Animation courtesy Michael Ronayne. Click for larger, slower speed animation
NASA’s David Hathaway just recently updated his solar cycle prediction and has pushed cycle 24 into the future a little more once again. Though to read his latest update on 10/03/08 at his prediction page here, you wouldn’t know it, because the page is mostly tech speak and reviews of semi relevant papers.
However, there is one graphic, the familar one above, that has been updated and tells the story best. Michael Ronayne was kind enough to provide an animation (above) that shows the march of time as far as solar cycle 24 predictions go. With the latest update (static image here) the startup of solar cycle 24 has been pushed into 2009.
This isn’t the first time NASA has moved the goalpost. Back in March I did a story on NASA moving the goal post then, and since then they’ve moved the cycle ahead twice, once in April and again now in October.
NASA isn’t the only one having to update predictions, NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) has also had to make several adjustments to their graphic:
Animation courtesy Michael Ronayne. Click for larger animation
And there is more change in the current thinking on sunspots. As Michael Ronayne writes:
After ignoring sunspots for two and a half years the New York Times finally ran a story and BLOG posting on the current state of the Sun.
Sunspots Are Fewest Since 1954, but Significance Is Unclear
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/science/space/03sun.html
Climate and the Spotless Sun
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/climate-and-the-spotless-sun/
Details of the recent NASA reports on Ulysses and the Spotless Sun were minimal and the Times failed to mention NASA’s report that the Sun was dimming. The Times reporter speculated on possible connections between solar activity and Earth climate but such speculation was of concern to some Times readers who made their views know in the Dot Earth BLOG. Perhaps the Times should avoid controversial phrases such as “Little Ice Age” in the future. I decided to make a post on the Dot Earth BLOG about some of the graphic records I have been collecting of past SWPC and NASA sunspots predictions. Apparently my input was not fit to print because the moderator did not allow it to be posted to Dot Earth. Attached is the text of my submission to the New York Times. I thought the posting was quite balanced and am not sure what warranted it being rejected.
As you review the SWPC and NASA predictions, note that the outer envelope for the onset of Solar Cycle 24 for the SWPC Low Prediction (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/ssn_predict.gif) is January 2009, while the NASA prediction has been moved out to July 2009. Watch the two animations carefully and note where the changes were made in the NASA predictions.
I am writing a segment on Sunspot Predictions which will be posted in Wikipedia, at the following URL, when it is done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
It will be interesting to see when solar minimum actually occurs. I suspect that we will be in for a long wait. I will keep the above animations current as SWPC and NASA post their monthly updates.
Lots of scrambling going on to get in tune with the sun these days.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif,
There seems to have been a CME off the western limb. Looks like it is SCX23 area. Also STEREO Behind shows a possible SC24 spot coming in the north. If the CME is SC23 related does this mean we might see a longer SC23 the thought?
Erl Happ (07:29:22) :
“An warmer world emits more long wave radiation.”
A little problem in logic here.
People seems to delight in pointing out my deficiency in logic. I can only appeal to Stefan-Boltzmann’s law: S = a T^4.
leebert (07:34:58) :
Thanks for that insight into the implications of Livingston & Penn’s prediction. Would one surmise – in pure terms of TSI – then that low sunspot activity of negligible faculae then could “dim” the sun more than a wholly spotless disc? Is this possible?
No. You cannot have sunspots without faculae, because faculae are partly a result of sunspot decay.
Erl Happ (07:29:22) :
ENSO Kelvin waves represent oceanic/ atmospheric process. They tell us nothing about the cause of the process.
I said ‘wind-driven’ waves. There is the cause. Why do you ignore the cause of the process? Now, you may say that the wind is not the ‘ultimate’ cause, that something, call it ‘A’ must cause the wind, and then that something, call it ‘B’ must cause A, and in turn B must have its cause C, and then on to D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, X, Y, Z, alpha, beta, gamma, …
So, tell us, what causes the wind that causes the Kelvin waves that cause the upwelling that causes El Nino.
[…] original post here: Comment on NASA moves the goalposts on Solar Cycle 24 again by Ric … Tags: announcements, Climate Change, education, halloween, resources, science, solar cycle 24, […]
Jim Arndt (08:31:05) :
If the CME is SC23 related does this mean we might see a longer SC23 than thought?
Even if SC24 should start with a bang tomorrow, SC23 will linger on for another year, so still seeing SC23-related activity now is not unusual and should not cause any ‘re-thinking’ of SC23.
Leif Svalgaard (09:41:59) :
So, tell us, what causes the wind that causes the Kelvin waves that stop the upwelling, causing El Nino. edited to reflect what I meant to say
But, no need for you to tell us. Here is a skit, that will make it clear to you:
http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/education/el-nino-skit.html
‘Today (7-Oct-2008) when I go to that link, the September data point has been removed. I wish I had taken a screen capture of it for reference. As I recall, it was slightly higher in value than the August point, but lower than the July point. I wonder what the new graphic will show when SWPC updates it again.’
