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.
Robert Bateman (04:46:23) :
I think your more excited than ME about the upcoming grand minima 🙂
It’s like all the hype you hear from woo-peddlers, all the catastrophes which will occur when the planets “line up”. Nothing ever happens. It’s the same with the so-called Mayan 2012 “galactic alignment”. Even, less will happen…
Jeff Alberts (09:04:47) :
Instead of heaping ridicule, trying reading my work and finding fault with it. I could use some constructive criticism from this crowd…my work was born here, it would be a shame to have intelligent people turn their backs on what could be a very big discovery.
“Many academicians, when it comes to issues of their “professional identity,” might as well still be in Jr. High School.”
RE: Academicians who are highly trained scientists. On this subset I have a rather different take:
I find many do not internalize their training or practice the principles learned in areas outside their expertise. They are perfectly willing to accept arguments on ‘authority’ uncritically, so much so that their ‘research’ into controversial issues outside their specialty seems on a Jr. High level.
Nobwainer, How many of your critics have achieved an understanding of your work? Don’t let the pre-fight gesturing blow the finished product.
Bar none, this is the most sophisticated blog dialogue I have ever read.
Although this is from 2007, it was daring of the authors to suggest that the periods of heavy rain were not caused by AGW. My bet is this study was not included in the analsysis that concluded that 99% of all studies show that AGW causes everything bad.
“A new study reveals correlations between plentiful sunspots and periods of heavy rain in East Africa. Intense rainfall in the region often leads to flooding and disease outbreaks. The findings shed light on how life on Earth can be affected by changes in the Solar System environment. Understanding the links between the Sun and Earth is also important for astrobiologists trying to define what conditions make a planet habitable.”
“The analysis by a team of U.S. and British researchers shows that unusually heavy rainfalls in East Africa over the past century preceded peak sunspot activity by about one year. Because periods of peak sunspot activity, known as solar maxima, are predictable, so too are the associated heavy rains that precede them, the researchers propose.”
“With the help of these findings, we can now say when especially rainy seasons are likely to occur, several years in advance,” says paleoclimatologist and study leader Curt Stager of Paul Smith’s College in Paul Smiths, New York. Forewarned by such predictions, public health officials could ramp up prevention measures against insect-borne diseases long before epidemics begin, he adds.
The sunspot-rainfall analysis was published on 7 August in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. Increasing sunspot numbers indicate a rise in the sun’s energy output. Sunspot abundance peaks on an 11-year cycle. The next solar maximum is expected in 2011-2012. If the newfound pattern holds, rainfall would also peak the year before.
Stager, Ruzmaikin and their colleagues offer several reasons why sunspot peaks may affect rainfall. In a simple scenario, increased solar energy associated with sunspots heats both land and sea, forcing moist air to rise and triggering precipitation.”
Hmmm. Increased sunspots = Increased precipation = Increased temperature. Looks simple to me.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2425
Gary,
Thank you for your courteous response. You write:
“I find many do not internalize their training or practice the principles learned in areas outside their expertise. They are perfectly willing to accept arguments on ‘authority’ uncritically, so much so that their ‘research’ into controversial issues outside their specialty seems on a Jr. High level.”
The basic principles of inquiry are invariant, regardless of the subject matter. If you read the Platonic dialogues you will understand the notion that some subjects, like philosophy of knowledge, are to a considerable extent the common domain of informed humanity, not the technical province a particular scientific elite that talks too itself but is unable to persuade the rest of the world of what it accepts axiomatically because it has been so busy studying the trees that it has missed the forest.
These principles have to do with testing across disciplinary boundaries, seeking for correlations, and prefering simple to technically abstruse explanations. I would add to this that a strong correlation which lacks an as yet fully coherent explanatory principle should be preferred, it seems to me, to a weak correlation that has an ostensible explanatory principle that requires all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations in order to retain an aura of credibility.
Here is Svensmarks on video:
He is not difficult to understand. Moreover, his story includes something that requires no specialized knowledge to interpret: when he and his team first produced their findings in 1991, they were unable to publish them. Was that because his team was unable to “internalize their training or practice the principles learned in areas outside their expertise”?
Somehow I doubt it.
To me it seems more likely that their findings were offensive to a scientific establishment that had already prematurely foreclosed the possibility that anything other than increased anthropogenic CO2 was the cause of recorded 20th c. warming.
