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.
Items to think about: Pacific Ocean, “Ring of Fire” of magma activity, “Western Pacific Warm Pool”, cold Humboldt´s current from antarctica, cloud clover…
The lack of sun´s heat=Antarctica, etc.
kim (09:11:08) :
I took ‘false test’ to mean one which was not correctly designed to falsify the hypothesis, which might apply to your test. Please, all, let me be the intemperate one around here.
Looks simple enough to design a correct test:
1. It is claimed that aa determines the absorption [actually the looser word ‘penetration’ was used, but unless that leads to absorption nothing matters] of UV [in the troposphere]
2. The absorption by a medium depends on the number of molecules
3. The number of molecules is given by the pressure,
so the test would be to check if aa is strongly correlated with pressure. If it is not, then aa is not the dominant determinant of absorption of UV. So, we can lop that one off the list.
If we back off and say, so what, aa is just a small part of the whole complicated picture, then one cannot make [as it was done] the statement that ‘the cooling is caused by a weaker solar wind’ or that the ‘great climate shift was due to an usual momentous solar cycle, wind or aa’. I’m perfectly willing to give everything in the kitchen sink a 5% role to play, it is the sweeping generalizations [and the QEDs] I caution against.
Leif Svalgaard (08:23:47) :
An atmospheric column is unrestrained in volume except via the gravitational force acting on the entire mass of the air around the globe and the balancing pressure of the sea of air around it. Column density is a function of P times T. As T increases P increases minutely. If the column were perfectly constrained P would increase directly in proportion to T.
See:http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/PtimesT.jpg
When the temperature and pressure increases over the latitudes 10°S to 20°S the molecules per cubic metre in the column above that latitude band must diminish as the column spreads laterally. That it spreads laterally is obvious given the very small response of P to T. So, density is largely a function of T.
The temperature maximum at 1hPa in March and September is strong evidence of a solar wind effect on the penetration of short wave energy into the upper stratosphere. The greatest variability that occurs in the stratosphere may be observed in September. That should be expected because the strength of irradiance is strongest in January and the atmosphere and the ocean continues to warm into February-March. The relative effect of the geomagnetic influence on atmospheric temperature is therefore weaker in March. If one checks the degree of variation that occurs, month by month as one descends into the troposphere that same strong variability is evident in September. This is particularly anachronistic at 10°S to 20°S below 150hPa because September is when temperatures are at a seasonal low point.
Now, we know that the coupling effect is a seasonal thing that occurs at the equinoxes. But the same atmospheric response can be expected when the intensity of the solar wind changes from year to year.
Bullying is never productive. If anything it tends to promote withdrawal which may be your real objective. In my case it has the reverse effect.
“this untrue ad-hom I’ll let slide [my record and patience speak for itself] ”
Must you persist in smearing your critics so?
Ad hominem arguments have two intelligible uses, one positive, one negative.
The positive use characterizes the argument calculated to persuade by bringing an argument targeted to the adversary’s background or experience.
The negative use characterizes a rebuttal whose sole force is some flaw in the person instead of his argument.
Calling you ‘overbearing’ is indeed a criticism, but not one intended to persuade the interloper that your argument is, for that reason, false.
Your colloquial sense, any perceived slur, is unreasonable.
“Be you ever seeing and not perceiving, ever hearing and not heeding, lest you turn and be healed.”
“The Sun’s luminosity has increased by more than 30% over that time, which alone corresponds to a temperature increase of 24K, while the temperature, if anything, has decreased and in any event varied much less than 24K.”
And, in any event, less than half the energy ever reaches the ground. So 24K is not ‘as advertised’, useful beyond middle-school science. Non-tenured instructors beware.
Erl Happ (09:44:08) :
density is largely a function of T.
An incoming UV photon does not know or care anything about density; all that matters to it is 1) the chance of hitting a molecule that can absorb it and 2) that chance depends only on the total number of molecules along the path of the photon. 3) The pressure is the weight of those molecules [no matter what the temperature is]. Analyze the above and tell me which one(s) of the three you have problems with.
