There’s been a little discussion about the plage area that came around the solar rim in the last two days, and now it appears that it has formed a spot. (h/t to Leif Svalgaard)
Click for full sized image
Note that other similar sized black “specks” on the image are stuck pixels in the SOHO imager.
The question now is: how long will the sunspeck last? Longevity has not been a virtue for similarly sized sunspecks this year.
UPDATE: As of 1600 UTC 10-05-2008 the speck is gone on the latest SOHO MDI – Anthony
Jan Janssens has an interesting discussion on it (h/t to John-x)
4 October 08 – There is a new sunspotgroup visible on the southern solar hemisphere (as already reported yesterday by Pete Lawrence on the Spaceweather-website).
Belgian solar observers saw earlier this morning at least one sunspot clearly in this region.
Interestingly, Locarno (07:15 UT ; Q=2) and SIDC/Ukkel (07:45 UT ; Q=2?) did not report anything just a few hours earlier… Kanzelhöhe (09:03UT) did notice a bipolar group.
My own observations (C8, 68x) do not show “clearly” a B-group: a clear Axx for sure, but if there’s still something there, it rather looks like a small photospheric region imbedded in somewhat brighter faculae fields… A greyish pore at most (at least around 8:30UT, with Q=3 and some cirrus). The region is also very nice in H-alpha: 3 closely packed and relatively bright small areas, with some dark fibrils in the neighbourhood.
GONG-images also show the group. NSO-magnetograms clearly reflect an overnight enhancement of the magnetic fields in this region. The polarity is that of a SC23-group… at a latitude of at least -20°… This can possibly still be a high latitude SC23-group. Late June 1997, NOAA 8056 -with SC22-polarity- appeared with a latitude of +17°. See SOHO for magnetogram, and Kanzelhöhe for a drawing. The nearby group is NOAA 8055, a SC23-group (= new cycle) at +15°! And this happened more than a year after cycle minimum and the start of SC23. I have no magnetograms of earlier SC-transits to evaluate how exceptional or common all this is. At least this is a new element for discussion!
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html
Glad I tuned in just now.
It’ll probably be gone in 10 minutes.
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
——————————————————-
http://ieg.or.kr/abstractII/G0102523037.PDF
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/309
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-3X9YR6N-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9f89b27c032ed62c31c9593387adb5e7
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf
http://www.aimes.ucar.edu/MEETINGS/2005_AIMES_SSC/SSC%20PUBLICATIONS/Millenial_CCSM_Schimel%20copy.pdf
A watched kettle never boils.
I had to clean the dust from my monitor before I could pick that one out. The article seems to indicate that this is, or maybe, a SC23 event. So there is still no apparent SC24 ramping up.
Interesting times we live in.
What a difference a day makes 🙂 Yesterday I was of the firm opinion that this was a SC24 spot even though the polarity seemed to indicate SC23. As the spot has now rotated into a better view, it looks more and more like a SC23 spot. Now, spot groups sometimes rotate [not the usual solar rotation] so it is tough to say. Also 3% of all groups have ‘reversed’ polarity [probably because they rotated]. All in all, this is a difficult call. What is interesting is that the group looks healthy and strong in the magnetic field but anemic in visual. Could this be a sign of the poor contrast that L&P speculate? We’ll see what Bill Livingston says if he gets a chance to observe the spot.
“There’s a little black spot on the sun today
It’s the same old thing as yesterday
There’s a black hat caught in a high tree top
There’s a flag-pole rag and the wind won’t stop.”
Sting, King of Pain
As I noted yesterday, “…another possible SC23 event. Seems to be rather high in latitude for this late in the cycle. It has gotten a bit stronger throughout the day today, though it remains to be seen if this will even develop into a sunspeck.” Well, I guess the question as to whether this would develop into something visible has been answered. The latest magnetogram is still showing black leading white, though it’s not quite as unambiguous appearing as yesterday. NOAA is also reporting on this as sunspot activity:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/solar_indices.html
Also, in the latest continuum image from SOHO, the sunspeck appears to be a bit weaker {1600 UT} than in the image in this thread.
Jan Janssens (4 October 08)
“… This can possibly still be a high latitude SC23-group…”
Dr. Tony Phillips ( http://spaceweather.com )
” The high southern latitude of the active region means it is probably a member of new Solar Cycle 24. ”
Leif Svalgaard (11:44:22) :
“…All in all, this is a difficult call…”
Leif Svalgaard (11:44:22) :
” Could this be a sign of the poor contrast that L&P speculate? ”
This does seem to be (visually) the weakest of weak specks yet.