I’m sorry if that conclusion strikes you as belonging to the Jr. High, but I would venture to suggest to those not already committed to a particular dogmatic perspctive in the debate might very well evaluate it another way.
Certainly, if you look on the Amazon reviews for Svensmark’s book,
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157, you will see that his readers, many very articulate and credible, feel he’s on to something. There are two or three rather poorly articulated critiques — I’m sure from the subtlety of your response here, you could write a much better criticism than any posted to Amazon.
If you haven’t already read the book, why don’t you suspend your faith in the credibility of one group of experts long enough to examine the arguments of another, and see what happens….Ever since High school, I’ve found that to be a useful practice.
Cheers,
Psi
In case you did not notice we are on our way to a wicked Solar Max.
From NASA dated March 2006 and titled “Solar Storm Warning”:
“This week researchers announced that a storm is coming–the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). ‘The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” she says. …
“Solar physicist David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center (NSSTC)… agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011. … ‘History shows that big sunspot cycles ramp up faster than small ones,’ he says. ‘I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.
edward (16:50:21) :
The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,
Crazy stuff.
I am excited to have a front row seat on something few ever thought we would witness in modern times. There are bound to be twists and turns, the unexpected lies ahead.
We can’t even be sure that there are things going on in this event that didn’t happen in the previous two.
Who kept records of sunspot umbra intensity?
Who kept records of the size of the sunpots?
For as early as the Dalton, they counted sunspot groups, not sunspots.
Off Topic question for Carsten Arnholm (or anyone else who can answer it)
I’ve written a simple orbital simulation model in Java, and I’d like to get hold of solar system planetary (and solar) data to initialise it with. What I need (ideally) is x, y, z cartesian coordinates of all planets in km, and vx, vy, vyz velocities in km/s, both for the same date. Any date would do, although data from anytime in the past century would be best. Can anyone tell me where I might find such data?
Just a quick comment to the poster who said, “I’d like to see 1/2 the planet set aside for non-human occupation…”
Sorry, actually right now about 80% of the land area is essentially “non-human occupied.”
Get on Google earth and look around for cities Check out Russia, MUCH of China, MOST of South America and MUCH of Africa. Combine that with Greenland, Antartica, and Australia, and amazing…humans only travel on a FRACTION of the land masses. (Of course the OCEANS if you count ships, and rafts, have maybe about .00001% human coverage. So you can stop whining about “protectionism”, it’s there already. By virture of the SIZE of the Earth.
M from M
Sorry, I meant vx, vy, vz.
And I meant to add that it would be very simple to work out how barycentre moves using this simulation. Although I think some people don’t think they exist. And of course, they don’t really.
Robert Bateman (18:50:37) :
Who kept records of sunspot umbra intensity? Bill Livingston
Who kept records of the size of the sunspots?
Staudacher 1749-1805
De La Rue 1850s-1860s
Greenwich 1874-1975
USAF 1976-present
For as early as the Dalton, they counted sunspot groups, not sunspots.
The number of spots per group seems to be rather constant [for constant observer!], namely about 10 on average. The 10 is the reason for the 10 in Wolf’s formula SSN = 10*G+S
idlex (18:51:35) :
Can anyone tell me where I might find such data?
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
idlex (18:51:35) :
Off Topic question for Carsten Arnholm (or anyone else who can answer it)
I’ve written a simple orbital simulation model in Java, and I’d like to get hold of solar system planetary (and solar) data to initialise it with. What I need (ideally) is x, y, z cartesian coordinates of all planets in km, and vx, vy, vyz velocities in km/s, both for the same date. Any date would do, although data from anytime in the past century would be best. Can anyone tell me where I might find such data?
The x,y,z coordinate system you need is ecliptical coordinates. You can obtain such position values (and velocities from the derivatives of the positions) using the freely available AA+ library available at http://www.naughter.com/aa.html
AA+ is a C++ implementation of the book Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus, who is also sometimes seen commenting on WUWT.
http://www.willbell.com/MATH/mc1.htm
I have used AA+ in my 2D and 3D simulators. If your application is written in Java, you need to do some mixed language work.
