Many people that have have an interest in the interaction between the Sun and Earth have been keeping a watchful eye on several metrics of solar activity recently. The most popular of course has been sunspot watching.
The sun has been particularly quiet in the last several months, so quiet in fact that Australia’s space weather agency recently revised their solar cycle 24 forecast, pushing the expected date for a ramping up of cycle 24 sunspots into the future by six months.
On August 31st, at 23:59 UTC, just a little over 24 hours from now, we are very likely to make a bit of history. It looks like we will have gone an entire calendar month without a sunspot. According to data from NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center, the last time that happened was in June of 1913. May of 1913 was also spotless.
With the current space weather activity level of the Sun being near zero, and the SOHO holographic imaging of the far side of the sun showing no developing spots that would come around the edge in the next 24 hours, it seems a safe bet to conclude that August 2008 will be the first spotless month since June 1913.
Here is the sun today, at 09:14UTC August 30th:
Click for a very large image
Some people who watch the sun regularly might argue that August wasn’t really spotless, because on August 21st, a very tiny plage area looked like it was going to become a countable sunspot. Here is an amateur astronomer’s photo of the event:
August 21st, 2008 spots – Photo: Pavol Rapavy
But according to solar physicist Leif Svalgaard, who regularly frequents this blog:
According to NOAA it was not assigned a number on Aug.21st nor on Aug.22.
So without an official recognition or a number assigned, it should not be counted in August as actual sunspot.
It has also been over a month since a countable sunspot has been observed, the last one being on July 18th. Since then, activity has been flat. Below is a graph of several solar metrics from the amateur radio propagation website dxlc.com for the past two months:
Click image for original source
They have a table of metrics that include sunspots, and their data also points to a spotless August 2008. See it here: http://www.dxlc.com/solar/indices.html
So unless something dramatic happens on the sun in the next 24 hours, it seems a safe bet that August 2008 will be a spotless month.
Update: As commenter Jim Powell points out,
There was a stretch of 42 spotless days from 9/13/1996 to 10/24/1996. Today we have equaled this period. Check out Jan Janssens spotless days page http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?month=07&day=18&year=2008&view=view
Would this spot have been visible using the available equipment during the Maunder and Dalton minimum
impossible to see this sunspot of 18 july without equipment of 21th century
john christmas (02:51:34) :
http://skyfal.free.fr/
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/froid.html#spinorbite
Hey, those are interesting links!
The first talks about the norwegian solar researcher Pål Brekke who has received a lot of local criticism at home for thinking like a scientist…
The second is an interesting piece on the proposed “Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets”. It contains a small diagram which is clearly borrowed from my simulator page at http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/ 🙂
Gary Gulrud (03:15:15) :
We’ve waited since March for another #24 so I expect more #23s, and the the sun, though seemingly near flatline, is settling lower still.
As far as I know, we saw a #24 spot early May.
http://arnholm.org/astro/astro_home.htm#CYCLE24_SPOT_MAY4
Robert Bateman (22:52:55) :
It would help if science knew what to expect itself. Whatever the influence of a quite sun, all the other climate drivers are still at work. While the media is doing its mostly usual horrible job fawning over Gore et al, they do have a problem in describing the amorphous risks of the next few decades.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes all bring the risk of imminent destruction and pureeing of your home. The effects you’re seeing on the west coast (whatever they are), are most likely related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation flipping negative. Joe D’Aleo refers to the last flip to positive as the Great Pacific Climate Shift.
Here’s a warning: “Climate conditions of the 1970s may return over the next couple of decades.” Somehow that pales in headline potential to “Weather conditions of Katrina return to New Orleans.” Even that pales to what the Daily News might say, perhaps “Get Out. Now!”
This afternoon we witnessed the death of another AGW poster child. The Murray River in south eastern Australia has been used as a dire warning of what is happening (ignoring the water being taken by plantations) and yet today the following happened;
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Victoria
This flood warning covers both the Victorian and New South Wales parts of the
Murray River catchment upstream of Lake Hume.
Initial Minor Flood Warning for the Murray River Upstream of Lake Hume
Issued at 3:47 PM on Sunday the 31st of August 2008
by the Bureau of Meteorology, Victorian Regional Office
Rainfall totals of up to 70 mm have been recorded since last night in the Murray
River catchment upstream of Lake Hume. This has caused stream rises in the
Murray River catchment upstream of Lake Hume. Rainfall will continue until this
evening, with general totals of up to 10mm expected, with some isolated higher
falls.
Areas of minor flooding are expected to develop in the Murray River catchment
upstream of Lake Hume during this evening.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDV36910.txt
The Stereo Behind system seems to be working again after a few months of being out of commission.
There is no activity rotating into view from behind the rim on the left side of the sun.
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/
In the mid-Atlantic states, the winters of 1912 & 1917 were perhaps the coldest of the century (followed by 1977). Western MD recorded all-time record lows of from -25F to -40F in Jan 1912.