Is it ON the L & P decreasing contrast line, or below it (i.e. is the contrast decrease accelerating)?
John-X (12:20:16) :
” Could this be a sign of the poor contrast that L&P speculate? ”
This does seem to be (visually) the weakest of weak specks yet.
Is it ON the L & P decreasing contrast line, or below it (i.e. is the contrast decrease accelerating)?
We won’t know until Bill L measures it. The trend is for higher temperature [disappearance of the hydroxyl lines] and thus lower contrast, making the spots harder to see.
In light of this interesting yet at the same time rather slow development, you may go here to read this excellent speech on freedom by Vaclav Klaus, Czech President. Here he makes the superb point that, of all things, “global warming” is an assault on freedom. Something in keeping with the spirit of this blog and its commenters.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ff0796e1-e571-4b15-9d0a-1d53dff2a6bc
Could someone tell me…
Would we have been able to see “Specks” of this size a hundred years ago or do we only see them now due to the technology of our observation equipment.
Thanks
OT. We just had a BBC TV programme here about the possibility that Britain is often hit by small tsunamis. Evidence seems to suggest that a number of tsunamis from 1,000 years ago up until 1854 resulted in deaths and destruction with the South West taking the majority of the hits. The (BBC) programme was ended by the presenter saying that with climate change Britain could be hit more due to higher sea levels creating higher pressures on the sea bed, and therefore more bed movement. How about that then? Even on a programme about earthquakes and tsunamis, the good old BBC still manage a little scare about climate change!
There was a fairly large solar flare/prominence on September 29th, 2008 (beyond the rim of the Sun and facing away from the Earth) which was captured by the Stereo Ahead satellite (ahead of the Earth in the orbit and as such sees beyond the rim of the Sun on the right.)
The prominence is probably related to the sunspot group we were watching last week as its high northern latitude matches up. Maybe the Sun is actually waking up.
Great mov movie of the flare/prominence here.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0810/304erupt_rt_crop1024_med.mov
Tom hall (12:58:51) :
Would we have been able to see “Specks” of this size a hundred years ago or do we only see them now due to the technology of our observation equipment.
Yes we would. One of the best solar telescopes in existence today was built in 1912. Now, if we go back two hundred years or three hundred, the answer is no, although from 1850 on we would have seen them. A different question is if we would have counted the speck, and before 1893, the answer is no.
Would that spot (and many like it) have been spotted before we had all these new imaging systems? It seems to me, as a layman, that sunpots recorded in modern times have no bearing on sunspots recorded throughout history. Am I missing something here, because it would suggest that this would still be recorded as spotless? Is that correct?
Bobby Lane (12:50:58) :
” Here [Vaclav Klaus, Czech President] makes the superb point that, of all things, “global warming” is an assault on freedom. ”
Having lived under communism, he quickly recognized the parallels between the communist urge to control everyone and everything, and the “need” to limit freedom of choice (especially economic freedom of choice), in order to “save the planet.”
This past week we learned that meat and milk must be strictly rationed, not because of any shortages, but to “save the planet.”
What you can drive has to be chosen for you, what you can eat must be chosen for you, what’s next?
Oh, how silly of me. What you can THINK must be chosen for you.
Save the Planet!
Freedom is Slavery!
Take a breath John. You can rely on climate variability. Each generation must make the same mistake and correct it over and over again. Your freedom will return. Cap and trade will be sent to the junkbond basement within my lifetime and yours if you are half a century old and relatively healthy. Have some chocolate. It will put you in a better mood.
The speck has now become invisible:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html
But Pamela,
What about us old farts who have seen 50 then 60 come and go? When all I can have is bread (soy of course) and water, it’d be nice to look forward to a last meal of a good steak (cow, not soy).
Mike
Pamela Gray
“Cap and trade will be sent to the junkbond basement within my lifetime and yours if you are half a century old and relatively healthy.”
I am going to need some help to make it for another 25 years and I cannot eat chocolate so if I can be wired up just right I might make it and a few “watts” may really help.
Pamela Gray (14:40:13) :
” Have some chocolate. It will put you in a better mood. ”
I ALWAYS eat chocolate (antioxidants, dontcha know). This is one of my heroines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
Two Pounds of chocolate a week! And a glass of port with lunch and dinner.
But I take my chocolate straight – 100% nothing added, so I only need about 8 ounces a week.
You on the other hand, should have a latte’
You might be less sanguine if you got up to Seattle and Portland more often.
