A guest post by Jeff Id
Well John Christy gave me a lot to think about in satellite temp trends as far as an improved correction over my last post. Steve McIntyre pitched in some comments as well. It is going to take a bit to work out the details of that for me but I think I can produce an improved accuracy slope over my last posts. In the meantime, I downloaded sunspot numbers from the NASA.
Cycles are interesting things. There are endless cycles in nature, orbits, ocean temp shifts, solar cycles, magnetic cycles the examples are everywhere. What makes a cycle unusual is also an interesting topic. Some solar scientists have claimed that our current solar cycle is not unusual by the record. They are certainly the experts but recently the experts have been forced to update their predictions for the next solar cycle.
Well, I’m no expert on the sun but I do find the data regarding sunspots interesting, particularly in the fact that we are again in at least a short term cooling at the same time sunspots and solar magnetic level have plunged.
Here’s an article from our all understanding US government.
What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)
And a few beginning lines.
July 11, 2008: Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally.
So says NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “There have been some reports lately that Solar Minimum is lasting longer than it should. That’s not true. The ongoing lull in sunspot number is well within historic norms for the solar cycle.”
Cool picture …….
See where the tiny little 2009 tick is. We should be increasing now and well on our way by 2010. By the way, this is an updated graph from the original predition.
Hathaway said, well within historic norms. Forecasting is the most dangerous sport, but I am as curious about this claim as any —he is the expert after all. Here’s a plot of the sunspot data from NASA NOAA numbers.
I did a sliding slope fit to the data to find when the slopes shifted from negative to positive in each cycle. I placed a red line above each point identified. These points are not intended to mean the beginning of a cycle( that is for the experts) but rather to be a consistent software identified point between each cycle.
The red lines represent solar minima. The only line which may not be a minima is the most recent in Jan 09 which we need to reference how unusual solar activity is.
Below is a list of the years the red lines are centered on.
1755.667, 1766.250. 1775.583, 1784.500, 1798.167, 1810.583, 1823.167, 1833.833, 1843.833, 1856.167, 1867.167, 1878.750
1889.500, 1901.750, 1913.167, 1923.417, 1933.750, 1944.167, 1954.250, 1964.833, 1976.250, 1986.250, 1996.417, 2009.041
The years between each minima are currently
10.583, 9.333, 8.916, 13.666, 12.416, 12.583, 10.666, 10.000, 12.333, 11.000, 11.583, 10.750, 12.250, 11.416, 10.250, 10.333,
10.416, 10.083, 10.583, 11.416, 10.000, 10.166, 12.625
So far there has been only one solar cycle which has exceeded the length of the current one. The cycle extended extra long (13.66 years) from 1784 – 1798 and was the last cycle leading into the Dalton Minimum.
A histogram of the distribution of the time between solar cycles looks like this.
The standard deviation of the total record is 1.18 years the mean is 11.01. Well there’s the eleven year solar cycle we hear about.
Two sigma (two standard deviation) difference from the mean corresponds to a 95% certainty of something unusual in our current situation. The numbers this year at mid Jan correspond to about 1.37 sigma of all time records, which is getting close. But that’s not the end of the story, after all I just included the dalton minimum cycles in the data right after we identified the solar cycle prior to the dalton minimum as the one with the longest time span on record. That means, I treated it as though it were a normal event. —– Well I do believe (on faith in nature) this length is normal, the sun isn’t doing anything different from before but there is only one of these long events on record and were we to look for a similar event it would be stupid to include it in the standard deviation dataset. We should only look at data which is not related to another potential dalton minimum from Figure 2 this would be after the dalton minimum and before present day (from 1833 – 1996).
The standard deviation of the cycle start after the dalton minimum 1833 and before 2009 was only 0.79 years. The average Jeff Id solar cycle in the same period is 10.83 years. This puts the two sigma limits of the solar cycle at 9.26 years on the short side and 12.42 years on the long side.
Of course this puts my reasonable analysis of solar cycle outside of the last 176 year normal to a two sigma 95% interval 12.6 years has crossed the limit. With little sign of the next cycle beginning yet, this might get worse. I tell you what, I prefer the taxes from global warming to the cost of glaciers in my yard, it seems like a balance of evils to me. I hope this solar cycle changes soon but we can no more effect the sun with a dance than we can effect global warming with a tax so what choice do we have.
