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.
Leif,
Now see, you’re no fun at all, at all. Here we want there to be something ‘wrong’ with the sun and you go consistently saying there isn’t and worse, you show that there isn’t.
I enjoy your posts and have learned much from them. Thank you.
“have seen people testify, under oath, to false facts, either knowingly (lying) or unknowingly (simply have things wrong in their memory, simply wrong in calculations or methodology, delusional or subconsiously “shading the facts” for a myriad of reasons).”
This brings up a very bothersome (for me) issue. Once something appears enough times on various websites to show up often in search engines, it appears to become “truth”. One example was power generation by wind. I read an article not long ago that said Denmark was generating 25% of their electricity with wind. I didn’t believe it. I wrote to the author and asked where the number came from. She said “Google it”. I did and noticed that the only numbers that appeared real to me mentioned “capacity” not actual output. In other words, wind had the potential to generate 25% if all the turbines were operating at full capacity *and* the wind blew according to some projection but there was no evidence that Denmark had ever experienced a day when 25% of its energy demand was met by wind power.
The Internet has made us much more susceptible to something being published that validates someone’s opinion, that being taken as fact and repeated, and it becomes the “conventional wisdom” simply by appearing in search engines.
In the UK, it was recently determined that the numbers produced showing generation potential of various sites has been overstated by about double. In generating a “capacity” number, people look at the potential output of a turbine and the amount of time the wind blows with enough velocity to operate the turbine. It turns out the the wind numbers were greatly overstated causing generation capacity numbers to be greatly overstated.
Back to your question. The numbers put out by NOAA are different than anyone elses. They take in the raw data and “adjust” the data values and the output is after this “adjustment”. GISS uses a different “adjustment”. GISS used to report that modern temperatures were higher than the temperatures in the 1930’s until Steve McIntyre found errors in how the “adjustments” were calculated causing modern temperatures to be readjusted downwards when the data values were corrected. Nobody knows what NOAA’s adjustment procedure is and they don’t seem to want anyone to find out, either. At least they don’t make public how they adjust them but I am not sure if anyone has specifically dug into that process yet (people are still trying to sort out GISS’ procedure and might want to take one thing at a time).
An article was published just yesterday at Climate Audit on this very subject so it might be laying the groundwork for people to begin digging in to NOAA’s process and finding out exactly what they are doing.
My prediction is also well on track: All I see of SC24 is lone skyscrapers on Long Island sticking out from the 500 foot water depth.
It all depends on what one perceives to be happening, or not happening.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (10:03:11) :
Lots of predictions out there….whose prediction are you talking about.
Mine, of course.
My prediction is on track, if we get a grand minimum this cycle your prediction is looking sad?
If it is a grand minimum [SSN near zero] both our predictions didn’t pan out. But then perhaps Schatten’s did:
Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?
Schatten, K. H.; Tobiska, W. K.
Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 35, p.817, 05/2003
Long-range (few years to decades) solar activity prediction techniques vary greatly in their methods. They range from examining planetary orbits, to spectral analyses (e.g. Fourier, wavelet and spectral analyses), to artificial intelligence methods, to simply using general statistical techniques. Rather than concentrate on statistical/mathematical/numerical methods, we discuss a class of methods which appears to have a “physical basis.” Not only does it have a physical basis, but this basis is rooted in both “basic” physics (dynamo theory), but also solar physics (Babcock dynamo theory). The class we discuss is referred to as “precursor methods,” originally developed by Ohl, Brown and Williams and others, using geomagnetic observations.
My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using “solar dynamo precursor” methods, notably a “SODA” index (SOlar Dynamo Amplitude). These methods are now based upon an understanding of the Sun’s dynamo processes- to explain a connection between how the Sun’s fields are generated and how the Sun broadcasts its future activity levels to Earth. This has led to better monitoring of the Sun’s dynamo fields and is leading to more accurate prediction techniques. Related to the Sun’s polar and toroidal magnetic fields, we explain how these methods work, past predictions, the current cycle, and predictions of future of solar activity levels for the next few solar cycles.