Things’ll look quite different than they do from yer porch out there in Enterprise (are you a trekkie?)
John-X (15:33:40) :
This is one of my heroines: Jeanne_Calment
She was once interviewed about her age and the journalist asked: “are you not bothered by wrinkles”. Her answer: “Young man, I have only one wrinkle and I’m sitting on it!”
Leif Svalgaard (14:58:09) :
“The speck has now become invisible ”
We’re going to have to start timing these things.
Who has a stopwatch?
Sanguine is exactly why I moved back to my home town. The Willamette Valley I-5 corridor gets overheated about everything from field burning to guns. The pace was just too fast, the buy-buy-buy on credit-credit-credit mentality out of control, and the vast array of buying choices made my head ache when I entered a Target store. In the stores I now shop in, we have 3 choices of shampoo, not 50. If I want bluejeans, there is only one choice: men’s sizes. If I want socks, I better learn how to knit again. And if the country is in a frothin fit over something, we just mull it over at the local tavern and wonder at the amount of stress other people must be feelin, cuz we sure don’t feel it here.
That little wisp of a speck still counts…
“Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity
SDF Number 278 Issued at 2200Z on 04 Oct 2008
“…New Region 1003 (S23E28) was numbered today.”
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html
Pamela Gray (15:46:03) :
“…if the country is in a frothin fit over something, we just mull it over at the local tavern and wonder at the amount of stress other people must be feelin, cuz we sure don’t feel it here.”
You can probably buy a 20KW generator and a big ol’ tank o’ diesel, and not even be sued!
NOAA had a daily sunspot number of 12 today.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/solar_indices.html
With this morning’s Ursigram, the SIDC estimated ISN was zero, and if the speck does not reappear overnight, tomorrow’s SIDC ISN will be zero also.
From what we learned in August, NOAA regards SIDC’s number as official, so the “official” count for October 4th should still be zero. Even though it got a NOAA number.
I’ve learnt to immediately resort to the magnetorgrams. “spots” or “specks”, or, as in this case a “specklette” are much more visible in the magnetic domain.
It’s really hard to tell whether it’s 23 or 24. Also, it’s really stretching the imagination to call this a sunspot, when the backgroun field is only slightly less pronounced.
John-X, no you have it bass-awkward. he phrase should read:
“slavery, subservience and subsitance is freedom”
Hehe, i got lucky, my house on Whidbey has a commercial 10kw propane generator. It’s great for those 4 day power outages after the windstorms.
[…] via Bobby Lane on Watts Up With That? […]
President Klaus is a breath of fresh air, a breath that is moving around the world and gaining praise everywhere it is felt.
He approaches the subject from a singular angle. Having been subjected to brutal and inefficient totalitarian rule, his starting point on any issue is that no one and no country should have to experience what he and his country suffered. Where he sees a multi-national movement seeking to impose the oppressive control he experienced under the USSR it is hardly surprising that his first reaction is to resist.
He has spoken in similar terms on many issues but has a particular concern about the political agenda of the radical warmists because he sees no difference between what they propose and what kept his country subjugated for decades.
I must, of course, make clear that this is my opinion. I do not claim to speak on behalf of President Klaus.
That ‘sunspleck’ is so darned close to background noise it gets lost in the uncertainty. If you wished to study something that faint, I highly suggest taking 25 images, 25 flats and 25 darks and then run it though some good IRAF routines, like the Caltech pipeline, then see if you still have something.
As a matter of fact, I would like to see a one of these things dithered to a higher resolution. Let’s get a better look.
Lief: How long have we had the Sun under constant 24 hr monitoring so that temporary spots would actually be found and then observed to have disappeared in a matter of hours?
This spot and Sept.11 spot are uncertain to have been noticed without 24 hr solar monitoring.
Pamela — there are more anti-oxidants in a ripe Willamette Valley tomato than in a bar of chocolate, and a much smaller carbon footprint! Beer is another story altogether. My gripe (admittedly one among many) is that AGW crowd is taxing me (us) in the cause of preventing the ripening of tomatoes. What makes sense about that?
PS — why hasn’t our all-powerful Gummit promulgated a program to bailout the Sun and stimulate SC24?
Pamela. Chocolate is full of anti-oxidants, but, red wine -Cabernet Savignon especially from Australia and Chile- is full of the anti-ageing agent Resveratrol (Which is NOT an anti-oxidant!).
Obviously, one should have a glass of properly aged Cabernet with one’s chocolate. Or an appropriate slice of cheese.
