Guest post by David Archibald
With respect to the month of minimum, it is very likely that Solar Cycle 24 has started simply because Solar Cycle 23 has run out. Most solar cycles stop producing spots at about nineteen years after solar maximum of the previous cycle. Solar Cycle 23 had its genesis with the magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 22 maximum. As the graph above shows, Solar Cycle 23 is now 19 years old. Only 9% of the named solar cycles produced spots after this.
The graph also shows the position of Solar Cycle 24 relative to its month of genesis. Solar Cycle 24 is now the second latest of the 24 named solar cycles. January is 105 months after the Solar Cycle 23 maximum. Only Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, is later. This lateness points to Solar Cycle 24 being very weak.
This graph shows the initial ramp ups of six solar cycles that were preceded by a vey low minimum. The ultimate trajectory of Solar Cycle 24 should be apparent by late 2009. If Solar Cycle 24 is going to be as weak as expected, the monthly sunspot number should remain under 10 by the end of 2009.
Finally, I managed to combine two waveforms into a single one.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
The amplitude of Y2 (at max of Y1) and frequency of Y1 are used to calculate new waveform Y.
Cos squared is there to get a closer approximation.
“this will change the face of solar science I am thinking.”
I would opine that a species of dinosaur must die off first to leave room for adaptive radiation of the emerging Brandenburg, Miesch, Thornton and Hu prototypes.
Leif Svalgaard (21:28:52) :
Solar Cycle 23 had its genesis with the magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 22 maximum
No, this is not how the Sun works. The polar fields are build up as fundamentally a random process. Only 1/1000 of the magnetic flux end up at the poles, corresponding to only a handful of active regions. To generate the next cycle, more flux must first go to the poles, this takes a couple of years.
Thanks. Apologies if you’ve answered this elsewhere, but where is the Sun in this process at present? Are we still waiting for a flux buildup at the poles corresponding to Cycle 24?
Jim B Canada (00:00:22) :
I bet we know about 5% of how the universe actually works.
That much?!
John W
I used to make the analogy that if the ascent of Everest could be compared to our knowledge of AGW the stage we are at would be drinking coffeee in a cafe in Katmandhu. After a few more years of experience now I think its only at the stage of sitting in our homes merely thinking about our expedition. As regards the workings of the whole universe- we haven’t even been born.
TonyB
Perhaps it wasn’t a solar 23 spot but an early 25 spot. Very spooky!
lulo (21:34:23) :
My take on all this:
Nice posting. You are not alone.
(3) Very intelligent people can be delusional. When surrounded by like-minded individuals, people will believe very strange things. As a scientist, I can say that this includes people with Ph.D.’s
It has been my observation that the same plasticity of thinking that let’s folks achieve advanced degrees tends to lead to a greater willingness to believe strange things (multidimensional phase space & strange quarks anyone?). It’s the guy with muddy boots & overalls that keeps grounded best. Both are important to a stable sane world.
And yes, people are prone to mass hysteria. One of my favorite books is “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” that catalogues and describes many of our looniest ideas. Pet rocks??!?
I like to consider myself as an outlier: an alternative-thinking environmentalist (seriously, not only a partial climate change skeptic, but even an atheist, a conservationist, a vegetarian… the whole nine yards), who feels that the effect of CO2 has been overestimated by the IPCC
When a drive by troll makes a blanket accusation of conservative republican deniers I get a mixed twinge of resentment and pity. Pity because they clearly are clueless and blinded to truth, resentment because they are trying to pack me into a box that does not fit.
We are all outliers in our own ways. I am more agnostic than atheist (the spouse is the religious fanatic), also a conservationist (if pressed I’ll admit that I’d like to see about 1/2 the planet set aside for non-human occupants) and a sporadic vegetarian wannabe (we eat vegetarian about 2-3 days per week, but I find fried chicken irresistible …) Oh, and I’m registered Independent, but with a strong libertarian streak – I don’t care what you do as long as you leave me alone. Not exactly a right wingnut, (nor a left wingnut).
Now I’m quite sure there will be some hard core republicans against the AGW movement. What I don’t understand is how ‘the other side’ can be blind to the diversity that is the “AGW is Wrong” crowd. The tie that binds seems to me to be a bit more rigor of thought and an adherence to truth over dogma. That knows no party and no stereotype.