The temperature maximum at 1hPa in March and September is strong evidence of a solar wind effect on the penetration of short wave energy into the upper stratosphere. The greatest variability that occurs in the stratosphere may be observed in September. […] If one checks the degree of variation that occurs, month by month as one descends into the troposphere that same strong variability is evident in September.
As you do that direct measurements show that the maximum slowly change phase with height, in fact through the whole 360 degrees. It is not the ‘same’ maximum that persists at the ‘same’ phase all the way down.
Bullying is never productive. If anything it tends to promote withdrawal which may be your real objective. In my case it has the reverse effect.
‘Bullying’ was your word. Insistence on accuracy and adherence to correct physics and constructively suggesting crucial tests are productive IMHO. I don’t want you to withdraw, I want you to back up your QED, if you can. And I take offense at having my ‘objective’ questioned or even being an issue.
Gary Gulrud (09:49:23) :
“this untrue ad-hom I’ll let slide [my record and patience speak for itself] ”
Must you persist in smearing your critics so?
I’ll let that slur slide too as it has no value with respect to the scientific debate we are trying to conduct.
Gary Gulrud (09:49:23) If the medicine is going to be so unpalatable, he wants to be sure it is effective, before he swallows it.
========================================
kim:
Damn. I knew Mary Poppins, and I’m not her.
“my record and patience speak for itself”
If this were one’s Academy, then patience follows reasonably from self-interest.
“I’ll let that slur slide too as it has no value with respect to the scientific debate we are trying to conduct.”
Yet you didn’t let it slide “too” since you felt the need to illuminate us with the news that you would let it slide. That would seem, by your own rule inferred from the above, to also have no value. Yet because of your quite bizarre announcement earlier that ad hom sometimes has positive value, your own rules are quite obscure.
Leif Svalgaard (10:04:15) :
Let’s put aside this argument about surface pressure in favour of considering pressure/density/photon penetration in the zone of interest. We are asking whether temperature peaks at 1hPa in March and September, that may be due to a geomagnetic influence, can be traced down into the troposphere thereby influencing cloud cover. We might as well look for a result on the moon as on the surface of the Earth with the bulk of the atmosphere lying well below the zone of influence of geomagnetic activity.
We have about 1% of the atmosphere above 1hPa and some of it in carrying an electric charge making it susceptible to movement and perhaps carrying neutrals with it.
We have perhaps 20% of the atmosphere above 200hpa including ozone which is a product of the energizing of oxygen and itself susceptible to being energized by particular wave lengths and also being influenced by humidity and temperature change.
According to Wikipedia “when the sun is active with 50 or more sunspots, hard X-rays (wavelength < 1 nm) ionize the air (N2, O2).” So we have a separate dynamic altering the level of energizing radiation in various wave lengths that is in and out of phase with the solar wind.
Geopotential height is a measure of pressure relating to altitude. It is used to infer wind strength. Wind strength relates to density considerations driven by temperature change. Geopotential height at some level of the atmosphere or other has been related to solar output in many papers. A quick search reveals plenty and you can do it for yourself so no sense quoting addresses.
So, urging you to recognize that relationships between variables will correlate well at some times and not others due to the influence of uncontrolled ‘other factors’ I tender the graph at: http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/GHMthlyTempandextremevarn.jpg
The data relates to 1948-2008, 10°S to 20°S where albedo is least and irradiance greatest. It occurs to me that it would be worth checking relationships in other tropical latitudes and perhaps across the Pacific between Indonesia and South America.
To derive “200hPa temp. extreme varn. 1948-2008” I take the figure for the coolest January from figure for the warmest January and so on for each month.
To derive “200hPa varn. in Mthly GH” I show the monthly average for the entire period 1948-2008 with a base of zero for the month of minimum.
To derive “200hPa extreme varn in GH 1948-2008” the difference between the highest and lowest monthly figure for GH in each month is recorded.
Things I would point out.