It’s back up again.
Having some interest in interactions between the heliospheric current and planetary magnetospheres, I have come across some 16 year old numbers quoted in the New Scientist.
Quote: “The open field lines are swept into the tail by the flow of the solar wind, increasing the density of energy stored there. At the typical voltage of 100 kilovolts, this process stores energy in the tail at a rate of about 10^12 watts. This is 10 per cent of the total power of the solar wind meeting the magnetosphere.
In addition to storing energy in the tail of the magnetosphere, reconnection at the magnetopause drives electric currents in the ionosphere. The total current flowing can be estimated at 5 million amps, which, across a potential difference of 100 kilovolts, dissipates 5 x 10^11 watts.”
My question to Dr. Svalgaard:
– Are you aware of any more up to date numbers?
– Although this amount of energy might be minute in comparison to the energy provided by TSI, my intuition tells me that a large part of it may be pulled down to the narrow polar regions of upper atmosphere. Thinking of analogy of “butterfly and a hurricane” is it possible that with its presence (not actual power) would interfere with air currents, in these for the Earth’s climate very sensitive regions, and thus provide climatic link to solar activity.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318114.500-when-the-solar-wind-blows-the-northern-lights-are-a-sign-ofthe-awesome-power-that-the-earth-receives-from-the-solar-wind-the-bigpuzzle-is-how.html
vukcevic (12:20:46) :
The total current flowing can be estimated at 5 million amps, which, across a potential difference of 100 kilovolts, dissipates 5 x 10^11 watts.”
My question to Dr. Svalgaard:
– Are you aware of any more up to date numbers?
These numbers are trivial to compute from simple considerations. I did that way back in 1973. They don’t change magnitude since, although, of course, the total power varies from minute to minute. The power input to the ionosphere is ‘measured’ today in real time:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html
and is several Gigawatt [with large variations]
Although this amount of energy might be minute in comparison to the energy provided by TSI, my intuition tells me that a large part of it may be pulled down to the narrow polar regions of upper atmosphere. Thinking of analogy of “butterfly and a hurricane” is it possible that with its presence (not actual power) would interfere with air currents, in these for the Earth’s climate very sensitive regions, and thus provide climatic link to solar activity.
The amount is small and doesn’t really get much below the ionosphere, so I don’t see this as a viable mechanism. The power input is just proportional to geomagnetic activity. See pages 18-19 of http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf so we know what the power has been for the past ~150 years. If you correlate geomagnetic activity with temps [and the kitchen sink], you are simply correlating the power input with these quantities.
I finished my temperature correlation analysis on the combination of different periods of time within and subsequent to solar cycles, as well as amplitude and timing of sunspot counts. As I note in my write-up, there are a number of improvements that can be made to the analysis, but I found some interesting results that I thought may here may enjoy taking a look at.
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/solar-cycle-length-sunspot-count-and-temperature-an-insurance-pricing-analysis/
I’d love to continue to refine this, and if anyone has opinions on additional parameters and where I can find good data to include, I’d be indebted.
Joe Tritz
The Idiot
Leif Svalgaard (09:41:59) :
“So, tell us, what causes the wind that causes the Kelvin waves that cause the upwelling that causes El Nino.”
Upwelling causes La Nina, not El Nino – as far as I’m aware.
Leif Svalgaard (08:47:26) :
“People seems to delight in pointing out my deficiency in logic. I can only appeal to Stefan-Boltzmann’s law: S = a T^4.”
On the contrary. I would be delighted if we could agree.
Stephan- Boltzman offers no refuge.
Let us consider an electrical radiator that generates heat via a resistor. We measure the radiation to the external environment. We then wrap it in an asbestos blanket (the greenhouse effect) and measure the radiation again. Radiation will be less. But, if we take account of the energy emitted over time it will gradually recover to the former level. Overall level of emission can not exceed energy supplied via the electrical cable that supplies the energy (the sun).
Now, the greenhouse effect is posited to raise temperature via relentless increase in the heat absorbtion characteristics of the atmosphere . This is like adding thin layers of insulator one by one to the emitting surface. In this circumstance, if the insulator is really working, energy is indeed trapped, the temperature of the emitting surface will rise but as it does so radiation to the external environment falls.
As energy is stored, less is emitted. When the body stops storing more energy (insulation factor constant) the emission may be at a different wave length due to th change in temperature but the overall level of energy emitted is limited by the amount supplied (watts per square metre from the sun).
According to the late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt it is the sun that causes the El Nino events: http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisit.htm
Dr. Landscheidt also made a prediction for a new Maunder Minimum around the year 2030.
According his colleges it wil be called the “Landscheidt Minimum”.
Also have a look at a South African study:
Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water
resource development* JOURNAL OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN
INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
Vol 49 No 2, June 2007, Pages 32–44, Paper 659
It shows interesting graphics and conclusions (page 41-43)
You can download the pdf file from: http://newsbusters.org/node/13731
click on “Paper”
I would really love to hear what Mr. Svalgaard thinks about their findings.