The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.
As a side note….did you have a prediction for SC20, i would be very surprised if you got that one right 10 yrs before the event?
On page 4 and 13 you can see my ‘prediction’ for SC20
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf some 40 years after the event.
‘Warmers avert your eyes from Icecap today, because you will end up frothing at the mouth. I have made a prediction of -0.4 degrees for May UAH MSU. El Ninos and La Ninas are additive, and it looks like we are in for a 1970s-style run of La Ninas.’
I’d much rather have an El Nino than a La Nina, and La Nina
is all we have had around here for the last 3 years, and this one seems
to be right on track for a 4th. I must live at ground zero.
I looked again at the data from Prof. Don .J. Easterbrook and his article Global Cooling is Here. H e talks about repeating 27 year cycles going back 500 YEARS. He also mentions 30 year cycles and 25-30 year cycles and he seems to use these three time intervals interchangeably. What struck me is that the node points of these cycles, or the crossing over points from a cold phase to a warm phase correspond very closely [plus or minus 1-2 years] with solar minimum periods after every three solar cycles , namely the so called the AHLUWALIA CYCLE. The solar minimum period can be several years on either side of the ‘selected ‘minimum year.In other words we have repeating and alternating cycles lasting approx. 3 solar cycles of warm , cold, warm, etc. The last warm cycle was 1976 to 2008 and included cycles # 21,22, 23. The last cool cycle was 1944 to 1976 and included cycles # 18,19, 20. Long solar cycles and low sunspot numbers seem to be cooler periods and short solar cycles and higher sun spot counts seem to be warmer periods. I am not saying that the sun has three solar cycle period. The three cycle periods of warming or cooling result from the combined interaction of direct sun warming and the PDO, AMO and ENSO ocean effects. PDO.AMO and ENSO effects overide or modify the specific solar cycle to warmer or cooler. Volcanic ash years cool the period in which they occur and can lower the temperature for several years.
matt v. (11:29:26) :
The last cool cycle was 1944 to 1976 and included cycles # 18,19, 20. Long solar cycles and low sunspot numbers seem to be cooler periods and short solar cycles and higher sun spot counts seem to be warmer periods.
The cool period 1944-1976 included two of the largest recorded solar cycles [18,19]…
Walter Cronanty (07:23:36) :
“Sorry, but this is totally off topic, but I’m frustrated by my own lack of knowledge, and am asking a very basic question”
Walter, I don’t think anybody would bother explaining you these rather basic questions. I personally like Ole Humlum’s web site as a good starting point: http://www.climate4you.com/
It is very comprehensive and also provides the latest temperature data from different sources.
Humlum is Professor of Physical Geography at the Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo and Adjunct Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS).
Leif Svalgaard (11:04:45) :
My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using “solar dynamo precursor” methods, ……
The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected
Dr. Svalgaard,
I do understand that, as a one of the world’s most prominent solar scientists, you can’t take seriously amateur’s work. But do you really believe (if for the moment you disregard other aspects of my hypothesis) that the equations on:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
are just product of sheer coincidence, since they indicate precisely what you said above:
a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle No.24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. /b>
I understand if you choose not to reply.
As far as SC20 is concerned
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (10:03:11)
As a side note….did you have a prediction for SC20….
Mr. Sharp I wonder what you would make of my comment on
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/graph1.gif
relating to 1968 (SC20)?
Jeff Id
Jeff try the Journal of Chemistry and Physics. I do not have access to the journal, but the data for the wavelength (nm) from 6 to 270 is shown in the charts at these links:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/spektrum_image3.php?subkat=Carbon+dioxide_CO2&kat=Carbon-oxides&file=CO2_6-155nm_log.JPG
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/spektrum_image3.php?subkat=Carbon+dioxide_CO2&kat=Carbon-oxides&file=CO2_118-270nm_lin.JPG
Hi Leif,
I have a simple question with a complex answer. What is the effect of VLF on water vapor? This question is due to the interaction between the ionosphere and the troposphere. It is an electric circuit that is influenced by CME’s and Flares. My thought is that when a CME or flare hits the ionosphere that the resulting VLF can cause the water vapor to react and then reduce the ability to create cloud nuclei. I know that water vapor is effected by VLF because this is how they measure water vapor / clouds. This is an effect that help radio guys to transmit over long distances. ???