1. Extremes in temperature variation at 200hPa between the warmest month and the coldest month in the period 1948 to 2008 vary little across the year. There might be a slight fillip in September (circled). But, more importantly, the way monthly variation holds up as irradiance falls away in mid year strongly suggests a geomagnetic influence kicking in from June.
2. The seasonal variation of geopotential height has a maximum in March rather than January and shows little effect from the generalized surface warming in mid year due to Northern hemisphere land masses. (the OLR effect is overwhelming at 100hPa and into the lower stratosphere).
3. The extreme variations in geopotential height do not follow the pattern of irradiance variation but are plainly influenced by the increase in geomagnetic activity from June to September.
I take this as excellent evidence of a geomagnetic derived solar influence on the upper troposphere that will feed into change in cloud cover.
Lastly I would point out that upper atmosphere specific humidity responds poorly to changes in sea surface temperature. See:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/Specifichumidity300-700hPa.jpg
the 200hPa level has warmed strongly with a big jump in 1978. We ahev no measure of specific humidity at 200hPa but trends below that level suggest that specific humidity has not kept pace with the rise in temperature. A lot of the temperature increase since 1978 can be attributed to loss of cloud albedo.
That this has occurred has already been inferred from the strong increase in outgoing long wave radiation (comments above).
Erl Happ (18:54:14) :
Let’s put aside this argument about surface pressure in favour of considering pressure/density/photon penetration in the zone of interest.
We cannot put aside this argument as that is my main point of criticism [I have no qualms about clouds, albedo, ocean currents, whatever]. If you do not understand the physics of this, then there is little common ground. There is, of course, the possibility that your proposed mechanism isn’t really central to what you are trying to say [and that you will back off from it]. So, let’s go with that for the moment.
We are asking whether temperature peaks at 1hPa in March and September, that may be due to a geomagnetic influence, can be traced down into the troposphere
Although it is conceivable [and I think likely] that solar/geomagnetic activity has some influence in the mesosphere and even high stratosphere [certainly in the ionosphere/thermosphere], the seasonal variations further down are not due to geomagnetic activity, but to wave-driven internal dynamics of the atmosphere. We have discussed this earlier at length [at Climateaudit]. For your benefit I repost here:
June 12th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
70 (Erl): In my answer I rashly assumed that you were talking about the thermosphere where indeed solar activity is important. In re-reading your post I realize that you were referring to the middle and lower stratosphere. Mea culpa.
The Semi-annual Oscillation (SAO) and Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO) in the stratosphere are produced mainly by dynamical processes, which are associated with the zonal circulation that dominates at, and is confined to, equatorial latitudes. And so is NOT solar activity related. You can learn more about those processes in http://www.ann-geophys.net/24/2131/2006/angeo-24-2131-2006.pdf
I quote from the paper: “At low latitudes, the zonal mean zonal winds of the SAO peak in the upper stratosphere near 50 km with velocities of about 30 m/s, eastward during equinox and westward around solstice. These winds are equatorially trapped planetary waves (i.e., eastward propagating Kelvin waves and westward propagating Rossby gravity waves) that provide the wave forcing through critical level absorption and radiative damping. Plumb (1977), Plumb and Bell (1982) and Dunkerton (1985a), and others, further elucidated the properties of this mechanism. With the Sun crossing the equator twice a year, a semi-annual oscillation is generated through momentum advection from the summer to the winter hemisphere. The magnitude of this oscillation is small compared with observations (e.g., Meyer, 1970; Hamilton, 1986), and the theory for the QBO by Lindzen and Holton was therefore extended to also explain the SAO in the stratosphere (e.g., Dunkerton, 1979; Hamilton, 1986, Hitchman and Leovy, 1986). The planetary waves that are postulated to drive the equatorial oscillations in the stratosphere are largely dissipated there, and therefore cannot significantly affect the dynamics of the upper mesosphere. Lindzen (1981) had shown that in this region of the atmosphere, at higher altitudes, small-scale gravity waves (GW) can cause the seasonal variations of the zonal circulation to reverse; and Dunkerton (1982a) proposed this mechanism to explain the observed SAO above 70 km. Hitchman and Leovy (1986) provide a good discussion of the dynamical processes that generate the SAO in the stratosphere and mesosphere. They also discussed specifically the important role of the gravity-wave-driven meridional circulation.”