Would this spec have been observed 100 years ago?
Robert Bateman (22:03:03) :
How long have we had the Sun under constant 24 hr monitoring so that temporary spots would actually be found and then observed to have disappeared in a matter of hours?
This spot and Sept.11 spot are uncertain to have been noticed without 24 hr solar monitoring.
Extensive monitoring goes way back to the 1880s as the Greenwich observatory collaborated with observatories in India. The Japanese have observed the Sun since about 1900 and Mt Wilson since 1912 [their website http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/intro.html says: “. . . observing the Sun every clear day since 1912”].
1912 works, as you have 3 observations spaced around the globe. A fleeting spot would then have a good chance of being recorded.
Mike Dubrasich (23:19:23) :
“…why hasn’t our all-powerful Gummit promulgated a program to bailout the Sun and stimulate SC24?”
They only “fix” problems of which they themselves are the cause.
Interesting review of paper by Sloan and Wofendale: Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover.
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/
An Important Announcement Concerning the Cause of Sunspecks
As you may know, the Earth emits as much radio energy as a small star and with the advent of WiFi, Bluetooth and the iPhone, we as a society are continually emitting ever increasing amounts of electromagnetic (EM) transmissions. These EM emissions are interacting with the solar wind, forcing it back upon itself and therefore interfering with the Sun’s ability to generate sunspots. This is predicted by peer-reviewed models showing ever lower solar cycles in the future and is proven by the delayed start of cycle 24.
There is a scientific consensus that humanity is emitting every larger amounts of EM radiation and this is the cause of Anthropogenic Solar Cooling (ASC) – a major threat to not only the Earth, but life on Mars and Venus as well. The science is settled as almost every solar specialist with whom I have spoken on this issue agrees with the ASC hypothesis (there is one exception to the consensus, a Leif Somebody, but we ASCer’s write him off as a skeptic, a crank and a neer’do’well).
It is only a matter of time before the Mainstream Media realizes the scope of the approaching catastrophe and headlines ASC to boost failing circulation. This free publicity will shift priority funding away from other research and get Al Gore and Greenpeace to further publicize the threat of ASC by using it to raise hung piles of cash from the ordinary and scientifically intimidated citizens.
We MUST stop ASC now – Turn off your cell phone, wireless router, motors, lights, generators, and all other electric devices to reduce your EM footprint and save not only all life on the Earth, but on Mars and Venus as well.
Can’t get your EM footprint any smaller? Please visit my website and consider buying EM credits to offset your emissions. The poor third-world people who live in harmony with nature and lack the able to generate man-made EM waves will gladly sell their unused EM credits using my corporation as the sole broker.
Be Free, Be EM Free ™
This humor originally appeared at: http://deenorris.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/stop-anthropogenic-solar-cooling-now/
Dee,
I almost choked! Great post.
Dee Norris-
“Can’t get your EM footprint any smaller? Please visit my website and consider buying EM credits to offset your emissions.”
Brilliant!
Your EM waves also impact my aura. I’ve been imaging it with Kirlian photography for many years, and clearly your cell-phone and microwave oven usage has resulted in the profound changes in my aura’s magnitude and phase over the past few years.
I strongly recommend that you save and post your comment over at dot-earth. The responses should be very entertaining.
Dee Norris makes fun of this (and it is funny, well done). Who’ll bet the environmental lobby would NOT propose something like this?
EG
So whats the verdict on this spot? Is it sc23 or sc24?> Also does count for the day or not?
@paminator:
Kirlian captures images of natural EM, so you were safe if you forgo all man-made devices
Feel free to post it at dot-earth, but track it back to my website, rather than WUWT, I would not want to start a blog war for Anthony to have to deal with.
http://deenorris.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/stop-anthropogenic-solar-cooling-now/
Pamela,
Can my wife and I come live with you?
JimB
Budahmon (06:57:47) :
Interesting review of paper by Sloan and Wofendale: Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover.
The review concludes:
“Because the standard deviation of the lower cloud cover data is so high (nearly 1%), Sloan’s and Wolfendale’s attempt to to use Forbush decreases to verify or reject the possibility that cosmic ray flux changes induce lower cloud cover changes was poorly conceived. The data is far to noisy to tell one way or the other. […]”.
Now, why wouldn’t that not also apply to the attempts to show that there is a connection?
I’m writing from Italy and I apologise for my English.
I’d like to make a question about SIDC’s method of counting sunspot in their database. This one
http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/
As we know Noaa counts sunspots with Wolf Number method, that means we can’t have a number below 11. Is this right?
