Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA
Reposted here: October 30th, 2008
by Warwick Hughes
The real world sunspot data remaining quiet month after month are mocking the curved red predictions of NOAA and about to slide underneath. Time for a rethink I reckon NOAA !!
Here is my clearer chart showing the misfit between NOAA / NASA prediction and real-world data.
Regular readers might remember that we started posting articles drawing attention to contrasting predictions for Solar Cycle 24, way back on 16 December 2006. Scroll to the start of my solar threads.
Then in March 2007 I posted David Archibald’s pdf article, “The Past and Future of Climate”. Well worth another read now, I would like to see another version of David’s Fig 12 showing where we are now in the transition from Cycle 23 to Cycle 24.
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Issued April 2007 from NOAA / NASA
NOTE from Anthony: We now appear to have a new cycle 24 spot, which you can see here:
See the most current MDI and magnetogram here
Like they’d listen to any one outside their own special little circle.
As to the solar pic…I guess they’re popping the corks on the bubbly even as I type this out…
I would like to see another version of David’s Fig 12 showing where we are now in the transition from Cycle 23 to Cycle 24.
page 3 and 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf
shows the transition for the last several cycles and
http://www.leif.org/research/Region%20Days%20per%20Month%20for%2023-24.png
shows the current transition from 23 to 24. It is clear that cycle 24 has finally begun. The ‘region days’ is defined thusly:
For each day count how many [NOAA] numbered regions are on the disk being no more than 70 degrees away from central meridian [e.g. omitting data close to the limb where the spots are harder to see]. Make the count separately for cycle 23 regions [blue] and cycle 24 regions [pink].
Sorry out of topic, but I think this is important news:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Magnetic_Portals_Connect_Sun_And_Earth_999.html
Now, I maybe out of my league, but this is a blue plant. Where is all that water come from? The particles “hitting” the atmosphere are, well protons, hydrogen stripped from its electrons. This tons of staff find lots of free oxygen to “create” water and “charge”the planet…
Is this a silly idea?
Dr. Svalgaard please be gentle with me 🙂
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
Nifty:)
Well another tiny tiny sunspot hailing the start of the cycle… I suspect when the sun decides to get going you wont have to use a magnifying glass to see the spots:) Till then perhaps using the ‘downtime’ would be better spent observing rather than predicting.
Anthony, I live in Norwich so we have the Climate Research Centre at the local University. The Norwich daily paper has published this report this mornng:
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=NewsSplash&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=News&itemid=NOED30%20Oct%202008%2020%3A56%3A40%3A863
Only models which incorporated human activities produced the changes in the climate witnessed at the poles.
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, which said: “In both polar regions the observed warming can only be reproduced in our models by including human influences – natural forcings alone are not enough.
“For a long time climate scientists have known that Arctic areas would be expected to warm most strongly because of feedback mechanisms, but the results from this work demonstrate the part man has already played in the significant warming that we’ve observed in both polar regions.”
Last year, the Arctic witnessed record levels of sea ice melt during the summer melting season, prompting scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre to announce that the effects of climate change were “coming through loud and clear”.
Say, Leif, how about the new paper from Abreu, Beer, Stienhilber, Tobias and Weiss, suggesting that the solar maximum of last century will ameliorate in the next few decades?
H/t Tino Hameranta
========================================
The paper by Abreu and al is in GRL, 10/30/08. It claims the last eight cycles have represented a solar maximum. Is that why the 20th Century got so warm?
===========================================
This is the first one that looks like a spot not a pseudospot, IMHO. Leif?
The low prediction has 0.0 untill 2009.2, unlike the graph shown above. This is just noise.
Also, Oct 08 was on track for an SSN of about 3 even before today’s spot. Why is the graph not using up to date data? Yes, it’s interesting, but keep it clean…
Looking at Figure 12, I’d say Cycle 23 had a life of just under 12 years – i.e. longer than average, but not unusually long. The new cycle 24 spot also looks like it might not last to the end of the day.
The question now is how active will cycle 24 be?
The past has shown that climate seems to correlate with cycle length, and less with cycle activity.
Perhaps the sun-experts could elaborate further on this.
Anthony:
Very off topic, but the BBC has posted this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7700387.stm
[…] Read the rest of the article, click below link http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/hard-lesson-about-solar-realities-for-noaa-nasa […]
Looks consistent with the models to me 🙂
I must admit -the low latitute of the early sunspots makes me wonder about the size of of SP24, is it normal for the latinude 30 or less spots to be the the norm?
With the new spots it looks like the count for October will be just above 5, with all or nearly all being spots belonging to cycle 24. It will be quite interesting to see how the next six months turn out, since that will reveal how quickly cycle 24 activity is rising and whether we will have a cycle max near the top or low end of the scale.
Kim
That sun sure has a way of kicking up a sudden fuss. When I looked at SOHO yesterday it looked very dull, even in the magnetogram image. And now there’s a solid SC24 event. Looking forward to seeing how closely the reality comes to the various predictions of solar activity over the next several years.
To be filed under: The Ozone Hole Ate My Global Warming
This store should be titled “Data pins polar cooling blame on humans”.
Data pins polar warming blame on humans
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/30/polar.warming/
Once again “Science” proves that sinful humans caused global cooling, so please ignore this report:
New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month – cosmic rays at fault
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/25/new-theory-predicts-the-largest-ozone-hole-over-antarctica-will-occur-this-month/
With a very high probility that the Prophet in Chief will be President of the United States for the next four years we should expect the echo-religious fantasies to continue.
Michael Ronayne
Rather strange timing from Warwick when you consider that by waiting a few more days he could have included October’s data! Perhaps the new data (thanks Leif) doesn’t suit his agenda?
REPLY: Or perhaps simply he didn’t know about the new data availability. People often write when the ideas move them. Don’t ascribe malice to people simply because they don’t agree with your thinking. 😉 – Anthony
Well…I, for one, will certainly raise a glass to #24 this evening 🙂
I like the sun.
Jim
Leif,
Has any experiment been done to use period tools equivalent to past generations to see what astronomers were actually able to count as sunspots? I realize light pollution would probably be a greater factor now, making an experiment like this more difficult, but it’d be interesting to see what they were able to see at those times as far as tiny tims and sun specks.
LEIF;
What is this?
NASA:
>>>>Researchers have discovered ‘magnetic portals’ forming high above Earth that can briefly connect our planet to the Sun. Not only are the portals common, one space physicist contends they form twice as often as anyone had previously imagined<<<<<
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm?list1276741
Thanks
OT, but saw this linked over at junkscience.com and felt it creepy enough to post here…
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081030132557.aspx
Leif: It is clear that cycle 24 has finally begun.
Clear to you, maybe. The truth is, it can take months, even years to make an actual determination for when the solar minimum occurs.
News of the death of cycle 23 may be premature.
Leif = eye candy
The newest Butteryfly diagram of the transition between solar cycles shows we are certainly entering into, if not already in, Cycle 24 now.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly_recent.gif
Here is the long time series of the same.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
Interesting. I’m curious if there is a graph that extends the predicted to observed going back to 2001 or so…
Leif,
What does the light blue line represent?
Basil
Stevie B (06:05:33) :
Has any experiment been done to use period tools equivalent to past generations to see what astronomers were actually able to count as sunspots?
The original telescope that Rudolf Wolf used 150 years ago still exists and is being used today by Thomas Friedli in Switzerland to count spots. The issue is not the instrument, the weather, the pollution, etc, but the deliberate decision about what to count. Wolf did deliberately not count the smallest spots and counted the biggest ones twice. His successors have chosen to count every spot, no matter how tiny. A conversion factor between the two methods of 0.6 was determined in the 1880s and 1890s. It is now becoming clear that that number is not quite correct and that it probably should be lowered to 0.4 or thereabouts.
Basil (07:57:05) :
What does the light blue line represent?
As it says on the graph: Ri/0.3, or the International Sunspot Number divided by 0.3. So there is a rough conversion formula between the ‘region count’ C and Ri: C = Ri/0.3 or Ri = 3.3 C.
You can judge for yourself how good the fit is.
Bruce Cobb (06:35:10) :
Leif: It is clear that cycle 24 has finally begun.
Clear to you, maybe.
I do have some experience in this game 🙂
The truth is, it can take months, even years to make an actual determination for when the solar minimum occurs.
News of the death of cycle 23 may be premature.
Cycle 24 begins before the minimum and cycle 23 endures past the minimum. At minimum, spots of both polarities are present.
Stevie B: I suspect light pollution is less of a problem when observing sunspots than when observing the night sky.
C’mon Anthony, fess up!
Which evil corporation are you serving as a front for?
Wiki says global warming skeptics are just fronts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations#Front_groups
(You know I’m just kidding).
Mick (00:26:24) :
Where is all that water come from?
The water on Earth has been brought to us by comets over eons of time.
kim (01:33:04) :
Say, Leif, how about the new paper from Abreu, Beer, Stienhilber, Tobias and Weiss, suggesting that the solar maximum of last century will ameliorate in the next few decades?
They are barking up my tree. Isn’t that what we are predicting [NASA aside]?
It claims the last eight cycles have represented a solar maximum. Is that why the 20th Century got so warm?
I don’t think so [as you know!]. The solar maxima during 1770-1800 and 1835-1875 were just as high, yet it was a lot colder [Ask the rebels that fought the Revolutionary War and crossed the Delaware…]
Lucy Skywalker (01:36:59) :
This is the first one that looks like a spot not a pseudospot
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Sean Houlihane (02:02:35) :
Why is the graph not using up to date data?
Because NOAA is a bureaucracy and have rules. The graph cannot be changed from day to day, only once a year [I kid you not].
Pierre Gosselin (02:05:01) :
The question now is how active will cycle 24 be?
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
The past has shown that climate seems to correlate with cycle length, and less with cycle activity.
No, it does not. Length and activity are themselves correlated.
Mick: re: “Where is all that water coming from?”
Here’s your answer Mick.
Small watery comets hit the Earth every second
Did you know our planet is bombarded by a 20-to-40 ton watery comet every three seconds?
The reaction to these new and unusual findings between their discovery in 1986 and visual confirmation in 1997 reflects what I see happening with those who oppose the superstition of man-made global warming.
“People tell me I should have dropped the whole subject, but that would have violated my sense of integrity. What has happened, however, is that science has lost its fun for me. The joy of working with the general scientific community is gone. . . I’ve proved the atmospheric holes are there. I’ve shown that these objects have water in them. And I’ve shown that there are 10 million of these things coming in a year. What we have to do now is go up there and meet the small comets at 600 miles out. Polar sees these objects with great resolution but from a great distance. Now we have to get up close and see these objects in detail.”
Entire story and background here.
http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/wp.html
What is the typical length of time a single sunspot persists?
If you watch the MPEG movie, it appears the new spot is shrinking.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_mdi_igr.mpg
Fernando (06:21:52) :
What is this?
“Researchers have discovered ‘magnetic portals’ forming high above Earth that can briefly connect our planet to the Sun. Not only are the portals common, one space physicist contends they form twice as often as anyone had previously imagined”
This is just NASA’s usual hype. They have to justify their existence by announcing ‘discoveries’ and ‘breakthroughs’ [we have seen several examples of this lately – even discussed on this blog].
What they have ‘discovered’ is “We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active,” says Sibeck. “We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic.”
This is old hat. Thirty years ago I wrote [in a chapter paper http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf (page 32ff) for the
Skylab Workshop that established coronal holes]:
“The implication seems to be that the coupling to the solar wind due to magnetic field connection is very weak unless the geometry is very favorable, i.e. the external field is almost anti-parallel to the dayside geomagnetic field. Due to ever-present fluctuations of the interplanetary magnetic field – considerably enhanced after passage through the bow-shock – favorable conditions for connection occur often enough at so many places on the magnetopause as to give the [false] impression that reconnection and hence geomagnetic activity occur for all orientations of the interplanetary magnetic field and varying in efficiency smoothly from a maximum for anti-parallel fields to a non-vanishing minimum for parallel fields.”
So, nothing new there. Nice though that they have actually been able to observe some of those events.
Leif Svalgaard (08:56:21) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
Fernando (06:21:52) :
What is this?
“Researchers have discovered ‘magnetic portals’ forming high above Earth that can briefly connect our planet to the Sun. Not only are the portals common, one space physicist contends they form twice as often as anyone had previously imagined”
This is just NASA’s usual hype. They have to justify their existence by announcing ‘discoveries’ and ‘breakthroughs’ [we have seen several examples of this lately – even discussed on this blog].
What they have ‘discovered’ is “We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active,” says Sibeck. “We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic.”
This is old hat. Thirty years ago I wrote [in a chapter paper http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf (page 32ff) for the
Skylab Workshop that established coronal holes]:
“The implication seems to be that the coupling to the solar wind due to magnetic field connection is very weak unless the geometry is very favorable, i.e. the external field is almost anti-parallel to the dayside geomagnetic field. Due to ever-present fluctuations of the interplanetary magnetic field – considerably enhanced after passage through the bow-shock – favorable conditions for connection occur often enough at so many places on the magnetopause as to give the [false] impression that reconnection and hence geomagnetic activity occur for all orientations of the interplanetary magnetic field and varying in efficiency smoothly from a maximum for anti-parallel fields to a non-vanishing minimum for parallel fields.”
So, nothing new there. Nice though that they have actually been able to observe some of those events.
Leif (08:37:29) Oh, heck, I thought I had you for once.
====================================
Dennis,
The reason that only models with human activities correctly match polar temperatures, is that such models heavily weight the affect of human factors and neglect the affects of other factors. With such a model, if you pull out the major driving “cause”, of course it fails to match reality.
If you change the model to weigh solar and PDO forcing effects and neglect human factors, it can still be made to correctly match polar temperatures. With this model, if you pull out its only driving cause (solar and PDO), of course it too fails to match reality. You could then say that “only models that have solar and PDO effects correctly match polar temperatures”.
You can always fiddle with the weighting factors in a model to show whatever you want to show. Pick a “cause” that is trending upward, give it a strong weight, and it will make the output “result” go upwards. Take the “cause” out of such a model and it fails, “proving” that you have found the “true cause”.
Since it doesn’t really matter what the “cause” is, you pick one that advances your agenda, and then make a statement that models that ignore the “cause” (and its weighing factor) do not result in the correct output.
You can fiddle with a few other factors to account for any dips and blips.
It is a classic propaganda ploy that has been used for years.
If people question you in the future about your model not matching the new data, just say you are fine-tuning it. And you can. Add some more forcing factors and fiddle with the weights until it matches again. Your model will then be able to match whatever the future may hold: cooling, warming, absolutely anything.
Unfortunately, it will not be able to truly predict a darn thing.
Scott
PearlandAggie (08:51:12) :
What is the typical length of time a single sunspot persists?
Depends on its size. Really big ones can last for months, small ones only a day or two.
Leif (08:37:29) Has anyone tried to correlate the minima and maxima of Abreu et al with temperatures over the last 10,000 years? I realize their solar data is probably more reliable than temperature data, but that seems like something worth trying to do.
=============================
Leif is overstating the confidence again. I’ll agree that there is a good chance that cycle 24 has started, but it’s 3 or 4 months to early to call it definitively.