See, especially Figure 8, that shows how the maxima slowly drift from month to month as we go deeper into the atmosphere, so that the March maximum at 95 km becomes the September maximum at 30 km, ending up as a weak November maximum at 15 km. The paper cited is a very nice recent satellite confirmation of something that has been surmised and hinted at for decades. [I’ll spare you a long list of papers for now, some referred to in the abstract, especially Hitchman and Leovy (1986)].
And as we have discussed so many times, the atmosphere is mainly heated from below: see e.g.
Tropospheric clouds and lower stratospheric heating rates : Results from late winter in the Southern Hemisphere
HICKE J.; TUCK A.;
Aeronomy Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado,
Abstract: Tropospheric clouds can impact the radiative heating of the lower stratosphere substantially, though their effect over a winter has been estimated by previous studies to be small. In this study clouds were incorporated into radiative transfer calculations by matching computations of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) with collocated satellite observations of OLR. Narrowband (cm-1 resolution) heating rate calculations reveal that differences in clear and cloudy heating rates occur in the ozone 9.6 μm band, where radiation exchange with the lower surface dominates the heating rate terms. By reducing the temperature of the emitting surface, clouds can decrease the heating rate by 0.6 K d-1 (dθ/dt) at 450 K for single profile calculations and have the greatest impact when over the warm, open ocean. Monthly mean calculations in the Southern Hemisphere show regions where heating rates decrease (cooling rates increase) by 0.2-0.3 K d-1when clouds are added; these regions include areas that are equatorward of the sea ice edge but within the stratospheric polar vortex. Zonal mean heating rates display a maximum just poleward of the vortex edge during August and September 1994. Zonal monthly mean comparisons of the OLR-matched cloudy heating rates with those using a cloud climatology show that the climatology captures 50-75% of this decrease in heating rates compared to clear skies. […]
Journal of geophysical research 1999, vol. 104, noD8, pp. 9309-9324
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1779154
Gary Gulrud (15:54:10) :
Glenn (18:07:52) :
Since you bring nothing of value to the table, may I suggest you conserve bandwidth and spare the readership…
Everybody play nice please. This thread is getting out of hand. Now…I don’t care who started, who’s fault it is, and who’s trying to get the last word in. Consider this to be the last word on the subject.~charles the moderator.
For heaven’s sake, yes.
Looks like a sunspot has appeared recently, as of Oct 9, 1600. Magnetogram also shows a spot. Is this the last spot that had blinked in and out?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20081009_1600_mdi_mag.gif
Jeez,
I think that we have gone about as far as is permissible at this time. For me its back to the entrails to see what I can make of them. The evidence is in the data. It’s just a question of teasing it out.
What I see in the data is consistent with albedo change in the tropics driving winter temperatures at high latitudes that rise and fall over 30 or 40 years (no magic in the number). It is not consistent with the AGW thesis.
I can not agree with Leif’s thesis that the upper troposphere is heated solely from below. Paradoxically, the lower stratosphere is heated mainly from below exhibiting a very strong seasonal peak in July but the upper troposphere, below 150hPa, while it exhibits a small regular seasonal variation that is somewhat out of phase with surface variations, has a much larger variation than the surface on an inter-annual basis. At the critical latitude 10°S to 20°S the widest swings occur in March and September.
Readers may like to compare 2008, with 2000, the last great La Nina year in the graph at:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/200hPatemprecent.jpg
They should also remember that specific humidity in the upper troposphere has been in decline for 60 years. The current solar minimum has brought a deep minimum in 200hpa temperature and lots of cloud over the southern oceans. This will feed into cooler temperatures polewards of 50° Lat. in winter in due course.