Roger Sowell
That could have been my Hadley graphs to 1660 you made reference to and are repeated here.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken_hobgoblin.xls
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/menken_hobgoblin.jpg
The first is in Excel and contains all the data the second is a jpeg as not everyone can open excel.
TonyB
Sekerob Warning: JAXA was 0.87 million short on SIE mean compared to NSIDC/NCDC for December 2008. Every month a similar shortfall, so know which source to consider when drawing conclusions.
Thanks for your expert advice, but I’m happy looking at the JAXA graph that Anthony links to on this site. Again, why are you comparing JAXA to the Nansen graphs that haven’t been updated since 11 January? Perhaps they are still on holidays over there. Again, why do you assume Jaxa is wrong and the others right? You didn’t answer this question last time so I don’t expect you will this time. Perhaps Jaxa is funded by the oil lobby!
Matt V. (11:29:26)
And if we can find something in the solar cycles that alternates, like shape of peak cosmic rays from pointed to flatter, and if that difference leads to differential heating or cooling, then two solar cycles of Shape Pointed and one of Shape Flattened, alternating with one of Shape Pointed and two of Shape Flattened, and if the PDO shifts have temporal correlation with the solar cycles, then we might have a partial mechanism for solar control of the PDO.
====================
Leif Svalgaard (11:04:45) :
If it is a grand minimum [SSN near zero] both our predictions didn’t pan out
I am not predicting zero…this will be the weakest grand minimum in 700 yrs. I am predicting if the cycle max is after 2011 it will be less than 50 SSN…likewise for SC25 if cycle max is after 2020.
On page 4 and 13 you can see my ‘prediction’ for SC20
There is nothing on page 4 & 13 in your 2006 paper….the solar pole strength in SC19 would have been high (if u could record it), giving you no indication of the impending doom of SC20.
Leif Svalgaard (07:15:20) :
It may be that the low sunspot counts were due to what may happen around 2015 with the sunspot contrast getting so low that they fade from view. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/ Pure speculation, sorry. It will be an interesting few years.
New readers – please read that link, it’s the most intriguing item ever posted here.
@Walter Cronanty (07:23:36) :
You, sir, have very sound instincts. Welcome aboard!
Sidebar: I’ve been wondering why there have been no class action lawsuits over the long term promotion of transfat laden margarine for ‘heart health’ when it’s now been shown that transfats are worse than any other and that saturated fats are ‘neutral’ to cholesterol… But the science was settled …
I would summarise ‘the basics’ as:
1) The raw data is defective. There are many pages here about various thermometer errors (placement, urban heat island, changed paint type leading to higher readings, etc.) that bias the data to the high side.
2) The raw data is missing. There are several variations here, too. Stations come and go. Sometimes large numbers (when the USSR collapsed a very large percentage of total thermometers just went away, many in Siberia. At the same time the recorded temperature average went up…)
3) The raw data is from too short a period. We are looking at a system with at least 1500 year cycles in it (Google “Bond Event wiki” for details). To do that and not be fooled by a cyclical slope needs about 3000 years data. For satellite data we have 30 years or so. For land based thermometers, a couple of hundred. That couple of hundred just happens to start at the bottom of a cold period known as the Little Ice Age and is rising due to a normal cycle. It was warmer in the past (several times in history, more times demonstrable by archaeology like the ice man from under a glacier…) and No Bad Thing happened.
4) Sometimes the raw data is just made up. GISS, it seems, can fill in the arctic temperatures with guesses via computer. ANY US land station can have missing readings ‘estimated’ by the person filling in the form if they want. (Missed a day? Just make it up…).
