In comments, Jonn-X wondered:
Dead pixels or new sunspecks (pore-ettes) ?
At first I was pretty sure I was looking at nothing, then I saw the official NOAA bulletin
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html
and the usual phrase, “The visible disk was spotless,” was omitted – typical practice when there’s something there, but too small to be “officially noticed.”
Anybody else see anything?
I do. I know where the dead pixels are, and have labeled them below in the SOHO MDI image. Note that there are two very small sunspecks, possibly soon to be sunspots, emerging on both sides of the equator.
Click for a full sized image
For those that don’t know. The SOHO spacecraft sensor does have some stuck pixels, and these can sometimes be cured in a “bake off” where they heat up the sensor for a few hours.
Our resident official solar physicist, Dr. Leif Svalgarrd will confirm or refute my suspicions on the categorizations of SC23 and SC24 I’m sure. For comparisons, you can also see the SOHO magnetogram.
I’ve included it also below:
UPDATE: The specks are fading, so far no observation agency has assigned a region or counted them that I know of, see the updated SOHO MDI.
UPDATED SOHO MDI:
Click for larger image
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Bruce:
I’m not sure what about Leif’s comments you object to. He’s been very consistent on both solar and CO2 issues. If I’ve been following correctly, the main solar and CO2 issue is that none of the values being monitored consistently, and over long periods of time, correlates with observed changes in Earth temperature. While some correlation can be obtained over selected short periods (eg AGW in recent times), no factor holds up over several hundred years.
So, the available data is not 100% consistent with any theory brought forward so far. Based on the total data set, historic changes in solar output do not appear to consistently and reliably predict / influence global temperatures. Same with CO2. Both seem to have a small, and therefore difficult to quantify, effect. Seems like a very reasonable statement and a difficult position to argue with.
That said, I really have a difficult time ruling out some, as yet unidentified, solar effect that would actually expain Earth’s temperature history.
Mike86
Gary Gulrud (07:40:13) :
“Just try to stick to facts or opinions about facts without embellishments, comments on people’s logic [or lack thereof], intentions, behavior, and the like.”
Remove the log from your own eye, Sir. It’s what we do with facts that exercises those frequenting Anthony’s corner.
Most of your posts are ad-hom attacks [to wit what you just said] that have nothing to do with facts or opinions about facts. It would be a welcome change to see a contribution with some [any…] significance or information content. Most of us are trying to maintain a reasonably high signal to noise ratio, please make an effort to contribute.
…like Leif, whose disbelief that the sun can drive climate in any way is a profound and tenaciously held one.
I’m just a lurker but I’m coming out of hiding on comments like this. Leif serves an important job on this blog — house skeptic. We need a skeptic to keep this blog from becoming an AGW-as-a-religion site. We have to look at the facts and seek the truth, even if that truth sometimes doesn’t agree with our beliefs. A skeptic helps us to do that.
Leif is smart and he knows his stuff. He studies the data but comes to a different conclusion than most of us. That’s fine. Leif’s conclusions should provoke respectful and intelligent debates, not name-calling or condescending remarks.
How many of us have been unfairly relegated to joke status on sites that believe in global warming? Let’s not sink to their level.
Northern hemisphere (former) speck (the one presumed to be Cycle 24) seems to have lost its magnetic identity. I only see a negative or south polarity in the latest magnetogram.
http://gong.nso.edu/Daily_Images/
I have to support Leif as well.
He may correct me, but from what I have read, it seems that he is making the point that there is not enough variability in the output of the sun to cause the apparent variability in the climate here on earth. This is clearly true as there is less than a 1% variability in the output of the sun over the course of a cycle, which would support about a 0.2K degree variance from top to bottom or 0.1K from centerline, which would be nearly undetectable, despite the habit of the AGW crowd of reporting temperatures to 2-3 decimal places.
However, that does not necessarily rule out that some other mechanism that is in some way dependent on the sun is responsible. The Earth’s atmosphere is a very complex and chaotic system. Skepticism of any simplistic hypothesis that claims to explain it is just reasonable prudence. The way to counter skepticism is to make predictions and await the results.
Doug (13:59:51) :
I have to support Leif as well.
He may correct me, but from what I have read, it seems that he is making the point that there is not enough variability in the output of the sun to cause the apparent variability in the climate here on earth. This is clearly true as there is less than a 1% variability in the output of the sun over the course of a cycle
Thanks for your support, but make the cycle variability about ten times smaller, more like 0.1% [agreed that less than 1% covers 0.1%, but so does less than 95% 🙂 ].
And, there is a difference between ‘not ruled out’ and ‘satisfactorily demonstrated’.
“Most of your posts are ad-hom attacks”
Leif, in sheer number of dust ups, particularly with experts, I am not remotely your peer.
