Just when you think cycle 23 may be over, it pops out another spot. Here is the SOHO MDI image showing a sunspot dubbed #1012, in solar cycle 23.
From SOHO
For those wondering how this is determined, cycle 24 spots (the new cycle) normally start near the poles and gradually migrate towards the equator as the cycle progresses over 11 years. So in this case, a spot at the equator means it is a cycle 23 spot. The magnetic polarity of the spot also defines it as a cycle 23 spot.
Here is a closer view:
Leif, please tell me what you think of the new de Jager and Duhau study that expects decades of cooling from the action of the sun. Please and thank you.
===================================================
At least half of the Jan 9-13 , 2009 SC24 spot was SOHO based.
It was a very ghostly group.
I know, I followed it conventionally every day it was declared in existence.
No matter how you slice it, Sunspot acitivity is atrociously poor, and SC23 activity, whether SOHO or plage-based, outstrips SC24. This latest SC23 peekaboo shot a flare.
IPS has thier minimum prediction for the crossover out in April, 2009, for good reason.
The reason is that SC24 is still back at the starting line.
Examine the SC24 spots of 2008. They are ghosts, with only one being prominent.
We are comparing ghosts to ghosts to argue which ghost is greater.
Amatuer Astronomers have a great name for observations this difficult: Faint Fuzzies.
Jeff (01:55:28) :
I agree, though others will disagree. The changes in irradiance are fairly small, however, combined with other factors that change is amplified / manifested in several ways. It does not take much change in sea temperatures to affect the climate.
Many have told me that a couple of weak solar cycles would not have any noticable effect. Some state that the current level of solar insolation will prevent any cooling let alone dramatic cooling. So I, in my own way, looked into that. My findings disagreed with those claims. My findings also disagreed with claims that the Holocene would continue for another 25,000 years or so. I did a series on that titled:
A New Glacial Period; When?
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?page_id=394
I do not claim that we are going to see a major drop into a glacial period anytime in the (human time) near future. However, the Holocene is ending. We should be grateful for any remaining warming cycles which occur. Man needs to be able to adapt, and prepare for adaptation, to climate change be it warming or cooling. Cooling is far more dangerous and anyone who ignores contingencies for dealing with it is neglegent… in science and in politics.
Leif,
Just come out and say it- Is CO2 in your opinion a greater climate driver than solar activity?
The answer is going to unfold in the years ahead. But I’d to know your answer now.
The globe has indeed cooled in the last few years, which doesn’t exactly support the CO2 theory.
Looks like Archibald is the one who is correct. We could use some more Archibald about now. Mr. Archibald, could you please impart some wisdom on us.
Frank Lansner (03:15:55) :
“YES! strange things are happening!!”
If you think this winter is strange then you might find this article on the winter of 1709 interesting.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126942.100-1709-the-year-that-europe-froze.html?page=2
Would this spot have been detected with the techonology available during the Maunder Minimum? …or even pre-satellite era?
Frank Lasner says:
“I think these things are good to know, because soon we will hear the warmies party due to the new heat. I think its a fluctuation caused by very special weather formation over the arctic.”
I hope your right but this same formation with the jet stream going over North America hugging the California / Oregon border happened the beginning of last December. I can’t remember seeing a jet stream in the winter like that hang around so long. We all know what happened the end of December. Arctic Outflows for the Pacific Northwest followed by a prolonged cold snap for the Midwest and Eastern Seaboard.
I should also note that the 14 day forecast with its weighting on the present (in the model) is pushing out the same way it did in December for Northern Alberta, Canada. I watch a couple of spots in Siberia and then Fort Yukon in Alaska to see how deep the cold is going to be. It’s almost a mirror of December.
All I can say is God Bless Winterpeg, Manitoba, Canada because this winter they didn’t get much of a reprieve. Already, this has been a Winter like I remember from the 70’s.
Cycle 23 is limping along.
Good question Dell Hunt, I have asked and have gotten no definitive answer. Wouldn’t it be reasonable that we avoid the tiny-tim problem with hurricanes by having a set of sunspot books where the numbers are traceable to historic data with no interruptions? It would seem to be quite easy to use old-style measuring equipment.
Alan the Brit:
I noticed the same thing. Dr. Viki Pope (head of climate change advice at the Met Office Hadley Centre) is now saying in guardian.co.uk:
“Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few years.”
The “Recent headline” refers to an article in guardian.co.uk by James Hansen “Twenty years later: tipping points near on global warming”. So Dr. Pope is saying that Dr. Hansen was telling porky pies.
REPLY: see new thread on this topic. – Anthony
tarpon (05:18:48) :
Cycle 23 is limping along.
Good question Dell Hunt, I have asked and have gotten no definitive answer. … It would seem to be quite easy to use old-style measuring equipment.I suspect that this one could be seen with old-style measuring equipment. And I do believe that Leif has previously informed us that such equipment is still in service.