Regardless, if this the start of cycle 24, it’s an amazingly weak start. One or two tiny tim spots per month. Not very impressive.
http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/wp.html
According to the above link, 10 million house sized comets are hitting the earth every year. Is that enough water to have a noticeable affect on the ocean levels?
Wow Leif, it’s like playing speed chess against a room of young ‘uns. So many questions, so little time (I liked the teleconnection-to-H20 synthesis idea, right up there with some of my wackier ideas…).
It’ll be fun when NASA/NOAA starts openly conceding the bottom line might in fact be the magnetic field drop off. The cumulative spotless days reflect the decline in magnetic dynamics currently but until SC24 ramp up they’re hoping it’s still their game. Their concession speech will be delivered …. when … 2010 perhaps?
In keeping with our standards of criticizing the opposing team I shall refrain from congratulating you prematurely. 😉
/leebert
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, which said: “In both polar regions the observed warming can only be reproduced in our models by including human influences – natural forcings alone are not enough.
—————-
Nobody in the reality based community has ever stated that mankind (via CO2 or other mechanisms) has played no part in the current warming. The argument has always been about how much. The models say most. The science says very little.
—————-
“For a long time climate scientists have known that Arctic areas would be expected to warm most strongly because of feedback mechanisms, but the results from this work demonstrate the part man has already played in the significant warming that we’ve observed in both polar regions.”
———-
Funny thing that. The arctic has warmed much less than other parts of the planet, and the antarctic has actually cooled.
———-
Last year, the Arctic witnessed record levels of sea ice melt during the summer melting season, prompting scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre to announce that the effects of climate change were “coming through loud and clear”.
————
Even NASA has been forced to admit that last years melt was due to changes in air and water circulation, not warming.
Another point. The warming in the arctic has not been continuous. There was a big jump in temperature back in the late 70’s. Coincident with the change in the PDO from cold to warm. Prior to that point, temperatures were relatively stable. After that point, temperatures were relatively stable.
Now that the PDO has switched back to cold, we need to wait a few years and see what happens. If the arctic cools off, then the warming was in response to the PDO. If it doesn’t, then other factors dominate.
Leif,
Thanks for the response.
AnonyMoose,
Good call, complete blonde moment on that one. For awhile I was observing the aurora and got used to that always being an issue.
“OT, but saw this linked over at junkscience.com and felt it creepy enough to post here…”
Resurrecting JFK’s skreed is iffy for a religion like the Environmentalism
(thank you Freeman Dyson ) faith, and cognitive dissonance is tol’ble with that presentation. They just realized that they daren’t go back to the Book of Daniel, “Revelation,” or any of those more dynamic threats for the future. Even their most dissonant adherents might rebel.
Mike (09:53:54) Oh, what an excellent link to Freeman Dyson. It’s pretty obvious why he doesn’t need a doctorate to be compelling.
============================================
Leif,
This is sort of on topic – and while you and Kim and anyone else interested are around:
I have reconciled the difference between your integration of TSI and mine (and Pete’s).
In short, I get the same result (ie my and Pete’s graph), using your method if I subtract ~1365 from the TSI data and integrate by adding the differences over each cycle.
If your interested in more details I can e-mail you.
Cycle 24 begins before the minimum and cycle 23 endures past the minimum. At minimum, spots of both polarities are present.
This is scary, even for Halloween. I think I’m beginning to understand some of this.
OT- Could anybody provide an “idiot’s guide” summary of the difference between sea ice “extent” and “area”
MarkW (09:36:59) :
Leif is overstating the confidence again.
The ‘again’ is not called for. I do have some experience with this [what is yours? :-)]. Actually solar cycle 24 started three years ago. The issue is how long solar cycle 23 will live. I’d say at least another year, maybe two. Solar minimum is a completely artificial construct. The Sun doesn’t know about solar minimum and how we choose to define it.
Regardless, if this the start of cycle 24, it’s an amazingly weak start. One or two tiny tim spots per month. Not very impressive.
Well, I’ve been predicting that SC24 would be the smallest cycle in a century, so it is no surprise that it starts out weak and anemic.
Mark (09:37:25) :
According to the above link, 10 million house sized comets are hitting the earth every year. Is that enough water to have a noticeable affect on the ocean levels?
No [and the 10 million small cometlets are likely not real. Lou Frank has caught a lot of heat on this, and is a bit pissed that nobody is buying it]. Anyway, the bombardment by comets was a lot higher during the first billion years of Earth’s ‘life’ and that was when the oceans basically formed. A smaller amount has been added since.
leebert (09:39:42) :
Their concession speech will be delivered …. when … 2010 perhaps?
More like 2014 🙂
As late as 1998 [well into cycle 23] Hathaway was still predicting Rmax(23) = 171.0 +/- 17.6 [a monster cycle just short of the all-time high cycle 19 at 190], so they will hang on way past the ‘sell-by-date’.
But, really, we don’t KNOW. We have opposing models and we’ve have to let Sun tell us which is the better [if any – it would be a blow if SC24 comes out average].
Steve Hempell (10:12:35) :
In short, I get the same result (ie my and Pete’s graph), using your method
As long as you get the same result as I, am I to complain 🙂
Good that you have cleared that up.
Steve Hempell (10:12:35) and
Leif Svalgaard (10:37:31)
Please clarify for a blog reading nobody. I read Steve’s post to mean that he still disagrees with your graph, Leif, and agrees with Pete’s, from comment #454 of the Svalgaard #2 thread at climateaudit.org
=================================
Bill P (10:14:43) I’m an idiot, so I can fulfill your request. Ice extent counts all the pixels with at least 15% ice in them and ice area does not, so ice extent is always greater than ice area. Ice extent includes a lot of open water, and ice area does not. Stand by for corrections from Phil. who is at least expert, though a hopeless true believer in CO2=AGW.
=======================================
Leif Svalgaard (00:00:20) :
Great links, thanks
This bit about Pete’s graph is important, folks, because it shows a correlation between the integrated length and strength of the solar cycles with historical temperatures.
==================================
Leif:
Did you misunderstand me?
Your graph of the integration of TSI over the cycles was different than mine (and Pete’s). As I recall, you rejected our results because of this difference and therefore negated your statement “that is a very telling graph” on Svalgaard #2.
Now, I have repeated my (and Pete’s) graph using your method of integration by subtracting 1365.56 (my TSI graph’s baseline) from your data. Now are we not integrating over the cycles alone? Why does this not reinstate the “this is a very telling graph” statement?
If not, why not? I am very far from being the brightest bulb in the box when it comes to mathematics, but what is the explanation for this difference? Sorry if I am trying your patience!! 🙂
O.T., but the Arctic ice extent seems to have caught up with that of the previous six years excepting only 2005. The Antarctic ice is also back to having a positive anomaly of almost 0.5 million km2.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
Steve (11:24:32) I thought so. You and Lief ought to be emailing each other over this. Telling and chilling, yessiree, Bob, er, I mean Steve.
=============================================
Mike Sivertsen (08:40:44) :
“Did you know our planet is bombarded by a 20-to-40 ton watery comet every three seconds?”
Aha! At last an explanation for the catastrophic rise in sea-level. How long before NYC and Miami, Florida, will be under-water?
kim (11:11:24) :
Steve Hempell (11:24:32) :
Now, I have repeated my (and Pete’s) graph using your method of integration by subtracting 1365.56 (my TSI graph’s baseline) from your data. Now are we not integrating over the cycles alone? Why does this not reinstate the “this is a very telling graph” statement?
Too many ‘negations’ here. To integrate a series you sum. Here is an example:
1 10 10
2 20 30
3 30 60
4 50 110
5 60 170
6 45 215
7 30 245
8 20 265
9 10 275
10 0 275
The 3rd column is the running sum. For the whole cycle the integral is the last number in the 3rd column, i.e. 275.
Consider another cycle [a very long one]
1 10 10
2 20 20
3 30 50
4 40 90
5 42 132
6 45 177
7 42 219
8 40 259
9 35 294
10 30 324
11 25 349
12 20 369
13 15 384
14 10 394
15 0 394
Even though the second cycle has lower max (45 vs. 60) it has a larger integral (394 vs. 275) [provided I did the arithmetic correctly 🙂 ].
The above process is what I did, and what you should have done [and what I thought you eventually did]. You should not divide by the cycle length. If you do [IIRC], you just end up with the mean.
Here is a question for y’all:
Right now on the Sun there is a tiny sunspot group. Suppose you removed all the rest of the Sun so that only that group were left in the sky, like the grin of the Cheshire cat. The region would still radiate [after all it has a temperature of 4500K or so]. How bright would it look in the sky? Like Sirius? like the ISS? like the full moon?
Leif (12:45:12) Bet ya’ couldn’t see it. But what is its Bill Livingston measured magnetism?
=============================================
It is claimed that the main reason for few reports of sunspots from 1650 to 1715 was that people were not observing the Sun, or at any rate not systematically. Eddy (1976) set out to show that this had not in fact been the case. After setting the scene by describing Rosa Ursina (Scheiner 1626-30), in which methods of observing sunspots and their accompanying bright “faculae” were painstakingly described, he describes the best known solar observers of the Sun during the 17th century, and briefly outlines their work. Among the most important was Hevelius of Dantzig, who published a major study in 1679 describing observations of the solar surface made continually between 1652 and 1685, Picard in Paris made systematic observations of the Sun every clear day from 1653 to his death in 1685, succeeded by La Hire, who if anything was even more assiduous, continuing Picard’s work until his own death in 1718. Flamsteed was also a persistent solar observer between 1676 and 1699. It was largely based on the work of these observers, supplemented by others in Italy, that Spörer (1887) constructed a table of all the sunspots noted between 1672 and 1699. He found less than 50.
I ask why the observations from these very dedicated early scientist are mistrusted,
if it is not the lack of activity of the sun that caused the past cooling what was it.
‘Human activities/influences’ is code for ‘not (primarily) GHGs and CO2’.
If were CO2 they would be shouting it from the rooftops.
Rob (13:03:42) :
I ask why the observations from these very dedicated early scientist are mistrusted
Nobody mistrusts the early observers, their result is accepted. There are a few quibbles like when an observer in London in 1666 says: “I didn’t see a single spot all year”. In the Hoyt/Schatten tabulation of their group numbers, that figures as 365 observations [one every day] of zero spots, which is clearly wrong as there has never been a year in London where you could observe the Sun on every day. You know, clouds, fog, etc., especially during the bad weather during the LIA.
So, the fraction of days with observations per year is misstated and makes it look better observed than it actually was. But these are details, nobody doubts the reality of the Maunder Minimum anymore.
Leif,
Like ISS. It is black in color because it is dimmer than the surrounding star. Therefore it would still shine at slightly less luminosity than a same size portion of the star at standard luminosity. In perspective it would be approximately the size of the Earth at the distance of the Sun.
Jim Arndt (13:34:31) :
Like ISS.
any other takers?
“In perspective it would be approximately the size of the Earth at the distance of the Sun.”
Using these speculations for my own WAG, I’d put it about the size of a large star, so the size of Sirius. As for luminosity… don’t know.
Leif
10,000 planet Mercury.
How stupid I am.
But, you always answered my questions.
Bill P (14:18:28) :
I’d put it about the size of a large star, so the size of Sirius.
Any more?
Leif,
for your challenge: I don’t think humans can see anything without instruments. The 4500K of the sunspot is near infrared, so the radiated colour temperature is invisible to human eye me think.
Mick I believe day light bulbs in the store are 4100K color temp so it would be very visible. Me thinks it could be at the opposite end and be as bright as the full moon. I’ve just have never actually calculated it that way. But it is very bright.
the sunspeck alone [without the rest of the Sun] will be seven times brighter than the full moon…
Leif
“the sunspeck alone [without the rest of the Sun] will be seven times brighter than the full moon…”
Is this at the distance of the Earth to the sun or just 7 times the luminosity of a full moon?
Jim Arndt (15:20:13) :
Is this at the distance of the Earth to the sun or just 7 times the luminosity of a full moon?
That is as seen by farmer Jones standing in his field.
Leif,
This is how I did my calculations:
I summed Column 2A between 1798-3 and 1809-9; 1809-10 and 1822-12 etc, etc for each cycle (5 to 23).
I summed Column 3A for exactly the same intervals (ie each cycle)
Col1A Col 2A Col 3A
Yr TSI Col2A-1365.59
1798 1365.643 0.053
1798 1365.649 0.059
1798 1365.642 0.052
…….. etc ad nauseam
These are the results:
Col1B Col 2 B Col 3B
Cum. Sum Cum. Sum
Cycle Column 2A Column 3A
5 189845.949 28.94
6 217513.479 24.67
7 173474.713 44.78
8 162574.807 69.6
9 202181.248 73.93
10 184415.391 60.74
11 188518.02 66.6
12 172107.471 43.13
13 208983.429 48.16
14 185757.634 37.39
15 163916.337 45.54
16 172107.66 43.32
17 168027.841 60.27
18 169395.017 61.86
19 166677.533 75.55
20 184412.442 57.79
21 170768.267 69.52
22 172129.584 65.24
23 198071.005 60.45
Why do they give different graphs? Column 3B integrates simply the variation in TSI (ie the sun’s output) for each cycle. There is no dividing going on here. Why is the graph from Column B no longer “telling”?
Kim,
Thanks for your helpful summary.
I take it the microwave satellite system “reads” something we do not see, but records it in pixels like a t.v. screen? Is it correct to say this is a reading of the polar albedo?
How is it possible? This energy is short-term?
Oops Let’s see if I can make that data clearer:
Col1A Col 2A Col 3A
Yr TSI Col2A-1365.59
1798 1365.643 0.053
1798 1365.649 0.059
1798 1365.642 0.052
…….. etc ad nauseam
These are the results:
Col1B Col 2 B Col 3B
Cum. Sum Cum. Sum
Cycle Column 2A Column 3A
5 189845.949 28.94
6 217513.479 24.67
7 173474.713 44.78
8 162574.807 69.6
9 202181.248 73.93
10 184415.391 60.74
11 188518.02 66.6
12 172107.471 43.13
13 208983.429 48.16
14 185757.634 37.39
15 163916.337 45.54
16 172107.66 43.32
17 168027.841 60.27
18 169395.017 61.86
19 166677.533 75.55
20 184412.442 57.79
21 170768.267 69.52
22 172129.584 65.24
23 198071.005 60.45
[…] Original post: Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA « Watts Up With … […]
Steve Hempell (16:24:19) :
Yr TSI Col2A-1365.59
1798 1365.643 0.053
Ah, if you subtract a number that is larger than the smallest of the TSI values, you ‘invert’ part of the area under the curve and the integral is no longer the accumulated effect. And in any case you shouldn’t subtract anything. Example:
1 4
2 6
3 4
4 2
sum is 16 which is indeed the accumulated effect. Now subtract 5 from each:
1 -1
2 +1
3 -1
4 -3
sum is -4, which is rubbish because we know that the accumulated effect is 16. Note how the values for 1 and 2 cancel out, this was not intended, of course. We don’t want values to cancel when we add them up for effect. So, don’t subtract anything. If you do, then you are saying that values above what you subtract [1365.59] have a certain effect, while values under that have the opposite effect. I don’t think that is what you want.