[…] “The common view of the IPCC is that it consists of 2,500 of the world’s leading scientists who, after carefully weighing all the evidence, have arrived at a “consensus” that world temperatures are rising disastrously, and that the only plausible cause has been rising levels of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases. “In fact, as has become ever more apparent over the past 20 years –not least thanks to the evidence of a succession of scientists who have participated in the IPCC itself – the reality of this curious body could scarcely be more different.” Telegraph.co.au via a comment by fmwatkins on Watts Up With That? […]
I was going to ask that question Mr White, one more point, it has been stated that Mars and Pluto were also warming, are they still warming.
All too often, we tend towards the “single driver” explanation. Solar activity may not be the forcing agent, but it could well be a catalyst (of sorts) that allows or facilitates other forcing agents to act.
Everyone here knows our climate is a complex system, with both short and long-term cycles. However, in the final analysis, it is the sun which is the most important climate driver. The exact mechanisms involved haven’t been proven, true enough, but Leif, unfortunately takes that fact one step further and runs with it, saying that the sun can not possibly be anything more than a minor player. That, to me, and to a lot of us here is not science, but ideology. He seems to have an inordinate belief in the power of coincidence. Why, I don’t know.
My first time up on here!
A question was raised on the possibility of any biological effects on climate and another suggestion that the sun’s activities although not having a direct action on the climate may open a “gate” for some other action.
Suggestion only following;
In the 1970’s David Sands of Montana State University found ice nucleating bacteria in cloud droplets. This work has been verified in a number of other studies.
Global cloud cover is regarded as one of the finely balanced variables that can tip the global climate into warming or cooling phases.
Another major variable is the solar output.
It has been suggested that cosmic ray particle ionisation particles may be a nucleation source for cloud droplets and therefore for creating more cloud cover.
However, an active sun will deflect galactic cosmic rays through the medium of strong solar magnetic fields leading to less global cloud cover and therefore a higher solar heating effect at the global surface.
There is some minor evidence from the UK for this effect but a lot of doubt over the supposed mechanism and effects.
I humbly suggest an alternative biologically based mechanism for regulating global cloud cover.
An active sun will also produce a high flux of Ultra Violet light and I believe some very recent satellite data has indicated that the solar UV flux is a great deal stronger and far more variable than had been forecast in the solar models.
UV is also a very efficient destroyer of bacterial cells to the extent that it is used as a sterilising agent in some parts of the medical scene.
A highly active sun will pour out copious amounts of UV which on penetrating deep into the atmosphere would probably destroy a considerable proportion of the nucleating bacteria in the lower atmosphere which in turn would effectively reduce the droplet nucleating bacterial levels and therefore the formation of the global cloud cover.
If some recent work is correct, would have the effects of allowing more solar radiation into the very lowest levels of the atmosphere and onto the surface with a consequent warming effect.
Alternatively, low solar activity would of course lead to a lower level of UV penetration into the lower atmosphere, a lot lower level of mortality amongst the cloud nucleating bacteria, resulting in more cloud cover and a cooler surface temperature due to the increased albedo of the extra cloud cover.
There may even be a twist in the tail here as high level cloud cover will alter the solar UV penetration with a possible effect on the nucleating bacterial levels and therefore on the formation of the amount of low level, high albedo cloud.
As the amounts of cloud cover are postulated to be critical in any global temperature changes, this biological mechanism could be a very significant part of any climate change effects.
OK, I have had my chance so I will now tie the bandage over the eyes and wait for the bullets!
Bruce Cobb (07:30:29) :
However, in the final analysis, it is the sun which is the most important climate driver.
The glaciations were not due to solar variations, but to variations of the Earth’s orbit and tilt. The very warm periods in the past where CO2 was 20 times higher than today were not driven by the Sun [which was weaker back then].
The exact mechanisms involved haven’t been proven, true enough, but Leif, unfortunately takes that fact one step further and runs with it, saying that the sun can not possibly be anything more than a minor player.
This is a misrepresentation. What I have said is that it has not been demonstrated that the very minor solar variations that we observe are the cause of climate changes.
That, to me, and to a lot of us here is not science, but ideology. He seems to have an inordinate belief in the power of coincidence. Why, I don’t know.
Science is about what has been observed, demonstrated, and explained. Ideology is belief in what must be true [‘final analysis’].
If a lack of sunspots causes cooling, then why didn’t we get cooling following 1913? If the GISS data is to be believed at all, the earth warmed from 1913 until 1940. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
For Millions of years life on earth developed and boomed, while not bothering about the sun’s activity or black holes or impact on earth’s climate. All other lifeforms on today’s earth still don’t care about the sun’s activity. Why should we bother about it? When it get’s hotter I put shorts on and when it get’s cooler, I put a coat on.
I don’t bother about the sun, but what bothers me are those ignoring the sun’s impact on earth’s weather.
Thanks for the correction Carsten; as you may have surmised I seldom check my own ‘work’.
The point remains, as attested, apparently, by Mr. White, #23 spots are still more regular to date.
Leif, what do you think caused the Little Ice Age?