Now, in Sidc database, we found, for example, on 29th september, the number 8.
HoW did Sidc calculate this number which is not a Wolf number?
Thanks
Damian74 (09:05:22) :
I’d like to make a question about SIDC’s method of counting sunspot in their database.
The basic reason for reported counts below 11 is that since the count depends on how big the telescope is, how clear the air is, how good the observer is, etc, the ‘raw’ count, e.g. 11, is multiplied by a factor, k, that is determined individually for each observer. An observer with a large telescope may have k = 0.5 to compensate for that. This explains why you see numbers less than 11.
There is another subtlety: suppose you have two observatories [with equal k-value] only, on opposite sides of the Earth. On a given day, A observes a small spot, but because the spot may have disappeared when B makes his observation 12 hours later and does not see the spot. How should SIDC count? Should the count be 0, 5.5, or 11? At present, I think SIDC would count 5.5. This was not always the case. Up to 1980 [when SIDC took over] the method was different: The Zurich observers were the primary observers, so if they made an observation on a given day [even if they saw no spots] that observation was the ONLY one used in the calculation of the sunspot number. If no observation was made [bad weather, observer sick, etc] the observation from a secondary observer was used. If he also did not make any observation that day, a tertiary observer was used, etc., to fill in the missing data.
So, when you have only a few, short-lived spots, you can get quite different results.
Christopher (08:32:21) :
So what’s the verdict on this spot? Is it sc23 or sc24?> Also does count for the day or not?
The region has rotated some more, which may indicate that also rotated before we first saw it, which would make the polarity clearly SC23. It’s high latitude argues for SC24, so what to do? In my own statistics of this I enter a count of 0.5 for SC23 and 0.5 for SC24. BTW, Bill Livingston did not catch the spot, so no measurements of its magnetic field or contrast.
Dee Norris (07:31:12) :
The increase in EM emissions will be correlated to increases in brain cancer similar to CO2 and temperature and this revelation along with ACS will severely punish those nasty users of EM devices.
I’ve done another analysis here http://dreamofthought.blogspot.com/
Look at the two wavelets, and it looks frightening.
Leif Svalgaard (09:44:08) :
Damian74 (09:05:22) :
It seems that those researchers basing their conclusions on historic sunspot numbers might be a bit misguided if they ignore the historical observational changes that you have indicated?
Leif Svalgaard said,
Tom hall (12:58:51) :
Would we have been able to see “Specks” of this size a hundred years ago or do we only see them now due to the technology of our observation equipment.
Yes we would. One of the best solar telescopes in existence today was built in 1912. Now, if we go back two hundred years or three hundred, the answer is no, although from 1850 on we would have seen them. A different question is if we would have counted the speck, and before 1893, the answer is no.
My question is at what DATE after 1893 were these specks counted and logged.
edcon (10:26:27) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:44:08) :
It seems that those researchers basing their conclusions on historic sunspot numbers might be a bit misguided if they ignore the historical observational changes that you have indicated?
Yes, you are quite right. A large part of my current work [when you guys leave me alone 🙂 ] is concerned with determining how much the official sunspot series are off. The object is to get a series that is free from such inhomogeneities. Predictably, that is being met with resistance from some quarters, but we are making slow progress towards breaking that down. I’m giving a presentation at the upcoming AGU meeting in December on this:
SH13A-1109
Origins of the Wolf Sunspot Number Series: Geomagnetic Underpinning
Cliver, E W, Space Vehicles Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory &
* Svalgaard, L
The Wolf or International sunspot number (SSN) series is based on the work of Swiss astronomer Rudolf Wolf (1816-1893). Following the discovery of the sunspot cycle by Schwabe in 1843, Wolf culled sunspot counts from journals and observatory reports and combined them with his own observations to produce a SSN series that extended from 1700-1893. Thereafter the SSN record has been maintained by the Zurich Observatory and, since 1981, by the Royal Observatory of Belgium. The 1700-1893 SSN record constructed by Wolf has not been modified since his death. Here we show that Wolf’s SSNs were not based solely on reports of sunspots but were calibrated by reference to geomagnetic range observations which closely track the sunspot number. Nor were these corrections small; for example Wolf multiplied the long series (1749-1796) of sunspot counts obtained by Staudacher by factors of 2.0 and 1.25, in turn, to obtain the numbers in use today. It is not surprising then that a competing SSN series obtained by Hoyt and Schatten based on group sunspot numbers is different, generally lower than that of Wolf. Comparison of the International number with current magnetic range observations indicates that, as Wolf found, the magnetic range (specifically, the average annual Y-component of mid-latitude stations) can be used as an independent check on the validity and stability of the SSN series. Moreover, the geomagnetic range series, which in itself is a long-term proxy of solar FUV emission, can be used to resolve discrepancies between the Wolf and Group SSN series during the 19th century. Wolf’s successors changed the counting method for small spots introducing a further 20% upward discontinuity after Wolf’s death, and later again by the same amount in ~1946.