5) Once the data are collected, they are subject to strange and wondrous changes and manipulations. The exact methods are more or less secret. The changes are conducted by people who often have their entire self worth and career vested in ‘global warming’. The results often seem disjoint from observed reality. (I have a particular gripe with the GISS method that involves adjusting past temperatures down based on present temperatures. I’d rather that my history didn’t keep changing under my feet, but I’m old fashioned that way.) Where there are details on the adjustment available, they can often be shown to be bogus. (Removal of urban heat island effect by reference to ‘nearby’ ‘rural’ thermometers that are in fact hundreds of miles away in different microclimates and sometimes in large urban area.)
6) Based on this flakey data, folks build castles in the sky. They do this with computer models. (I’m a ‘computer guy’ by trade and managed a Cray supercomputer site that did modeling for plastic flow so this one galls me.) The models are ‘not very good’ to put it charitably. The don’t match reality. Their predictions are regularly shown to be bogus. When you do get a little look at how they work, it is not convincing. They leave out major, perhaps even dominant, features of climate. (Cloud formation of all sorts, cosmic rays that lead to cloud formation, variation in the sun, many most or all of the various ocean oscillations and heat transfer anomalies ENSO, AMO, etc.) Oh, and we have a specific admission by at least one of the modelers that they deliberately made the model run fast for more dramatic effect. That 50 year doom? Even their model would say it’s 150 years away if not run on ‘juice’. We have public quotes from ‘scientists’ in the field saying they need to punch up the results to create stronger public responses…
7. Many of the assumptions and science in the models are based on errors of assumption. I can only list a couple of examples here (too many…). It is assumed that CO2 causes warming. All the archeological data show CO2 follows heating by 800 years. How does cause follow effect? All sorts of positive feedbacks are assumed, but negative ones are ignored (cloud cooling anyone?)
8. They simply can not model what they do not know. ANY computer model can only tell you things in the domain of your present understanding. If your understanding is broken, so is your model. They “know” that CO2 is causal (despite the data) and that is what they model, ergo what they find. The truth is that we really don’t know how weather and climate work completely, so any ‘model’ can at best be used to show places to do more research, not to make policy. They don’t predict, they inform of our ignorance.
9) The thing they are trying to model, 30 year weather, is chaotic. (That does not mean random, it means that the state jumps all over from trivial input changes.) Chaotic models are, at the present state of the art, worse than guessing (and may always be, the math behind it leads me to think maybe so…) The input data are very flawed.
10) Based on these models saying the world will end Real Soon Now, many other folks run off to show that they ought to get funding for their grant because it is related to this hot topic of global warming. When you look into the ‘thousands and thousands’ of papers endorsing the global warming thesis you find the vast majority are of the form “If we assume that the model run by [foo] is right, this is the bad thing that will happen in MY field.” There are in fact only a few centers doing the modeling (a half dozen?) and their ideas are very inbred. We are really basing world decisions on the work of about a half dozen.
11) Dissent is to be crushed, ruthlessly. Frankly, this is what got me started down the “What the…” trail. I’ve worked in forensics and law enforcement from time to time. Sets off my Madoff Alarm. (Used to be Ponzi…) If you’re so sure you are right, demonstrate (share) your data, models, et. al. and we’ll have a nice debate. No? OK, WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? One of the hallmarks of a shared delusion is the ruthless attack of anything that would threaten the delusion. It just smells of cult. And there are plenty of alternative theories, including the established one of ‘it is natural variation’. The science is not settled and the debate is not over, even if one side is paranoid about being challenged.
12) The major drivers of the process are not scientists, but political bodies with agendas for control and a history of corruption and deception. UN? You want me to trust a UN Political Committee? The IPCC is NOT a bunch of scientists, it’s a bunch of politicians. They consult scientists. They have at times re-written scientists work (without notice). Many scientists have now begun speaking out against the IPCC. See #11 for how they are treated.