RayB (08:27:59) :
“All other lifeforms on today’s earth still don’t care about the sun’s activity. Why should we bother about it? ”
Here’s how this lifeform is affected:
I go to the store, pick out what I want, take it home and eat it.
That’s called being at the top of the food chain.
When this lifeform goes to the store and there’s nothing there, this lifeform quickly moves from the top to the bottom o’ the food chain, and before too long is supplying food for microorganisms, fungus, earthworms, flies, etc.
Jim Powell (09:17:43) :
Leif, what do you think caused the Little Ice Age?
I have no idea.
Jim Powell (09:17:43) :
Leif, what do you think caused the Little Ice Age?
I’ll outline [for the umpteenth time], why I don’t think it was the Sun:
Charles Greeley Abbot measured the ‘solar constant’ [what we today call TSI] from 1902 to 1956. He believed to observe solar cycle variations of a percent or more. When Jack Eddy in the 1970s drew attention to the Maunder Minimum, it was only natural to assume that if there was a solar cycle variation of TSI of a percent+, that the Maunder Minimum would be a likely culprit in explaining the LIA, and so was born the [now almost dogmatic] link between the two. When spacecraft measurements of TSI showed a variation ten times smaller than what Abbot [and Eddy, back then] believed, the link should have been severed as being observationally refuted. But the notion lives on because it is ‘so obvious’ and simple. “What else can it be?” To maintain that variations in TSI are the direct cause of LIA would require a very high sensitivity of the climate to even minute changes in TSI. Higher than most scientists would agree to, unless recourse is made to unspecified ‘feedback’, ‘triggering’, or whatever other unknown causes that might be operating. Such may be the case, but the evidence therefor is weak, IMHO.
The other popular culprit is cosmic rays. 10Be and 14C radionuclides show that the magnetic cycle was still operating during the Maunder Minimum [and earlier Grand Minima as well], so the Sun’s ‘magnetic shield’ against cosmic rays was still in place, so this mechanism does not seem to be viable either.
Leif,
Thanks for your continued contributions. Much of what is discussed here is repetitive because of the continued growth. Just think of it as repitition for emphasis. Your comments are much appreciated.
Mike Bryant
‘If a lack of sunspots causes cooling, then why didn’t we get cooling following 1913? If the GISS data is to be believed at all, the earth warmed from 1913 until 1940. ‘
Because the ‘triggers’ for Minimum were not met. The data of (minimum to minimum + maximum to maximum)/2 has a hysteresis point that seems to be somewhere around 14 yrs to trigger a really bum set of cycles that give us the decades long cooling.
That’s what I get from poring over all the excellent data and papers on the length of cycles.
For the periodicities of cycles that exist over many years, such as the 183 yr, 188 yr and 243 yr, I find that the culprit for generating the long 14yr+ min-min + max-max / 2 is the 243 yr cycle in relation to the 183 yr cycle.
Look at the last graph in this paper:
astro-ph, 2006 June 27
LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN THE LENGTH OF THE SOLAR CYCLE
Michael L. Rogers, Mercedes T. Richards
Since it is the length of the current cycle 23 that keeps on growing that has us concerned (as well as the inability of sc24 to get going), any data on SC length in relation to other factors is a good place to look for answers.
I would hazard a guess that those two long periodicities have collided, and it takes down the inheritant cycle.
Robert Bateman (10:27:07) :
I would hazard a guess that those two long periodicities have collided, and it takes down the inheritant cycle.
Ken Schatten has a word for this: cyclomania
Mr. Bateman thank you for the information. I don’t mean to sound like a proponent of AGW because I am skeptical of that theory as well. My problem with the solar activity/climate theory is that there does not seem to be a correlation, at least none that I can find. While it is true that a correlation alone does not prove cause and effect, I think you must have a correlation as one of the conditions for proving cause and effect. Even if there is a 14 year time lag a correlation could still be demonstrated if it exists. If there are other factors that must be taken into account that could be done as well. But so far I haven’t seen such a correlation. If you have a source which shows a correlation I would appreciate it if you could provide a link to it. Thank you.
Leif, Bruce
Bruce:
I can’t accept when you say in yr (07:30:29)
… That, to me, and to a lot of us here is not science,
but ideology. He seems to have an inordinate belief in the power of coincidence.
Why, I don’t know….
You are complaining Leif’s sceptimism? I may not agree with Leif on every item.
Here and on CA. But I respect it as it is. And I deeply appreciate all the time
he spent on both blogs. Learnt a lot of it, still don’t understand all of it.
But with that, I have to live.
Me too, I am convinced that the climate more or less is changing with sun’s activity.
But how it’s achieved, I don’t know. Coincidence? … humm, rather naaaww.
May be there a common source for this similarity? I guess, but I don’t know.
Leif:
If, TSI don’t works proportionally, but integrally? (I am thinking of earth’s climate
as the behavior of an control system). As far as I – may – see, it behaves as most
of the couplings behave integrally – slow start with it’s influences, but increase over time.