If Leif is right in his numbers for January — and it would be a fool who bets he isn’t — my question is what happens if SC24 stays low for the rest of February, so that February becomes a month in which SC23 exceeds SC24. Does this in any way influence the determination of “official minimum” (in quotes, to let Leif know that I recall what he’s said about the minimum being a human artifact, and not a true physical phenomenon)?
The official sunspot number is calculated from a formula known as the Wolf Sunspot Number Formula.
R = k(10g + s), where g is the number of sunspot groups (regions), s is the total number of individual spots in all the groups and k is a scaling factor that corrects for seeing conditions.
http://space-env.esa.int/Data_Plots/noaa/ssn_plot.html
Since you have ‘k’ in the equation, the result is somewhat subjective and rarely (or maybe never) = 1 If you have a ‘group’ of spots then the result is at least 11 if k>= 1.
Robert Wood:-)
Right on! I couldn’t agree more.
Lee Kington:-)
Surely there is much more in the combination of Milankovitch Cycles & solar output variations. As I understand it the correlations between global temps & solar variations is definitely there, we are at near circular orbit with perihelion in early January, as this precesses thro time closest approach to the Sun will be in July in several thousand years time, we are also about half-way thro our axial tilt upwards with around 10,000 years to go before it all starts back down again. I also understand that at the top end of tilt the northern hemisphere will get about 25% more solar radiation @ur momisugly about 65N lat, from 400 w/m² to 500w/m². We know the sun is never constant, & as I also understand it TSI may well not be the whole story, particularly as Lockwood & Frolich claim only a 0.2% variations between solar max & min yet it fits the AGW argument for no solar influence. It just doesn’t make sense to discard solar variations of whatever kind from climate influences in favour of a politically selected trace gas (IPCC agrees it is a trace gas) that has increased by one ten thousanth of a part of the volume of the atmosphere.
When examining a structure for defects & causes of those defects, I discount nothing unless I know for sure I can definitely rule it out, if then.
BTW if Dr Pope is so concerned by all the clamour & alarmism detracting from the real issues of Global Warming she should stop joining in by promoting government hyped CC conferences which are choreographed & scripted as well as any Hollywood ripping yarn blockbuster, where the special effects (Hockey Sticks & CGI models) are sensational but the acting, script, & plot is thin on the ground. No offence to the hard working actors, directors, producers et al in said Hollywood rip roaring yarn! Not a skeptic in site!
Completely OT. The BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show is discussing the elderly, & the representative of Help the Aged charity reckons we should not be discriminating against the elderly by referring to them as elderly or aged, & it was politely pointed out that their charity had Aged in its title! What a country I live in, may God help my children.
” think of the new de Jager and Duhau study that expects decades of cooling from the action of the sun.”
An interesting dilemma. Dr. S. is cited repeatedly in a paper rampant with cyclomania and statistical speculation. A surprise from Dr. de Jager.
Not the first to postpone the Grand Minimum until later this century but paper stands out on that count.
Funny, I don’t hear any CO2 or Sun due to the noise from the surf pounding in my ears and the wind blowing up my skirt. But I must ignore the crashing waves and my chilly cheeks so that I can strain to hear these apparently important sources of climate speculation.
Jim Steele (00:05:24) :
“Jan 10: 6” […] How are you counting?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 🙂 on this drawing from the 10th Jan.:
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr090110.jpg
There is perhaps a semantic problem: An ‘active region’ [the one that gets a number] can contain many ‘spots’. The one in question had 6. A big region at solar maximum can have dozens of spots in it. Here is an example:
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/1957/dr570922.jpg
Robert A Cook PE (01:11:16) :
Odd.
Same issue here.
Pierre Gosselin (03:59:46) :
Is CO2 in your opinion a greater climate driver than solar activity?
There has been times in the far past where the CO2 concentration was 30-50 times higher than now. During those times temperatures were 5-10 degrees warmer. I don’t think solar activity was responsible for that [the Sun was actually a bit dimmer as a whole], so, yes, CO2 can be an important driver. Whether that is the case today with the paltry 0.04% concentration is another question which we don’t know the answer to. There has been changes in temperature without any increases in CO2 [e.g. MWP] nor in solar activity. People are all to willing to jump on a band wagon [of either stripe] because it gives them a sense of security of knowing or of belonging. Which band wagon are you on?
kim (03:51:44) :
kim (03:51:44) :
what you think of the new de Jager and Duhau study that expects decades of cooling from the action of the sun.
Not much. My main problem is Figure 1 and 2, that show the Group Sunspot Number and Earth temperature. First of all the data stops conveniently some 30 years back, second, Figure 1 shows a large difference between 19th and 20th century which I don’t think exists, so the basis for the rest of the paper is sorta shot.
Dell Hunt, Jackson, Michigan (04:55:28) :
tarpon (05:18:48) :
Would this spot have been detected with the techonology available during the Maunder Minimum? …or even pre-satellite era?
Probably not, but we try to compensate for that by inflating the early sunspot numbers appropriately.