Bill P (16:20:36) :
“the sunspeck alone [without the rest of the Sun] will be seven times brighter than the full moon…”
How is it possible? This energy is short-term?
If I shine powerful flashlight at you, the energy that hits your eyes is short-term and disappears when I turn off the light.
Can somebody make the calculation that leads to the above result? Come on now, show some brilliance 🙂
Leif,
I know the data presentation was bad and I don’t know how to fix it so you might have found it confusing.
I don’t think your criticism is valid here(I agree with it’s premise) as there are no values in the TSI data from 1798 less than 1365.59. I checked my Excel sheet by formatting negative numbers as red and none appeared.
Also remember I am getting the same result using ImageJ which, by the way, I have checked against calculated values by creating cycle like shapes with a formula and calculating the intregal and comparing to ImageJ results.( X^2 SIN(5x)^2 and it’s integral X^3-1/20SIN(10x)x^2-1/100COS(10x)x+i/1000 SIN(10x) +C if your interested).
Perhaps I should send you a spreadsheet with the data and my work as then maybe it will be clearer what I have done.
Dr Leif:
Look at this. (please)
Not me.
I was preparing your response.
Missing the area of sunspeck.
surprise to me:
http://nov55.com/steph.html
The latest sunspot is petering out pretty fast…looks like a here today, gone tomorrow spot
Leif Svalgaard (17:27:45) :
Well, let me approach it sort of backwards, starting from numbers I have faith in.
Given that the full Moon is about magnitude -12.5, and the Sun is magnitude -26.7, the difference is 13.2, and that’s a factor of about 200,000. This means that 1/200,000 of the solar surface is as bright as the full moon. The sun has an angular size of 30 arc-minutes, for small angles that size, we don’t need to deal with spherical trig, so 30′ x sqrt(1/200,000) would be a size adequate to match the full moon, or 30′ x 1/450 = 4″.
4 arcseconds is easy to resolve in a small scope, and the total area of the current spot this AM was somewhere around there. The relative dimness of the spot would require a bit more (4th power of ratio of temperatures of normal solar and spot surface), but yeah, I could see a sunspeck equal a full Moon to within an order of magnitude.
The closest thing I got to a total solar eclipse was the annular eclipse over a decade ago. I was in the center of the path, and it never got really dark. The light did get really weird, and glancing at the sun with dilated pupils was not pleasant. Way too brilliant. Solar filters for telescope and unaided views were greatly appreciated.
4 arcseconds
I was going to say about the size of a small gnat splattered against the windshield of an SUV travelling at about… 55 mph… as viewed from the back seat…
But I think your metric is more precise.
Is the energy short term.
“If I shine powerful flashlight at you, the energy that hits your eyes is short-term and disappears when I turn off the light.”
My question was not clear.
Getting away from “calculate the size of the bug hitting the windshield” (although I vote for a fully-laden South TX mosquito hitting an SUV’s windshield at 70 mph), I understand this sunspot would count for an October sighting, and would give a total of 4 spots for Oct, 1 for September, and 1/2 for August.
Trend could be going upwards, if true.
Steve Hempell (17:39:19) :
I don’t think your criticism is valid here(I agree with it’s premise) as there are no values in the TSI data from 1798 less than 1365.59. I checked my Excel sheet by formatting negative numbers as red and none appeared.
OK then, but why subtract anything at all? By subtracting a value [any value] from TSI, and then integrating, you are subtracting not just a constant, but 10 times that constant if the period is 10 years, 11 times that constant if the period is 11 years and so on. So the result becomes very dependent on the cycle length, which is why that shows up in the plot: you fold the length in with the sum, which makes no sense physically. If it does to you, please explain it to me.
Ric Werme (19:00:25) et al.
My numbers may differ slightly from yours, but this is approximate only, so let me. Here goes:
The spot had an area of 30 millionth of the disk. The sun is 400,000 times as bright as the full moon, one millionth of the Sun is then 0.4 times as bright as the full moon. That times 30 is 12 times as bright, but a sunspot is cooler than the Sun so only radiates half as much, hence 12/2 = 6. I got the 7 by using more accurate numbers, but you get the idea.
Leif Svalgaard (17:27:45) :
“the sunspeck alone [without the rest of the Sun] will be seven times brighter than the full moon…”
Can somebody make the calculation that leads to the above result? Come on now, show some brilliance 🙂
Leif, where am I going wrong (dusts off cobwebs from brain).
I am assuming that this sunspot is about earth sized, so roughly 12,500 times smaller in area than the sun. Since it is at 4500 K, it has an intensity of ~23,000,000 W/m2, and a peak wavelength of 644 nm. The sun, at 5,777 K, has an intensity of 63,000,000 W/m2 at a peak wavelength of 501 nm. Looking at wavelength/intensity distributions for blackbody radiation, it looks like the visible light spectrum of 4500 is giving me between 10 and 20 percent less area than the 5,777. I just eye balled this, I did not integrate my intensity distrubution over the visible light wavelengths. So, I estimated that the sun should be about 45,000 times brighter than the sunspot (12,500 area, times the percent increase in visible light emissions, times the intensity increase from temperature difference)
This translates to a difference in brightness of 11.61, meaning that the sunspot has a relative brightness of -15.12 compared to the sun’s -26.73. The moon’s is -12.6, giving me a difference of brightness of 2.51, which translates into about 10x brighter.
So, I am coming up with Joe Farmer seeing the sunspot as 10 times brighter than the full moon. Are any of these assumptions way off?
Fernando (18:18:20) :
http://nov55.com/steph.html
The piece states: “Virtually everything in physics is in error”.
I don’t have the time nor inclination to counter that.
Bill P (10:14:23) :
Painter versus Housewife:
Painter has just finished painting a house with 2,000 square feet of wall and ceiling.
The extent of the painting is 2,000 square feet.
The housewife has noticed some spots where the paint is thin and is allowing some of the undercoat to show through. After going through the house, the housewife has determined 200 square feet of walls and ceilings are “underpainted”.
Thus, the area of painting, or properly applied paint, is 1,800 square feet.
Likewise in the Arctic, the extent of ice is greater than the area of ice because nature has “missed” some spots.
Hope this helps.
Taken from a link referencing a story about Antarctic warming due to ozone hole created by man:
“…for the first time that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for warming at the Arctic and Antarctic.”
I know that they’ve been referring to it as “climate change” instead of “global warming” to encompass any and all climate trends/events that occur, just wondering…does this indicate a shift from AGW to ACC? Do we have to change our references going forward?
Jim
Leif (23:50:33) OK, I’m on very thin ice here, because I’ve really not been able to follow what you two are doing, but why shouldn’t length effect the result? This is an integration of both strength and length. It seems to me that Steve’s method of subtracting the baseline simply adds more usefulness(exaggerates the differences between peak and base output) to the remaining data, possibly demonstrating a correlation that is less obvious when you don’t subtract. Or am I way off base, here?
==========================================
And besides, if the method is in error, why does it show such a magnificent correlation with the (admittedly poor) temperature data. I can answer that, but I’m curious what your answer would be.
=========================================
kim (07:44:37) :
It seems to me that Steve’s method of subtracting the baseline simply adds more usefulness(exaggerates the differences between peak and base output) to the remaining data, possibly demonstrating a correlation that is less obvious when you don’t subtract.
If that were the case, the wiggles should still correlate. Maybe this will help. What Steve calculates is this: S = sum(T – To) = sum(T) – sum(To) [To is the baseline]. The physical reason for doing the summing in the first place was that it was suggested that for assessing the influence of TSI over a cycle one should consider the total amount of radiation received over the cycle, sum(T), as that is what would be stored in the oceans. Suppose that we were in such a deep minimum that TSI was sitting at the baseline all the time, then T = To and Steve’s S would be zero. Would that mean that no heat was stored? Of course, not. The baseline is also heat and is also stored.
Or am I way off base, here?
Yes.
Leif said,
Rob (13:03:42) :
I ask why the observations from these very dedicated early scientist are mistrusted
Nobody mistrusts the early observers, their result is accepted. There are a few quibbles like when an observer in London in 1666 says: “I didn’t see a single spot all year”. In the Hoyt/Schatten tabulation of their group numbers, that figures as 365 observations [one every day] of zero spots, which is clearly wrong as there has never been a year in London where you could observe the Sun on every day.
The observations were not taking place solely in London, few spots were observed elseware from 1645 to 1715.
Spörer (1887) constructed a table of all the sunspots noted between 1672 and 1699. He found less than 50, whereas in any typical 30-year interval during the past hundred years there have been between 40,000 and 50,000 spots reported. As well as the low levels of activity before 1715, there are well attested reports, notably by La Hire in France and Derham in England, of the surge in sunspot activity which occurred during and after that year, in which sunspots returned to the solar surface in the quantities which we take to be normal today.
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html
1645-1715: Sunspots vanish
Sunspots observations continued in the seventeenth century, with the most active observers being the German Johannes Hevelius (1611-1687) and the French Jean Picard (1620-1682). Very few sunspots were observed from about 1645 to 1715, and when they were their presence was noted as a noteworthy event by active astronomers. At that time, a systematic solar observing program was underway under the direction of Jean Dominique Cassini (1625-1712) at the newly founded Observatoire de Paris, with first Picard and later Philippe La Hire carrying out the bulk of the observations. Historical reconstructions of sunspot numbers indicate that the dearth of sunspots is real, rather than the consequence of a lack of diligent observers. A simultaneous decrease in auroral counts further suggest that solar activity was greatly reduced during this time period.
Fewer aurorae were recorded during the 70-year period of the Maunder Minimum than in the 70 years immediately preceding it, and the 70 years succeeding. In England/France/Germany/Denmark/Poland, where observations were usually made, we would normally expect anywhere from 300 to 1000 occurrences in a 70 year period in that region alone. From 1645 – 1715, only 77 aurora occurrences were recorded in the entire world.
To me these are solid reliable observations by dedicated scientists and with no Tiny Tims, I believe this historical evidence clearly links solar activity to past and present global warming/cooling.
Explanation of Landsheidt’s first paper,
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/landscheidt/
Leif (08:32:22) Well, if the sun stayed at baseline wouldn’t it also be possible to conjecture that no heat was being stored in the ocean, and that there would be a steady cooling off of the globe? If the earth maintains a somewhat steady average temperature as the flux alternates between lowest and highest, then that average temperature represents the flux at an average position, and flux constantly at the baseline would lead to global cooling. Or have I been picked off base?
================================================
Rob (09:04:23) :
You are barking up the wrong tree. Nobody argues anymore that the sunspot numbers were not low back then. There is one little fly in the ointment that is a problem. Most people would agree that solar activity influences cosmic rays and in turn the production of radioactive isotopes 10Be and 14C. By looking in ice cores and tree rings we can infer this magnetic cycle back in time and [here comes the problem:] that magnetic cycle was operating as usual during the Maunder and Spoerer minima. The magnetic cycle was not appreciably suppressed during those times. Let me say one more time [to forestall a piling on]: nobody questions the low sunspot counts back then. One more time: nobody questions the low sunspot counts back then.
kim (11:37:09) :
flux constantly at the baseline would lead to global cooling.
Imagine that starting right now, some mechanism would double the baseline, would the Earth cool even more? [after the initial wild [short-lived] swings due to the doubling]
Leif (11:57:55) Why no, the Earth would warm up a lot!. Perhaps I’m so far off base that I don’t understand the question.
The sun’s average output is between the baseline(minimum) and the maximum. If the sun’s output directly modifies temperature, then staying at minimum would cool the earth and staying at maximum would warm it. I think that integration of length and strength of cycle can give a representation of where that integrated output is relative to the average, and that cycles where the sun ends up above average would warm the earth and cycles where the total is below average would cool it. Perhaps I’m not perceiving the problem correctly.
===========================================
Leif,
Let me ponder this as I really struggle with the concepts and perhaps reply on the Svalgaard #8 thread on Climate Audit rather than take up space here on Anthony’s website.
Just a few comments:
When I started this ~3 months ago, I was just playing with a possible way of integrating complex relationships (which could not be defined by a formula) with an image program essentially by counting pixels. Since I was interested in climate/sun relationships I chose TSI. I just was playing around when I compared the result with Hadcrut. One thing led to another basically thanks to Kim pointing me to Svalgaard #2. Now I am in a way over my head – thanks Kim!! :-]
I have never made any assumptions re the Ocean, physical reasons for things, heat content etc, etc.
Leif
What did you mean by “this is a very telling graph” – just assume for sake of argument the graph was valid.
“The physical reason for doing the summing in the first place was that it was suggested that for assessing the influence of TSI over a cycle one should consider the total amount of radiation received over the cycle, sum(T), as that is what would be stored in the oceans.”
I didn’t make this assumption. If I made any assumption at all, it was that (T-To) had some influence over GMT which I know that you disagree with (and by the way I am 90% sure you are correct – the left over 10% is the skeptic in me 🙂
I need some time to ponder this so if I have more questions I’ll see you on S #8
Leif I love your graphic challenge – the “cheshire cat grin” spots being 7 times as bright as fullmoon – that really puts sunspots in perspective for me. Thanks.
Mark (09:37:25) : http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/wp.html. According to the above link, 10 million house sized comets are hitting the earth every year. Is that enough water to have a noticeable affect on the ocean levels?
Oceans are 360,000,000 km^2 = 360 x 10^12 m^2. Say the “house” size of each comet is 360 m^3, water precipitated in a year by 10m “houses” = 360 x 10^7 m^3, and it would take 100,000 years for sea level to rise 1m. Or if the “houses” were 30-40 tons as another post said, say 36 tons, this would take a million years for sea levels to rise 1m.
Or if AGW get onto this, it will only take 100 years for this cosmic apocalyptic water to raise sea levels 1 metre (95% certainty)…
kim (13:04:04) :
that cycles where the sun ends up above average would warm the earth and cycles where the total is below average would cool it.
To make things clear, one has to be specific. Many discussions here are not. So, the baseline is the solar output with no spots and the actual value above the baseline in a given year is simply a measure of the number of spots [1 W/m2 is ~100 spots]. So the sum of all excess [over the baseline] values is simply the total number of spots in a cycle [appropriately weighted with observing cadence]. If all cycles had the same number of spots, then the number of spots per year [which is just the average sunspot number] would vary inversely with the length of the cycle. This is, of course, part of the reason that [on average] strong cycles are short and low cycles are long. But in reality there is some variation, some cycles do have more spots than others and Pete’s and Steve’s plots are simply the number of spots per cycle. My plot was the total amount of energy delivered per cycle. Both numbers are somewhat meaningless as what counts is the number of spots or energy per unit time, which is simply the SSN or TSI. But I think this has gone on for long enough time, so we may go an steal McIntyre’s bandwidth instead, if you wish to continue fabulating 🙂
Scott R. (09:17:52) :
The reason that only models with human activities correctly match polar temperatures, is that such models heavily weight the affect of human factors and neglect the affects of other factors.