“it seems that he is making the point that there is not enough variability in the output of the sun to cause the apparent variability in the climate here on earth. This is clearly true as there is less than a 1% variability in the output of the sun over the course of a cycle”
Leif will correct the 1% to .1%, but it is not clearly “true” that solar energy over the course of a cycle indicates that there is not enough variability for the sun to significantly affect the climate. A variability of 0.1% represents as much forcing as claimed by AGW for CO2, equivalent to about .13% of total solar irradiance. Cycle to cycle, of course, does not vary by that when smoothed, but over a longer period cycles are seen to increase and decrease in sunspot activity, which is seen to roughly correspond to solar energy affecting the climate. And the prevailing understanding is that there is a strong correlation between these changes and temperature. Leif’s position is similar to your own understanding of the AGW crowd reporting temp to 2-3 decimal points, but from hundreds of years in the past.
Doug (13:59:51) :
“… make predictions and await the results.”
Winter 2008-2009:
COLDEST Winter in North America, UK and northern Europe in 30 years;
Persistent northwesterly upper flow east of the Rockies
therefore, COLD in the northern Great Plains, Great Lakes, and northeast US
HEAVY lake-effect snow in US & Canadian “Snow Belt” (Great Lakes);
Above normal snowfall in the Pacific Northwest, from the Cascades west, including Portland & Seattle metro areas
At least one “Tehuantepecer” (strong to violent gap wind which occurs when Arctic air masses penetrate far enough south to cross the isthmus and reach the Gulf of Tehuantepec on the Mexican Pacific coast)
Large segments of the population blame the (now fairly well-publicized) blank sun, and “global warming” is subjected to unprecedented ridicule
Glenn (15:15:14) :
Leif will correct the 1% to .1%, but it is not clearly “true” that solar energy over the course of a cycle indicates that there is not enough variability for the sun to significantly affect the climate. […] Cycle to cycle, of course, does not vary by that when smoothed, but over a longer period cycles are seen to increase and decrease in sunspot activity.
But since they always return to the same minimum value [~zero] the variation stays within what we have seen during the last 100 years so has no long-term trend.
And the prevailing understanding is that there is a strong correlation between these changes and temperature.
There is no such understanding, as that would limit climate changes to what have been observed the last century or so.
Oops, misplaced a decimal point. Thanks for the correction.
“Results from Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) experiments show an upward trend in total solar irradiance of 0.036 percent per decade between the minima of solar cycles 21 and 22. The trend follows the increasing solar activity of recent decades and, if sustained, could raise global temperatures. Trends of total solar irradiance near this rate have been implicated as causal factors in climate change on century to millennial time scales. ”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/277/5334/1963
Leif, I’ve provided you with numerous references that support the fact of an accepted correlation between solar energy and temperature, that the IPCC attributes a part of the increase of the first half of the 20th century to solar irradiation increase, and on and on. We *have* seen a long term trend.
Glenn (20:02:18) :
“Results from Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) experiments show an upward trend in total solar irradiance of 0.036 percent per decade between the minima of solar cycles 21 and 22.
Please do not pollute this blog with references to obsolete papers. Willson’s claim of an increase of TSI between the minima of cycle 21 and 22 has long been debunked as a calibration problem of the ACRIM data.
How is the 0.1% change in variability in the cycles measured? Surely not spots?
Also, isn’t the difference between the weakest strongest cycles more than 50%?
Joachim (02:26:10) :
How is the 0.1% change in variability in the cycles measured? Surely not spots?
Measurement of the total amount of heat and light from the Sun, the Total Solar Irradiance, TSI, in Watt per square meter.
Also, isn’t the difference between the weakest strongest cycles more than 50%?
Yes, from 0.05% to 0.1%.
Leif Svalgaard (04:40:44) :
Measurement of the total amount of heat and light from the Sun, the Total Solar Irradiance, TSI, in Watt per square meter.
Over which wavelengths (or frequency) is the TSI measured? Using what kind of sensor?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (04:51:33) :
Over which wavelengths (or frequency) is the TSI measured? Using what kind of sensor?
See here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
Leif…so do i assume that by you not continuing our discussion at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/28/will-september-be-the-month-the-sun-truly-transitions-to-cycle-24/
you agree that every occurrence of Neptune/Uranus coming together in the last 700 years DID correlate with a solar minimum as per Dalton, Maunder,Sporer, Wolf?
On my way to work this morning, I came up with a pure conjecture about a possible mechanism that could link the activity of the Sun to climate variability on the Earth, without using irradiance.
As the solar winds subside, the oblong shape of the earths magnetic field becomes more spherical since there is left deflection. The center of the long tail is always on the side of Earth facing directly away from the Sun and is therefore the night side.