Ben G (15:05:48) :
Upwelling causes La Nina, not El Nino – as far as I’m aware.
I guess you missed my correction.
Erl Happ (16:49:25) :
Let us consider an electrical radiator that generates heat via a resistor.[…]
As usual, I cannot follow [perhaps somebody else would put it simpler words for me].
It seems to me that what goes out must be a function of what comes in. A good description of the process may be found here:
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/geosys/node2.html#SECTION00020000000000000000
and in chapters following.
Erl Happ (16:49:25) :
I said “It seems to me that what goes out must be a function of what comes in.”
This figure (from the link i gave) illustrates what goes on quite nicely:
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/geosys/fig3.3.gif
I”m goin to spend was quality time with Solar Cycle Length, Sunspot Count, and Temperature – An Insurance “Pricing” Analysis.
Should the label “Influence” have a qualifying adjective such as “theoretical” or “correlated” or some such?
Smokey!
Dog-gone it anyway! What’s the status of the new improved WordPress complete with review pane, grammar, and spell check and smileys and all that stuff?
I tire of getting bitten by my “one-handed southern, can’t form a sentence and type at the same time” dysgraphia.
Garron, thanks. Yes, it should probably be labeled in a bit more of a qualified way. I probably won’t change that post, but if I refine it further and re-present it, I will be sure to qualify it to be at LEAST as clear as your comment! 😉
When posting in the national media one must be politically correct. Challenging accepted journalistic dogma just is not going to be tolerated.
Ron de Haan (17:30:01) :
According to the late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt it is the sun that causes the El Nino events: http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisit.htm
Does our ENSO-expert Erl Happ agree with TL’s mechanism and forecasts?
Also have a look at a South African study:
Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water
resource development[…]
I would really love to hear what Mr. Svalgaard thinks about their findings.
This paper has been debunked many times in many places.
E.g. see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3218 then go down to comments 93-103
Ha! 🙂
I hope you do change it. If I were to digg your post as is, the noise of such nitpicks will drown substantive discussion.
Leif Svalgaard (17:57:45) :
Humm, Just thinking that Earl is talking about the time factor, how long does it take the system to balance out. According to AGW, the stratosphere at first cools, as the LWR is absorbed by the CO2(radiator insulation) at lower levels. So I suppose it depends on what level of the atmosphere one measures the LWR?
You and Earl seam to dance and spar, and somehow never quite get in the ring at the same time (:
[…] More here: Comment on NASA moves the goalposts on Solar Cycle 24 again by garron […]
David,
As you suggest, the energy is supposedly trapped. It can not be emitted if it is trapped.
Leif chooses to ignore the fact that there is an atmosphere between the Earth and the sun when he quotes Stephan Boltzmann. But greenhouse theory posits that the atmosphere acts as a heat reservoir. If the energy is truly held then the temperature of the Earth will rise while OLR measured at the limits of the atmosphere must fall by the amount of energy accumulated in the Earth system.
When he wants to be obtuse, or to misunderstand, or to find the prose too expansive, or the argument hard to capture there is not much one can do.
You can lead the horse to water but, if he doesn’t want to drink there is not a lot that can be done.
Consider container A fed with water at a constant rate (solar radiation) delivering into container B (the atmosphere). Container B has a tap to deliver to waste (space). If the tap restricts the flow so that the level of the water in B increases, the flow to waste will reduce. (OLR to Space.)
Why is this important? Because solar radiation falling on the Earth is constant. Outgoing LONG WAVE delivered from Earth to space is less than the energy flow from the sun. The difference is short wave reflected to space by clouds. OLW is not falling, its increasing. OSW must be decreasing. Why? There is only one answer to this. It’s because there is less cloud to reflect the short wave.
And the loss of cloud is the reason why the Earth is warming. Cloud dynamics drive warming and they also drive ENSO.
Every year, between May and September the land masses of the Northern Hemisphere heat up the atmosphere and cloud cover falls by about 3%, or 2% or 4%. By January the cloud increases again by 2% or % or 5% and just which way it goes depends upon the temperature in the ice cloud zone above 400hPa where short wave radiation excites ozone. So, ENSO is driven by the sun.
We know that there is an inverse relationship between 200hPa temperatures and cirrus cloud density. Leif knows that too. But there are some things that you know that you can never say out loud.
Lief:
If the input has changed (from a slightly lower TSI (.5%) and a larger does of NUV(1.5%) what then does that do to change the stored energies in the various boxes on your diagram?
I would highly suspect that some changes would be the result. Even if all that happens is a slight increase in Albedo, whether globally or in key latitudes, it should make for some type of climactic shift.
How long ago and under what conditions relative to todays output from the Sun was that diagram constructed? Has MIT plugged in the latest data and re-ran it?