Models are not programmed that way. They can not freely choose the weight of each factor. They will have to operate within the boundaries of known science.
Currently there is no known mechanism by which the rise in temperature over the past century could have been caused by the sun. (If you agree that temperatures have risen)
[…] Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA Reposted here: October 30th, 2008 by Warwick Hughes […]
My prediction for SC24 is that it will look like a tail end of SC23 and fizzle out before a new weak SC25 begins 2013-2014. SC23/SC24 will mirror SC4 (peak around 1790) ie they will become one long cycle that lasts for 14-15 years.
Reason for my prediction: Similar planetary positions.
nobwainer (17:52:17) :
My prediction for SC24 is that it will look like a tail end of SC23 and fizzle out before a new weak SC25 begins 2013-2014. SC23/SC24 will mirror SC4 (peak around 1790) ie they will become one long cycle that lasts for 14-15 years.
Reason for my prediction: Similar planetary positions.
And if what you doesn’t happen, then you must drop your belief in planetary positions having effects. Here and now is the place and time to state that scientific attitude. Agree?
“Currently there is no known mechanism by which the rise in temperature over the past century could have been caused by the sun. (If you agree that temperatures have risen)” So, obviously, man is responsible.
When the Earth cools will there be a known mechanism for the cooling? And when the Earth cooled and warmed in the past, before man, did the inhabitants know the mechanism? Maybe if those inhabitants had been a little smarter they, could’ve blamed themselves.
The Earth cools and warms, always has. We haven’t figured out all the whys and wherefores, but still the Earth will keep cooling and warming until the sun sputters and dies, with us or without us.
Why must we think we are so smart?
Lucy,
If house sized comets are hitting the earth…
A 360 m3 ball of water hitting the earth at 37 km/s would release about 246,000,000,000,000 joules of energy. I am not sure, but I think that might be detectable by some really sophisticated sensors… Maybe that is why the Earth is warming :).
nobwainer (17:52:17) :
“My prediction for SC24 is that it will look like a tail end of SC23 and fizzle out before a new weak SC25 begins 2013-2014. SC23/SC24 will mirror SC4 (peak around 1790) ie they will become one long cycle that lasts for 14-15 years.
Reason for my prediction: Similar planetary positions.”
Nobwainer,
What is the mechanism by which planetary position influences sun spot cycles? Sorry if this has already been answered, but I am new to this… field … (ok, bad pun). I really am curious and this stuff fascinates me!
Leif Svalgaard (18:58:19) :
And if what you doesn’t happen, then you must drop your belief in planetary positions having effects. Here and now is the place and time to state that scientific attitude. Agree?
Agree…if there is no major slowdown like say the Dalton then the theory is busted. If it does happen then perhaps you might also need to reconsider your theory?
Science is the pursuit of knowledge…whatever it turns out to be.
Old Coach (21:32:38) :
Nobwainer,
What is the mechanism by which planetary position influences sun spot cycles? Sorry if this has already been answered, but I am new to this… field … (ok, bad pun). I really am curious and this stuff fascinates me!
I have noticed when Neptune, Uranus and Jupiter are aligned, and Saturn on the opposite side of the Sun, we have had Grand Minima in the past. It seems Neptune and Uranus give Jupiter an extra “pull” that only comes along every 178 years.
Here’s a WIP report i am working on.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/gasgiants.pdf
At least 1007 is still visible on the Continuum image at solarcycle24.com and at IPS White Light image.
nobwainer wrote:
“I have noticed when Neptune, Uranus and Jupiter are aligned, and Saturn on the opposite side of the Sun, we have had Grand Minima in the past. It seems Neptune and Uranus give Jupiter an extra “pull” that only comes along every 178 years.”
Nothing will convince you that your ‘theory’ is untenable.
If things will NOT happen according to your prediction, you will invoke one or the other reason, for example that the planets were not exactly aligned.
And if things WILL happen according to your prediction, that will prove nothing. Suppose that I have the following silly ‘theory’:
“This morning I had trouble with my stomach; this shows that it will rain next Friday in Chicago.” Well, if it indeed rains in Chicago next Friday, does that prove my ‘theory’ to be valid?
Mike Bryant (20:34:42) :
“Currently there is no known mechanism by which the rise in temperature over the past century could have been caused by the sun. (If you agree that temperatures have risen)” So, obviously, man is responsible.
No, that is not what I said, and not what is being said.
Whatever hypothesis you put forward, if you don’t have the evidence to support it, it is worthless. If your hypothesis is that man is currently changing the climate, then you must support it by evidence. If your hypothesis is that the sun is currently changing the climate, then you must support it by evidence. If you don’t have the evidence, then you should say: “I don’t know what causes climate change”.
Jean Meeus (00:56:50) :
Nothing will convince you that your ‘theory’ is untenable.
If things will NOT happen according to your prediction, you will invoke one or the other reason, for example that the planets were not exactly aligned.
Lets talk about partial line ups Jean…during the Maunder as you know we had an exceptional lineup…not far off a straight line and what a minimum it was. Then we look at the Dalton, its not quite as good, so a weaker minimum. Then we have the much looser 1970 lineup as Uranus begins to get close to Neptune and we have a very poor sunspot number with global cooling. And now we have a lineup probably weaker than the Dalton so I would predict this grand minimum to be somewhat more lively than the Dalton in sunspot numbers altho could go on quite long, even past 2030.
But as i said before its make or break…its a theory on the table that can be proven either way in the next decade or so….what do you have to offer?
Mike Bryant (20:34:42) :
On second thought, I would like to comment on this remark too:
When the Earth cools will there be a known mechanism for the cooling? And when the Earth cooled and warmed in the past, before man, did the inhabitants know the mechanism? Maybe if those inhabitants had been a little smarter they, could’ve blamed themselves.
Man has certainly blamed himself in the past for natural disasters. They were usually considered the wrath of the gods. They did this not because they were stupid, but because they were ignorant. In the past centuries, science has established that volcano eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, epidemics have natural causes. Instead of blaming ourselves for those disasters, we can now feel free and protect ourselves. I am glad those people didn’t think like you: “Why must we think we are so smart?”
Sunspot 1007 gets an extra kick….exciting stuff
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
nobwainer wrote:
“But as i said before its make or break…its a theory on the table that can be proven either way in the next decade or so….what do you have to offer?”
I have nothing to offer. Sunspot is not predictable.
Jean Meeus (00:56:50) :
“This morning I had trouble with my stomach;…”
I’m sorry to hear you had trouble with your stomach. 🙂 BTW, it’s a nice sunny day here, let me know the next time you have trouble and I’ll let you know if it’s sunny again.
Jean Meeus (00:56:50) :
“Nothing will convince you that your ‘theory’ is untenable.
If things will NOT happen according to your prediction, you will invoke one or the other reason, for example that the planets were not exactly aligned.”
Jean,
This looks like reasonable science to me. Nobwainer has postulated a correlation between planet position and the sunspot cycle. It is a testable hypothesis. In fact, it has a fairly specific prediction for the upcoming cycle. If the cycle agrees with his predictions, in no way does it prove his theory, however it is one more point that supports the correlation. It would mean that the theory should be pursued further. However, if the cycle does not agree with Nobwainer’s prediction, this is just as good. Now he has evidence that the theory is untenable and he must scratch his head and devise a new theory. We should reserve judgment until the data are in and we see his response.
Nobwainer,
I looked at your data and see where you may find a correlation. What I am curious about is the proposed physical mechanism (if any). In other words, why does the alignment of the planets influence sunspots. This is where I am having trouble…
nobwainer (21:55:14) :
Agree…if there is no major slowdown like say the Dalton then the theory is busted. If it does happen then perhaps you might also need to reconsider your theory?
No, that is not good enough. You had some very specific predictions:
“My prediction for SC24 is that it will look like a tail end of SC23 and fizzle out before a new weak SC25 begins 2013-2014. SC23/SC24 will mirror SC4 (peak around 1790) ie they will become one long cycle that lasts for 14-15 years.”
And claimed that those specifics came out of the planetary alignment ‘theory’. Those are the ones that need be validated, not just that solar activity will be generally lower. Lots of people, including me, argue for much lower activity from sound physics. So, again, if your specifics are not borne out, e.g. SC25 beginning 2013-2014, then your theory is bust?
Old Coach (06:50:49) :
Nobwainer,
I looked at your data and see where you may find a correlation. What I am curious about is the proposed physical mechanism (if any). In other words, why does the alignment of the planets influence sunspots. This is where I am having trouble…
Thanks for your support and rational thinking. I don’t profess to know the physical mechanism, but would love to research it if proven. There is lots of theories on the mechanism but first we need to prove the theory of planetary influeunce.
Leif Svalgaard (06:58:55) :
No, that is not good enough. You had some very specific predictions:
Leif you are way too harsh…..give me a slight window of adjustment. I have noticed a correlation but don’t profess to be the soothsayer of truth or expert in the field. I see your prediction for SC24 has evolved AND includes a fudge factor 🙂
I am predicting several cycles…you are only predicting the next based on reducing polar strength. Give us a number for the next 2 cycles?
Leif (06:58:55) The theory will bust and the flash of illumination from it will show the true path to the pursuit of knowledge…whatever it turns out to be.
===========================================
kim (13:04:04) :
Leif (11:57:55) Why no, the Earth would warm up a lot!. Perhaps I’m so far off base that I don’t understand the question.
The sun’s average output is between the baseline(minimum) and the maximum. If the sun’s output directly modifies temperature, then staying at minimum would cool the earth and staying at maximum would warm it. I think that integration of length and strength of cycle can give a representation of where that integrated output is relative to the average, and that cycles where the sun ends up above average would warm the earth and cycles where the total is below average would cool it. Perhaps I’m not perceiving the problem correctly.
My thoughts exactly…its not about the baseline unless we are talking about grand minima. Measure the “uptime” which includes duration and quantify what heat enters our oceans and landsinks.
nobwainer: Interesting, I’m very curious, if your theory is right. I saw your work, so if I understand this properly, we could have almost Dalton minimum in near future?
dresi4 (08:16:09) :
nobwainer: Interesting, I’m very curious, if your theory is right. I saw your work, so if I understand this properly, we could have almost Dalton minimum in near future?
That’s how it looks to me….watch this space 🙂
nobwainer (07:25:44) :
Leif you are way too harsh…..give me a slight window of adjustment. I have noticed a correlation but don’t profess to be the soothsayer of truth or expert in the field.
What that means is that your specific predictions is based on nothing more than you just saying that history will repeat itself 215 years later. I thought the theory calls for 177 years [no need for long explanation].
I see your prediction for SC24 has evolved AND includes a fudge factor 🙂
A strength of my prediction is that as more data becomes available, the prediction can be refined. Tell me about the fudge factor, that is news to me.
I am predicting several cycles…you are only predicting the next based on reducing polar strength. Give us a number for the next 2 cycles?
Only one cycle CAN be predicted with some precision. Beyond that it is just the statistical tendency for low cycles to occur in groups [breached by cycle 20, btw]. If I don’t care for being correct, I can predict the next 15 cycles [I have seen a peer-reviewed paper doing just that].
kim (07:56:53) :
The theory will bust and the flash of illumination from it will show the true path to the pursuit of knowledge…
I disagree strongly. No illumination comes from busting a theory that is not even wrong.
Leif (08:41:12) The flash of insight may brighten.
Nobwainer (07:58:10) As Leif gently points out my exact thoughts aren’t very precise. His response about TSI was helpful. I do think there must be something to account for the nice correlation Steve and Pete get, but as for mechanism, square one.
=======================================
Leif Svalgaard (08:38:45) :
What that means is that your specific predictions is based on nothing more than you just saying that history will repeat itself 215 years later. I thought the theory calls for 177 years [no need for long explanation].
As you know its based on planetary positions…if you look how they vary slightly on each approx return of 178 years its apparent how each occurrence can vary , as i have explained. Not sure where you get 215 years from?
A strength of my prediction is that as more data becomes available, the prediction can be refined. Tell me about the fudge factor, that is news to me.
I believe you have a plus or minus figure on the sunspot count?
Only one cycle CAN be predicted with some precision. Beyond that it is just the statistical tendency for low cycles to occur in groups [breached by cycle 20, btw]. If I don’t care for being correct, I can predict the next 15 cycles [I have seen a peer-reviewed paper doing just that].
I think for short term predictions your methods are more accurate than Hathaway etc. But with current knowledge it is the best you can do. You are reporting on whats happening now and cannot predict much further, I have a theory for SC20 as discussed as well as the next couple of cycles. BTW You didn’t answer my suggestion If it does happen then perhaps you might also need to reconsider your theory?
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s temperature over the last 100 years.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada’s Carleton University, says that “CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.”
Rather, he says, “I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet.”
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175,
kim (09:03:52) :
I do think there must be something to account for the nice correlation Steve and Pete get
Keep in mind, this has nothing to with TSI, even if TSI went in. What they compute is just the sunspot number summed over a cycle [and multiplied by my conversion factor between dTSI and SSN].
Leif:
Would you kindly provide one or more web reference(s) that describe the physics behind your and perhaps Hathaway’s projections for cycle 24? I am hoping to understand the latest thinking on the formation and transport of these flux tubes that manifest as sunspots. Thanks in advance.
Rob (09:25:48) :
I followed the link you provided, and didn’t end up on the Max Planck institute, but a 9 months old page of IBD.They claim that the Max Planck institute has found a 1% increase in TSI over the last 60 years. This is not confirmed by the Acrim and Nimbus satellites. NASA has found is a +0.05%/decade trend in TSI. I could also find no confirmation of these findings of the Max Planck institute.
The article did not provide any references. Do you have a reference to the original Max Planck paper?
nobwainer (09:17:59) :
Not sure where you get 215 years from?
You said SC25 would start in 2013. The transition from Sc4 to 5 took place in 1798, so 2013-1798 = 215.
I believe you have a plus or minus figure on the sunspot count?
The plus/minus is not a ‘fudge’ factor, but a confidence interval.
BTW You didn’t answer my suggestion If it does happen then perhaps you might also need to reconsider your theory?
I have said many times that if my prediction is not right on, my theory is WRONG. Not that it should be reconsidered, or tweaked, or fudged, or …
pochas (11:15:21) :
Would you kindly provide one or more web reference(s) that describe the physics behind your and perhaps Hathaway’s projections for cycle 24?
The physics behind my prediction is basically the Babcock-
Leighton theory. There are no web references that I know of [but I haven’t looked real close]. Here are the original journal references:
Babcock, H. W. 1961, ApJ, 133, 572
Leighton, R. B. 1964, ApJ, 140, 1547
———. 1969, ApJ, 156, 1
My colleague Ken Schatten has a modern description of the theory [with a twist of his own]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf
Here is our original [too brief] proposal:
http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf
An overview of the observations is here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024%20(Observations).pdf
and our prediction paper is here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
pochas: As usual I forget that WordPress mauls the URLs, so I have to ‘encapsulate’ it to
overview of observations
pochas (11:15:21) :
Hathaway’s projections http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Predictions%20SHINE%202006.pdf
There is not much physics behind it. It is basically a correlation that is assumed to hold in the future too. Hathaway even says: “We don’t know how it works”.