At night, the Earth loses a net energy to space, which lowers the night temperatures and accounts for the low end of the temperature average.
My conjecture is that perhaps the magnetic field distorts the atmosphere, if even only some trace gasses, so that a greenhouse effect could be extended to a greater extent into space around Earth, nighttime cooling could be slowed to some degree. It would not have to be the bulk of the atmosphere, just some ionized gas, or even just a “small puff of air”.
When the magnetosphere is more spherical, perhaps the night side can then give up more energy, leading to cooler times. If this is possible, it could have a much greater effect on the temperatures of earth than the variability of solar irradiance would imply.
Sadly, I have not found any links on the web supporting or dismissing this idea.
nobwainer (07:49:37) :
so do i assume that by you not continuing our discussion at
you agree that every occurrence of Neptune/Uranus coming together in the last 700 years DID correlate with a solar minimum as per Dalton, Maunder,Sporer, Wolf?
No, you can make no such assumption. You might have noticed that once the discussion strays too far away from science I stop paying attention. Like one of your statements: “we don’t know how gravity influences a plasma”. Yes we do know. 99.99[…]99% of the Universe [including the Sun] is a plasma and we know very well how gravity works with that.
Doug (09:38:04) :
As the solar winds subside, the oblong shape of the earths magnetic field becomes more spherical […]
Sadly, I have not found any links on the web supporting or dismissing this idea.
And ‘sadly’ you won’t. The Earth’s magnetosphere and atmosphere do not interact anywhere close to what you describe. For one, the night side ‘tail’ is VERY long, like 10 times the distance to the Moon.
Leif,
I think that you misunderstand me. You are apparently assuming that I mean the entire downstream portion of the magentosphere. There is no reason that every cubic inch of it would have to contribute, just a portion that interacts with the atmosphere, that is also influenced by the sun. For example in this article, the US Geological Survey talks about the interaction of the magentic field with the ionosphere.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://geomag.usgs.gov/images/magnetosphere_simple.jpg&imgrefurl=http://geomag.usgs.gov/intro.php&h=287&w=520&sz=23&tbnid=F7ob7bXq1HAJ::&tbnh=72&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddiagram%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bmagnetosphere&hl=en&usg=__y_yGApmq39QLO2RV8S_mOouH6d0=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1
I am not sure if the deflection of the magnetic field is significant at that altitude, but if it is, the ionosphere will be effected in some way. We all know that the ionosphere changes when the sun is active to allow for radio enthusists to have more success at long distance communication. Perhaps it is not shape, but composition. I.e., in a less active solar environment the radiation that is bounced is biased more toward the infrared bands.
I am not claiming that any of this is happening, but I am wondering if it is possible?
Doug (11:05:11) :
I am not sure if the deflection of the magnetic field is significant at that altitude
It takes place 40,000 miles up.
There are effects associated with the changing size of the magnetosphere, for instance, the tendency of geomagnetic activity [and aurorae and satellite drag, etc] to be larger near the equinoxes is likely due to the magnetosphere being slightly smaller a these times, but it is unlikely that that has anything to do with the radiation budget in the lower atmosphere. Although you can find people that will claim that [and weirder things].
Leif,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I guess I will stop searching for a suit to wear to the ceremonies awarding the Nobel Prize in Physics.
“Please do not pollute this blog with references to obsolete papers. Willson’s claim of an increase of TSI between the minima of cycle 21 and 22 has long been debunked as a calibration problem of the ACRIM data.”
Really? Here’s the ACRIM website:
http://acrim.com/
“The Earth’s weather and climate regime is determined by the total solar irradiance (TSI) and its interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and landmasses. Evidence from both 29 years of direct satellite monitoring and historical proxy data leaves no doubt that solar luminosity in general, and TSI in particular, are intrinsically variable phenomena. Subtle variations of TSI resulting from periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovich cycles: ~20, 40 and 100 Kyrs) cause climate change ranging from major ice ages to the present inter-glacial, clearly demonstrating the dominance of TSI in climate change on long timescales. TSI monitoring, cosmogenic isotope analyses and correlative climate data indicate that variations of the TSI have been a significant climate forcing during the current inter-glacial period (the last ~ 10 Kyrs.). Phenomenological analyses of TSI monitoring results during the past (nearly) three decades, TSI proxies during the past 400 years and the records of surface temperature show that TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era. The periodic character of the TSI record indicates that solar forcing of climate change will likely be the dominant variable contributor to climate change in the future.”
A paper in the Journal Of Geophysical Research from a year ago (2007),
“If ACRIM satellite composite is adopted the Sun
might have further contributed to the recent global warming.”
http://acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Scafetta%20&%20West_2007JD008437.pdf
Long been debunked?