AA+ will calculate the positions of the planets and the sun directly, based on Julian dates. If you want to include other objects like Comets, Asteroids or even imaginary objects, you need to provide orbital elements data for those. Such info is available from places like http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/Ephemerides/
Of course you also have the JPL Horizons system
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
But I am not sure if it is easy to integrate with your own simulation model
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (11:15:06) :
]trying reading my work and finding fault with it. I could use some constructive criticism from this crowd…my work was born here, it would be a shame to have intelligent people turn their backs on what could be a very big discovery.
OK, some constructive criticism. My bias is that I would like to believe in the planetary influence but have not yet found sufficient basis. I come with the preconceived notion that moderate correlation is shown, but causality arguments are challenged.
1) I find it very hard to read at all. The faded small font does not work well with old eyes. If you want more folks to read it, make it readable. As it stands, most folks will pass on by. (I just passed my DMV test and don’t normally wear glasses so I don’t think it’s me…)
2) The graph is interesting, if only I knew what it was about. You have a nice long sunspot graph. Nice. Pretty blue, red, and green markings. Wonder what they are supposed to be telling me? Then there is a box with substantially unreadable text in tiny little cubes. (Yes, I’m on the ‘big’ one you get by clicking through). Lines connect this to the sunspot graph. Wonder what it says and what it’s about… Maybe something to do with angular momentum? There are little letters, I think, in the end boxes. Wonder what they stand for?
3) Further down the page you make a correlation between a 172 year cycle and planetary position, but don’t make it clear why this number was chosen other than maybe data modeling? Is it a fixed repeating pattern of the planets or is it a quantity of angular momentum or is it just the frequency of sunspots that you then data model onto ‘close enough’ planet positions? What is the physicality that it is supposed to represent?
4) You “re-jigged Uroskins’ graph” to keep Dalton’s in. What does that mean? There is a bunch of discussion of planet angles: Why does the angle matter?
5) OK, A & B with mass split between the two halves in line. So why is it J-S vs J+S with U+N Always in the same place. Why not N+S+U vs J? Why does the pairing matter? What physical thing changes? What is the mass ratio of the planet sets or the relative contribution to angular momentum or… Why are the other planets ignored? Alignment is interesting but tells me nothing of the physics involved.
6) You talk about dates and better vs worse ‘angles’. Why better or worse? What makes a bad angle better? What is a negative angle vs a positive one?
7) You have an SSB graph. What’s an SSB? Single Side Band?
8) You say the planets ‘changed position’ and that’s why Jose’s 179 becomes your 172. How did they change? Just took a moment for a cigarette and slowed down or what? What made them ‘change position’?
At this point the eye strain is getting to me and I have to stop. I’ll try again in a couple of days and see if I can get through more…
Generally all I’ve seen so far is a more detailed presentation of correlation with a new number 172 and not much ‘why’. OK, maybe something there, or maybe not. Have to slog through the rest and see.
Hopeful, but it does need more readability and a clearer statement of why different things matter. What’s going on. Pretty pictures that line up are nice but don’t provide much explanation.
edward (16:50:21) : In case you did not notice we are on our way to a wicked Solar Max.
On our way? And I didn’t even hear the engine start…
‘I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.
Are we there yet daddy are we there yet???? It’s only one more year, why can’t I see it yet? Are we there yet???
Minnesota Mark (18:52:09) : Just a quick comment to the poster who said, “I’d like to see 1/2 the planet set aside for non-human occupation…”
[…] Sorry, actually right now about 80% of the land area is essentially “non-human occupied.” So you can stop whining about “protectionism”, it’s there already. By virture of the SIZE of the Earth.
Essentially and actually are two very different things. We have about 1/3 of the planet unused by people, not 80%, and most of that is very inhospitable to life. I’d like to add to that some of the nicer bits that we’ve monopolized and set aside some spaces for life to just be. The fact that the Grand Banks are mostly not covered with ships does not mean they are available to animals unimpaired by our actions.
BTW, I did not ‘whine’ at any time and said nothing about ‘protectionism’. I expressed a belief that the human race can live just fine using about 1/2 the planet and leaving the rest relatively intact, pristine, and unexploited. A reasonable goal that we are not near at present.
That we don’t have buildings covering Kansas does not mean it is free for the buffalo. Repeat for most of those ’empty’ places you stated are ‘essentially’ non human ‘occupied’. The fact is that human land use patterns cover about 2/3 of land with ‘use’. To the best of my knowledge, virtually none of the ocean is prohibited to use (a few marine reserves exist. Darned near nothing compared to the size of the planet.) and the ocean is presently fished to the point where most usable stocks are dramatically stressed. There is no ‘safe haven’ from people in the ocean.
