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 and others.
RE: Stefan-Boltzmann
I’m not doubting the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, but am doubting the way you are applying in the TSI formula.
Here’s why it can’t be the way you claim.
Basically what you are saying is for x% change in TSI you would have a 1/4x% change in temp.
Correct?
Which means that a .1% increase in TSI would be a .025% increase in temps.
Conversely using that same application of formula you would have:
A .1% decrease in TSI would equate to a .025% decrease in temp.
Or based upon global mean temp of 14 C or 287 K, a .1% decrease in TSI would result in a .25% decrease in temp, or as you claim, .072 degrees.
Taking that formula further, a 1% decrease in TSI should result in a .72 degree decrease in temp.
Taking that formula further, a 10% decrease in TSI should result in a 7.2 degree decrease in temp.
Taking that formula even further, then a 100% decrease in TSI should result in a 72 degree decrease in temp, or -58 C or 215 K.
Thats where that application of the formula would be flawed, because we know that if the Sun were to go blank, the temp on Earth would drop to near absolute zero, not 215 K
Dell Hunt, Jackson, Michigan (07:07:44) :
Here’s why it can’t be the way you claim.
Basically what you are saying is for x% change in TSI you would have a 1/4x% change in temp.
Correct?
No, I say that dT/T = 1/4 dS/S. You said you had calculus. Then you know [?] that dT is an infinitesimal change of T. So the formula is only valid for very small changes, like 0.1%.
Let me try again:
Stefan-Boltzmann: S = 5.67 E(-8) T^4
at T=100K, the energy is thus 5.67 W/m2
at T=287K, the energy is 384.690 W/m2
at T=287.072K, the energy is 385.076 W/m2
Difference dS = 385.076 – 384.690 = 0.386 or 0.386*100/385 = 0.1%
So, a 0.072K change in T means a 0.1% change in S.
If you still persist, I suggest you try to get a refund on the money wasted on your education.
Ultimately, over the next few thousand years, science will get a front row seat to the transition into a glacial period.
Gosh, I hope not . That could kill off most of humanity.
More likely, humans will take action to prevent the next Ice Age.
Frank Lansner (03:15:55) :
Your last link is fantastic.
I wonder if this means that the polar ice has not thickened much this winter. This summer could get the “big melt” the AGW faithful have been hoping for.
2009 02 11 70 11 10 1 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 02 12 70 11 10 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
One of those spots does not exist, depending on how one calls the time on sunspot 1012.
Likewise the single spot of Jan 19, 2009 never made it past a SOHO find.
And at least 1/3 of the spot count for Jan 9-13 is tacked on simply because of playing with time frames.
Using SOHO as a crutch to inflate sunpot #’s isn’t going to help science gain understanding on what is going on in the Sun during times of extended minimum.
If muddying the picture so that understanding is rendered next to impossible is a worthwhile scientific goal, then by all mean, continue to inflate the Sunspot #’s.
“I would never think of comparing SC24 to SC15. It doesn’t fit the pattern.
SC5 sure does.”
You have company. Indeed, the former comparison requires unstated assumptions and revisions to historical data just as we are revising SS counting procedures on the fly today.
Re: The daft TSI discussions. 40% of TSI reaches the surface, the majority of which is released chaotically, episodically, intermittently over a period approaching a decade. This energy must for this reason be excluded from grey body consideration.
30% of TSI is reflected outright back to space. This energy ought to be excluded as well.
The remainder heats the Atmosphere and is sensibly considered in grey body calculations.
Analogies between low-temperature, low-pressure gases and black bodies are senseless.
OK, Leif, do you have an “non alarmist” sources to confirm your calculations?
I don’t have any trouble with Leif here, I think he is right but that does bring up a horrible problem. If the small change in TSI and solar activity cannot be the climate driver in the 20th century, which sounds right to me. Than the size of the change caused by the orbital eccentricity changes that we have been using to explain the 100K year glacial cycles is also not nearly large enough to drive that change. So now I know even less than before.
