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.
To Frank Perdicaro,
The Obama’s are in DC now (kids in school and all) and today’s high so far is 18F. If it doesn’t hit 20F for the high in the Baltimore region (where I live), it will be the first time in 5 years. Forecast for Tuesday in this area is 32F, mostly cloudy with 10% chance of precipitation.
The optimistic cynic in me hopes that “Climate Change” for liberals will be like abortion for conservatives. You drag it out repeatedly to garner passion in your base but when all is said and done, there is a whole lot more said than done.
“” PaulHClark (10:57:17) :
I am always intrigued to read comments like “the sun is not the driver”. “”
And Paul, as far as I have been able to determine; that roughly 24 hour daily cycle is not even a part of the global climate models, or even the GCMs.
As far as I am concerned, the sun beats down on planet earth with a blow torch that has about 0.5 degree angular divergence, and a mean irradiance at earth orbit of about 1368 W/m^2, and that blowtorch scoots across the earth’s surface at about 450 m/s at the point closest to the sun, (modified by the effect of the axis tilt).
Then the earth’s atmosphere gets in the act of modifying the arradiance, while warming some from the energy it extract from the blow torch.
Most points on the ground do not end up enjoying a constant 24 hour irradiance at 198 W/m^2 as depicted in the NOAA energy budget; so quite naturally, the thermal processes that most points undergo, do not conform to any model based on a constant irradiance, along with various desatbilizing “Forcings”.
Couldn’t find “forcings” listed in any of my handbooks of Physics, or Chemistry, or Optics, or Infrared Technology etc. Nor could I determine the SI unit of “forcings”, nor where the standards are maintained.
Well I also could not find any such data on “anomalies” either.
But by Osmosis, I have sort of gathered that at least the GISStemp “anomalies” are a function of the AlGorerythm employed by NASA guru, Dr James Hansen, that he holds as a trade secret; and apparently; according to Anthony’s reports, he changes at will without explanation.
George
George E. Smith (11:54:45)
Hear, hear.
All scientists in the world agree that Man Made Global Warming caused the jetliner disaster in NYC’s Hudson River Jan. 15th! (:-)
http://rashmanly.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/all-scientists-in-the-world-agree-that-man-made-global-warming-caused-the-jetliner-disaster-in-nycs-hudson-river-jan-15th/
“Neither. Naming something like that is intended to give credit for discovery, not cause.”
But, Jeff, Gore discovered the minimum on the same day he invented the internet…
Anthony,
Do the following instead.
1) FFT of data.
2) Take absolute value of FFT results.
3) Plot histogram (tricky part if using Excel because Excel does a lousy job of picking bin widths).
If you do not see a distinct gaussian distribution, try taking 10*log10 of the absolute values. If you can make believe that the number of sunspots roughly correlates to the power of sunspot activity you can roughly make believe this is valid to do.
Else show me how to get the data myself.
The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide – The Innocent Source of Life
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
“The first 20 ppm of CO2 essentially makes the atmosphere almost opaque at those previously shown wave lengths (4.3 microns, 15 microns), so that doubling the concentration to 40 ppm increases the heating effect by only 20 % more. Doubling it again to 80 ppm increases the heating effect by only 7 %. As you can see, increasing the concentration further diminishes the heating effect, so that by the time we get to the last century’s increase from 280 to 380 ppm, the effect is utterly trivial. It is as though you had blackened a glass window with one coat of paint so that it was 99 % opaque. Adding a second coat increases its opacity by only 1 % more, but it is now completely opaque. Adding a third coat, has no visible effect at all.”
While I think I understand the intent of your comment, personally I would prefer that it should be named after someone with a well deserved and respected name in science.
@crosspatch (22:57:31) :
You wrote in part:
“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.”
I hate to pick a fight with you but clearly that hypothesis is rubbish. Magnetic Vortex Theory provides the most plausible explanation. All of those magnetic tapes spinning around playing the BeeGees and disco music caused a magnetic vortex which built in strength until it affected the solar magnetic conveyor. The observed data strongly supports this theory.