REPLY: Leif I went to your research page http://www.leif.org/research/
to see if you had a PDF of this. I looked at several papers, and immediately rejected them, didn’t bother to read them at all. Why?
The PDF’s (that I looked at such as http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf ) have the pages rotated, making reading them online in a PDF reader a maddening excercise. Why in the world would you publish this way? You are hamstringing yourself. Readability is king. – Anthony
This morning I had to melt my chocolate so that I could drink it hot! It was snowing just up the road! As the swirling clouds clear from the mountains that nearly surround me, I am able to see more and more snow, from a dusting to solid white mountain faces. Our out-of-town hunters are up there! If any of them thought we would have relatively balmy weather in the upper hunting areas (which was what NOAA said), they must be packing up and leaving about now. That is if they can get out of the snow drift. The two-pan horse camp has to be a field of white from what I can see down here in the valley. That means the weather service was WAY off about elevation and chance of snow. It is on average warmer than last year, but snow has hit earlier.
Rob (10:57:22) :
My question is at what DATE after 1893 were these specks counted and logged.
6 December 1893 when Rudolf Wolf died and could no longer prevent his assistant [and successor] Alfred Wolfer from counting the specks.
Rickj (10:25:47) :
Look at the two wavelets, and it looks frightening.
The text seems to claim that they are BOTH the last 11400 years and are based on the same data. Perhaps correcting the text would be useful.
Apart from that the 11-year cycle is clear in the first plot, but very weak in the second plot, somehow casting doubt on it. Perhaps some consistent labeling and/or explanation of what the axes mean would be useful, too.
REPLY:The PDF’s (that I looked at such as http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf ) have the pages rotated, making reading them online in a PDF reader a maddening excercise. Why in the world would you publish this way? You are hamstringing yourself. Readability is king.
Most are meant as presentations and almost all presentation devices [projecting onto a screen for a large audience] use landscape mode. It is trivial to instruct your PDF reader to rotate the pages. If you use your browser to view the PDF left-click on on the PDF toolbar, select more tools, scroll down to and select rotate clockwise. If you are using the Adobe reader select tools from the menu bar, then as above.
REPLY: Yep, the rotate feature in Adobe reader is well hidden, I didn’t know it existed. Learned something new today, thanks. – Anthony
REPLY: Yep, the rotate feature in Adobe reader is well hidden, I didn’t know it existed. Learned something new today, thanks. – Anthony
You could almost deduce from the fact that my presentations were rotated that the feature had to be there, otherwise I would have had two versions of everything [portrait and landscape]. 🙂
Dr. Svalgaard, I would very much appreciate you insights into any possible interplay upon climate between what’s happening with the sun and the shifting polarity and magnetism here on Earth. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080905/116577165.html
The truly well-hidden option is: CTRLSHIFT- to rotate
That (a lifetime of taxes to cover additional social experimentation) is exactly what I’m afraid of.
Ultimately these cap-and-trade politicians pose a serious threat to individual wealth. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I like what little money I have to remain in my own pocket. But… I’ll have another cup of cocoa and see if things don’t look a little brighter when I get up from my nap.
OLD FARTS UNITE!!!
Craig Moore (12:00:52) :
I would very much appreciate you insights into any possible interplay upon climate between what’s happening with the sun and the shifting polarity and magnetism here on Earth.
The Earth magnetic field has changed polarity thousands of times in the past and life is still around, so no big worry there. There are, indeed, good evidence of a decrease in the magnetic field and of movements of the magnetic poles. Just moving the poles does not decrease the field, but the field is decreasing because the dynamo that creates it is weakening. Now, the Earth is not a simple dipole with two magnetic poles. When the Earth’s magnetic field was first mapped two-three hundred years ago it was actually thought that there were four poles. This is because there are strong irregularities in the field and there are significant magnetism arising from these ‘other’ poles, so when the dipole reverses, the magnetic field will not go to zero, but will just become weaker and more disorganized. The radiation belts will become less stable. Birds will have to rely more on the Sun than on their internal compass, but all this has happened before. We’ll learn about how the Earth’s magnetosphere works from this [if we haven’t figured it out already – it may take perhaps 500 years for this to play out].