Isn’t science great?
Throughout history who would have missed this sunspot?
I’d suggest Maunder Minimum era (1645 to 1715) techniques would have missed this one.
What about Dalton Minimum (1790-1830)? I’m going to suggest they would have missed it as well.
My optics are far superior to that of the Dalton era, and I have been observing for almost 50 years.
There is no way 11012 and the Jan 19th spot would have been seen.
You would have 1 group reported for 2 days on 01/10/09 to 01/13/09.
The rest would be minispots not seen or too close to resolution limits.
Same story for the November 2008 sets of spots.
Throw half of it away.
I estimate that for 2008, 35-45% of spots counted are bogus for comparing to 1800’s observations.
Do we have a problem with technology over-reaching in modern sunspot counts? YES.
Do we also have a problem with the last 100 yrs not comparing well with prior sunspot observations? YES.
The former problem is serious in that it is badly coloring the historical data and chopping off important correlations.
The latter problem is not as bad, but still needs to be dealt with.
The sunspot overreporting affects the ability to assess the relative depth of solar minima as compared to other like events.
What is left is breadth of minima, and I personally thank Dr. Archibald for his good work in that regards.
All Neutron Monitors that I am able to access, Moscow, Irkutsk, Thule, Oulu,
Newark in the Northern Hemisphere
plus
Tsumeb, Namibia
Potchefstroom, South Africa
Hermanus, South Africa
NM64, SANAE, Antarctica
4NMD, SANAE, Antarctica
in the Southern Hemisphere
All monitors are trending up. None are moving back down.
All show a deramping in the past in lockstep with the previously occuring ramp.
i.e. – the ramp sets the rate of deramp.
So, when this thing finally turns around, I have to assume it will recover at the rate at which it rose for Solar Cycle Maximum.
it will be a slow process.
If anyone knows of a monitor that is in clear deramp, or has a link to a monitor
that shows anything other than the rate of deramp equal to the cycle rate of ramp, please post it.
And thank you Leif for pointing out that one should not cherrypick data.
I would never have thought to dig this deep.
gary gulrud (09:54:59) :
“I would never think of comparing SC24 to SC15. It doesn’t fit the pattern. SC5 sure does.”
SC23 compares well with SC13 and SC24 looks on track to compare with SC14. Our data about SC5 are very poor, Rudolf Wolf made a lot of that ‘data’ up, guessing from counts of aurorae what the sunspot number might have been, changing his mind several times [see e.g. page 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf ]
Dell Hunt, Michigan (10:49:39) :
OK, Leif, do you have an “non alarmist” sources to confirm your calculations?
Do I have a “non alarmist” source to confirm that 2+2=4…
There are two issues:
1) does Stefan-Boltzmann’s law mean that dT/T = 1/4 dS/S
2) if Stefan-Boltzmann’s law applicable
Issue 1) is well-known physics and mathematics and is not in doubt. Issue 2) is sometimes argued by people with an agenda, if the law does not fit the agenda.
Wondering Aloud (12:38:35) :
If the small change in TSI and solar activity cannot be the climate driver in the 20th century, which sounds right to me. Then the size of the change caused by the orbital eccentricity changes that we have been using to explain the 100K year glacial cycles is also not nearly large enough to drive that change.
The latter change is not small. It is of the order of a hundred times larger than the former.
Robert Bateman (19:32:45) :
assume it will recover at the rate at which it rose for Solar Cycle Maximum.
No. The cosmic ray cycle is kinda the inverse of the solar cycle: the fall is faster than the rise.
If anyone knows of a monitor that is in clear deramp
Moscow and Thule seem to have turned just in the past few weeks. It may take a little while for you to admit that, so we have to watch those stations in the following few weeks. Especially watch for them to update the bottom plot of http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/thule.html
For some reason they are about a month behind [unusual].
