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:
Dell Hunt, Jackson, Michigan (04:55:28) :
Would this spot have been detected with the techonology available during the Maunder Minimum? …or even pre-satellite era?
Absolutely not. There is no way you are going to take even a 4″ apochromat of tody’s superb optical quality and the finest eyepiece money can buy and expect to see Sunspot 1012.
No, no, no, no, and NO.
Why?
Because of lower limits on the appearance of faint nebulosity expressed in arcminutes will preclude you from resolving such a wispy object. Now we are dealing directly with resolving power. It will take a dedicated solar tower projecting at very high F ratios to break that barrier. So you can pretty much pinpoint how far back this spot would be picked up pre-satellite by what year solar towers (and similar) became available.
I should hasten to add, that I understand at a fairly basic level how CO2 intercepts earth emitted thermal radiation energy and then passes that on to the atmosphere in the form of atmospheric heating; pretty much the same as water vapor does. So I DO NOT deny the CO2 absorption process; it just doesn’t matter much in the end, because of the control that water has, on the outcome.
George
The link above got clipped somehow. The end is /COMPOSITE.v2.GIF
George
Jim Steele (07:17:18) :
It is quite possible that historic entries were not inclusive of individual spots within a region dependent on the size of the region, strength of individual spots, and separation of them. But, to an extent I think that it is possible to put too much emphasis on spot numbers / count.
Cycle overlap during the transition is normal. It’s just that Cycle 24 is @&## weak, most expectations were that it would have ramped up higher by now.
“Which band wagon are you on?”
Certainly not on the CO2 bandwagon.
I think there have been enough studies to show that there’s a close correlation between solar activity and climate change – throughout the history of the earth, and not just a few decades.
Without the sun, it would be absolute zero here. It’s only logical that solar fluctuations thus cause climate change. Ocean cycles are also a major factor. But the oceans get their energy from the sun, and I think their behaviour is ultimately driven by the sun.
Little ice ages are not uncommon in recent human history. It would be foolish politically to ignore the chance of them happening again. But politics is foolish for the most part, and not surprisingly they are ignoring what is a real threat to people.
Everything is going to play out in the next few years.
Wondering Aloud (07:14:06) :
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?
I count the number of ‘regions’ [i.e. as numbered by NOAA] for each day separately for each cycle and plot the count for each month here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Region%20Days%20per%20Month%20for%2023-24.png
It is clear that cycle 24 has started.
Jim Steele (07:17:18) :
On enlarged January 9 I can see only 1 spot not 3.
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr090110.jpg
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr090111.jpg
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr090112.jpg
The key point is that different people see different spots with different instruments at different times. In constructing the sunspot number all of these differences are sought to be taken into account. As you go back in time, this adjustment becomes harder and harder. Rudolf Wolf who invented the sunspot number found a solution to this problem of adjusting the counts of different observers to the same uniform scale [that of Rudolf himself, of course]. The solution is described here: http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf and here: http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf
Adam Gallon (08:47:56) :
Is an overlap of cycles the norm?, since we appear to have Cycle 23&24 spots appearing.
Yes, you can see the overlap here: http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf on page 4 or here: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
I think the Axial Tilt or Obliquity is the most important aspect of the Milankovitch cycles.
As the tilt decreases toward 22.4 degrees, there is less summer warmth produced in the polar regions and less snow melts. Glaciers build up near the poles, spread away from the poles, more sunshine is reflected, Earth cools more and the glaciers spread even farther away from the poles.
If there was no axial tilt at all, the north pole would consistently have April and October temperatures (ie sun barely breaking the horizon and no melting at all) and the glaciers would be more or less permanent halfway down North America, Europe and Siberia.
The highest axial tilt at 24.2 degrees coincides with the Holocene Optimum at 8,700 BC. The next ice age is then coming as we get closer to 22.3 degrees in about 9,800 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt
Until about 1 million years ago, the glacial cycles followed the 41,000 to 42,000 year Axial Tilt cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Jim Steele (07:17:18) :
On enlarged January 9 I can see only 1 spot not 3.
I did forget to post the Jan 9th [was not drawn by Mt. Wilson]:
http://www.leif.org/research/20090109_1600_mdiigr_1024.jpg
“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.”
The distillation is appreciated, much obliged.
George E. Smith (09:49:27) :
“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.”
However laws of thermodynamics work on the Kelvin scale not the Celsius scale.
0 Celsius = 273.15 K
a degree is the same on both scales.
14 C (global mean temp) = 287.15 K (I’ll round to 287 K)
So according to the laws of thermodynamics, an increase in energy input (TSI from the Sun) should have a corresponding increase in temp (with all other factors constant). BUT THIS CALCULATION SHOULD BE DONE ON THE KELVIN SCALE NOT THE CELCIUS SCALE!
287 X .1% (.001) = .287 degrees.
Therefore under laws of thermodynamics, an increase of just .1% solar irradiance, should theoretically increase temps by .1%, which is almost .3 degrees, and that amount is worth writing home about.
Leif Svalgaard,
I am only going by allegedly sound website articles by some geologists. If that is wrong then so be it. I endeavour to trawl a wide variety of simialr sites to get a broader understanding of what these authorities are saying.