I am not very familiar with fluid dynamics, could anyone suggest a reference article on the causes for the solar “differential rotation”. Any historical records available?
vukcevic (13:00:25) :
I am not very familiar with fluid dynamics, could anyone suggest a reference article on the causes for the solar “differential rotation”.
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2005-1/
We are looking for a class A1 flare possibility today. Looking at the scale, that’s about a close to a breath above zero as it gets. At this rate of ‘increased’ activity, we might be able to make maximum in 6-8 yrs.
How about we forget about the models and try some explanation as to the long and winding Solar Flux trough that extends from April 08 to present? I have been admiring it’s magnificent symmetry for about a month now.
Any takers?
(hey mr. moderator man: How can I post the long graph from Alvestad’s work?)
Thanks Dr. Svalgaard
What all this ado looks like to me:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SolarMin.htm
And it underscores the label of pathetic I ascribe to recent solar spots.
Anemic at best, drowned out by the noise of flat stats at worst.
Leif Svalgaard (12:13:25) :
You said SC25 would start in 2013. The transition from Sc4 to 5 took place in 1798, so 2013-1798 = 215.
Fantastic….great pickup and here is the reason for the stepout out from departure of the 178 year trend. First of all lets look at Carl Smith’s graph at http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/sunssbamcycles.jpg
If we compare the shape of the curves at 1790 and 1970 we see the different effects of Neptune/Uranus. As discussed earlier the configuration does not return exactly. At 1790 there is stronger influence than 1970 which is enough to start the “phase catastrophe” possibly because of the weak polar strength as is happening now, once in that mode the next 2 cycles are reduced by the instability and further backed up at 1830 with the next pass of Jupiter and Saturn apposing before climbing out around 1840. Why there is a recovery in 1840 and not a return to unstable conditions is a good question and needs further research.
To see this from a planetary position go to http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html and plug in the years 1790, 1970 and 2010. The 1970 alignment was not quite strong enough to enter a “phase catastrophe” (would like to see the solar polar strength for that era) , at 2010 it is far stronger and must initiate a catastrophe to prove the theory in my opinion. So its not about exactly what date SC25 starts to prove the theory, but whether a catastrophe happens now or in SC24 that’s important, i am simply reliving 1790 in my predictions but the effects could be different but still cause a Grand Minimum.
I have said many times that if my prediction is not right on, my theory is WRONG. Not that it should be reconsidered, or tweaked, or fudged, or …
I probably shouldn’t have used the word “reconsider” as we possibly share theories on the effect of reduced polar strength but if we do get a grand minimum maybe you would consider the planetary theory with more acceptance, if a grand minimum does not occur then I will join you and argue against the theory.
I have read that the rotation speed at the solar equator could possibly increase at times of grand minimum reducing the differential rotation speed at the poles thereby reducing torque and polar strength, but I have been unable to find any scientific measure to confirm this. I have emailed GONG and the National Solar Observatory but without reply.
Does anyone know where I can obtain such data.
nobwainer (09:17:59) :
Not sure where you get 215 years from?
nobwainer (17:56:01) :
“The transition from Sc4 to 5 took place in 1798, so 2013-1798 = 215.”
Fantastic….great pickup and here is the reason for the stepout out from departure of the 178 year trend.[…]
Your enthusiasm is touching. As Jean Meeus pointed out, no matter what, you will find some reason for the discrepancy.
if we do get a grand minimum maybe you would consider the planetary theory with more acceptance,
Why should I? 1st, what is a Grand Minimum? SSNmax < 75? or < 50? or < 25? 2nd, many people [e.g. Schatten and Tobiska, Clilverd, even me, depending on definition of G.Min] argue that a Grand Minimum may be coming. A Grand Minimum would only be an argument for the planetary theory if no other explanation [of which there are several] could be offered. And most importantly, the planetary theory has no physical basis whatsoever. I feel somewhat silly having to say that again and again. The usual way to deal with this is not to dignify the theory with rebuttals, so maybe that’s where we should go…
nobwainer (18:09:40) :
I have read that the rotation speed at the solar equator could possibly increase at times of grand minimum
What little evidence [and it is weak] there is points to a faster rotation at low solar activity:
http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
reducing the differential rotation speed at the poles thereby reducing torque and polar strength,
a faster equatorial speed increases the differential between equator and pole, unless you assume that the speed at higher latitudes increases even more. There is probably a good reason GONG and NSO didn’t answer your emails [see above].
Robert Bateman (17:28:14) :
What all this ado looks like to me:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SolarMin.htm
You have to careful with using the flux plots from Alvestad as he plots the observed flux [which is important for amateur hams] which is not the real solar flux, as it is modulated 7% by the varying distance to the Sun.
That would be the seasonal adjustment you have spoken of, Leif. It wouldn’t account for the similarites of the two prominent trough sequences, and the quiescence of the 2nd set (2008)
which is the lower set of graphing in the jpeg.
2007 run of flux should match up well to 2008 as the seasonal variation would be identical.
Did I get that right?
2008 is a lower and quiter version of 2007, for all intents and purposes.
That’s the part that has me fascinated.
Robert Bateman (21:34:57) :
2007 run of flux should match up well to 2008 as the seasonal variation would be identical.
Did I get that right?
Not quite. The annual variation is a multiplier. So, if 2007 is higher, its 7% variation is correspondingly higher. But, in any case the difference is not large. Just something to keep in mind.
2008 is a lower and quiter version of 2007, for all intents and purposes. That’s the part that has me fascinated.
This is simply a consequence of 2008 being the minimum year and 2007 not yet. The flux varies by a factor of two between minimum and maximum.
Your enthusiasm is touching. As Jean Meeus pointed out, no matter what, you will find some reason for the discrepancy.
I thought my arguments were soundly based…there are only very small windows of opportunity to work within (when the line ups occur). Grand minimia in my view is a sustained level of low sunspot activity over at least 2 cycles with SSNmax <50.
A Grand Minimum would only be an argument for the planetary theory if no other explanation [of which there are several] could be offered.
I am getting an ever so faint hint that you think there is “something” to it, but dont expect you to say so 🙂
a faster equatorial speed increases the differential between equator and pole, unless you assume that the speed at higher latitudes increases even more.
Yes the theory suggested the poles rotation speed would be at a higher percentage than the equator thereby reducing the differential. I didnt mention any planetary theories in my emails to GONG etc but I am surprised that little work has been done in this area. I would have thought current satellites would have been able to achieve this.
nobwainer (22:10:24) :
I thought my arguments were soundly based
Well, they have no physical basis, so where is the ‘soundness’?
I am getting an ever so faint hint that you think there is “something” to it, but dont expect you to say so 🙂
No, my statement was just the standard fare regarding if an ‘experiment’ is discriminating. If there are five different theories that claim a result, and the result happens, none of them can claim they have exclusively been vindicated.
Yes the theory suggested the poles rotation speed would be at a higher percentage than the equator
what theory? what does ‘higher percentage’ mean?
I would have thought current satellites would have been able to achieve this.
The Sun is a very messy place, and you need a century+ of data to beat down the noise.
2008 is a lower and quiter version of 2007, for all intents and purposes. That’s the part that has me fascinated.
This is simply a consequence of 2008 being the minimum year and 2007 not yet. The flux varies by a factor of two between minimum and maximum.
That part I got. 2008 is the downward trend continuation of the mid 2006 SC24 that never materialized as expected. Not even 1954 was this quiet of noise. The minimums I have plotted out don’t seem to (so far) match 2008 for it’s graveyard silence. I’ll try to get the rest of them plotted out for comparison soon.
The deathly silence of noise I see in 2008 graph of flux reminds me of a very well sampled series of images where the background noise is sanded down though dithering
techniques. The seasoanal variation is the particular seeing of the seasons, and the maximum to minimum 2x variation is the RA arc is the sky brightness though which I image.
A single image is as rough as a cob even after calibration.
So, I must ask, has there been any significant change in instrumentation 2007 to 2008?
Robert Bateman (22:37:57) :
So, I must ask, has there been any significant change in instrumentation 2007 to 2008?
No, the difference is definitely solar in origin.
http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf
page 5 shows 10.7 flux since 2005 and 2008 just follows the general trend downwards.
nobwainer
I think that Dr. Svalgaard is made in one of those Nordic steel companies. You can fire at him as many projectiles as you wish; they do not leave even a smallest imprint. As far as he is concerned, all the “planet-arists” are just “trashing empty straw”. Even Johann Rudolf Wolf would not get anywhere; he also believed in a planetary link as he stated in his letter in 1859 to Mr. Richard Christopher Carrington of Royal Astronomical Society.
Ok, now I can aslo see a recurring pattern of activity on a yearly basis (from your page 5) extending back to 2005.
The purple smoothed line makes it show up so much nicer on your graph Daily values of the F10.7 cm radio flux at 20 UT from page 5.
Take 2005-2006, reduce the amplitude by dividing the values by 2, draw a line through the lower third (Make a noise floor) and 2008-2009 looks just like it.
Ok, so the 66.5 to 71.155 10.7cm flux floor is the ‘noise’ we cannot see below when recording our daily values. It would be our skyglow factor (not literally, just figuratively) that is our limiting magnitude.
There may be longer wavelengths that do allow us to see further “below’ the noise floor, but most likely we would be seeing only that which is a repeated pattern, my guess.
It would be at the cost of lower resolution, these longer wavelengths.
How long and how reliably have magnetograms been performed where a separate sunspot count (or a different recorded means) could be reconstructed?
Would they look the same as the sunspot and flux graphs but have a lower noise floor?
wolfson (04:49:35) :
Even Johann Rudolf Wolf would not get anywhere; he also believed in a planetary link as he stated in his letter in 1859 to Mr. Richard Christopher Carrington of Royal Astronomical Society.
As Wolf was a good scientist he eventually realized [and admitted] that the planetary link did not fit the facts, as he states on page 410 of his Handbuch der Astronomie, vol. 4, 1893. I still have to see any of the modern enthusiasts having the same scientific courage.
Robert Bateman (04:59:45) :
Ok, so the 66.5 to 71.155 10.7cm flux floor is the ‘noise’ we cannot see below when recording our daily values.
Well, even when there are no sunspots the Sun is still producing radio waves at 10.7 cm. The 66 flux unit floor is not ‘noise’, but a real emission from the hot solar atmosphere.
How long and how reliably have magnetograms been performed where a separate sunspot count (or a different recorded means) could be reconstructed?
Since 1917 ! ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/1917/dr170104.jpg
The letters ‘R’ and ‘V’ stand for Red and Violet and refer to the two magnetic polarities.
Would they look the same as the sunspot and flux graphs but have a lower noise floor?
The Sun would have its 66 flux unit floor at all times, probably even during the Maunder minimum. We think this is so, because solar activity was VERY low a hundred years ago, yet the ‘magnetic network’ that produces the emission [and which we can see in Calcium lines] then looks indistinguishable from what it looks like today. [we have photographs since of those: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ulrich/MW_SPADP/index.html ]
Here is something for the barycenter/SIM/planetary crowd to have fun with:
Long-term predictive assessments of solar and geomagnetic activities made on the basis of the close similarity between the solar inertial motions in the intervals 1840–1905 and 1980–2045
Charvátová, I.
New Astronomy, Volume 14, Issue 1, p. 25-30. 01/2009.
DOI: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.04.005
Abstract
The solar inertial motions (orbits) (SIMs) in the years 1840–1905 and 1980–2045 are of a disordered type and they are nearly identical. This fact was used for assessing predictive capabilities for the sizes of three future sunspot cycles and for the time variation of the geomagnetic aa-index up to 2045. The author found that the variations in sunspot numbers in the interval 1840–1867 and in the interval 1980–2007 are similar, especially after 1850 (1990). The differences may be ascribed to the lower quality of the sunspot data before 1850. A similarity between the variations in geomagnetic aa-index in the intervals 1844–1867 and 1984–2007 is also found. Moreover, the aa-index in these intervals have the same best fit lines (the polynomials of the fourth order) with close positions of the extrema. The extrema of the best fit line for the aa-index in the interval 1906–1928 which corresponds to the first half of the ordered, trefoil interval of the SIM have the opposite positions to them. The correlation coefficient between the aa-indices in the interval 1844–1866 and in the interval 1984–2006 is 0.61. In contrast, the correlation coefficient between the aa-indices in the interval 1844–1866 and in the interval 1906–1928 is ‑0.43. Cautious predictions have been made: the author believes that the cycles 24–26 will be a repeat of cycles 11–13, i.e. they could have heights around 140 (100), 65 and 85, they will have lengths of 11.7, 10.7 and 12.1 years. The maxima of the cycles should occur in 2010, 2023 and 2033, the minima in 2007, 2018, 2029 and 2041. Up to 2045, the aa-index could repeat its values for the interval 1868–1905. The results indicate that solar and geomagnetic activities are non random processes. If these predictions may come true, then further evidence of the primary role of the SIM in solar variability is established.
Interesting to note that when the data doesn’t fit theory, its the data that’s bad. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (19:30:22) :
Here is something for the barycenter/SIM/planetary crowd to have fun with:
I think maybe you are the one having fun Leif, but must admit I am not a fan of Charvátová. In my opinion he gets it wrong and doesn’t quite understand the complexity of the planetary positions but instead uses the pattern changes when observing barycenter movements. The pattern goes to “unordered” in the periods he mentions but that by itself is not enough because of the slightly changing patterns each 178 years as discussed.
He might be right on the SSN before 1850 and do like this paper proposing a missing sunspot group.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2002GL015640.pdf
To me there is a lot of similarity between SC23 and the “new” SC4 and the Fig1a of the above paper could very well match SC23, SC24 and SC25.
Leif Svalgaard (19:30:22) :
Here is something for the barycenter/SIM/planetary crowd to have fun with:
BTW…what are you doing reading that “stuff” anyway?
nobwainer (21:06:42) :
BTW…what are you doing reading that “stuff” anyway?
As a scientist I read everything in my ‘field’. Not just what I like.
On the ‘lost’ cycle. Didn’t happen. The sunspot cycle has a geomagnetic signature and we have geomagnetic data for that period and they show no lost cycle.
BTW, Charvátová is not a ‘he’. I know her. Met her last summer.
Leif Svalgaard (22:38:55) :
On the ‘lost’ cycle. Didn’t happen. The sunspot cycle has a geomagnetic signature and we have geomagnetic data for that period and they show no lost cycle.
I forgot to show the data. Gilpin observed the daily ‘swing’ of the compass needle in London during 1786-1805. Here is his result:
http://www.leif.org/research/Gilpin.png
The red circles are mean values for months with actual observations. The continuous line is a fit to those. The size of the swing undergoes a seasonal variation [the full curve] and its amplitude also depends on the sunspot number. There is no sign of a maximum in 1795.
The starting point of this thread was by Warwick Hughes — see his own blog for an update which includes four new graphs by David Archibald which I’m sure WUWT readers will find worth looking at.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=180#more-180
His Be10 graph shows how three minimums coincide with Be10 peaks, supposedly supporting the GCR idea. I note that the Maunder ends with a peak; it doesn’t begin with one. And the Dalton peak isn’t that much bigger than the values at other non-minimum times.