The message is that if you live in BC Canada and want to know what the coming winter is likely to bring, check last years sea surface temperature south of the equator.
10/09/2008 by Kevin VE3EN at 21:00
Mt Wilson Drawing shows a sunspot
In the Mt. Wilson drawing from today, they show a small sunspot . Click HERE to view the drawing. This one appears to be of Cycle 23 status based on the new magnetogram images coming in but it should be noted that 3% of sunspots during a cycle are reverse polarity compared to others of that same cycle. There is also a small plage that should belong to Cycle 24 as shown below.
(you’ll have to go to solarcycle24.com and follow Kevin’s link ‘HERE’ for yourself).
Catania’s white light image shows nothing as of right now.
Once again, a small spot is seen at the low ebb of Solar Wind Velocity and Planetary A index.
Robert Bateman (22:45:26) :
Once again, a small spot is seen at the low ebb of Solar Wind Velocity and Planetary A index.
If you want to see why that is, check this:
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Hale%20Solar%20Sector%20Boundary.pdf
At solar sector boundaries the solar wind speed and therefore geomagnetic activity are at their minima.
Erl Happ (22:42:59) :
Just reminding you that the March/September peaks in geomagnetic activity are not produced by variations of the solar wind.
Ok, so the sunspecks that are forming at the ebb of Solar Wind Velocity and Planetary A Index are sector phenomenon, and the Corotating Coronal Hole is itself within a Sector with it’s own phenomenon. The sectors are either adjacent to the CCH sector or 180 degrees out (opposite side) from it??? I might then infer that as long as the Corotating Coronal Hole remains in existence, sunpecks are all we can expect. The CCH needs to disappear in order to progress out of the current deep minima if that is true, as the CCH is sapping the SC24 progress and at the same time preserving the SC23 longevity.
We’re stuck in Lodi.
Dadgum CCH is holding up the parade.
Leif Svalgaard (00:27:05) :
Thanks and that is understood. Its the coupling factor with the Earths magnetosphere at the equinox. You taught me that about 6 months ago. There is an interesting asymmetry which I imagine is related to the orbital influence as one can see at:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/aaseasonal.jpg
Would you mind commenting on: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_c2small.gif
Is this pattern of activity typical of solar minimum. What is happening? Where are the poles located?
Leif Svalgaard (00:27:05)
Thanks Leif, that’s understood. March and September peaks in geomagnetic indices are due to strong coupling of the solar wind with the magnetosphere at the equinox.
Interesting asymmetry noted in historical data: http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/aaseasonal.jpg
Its hard to imagine that this asymmetry would be due to an orbital factor unless there is an interaction with the degree of ionization of the atmosphere. Any thoughts?
“I can not agree with Leif’s thesis that the upper troposphere is heated solely from below.”
Indeed. The thesis depends on Beer’s or Beer-Lambert, originated in the 1790’s and reaching its present form in the 1850’s. While still used to approximate signal attenutation by astronomer’s, the notion that the cross-sectional area may be substituted for by an optical depth of some ill-measured unit length is inappropriate in its application to this discussion.
Richard Feynman in “QED” (Princeton, 1985) elegantly explains the probabilistic nature of light’s interaction with electrons in matter. His example, developed in a sequence of lectures, is the reflection by glass (not perfect for this purpose, but one has to crawl before running, well before).
The light reflected ranges from 0% to 16% to 0% to 16% to 0% as the thickness is increased in multiples of its wavelength.
Of the energy reaching earth from the sun, the percentage reaching the surface never reaches 50%. In the IR, (40% of the total incident energy, 1% reaches the earth. Does that mean 1% was not absorbed?
No, not at all. That energy has been absorbed and re-emitted many times over.
No one bothers to establish the optical depth required for full cross-sectional coverage (at a given wave length) because using it would require a double integral and we know that competence is not required of atmospheric scientists.
The thickness of layers in the atmosphere is indeed pertinent to your discussion, if ill-understood. That spectroscopy still relies on Beer’s is no argument.