So please, don’t put words in my mouth that are not there and don’t claim things that are demonstrably not true.
Yes, the planet is a big place. So big, in fact, that I’m fairly sure that with a modest application of nuclear power, desalinizers, greenhouses and intensive agriculture, aquaculture, and urbanization we could afford to turn about 1/6 of it that we presently exploit (even if not presently ‘occupied’) back to wilderness. And that would clearly make for a better and more interesting planet.
BTW, I’m not some rabid green (which your snark seems to imply) I’m more of a techno-optimist who thinks we could optimize our use a bit with some high end tech and make more of the planet more interesting and a better place for all the other life around us to live in.
And frankly, I’ve driven coast to coast of the U.S.A. a few dozen times at all latitudes and the non-used areas, few that they are, are much more valuable and interesting than the monotony of the used areas. Why you seem offended at the idea that intensified farming and urbanization might let us have more parks, fish nurseries, and maybe even some small herds of bison or elk is rather a mystery.
And no, I don’t think there’s a snowballs chance of it happening. People, as I’m sure you are directly aware, are too intensely greedy and self centered to indulge in such an activity.
E.M.Smith (01:29:40) :
edward (16:50:21) : In case you did not notice we are on our way to a wicked Solar Max.
On our way? And I didn’t even hear the engine start…
‘I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.
Are we there yet daddy are we there yet???? It’s only one more year, why can’t I see it yet? Are we there yet???
Lol…
Leif Svalgaard and Carsten Arnholm. Thank you so much!
But I don’t really want to integrate any other code with mine. Wherever possible, I prefer to reinvent the wheel. If there are 10 bodies in the solar system, all I want are 10 * 6 or 60 numbers. I hope I will find them where you have so kindly directed me.
idlex (19:04:41) :
As the barycenter is the center of gravity, it won’t move (err, change its motion) unless there is an external force on one of the bodies in the simulation.
Or did you mean how the Sun moves relative the barycentre?
Software engineers have the duty to “out-precise” the lawyers.
E.M.Smith (00:55:46) :
Thanks for taking the time to evaluate, I appreciate the feedback.
1) I find it very hard to read at all. The faded small font does not work well with old eyes. If you want more folks to read it, make it readable. As it stands, most folks will pass on by. (I just passed my DMV test and don’t normally wear glasses so I don’t think it’s me…)
The font size and color is controlled by the blog template and is not tweakable…I could change it to another template perhaps. Your the 2nd one to comment on that problem.
2) The graph is interesting, if only I knew what it was about. You have a nice long sunspot graph. Nice. Pretty blue, red, and green markings. Wonder what they are supposed to be telling me? Then there is a box with substantially unreadable text in tiny little cubes. (Yes, I’m on the ‘big’ one you get by clicking through). Lines connect this to the sunspot graph. Wonder what it says and what it’s about… Maybe something to do with angular momentum? There are little letters, I think, in the end boxes. Wonder what they stand for?
Agree its not easy right now…its a work I progress and I am planning to make it bigger, with long graphs its hard, others complain about being too wide. There is a “table definitions” block of text directly under the graph thumbnail on the main article at the top explaining the boxes but agree it needs more work. The article text explains your other questions and provides a link back to my original article fully explaining the base theory. Perhaps you missed that.
3) Further down the page you make a correlation between a 172 year cycle and planetary position, but don’t make it clear why this number was chosen other than maybe data modeling? Is it a fixed repeating pattern of the planets or is it a quantity of angular momentum or is it just the frequency of sunspots that you then data model onto ‘close enough’ planet positions? What is the physicality that it is supposed to represent?
That is fully explained I thought in the article and supporting article but obviously I need to do it better. Every 172 yrs approx N+U come together (conjunction) , for the past 6000 yrs at least this has coincided with grand minima in nearly every case (MWP excluded etc). Grand minima has not occurred outside of the 172 yr cycle, although it can happen early or late. That in itself is a major correlation or a hell of a big fluke. Grand minima comes in different forms and strengths and is very dependant on how J+S are at that time. Every 172 yrs they (J+S) have moved slightly (some deg each) from the last position they occupied 172 years ago. With that position change you get a different timing and strength of angular momentum applied to the Sun, this is not my theory and is acknowledged by most. Its not a random change but a gradual change that is controlled by orbits/gravity etc, a bit like the Milankovitch cycles which are also controlled by the Jovian planets.