You need proof, you say? In the late 60’s and through the 70’s, when the earth was reaching it’s coolest point in the temperature cycle, spinning magnetic tapes were just beginning to take off with the invention of the 8-track tape player. As the use of spinning magnetic tapes in the form of cassette tape players began to grow exponentially during the 80’s, and then cassette player use was bolstered by home viewing of VHS tapes and computers using floppy discs during the 90’s, global temperatures climbed steadily.
Then a curious thing happened around 1999-2000. People began switching en masse to CDs and then DVDs. Well of course with the cessation of the spinning of magnetic tapes, the solar magnetic conveyor began to slow down, sunspots declined, and subsequently temperatures have begun to fall to this day.
It would be an easy matter to replicate these conditions and provide conclusive proof of Magnetic Vortex Theory. We all just need lobby our Senators and Congressional Representatives to ban the use of CDs or DVDs and mandate a return to cassette tapes, VCRs, and floppy drives.
If we don’t do this WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE ON SNOWBALL EARTH!!!!!!! We only have TEN MORE YEARS before we reach the TIPPING POINT!!!
We MUST do it for the children, kittens, baby ducks, and the survival of human race.
PaulHClark (12:05:16) :
George E. Smith (11:54:45)
Hear, hear.
Well said to both of you. Very clear common sense.
“In our submitted paper we had the max in 2013, but a reviewer objected to that number saying that we had little basis for that”
Sorry to hear of it.
“Using the ‘official’ smoothed sunspot numbers to calculate cycle lengths skews the length depending on the relative sizes of the cycles.”
Since the ‘corrections’ are provisional we don’t take it as a detraction. Jeff did fine with the ‘data’ as it currently stands.
looks like there are several plage areas that could develop into spots over the next few days…
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html
George E. Smith (11:54:45) :
AlGorerythm
Classic! LOL…i’m going to have to shamelessly steal that one at some point or another!
“Ross (12:49:56) :
‘JDS (22:56:00) :
If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.” ‘
While I think I understand the intent of your comment, personally I would prefer that it should be named after someone with a well deserved and respected name in science.”
You could go with a Gore maximum 😉
Ed Scott,
My money job is in optics. I am interested in getting the absorption spectra for gaseous CO2 for the full range of solar wavelengths, yet so far I can’t find it. It has to be out there.
If anyone knows where I can find the data I have seen plotted so many times, it would be appreciated. I’d like to try and reproduce those greenhouse calculations for my own understanding.
Andrew (07:38:59) :
I was thinking about this same thing earlier. Should it be the Archibald, Watts. or D’Aleo Minimum? 🙂
gary gulrud (12:57:12) :
“Using the ‘official’ smoothed sunspot numbers to calculate cycle lengths skews the length depending on the relative sizes of the cycles.”
Since the ‘corrections’ are provisional we don’t take it as a detraction. Jeff did fine with the ‘data’ as it currently stands.
I think you missed the whole point. The ‘official’ numbers are ok for this. What is not OK is to calculate minimum they way he [and everybody else in general] did it and then to infer that cycle 23 is exceptional. The exceptionalness is an artifact of the method not a property of the Sun.
Suppose Something IS Wrong with the Sun (something like entering a Grand/Great Minimum). Suppose such a change in solar activity might have profound implications on climate, ecosystems and our civilization. What would be the response of the government if it knows or suspects the situation?
Obviously, it will try to prevent the spead of panic for as long as possible by ignoring, minimizing and discrediting the observed events (lack of sunspots, a plunge in solar and geomagnetic levels, weakening of solar wind , slowing of the solar conveyor, cold weather, etc.). So, Drs. D. Hathaway and L. Swalgaard are just doing their job in an awkward effort to shape public opinion.
Hey Leif,
Do you have a graphic somewhere that shows the relative positions of new and old cycle spots on the surface of the sun during the transition between the cycles? How high (or low) in latitude does a spot have to occur to be considered a spot from the previous cycle?
Assigning probabilities to number of sigmas as in: 2-sigma = 95%.
assume a normal (Gaussian) distribution. Do the data support that assumption? There are tests.
After reading many of these comments it appears to me that at this time there are too many variables with some known and others unknown as well as perturbations caused by our solar and galactic environment to accurately predict how long the minimum solar period may last nor when the next maximum may occur or its magnitude. There is a chance that someone may come close by their studies but it would take more than one cycle to verify and hopefully they may live long enough to realize this accomplishment. While using previous solar cycle lengths and maximums and using suspect global surface temperatures and SSTs in analyses well as applying mathematical gymnastics may be interesting in trying to predict future climate the sun in the end may have the last evolutionary laugh or an errant asteroid!