And for the ones who would like to dig up Gilpin’s data, here is the complete cite:
Observations on the Variation, and on the Dip of the Magnetic Needle, Made at the Apartments of the Royal Society, between the Years 1786 and 1805 Inclusive
Gilpin, George
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Volume 96, pp. 385-419, 1806
Leif Svalgaard (22:38:55) :
On the ‘lost’ cycle. Didn’t happen. The sunspot cycle has a geomagnetic signature and we have geomagnetic data for that period and they show no lost cycle.
You know only too well that the aa and 10Be records quite often don’t line up well with sunspot records.
Apologies to Charvátová.
To put Gilpin’s data in perspective: Here is Ellis’ from Greenwich 1841-1877:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ellis.png
Note the solar cycle variation of both the overall level and of the seasonal swing. The latter small at minimum where the level is also small, and large at max where the level is also large. All this is very well understood in great quantitative detail.
Leif Svalgaard (23:07:39) :
There is no sign of a maximum in 1795
I think i can see one….remember the activity is near minimum. One thing i cannot see in your graph is the 1788 peak, not enough proof for my liking.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/lostcycle.jpg
Here’s a couple of graphs showing the difference in aa and 10Be records compared to sunspot records.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/aassn.jpg
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/leif10bessn.jpg
Pet Rock (23:15:01) :
His Be10 graph shows how three minimums coincide with Be10 peaks, supposedly supporting the GCR idea. I note that the Maunder ends with a peak; it doesn’t begin with one. And the Dalton peak isn’t that much bigger than the values at other non-minimum times.
These peaks have nothing to do with solar activity or GCRs directly. They are caused by volcanoes. See the Figure on page 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
Volcanoes pump sulphor into the atmosphere [aerosols] and help wash 10Be out, so the deposition of 10Be is larger several years after a large volcanic [and not just any type – must be special sulphor-rich] eruption. Note the 1883+ peak caused by Krakatoa, the 1814+ peak caused by Mayon and Tambora, the ~1700 peak caused by Hekla [and assorted other Icelandic eruptions – close to Greenland, BTW, so large effect].
Volcanoes also cool the atmosphere, so no wonder temps seem to correlate with 10Be. 🙂
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see. Not surprising, just amazing how obvious it is.
Pet Rock (23:15:01) :
four new graphs by David Archibald which I’m sure WUWT readers will find worth looking at.
As usual, Archibald is not quite ‘candid’ with the data. His last graph, for example, has the green curve mislabeled ‘cycle 24’. It is not 24, but the tail end of cycle 23. And the average curves hide the enormous scatter. To see what an ‘honest’ graph looks like, go to page 7 of:
http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf
and note that the individual cycles scatter all over the place. It is a bit misleading to compare a single cycle [green curve] to average cycles [red and blue] curves, without indication of scatter or error bars.
nobwainer (00:14:46) :
There is no sign of a maximum in 1795
I think i can see one….remember the activity is near minimum. One thing i cannot see in your graph is the 1788 peak, not enough proof for my liking.
You miss the point: the sunspot record is the unreliable one, the geomagnetic record is solid [there is also data from Paris and Rio de Janeiro]. 1795 has the smallest annual swing and is thus right at the minimum, not the maximum as Usoskin claims. Gilpin’s data show a possible peak in 1787. Close enough. Gilpin’s data is based on many hundreds of measurements. Go read the fascinating paper.
The aa-record before 1868 is somebody’s WAG.
Time to repeat what I just said:
“It is amazing how people only see what they want to see. Not surprising, just amazing how obvious it is.”
nobwainer (00:14:46) :
One thing i cannot see in your graph is the 1788 peak, not enough proof for my liking.
My graph has its highest point in 1887. You graph shows a peak in 1787 too. There is no 1788 peak.
My graph has its highest point in 1787. You graph shows a peak in 1787 too. There is no 1788 peak.
Leif Svalgaard (00:30:49) :
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see. Not surprising, just amazing how obvious it is.
Mount Pinatuba is the 2nd largest eruption in the 20th century spewing 20 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. Cant see it in your 10Be chart and the temperature seems to not be affected, altho wiki suggests a drop of .5C worldwide.
Are there any papers that quantify the effect on 10Be by volcanoes?
Leif Svalgaard (00:02:01) :
To put Gilpin’s data in perspective: Here is Ellis’ from Greenwich 1841-1877:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ellis.png
Cant quite see your point Leif, this is also a different period to 1790 etc.
I cant see anything that refutes Usoskins’s paper
nobwainer (01:04:33) :
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see.
Mount Pinatuba is the 2nd largest eruption in the 20th century spewing 20 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. Cant see it in your 10Be chart
As I have said already [and it is the paper too], the 10Be data only goes up to 1930, after that the data is ’10Be’ equivalent constructed from Muon and Neutron Monitor measurements that are not affected by the 10Be deposition problem, therefore no Pinatuba effect. How is it possible that you can think that I would overlook Pinatuba [if it had been real 10Be]? shame on you. You can safely assume that everything [that you possibly can think of] has already been considered.
and the temperature seems to not be affected, altho wiki suggests a drop of .5C worldwide.
somewhat inconsistent, no? Of course the temp was affected.
Are there any papers that quantify the effect on 10Be by volcanoes?
No, because you are seeing science in the making!
Here are some thoughts and data on volcanoes and temps [it is marred by excessive AGW nonsense too, so beware]: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/S4_03_Crowley.pdf
nobwainer (01:13:13) :
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see.
To put Gilpin’s data in perspective: Here is Ellis’ from Greenwich 1841-1877:
Cant quite see your point Leif, this is also a different period to 1790 etc.
The point is that the size of the annual swing goes in step with the overall level and both faithfully mirror the sunspot number. In a sense, what you see is the solar cycle [modulated by the length of the day = amount of sunshine on the ionosphere]. This you should be able to see working during a period where the sunspot record is reasonable good and therefore gain confidence in the method.
I cant see anything that refutes Usoskins’s paper
Then with your newfound knowledge you should be able to see from Gilpin’s data that there was a solar minimum in 1795. Usoskin claims 1795 was the maximum of the lost cycle, hence his claim is refuted. As simple as that.
nobwainer (23:55:46) :
You know only too well that the aa and 10Be records quite often don’t line up well with sunspot records.
Ah, that is the reason for your confusion.
In the geomagnetic record there are two causes:
1) the solar wind [aa and 10Be go with this]
2) the FUV and Xray flux which cause the ionosphere
The latter goes strictly with the sunspot number. The daily range of the declination that Gilpin and Ellis observed is due to the second cause and therefore go strictly with the sunspot number. Naive me thought that you would at least look at the papers I referred to [how dumb of me], here is one again that explains in simple terms how this works: http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf
The bottom line is that the range of the declination is a very direct measure of the sunspot number. Already Wolf knew this in the 1850s.
So, since Gilpin’s range data show no maximum in 1795, there was no sunspot maximum either. As simple as that.
Leif Svalgaard (02:01:21)
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see.
OK …so you have Pinatubo covered and Krakatoa is big but i cant find an estimated SO2 figure and it doesn’t line up with a solar minima anyway. Do you have emitted SO2 levels for eruptions that occurred during the Dalton and Maunder as only that is of real relevance?
Leif Svalgaard (02:01:21) :
somewhat inconsistent, no? Of course the temp was affected.
I mentioned that Wiki reported a .5C decrease….I wouldn’t stand behind them, if you look at the satellite records no apparent .5C decrease is visible.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
nobwainer (02:59:59) :
OK …so you have Pinatubo covered and Krakatoa is big but i cant find an estimated SO2 figure and it doesn’t line up with a solar minima anyway.
Does it have to line up with a solar minimum to be counted? What is important is that it lines up with a 10Be maximum.
Do you have emitted SO2 levels for eruptions that occurred during the Dalton and Maunder as only that is of real relevance?
Nobody has that. But what is your problem? 10Be has a max. The year without a summer [1816] was no doubt due to Tambora, etc.
I mentioned that Wiki reported a .5C decrease….I wouldn’t stand behind them, if you look at the satellite records no apparent .5C decrease is visible.
As I said, people see what they wanna see. I see no 0.5C decrease, but rather a 0.7C decrease. T is clearly somewhat depressed for the next couple of years. But we are getting away from the 10Be peaks which are the ones that have my attention.
Clearly Archibald was arguing that the ‘three 10Be peaks’ were of climate importance. I don’t disagree that there were coolings at those times. My beef is that those peaks may not be solar related or GCR related at all, but were caused by volcanoes.
Lief,
I think that Tambora (VEI=7) made a cold time worse. Mt St. Helens (VEi=5) in 1980, and Mt Pinatubo (VEI=6) in 1991 (while both were smaller eruptions) didn’t seem to have a significant effect on the climate like Tambora. IF I read VEI scale correctly, a 7 is 10 times worse than a 6. It seems to me that volcanic eruptions affected the climate of the LIA, but were not the sole cause.
nobwainer (02:59:59) :
Krakatoa is big but i cant find an estimated SO2 figure and it doesn’t line up with a solar minima anyway.
Krakatoa is the most important one as we have good data on that. The 10Be peak in 1883 translates [as per Beer and McCracken – and I don’t disagree] to a heliomagnetic field, B, of only 1 nT while it most likely was about 7 nT. No need for fancy modeling. During the spacecract age, we have to fair approx. that aa = 3 B. With B = 1 nT, aa would have had to be down to 3, which it never was. At that time [corrected] aa was around 21, so B = 7.
So, the point is: there are large peaks in 10Be that are not related to the solar wind or GCRs. These peaks happen at times of large volcanic eruptions, so those become a target for investigation, instead.
Steve M. (08:30:14) :
It seems to me that volcanic eruptions affected the climate of the LIA, but were not the sole cause.
At this point I’m don’t care about the climate. The issue is: were the ‘three peaks in 10Be’ caused by the Sun, and I think not. I think the culprit were volcanoes. So, bringing up the 10Be record as evidence for various Dalton, Maunder minima, GCRs, etc is not warranted as the ‘peaks’ were likely not related to anything solar.
Leif (11:37:30) : said,
10Be and 14C. By looking in ice cores and tree rings we can infer this magnetic cycle back in time and [here comes the problem:] that magnetic cycle was operating as usual during the Maunder and Spoerer minima. The magnetic cycle was not appreciably suppressed during those times.
10be filtered data from 1453 to date presents additional puzzles, very few sunspots were observed between 1650 and 1700 and the telescopic observations of that time provide little room for ambiguity, yet the 10be data shows a well defined and strong 11 year cycle for this same period. Perhaps both data sets are correct but are measuring different things. Even without sunspots the 11 year cycle may occur in other phenomena, coronal extent, general magnetic field strength.
The role of the sun and climate change.
Douglas V Hoyt.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EBTZ4LdSfhwC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=10be+was+high+in+maunder+minimum&source=web&ots=g2pWB16Cjw&sig=4YcNl1M-08Hg35E3h9a4uwfAjr8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA176,M1
To my mind this does not take away the clear correlation between the lack of sunspots and lower temperatures seen in the Maunder min and other minimums. Perhaps the sun only produced TINY TIMS throughout the majority of that time which could not be seen with the equipment available, perhaps tiny tims are irrelevant within the sun spot count and they should be ignored.
On Climate Audit commenters noted that the criteria for naming hurricanes had become so weakened that practically any frontal wave in the Eastern Atlantic that persisted for more than a few hours got a name (the so-called “Tiny Tims” of the hurricane season). Prior to satellites they would have remained invisible.
The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al., 1999), the global temperature on earth increased by about 0.6C. perhaps the energetic flares, coronal mass ejections, eruptive prominences have a larger effect than total irradiance, If not then TSI has to be the cause of the LIA, if neither of these is the culprit what did cause the cooling and what eventually caused the warmings?
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Rob (09:37:47) :
The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al., 1999),
No, it has not:
http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Increase%20VxB%20Since%201926.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Doubling.pdf
and most clearly here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (02:01:21) :
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see.
And….Krakatoa seems to make a big dent in your 10Be graph but has no effect on world temps in 1883 or after….not even the ever reliable GISS record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Plenty of holes in this one Leif…cant have your cake and eat it too.
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:29)
Does it have to line up with a solar minimum to be counted? What is important is that it lines up with a 10Be maximum.
Your flogging a dead horse on this one, You are making a statement that large releases of SO2 affect the pre 1930 10Be records AND also drive down world temps. I cant see any dramatic affect from Pinatubo, other than normal fluctuations. Suggesting that Pinatubo is the cause of the normal fluctuation that would disappear with any smoothing is a weak argument. It could also be argued that it was caused by a weakening sunspot cycle.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
But lets move onto Krakatoa as we would expect something from the mother of volcanoes.
Krakatoa coincides with the largest dip in your supplied 10Be records but there is no change to world temps in 1883, even in the ever reliable GIFF records.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
You cannot provide volcanic SO2 records for eruptions that occurred in past grand Minima so its impossible to suggest they were the cause of the cooling. And as Krakatoa shows, large volcanic eruptions can have nil effect on temp.
There is no science on how volcanic SO2 causes a change to 10Be records.
You can safely assume that everything [that you possibly can think of] has already been considered.
Thats a big statement Leif.
Nobody has that. But what is your problem? 10Be has a max. The year without a summer [1816] was no doubt due to Tambora, etc.
I think i made my point….and that is another statement of yours without fact.
Leif Svalgaard (02:11:37) :
Then with your newfound knowledge you should be able to see from Gilpin’s data that there was a solar minimum in 1795. Usoskin claims 1795 was the maximum of the lost cycle, hence his claim is refuted. As simple as that.
The problem Leif is that you have not provided me with any newfound knowledge from the very weak graph you provided.
http://www.leif.org/research/Gilpin.png
It would need to go back further to show the decline to minimum around 1785 which doesnt seem to be apparent in 1786 to show some sort of accuracy and as i mentioned previously the lost cycle would not show a normal peak due to the very low activity as you can also see in the very weak peak of around 1805. To hold up that graph as irrefutable evidence that the lost cycle didnt happen is certainly drawing a long bow and i would suggest its a fairly weak proxy record.
But rather than writing war and peace on the topic lets watch SC24 and see if it ends up looking like the “lost” SC4.
The accumulation of solar energy over time in the Earth’s oceans. TSI has recently stayed at a much higher level for a much longer period of time than before, thus I believe gradually nudging the Earth toward higher surface temperatures by warming the oceans.
There are two graphs showing duration of TSI in this AGW site below.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/here-comes-the-sun/
How the Oceans Get Warm
Warming the ocean is not a simple matter, not like heating a small glass of water. The first thing to remember is that the ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.
Let’s begin with radiant energy from two sources: sunlight, and infrared radiation, the latter emitted from the “greenhouse” gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and various others) in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of about 100 meters.
The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases. (It is typical for the ocean temperature in Hawaii to be 26°C (78°F) at the surface, and 15°C (59°F) at a depth of 150 meters.
The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.