Basil (05:41:51) :
is what happens if SC24 stays low for the rest of February, so that February becomes a month in which SC23 exceeds SC24. Does this in any way influence the determination of “official minimum”
The official minimum is based on an average over 13 months so one or even a few months of imbalance either way would not have any effect.
I’m am not a scientist in anyway just love science, but I have a difficult time believing that in the past they could count these micro-spots or even see them at all. Am I wrong? If that statement is true, how do you compare apples to apples, cycle to cycle. It’s like the era of the dead ball in baseball and the live ball. 1700’s to 2009 something must have changed.
Alan the Brit (06:04:52) :
I disagree on the above quote. Obliquity is currently at 23.446 degrees and decreasing. 5 Kyr ago it was 24.019 and 10 Kyr ago it was 24.229.
Insolation at 65N is about 426 and decreasing. 5 Kyr ago it was 452.48 and 10 Kyr ago it was 469.44.
I don’t believe that the solar cycles are fully responsible for entry into an ice age or glacial period, nor do they cause the exit. Neither does, in whole, the Milankovitch cycles. But both play a part.
It is possible that the current CO2 levels may play a role in the next entry to a glacial cycle. They could, very slightly, slow the rate of temperature decline. However, they won’t prevent it. Cooling will increase sequestion thus additional CO2, and then some, will disappear from the air in a century or so.
What little cooling we have had in recent years has already halted addition to the rate of annual increase.
Trends in Yearly CO2 Increase
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=182
Thanks for your response.
Lee
Alan the Brit (06:04:52) :
As I understand it the correlation between global temps & solar variations is definitely there
Where?
gary gulrud (06:14:23) :
An interesting dilemma. Dr. S. is cited repeatedly in a paper rampant with cyclomania and statistical speculation. A surprise from Dr. de Jager.
No dilemma. The cyclomania stinks. One should disregard the whole first half of the paper. The last half is a fairly traditional analysis and ‘prediction’, not particularly original or useful.
Leif
I see the tiny little cluster Jan 9-13 that you mention, is that enough to be sure that cycle 24 is beginning, Do we count each little spec seperately in a group like this? Also is their any significance to their small size and short duration or is that because the cycle is just starting?
Lee Kington (03:35:50) :
Jim ….. 1010 was a ‘region’ which contained multiple spots rather than a single spot.
I went back and enlarged the pictures and saw that #1010 was a region with variable spots. The questions remains how those counts compare with historic counts. On enlarged January 9 I can see only 1 spot not 3. January 10 I see 5 spots but 6th looks questionable. Did historic records have the same resolution to 3 vs 1 spot? Were historic records counted every day because those spots change rapidly in a region.
No update yet from SOHO, but this morning Catania has a new drawing up noting the new spot. See: http://www.ct.astro.it/sun/
Is an overlap of cycles the norm?, since we appear to have Cycle 23&24 spots appearing.
I wonder when these graphs will be updated to show the January data:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html
“”” Jeff (01:55:28) :
I think that it is clear that the radiatave energy from the sun changes very little due to the solar cycle. But, because of the strong correlation to temerature and prolonged solar minima, there is likely some link. “””
There’s a sunspot cycle Solar Irradiance plot that is a composite of several satellites (I think) The segments are labelled HF, ACRIM-I, ACRIM-2, and VIRGO. As near as I can tell by eye; smoothing the smoothed graph, it has a peak to peak cyclic amplitude of very close to 0.1%, with the peak at
1367.0, and the trough at 1365.6 W/m^2. There is also a 0.1 % “bar” on the graph. You can find it at:-
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/COMPOSITE.v2.GIF
All the previous separate satellite graphs I have seen seem consistent with a 0.1% amplitude, but their baslines were different so you still couldn’t tell what NOAA thought the solar “constant” was. So I’ll take this one.
From black body radiation theory, if nothing else changed one would expect to see a 0.025% increase in mean global temperature; or close to it; ignoring some of the finer points; and that amounts to 0.072 deg C P-P; hardly worth writing home about.
Now personally, I am of the opinion, that even if the solar constant were a straight line at about 1366.2 with zero variation; we would still see the same variations of earth climate showing a solar cycle linkage of about the same magnitude as we have seen.
It is my opinion, that the magnetic and charged particle/cosmic ray linkages, (and maybe others I don’t know about); some of which are included in Svensmark et al’s thesis, are in fact driving the major earth climate changes; through basically cloud feedback. I bas this on my belief that the water cycle, involving surface warming, evaporation, atmospheric water content, cloud formation, and precipitation, and solar insolation and albedo modulation; is the contolling mechanism, and the solar effects link to that largely through cloud formation.
I’ve seen enough peer reviewed literature on these matters; plus things like Dr Willie Soon’s book, and what Leif posts here on solar matters; to convince me, of the general behavior, even if I may not be able to quantify my picture of how it all works; and I believe that CO2 has virtually nothing at all to do with earth climate.
George