“Well of course with the cessation of the spinning of magnetic tapes, the solar magnetic conveyor began to slow down, sunspots declined, and subsequently temperatures have begun to fall to this day.”
We reviewed that scenario and came to the conclusion that it “didn’t matter” because the decrease in spinning magnetic tape was greatly offset by the increase in spinning magnetic disks. We all agree that the science is settled. The cause is obviously an increase in the number of pirates globally.
“Adding a third coat, has no visible effect at all.”
Yeah, not a bad analogy. But it is even worse because water vapor already blocks the same spectrum (and more) that CO2 blocks. So it is sort of like having CO2 be a translucent bluish paint layer applied and then a thick black layer (water) is applied over that. When you apply another layer of that translucent blue, it really doesn’t have much impact in the amount of IR reaching the surface or leaving the surface for space. Water vapor is going to so swamp CO2 over most of the planet that CO2 just isn’t going to make that much difference. Now air is very dry at the poles so CO2 will make the most difference there but not so much in causing additional heating, as in preventing additional cooling. CO2 greenhouse warming should cause a great increase in winter low temperatures in the Arctic. To my knowledge we aren’t seeing any evidence of that. GISS can not be relied on because Arctic temperatures used for that are not observations, Hansen plugs in the temperatures for the Arctic that his model says it should be.
Jeff Alberts (11:38:27) :
Neither. Naming something like that is intended to give credit for discovery, not cause.
ACK! WHO let AlGore out in the sun? Who? They have let the Gore Effect reach the sun!!! Now we are all doomed. DOOOMED!!!
Jeff Id (11:30:28) :
If the numbers are symmetrically smoothed, wouldn’t the shape of the down/uptrend have a very minimal effect on time?
Maybe I’m not understanding, are you saying the smoothing method decenter’s the minima just by slope or is the smoothing done asymmetrically?
The smoothing [symmetrical] moves the resulting minima away from the ‘real’ minima as I tried to show in
http://www.leif.org/research/Crossover%20and%20Smoothed%20Minima.pdf
Take the first and the penultimate of the graphs and note how the minima determined by the lowest point of the smoothed curve fall at ‘unphysical’ times. For the 1st one: after time 15 there are no more old spots and the new spot count is rising, so clearly the minimum cannot be to the right of 15, yet the smoothed curve has its minimum at 16.4. Similarly for the other graph.
The issue hangs on what the minimum is. We can arbitrarily define that the minimum is the lowest value of a 13-month smoothed sunspot count, but the Sun doesn’t know about that. One could argue that there may be a point where ‘aggregate’ solar activity at that point is minimal. There may be more than one such point, but that can be overcome by suitable smoothing of each cycle separately. What is ‘wrong’ to do is to mix the two cycles in the smoothing. At the sunspot prediction panel meetings we gave a lot of thought to this [and exchanged more heat than light, I’m afraid]. In the end we couldn’t agree what a ‘proper’ physical definition of minimum should be, except that it is NOT just the minimum of the smoothed sunspot number.
The long duration of cycle 23 really says very little about cycle 23, but a lot about cycle 24. Imagine that there were no spots at all for the next three years. Cycle 23 is definitely dead. Its last spot could signal the end of the cycle. Hard to argue that the cycle drags on when there are no spots from that cycle. It would be like saying that the last cycle before the Maunder minimum really lasted 70 years. The slow start of cycle 24 may simply mean that it will be a small cycle in which case the up-slope is smaller than the down-slope for 23, skewing the minimum towards later times.
If you take a look at http://www.leif.org/research/Region%20Days%20per%20Month%20for%2023-24.png
You might agree with me that if no new cycle 23 spots appear, the minimum was in ~August 2008, no matter what cycle 24 does.
Other comments point out the minima I calculated are not the official cycle start/end values.To my knowledge there are no ‘official’ start/end values. There is an official smoothed sunspot number that is often used by individuals to determine where the minimum ‘is’.
George E. Smith (11:54:45) :
Wow!!
What a posting.
BK