The concept proposed in some predictive models is that any anomalous heat in the mixed layer of the ocean (the upper 100 meters) might be lost to the deep ocean. There have been a number of studies in which this process has been addressed (Nakamura 1997; Tanimoto 1993; Trenberth 1994; Watanabi 1994; and White 1998). It is clear that solar-related variations in mixed-layer temperatures penetrate to between 80 to 160 meters, the average depth of the main pycnocline (density discontinuity) in the global ocean. Below these depths, temperature fluctuations become uncorrelated with solar signals, deeper penetration being restrained by the stratified barrier of the pycnocline.
Consequently, anomalous heat associated with changing solar irradiance is stored in the upper 100 meters. The heat balance is maintained by heat loss to the atmosphere, not to the deep ocean.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
nobwainer (14:20:13) :
And….Krakatoa seems to make a big dent in your 10Be graph but has no effect on world temps in 1883 or after…
The cooling is not important for my argument [that was a side issue which I didn’t need to quibble about], but since it seems to be important to you, I can offer this:
“Krakatoa eruption cooled the world
09 February 2006
WHEN the Indonesian volcano Krakatoa erupted in 1883, sending 25 cubic kilometres of rock and ash into the air, it did more than generate the loudest sound ever recorded. It also cooled the world’s oceans and suppressed rises in sea level for decades afterwards.
Peter Gleckler of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and colleagues compared climate models that included volcanoes with those that did not. To their surprise they found that volcanoes seem to have a cooling effect on the oceans that lasts for up to a century after an eruption. The cooling effect of Krakatoa lasted well into the 20th century, says Gleckler.
Big volcanoes inject ash high into the atmosphere and block out sunlight for months or even years, which cools ocean surface waters (Nature, vol 439, p 675).”
There is no science on how volcanic SO2 causes a change to 10Be records.
I think you misunderstood me here [or I expressed myself poorly]. There are no papers yet that connects 10Be maxima to volcanoes, but there is lots of science on the two sides of the connection:
1) Some volcanoes produce lots of sulfate aerosols, e.g. http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Library/glossary.php3?xref=sulfate%20aerosol
2) “Once produced, 10Be attaches primarily to sulfate aerosols, which are deposited at the Earth’s surface by both wind- and precipitation-related processes.[..] A complicating factor is the possibility that climatic effects may confound solar signals in the 10Be record. [ e.g. Veeder: http://eesc.columbia.edu/research/grad/veeder/index.html and many others – this is a well-known fact]
You can safely assume that everything [that you possibly can think of] has already been considered.
Thats a big statement Leif.
But well founded because I can bring four decades of research on this to bear [and amply illustrated by the case of Pinatubo].
“The year without a summer [1816] was no doubt due to Tambora, ”
[…] and that is another statement of yours without fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer should be good enough.
nobwainer (16:15:23) :
The problem Leif is that you have not provided me with any newfound knowledge from the very weak graph you provided.
It would need to go back further to show the decline to minimum around 1785 which doesnt seem to be apparent in 1786 to show some sort of accuracy
First you have to absorb the knowledge, then apply it. The knowledge is that there is a very STRONG [one-to-one] correspondence between the sunspot number [or even stronger with a real index of solar activity – the f10.7 flux] and the amplitude of the daily variation of the Declination. If you know of these two, you can with precision calculate the other [and vice versa]. The ‘Ellis’ graph was intended to drive that home [as well as Figures 4 and 5 in http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf – this has been known now for 150 years, and must be considered as established]. Therefore we do not need to know how the curves behaved before 1786 [although we do know what it looked like from Cassini’s observations since 1781 in Paris]: the relationship holds for any year [e.g. 1795] without reference to earlier or later times.
and as i mentioned previously the lost cycle would not show a normal peak due to the very low activity as you can also see in the very weak peak of around 1805.
What is a ‘normal’ peak? No peak at all? Usoskin suggests a minimum in 1793 and a maximum in 1795. If so, the range in the Declination [and the level] should be lower in 1793 than in 1795, and just the opposite is observed. You can always say that the data is no good, but that is just denialist.
To hold up that graph as irrefutable evidence
Nothing is irrefutable; I once heard someone say: “if that is fact, then I refute fact”.
I would suggest its a fairly weak proxy record.
The sunspot number itself is a rather arbitrary proxy for solar activity. The D-range is the direct result of X-ray and FUV activity and is in many ways not a proxy, but a simple and direct measurement of solar activity.
But rather than writing war and peace on the topic lets watch SC24 and see if it ends up looking like the “lost” SC4.
Well, if we couldn’t even see the lost cycle, then SC24 cannot be lost the same way because it is here. But, you may have a point that further elucidation seems futile.
Rob (17:30:17) :
TSI has recently stayed at a much higher level for a much longer period of time than before […]
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/here-comes-the-sun/
Tamino shows an out-of-date reconstruction of TSI [Lean 2000]. Not even Judith Lean believes that one anymore. At a recent meeting [SORCE 2008 – google it] she said “long-term variations not yet detectable – do they occur?”. Tamino was cherry-picking Lean 2000 because it matches the temperature record before 1980, but not thereafter, thus proving AGW.
The cooling is not important for my argument [that was a side issue which I didn’t need to quibble about], but since it seems to be important to you, I can offer this:
On the contrary…its much more than a side issue and you have stated:
Volcanoes pump sulphor into the atmosphere [aerosols] and help wash 10Be out, so the deposition of 10Be is larger several years after a large volcanic [and not just any type – must be special sulphor-rich] eruption. Note the 1883+ peak caused by Krakatoa, the 1814+ peak caused by Mayon and Tambora, the ~1700 peak caused by Hekla [and assorted other Icelandic eruptions – close to Greenland, BTW, so large effect].
Volcanoes also cool the atmosphere, so no wonder temps seem to correlate with 10Be. 🙂
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see. Not surprising, just amazing how obvious it is.
To me you are inferring that during the Maunder and Dalton the lower global temps were caused primarily by volcanic eruptions (with hi SO2 values) that coincided in that time frame and had nothing to do with the sun. I have shown you that 2 big(SO2) recent eruptions have had little or no effect on the world temperature even though you come back with a very weak Wiki type statement with no facts….the temperature records speak for themselves. (it surprises me you would resort to wiki statements)
We also don’t know the SO2 values of eruptions during the Dalton and Maunder so cannot use them as proof especially since Krakatoa as shown blows that theory out the door. You certainly cant assume the lower 10Be records were due to volcanic eruptions during the Dalton and Maunder… You will have to concede on this point.
nobwainer (15:41:09) :
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:29)
Check out Henry and Elizabeth Stommel’s Volcano Weather. Henry Stommel was one of the pioneers in understanding ocean currents. Heck, check out my http://wermenh.com/1816.html which concentrates on the Summer of 1816 in New Hampshire. From my readings it’s clear that New England and similar latitudes elsewhere suffered with a southward shift of the storm track. The area did have several warm days, e.g. apple blossoms didn’t freeze, but there were several cold fronts and thunderstorms that ushered in cold Canadian air.
Tambora was a much larger explosion, about 5X, than Kratatoa, the latter gets more attention because the telegraph system let news about the explosion spread.
There is a huge amount of supporting evidence linking Tambora to 1816 and it brought much greater impacts than the rest of the Maunder Minimum. Why are you so quick to dismiss it?
Ric Werme (21:34:56) :
Why are you so quick to dismiss it?
I thought i made it quite clear…there is no way of knowing the SO2 level (other than rough ice cores) from Tambora and even if we assume it was high that still doesnt mean it had a drastic effect on the temp as Krakatoa shows. Tambora is listed as a scale 7, Krakatoa a scale 6 so i am not sure where the 5X comes from. Huaynaputina in 1600 is also a scale 6. Its a big assumption to think those volcanoes controlled the temps over a 30 and 90 yr period
nobwainer (20:57:59) :
On the contrary…its much more than a side issue and you have stated:
“Volcanoes also cool the atmosphere, so no wonder temps seem to correlate with 10Be. :-)”
With a smiley. And who knows best what I consider a side issue?
The cooling was not primarily due to volcanic eruptions. Those just help along, but the cold was much more extensive in time to be caused by the shorter lived eruptions.
(it surprises me you would resort to wiki statements)
When the wiki speaketh the truth it saves me typing stuff.
You certainly cant assume the lower 10Be records were due to volcanic eruptions during the Dalton and Maunder… You will have to concede on this point.
I agree; it’s the higher 10Be records that were due to volcanic eruptions that put more sulfuric aerosols into the stratosphere and thus enhance the deposition efficiency of 10Be.
Now, this is science, so everything is conjecture and subject to falsification.
Leif Svalgaard (22:25:55) :
The cooling was not primarily due to volcanic eruptions.
I think we are getting somewhere.
I agree; it’s the higher 10Be records that were due to volcanic eruptions
we all know the 10Be records are inverted but yes you got me 🙂
(but i am sure you understand my argument)
nobwainer (22:17:11) :
I thought i made it quite clear…there is no way of knowing the SO2 level (other than rough ice cores) from Tambora and even if we assume it was high that still doesnt mean it had a drastic effect on the temp as Krakatoa shows.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Indonesia/description_tambora_1815_eruption.html
The June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was global. Slightly cooler than usual temperatures recorded worldwide and the brilliant sunsets and sunrises have been attributed to this eruption that sent fine ash and gases high into the stratosphere, forming a large volcanic cloud that drifted around the world. The sulfur dioxide (SO2) in this cloud — about 22 million tons — combined with water to form droplets of sulfuric acid, blocking some of the sunlight from reaching the Earth and thereby cooling temperatures in some regions by as much as 0.5 degrees °C. An eruption the size of Mount Pinatubo could affect the weather for a few years.
A similar phenomenon occurred in April of 1815 with the cataclysmic eruption of Tambora Volcano in Indonesia, the most powerful eruption in recorded history. Tambora’s volcanic cloud lowered global temperatures by as much as 3 degrees °C. Even a year after the eruption, most of the northern hemisphere experienced sharply cooler temperatures during the summer months. In parts of Europe and in North America, 1816 was known as “the year without a summer.”
It is the SO2 amount that via water determines the cooling, so it seems clear that Tambora must have output much more SO2 than the 22 million tons of Pinatubo. In fact, Rampino, M.R., and S. Self. 1982. Historic Eruptions of Tambora (1815), Krakatau (1883), and Agung (1963), Their Stratospheric Aerosols, and Climatic Impact. Quaternary Research, 18, 127-143, estimate ratios of Tambora:Krakatau:Agung for sulfates of 7.5:3:1, so there are ways of knowing.
nobwainer (22:45:02) :
“The cooling was not primarily due to volcanic eruptions.”
I think we are getting somewhere.
I don’t think so, as nobody has ever claimed that. What is claimed is that the sharp spike of 10Be for example at the end of the Maunder Minimum was due to volcanoes and likely also caused a sharp cooling spike during the much more extensive LIA that had other, probably internal, oscillations as its main cause.
“I agree; it’s the higher 10Be records that were due to volcanic eruptions”, we all know the 10Be records are inverted but yes you got me 🙂 (but i am sure you understand my argument)”
Absolutely not, as it is precisely the point that these spikes were due to volcanic eruptions and not to the lack of solar activity.
nobwainer (22:17:11) :
Tambora is listed as a scale 7, Krakatoa a scale 6 so i am not sure where the 5X comes from.
As part of your continuing education [ 🙂 ] learn now that the scale is largely logarithmic, so that a scale 7 eruption ejects 10 times as much as a scale 6 eruption.
Leif Svalgaard (22:57:47) :
In fact, Rampino, M.R., and S. Self. 1982. Historic Eruptions of Tambora (1815), Krakatau (1883), and Agung (1963)
Interesting abstract that you refer, it goes on to say:
Decreases in surface temperatures after the eruptions of Tambora (1815), Krakatau (1883), and Agung (1963) were of similar magnitude, even though the amount of material (dust and volatiles) injected into the stratosphere by these three events differed greatly. Large amounts of fine ash and volatiles were dispersed into the upper atmosphere by Krakatau and Tambora; the Agung eruption in 1963 was a much smaller, vulcanian-type eruption which injected dust and volatiles into the stratospheric aerosol layer more directly. Analyses of magmatic volatiles indicate that the Agung eruption was proportionately richer in SO2 and Cl than either Tambora or Krakatau. Relative amounts of fine ash produced by the Tambora, Krakatau, and Agung eruptions are estimated at about 150:20:1, whereas the masses of atmospheric sulfate aerosols produced were on the order of 7.5:3:1.
Decreases in surface temperature of a few tenths of a degree C for several years following volcanic eruptions are primarily a result of the sulfate aerosols, rather than of the silicate dust. The similarity in the atmospheric response after these three eruptions supports the idea of limiting mechanisms on volcanic stratospheric-aerosol loading, which is suggested by microphysical processes of aerosol particles. Fluctuations in stratospheric aerosol optical depth seem to be controlled to a large degree by high-intensity sulfur-rich eruptions (e.g., Agung, 1963), which may however be relatively small in total ejecta volume. Such eruptions leave little geologic record, but appear as acidity peaks in polar ice cores.
A few tenths is a lot more believable than 3C stated in your other article.
So looking again at our GIFF record we actually see an increase in world temps at 1963. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif and that eruption supposedly produced more SO2 than Tambora.
So I think we can put the temperature argument to bed and the smaller than expected SO2 input from Tambora would add to the 10Be records but saying it contributes the major part of the 10Be record without any input from the greatly reduced solar activity is not based on good science.
Leif Svalgaard (23:44:00) :
As part of your continuing education [ 🙂 ] learn now that the scale is largely logarithmic, so that a scale 7 eruption ejects 10 times as much as a scale 6 eruption.
Thanks Leif, but we know its the size of the SO2 output that really counts.
Suspect we are both getting some education on this issue 🙂
Agung eruption was proportionately richer in SO2…7.5:3:1.
ok i should have read that more closely its obviously smaller than Tambora in SO2. I wonder how they arrived at that figure (not having access to the paper) On the McCraken 10Be the Krakatoa eruption completely overrides any solar influence where as the Tambora time scale 10Be closely follows the sunpsot activity. Also in 1700 according to McCraken we have a big dump from Hekla but nothing from the large eruption of hekla in 1845-6.
nobwainer (23:45:52) :
From your quote: “Analyses of magmatic volatiles indicate that the Agung eruption was proportionately richer in SO2 and Cl than either Tambora or Krakatau. Relative amounts of fine ash produced by the Tambora, Krakatau, and Agung eruptions are estimated at about 150:20:1, whereas the masses of atmospheric sulfate aerosols produced were on the order of 7.5:3:1.
Again you quote disingenuously; what it is really saying is just that Agung ejected only a third of Krakatoa and about a tenth of Tambora, not that Agung ejected more.
A few tenths is a lot more believable than 3C stated in your other article.
I was just quoting the USGS and don’t want to play the dueling cite game.
So looking again at our GIFF record we actually see an increase in world temps at 1963.
Followed by a good 0.3C drop in 1964. The eruption was 1963-1964 and it takes about a year for the cooling to hit through.
that eruption supposedly produced more SO2 than Tambora.
According to your own quote above, Tambora produced 7.5 times as much SO2 as Agung.
