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.
E.M.Smith (00:55:46) :
How does the graph look now…I think a lot better, thanks again.
you may need to use the picture expand function on your browser, its big.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/c14nujs.jpg
The vidoes of David Archibald’s lecture were quite interesting.
The logarithmic curve of CO2 warming suggests to me that there is a possibility of CO2 being an atmospheric antifreeze.
If it gets too low, the planet plunges into deep and long Ice Age.
It takes a lot of Solar Activity to warm the oceans to begin releasing enough CO2 antifreeze back into the atmosphere to lift the planet out of deep Ice Age.
Key word is hysteresis.
Food for new thought: Why the 800 year lag of CO2 after warming has begun?
Ric Werme: 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.
On reflection, you are quite right. But I did in fact mean its motion relative to the sun, as you suggested.
One of the things I might try is to construct a model sun in the middle of my solar system, to see whether ‘tidal forces’ due to the gravitational attraction of the planets have any interesting effects on the sun.
At the outset, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that there are tides on the sun, just like on the earth, and that the highest tides will occur when the planets all line up together on one side, or maybe are along the same line on both sides of the sun.
I’m not quite sure how I might construct my model ‘sun’, but a spinning spherical bundle of point masses held together somehow might be a start. Or maybe a spinning hollow sphere of masses.
If I found anything interesting happened, I might start to believe that the planets could influence events on the sun, like the sunspot cycle.
Robert Bateman (08:00:09) :
We don’t know that.
There are two things we should know:
1.) Lack of sunspots leads to climate colder
We don’t know that either.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (08:32:34) :
How does the graph look now…I think a lot better, thanks again.
Dalton minimum was not in 1831 but in 1811 [based on smoothed sunspot number and 10Be record.]
Ric Werme (05:54:22) :
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.
Software engineers have the duty to “out-precise” the lawyers.
Well to be very acurate, a barycentre in this context is just a gravityhole in space. The position of this or any other gravityhole is only defined by it’s coordinates relative to another. An absolute position can’t exist in space. So obviously it can,will and does move.
As the gravity sources move about the gravitycentre they create moves about. As i understand that’s the whole idea why the sun is influenced by such an event. It makes the sun tumble about around an ever moving point in space which moves and reversely is pushed around by the sun which makes a part of the whole mess making it a chaotic system.
I’m hard put to visualize how one can go about pinpointing this barycentre at any given time. It’s like pinpointing the exact watermolecule which is at the end of a vortex.
idlex (09:16:34) :
I might start to believe that the planets could influence events on the sun, like the sunspot cycle.
When the sunspot cycle was discovered and for almost a century thereafter, the planetary influence theory was the leading theory for the cycle. Here is a good paper on the history of the theory:
http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
Peter vd berg, Great barycenter explanation above this is how I see it too. Thank-you.
idlex (09:16:34) :
I might start to believe that the planets could influence events on the sun, like the sunspot cycle.
Though the famous ‘gravity wave’ has not been proven to exist yet, if one imagines space being pulled and stretched in each and every direction by every mass it contains it’s pretty certain these deformations have effects on the masses passing through.
The simplistic view of the stretched sheet with a bulge where the mass distorts space doesn’t account for all other deformations happening at the same time.
The sun doesn’t neatly sit in a little hole it created, but is pushed/pulled/stretched by the fact that the space it distorts is distorted itself. As we are part of this distortion it’s hard for us to measure/calculate this. We can however observe, for example how our star behaves blightly ignoring most of our preconceptions how it should behave.
To my mind sunspots are one of those manifestations.
********
fred (07:01:07) :
On the subject of solar effects on climate, has anyone seen any followup to this.
Clouds are bigger than they look, according to new measurements by atmospheric scientists in Israel and the United States. They say that clouds are surrounded by a ‘twilight zone’ of diffuse particles, invisible to the naked eye, extending for tens of kilometres around the cloud’s visible portion.