(incidentally, I accept their theory – I really do – just not the magnitude, and I feel that CO2 is by far the weaker of the two in the temperature-CO2 trend over the ages). I haven’t met another skeptic like me…
There are others like you (yet not like you, we are all unique is some ways). Remember that Lomborg is an environmentalist. A strict vegetarian relative is a skeptic. A democrat friend is a skeptic. etc. Somewhere there will be another person with your mix of attributes…
I accept the theory of a GHG, but think they got the wrong one(s) (H2O and O3 look far more important to me), the wrong driver (nature is stronger) and with CO2 impacts blown up to insane levels.
But since skepticism has no dogma, it’s a big tent.
On the topic of cycle 24:
OK, so how do we determine what the hermaphrodite ambiguous magnetic spot means? Is it counted as a 23? Does it mean 23 isn’t dead yet? That we are floundering on the sunspot bottom flopping about? That the solar dynamo is grinding to a halt? That it’s working fine but weak and the spots are there, just under the surface and unseen? Do we have a clue what’s really going on? (i.e. is this ‘normal’ or is it ‘unprecedented’?)
Leif Svalgaard (21:28:52)
Maybe so, but shouldn’t we sacrifice a goat just to be on the safe side?
lulo (21:34:23)
“I think the cycle length remains below 13 years at present”
‘Think’ is not very scientific without some underlying basis for making such a statement. Apparently the true cycle length must be difficult to determine and seems to vary with each reseacher similar to those making predictions for Cycle 24.
David Archibald (01:53:12) :
Ah, Dr Svalgaard, a couple of old Carrington rotation plots don’t prove anything.
Spare me your ‘Ah’s.
To deal with past data, you need to look at old plots [and they are not just a ‘couple’, but all the data obtained the past 30+ years]. Look again at http://www.leif.research/SolarCycleMinima.ppt and learn.
Starting the plot from the previous maximum is not based on physical understanding of the process and just introduces extra variance and noise [your curves jump all over the place]. Starting at the minimum [as defined by the SSN] is somewhat better as this http://www.leif.org/DavidA17.png shows. You also clearly see the ‘ramp up. The still better way is to use the minimum as defined by the ‘crossover’ of old and new cycles as on page 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf
To say that the cycle has lasted 19 years is not correct by any measure.
John W. (08:41:38) :
where is the Sun in this process at present? Are we still waiting for a flux buildup at the poles corresponding to Cycle 24?
No, the flux that is there is what the Sun has to work with.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (00:44:06) :
“…, more flux must first go to the poles, …”
How can flux “go to the poles”?
A given active region covers a certain area A. Let the average magnetic field [of either polarity – and ‘field’ should really be ‘magnetic induction’ or ‘magnetic flux density’ but the slightly inaccurate term ‘field’ is commonly used] be B, then the magnetic flux of the region is F = AB. That flux is what disperses over the surface as the region decays and a small portion of that flux goes to the pole because the magnetic field is largely ‘frozen’ to the plasma and moves with it.
Flux is energy across a given surface, isn’t it?
No, you can have a flux of anything that can flow: mass flux, magnetic flux, heat flux, information flux, …
Len wrote
All we need is a bit of help correlating the location of the mass and its movement over time in our solar system. Then we could put the tired statistics to bed
I agree that it is important to find a physical mechanism for sunspot formation.
I was pleased to see this posted. Thanks Carstan.
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/
I tried it and it is great fun I recommend it, experimental astronomy at your fingertips.
There is the 11 year Uranus orbit which may cause the 11 year sun spot cycle..
I noticed that when Uranus and Saturn are together the Sun’s orbit changes shape quickly. This could shake the Sun and change the way it burns and hence the number of sunspots.
I have seen evidence of sunspot cycles that match Jupiter/Saturn line-ups at
Jupitersdance.com.
It would be good to be able to predict sunspot properties from solar system physics and not only statistically.
The warmists have a lot of statistics but no predictive physical theories
E.M.Smith (09:53:54) :
OK, so how do we determine what the hermaphrodite ambiguous magnetic spot means? Is it counted as a 23? Does it mean 23 isn’t dead yet?