In Dr. David Hathaway’s defense, he made his statement above in July which put the current minimum at 2008.583 which comes to 12.166 years and just inside the 95% two sigma certainty of 12.42.
Now that we’re at 12.6, I wonder if they’ll extend the predictions for the beginning of the next cycle again.
I have not been terribly impressed with NASA, it looks like to them the situation is unprecedented. This graph about NASA sunspot predictions tells you why…
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SSN_Predict_NASA.gif
We are but fleas … The sun, the stars & planets, the asteroids… they all are more than we.
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre5013yz-us-diamonds-comet/
Now that’s a climate forcing event…
“…I prefer the taxes from global warming to the cost of glaciers in my yard…”
Trouble is, you’re most likely to get both!
I have read repeatedly that solar cycles tend to be short (10-11) years or long (13-14) years. Your distribution seems to support this by showing two maximum values in the appropriate locations.
Any idea how the standard deviation would change if your analysis treated the current cycle as a member of only the longer data points ?. Perhaps there is not enough data to make the comparison useful ?.
I like to think that something like a long-term solar inactivity will, at least, take global warming hysteria out of people’s heads for a while, so they can go back to do good research. But then again, it sounds like such a steep price to pay for a readjustment in people’s perception of nature…
Is there some reason not to include the period from 1600 to 1750? Are the data too sparse to make an estimate of cycle length? Are there no suitable proxies to show the minima dates?
Nice work, BTW. Still trying to decide if the Dalton ought to be in or out of the baseline for a 2 sigma…
When it comes to predicting the strength of solar cycles and grand minima I dont think there are too many experts around…not going on past performance. This is one area of science in its infancy.
Whenever you invoke the sun as driver of climate variations, you may find a lot of correlations such as Maunder minimum and little ice age, but solar irradiance variations alone are far too small to account for the measured changes in global temperature. Little other than solar induced cosmic ray variations are left to be the driver, which brings up Svensmark’s idea of influencing the cloud formation through cosmic ray produced cloud droplet nucleation. Is there not a new paper based on satellite data, which reports no variation of cloud coverage through solar cycle 23 up to present?
Maybe NASA watches Bugs Bunny cartoons…
“Bugs Bunny Rides Again (1948) — Yosemite Sam dares anyone to stop his reign of terror…and guess who takes up the dare? Featuring Bug’s famous “I dare you to cross this line” which would show up in other Bugs vs. Sam toons.”
Just keep drawing a new line in the sand, then another, then another….
Warming, cooling, minimums, maximums…. we’re just passengers. Enjoy the ride.
Jeff, good thoughts as usual. Interesting to see how the numbers actually shake out.
One very pedantic comment: In the third to last paragraph, I think you meant “affect” rather then “effect” in both places. Unless, of course, you were thinking we might be able to tax our way into a warmer world . . . 🙂
I have also been very puzzled by Hathaway’s recent remarks. He has somewhat contradicted himself in the July 2008 NASA post “What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
Either he is under some political pressure to down play certain observations or less likely, he is embarrassed by being wrong in some of his predictions.
In May 2006 in the NASA post “Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries.” Hathawy refers to recent observations of the dramatic slowing down of the solar conveyor belt:
“Using historical sunspot records, Hathaway has succeeded in clocking the conveyor belt as far back as 1890. The numbers are compelling: For more than a century, “the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity.”
“If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be, like the belt itself, “off the bottom of the charts.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
Although he believed the sunspot cycle 25 could be weakest in centuries and that the sun was slowing down, he still believed that this cycle #24 would be large and intense and happen sooner than later.