*********
You can see this somewhat on very cold days, like just recently. The visible, white cloud (in this case, standard convective culumlus clouds) is but a small cap on top of a much larger & usually invisible “mound” originating from the ground. All the particles were prb’ly ice all the way to the ground, making it barely visible.
Geoff Sharp
I am not yet convinced by the planetary theory but I certainly have an open mind on the subject and I do believe there is something in it so please continue with your work – we are far from understanding this issue (that said I need to read the paper linked by Leif (09:16:34) yet though).
I have read some of the postings at Landscheidt.auditblogs.com to which you have linked and have to say they have tweaked my interest – I would encourage others to check the site and form their own opinions.
I came across the P.D. Jose (1965) paper as I followed my own learning curve and I still regard it as one of the finest papers I have read on my journey of learning in this area of Global warming/Climate Change.
One of the reasons my interest was stimulated by your posts was I remember in my post graduate career reading a book which suggested there was more to planetary alignment and its affects upon us than the rather incredible suggestions of the astrologers.
After several months of searching I found the book today – “The Cycles of Heaven” by Guy Lyon Playfair and Scott Hill – I apparently purchased it in 1979! The Sunday Telegraph comment that “the questions asked are intriguing: The answers strain credulity much less than one would expect” was probably the reason I bought it.
I recall it being a good read and it suggesting that when you get away from the nonsense there is an underlying science.
I fell off my chair today when I flicked through the early chapters which discuss the work of Jose and Landscheidt!
Look, all I am saying is we should not discount this theory without having fully explored it.
I do not believe in astrological nonsense but anyone who suggests that we are not impacted by the universe around us should read the old book I cited above -you may just be enlightened and then be a little more open minded about Geoff Sharp’s posts.
gary gulrud (07:39:01) :
“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.”
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t sure. First I took it as an addendum, but then construed another angle and responded accordingly. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I’m used to being attacked when I open my mouth on this subject and am having a hard time adjusting to the depth of knowledge and courteous atmosphere of this discussion…
Although I’m just starting to familiarize myself with the argument, the theory that the planetary alignments are causal forces on sunspots and the sun’s magnetic flux strikes me as being on the right track and maybe even close to a “grand slam” unified theory….Great work, folks. Its a pity the mainstream media doesn’t want to listen…yet. 🙂
Cheers,
psi
I would be curious to see the cooling trends that these articles suggest a slow, small cycle will herald, predicted. Or perhaps 2 small cycles occur, just to understand the time and magnitude of the debate… Hansen put out a chart 10 years ago with A, B and C predictions… I think we’re operating well outside the 95% confidence of any of these predictions, nonetheless he staked out some ground. Ground that may be hard to sell today. Are the group of Solar Scientists and climatologists who look for cooling over the next 30 years unable or unwilling to do prediction models?
Please understand my tone here, it’s not contentious, I am just curious, and would like to see the various schools of thought. “God Willing and the Creek don’t rise”, I’m young enough to track maybe the next 40-50 years or so. I think one of these cooling trends layed out side by side on a graph withsame years of Hansen’s A, B and C charts would attract some eyes, maybe provoke a public debate or discussion.
Loved this article and the various comment contributions – Thanks
BTW – Congrats Anthony on your well deserved win! I used a few computers (got kids!) to vote a couple of times on most of the voting days. Please don’t tell the webblog voting committee or anything 😉
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons is really good. Next I need to use it to start off my solar system simulation, …and maybe find out just how bad a simulation it really is, when the planets end up in the wrong place after an orbit or two.
Thanks again.
