact of the Sun. But what if a constant source of stuff from the Sun and galaxy eventually changes the atmosphere, thus causing us to cool down or heat up? The Sun has a dramatic affect on ozone over the Antarctic, not because the Sun changes, but because the Earth tilts and the constant rays that eventually strike a more direct blow eventually eats up the ozone there. So what if the magnetic shield is so poor right now that cosmic rays are hitting ozone more globally than before? And the constant bombardment is doing something to our atmosphere that is allowing these colder temperatures to freeze my fanny?
Leif…
But EVERY solar minumum (since 1950 at least) has featured cooler temperatures than the surrounding years. I find it hard to believe you would attribute that all to “chance”.
In addition, El Ninos have invariably followed the rapid rise of a solar cycle. It happened in 1957, 1965, 1976, 1986, 1997…again, too much correlation to simply dismiss as coincidence, if you ask me.
Other “coincidences”: Cycle 20 was weaker than both Cycle 19 and Cycle 21, and the mid-60s to mid-70s were notably cooler. Cycle 23 was slightly weaker than the previous two cycles…and global temperatures have leveled off over the past 10 years.
Pamela Gray (14:32:47) :
And the constant bombardment is doing something to our atmosphere that is allowing these colder temperatures to freeze my fanny?
No doubt, your fanny is telling a truth, it is just that we have little evidence for that being due to the Sun.
Jared (14:41:46) :
But EVERY solar minumum (since 1950 at least) has featured cooler temperatures than the surrounding years. I find it hard to believe you would attribute that all to “chance”.
I certainly would, especially since we have temperature records going back much further than 1950 and they don’t show this. Also, if La Ninas have a roughly 5-6 year ‘periodicity’, once it gets into phase with the solar cycle [once by chance] it will stay in phase and hit every 5-6 years and thus every 11 years as well for a while [without these hits adding to the significance] until it eventually gets out of phase.
Jared (14:50:25) :
In addition, El Ninos have invariably followed the rapid rise of a solar cycle. It happened in 1957, 1965, 1976, 1986, 1997…again, too much correlation to simply dismiss as coincidence, if you ask me.
But I wouldn’t ask you. El Ninos occur on either side of La Ninas, so if La Ninas make you see something, El Ninos will show the same thing. Same coincidence, not independent evidence. Anyway, it would seem hat you would predict an El Nino soon. Would you predict that to come before SC24 takes off, or after? That is in 2008/2009 or in 2009/2010? The other coincidences are also clearly that. There is something in statistics called ‘degrees of freedom’ and that number is very low when you deal with a handful of cycles. I realize that nothing I say will shake your faith, so there we have it.
Hi Pamela,
should first say that ‘Fanny’ has a different meaning in the UK than the USA! Interesting point you raised about the ozone and the weakening magnetic field. Just throwing this into the mix here, if the ozone layer is weakening such as in the 1980’s. 1990’s and early 2000’s, there is less absorbtion (blocking) of UV which hits the earth and is reflected back at shorter wavelengths such as IR reulting in warmimg. Recently the ozone layer is thickening again so if less UV hits the earth, less IR is reflected resulting in cooling.
Is it possible that as the ozone layer thickens this cooling could become more pronounced?
Jared, maybe I should just point out that the year 1965 occurs in both your lists of La Nina and El Nino years. There was no rapid rise in solar activity in 1965. Here are the sunspot numbers for 1965:
196501 1965.043 17.5
196502 1965.123 14.2
196503 1965.205 11.7
196504 1965.287 6.8
196505 1965.372 24.1
196506 1965.454 15.9
196507 1965.539 11.9
196508 1965.624 8.9
196509 1965.706 16.8
196510 1965.791 20.1
196511 1965.873 15.8
196512 1965.958 17.0
The rapid rise came in 1966:
196601 1966.042 28.2
196602 1966.122 24.4
196603 1966.204 25.3
196604 1966.286 48.7 <=== here
196605 1966.371 45.3
196606 1966.453 47.7
196607 1966.538 56.7
196608 1966.623 51.2
196609 1966.705 50.2
196610 1966.790 57.2
196611 1966.872 57.2
196612 1966.957 70.4
and here are the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) for those years
1963 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0
1964 0.9 0.4 0.0 -0.5 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -1.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.0
1965 -0.8 -0.5 -0.2 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5
1966 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3
Cold years in bold. It would seem that the Earth’s atmosphere knew that a sharp rise in sunspots would come in mid 1966, or [more likely] that there is no connection between these numbers.
Thanks for the explanation, Leif.
Leif…
First of all, La Ninas don’t occur every 5-6 years on cue as you infer. There is no such exact pattern, or they would be easy to predict and time, wouldn’t they?
None occurred between 1957 and 1964 – that’s 8 years. And what do you know, that 8 year period followed the strongest solar cycle in history. Another coincidence.
How about 1977 to 1984? Another 8 year stretch with NO La Ninas. And what do you know again…a very strong solar cycle.
Cycle 20 was weaker than any of the other past 4 cycles: 19, 21, 22, 23. And guess what? It had 7 La Nina winters/episodes, more than any of the other cycles. Yet another “coincidence”.
I’m sorry, Leif, but the evidence is certainly there – unless you want to just dismiss ALL of these occurences as chance. It seems quite evident to me that global temperature trends are largely a combination of solar influence overlaid on periodic atmospheric/oceanic cycles.
Leif,
When you mentioned earthshine it reminded me of a question I’ve posed but haven’t an answer to. The question is:
Why not just measure (via satellite) the amount of energy incident upon the earth and subtract from it the amount radiated away? Should that not that tell us the long term temperature trend?