4) You “re-jigged Uroskins’ graph” to keep Dalton’s in. What does that mean? There is a bunch of discussion of planet angles: Why does the angle matter?
I talk about raising the bar, the original graph did not have the green line, only the blue which is set way too low excluding Dalton like events. I will make that note in my article, thanks. Angles are crucial and in fact the shape of the C14 graph is a product of the changing J+S angle. In my previous article I have gone to great lengths by explaining with text and diagrams to point out the importance of the Jovian positions. Angular momentum is primarily a product of J+S being the largest 2 planets affecting the Sun. Its strongest when J+S are together and weakest when they are opposing (not taking into account other planets). Every 172 years approx when N+U are in conjunction they can add or take away big chunks of angular momentum, depending on their positions, this is what causes large sunspot cycles directly before grand minima every 172 years as can be see by SC18,19 etc and is clearly seen on the C14 graph over 11000 yrs. Large angular momentum can boost solar performance just before shutting it down to a crawl.
5) OK, A & B with mass split between the two halves in line. So why is it J-S vs J+S with U+N Always in the same place. Why not N+S+U vs J? Why does the pairing matter? What physical thing changes? What is the mass ratio of the planet sets or the relative contribution to angular momentum or… Why are the other planets ignored? Alignment is interesting but tells me nothing of the physics involved.
Mainly explained above, almost all of the angular momentum is “made” by the 4 outer planets. Its a product of the solar system and formed when the solar system formed , The figures behind Carl’s graph (SSB graph, solar system baricenter) showing the movement in angular momentum over time are from NASA and angular momentum although small is a calculable force on the Sun recognized by science.
6) You talk about dates and better vs worse ‘angles’. Why better or worse? What makes a bad angle better? What is a negative angle vs a positive one?
Good point and I am planning to produce diagrams to show how it all works…this work is barely a week old, so I have lots to do. I always thought a direct alignment of N+U+J with S opposing was the most powerful lineup when considering momentum, but through this project I have discovered many things. Going on past grand minima the deepest and longest have had N+U behind J with N+U about 15 deg apart and S opposing is about 30 deg offline (off 180 deg line between J & S) from J. I have a lot more work to do in this area, but its all falling into place exactly as expected, the angles quoted are approx .
8) You say the planets ‘changed position’ and that’s why Jose’s 179 becomes your 172. How did they change? Just took a moment for a cigarette and slowed down or what? What made them ‘change position’
Jose only went back a few hundred years when forming his 178.8 yr theory, I initially went back through time in this project in 179 yr breaks but found over time the alignments did not match up, when looking at it over 6000 yrs it averages out to 172 years (when the 4 planets are in the best position for grand minima) but I suspect because of orbit changes etc as outlined the 172 yr approx period of N+U is what will replace Jose’s theory.
Have a read of my original article http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58 and hopefully it might become clearer, but I do thank you for your comments and will make appropriate changes.
“I’m sorry if that conclusion strikes you as belonging to the Jr. High,”
No doubt the fault is mine but my comments were intended as an addendum, not refutation.
“In case you did not notice we are on our way to a wicked Solar Max. ”
A little late to the discussion, are we? Hathaway recently downgraded his prediction. He and Dikpati, however, earn high marks for integrity, sticking to ththeir foxholes when retreat has sounded and their positions are overrun.
‘Who kept records of sunspot umbra intensity? Bill Livingston’
I can and have independently verified by proxy that Bill is correct, through personal observation, experience and officially recorded data. Bill didn’t live in the Maunder or Dalton.
Disconnect.
‘Who kept records of the size of the sunspots?
Staudacher 1749-1805
De La Rue 1850s-1860s
Greenwich 1874-1975
USAF 1976-present’
That will connect us back to the Dalton buy not to the Maunder.
Disconnect.
We can’t even be sure that there are things going on in this event that didn’t happen in the previous two.
Too many assumptions relying on the Dalton being a weaker version of the Maunder.
We don’t know that.
There are two things we should know:
1.) Lack of sunspots leads to climate colder
2.) This event is unusual, but we don’t know yet exactly how unusual it really is.
Pay attention. Don’t let modeling and reports get in the way of personal observation in real life.