Leif Svalgaard (10:21:36) :
When the sunspot cycle was discovered and for almost a century thereafter, the planetary influence theory was the leading theory for the cycle. Here is a good paper on the history of the theory:
http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
Thanks for the article link. I have red it 2-3 times over last 12 months, one reason why I do not favour gravitational tides and torque theories. However, it was all written before Dr. S. and colleagues discovered heliospheric current, before the Alfven’s current existence was confirmed, before we knew of the full significance of the polar field at minima, before true properties of the heliosphere were fully known and before, as NASA keeps regularly telling us, about all kinds of interaction between planetary magnetospheres and solar originated magnetic fields and currents.
Way forward is the solar fields/currents interaction with planetary magnetospheres feedback. See:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
Read Rise and Fall article http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
found it interesting. Of course the conclusion is wrong. Nobwainer’s theory in full is not covered by any of those astronomers, although they partly point the way and in part some of their theories should not be thrown out. With intelligence we can take the bits and fill in the rest of the picture.
Edward Morgan (15:26:05) :
Read Rise and Fall article […] Of course the conclusion is wrong. Nobwainer’s theory in full is not covered by any of those astronomers
The ‘of course’ is what makes your ideas unscientific. Just like the Mr Loewy [page 11], nowbrainer does not deal ‘candidly with the figures’.
Leif Svalgaard (09:28:02) :
Dalton minimum was not in 1831 but in 1811 [based on smoothed sunspot number and 10Be record.]
Ah, why not go back further as it probably started earlier. You are missing the point and proving once again you have no understanding of my work. Please read it properly before making wrong conclusions. In my article I clearly state:
“I also tracked back independently grand minima events on a 172 avg year basis (Jose was not quite right) recording the angles of the Jovian planets which determines the strength of the grand minima involved (I chose the best N+U+J & S opposed lineup of that period, which is a window that comes along every 172 avg years, and most are the centre part of that period), this suggests we DO have a 172 avg year recurring grand minima event that have different levels of impact depending on their angular momentum at the time. This is a major break though, opponents of the theory have long suggested Usoskin’s graph disproves the planetary influence theory, how wrong they have been.”
1831 is at the centre of the Dalton “opportunity” for grand minimum. Grand minima have different lengths and depths depending on the J/S angle. Weaker minima do not use all of the 3 opportunities that come along every 172 years as was the case, this is also very clearly pointed out several times in my supporting article http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58 written Nov 08, which you have told us you have read and understood…I am completely skeptical of that statement of yours as this question shows little understanding. Its not possible to review any work if you have not fully read and understood it.
I am very open to discuss any part of my work with you if you are prepared to look at it seriously and not heap ridicule as per normal. Citing old papers that criticize planetary theory is not valid…this is new work.
PaulHClark (11:30:04) :
Thanks for having an open mind, it takes an open mind to look at things logically sometimes without pre conceived ideas clouding your judgement.
Jose is indeed the biggest contributor in this area and in my opinion deserves the naming rights for the next grand minimum. Others have followed on from his lead which started in 1965 but perhaps missed the vital controlling factor, Neptune & Uranus. On the surface that sounds unbelievable and even I find it amazing planets that far away can have any influence, but I think we are all going to find out they indeed do.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:38:43) :
1831 is at the centre of the Dalton “opportunity” for grand minimum. Grand minima have different lengths and depths depending on the J/S angle. Weaker minima do not use all of the 3 opportunities that come along every 172 years
Explain again, what the three opportunities every 172 years are?
What determines which of the three are used? And how did that play out specifically for the minimum in 1811? Was number 1 or number 2 or number 3 used?
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (06:17:13) :
“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.”
That’s impressive, a real whale’s fluke of a correlation. I wouldn’t want to get slapped by it.
How would you paraphrase in short version for the layman what the critics of your theory would say about it? You can leave out the mudslinging about astrology or the ad hominem flavor of the week. 🙂 What would the rational critic say?
Thanks.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (06:17:13) :
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’ll take a look.
BTW, I ought to have said this earlier: When ‘reviewing’ someone else’s work the standard behaviour we would use in my workgroup was to adopt a “martian point of view”. To pretend you did not bring to the party too much of a prior understanding and ask instead “How would a random reader react”. So while I appreciate the explanations to me, here, the goal was to get you to see what you ought to add to the text as written…
My summary of that would be:
More definition of abbreviations and terms of art when or before they are first used.
Better matching of graphs with text that explains their meaning in terms that are not yours (i.e. standard physics – momentum, etc.) or an explanation of how your terms work (like 172 years comes from U+N alignment, or: We used alignments as a proxy for the net of angular momentum and find they gave better precision in matching solar cycles.) before the graph is presented (prep the reader).
Follow the ‘tell them what you will tell them; tell them; tell them what you told them’ pattern where possible
Review prior art as a baseline to get the reader up to speed for ‘the new stuff’.
Remember that the reader does not know what you know and must be lead one step at a time to your end point. Don’t jump ahead or use later conclusions in earlier discussions. Don’t depend on them to have read your earlier paper; either cite it with “See here for and explanation of FOO” or incorporate a summary of FOO just before you use it, perhaps in a sidebar.
Ask “How would I explain this to my mother?” Assuming she is not a physics major 😉
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:55:36) :
it takes an open mind to look at things logically sometimes without pre conceived ideas clouding your judgment.
No, it takes hard data, correct analysis, and adequate exposition.
Leif Svalgaard (17:05:47) :
Explain again, what the three opportunities every 172 years are?
What determines which of the three are used? And how did that play out specifically for the minimum in 1811? Was number 1 or number 2 or number 3 used?
There are normally 3 opportunities each 172 yrs…not always as it depends on the J/S angle of that period…those opportunities show up clearly when we look at the SSB graph of Carls’s when checking a particular period. Check here for the Dalton. http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/ssbscmax2.jpg
Basically during each period/phase each 172 years as N+U begin to close we have a partial line up of N+U+J with S opposing. The angle between N+U is greater so the disturbance to the angular momentum (camels hump in graph) is not as high as the next opportunity but can be strong enough to begin a grand minimum as it did in 1791. 3 complete orbits of J later we return to the optimal centre opportunity. This normally in a strong grand minimum would continue the grand minimum affect on the Sun and then continue on 3 orbits of J again and possibly a 3rd “hit” would occur before returning back to a “normal” conditions as N+U start to oppose each other. This is exactly what happened during the Sporer, Maunder and probably Wolf and explains their length. There are 2 types of “hits” possible during the best angles of J/S, type A and B which we can discuss later.
The Dalton started on the 1st opportunity but failed after that, the second hit was more like SC20, not strong enough to cause continuing grand minimum but strong enough to severely reduce sunspot activity as in SC7 but allowing SC8,9,10 & 11 to recover. SC12 was hit for 1 cycle only as the last opportunity of the 172 yr phase passes through. Up until recently the tipping point or what actually causes the Sun to go into phase catastrophe (or whatever we want to call the grand minima action stopping sunspot activity) has been a mystery. Ian Wilson has just come up with a theory that could explain it. In the past where we have sunspot data, if J+S are at the top or bottom of their stroke (together is top, opposed is bottom) before that sunspot cycle experiences its peak or max we have greatly reduced sunspot activity (less than 80SSN). The previous graph I referred to shows this phenomena inside the yellow circles. We have very little sunspot data to substantiate Ian’s theory but I suspect it may one day be referred to as “Wilson’s Law”
SC20 was the first opportunity of the current phase, the J/S angle was way too straight (almost directly opposite each other) which places the disturbance at the very bottom of the J & S opposition which you can see on Carl’s graph. This usually has minimal effect but slows activity without a full grand minimum taking place. We are now at the optimal position with a pretty good J/S angle so I am expecting full blown grand minima if “Wilson’s Law” holds true, but it will be short lived. The 3rd opportunity looks very weak and our path looks to be heading for another MWP period after that as the transition to neg angles looks to be happening. So we had better make the most of this forthcoming grand minimum.