Moscow: http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/cosray/days.htm
Tsumeb seems to have been heading down since Oct. 2008, and Potchefstroom since Dec. 2008. As we are just at or past the turning point, the changes are small and the trend hard to pin down.
Robert Bateman (19:32:45) :
If anyone knows of a monitor that is in clear deramp
http://www.tau.ac.il/institutes/advanced/cosmic/last365.jpg
The Nc curve is the corrected flux.
Robert Bateman (19:32:45) :
If anyone knows of a monitor that is in clear deramp
You may want to watch this one too:
http://www.thaispaceweather.com/NMdata.html
Re MC, for a copy of my book, please mail me US$25 in notes to:
David Archibald
29 Pindari Road
City Beach WA 6015
Australia
I have been accepting British pounds, Swiss francs and US dollars.
Leif Svalgaard (00:49:50) :
Robert Bateman (19:32:45) :
assume it will recover at the rate at which it rose for Solar Cycle Maximum.
.
No. The cosmic ray cycle is kinda the inverse of the solar cycle: the fall is faster than the rise
That was a misspelling on my part: rose from, not rose for
Oops.
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm
and hit the Monthly button.
Otherwise, you can’t see the forest for the trees, and might as well be betting on the stock market short trend.
As for Thule, the top readings are still climbing, as they are at other stations.
If you back out of 6 mos graphs and have a look at the course of several years, your stock market moving averages show otherwise.
A full cycle from Maximum to Maximum shows how deceptive short term trends can be.
All neutron monitors that have a longstanding history that allow graphs across full cycles show the same. They are not backing down any more that SC24 is ramping.
Find me one that is backing down over a full cycle.
McMurdo, which still rises, and has been updated:
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/mcmurdo.html
The top graph is raw data, and once pressure corrected and put into the lower graph shows a different picture.
Thule, which has not been updated:
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/thule.html
And the top graph is raw data, the bottom pressure corrected.
Look also at Newark:
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/newark.html
What a difference pressure correcting can make.
I should grow sarcastic here, but I won’t make Anthony’s job harder.
Robert Bateman (02:49:52) :
The top graph is raw data, and once pressure corrected and put into the lower graph shows a different picture.
all the graphs have been pressure corrected. The description of the data says:
“Real-Time: Downloaded automatically from station, standard normalization factors applied, standard pressure correction applied.”
What a difference pressure correcting can make.
I should grow sarcastic here, but I won’t make Anthony’s job harder.
You may safely assume that I would not make the elementary mistake of interpreting uncorrected data. Sarcasm should be reserved for more worthy causes.
And I gave you two concrete examples of apparent flatlined data that when examined in the lower graph, one to one, show a different picture.
I’ll see your Thule and raise you one McMurdo and one Newark.
We play with statistics, yes. But we don’t agree what constitutes uncontroversial reversal of current trends. I see this, you see that. We both have our reasons.
Should we now agree to disagree?
Robert Bateman (11:00:09) :
Should we now agree to disagree?
I don’t think you disagree so much with me as with the data 🙂
At some point in the future even you will see the flux come down. The big picture is [as some people claim] whether the flux will continue up and up to reach values [perhaps 10-15% higher] not seen before or if the flux will stay [with the normal fluctuations] at the usual minimum value until SC24 finally kicks it down.
The answer to that has a lot to do with what causes the solar modulation in the first place. Somewhat surprisingly we don’t really know the answer to that [although, as usual, there are know-it-alls out there with answers to anything].
Gary Hladik (14:30:04) :
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! 🙂
If no one has naming rights, I suggest:
Ghost spot = Duncan
(Well, if they can name a longevity gene in a fruitfly “I’m not dead yet,” why not sunspots?)
Leif Svalgaard (11:35:29) :
The answer to that has a lot to do with what causes the solar modulation in the first place. Somewhat surprisingly we don’t really know the answer to that [although, as usual, there are know-it-alls out there with answers to anything].
Worth framing that one.