So I think we can put the temperature argument to bed and the smaller than expected SO2 input from Tambora would add to the 10Be records
Well, your interpretation of your own quote is so flawed as I just showed that we can put your argument out to pasture instead. You should really try to read what it says rather than just try to bend it to your views and hope that nobody will notice.
So saying it contributes the major part of the 10Be record without any input from the greatly reduced solar activity is clearly based on good science. Especially since Tambora was not the only eruption at that time. In http://www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/nov102006/1200.pdf there is a discussion of events in the early 1800s. “The most prominent doublet of nssSO2–4 peaks […] is related to the Tambora eruption of AD 1815 and an older eruption attributed to an unknown volcano during 1809. […] Tambora is considered to be the greatest volcanic event during the past 500 years, having a VEI of 7 and IVI6 of 0.72. The global sulphate fallout related to this mega event was estimated to be as high as ~150 megatons [see, we do have an idea of SO2 from Tambora], making it one of the most impressive volcanic events that had direct climatic impact.” In addition Mayon had its most destructive eruption in 1814.
“so that a scale 7 eruption ejects 10 times as much as a scale 6 eruption.” Thanks Leif, but we know its the size of the SO2 output that really counts.
Well, see above regarding SO2 from Tambora [7 times that of Pinatubo].
Suspect we are both getting some education on this issue 🙂
It seems to me that the education mostly is going your way. You see, I would not make the statements I do without having researched the subject in depth. And as I have remarked, you may assume that I have considered all these possible objections already. That is part of the thoroughness in research that I’m known for.
nobwainer (00:43:33) :
but nothing from the large eruption of hekla in 1845-6.
It was only a 4 on the VEI scale, so down by a factor of a thousand from Tambora.
Hekla was not the only one around 1700. Global volcanism was high then. Here are some of the major ones:
TONGKOKO Sulawesi (Indonesia) 1680
CHIKURACHKI Kuril Islands 1690 ± 10 years
HEKLA Southern Iceland 1693 Feb 13
SERUA Banda Sea 1693 Jun 4
KOMAGA-TAKE Hokkaido (Japan) 1694 Jul 4
FUJI Honshu (Japan) 1707 Dec 16
And, as always, not everything is due to just one cause [general climatic conditions and precipitation also plays a role]. And the SO2 production for these have to be checked and so on. Clearly there is work to be done to quantify these effects. But, it is a new and significant element to consider the possibility that a good part of the 10Be record that was traditionally ascribed to [lack of] solar activity may be due to volcanic eruptions combined with general climatic conditions [circulation and precipitation]. Before ‘the’ 10Be record is over-interpreted too much, one must also remember that different ice cores give somewhat different results when examined in detail. More cores are needed before a really reliable 10Be curve can be had.
“The June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was global.”
Wow, really? The whole surface of the planet erupted? How did i miss that?
Jeff Alberts (04:00:06) :
“The June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was global.”
Wow, really? The whole surface of the planet erupted? How did i miss that?
“global” in its effect. You’ll be amazed at what people can miss.
Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
If magnetic portals connect Sun and the Earth’s magnetosphere, then it is almost certain that similar portals connect to the immensely more powerful and larger Jupiter’s and Saturn’s magnetospheres. For solar wind to reach the Earth via Parker’s spiral it takes 2.9 days, Jupiter up to 1 month and Saturn about 3 months; note: not in a straight line but via Parker’s spiral
http://beauty.nascom.nasa.gov/~ptg/mars/movies/planet_sat/space_20.jpg
If there are currents flowing in both directions then combined feedback may take up to 6 months.
Dr. Hathaway states; “Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient. We don’t know why this works. The underlying physics is a mystery. But it does work”.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
It takes 6 years for the angle of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn configuration to change by 90 degrees. If the mentioned 3-6 months are added then the result is Dr. Hathaway’s “6 plus years”. It is just possible that the 90 degrees change in the Jupiter – Saturn angular displacement will significantly alter the total effectives of the magnetic portals, and in doing so via HS current feedback, affect sunspot cycle. This may be coincidence and pure speculation, but if it is not then “the underlying physics would not be a mystery; and we would know why IHV predictions work”.
Any better ideas ?
Anomalous heat associated with changing solar irradiance is stored in the upper 100 meters ocean. The heat balance is maintained by heat loss to the atmosphere, not to the deep ocean.
Lean 2005 still shows a high steady 50 year smoothed TSI, even though the watts/m2 are not as high as Lean 2000 the clear correlation between TSI and temperature still exists. Tamio gives a 0.6 degree C temperature rise since 1950 I believe UHI can account for at least 50% of that, I do not know how many studies of major cities and towns weather stations will need to be undertaken before this is accepted, but each one that comes along invariably shows a Large UHI effect compared to its nearest rural neighbour of between 2 and 10 degrees C.
http://www.acrim.com/Presentations/AGU%20Fall%202007/SanFrancisco-Scafetta.pdf
It is suggested that the suns irradience is not great enough to cause the present warming, if this is the case, it was then not great enough to have caused the past warmings at the end of the little ice age and the 1800 cold period, perhaps someone can provide an answer as to what initiated those and other past warmings if it was not the sun.
Lean 2005 shows a steady high TSI from 1950 to 2000, this I believe was the highest level of TSI in 1150 years, all this extra heat warming the oceans, is it any wonder that the air temperatures have kept on rising even though the TSI has been fairly constant over that period albeit at a very high level, it does not I believe need an increasing heat source to keep air temperatures rising.
vukcevic (12:17:16) :
Many things wrong here.
If magnetic portals connect Sun and the Earth’s magnetosphere, then it is almost certain that similar portals connect to the immensely more powerful and larger Jupiter’s and Saturn’s magnetospheres.
They do, of course, as we can see aurorae on Jupiter and Saturn.
For solar wind to reach the Earth via Parker’s spiral it takes 2.9 days, Jupiter up to 1 month and Saturn about 3 months; note: not in a straight line but via Parker’s spiral
The solar wind is radial. Does NOT follow the spiral anymore than the water from a rotating garden sprinkler does.
If there are currents flowing in both directions then combined feedback may take up to 6 months.
The current cannot flow towards the Sun as the solar wind is 11 times supersonic. It’s like a swimmer swimming at 1 mile per hour against a current flowing in the opposite direction at 11 miles an hour.
It takes 6 years for the angle of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn configuration to change by 90 degrees […] “the underlying physics would not be a mystery; and we would know why IHV predictions work”.
Any better ideas ?
Yes, lots, and they don’t work either.
Well, see above regarding SO2 from Tambora [7 times that of Pinatubo].
Wouldn’t that be a bit over twice if we go by their paper (7.5:3:1) 7.5 ratio to 3? and if so wouldn’t we expect to see that reflected in the 10Be…something not right.
You obviously wrote your reply while mine was being moderated and again i had the ratio wrong,( like perhaps you) but agree a lot more work needs to be done. To me i cant see any volcanic fingerprint on the McCraken chart during the Dalton, its nothing like the Krakatoa spike.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
Followed by a good 0.3C drop in 1964. The eruption was 1963-1964 and it takes about a year for the cooling to hit through.
? you must be looking at a diff temp record to the GISS record…the annual mean clearly shows a .2C rise from approx 1963-67, but its probably just part of the normal fluctuation like Krakatoa.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
I will do some work on Tambora and see what i can find, and as you found around 1700 was certainly a busy time.
I meant highest TSI in 11,500 years.
Without knowing the cause of previous warmings and coolings especially the little ice age which lasted for approximately 300 years no one can possibly link CO2 as the driver of the present warming, even the ice cores indicate this is not the case.
I believe the most important question to ask is, WHAT CAUSED THE LITTLE ICE AGE AND WHAT ENDED IT, when we know the answer to that question we will have a better idea than just guess work of what has caused this present warming.
The cause of the LIA is still a topic of debate. Up till now the two most probable hypotheses are related to volcanic eruptions and short cyclical changes in solar irradiance, (back to the sun again), see link below.
http://www.uab.es/servlet/Satellite?cid=1096481466574&pagename=UABDivulga%2FPage%2FTemplatePageDetallArticleInvestigar¶m1=1096481770302
Nobwainer
The first reference I can find to planetary alignment and sunspots is here
Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle, and Climatic Change**
by T. Landscheidt*
PUBLISHED BY SWETS & ZEITLINGER B.V. – LISSE
J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19
Do you subscribe to this proposed mecahnism OR are you the author??
nobwainer (14:30:56) :
Well, see above regarding SO2 from Tambora [7 times that of Pinatubo].
Wouldn’t that be a bit over twice if we go by their paper (7.5:3:1) 7.5 ratio to 3? and if so wouldn’t we expect to see that reflected in the 10Be…something not right.
Tambora 150 megaton
Pinatubo 22 megaton
And the response in 10Be need not be linear
You obviously wrote your reply while mine was being moderated and again i had the ratio wrong,( like perhaps you) but agree a lot more work needs to be done. To me i cant see any volcanic fingerprint on the McCraken chart during the Dalton, its nothing like the Krakatoa spike.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
Followed by a good 0.3C drop in 1964. The eruption was 1963-1964 and it takes about a year for the cooling to hit through.
you must be looking at a diff temp record to the GISS record
http://www.leif.org/research/GISS-volcanoes.png
Marked [with blue] are Krakatoa, Agung, and Pinatubo…
Colin Aldridge (15:43:39) :
The first reference I can find to planetary alignment and sunspots
http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
I don’t know if it will last but I think I see an old cycle 23 area comin round the bend in the southern hemisphere near the equator.
Colin Aldridge (15:43:39) :
Nobwainer
The first reference I can find to planetary alignment and sunspots is here
Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle, and Climatic Change**
by T. Landscheidt*
PUBLISHED BY SWETS & ZEITLINGER B.V. – LISSE
J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19
Do you subscribe to this proposed mecahnism OR are you the author??
No Dr. Landscheidt died in 2004, so unless you believe in ghosts i suspect not. I dont subscribe to “this mechanism” but do keep an open mind to the possibility of planetary influence on the Sun. Cycle 24 will most likely prove it either way in my view. I have just taken over a blog that has most of Landscheit’s papers. Check it out at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
Leif wrote: ““global” in its effect. You’ll be amazed at what people can miss.”
I know, but you didn’t write it that way. I was just having some fun 😉
Re: Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth
Leif Svalgaard (13:46:15) :
vukcevic (12:17:16) :
Many things wrong here.
Dr. Svalgaard
Perhaps I should have been more precise; I had in mind a “magnetic flux loop” as in
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/HSC.gif
Charged particles within such a loop (if it does exist) create an obvious bidirectional link between Sun and a magnetosphere. The analogy with a garden sprinkler is not entirely appropriate for such “flux loop”. Although movement of a loop’s front is radial, the loop is locked into a rotating source an as consequence “stretched” backwards along a spiral. However, this is not particularly relevant since propagation time, even from a static source, would still be 0.5 and 1 month approx. If there is a 6-year IHV precursor to sunspot cycles, then I am not aware of a clear explanation, regardless of accuracy of Dr. Hathaway’s predictions. I cannot see any harm in having a go, although I did qualify it: “This may be coincidence and pure speculation”; for the time being I am happy to accept it to be just that and no more.
By the way thanks for the link: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf I shell read it with a particular interest.
vukcevic (03:29:00) :
If there is a 6-year IHV precursor to sunspot cycles
The precursor time is not sharply defined and varies between 4 and 9 years.
Tambora and central England temperatures from 1770-1840
http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view¤t=tamboraandcenglandtemps.jpg
Volcanoes and climate from 1740, it would seem volcanoes did not cause the past cooling.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndVolcanoes.htm
OT: I wondered if anybody here recognized this (apparently well-known) equation?
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Rob (09:00:49) :
Volcanoes and climate from 1740, it would seem volcanoes did not cause the past cooling.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndVolcanoes.htm
From your link:
Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and longer periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped about 0.5oC for about two years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and low air temperatures caused crop failures and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Click here to see a list of volcanic eruptions.
Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth’s surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.
Volcanic dust blasted into the atmosphere causes temporary cooling. The amount of cooling depends on the amount of dust, The duration of the cooling depends on the size of the dust particles. Particles the size of sand grains usually fall out of the air in a matter of a few minutes and stay close to the volcano, and therefore have little effect on global climate.
Dust-size ash particles will float around in the lower atmosphere for hours or days, causing darkness and cooling directly beneath the ash cloud, but these particles are quickly washed out of the air by rain. However, dust reaching the dry upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, can remain for weeks or months before they settle back to the planet surface. These particles block sunlight and cause cooling over large areas.
Volcanoes that release large amounts of sulphur compounds like sulphur oxide or sulphur dioxide affect the climate more strongly than other volcanoes mainly ejecting dust. The sulphur compounds usually rise easily into the stratosphere. There they combine with water vapour to form a haze of tiny droplets of sulphuric acid. These tiny droplets are very light in colour and reflect a great deal of incoming sunlight. Although the sulphuric acid droplets eventually may grow large enough to fall to the earth, the stratosphere is so dry that this process usually takes months or even years. Consequently, reflective hazes of sulphur droplets can cause significant global cooling for 2-3 years after a major sulphur-bearing volcanic eruption.
Sulphur hazes are believed to have been the primary cause of the global cooling that occurred after the large Pinatubo (1991; see below) and the Laki (1783-1785) and Tambora eruptions (1815).
————
The cooling is a side issue. My interest in this is the effect that volcanoes have on the 10Be deposition and the confusion that causes with regard to solar activity influence on 10Be production.
Bill P (10:02:50) :
OT: I wondered if anybody here recognized this (apparently well-known) equation?
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Of course, it’s the Drake Equation.
Leif Svalgaard
Of course, it’s the Drake Equation.
Something new to me; much more about it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The enigma of looking for (listening) life from other planets lies in the great time/distance scale of things. We’ve only been listening for some few decades when our civilization took some 10,000 yrs to get here. When I consider the energy consumed to produce the technology to be listening AND trying to ferret out meaningful signals, the amount of technologically supported time in our history tells me we won’t be doing this for very long.
It also hints that whomever else is out there likewise may not be transmitting long enough to get an overlap in the brief windows of simultaneous transmit/receive.
The sobering reality of the vastness of space comes crashing down around ones ears when computing a simple task as in how long will it take a conventional rocket (using slingshot of course) to reach the Centauri system (4.x light years). Ouch, 60,000 years really hurts. We are several orders of magnitude short of the journey speed rate at a time when Earth’s resources are seen as finite to support such endeavors.
Drake had to be dreaming to be thinking this stuff.
Where’s the reality?
We had better find life on Mars: There isn’t much else that we can be looking/listening for that has a snowball’s chance in hell considering the astornomical odds against us.
I have a better chance of winning the Lottery.
The odds are immeasurably better.
Oh heck, building a monster telescope mirror on the moon using epoxy and moon dust is infinitely more feasible than getting to Alpha/Beta Centauri.
Just need a couple of space jockeys in suits, epoxy, something to spin the wheel for the parabola, some silver coating stuff, poles to support camera, camera and transmit receive electronics. Piece of cakewalk. I’ll be looking forward to those fantastic drift scans.