13) Mr. Albert Gore. His ‘inconvenient truth’ is a nice propaganda piece. It is decidedly not science. Polar bears are aquatic, they swim hundreds of miles sometimes (one swam from Greenland to Iceland). He shows them drowning… Their numbers are rising, he shows them near extinction. The list goes on. When a politician starts blatantly propagandizing for central power and authority my ‘peace in our time’ buzzer goes off…
14) The ‘cure’. The proposed cure will result in terrible death and poverty. It will misallocate trillions of dollars (that would be much better spent improving other things: education world wide, malaria, cooking stoves in the 3rd world, food supplies, etc.) Mr. Gore and others stand to profit greatly from it (he has a ‘carbon credit’ company from which he buys his own indulgences…) Further, since China and India get a free pass, the only real result is to move most industry there and kill the western democracies. (Hmmm socialist western-hating UN proposing ‘solutions’ that hobble western democracies…) The rate of ‘ramp up’ in coal consumption in China assures that no ‘control’ of CO2 is possible. Why are we ‘curing’ what is not broken with a solution that will not work?
15) The whole ‘tipping point’ thesis is simply and demonstrably false. For most of the history of the planet, CO2 has been much much higher. 10 times or more. We are actually at historic low levels. (Plants respond to CO2 as they to to any nutrient that is lower than their ideal value, up to about a 1000 ppm value. This implies they evolved expecting that much, and that is what the geological record shows.) Why are we trying to reduce CO2 to levels that restrict plant growth? Why are we trying to make the planet colder when that reduces food production? The potential harm here is stupendous. Why have we never ‘tipped’ before?
16) We may be doing exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time. Google “pessimum’. Periodically these cold periods come along in our history. They result in the destruction of social order, starvation, disease, mass migrations. We are about to push in that direction. Why? Google ‘climate optimum’ and you find the Medieval Optimum, the Roman Optimum, etc. We are now in the Modern Optimum. Warm is good, cold is bad. Yet there is more. I can only briefly state that there are reasons to believe that the present optimum may be peaking (or maybe even ending). From the planetary theories of solar output modulation, to the simple calendar correlations, to observed physical oscillations like the PDO flip to a colder direction in the short run; some theory points to cooler. While there is not enough to show causality, there is enough to urge caution in pushing that particular direction really really hard right now.
I’m going to stop now, or this will not be ‘the basics’…
There is more, but you get the idea. It starts to be a bit more technical (Like why does a global average of all those temperatures mean anything? – it doesn’t; and that the temperatures gathered don’t contain enough information for sampling theory and control theory to allow anyone to know what to do even if warming were true and if we could do anything: we have a ‘hot shower’ with 30 years between turning the knobs and changed water temp out. The knobs are not labeled and non-linear. There are several toilets being flushed and dishwashers running. Keep the temperature at exactly the right temperature; and your thermometer is broken.)
I’m sure other folks will have their own ideas as to what are ‘the basics’ but I hope I’ve also shown that even 1/2 of ‘my basics’ are enough to say that we ought not be doing what we, as a country, are about to do…
actuator (08:10:33) :
Katherine,
Could the reason we would all be dead if we burned all the combustible material available to us be that we’d starve to death? I believe just about everything we eat can be burned. It would just be a slower death.
Try burning a steak… NO, Not on the BBQ!!
“Ric Werme (13:02:42) :
It may be that the low sunspot counts were due to what may happen around 2015 with the sunspot contrast getting so low that they fade from view. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/ Pure speculation, sorry. It will be an interesting few years.
New readers – please read that link, it’s the most intriguing item ever posted here.”
I have read that link, and I have projected the sun and noted the ghostly trend in the spots that do make it.
It’s plainly obvious to observe, no need for me to wait as I see it unfolding before my very eyes.
Some may choose to pad the counts with spacecraft and ccd imagery, but it does not change the nature of the spots one bit.