Ditto to Lee, if this data is wrong then I stand corrected. I will go back thro what I have linked on to & pass the site on to you asap. Could you advise of a website where there is an authoratitive stance please?:-)
I thank you for mentioning it. ICECAP doesn’t have a functional RSS feed so I often miss stuff. Particularly because their web page format scatters stuff around the page so it’s hard to spot new stuff.
Dell Hunt, Jackson, Michigan (10:51:54) :
So according to the laws of thermodynamics, an increase in energy input (TSI from the Sun) should have a corresponding increase in temp (with all other factors constant).
No, an increase of energy input of 0.1% causes an increase in temp of 1/4 of that or 0.025%, which of 287K comes to 0.072K which is not worth writing home about.
The 1/4 comes from the Stefan-Boltzmann law: S = a T^4, so
dS = 4 aT^3 dT or dS/S = 4 dT/T, or dT/T = 1/4 dS/S
Alan the Brit (11:03:57) :
Alan here is the data for the last 5,000,000 years.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/insolation/orbit91
That is with July Insolation which I refered to.
here is with June..
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/insolation/insol91.jun
other data here…
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/insolation/
Sunspot numbers are determined by a calculation that depends in part on the observor (for the ‘k’ value); many on-line sites describe this. Clearly there is subjectivity involved; the key thing is for any given approach be applied consistently. NOAA has a site that presents the data side-by-side, with the calculated sunspot number and the sunspot region–the latter being what most of us amateurs consider the “sunspot number” to be:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/quar_DSD.txt
The main site for NOAA’s sun-related data is:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Data/index.html
Bill Illis (10:31:01) :
Bill,
To me that is the wrong way to look at it. While there is a close tie to precession, thus insolation, to glacial entries and exits that same relationship does not exist with obliquity. Obliquity does not influence the total amount of solar radiation. It does affect the distribution of solar radiation. Hence, the amount of variation (extremes) between seasons at upper and lower latitudes.
Perhaps I should do a project demonstrating why obliquity, though it may at times contribute, is not a determining factor for glaciation or exit from a glacial period.
… as they wring their hands and mutter, sotto voce, “Out, out, damned spot!”
It has something to do with MacBeth; I’m not sure what.
“that amount is worth writing home about.”
In connection with Mr. Kington’s insolation data, the ISCCP indicates a 2% rise in cloud associated albedo since 1998, the Earthshine project indicates 1%. These two distinct approaches are taken to be ‘in agreement’.
As only 40% of TSI reaching earth actually reaches the surface, to be ‘stored’ by the oceans, years of integrating, say, 0.3% less energy would seem to be worth noting to most, if not all, the sentient.
Leif Svalgaard:
“No, an increase of energy input of 0.1% causes an increase in temp of 1/4 of that or 0.025%, which of 287K comes to 0.072K which is not worth writing home about.
The 1/4 comes from the Stefan-Boltzmann law: S = a T^4, so
dS = 4 aT^3 dT or dS/S = 4 dT/T, or dT/T = 1/4 dS/S”
Are you sure you are looking at that correctly? That 1/4 formula between TSI and temp applies to overall temp, not necessarily the incremental changes.
While I’m not a physicist, I remember a lot from calculus, etc.
Looking at the formulas, and again, I’m not sure, but it looks to me like you are essentially double compensating for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Basically heres why.
The Stefan Boltzmann law is already built into the base irradiance-temperature relationship. So the ¼ constant is already built into the current temp. So an increase of .1% in TSI, yes results in ¼ irradiance to temp adjustment, but the base temp, is also subject to the same TSI to temp adjustment.
Here’s a simplified explanation. where TSI = Total Solar Irradiance. S = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant. And T = Temp.
Then Basically TSI x S = T
Correct?
Therefore If TSI x S = 287 K
Then 1.01xTSI x S = 1.01 x 287 = 287.287
I’m not saying that’s correct, but after looking at it more, are you sure you are calculating the ¼ factor correct and not doubling up the 1/4 adjustment?
A repost:
Leif Svalgaard (23:16:03) :
” damage to power stations ”
So if the solar storm’s have no way to change climate, by not adding power.
how can we blow up million watt power stations?
I await your answer, BTW I have a degree in power systems.
I see most all the questions were answered except:
1. The SOHO images were stuck on Feb 9th for a few day due to a data “keyhole” where the spacecraft is to close to the sun for reliable transmission. So, if you were watching onl SOHO instead of:
http://www.nso.edu/ you might have been suprised.
2. “Out damned spot” was spoken by a sleepwalking and guilt-ridden Lady MacBeth trying to wash the blood off her hands. (Read that 38 years ago in high school and can’t remember my own cell phone number.)
Robert Bateman (03:52:00) : “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.”
(whisper) I see dead sunspots! 🙂
On an entirely unrelated (or at best very loosely connected) subject, can anyone explain why NSIDC was showing until yesterday a very definate up spike in Arctic Sea ice, whereas today it has been suddenly smoothed out?
Ben
I am also surprised to see these cycle 23 spots. I had thought cycle 24 had started, we had passed minimum. There is obviously overlap each side of a minimum, but this cycle 24 is not stepping up to base.