It was clearly SC23. It is not extraordinary that the line connecting the two polarities is tilted off the canonical Joy’s law, some 3% of all spots [at any point in the cycle] have rotated so much that the polarity is ‘backwards’. SC23 is not necessarily dead yet. There may well be more spots left.
That we are floundering on the sunspot bottom flopping about?
The Sun is a messy place.
That the solar dynamo is grinding to a halt? That it’s working fine but weak and the spots are there, just under the surface and unseen?
The dynamo is working fine, it just had less field to work with and the first spots are already here with more to come
Do we have a clue what’s really going on? (i.e. is this ‘normal’ or is it ‘unprecedented’?)
We think we have a basic understanding [some people think they have a perfect understanding and some people are just clueless]. Cycle 23 was in many respects just like cycle 13 and it looks like cycle 24 might come out much like cycle 14 as predicted here: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Joachim: I agree with all of your points, and I think my post was consistent with them.
Edcon: Yes, I used the word ‘think’ intentionally and loosely, for that very reason. I am not sure.
len (23:26:34) :
hmmm … Barycentric Tidal Theory. BTT … ugly acronym.
Solar Orbital Theory SOT … It’s that old SOT that’s doing it!
Barycentric Lateral Oscillation Theory BLOT …
Sun Intraorbital Nutation SIN ?
(For Leif 😉
Rotating Inertial Gravity Hosted Theory RIGHT
Barycentric Interorbital Gravity BIG
(For not-Leif 😉
In the mean time I will run my coal fired power plant I chose to work in knowing I am helping the biosphere by liberating carbon from the Earth’s crust, so efficiently scrubbed from the atmosphere over time.
The coal and oil eventually get recycled by plate tectonics anyway. See:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/of96-092/map.htm
Notice that the white spaces between big coal fields are often right where the river runs? Those are erosional features. Yeah, it takes millions of years, but that carbon eventually hits the subduction zone and comes back out a volcano somewhere. Some surface coal gets set on fire. Oil seeps. Nature is the great recycler. The idea that it will be sequestered forever by nature is broken.
Personally, I’d rather use it for something prior to the natural conversion to CO2. Oh, and thanks for keeping my home warm and the light on!
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (05:34:49) :
Tidal forces are weak but may have some effect on the 11 yr cycle..they are very different to angular momentum
I’m pondering the reaction kinetics. As angular momentum and tides move mass about, their ought to be changes of pressure. Increased pressures lead to increased reaction rates, sometimes spectacularly (think cap in a cap gun…) While it’s rampant speculation, that would imply to me that there is a possible modulation of solar behaviour by pressure waves modulating reaction kinetics. Is it enough? Only a lot of math and physics will answer that…
leif
Were the interplanetary magnetic fields that the Ulysses space probe measured during its polar passes in 2007–2008 significantly lower than during the 1994–1995 polar passes?
TSI does not change in any appreciable amount to heat or cool our Planet.
Like the IPCC, this statement completely ignores indirect (magnetic, UV) effects.
Things like PDO will overpower any and all TSI-related changes.
Not to argue, my dear, but what causes our oceans to heat and cool differentially? Sol. Whether that is through magnetic/cloud effects as proposed by Svensmark, Spencer and who knows else, or some other mechanism, I know not.
But methinks it is definitely the sun in one form or fashion.
twawki (12:41:34) :
Were the interplanetary magnetic fields that the Ulysses space probe measured during its polar passes in 2007–2008 significantly lower than during the 1994–1995 polar passes?
Here http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Owens.png is the IMF measured by all spacecraft since 1965. Since these spacecraft have different distance from the Sun, the IMF has been ‘adjusted’ to the Earth’s distance [1AU] by assuming that the radial component of the IMF falls off with the square of the distance. This assumption is only approximately correct [because of waves and local variations, kinks, folds, etc that cause some flux to be counted more than once], but generally works reasonably well. The gray curve is IMF measured at Earth. The orange points and curve are the Ulysses data. Because of the effect I just mentioned, the Ulysses data are a bit higher than, but generally match, the gray curve well.
Because the 1994-1995 polar passes was not yet at solar minimum, both the near-Earth and the Ulysses fields were a bit higher than during the 2007-2008 pass.