That prediction relied on his belief about the nature of the solar Conveyor Belt. In the March 2006 NASA post “Solar Storm Warning” he argued
“When the belt is turning “fast,” it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: “The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996,” says Hathaway. “Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011”
He also thought “next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011”
He believed that the Conveyor belt had a 40 year cycle during which old sunspots were amplified and reborn. (The idea of the re-birth of old sunspots seems quite odd to me.) So his interpretation o the duration of the belt’s cycle would explain why he didn’t think dramatically low sunspots would occur in cycle 24 but not until cycle 25.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm
So in the July 2008 NASA post “What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)”, why would he limit his comments to “There have been some reports lately that Solar Minimum is lasting longer than it should. That’s not true. The ongoing lull in sunspot number is well within historic norms for the solar cycle.”
Why not also mention the observation that by “historic norms” the conveyor belt has slowed down to speeds below all historic records? Why not mention science is still learning about the sun?
If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.”
I think the sun just needs a bailout. We should pass legislation immediately that requires the sun to begin producing spots. And we need to immediately invest billions of dollars in alternative sun technology. We need to unleash the American entrepreneurial spirit in order to get the sun back on the proper track.
We all know the real cause of global warming and recent events seem to have confirmed this cause.
A new hypothesis of the cause of solar magnetic changes is that it seems to be proportional to the use of refrigerator magnets. The booming economy in China has resulted in a proliferation of refrigerators. Each one of these devices have the potential to attract one or more magnets that we use for such innocent purposes as holding photos of loved ones, shopping lists, or other items. We need to institute a global refrigerator magnet tax with the proceeds going toward those researching alternative solar technology.
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Now that we’re at 12.6, I wonder if they’ll extend the predictions for the beginning of the next cycle again.
Minimum is tricky to define. One definition [which may be better than the official one that relies of smoothed values over 13 month] could be the point from which on new cycle spots dominate over old cycle spots. As http://www.leif.org/research/Region%20Days%20per%20Month%20for%2023-24.png shows, one might make an argument for minimum in July or August 2008 so we might just stay within the 2 sigma. The plot shows days per month with SC23 regions [dark blue], with SC24 regions [pink]. The cyan curve is just the sunspot number divided by 0.3 and shows to what degree that number matches the sum of the two cycles. The point for Jan. 2009 is made on the assumption that the count in the 2nd half of the month will like it was in the 1st half.
There seem two relevant hypotheses to test:
a) The current cycle is consistent with a normal following cycle. The appropriate data exclude the dalton minima and its precedent cycle.
b) The current cycle is consistent with an abnormal following cycle. The appropriate data is that excluded for a).
Here is an animation done by Michael Romayne on how Hathaway’s prediction has changed over time from the Solar Science Blog.
http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/files/2008/10/ssn_predict_nasa.gif
There is an almost spot in the top right corner of the sun right now (2:25 AM EST). I kind of hope for a prolonged minimum to show those warrmies, but my jetski wont work very well on icy lakes up here in Canada.
E.M.Smith (22:05:18) : The least life in the universe is infinitely greater than all of the inanimate galaxies together. They are aware of nothing!
So, now that it’s obvious that we’re outside solar norms, will Dr. Hathaway publish a “Something is Most Definitely Wrong With the Sun, And Say, Have You Noticed How Cold It Is Lately?” article?
Leif Svalgaard (23:03:19) :
one might make an argument for minimum in July or August 2008
And by the same criterion [ see http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf ] the previous minimum was 1997.0, so the cycle length should be 2008.6 – 1997.0 = 11.6 which is less than one sigma from the mean [using the figures given: 10.86+/-0.79].
Perhaps it’s time to re-visit the ideas of Dr. Theodor Landscheidt who suggested a number of years back that the strength of SC23 indicated a future “deep Gleissberg minimum” that will be potentially similar to the Maunder.
Many of his predictions seem to be on the money and with the ongoing delay of SC24 and the current cooling that seems to be occuring, maybe Lanscheidt was on the right track. If so that’s another 20-30 years of significant cooling.
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
mmh.. i was under the impression cycle 23 ended around september/ocktober 2008.
isnt there a large transitionphase ?
I fear the published data about cycle length realy finishes the Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen graph.
David Corcoran (23:45:32) :
will Dr. Hathaway publish a “Something is Most Definitely Wrong With the Sun, And Say, Have You Noticed How Cold It Is Lately?” article?
Maybe if we apply some political pressure on him. Let’s lobby.