Leif Svalgaard (12:46:05) :
Craig Moore (12:00:52) :
I would very much appreciate you insights into any possible interplay upon climate
And I forgot about the climate ! Perhaps because I don’t think there will be climatic effects from this. Now, if you believe that the cosmic rays are controlling our climate, then a weaker magnetic field will increase the cosmic ray flux and the low clouds and perhaps decrease the temperature, but that is just speculation [ducking…].
Bill P (12:43:10) :
OLD FARTS UNITE!!!
Hey, watch that methane… 🙂
REPLY: Is that first year methane or multi-year methane? – Anthony
Tony:
Watch it lads, lest ye be aspersed as flatus earthers.
Leif Svalgaard
I want to thank you for your tremendous insight and work that is very helpful to an old old engineer interested in learning something new. I don’t know how you find the time to respond to all comments and especially the testy ones.
I thought I saw a good one but it was a speck on the computer screen.
BillP:
“Not to put too fine a point on it, but I like what little money I have to remain in my own pocket.”
And wouldn’t we all?…we’re considering selling our home and moving into a motor home that we would park in an adjacent state to where we now live, thus avoiding property taxes AND income taxes, along with a lower heating bill than we have now :*)
lebert:
“Watch it lads, lest ye be aspersed as flatus earthers”
Mightent that be “flatulantus Earthers”?
Jimb
Two three or not two three, that is the question;
Leif Svalgaard (08:53:51) :”Now, why wouldn’t that not also apply to the attempts to show that there is a connection?”
Who’s attempt?
edcon (15:12:15) :
I want to thank you for your tremendous insight and work that is very helpful to an old old engineer interested in learning something new.
Thanks for your interest and questions.
Leif Svalgaard (11:14:59) : edcon (10:26:27) :Leif Svalgaard (09:44:08) :
REPLY: Leif I went to your research page http://www.leif.org/research/
to see if you had a PDF of this. I looked at several papers, and immediately rejected them, didn’t bother to read them at all. Why?
The PDF’s (that I looked at such as http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf ) have the pages rotated, making reading them online in a PDF reader a maddening excercise. Why in the world would you publish this way? You are hamstringing yourself. Readability is king. – Anthony
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Anthony,
I have no problems accessing and viewing these. With Lief’s permission, I will gladly make them ‘”ct right” in the viewer of your choice.
garron (19:34:01) :
Who’s attempt?
A Henrik Svensmark has attempted to show that GCRs and [the very noisy] low cloud record are correlated and that there is a physical connection.
“act right”
Leif Svalgaard (11:37:27) : REPLY: Yep, the rotate feature in Adobe reader is well hidden, I didn’t know it existed. Learned something new today, thanks. – Anthony
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
That was it? Silly guy… 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (11:14:59) :
“Moreover, the geomagnetic range series, which in itself is a long-term proxy of solar FUV emission, can be used to resolve discrepancies between the Wolf and Group SSN series during the 19th century.”
I am interested in this area and also trying to test the accuracy of the sunspot counts pre 1912. Does anyone have any proxy data that can be used to cross check the Wolf SSN’s as well as cycle lengths. I am looking for data that is measured on a yearly basis.
nobwainer (20:17:08) :
“Moreover, the geomagnetic range series, which in itself is a long-term proxy of solar FUV emission, can be used to resolve discrepancies between the Wolf and Group SSN series during the 19th century.”
I am interested in this area and also trying to test the accuracy of the sunspot counts pre 1912. Does anyone have any proxy data that can be used to cross check the Wolf SSN’s as well as cycle lengths. I am looking for data that is measured on a yearly basis.
I’m working on such a series [have a preliminary one, of course], but the ‘adjustment’ will not change the lengths of the cycles.
Bill P (12:43:10) :”Ultimately these cap-and-trade politicians pose a serious threat to individual wealth.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Only under a dictatorship. The elected will always moderate to the “electable” position(s).
Leif Svalgaard (20:31:28) :
nobwainer (20:17:08) :
If you want to play [at your own risk] with my series [the corrected sunspot number and the derived TSI], you can get them here [in different formats]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Corrected%20SSN%20and%20TSI.xls
http://www.leif.org/research/Corrected%20SSN%20and%20TSI.txt
http://www.leif.org/research/Corrected%20SSN%20and%20TSI.prn
Leif Svalgaard (20:09:41) : “A Henrik Svensmark has attempted to show that GCRs and [the very noisy] low cloud record are correlated and that there is a physical connection.”