They are increasingly tough to observe/draw.
leif
AS I said in by post, think the impact of PDO,AMO AND ENSO CYCLES reduced the impact of the high solar cycles 18,19,20
PERIOD 1944-1976 COOL
SOLAR CYCLES
# 18 MAX SUNSPOT # 151.8, CYCLE LENGTH 10.1 YEARS
# 19 MAX SUNSPOT # 201.3, CYCLE LENGTH 10.6 YEARS
# 20 MAX SUNSPOT # 110.6, CYCLE LENGTH 11.6 YEARS
OCEANS
PDO DROPPING AND CROSSING INTO NEGATIVE IN 1944 AND BOTTOM IN 1949, AMO HEADING DOWN, CROSS OVER IN1963, BOTTOM IN 1974
LA NINA ACTIVITIES DOMINATE
NET SLIGHT COOLING PERIOD DUE TO SOLAR CYCLES SHORT BUT EXTENDING IN #20, SOLAR ACTIVITY HIGH, OCEANS TEMP FLAT, PDO AND AMO IN NEAGTIVE AND BOTTOMING
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (12:35:51) :
There is nothing on page 4 & 13 in your 2006 paper….the solar pole strength in SC19 would have been high (if u could record it), giving you no indication of the impending doom of SC20.
So, we’ll do this slowly. Is there some6thing on page 1? what does it say?
Thanks to Anthony and everyone for your comments. There was a lot of interest in what’s happening with the sun.
I also want to thank Dr. Leif Svalgaard whom shared so much of his time on the thread. I hope people paid close attention to his descriptions on how he recommends to make solar cycle calculations as they seem quite reasonable to me. I wonder why it isn’t the accepted method, what argument against it could there be other than it takes a bit of work.
When he makes the comment
“The long duration of cycle 23 really says very little about cycle 23, but a lot about cycle 24.”
There are a lot of very smart people on this thread, IMO that’s what makes WUWT a great blog.
My father likes to say -“Remember the old Chinese curse. May you live in interesting times.”
Jim Arndt (12:00:36) :
I have a simple question with a complex answer. What is the effect of VLF on water vapor?
I don’t know the complex answer to that. Try hunt around a bit. I may be able to comment on what you find.
matt v. (14:11:02) :
AS I said in by post, think the impact of PDO,AMO AND ENSO CYCLES reduced the impact of the high solar cycles 18,19,20
It is like a news report: “the stock market failed to react to the unemployment data, but rallied on oil futures going lower, in spite of the crisis in the Middle East”. Anything could be the cause.
E.M.Smith (13:12:26) :
…..And?
Mwhaahahaahahaaa…..,
Seriously dude, that was some treatise. I am going to steal it verbatim unless you complain here and now
that you don’t want it going any further.
That must be the most concise encapsulation of the salient factors at play I have seen with these weary
eyes anywhere. Ever.
It must have taken a while to assemble, but it lacks for nothing as a primer for exposing the group-think of the “members” of all our divvy-nations and once great institutions that allows the heaping of praise upon vandals.
KIM
I think the sun is behind PDO’S but the impact is out of phase or delayed.
Here is the so called global warming period 1976 -2008. Perhaps you can see a pattern .
PERIOD 1976 -2008 WARM [SO CALLED ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ PERIOD]
SOLAR CYCLES
#21 MAX SUNSPOT # 164.5, CYCLE LENGTH 10.3 YEARS
#22 MAX SUNSPOT # 158.5, CYCLE LENGTH 9.7 YEARS
#23 MAX SUNSPOT # 120.8, CYCLE LENGTH 12? YEARS
OCEANS
PDO RISING CROSS OVER TO POSITIVE 1975 AND PEAKING IN 1997. AMO RISING, CROSS OVER TO POSITIVE 1980, PEAKING IN 1998
EL NINO ACTIVITIES DOMINATE
VOLCANOS
EL CHICHON 1982[COOLING 1982-1985?]
MT PINATUBO 1991[COOLING 1991-1994]
MT ST HELEN 1980[COOLING 1980-1981?]
NET WARMING PERIOD DUE TO SOLAR CYCLES SHORT BUT EXTENDING AT THE END [#23], SOLAR ACTIVITY HIGH, OCEANS TEMP RISING, PDO AND AMO PEAKING,EL NINO ACTIVITIES DOMINATE