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.
Short-term cooling? But the global temperature shows a non stop warming since january 08? 0.35 C/year !
My problem with a title like “Something is Most Definitely Wrong With the Sun” is that there is actually nothing “wrong” with the Sun; it’s our understanding of the Sun that has mistakes.
Just my A$.02…
Re: Werner Weber (22:39:30):
Lets rephrase that.
Whenever you invoke the atmosphere as driver of climate variations, you may find a lot of correlation but atmosphere variations alone are far to small to account for the measured changes in global temperature.
Just as the atmosphere is composed of multiple different parts such as oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide etc so is the output of the sun. There are X-rays, magnetic fields, UV, infra red, visible light to name but a few. Whilst many of these do have very little variation, some of them can vary by quite a bit over time. There is little to no research on the contribution of solar forcings on the climate and in fact it looks to be actively discouraged
While in SE Zambia kast year I was told of lake level records running back into the 19th century, kept by European missionaries. These apparently show a clear link with sunspot numbers. I have just googled “malawi lake levels sunpots” and found that there have been many studies confirming this.
As Leif says solar minimum can only be determined after the event on the 13 month boxcar average and all we know for certain is that the minimum is June2008 or later since June is the lowest number so far. Cycle 23 appear to be all but over since we haven’t had a cycle 23 sunspot for months, all the recent ones have been cycle 24. My guess for the minimum on the boxcar basis is October 2008 but that is just a guess really.
The unusual aspect is that cycle 24 is either a late starter or just possibly a very small cycle. Hathaway is now saying late and a low average peak. Jan Jaansens web site has all sorts of stats on this point which he updates every 4 months or so.. we are due for an update soon.
Werner Weber (22:39:30) : Is there not a new paper based on satellite data, which reports no variation of cloud coverage through solar cycle 23 up to present?
http://start.org/journals/pip/jd/2008JD010734-pip.pdf
“…all sets have been either re-analyzed (earthshine) or re-calibrated (CERES), and present consistent results. Albedo data are also available from the recently released ISCCP FD product. Earthshine and FD analyses show contemporaneous and climatologically significant increases in the Earth’s reflectance from the outset of our earthshine measurements beginning in late 1998 roughly until mid- 2000. After that and to date, all three show a roughly constant terrestrial albedo, except for the FD data in the most recent years. Using satellite cloud data and Earth reflectance models, we also show that the decadal scale changes in Earth’s reflectance measured by earthshine are reliable, and caused by changes in the properties of clouds rather than any spurious signal, such as changes in the Sun-Earth-Moon geometry.”
My emphasis.
The graph (Fig.2) in the paper suggests that the increase in albedo started a bit later than 1998, maybe 1999/2000, and went to 2001/2 (from memory; pls check the paper). Very significantly, the paper also shows that albedo decreased from the mid-1980s until the end of the 1990s (hence the warming??!!).
The albedo increase from around 2000 onwards tallies quite nicely with the following paper that shows significant slowing of ocean warming over the last 5 or 6 yrs (nb. dates from memory; pls check the paper), including actual ocean cooling from around 2006 :
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
JDS wrote:
If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.”
If we start referring to it as such, it might stick. The precedent Gore Effect is already there.
Jeff,
Very worthwhile analysis. The method of determining cycle length doesn’t rely on human senses. The elimination of outliers in determining standard deviation seems defensible for this particular case — simply because it highlights the interesting behavior.
Considering your thoughts and eyeballing (yes, not too objective) the entire sunspot series, there seems to be a larger visual correspondence between the cycles preceding the Dalton Minimum and the most recent cycles.
Maybe a prolonged minimum really is in our immediate future. And, despite the lack of accepted explanations, temperature does seem to correlate to sunspots by my feeble calculations.
We’re having an extremely cold winter here — possibly just the first of many. Hope not — much rather have catastrophic global warming (i.e. some low lying beach fronts move a couple miles inland and Canada becomes habitable).
Barycentric Tide Theory
Hung vs Hathaway, both NASA scientists. I agree with Hung.
Hung, Ching-Cheh (2007) Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets (NASA/TM—2007-214817) Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio July 2007
We are already in the Landscheidt Minimum … enjoy.
Interesting article, I am not sure we can scream Dalton minimum just yet though…
There appears to be confusion around when the minimum of cycle 23 ocurred,,, some sources say August 08 but then look at December 08, that was a very quiet month as well… is it possible to have double minima??
After all we did have a double maximum in 2000 and 2002!
Oh, I guess I should mention. The sticking point for NASA is Solar Activity vs the Earth’s Surface Temperature. Then you get those who buy into the Milankovitch Cycle but discount shorter cycles because solar luminance in constant … go figure. Then there’s the discussion about other transport mechanisms and indirect effects of solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field. Fact is the Maunder Minimum. I wrote a little bit of prose for those of us who just want the short version of what’s going on.
http://www.itsonlysteam.com/articles/landscheidt_minimum_part2.html
I’m trying to keep 6 Coal Fired Units running so I did this when we has a cold day … and I’m still making a few corrections … and my little chart was just for fun … OK 😉
Found this at Accuweather:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
“Thus, relative to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years.”
“Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.”
This led me to:
http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html
“This evaluation, which takes into consideration the amplitudes, asymmetry coefficient and correlation coefficient obtained from the total solar irradiance reconstructions of Dr. Judith Lean (6) and Dr. Leif Svalgaard (7), is evidence for the theories on the increase of solar irradiance through the last three centuries immediately after the ending of the Maunder Minimum.”
So it’s either El Nino or Ice Cube in a couple years.
Dishman (04:03:29) :
JDS wrote:
If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.”
If we start referring to it as such, it might stick. The precedent Gore Effect is already there.
As has been said here before, there are three things that each get their own name. 1) The sunspots. 2) The cold period. 3. The bad effects from the cold period (called a Pessimum).
The preferred candidates were:
1. Landscheidt Minimum (since he predicted them).
2. The Gore Cold Period
3. The Hansen Pessimum
So just remember when talking to anyone about how cold it is to call it the Al Gore Cold Period, and when talking about high food prices and a snowed out vacation, it’s because it’s crummy living the the Hansen Pessimum. 😉
It would be interesting to repeat the analysis over the 22 year Hale cycle as well – or over 2 solar cycles – where the magnetic polarity completes one full reversal.
There is some strange repeating cycle in temperatures (and even sunspots) at 25 years lag. If you take the temperature of today and subtract the temperature of 25 years ago, the plot has a definitive up and down cycle which is not expected. I’ve done this with sunspots as well and the plot almost looks like the solar cycle itself.
This is hard to explain unless there is more regularity in the 22 year Hale cycle than in the 11 year Schwabe cycle. Can you try it out.
When calculating lengths, did you account for leap years?? ;*)
I’m certainly no expert on climate studies but i have always been interested in the unpredictability of stochastic systems and chaos theory.
What i dont understand about all these supposed predictions from the Met office and other so-called climate experts is how they can claim with any degree of credibility that such unpredictable systems can be modelled accurately or predictions can be made that are anything other than a lucky shot or guess.
Now Ive read Simplicity by Gribbin as well as Gleicks book on chaos, and it seems clear to me that the key finding is that stochastic and chaotic systems like the weather just cannot be predicted with accuracy. Its no good saying “if we knew all initial conditions” we could make predictions. We cannot know all initial conditions, nature seems to be telling us this loud and clear. Whether at the quanum level of the HUP, or in macroscopic systems like the N body problem.
All roads lead to unpredictability. So I’m rather confused by all these claims from climate scientists that they make accurate predictions.
Maybe im being stupid or something but it appears to me that climate scientists who make these claims are going totally againstr the mainstream of accepted science re Chaos, stochatics etc…
By the way great site.
Am i mis-informed?
Plan on things getting colder, and staying that way for the next 60-90 years:
Some interesting observations regarding the recent solar cycles (reductions in average sunspot number, sunspot area, and facular area) and Cycle 24 predictions associated with the HAO/Dikpati flux dynamo model are at:
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/research/siv.html
(see “Solar Irradiance Variability During Cycle 23” and “Predicting the Onset of the Upcoming Cycle 24”)
And for an interesting 20 year old prediction of why the sun is going quiescent see:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987SoPh..110..191F/0000191.000.html
While this paper has been quoted a few times here & there, this is the only place I’m aware of where one can readily access it in its entirety. There are other much more recent papers on this specific analysis approach, and within the modeling error they reach the same conclusion for the same underlying reasons.
RE: Barycentric Tide theory (from len): The referenced paper is directly available at:
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2007/TM-2007-214817.pdf
Is anyone continuing with the work on sunspots by Livingston and Penn? If so, do the trends they described continue and suggest that sunspots will be scarce after 2015? If there is such data, can it be found via the Internet?
«If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.”»
Well, 2008 was already a cool year. We have entere the Gore Minimum.
M Morris (05:21:06)
Read up on Tsonis and Koutsoyiannis, many references available through Climate Audit. Perhaps I presume too much.
==============================
E.M. Smith (04:42:18)
Though the irony of tagging Gore with his big mistake, and though the Landscheit option is a popular one, I prefer the Eddy Minimum. Jack Eddy liked words and enjoyed the alliteration of Maunder Minimum, which he named, and chose that name over others perhaps more apt. He’s the pioneer of understanding who should be honored with the choice of name.
=================================
0.92 Watts per square meter reduction is the 2003 SORCE start TSI more over the last readings, raw, measured by satellites. By the time ground has been hit 0.15-0.2 watts square meter is left on global average. Wow. Now how much did CO2/Other GHG’s increase add to the atmosphere, purely from a physical standpoint? Lucia L has a chart up this moment indicating quite a bit more. Sunspot counting is like navel staring. Look all you want but it barely makes a difference.
I wonder if any of you guys is a friend of NASA’s David Hathaway and could invite Mr. Hathaway to give his comments on this topic here?
After 42 years of working as a NASA contractor (most of it in science operations) on the Nimbus, Landsat, UARS, HST and other programs, I can confidently state that the definition of “expert” is as follows:
“ex” = a has-been
“spurt” = a drip under pressure
Not quite “science”, but certainly experience.