In our sunspot prediction paper:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf we concluded:
[13] The solar polar fields are important in supplying most of the heliospheric magnetic flux during solar minimum conditions. With weaker polar fields, the interplanetary magnetic fields that the Ulysses space probe will measure during its next polar passes in 2007–2008 are therefore expected to be significantly lower than during the 1994–1995 polar passes.
On the other hand, the polar fields do not supply the entire IMF flux. The relationship between the IMF, the polar fields, and the cycle size is becoming clearer. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Notes%20on%20HMF%20at%20Minima%20and%20Rmax.pdf is some speculation on how these quantities might relate to each other. Cycle 24 will be important in sorting all this out.
Instead of ascribing solar variations by some to its baricenter movement caused by planetary alignments (gravity) why not ( if not already done) investigate the magnetic distortions that must be occurring that might affect solar conditions for different planetary alignments and possibly the sun’s location in the galaxy?
mark wagner (13:13:31) :
“TSI does not change in any appreciable amount to heat or cool our Planet.”
Like the IPCC, this statement completely ignores indirect (magnetic, UV) effects.
Like a boxer that endures the heavy blows from his opponent, but is K.O.ed by the dust mote falling on this head.
Not to argue, my dear, but what causes our oceans to heat and cool differentially? Sol.
No, the if the Earth were flat and not tilted, sol would not heat and cool our oceans differentially, so the round shape and tilt of the Earth are the reasons.
Leif Svalgaard (10:57:27) :
SC23 is not necessarily dead yet. There may well be more spots left.
This is an interesting statement. You seem to have changed your mind about the life of SC23, because on the 16th of Jan in the “Sunspot Lapse Exceeds 95% of Normal” thread you said:
Leif Svalgaard (14:08:47) :
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.
So have you changed your mind? Is SC23 dead or alive?
Curiously, with all this discussion and search for solar/planetary effects on climate, it is well documented that climate affects the Earth’s planetary motion.
On 18 July 2000, however, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that “the principal cause of the Chandler wobble is fluctuating pressure on the bottom of the ocean, caused by temperature and salinity changes and wind-driven changes in the circulation of the oceans.”[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble
Also ’cause’ and ‘effect’ could well be in some kind of synchronous oscillation.
> Dermot Carroll (02:28:58) :
> Just read that Livingston reported a gauss of 1969 for spot
> 1010 Could this be why we’re seeing sunspecks rather then
> sunspots?
Newsflash… March 32nd, 2009… IPCC announces The Grand Unified Theory of AGW, Solar Cycles, and Olympic Financing.
We all know that the earth is currently undergoing massive warming. However, it’s masked by La Nina, so foolish AGW deniers can’t see it for what it is. Similarly, major sunspots are happening as I speak, but the Livingston-Penn effect is masking them, so foolish AGW deniers can’t see them. The IPCC has produced a model that shows the sun currently ramping up to a strong maximum, consisting almost entirely of invisible sunspots.
Our model output has been independantly verified by Dr. James Hansen of NASA. Dr. Hansen has applied a UHI (Umbral Heat Island) adjustment to various plages and other solar features, to compensate for the Livingston-Penn effect. And his adjusted sunspot count is in very close agreement with the IPCC Sunspot Model.
Furthermore, applying financial adjustments by Dr. Hansen, and the IPCC theory of “hidden stuff”, we have come to the conclusion that the 2010 Vancouver Olympics will be a financial success. There will be major economic benefits. However, they will be “hidden benefits”, hidden just like today’s well-masked major global warming. No doubt, the same old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds who called subprime-mortgage-backed derivatives a losing proposition will also call the 2010 Olympics a losing proposition.
I have looked at the Solar effects other than the TSI, and I can find good (1% significance) global ocean-land temp correllations (with a lag) which do not turn up with the TSI…so, I can only believe that the “duist mote” is soemwhat stronger than the “heavy fist”!
I have looked at the Solar effects other than the TSI, and I can find good (1% significance) global ocean-land temp correllations (with a lag) which do not turn up with the TSI…so, I can only believe that the “dust mote” is somewhat stronger than the “heavy fist”! (NB: spelling corrections to original post)