I’ll get back to this in a day or so. I’m under the impression that he is attempting to validate a theory.
garron (20:43:32) :
I’ll get back to this in a day or so. I’m under the impression that he is attempting to validate a theory.
So far, the ‘validation’ is a correlation.
Thanks Leif….working though them now
edcon:
LS has been scholar, a gentleman & a jolly good fellow… 😉
I’m here in chilly & foggy Rhode Island helping the in-laws getting ready for their big reunion. One thing I’m looking fwd to is teasing the family astrophysicist with questions about heliophysical models, SC#24, TSI, GCR flux & climate. I’ll be out of my depth, horribly, but it’ll make for good conversation over beer & steaks. And just in case anyone brings up AGW or an incipient little ice age, I’ll have my talking points ready…. http://i32.tinypic.com/28h3dqh.jpg http://i27.tinypic.com/25fuk8w.jpg
As for the sun, here’s what I’ve learnt thus far of the likely effect the sun has generally on climate (starting with what’s NOT likely):
It’s likely not TSI (nor sunspots nor facular UV, it’s not much different from the 1950’s), nor the solar wind (it’s where it was in the early 20th C), not marine thermomagnetism nor terawatt-level solar storms (quite a bit shy of the hourly petawatt scale) and certainly not barycentric perturbations.
That leaves us with decreased heliomagnetic output (relative to the big minimum of the mid-1950’s leading into SC19), increased galactic cosmic ray flux, an unexpected contemporary increase in cloud cover & commensurate albedo.
So naturally we then understand that with the current spotless day count climbing with a strong trend comparable with 19th century solar cycles http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution, it suggests we might finally see the anecdotal yet spurious historical role of sunspots reveal the actual role of heliomagnetism and galactic cosmic rays with historical periods of relative coolth here on Earth.
Leif Svalgaard (20:59:45) :”So far, the ‘validation’ is a correlation.”
If you have evidence, or a verifiable direct Svensmark quote, inditing him as a disingenuous scientist — please, lay it on me.
Otherwise, please let me finish reading the “cloud” rebuttals to the rebuttals of the rebuttals and so forth.
So far, I have found no replication or review of his physical lab work.
garron (03:11:27) :
If you have evidence, or a verifiable direct Svensmark quote, inditing him as a disingenuous scientist — please, lay it on me.
Svensmark is [hopefully] sincere. You can easily find references to his work without my help, see e.g. his book “the chilling stars” or some such.
So far, I have found no replication or review of his physical lab work.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2006/cosmicclouds.asp
Dr. Svalgaard, in you opinion, where might Dr. Shaviv have taken a wrong turn: http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Craig Moore (14:24:43) :
where might Dr. Shaviv have taken a wrong turn
The issue of cosmic rays and temperature millions of years ago is so uncertain that I would not attach much significance to it. The real test should be with our modern data. To me, the most important fact is that the Sun’s magnetic state and the the solar wind [and hence the cosmic ray intensity] right now is what it was a century ago, while the climate is not. If you counter that the CRs only accounts for a small part of the climate change, then you can recover from that difference, but I think that CR advocates would like their mechanism to be a primary driver of climate so would not relegate CRs to be just a minor contributor.
Leif Svalgaard (05:30:45) :
“The real test should be with our modern data. To me, the most important fact is that the Sun’s magnetic state and the the solar wind [and hence the cosmic ray intensity] right now is what it was a century ago, while the climate is not.”
You seem to push this argument quite a bit. I would think you would need to go back further than a 100 years to see the sun in a similar position…prob more likely at the start of the Dalton. The deviation in true temp today is prob not far away from a century ago and we are still getting off a hi point, not like a century ago.
This reminds me of my freshman class in chemistry. Standing alone, two chemicals do nothing. They don’t burn your skin, smoke, or make loud noises. Combine them and the air is filled with a thousand stink bombs. cycles that alone, do nothing, can coincide and cover my home with cold snow for longer than I can remember. Could that be why correlation is found to be closer and closer to 1.0 when several different cycles (which are relatively anemic cycles on their own) coincide and then compared to temperature differences?
nobwainer (06:22:28) :
You seem to push this argument quite a bit. I would think you would need to go back further than a 100 years to see the sun in a similar position…prob more likely at the start of the Dalton.
We actually have the Inferred Solar Wind data back to the 1830s with the same result, see page 24 of http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf