Sol has been without a cycle 24 spot since January 13th. Today the spotless streak was broken with this high latitude and correct polarity spot. The current sunspot number is now at 12 according to SWPC.
The SOHO Magnetogram image below shows how the North-South polarity is oriented:
The real question is: how long will it last? Most of the cycle 24 spots we’ve seen so far have very short lifetimes, winking out in a day or two.
Does this mean that cycle 24 has commenced and if so when did it start?
REPLY: January 4th of 2008, over a year ago when the first spot appeared:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/04/solar-cycle-24-has-officially-started/
– Anthony
The real question is: how long will it last? Most of the cycle 24 spots we’ve seen so far have very short lifetimes, winking out in a day or two.
It has stopped growing, so will probably be just like the others. But in spite of that there are now good indications that solar cycle 24 is on its way and that we are past minimum. TSI, F10.7 have started their upturn, and cosmic rays [traling ~6 months] are on their way down [ever so slightly].
REPLY: That is my impression also. – Anthony
Have a look at the GONG images. The spot looks like a blob of off-white paint on a white background. Very mushy. I’m looking at the peach fuzz forming around the magnetic signature and thinking that’s the 1st step in it getting ripped apart. That fuzz migrates out ward in these spider webs after a few days. Then the polarities drift apart, and it’s lights out for Spot.
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
This link was posted on that year ago article.
Seems somebody is bound & determined to get a message out.
Looking at these anorexic SC24 spots to date, it’s high time somebody got alarmed.
Shocking!
I think perhaps confusing to some is the idea that Cycles can overlap. I know when I began reading on the issue it caused quite a bit of confusion deciphering how it all worked. I doubt it is worthy of an entire update of its own but perhaps on the next related entry (or as an update here) you could explain the very basics of the cycles and the transition between cycles. Obviously much of this is available elsewhere but clearly people still have a hard time coming across it and what else is a blog for if not sharing information.
I don’t know how much you intend this blog to be for the lamen, so disregard the suggestion if it goes against your general approach here.
After it first showed up on the magnetogram, it flared up pretty quickly. Thought it’d be larger by now, but it’s barely bigger than an SP {stuck pixel}. Seems to be in keeping with the rather anemic nature of SC24 to date.
Robert Bateman (21:59:52) :
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Don’t be taken in by this flaky fellow.
Check this out:
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:kHxYj_J95P8J:issuepedia.org/Space_and_Science_Research_Center+ssrc+john+casey&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us
I have worked for Lockheed and know some of the people John Casy says he consulted for about the Space Shuttle program. They never heard about him. Didn’t happen.
I would say that the Planetary Index, Ap, is going back up though.
P.S. What happened to the “Reply”?
OT, & apologies for doing so, but related to earlier posts, yes the BBC has boosted & boasted the MASSIVE GLOBAL WARMING in Antarctica with loads of half-wits sorry that should have been concerned government reps from around the world down there for a meeting, & yes they did say that it was long thought that no warning had occurred there but now the jury was in. Just a shame it wasn’t a few months from now they had the perfect sunny day to film it all, blast it.
It’s the full PR job quite frankly, & I was expecting it at some stage. Sincere apologies on behalf of the UK.
Sorry… that was “I wouldn’t say… “
BTW, no mention of the failed CO2 study satellite on main news, but it is on their website. No mention of the Antarctic warming on the website but it was on main channels. Clearly it is time for mix ‘n match news stories again!
Lief Svalgaard;-)
What’s the betting this sunspot will fizzle out fast?
So is this a fair dinkum sunspot that can be seen by traditional methods or another sunspeck?
Doesnt the minimum hit at the bottom of the cycle? I realise there are overlaps between cycles but if the last 12 months has seen a declining smoothed and monthly value sunspot number graphically wouldnt that falling curve over the last 12 months indicate we havnt hit minim yet?
C Shannon (22:04:06) :
I think perhaps confusing to some is the idea that Cycles can overlap.
The current idea is that sunspots form from magnetic fields on the surface left over from previous sunspots. These surface fields are carried along by a circulation [just like the Earth’s atmosphere has] from the equator towards the pole, where they sink into the Sun and are carried by the circulation [which nows goes from the pole to the equator to close the loop] back towards the equator. During their journey the fields are twisted and wound up and amplified. Such strong magnetic fields have a tendency to rise so some of the field may get back to the surface again where it collects together into new spots that eventually disperse to provide more field to be carried towards the pole repeating the process. Meanwhile field is still being carried towards the equator at depth, will still be amplified, and will still rise to the surface, but this time at a lower latitude [because it has been carried along by the circulation towards the equator], so the next batch of spots appear closer to the equator, and the next closer yet, the whole belt where the spots occur slowly displacing towards to equator. It take some 17 years for this process to play out [for the spots to reach the equator], and in the meantime fields carried towards the poles will also sink into the Sun to start a new belt starting at high latitude and displacing towards the equator as time goes by. The net result is that you most of the time have two belts, one at a higher latitude than the other, both displacing over the course of 17 years towards the equator before dying [the low latitude one first]. Clearly this whole thing is cyclic and because of the two belts occurring simultaneously we talk about ‘overlapping cycles’.
Alan the Brit (22:45:59) :
What’s the betting this sunspot will fizzle out fast?
probably doing it as we speak…
twawki (22:50:01) :
So is this a fair dinkum sunspot that can be seen by traditional methods or another sunspeck? more like a low contrast speck. It has lived long enough to get a NOAA number [1013] so is ‘legit’.
twawki (22:53:31) :
Doesnt the minimum hit at the bottom of the cycle? I realise there are overlaps between cycles but if the last 12 months has seen a declining smoothed and monthly value sunspot number graphically wouldnt that falling curve over the last 12 months indicate we havnt hit minim yet?
The smoothed number is 6.5 months behind. Other indicators point to an upturn, so minimum is probably behind us [by perhaps ~6 months], see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
The notion has come up that many of these sun specks would have gone unnoticed many years ago. I think I might have a way of testing that notion. I believe there were observers who would, at regular intervals, sketch the surface of the sun and make a drawing as photography had not yet been invented. A simple test would be to go back through these drawings and see if there are any drawings with only a single speck or see if any of these speckles are present in drawings with larger spots.
It would seem that the Royal Astronomical Society Library archives would be the place to look for 19th century sunspot drawings.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/resource2.html
Maybe someday they will put them online.
Nah, I think it’s a birdhouse.
(That’s an in joke. You had to be there.)
Better call the curator to check. Can’t rely on those Google Sun images . . .
Or send a camera.
Location provided by curator:
C24 located c. 267,83435 m.
from salamader to NW, c. 345,678 m.
from inferno to south. Polarity
confirmed by furnace personnel.
Like I say, you had to be there.
crosspatch (23:22:38) :
It would seem that the Royal Astronomical Society Library archives would be the place to look for 19th century sunspot drawings.
How about some 18th drawings:
http://www.leif.org/research/Staudacher-1.pdf
Where’s the plasma gauge? Is there an evap pan?
(Why do they site them so close to the equator? They should follow their own 10,000 km. rule. )
If I’d only paid more attention or found out sooner about these things that are called “sunspecks” that only appear like a few times every a year.
Some OLD weird science publication I read waaay back in the past said “there were large amounts of sunspots from the sun at one time”.
Crazy talk, the sun’s energy is always the same, no matter where it is.
Who can question that CO2 is so strong now, it’s bringing down our rockets, turning heat to freezing and destroy the sunspot sphere of the sun.
Oh the humanity!
Truth is, natural Co2 comes in from the atmosphere at a steady rate, just like carbon 14 and rain from nuclei(or salt), all depending on the influence of gases from the sun/galactic forcing entering our atmosphere.
My research also suggests SC24 should begin to ramp up….but it also says, dont expect anything like Dikpati or Hathaway might predict. A figure of 50SSN might be more likely.
I posted this a couple of days ago.
http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/TSI_2009-02-24a.png
It is the tail end of the TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) satellite data (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm).
This satellite is too new to have seen a whole solar cycle and so no-one knows what a solar minimum looks like.
If a more complete trace would help I should be able to do something.
If Solar Cycle 24 did start in late June 2008, which is 6.5 months after the first sunspot in January 2008, then the cycle seems to be starting really slowly. The NOAA solar progression graph’s amplitude is constantly being pushed back and sometimes even lowered.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html
John M Reynolds
Has anybody been keeping a record of SC24 sunspots by hemisphere? Are most spots occurring in the north?
Geoff,
there are files with spots seperated by hemisphere..
SIDC:
http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/index.html
see daysssnv0.dat, monssnns.dat, readme.dat
Klaus
I doubt that this spot would have been detected using the same technology available during the Maunder or Dalton minimums.
So perhaps the Maunder and Dalton minumums really had a few miniscule sunspots undectectable with the instruments at the time. So to compare our numbering using current technology, with the numbers recorded centuries ago, may not be an accurate comparison.
Kind of goes back to the old adage “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
If miniscule sunspots occured during the Maunder and Dalton Minimums, but technology didn’t exist to detect them, does that really mean they didn’t happen?
Geoff,
oops, readme.txt ist the right name for the readme file.
Too, there is a graph north vs. south:
ftp://omaftp.oma.be/dist/astro/sidcdata/wnosuf.png
evanjones (23:36:27) :
> Like I say, you had to be there.
Sorry I missed it. Next time please send me an invitation. My life (such as it is) is incomplete!
Late breaking news from The Register:
I commissioned a translation:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
—
Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-
backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy
Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that
recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial
emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced
language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to
ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground
temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that
the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century
has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is
astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence
in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research.
Alan the Brit: I saw that BBC segment too. There were as you say many pronouncement about a crisis coming and warming in the Antactic but no kind of evidence was shown. Just a few potiticos and a reporter coming out of a tent. Pretty lame for a BBC segment.
Leif:
Thanks for your input. Some folks get a bit carried away and your comments help bring readers back to reality.
Geoff,
Seems like there should be a butterfly graph out there somewhere for that.
I think just two SH spots. 994 and 1009. There has been at least one “ambiguous” spot that was difficult to tell (was close to the equator, which would tend to indicate 23 but magnetic signature was inconclusive).
Well the new sunspot is all but gone. Another short lived spot (barly more than a spec realy). I’m still not convinced that SC24 is starting yet.
PS OT what is up with Bob Barker? I think he has gone a little crazy in the head.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out if the period 1700-1830 was riddled with sunspecs.
@Leif Svalgaard (23:01:43) :
Alan the Brit (22:45:59) :
What’s the betting this sunspot will fizzle out fast?
probably doing it as we speak…
Looks to be about gone in the latest SOHO image.
It has really faded by now. Bye bye.
A new might be coming in the southern hemisphere. large latitude. There is a bright spot in stereo behind http://solarcycle24.com/
See my post on Sunspot changes at SWPC:
SWPC Moves The Goalpost
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=482
MIke
Tim Channon (01:58:25) :
This satellite is too new to have seen a whole solar cycle and so no-one knows what a solar minimum looks like.
TSI has been measured by other satellites since 1978.
For Leif or other observers of Old Sol –
If the RC Theory and the SSRC are not on the mark, then please help to clarify the impacts of the various solar changes on climate, if you would please.
What if any current theories are more mainstream, which tie Climate Change to Solar Events? Are there a handful of major Solar-Climate Change theories for which data is being collected and analyzed?
Are there credible theories which predict a coming cooler climate,
based upon theories or events not tied to CO2?
Are the theories tied to specific solar changes or to other specific changes outside of our solar system?
I know there are many complexities that are not easily covered in a fine site like this. However, for those who want a general score sheet listing of the major players – the heavy hitters so-to-speak – that may make a difference, perhaps commentors could supply an overview list? Maybe this could be part of another main WUWT article, if there are appropriate inputs.
Thanks in advance for any inputs.
SUNSPOTS
Ok, I’ve searched a number of sites for a count of sunspot vs time, identified by cycle. I haven’t found one yet, though they surely must exist?
What I have found is that a “sunspot number” isn’t a count of individual visible solar disturbances. It’s a number calculated according to the formula… R=k (10g+s),
So, if I read that correctly, a “single” small spot would, with k and g equal to 1, give the sunspot number of eleven, not one.
The other thing is that when I see tabulations of “sunspot number” it seems to be calculated from data on ALL solar “spots,” without regard for which cycle they are a part of.
While that is probably not news to the majority of you, it was to me, as was the fact that I can nowhere find where anyone seperately graphs sunspot no., vs time by cycle no. which is surprising to me. Is it that since it isn’t considered important beyond the chaotic transition phase, and contains no information that can be fit by current theory, so it is ignored?
…which brings me to my point, which is…
Does anyone have an embarrassingly obvious source that I should have been able to find myself, where that information is available?
Thanks
Ben (08:56:09) :
If the RC Theory and the SSRC are not on the mark, then please help to clarify the impacts of the various solar changes on climate, if you would please.
These are big questions and many people are not quite rational about them [politics, atrology, etc]
What if any current theories are more mainstream, which tie Climate Change to Solar Events?
There are no mainstream theories.
Are there a handful of major Solar-Climate Change theories for which data is being collected and analyzed?
No, but solar and atmospheric data are being collected as a matter of course. Some fringe theories [cosmic rays, etc] claim they are taking special data, but they have gone quiet of late.
Are there credible theories which predict a coming cooler climate, based upon theories or events not tied to CO2?
Not that are tied to the Sun, there are some ocean circulation theories. I don’t know how credible they are.
Are the theories tied to specific solar changes or to other specific changes outside of our solar system?
lots and lots, but nothing credible.
Thanks in advance for any inputs.
You may get an avalanche of pet theories pushing this or that, ranging from Venus-Saturn syzygies to galactic spiral arms and dark clouds.
Is it gone? I cannot really make out anything but a spec, wait, I wiped my monitor and the spec disappeared.
A question (as I am not very knowledgeable about solar activity), has SC24 actually started yet? Also, has SC23 actually ended yet?
Thank you to anyone who can simply answer these 2 questions for me as I don’t really have a very good understanding of how one cycle ends and another begins.
Thanks!
I can still see it in the latest image (12.48 UT), looks like an Bxo type.
It’s not even visible on SOHO MDI, and, like I suspected, the peach fuzz that surrounded the polarities sucked it all apart and killed the spots.
Now, what does anyone make of that repeating scenario?
In a few days, we should see the spider webs form but the main magnetic polarity concentrations pull further apart.
Vinny: I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to learn that the Maunder and Dalton were riddled with sunspeck either. Nobody had anything to project them, and nobody had magnetograms to witness the signatures that never made it.
Poof. Another one bites the magnetic fuzz.
Ric Werme @ 06:21:56
I had just finished reading it over lunch when I saw your comment.
Ha! Astrology indeed – teleconnected climatology.
“Nothing credible”?
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/crsun.html
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/haaretz-about-nir-shaviv.html
Move along, move along. Nothing to see here.
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (09:39:00) :
Does anyone have an embarrassingly obvious source that I should have been able to find myself, where that information is available?
Information that should allow you to do this on your own is here: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml
I have done it for the past few cycles here: http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf see the explanation on page 3 [bottom] and the graph on page 4. The bottom of page 7 graph shows the last couple of years. The last data point is for February and should be adjusted a bit because of region 1013.
And, things are not ignored because they don’t fit. Every scientist dreams of proving current understanding wrong, so things that don’t fit are always studied intensively; that is how progress is made.
@ Ric Werme (06:21:56) :
In a related item…
should global warming trends continue upward, the world’s tropical jungles might flourish rather than dying out – and so turn all the increased CO2 into oxygen. That’s assuming, of course, that the rainforests have not all been cut down and turned into biofuel plantations or something.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/05/mega_snake_liked_it_hot/
And then there is this….
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/15/thermageddon_snake_bbc/
something seriously and noticeably lacking in the warmers, a sense of humor. “Thermageddon” gotta luv it!
squidly (09:40:46) :
has SC24 actually started yet?
Yes.
has SC23 actually ended yet?
No.
Both cycles run concurrently for several years near minimum. This is what makes correlations using the ‘length’ of the cycle from min to min rather pointless, as there is no minimum in a physical sense where one cycle ends and the next one begins.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/nir-shaviv-solar-fluctuations-are.html
….MOVE ALONG.
Leif:
Thank you for your inputs.
So, do you believe in the AGW CO2 Theory, that CO2 is dominating climate change and steadily warming the planet? (define in an alternate manner if you prefer)
Do you believe Natural, but perhaps unnamed interactions are dominating Climate Change?
Have you found what appear to be influential Climate Changing factors, based upon your work, or the work in your field?
Again – Many thanks!
Livingston and Penn will surely adjust their projection. Spots are dissapearing in less than 24 hours.
Who counts the spots (specs?) that must surely appear on the other side of the sun?
Alan the Brit (22:45:59) :
No mention of the Antarctic warming on the website but it was on main channels.
You can see two ‘ice’ articles on BBC’s website, of today’s date, about the Antarctic. One “Antarctica’s cold awakening”, which is pretty much the news item. Plus “Polar year ‘hailed as a success'”, which includes the ‘scientific’ observation that some vessel (Tara) recently drifted across the Arctic much quicker than their expectations based on a vessel (the Fram) that did the same thing 100 years ago. This apparently tells us that change is happening faster than we thought! Weather conditions couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with the difference, could they!
Leif Svalgaard (10:57:50) :
This is what makes correlations using the ‘length’ of the cycle from min to min rather pointless, as there is no minimum in a physical sense where one cycle ends and the next one begins.
In the context of a correlation using “length,” the physical interpretation would be w.r.t. total sunspots, i.e., one would consider the “minimum” in regards to a point at which the overlapping curves from two cycles yields the fewest sunspots. Whether or not that is by itself anything meaningful is another story.
Mark
Can someone show me where in any literature that a definition of what the minimum universally accepted standards for calling a spot on the sun, a actual sunspot are found?
mark wagner (07:16:05) :
I think just two SH spots. 994 and 1009. There has been at least one “ambiguous” spot that was difficult to tell (was close to the equator, which would tend to indicate 23 but magnetic signature was inconclusive)
Thanks Mark, Klaus and Steve, the SIDC files and butterfly images dont seem to differentiate between SC23 & SC24. I might keep a manual record from here.
Mark T (13:37:39) :
one would consider the “minimum” in regards to a point at which the overlapping curves from two cycles yields the fewest sunspots. Whether or not that is by itself anything meaningful is another story.
With that definition of length, the size of the next cycle determines the length of the current cycle, as does also the size of the previous cycle, so the ‘length’ is not a property of the current cycle.
Ben (11:52:14) :
So, do you believe in the AGW CO2 Theory, that CO2 is dominating climate change and steadily warming the planet? (define in an alternate manner if you prefer)
Of course, not, but it is eqaully silly to say that CO2 has no effect whatsoever. It has, the only question is “how much”? and that we don’t have a good handle on. My personal guess would be 1C per doubling. Since warm is better that cold, and CO2 is nice plant food, let’s have more of it 🙂
Do you believe Natural, but perhaps unnamed interactions are dominating Climate Change?
I think many natural interactions have been identified. I don’t think [but cannot rule out] that there are other, strong interactions we don’t know about already.
Have you found what appear to be influential Climate Changing factors, based upon your work, or the work in your field?
No. My work with the Sun has shown me that solar activity plays but a minor role [0.1C].
mark wagner (07:16:05) :
I think just two SH spots. 994 and 1009. There has been at least one “ambiguous” spot that was difficult to tell (was close to the equator, which would tend to indicate 23 but magnetic signature was inconclusive)
I found a photo timeline series of SC24 on solarcycle24.com that is very handy, not quite up to date yet and if it really ramps up (unlikely), he might be kept busy. It shows 993 and 1009 as southern hemisphere, there are 8 northern SC24 hemisphere spots by my calc. There is no direct link (frames site) but near the top of the main site window there is a section box : “Website Content”, click on “Cycle 24 Photo Timeline”
No, it just sets up a sinusoidal count of total sunspots that has a time-varying nature, that’s all. In general, the point would be that the earth doesn’t care that a sunspot is cycle 23 or 24, just how many there are, and that this count tends to oscillate on an approximately 11-year cycle. That’s what you correlate against, the count, not their physical characteristics.
Mark
Leif – Your replies are appreciated. Thank you.
@Leif Svalgaard (10:50:48) :
Thank You
Ian Holton (14:17:22) :
Can someone show me where in any literature that a definition of what the minimum universally accepted standards for calling a spot on the sun, a actual sunspot are found?
There aren’t any.
Ben (16:53:18) :
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (17:20:39) :
You are welcome. Stay tuned.
Ian Holton (14:17:22) :
Can someone show me where in any literature that a definition of what the minimum universally accepted standards for calling a spot on the sun, a actual sunspot are found?
Leif answer: There aren’t any.
That is what I strongly suspected! Is not it a good idea to make up some sort of definition, as at the moment the current and past records are not really compatible as past records are by visual telescopic means and current methods of better various observational techniques cannot be accurately compared. In the Maun Min how many of these latest half day or single day or so “sunspecs” actually happened…many maybe, that were not counted, who knows. But one can strongly suspect that we are counting smaller sunspots and possibly sunspots that the older visual telescopic methods would not have. Maybe we should get a count of recent year sunspots visible by older methods of observation for comparison with the historical data…or is this all too hard! Or maybe I am not on the ball and maybe past methods did pick up theses half and one day or so “sunspecks” as sunspots? It just all seems to be a bit haphazard counting over time to me anyway!
@Leif Svalgaard (17:39:59) :
Page 4 is actually what I was looking for.
http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdfN
staying tuned.
Ian Holton (18:26:24) :
That is what I strongly suspected! Is not it a good idea to make up some sort of definition, as at the moment the current and past records are not really compatible as past records are by visual telescopic means and current methods of better various observational techniques cannot be accurately compared.
There is actually work underway to bring all the old records on to the same scale as the modern values. We know that there are incompatibilities and it is being worked on. See for example: http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Surprisingly, such work is met with resistance [there has even been some on this blog] as several ‘features’ of the current, flawed sunspot series fit well with many people’s dogma [“solar activity is the highest ever, hence GW”]. If solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries was not much smaller than in the 20th, a lot of “it’s the Sun, stupid” falls by the wayside.
@Ian Holton (18:26:24)
“In the Maun Min how many of these latest half day or single day or so “sunspecs” actually happened…many maybe, that were not counted, who knows.”
I’m only guessing, but based on the artwork from some texts I’ve seen from back then (you had to go to libraries to see that stuff, and it was disappearing fast as it was replaced with more “modern” “improved” material.), …in any case, the artwork is pretty impressive, …awesome attention to detail. Their powers of observation were highly developed. If their telescopes were good enough to resolve the spots, I have no doubt that they recorded them.
Thanks for that Leif… will read later when I have a bit more spare time.
There are of course other methods to change the TSI…of which we have very limited records anyway!
eg. “What caused the swings during the last glacial age are not known for sure. They were probably fuelled by natural shifts in Earth’s orbit and axis, which can have big consequences in the amount of heat we get from the Sun.”(quote from a new article)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjCsnXjk_kGA9i6mXWJ-iJBiGflA
Ben (08:56:09) :
For Leif or other observers of Old Sol –
If the RC Theory and the SSRC are not on the mark, then please help to clarify the impacts of the various solar changes on climate, if you would please.
What if any current theories are more mainstream, which tie Climate Change to Solar Events? Are there a handful of major Solar-Climate Change theories for which data is being collected and analyzed?
Are there credible theories which predict a coming cooler climate,
based upon theories or events not tied to CO2?
Are the theories tied to specific solar changes or to other specific changes outside of our solar system?
I recommend reading Svensmark’s The Chilling Star. I’m not quite clear why Lief refers to this work as “fringe.” Perhaps, like so many theories that eventually became “mainstream,” it still is. But as a reasonably intelligent layman I found the science lucid and plausible, not to mention consistent with the last few years of climate developments
Psi (19:38:23) :
I recommend reading Svensmark’s The Chilling Star. I’m not quite clear why Leif refers to this work as “fringe.”
For once because he refers [page 224 bottom] to me as being Swedish 🙂 . More seriously, the book has lots of useful general- purpose information. As for the meaning of ‘fringe’, Wikipedia has this definition:
“We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.”
The only way to ‘reconcile’ the previous records to modern is to reduce the modern to previous.
You can parallel the two records if you like, but you cannot reliably raise the historic records up for lack of instrumentation at those times.
Mainly, there is no way to prove one way or another that sunspecks did or did not exist in the Maunder or the Dalton. And unless there is drawing evidence and notes to show that the contrast that L&P are proving out has happened before, the error incurred in raising up the historic data will be too great.
A good example of two data sets is the tree ring in N. America from 1700 to present and the Instrumental Record from 1895 to present. You can view the two simulanteously and see just how much individual years can be spot and and the next way off the mark.
There is no way to tell the difference between lack of consistency and actual outlier values in the historic sunspot records. i.e. – the unknown is whether the Sun was more erratic or the maker of the observations, or both.
What happens 2 to 20 years from now the Sun starts putting out erratic spots?
This is a wait & see.
My deepest regret is that Galileo and modern instrumentation did not come soon enough.
Robert Bateman (20:22:25) :
but you cannot reliably raise the historic records up for lack of instrumentation at those times. Mainly, there is no way to prove one way or another that sunspecks did or did not exist in the Maunder or the Dalton.
The Maunder is tough but from 1720s on it is possible. Robert, you have clearly not read or not understood my talk. It is possible to calibrate the old records correctly. The argument goes like this: solar activity is the source of X-ray and UV radiation, which in turn creates and maintains the ionosphere. Solar heating and tides move the ionosphere across the Earth magnetic field lines thereby creating a current whose magnetic deflection we can measure reliably [it is an angle, so has no calibration issues] on the ground. This effect was discovered in 1722, and we have measurements from then, from the 1740s, 1760s, 1781-present, so can calibrate the reported sunspot number. Zero sunspot number at minimum gives a deflection of 5 arc minutes [because the Sun is still radiating some UV and X-rays] while a sunspot number of 100 [in modern terms] give a deflection of 10 arc minutes. Even with instruments of 250 years ago, 5-10 arc minutes could easily and correctly be measured. Using such data, we can, in fact, show that the old records need to be increased and we can say by how much. The surprise is that when that is done, it turns out that the 18th and 19th centuries were not particularly less active than the 20th.
Robert Bateman (20:35:04) :
There is no way to tell the difference between lack of consistency and actual outlier values in the historic sunspot records
Yes there is, see previous post.
Your comment reminds me of the French philosopher Auguste Comte [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte ] who was asked once to name a problem that man could NEVER solve. He chose as that unanswerable question “what is the chemical composition of the stars”? That same year Kirschhoff discovered spectral analysis and proved Comte dead-wrong.
We CAN get a handle on this and it is being done.
I don’t know who these people are, or where they got their information…
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~werne/eos/text/maunder.html
….but they make the following assertion…
“At first people claimed that the main reason for the lack of sunspots during the Maunder minimum was due to the fact that astronomers were not observing the Sun during this time or at least not very systematically. However, this is not the case. Several people, namely:
1. The polish astronomer Johannes Hevelius (1611-1687).He also compiled one of the earliest detailed maps of the moon.
2. Jean Picard (1620-1682), a French astronomer. He was the first to measure the size of the earth accurately.
3. The English astronomer John Flamsteed (1646-1719). He was the first astronomer royal in England and founded the Greenwich Observatory in London.
counted the number of sunspots systematically during that time. They only recorded about 50 sunspots, whereas in any typical 30-year interval during the past hundred years there have been between 40,000 and 50,000 sunspots.”
It would be interesting to reconstruct the data, if it’s available, to see if it supports those claims or not.
Leif: The problem lies in interpolation when going from high resolution to low.
If you can demonstrate that the modern (say SC23) cycle can be converted from today’s methods to grouping without altering the overall high resolution of the cycle shape, that’s one point.
But when I look at your paper and see that the older cycles are radically altered not only in magnitude, but also in overall shape, therein lies a problem.
I agree that the work needs to be done, but not at the cost of radically altering what was observed. You cannot go back in time to retake the data, anymore than the AGW’ers went and remodeled the Antarctic temperature set.
I can believe the modern data set dumbed down for comparison to the historic data (obviously in 2 to 3 distinct sets), but I cannot believe that interpolation can sucessfully modernize the historical data without distorting it.
I do highly reccomend you get aquainted with someone who works with Astro Imaging (Caltech or STScI) to help you along with avoiding the pitfalls of image
(data) restoration techniques.
And vice versa. The loss is far greater when going from low resolution to high.
Many years of work went into techniques such as Lucy-Richardson, Swarp, Maximum Entropy, Drizzling, etc., and they all have thier drawbacks.
There is no substitute in reality for actual resolution, but it can help to interpolate as long as you understand it’s not the real thing.
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (22:08:29)
The Sporer Minimum was during the time of the great MegaDrought in Dorado (Mexico, desert SW).
The Wolf Minimum saw the great famine in Europe as the climate increasingly turned wet during the summer, rotting the crops in the fields.
Robert Bateman (22:48:32) :
I cannot believe that interpolation can sucessfully modernize the historical data without distorting it.
It is not interpolation. It is much more straightforward. Take this example: Astronomer AA counts NA spots or groups or marks or whatever on the sun with what ever resolution he has while magnetician MA measures the magnetic deflection to be D all in year YA. Astronomer AB counts NB spots or groups or marks or whatever on the sun with what ever resolution he has while magnetician MB measures the magnetic deflection to be D all in year YB. Since the deflection is the same, the ionosphere has the same conductivity, so the X-ray and UV flux was the same and hence also solar activity, so that NA/NB is the conversion factor beween AA and AB no matter what their instruments and resolutions were. If one now has several years of this ratio between the two astronomers, then it is possible to calibrate one to the scale of the other, even if there is no overlap in time between them. This is absolutely fool proof, after one has corrected for several well-understood small, second order effects [like the Earth’s magnetic field itself changing slightly with time].
This can be taken out of the realm of ‘belief’ [“I cannot believe…”] and converted to hard, cold science, that does not depend on beliefs anymore.
Robert Bateman (22:55:24) :
I do highly reccomend you get aquainted with someone who works with Astro Imaging (Caltech or STScI) to help you along with avoiding the pitfalls of image (data) restoration techniques.
Not needed as there is no image restoration involved.
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (22:08:29) :
It would be interesting to reconstruct the data, if it’s available, to see if it supports those claims or not.
The Maunder minimum is not yet what we are working on. this project moves in smaller steps. First we show that 18th, 19th, and 20th century had comparable activity, then we try to understand what made Maunder so special. We know that the cosmic ray modulation was almost as strong as today, so the magnetic cycle was working then as now, so solar activity was not down by a factor of 1000. One possibility is that Livingston and Penn are correct that sunspots were there, but invisible. And there is still the issue of wrong interpretation of the reported sunspot data. E.g. there are many cases where an astronomer would say: it is some years ago that I last saw a spot, and that being recorded as a number of years of 365 days with zero spots, which is silly.
But one thing at a time.
Leif: I did not mean to imply that you were restoring images, but that you are attempting to restore data taken well over a hundred or more years ago, to a level of resolution that it was not taken under.
Doing so will place artifacts in your restoration, and that is simply unavoidable. The degree to which you interpolate, and the means by which you interpolate (formula) directly results in distortion of the data (image).
To what degree you introduce artifacting has a great bearing on the outcome.
The process is the same. A digital image is composed of data points, irregarless of the source. So is the data recorded by organic camera (eye) and interpreted by the organic computer (brain) and transferred to medium (paper) and ravaged by time (decompostion).
Space Science regularly deconvolves thier images to get the most out of them. Even Hubble’s fine images are deconvovled.
Your task, given the sparseness of the old data, can only be taken so far.
There are limits to image and data restoration techniques.
You really do need to consult an Image Processing specialist, it can only help you.
Waw! For some reason the sunspot made it… one more day. But it is clearly fading away rapidly.
On the other hand, there seems to be a big bubble of activity on the souther hemisphere coming our way:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_284/1024/latest.jpg
I’m not quite sure it’s a spot however…
Flanagan (00:33:13) :
Waw! For some reason the sunspot made it… one more day. But it is clearly fading away rapidly.
As I am quite sure that the Hubble Space Telescope could see Halley’s Comet long before ground based did and a lot longer afterwards, simply because it has no atmosphere to contend with.
So, how much more powerful is the SOHO instumentation that allows it to ‘observere’ spots that mere mortals on Earth could never hope to spot?
Many times.
And that’s without ever having to bother with basic image calibration.
Darks & Flats, bad pixel maps? What’s that?
Leif, why do you mistrust past sunspot data, I am sure those scientist were as equally dedicated to ensuring their data was totally accurate as you obviously are. I feel you have no reason to mistrust that past data. If no sunspots were logged there were obviously NO sunspots, the procedure is simple you either see them or you don`t.
The number of sunspots or lack of them appear to correlate well with the past warmings and coolings, this may in itself not be the cause of the cooling but just part of a process you do not understand.
Robert Bateman (23:57:08) :
Doing so will place artifacts in your restoration, and that is simply unavoidable. The degree to which you interpolate, and the means by which you interpolate (formula) directly results in distortion of the data (image).
Why is this so hard? There are no images involved, and no interpolation. The resolution, the seeing, the instrument, and the observers are completely irrelevant. I gave a generalized example using symbols [NA, MB, etc]. Apparently that did not register. Let me try again. Heinrich Schwabe who discovered the sunspot cycle tells us that in 1837 he observed 182 ‘groups’ in 200 days of observations [for a yearly count of 182*365/200 = 333 groups]. We don’t know what his resolution was, how he counted groups or spots or specks. We do know that Gauss had determined that in 1837 the diurnal variation of the magnetic needle was 12 minutes of arc. We also know that in 1990, the magnetic needle varied 12 minutes as well. We therefore know that solar activity in 1837 was the same as in 1990 and that the 333 Schwabe ‘groups’ correspond to the 143 ‘Groups’ modern instruments showed. Therefore we can convert Schwabe’s observations to modern equivalents without any image restoration issues.
Rob (06:20:30) :
why do you mistrust past sunspot data
I certainly do not. I use them daily to great effect.
The issue is that different observers use different telescopes, have different eyesight, count little and big spots differently, etc., and we need to bring all observers ‘on the same page’. It is like this: you discover an old journal where someone had measured the temperature every day for fifty years. This is clearly valuable data and you do not mistrust the data collected with so much care, but the journal does not tell what temperature scale was used, Celsius, Fahrenheit, Reamur, or perhaps some homegrown scale [this is a very old journal]. So how do you find out? You look for other things to compare with; perhaps the journal said somewhere that the temperature one morning was 140 [in what units you don’t know] and that there was frost on the window, so now you have a clue that can help you fix the scale. Similar thing with the sunspots. We need to know that when observer X says x spots what that count would have been for a modern observer. Once we figure that out, we can use the old data with confidence and trust them. Before we have figured that out, WE CANNOT. Simple as that.
Leif : Why is this so hard? There are no images involved
You still don’t get it, and you still need help in that regards.
Digital data and Digitial Images are one and the same thing when it gets down to individual pixels. The difference is this: When you work with a Digital Image, and you have a higher resolution image to compare with, you can see before your very eyes just how badly you can mangle the output from a restoration process of an image (data points) that was taken under inferior resolution. This image (and data) restoration process science is at least 2 decades old, and that is how far behind you are.
Still need convincing?
Take SC23, convert it to groups, then restore it using your methods.
Try it again, inserting blank areas, randomly generated, where no data was taken due to cloudy conditions.
Try this several times.
Show your results. You won’t need scientific analysis to demonstrate the artifacting, you’ll see it the same way Imaging Processes show it.
Flanagan (00:33:13) :
Waw! For some reason the sunspot made it… one more day. But it is clearly fading away rapidly.
Catania { http://www.ct.astro.it/sun/ } didn’t record it for today, however, it can just been seen in SOHO — if you know where to look. It’s such a sad looking spot — an SP (stuck pixel) is more impressive.
Robert Bateman (09:55:47) :
Take SC23, convert it to groups, then restore it using your methods. Try it again, inserting blank areas, randomly generated, where no data was taken due to cloudy conditions. Try this several times. Show your results. You won’t need scientific analysis to demonstrate the artifacting, you’ll see it the same way Imaging Processes show it.
This has been done many times over the past 150 years by many people. Makes no difference, just adds a bit of random noise. Has nothing to do with images or pixels or resolution. I can do it for you, if you insist [or you can do it yourself – people often see better what they do themselves], but the process does not change the count [except adding random noise] and you can’t tell the resulting [synthetic] solar cycle from the real one. That is: If I generated 10 [or any other number] artificial cycles and put the real one in among the synthetic ones, you couldn’t tell me which one is the real one.
Has been done many times. Is one of the standard ways of judging what the ‘error bar’ on the counts is. Today, there is no missing data, but back in 1780 there was, so what is the error bar on the 1780 count? Doing the synthetic cycles gives you a handle on that [use the missing days as a mask on a modern cycle and see how it changes – the result is: very little – the reason is very clear: a solar cycle contains only 20 truly independent data points].
Bottom line: no images, no pixels, no restoration issues.
Read your paper Leif.
Good attempt here, helpful, but there are a few too many assumptions to give an accurate number of the past data imo anyway. The error bars would be large due to the many assumptions, again imo, but helpful paper anyway. Not sure that all would be convinced of any single attempt on the past series, maybe a mean of all the decent attempts is helpful.
Leif Svalgaard (22:30:18) :
Robert Bateman (21:59:52
http://issuepedia.org/Global_warming_denial
This web. seams to be PRO MMGW.
so no supprize here.
the reason is very clear: a solar cycle contains only 20 truly independent data points
And what might be 15 or so truly independent data points recorded would change dramatically if 5 of the missing days WERE the independent data points.
There is no way to tell that, is there?
Nature does things that defy statistics.
You own TSI reconstruction in your paper is in fact an outlier, and as such, neither one of us truly knows whether it is the actual occurence or not.
Ian’s post above gives the only reasonable answer, and that is to take the median.
I am truly sorry that the telescope and instrumentation was not invented earlier, but we all have to live with what was recorded as well as what was not recorded.
Otherwise, too much noise is injected.
Leif…you weaken your platform when you make so many assumptions.
You do this all the time.
Your amount of deduction (as opposed to induction) is contrary to the spirit of the Scientific Method. Put your ego aside.
Brilliant mind + correct data + too much ego = Faulty Observations
Correction “Your high amount of deduction…”
A good example of using proxies vs the actual data is the 10Be and 14C on the sunpots numbers. We can see times where both actually come close to the actual data, and time when they are terribly off. The proxy is a good indication of data never recorded, but it will never be a substitute for real data.
Even Tree Ring is a good proxy for climate across regions for which data was never recorded, but it gets messy compared to the real stuff. You get generalizations, but not a whole lot more. What’s the problem? Not enough trees found for record purposes and microclimates getting in the way.
Who knows what’s getting in the way of 10Be and 14C, but it’s painfully obvious, and a good lesson.
> Like I say, you had to be there.
Sorry I missed it. Next time please send me an invitation. My life (such as it is) is incomplete!
See the surfacestations gallery. After around 150 virtual surveys I am starting to get “procedure” on the brain.
To continue what Robert set forth about PROXY VERSUS ACTUAL data…from the words of Princeton physicist Will Happer today testifying before Congress. Read this quote:
“…In the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of INCORRECT HANDLING OF PROXY TEMPERATURE RECORDS and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a little ice age and there really was a medieval warm period that was as warm or warmer than today…”
Robert Bateman (20:17:27) :
And what might be 15 or so truly independent data points recorded would change dramatically if 5 of the missing days WERE the independent data points.
That is not what was meant. It is not 5 or 20 DAYS that is the issue. There are 4000 days in a solar cycle. You can miss half of them with ill effect as long as the missing days are random. The point with the independent data points [no pun] is that if one day has a high [or low] sunspot number the next day will also have a high [or low] number, and the next, and the next, … Therefore the data are not independent of each other.
There is no way to tell that, is there?
Nature does things that defy statistics.
Yes there are statistical tools for this, something called ‘sampling theory’
You own TSI reconstruction in your paper is in fact an outlier
That is what makes it interesting and important, just like SC24 is an outlier, and therefore interesting an important.
—–
10Be, 14C: the sunspot number is real data, and a sample is also real data.
savethesharks (20:18:16) :
Leif…you weaken your platform when you make so many assumptions.
I don’t have a platform, and am not fishing for acceptance. What you don’t pick up is your loss.
Please demonstrate how it is “my loss” Leif. I am not losing out at all.
In fact, I am gaining….knowledge of what is true and what is questionable.
It it plausible to say….that you weaken your position when you deduce too much.
Look at the real time observable data: You do not give anyone that disagrees with you….the benefit of the doubt….or even the courtesy that there may still be some significant unknowns.
You don’t like this being said because there is at least the possibility that you may be wrong.
Again….all that is being said is that you assume too much…and you DEFINITELY deride anyone the dares to disagree with you.
How is that scientific??
Come on man….you will strengthen your position when you take your ego out of the way.
Again….back to the original point: Inductive versus deductive. And REAL DATA versus proxy.
Correction “anyone THAT dares to disagree with you.”
Leif Svalgaard (21:45:23) :
Robert Bateman (20:17:27) :
There are 4000 days in a solar cycle. You can miss half of them with no ill effect as long as the missing days are random.
is what I meant, clearly.
savethesharks (22:14:06) :
You do not give anyone that disagrees with you….the benefit of the doubt….or even the courtesy that there may still be some significant unknowns.
of course I do, and of course there are unknowns and uncertainties.
You don’t like this being said because there is at least the possibility that you may be wrong.
Almost all results are sooner or later shown to be wrong in one way or other. I am a proud producer [like anybody else] of such results.
Perhaps you could keep your ego out of it.
And REAL DATA versus proxy.
We were discussing sunspots. The sunspot number is a proxy for the solar UV flux that produces the REAL DATA: the magnetic deflection of the magnetic needle.
Leif you said: “Almost all results are sooner or later shown to be wrong in one way or other. I am a proud producer [like anybody else] of such results.”
INCREDIBLE.
In this statement….you open the possibliity that almost every result is shown to be wrong.
Then…in light of that admission… how…in the Sam Hill can you spout forth continuous assumptions masked as absolutes????
I mean….your blogs are RIFE with that approach. (The way that you have derided my innocent questions to you notwithstanding).
Absolute after absolute. Assumption after assumption after assumption.
Come on man….sharpen your approach. We need your mind (and appreciate it!). We don’t need your ego.
Reply: Last warning ~ charles the moderator
savethesharks (22:46:27) :
The way that you have derided my innocent questions to you notwithstanding
I think I patiently [and multiple times] have pointed out the basic ideas that magnetic fields somehow are influenced by or protect against light waves simple is not correct science [another absolute for you].
Magnetars emit gamma rays, and a powerful burst did hit the Earth on August 27, 1998, producing measurable ionization for a few minutes in the Earth’s upper atmosphere 30-90 km up. It is possible that such a burst ‘loused up’ the data from the ACE spacecraft used to produce the bow shock simulation you referred to. The short duration and the small total energy of the burst at the Earth are unlikely to have caused any atmospheric effects.
You can, of course, assume that there is a causal connection. People have assumed worse things.
If C24 was back in the 18th C. the count would have been ZERO so far.
I have to agree with some of the posters towards Leif.
Leif, you’ve said sometimes that science is about predictions and they are ALL wrong, but at the same time you claim to be so sure about everything yet you can’t even predict anything = You don’t understand what’s going on with the sunspot cycles, no one does, all predictions have been wrong.
the_Butcher (00:26:18) :
yet you can’t even predict anything
We shall see. Back in 2005 we predicted that SC24 would be the smallest cycle in a 100 years http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf . So far, that looks pretty good. The question is if SC24 will be even smaller than we predicted. Here http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202008%20SH51A-1593.pdf we updated our prediction, and it still looks to be the same as in 2005, but time will tell. In a sense I pray that we are wrong and that the Sun sinks into a deep Maunder type minimum, because that will be far more interesting to study.
Posted this on another thread. Hoping to get some answers….
Anyone care to address directly these two events below, as to what caused the first one,
And it came from this site:
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/index.html
And is there is any possible causation that the above event amplified the epic Sudden Stratospheric Warming as shown on this chart? The amount of red is unsettling….though it is finally, after over a month, of extreme deviations above normal, is finally showing signs of cooling.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
Or is this feature malfunctioning? I have tried to get an answer from CPC so far but to no avail.
The 10mb animation began to show cooling weeks ago.
What gives and why the lag?
And does the extraordinarily low solar activity subject Earth to more “bombardment” of particles and whatever this thing was?
The above correlations, though if they at all verify, at least in part….are at least worth pondering.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
savethesharks (08:09:56) :
And does the extraordinarily low solar activity subject Earth to more “bombardment” of particles and whatever this thing was?
The gamma rays are not particles, so solar activity has no influence on such events.
http://spaceweather.com/
Daily Sun: 27 Feb 09 — The sun is blank–no sunspots.
Leif wrote: The gamma rays are not particles, so solar activity has no influence on such events.
That still does not address the Jan 21 event and the other links above.
What WAS IT that was recorded and what caused (or amplified) the super-SSW event which occurred coincidentally at the same time?
And does extraordinarily low solar activity like we are experiencing now correlate with the Earth being more subject to cosmic bombardment?? (not saying gamma bursts Leif I get your point)
Anyone want to take a stab at it?
savethesharks (11:01:02) :
What WAS IT that was recorded and what caused (or amplified) the super-SSW event which occurred coincidentally at the same time?
What was recorded was a gamma ray burst [the simulation was screwed up probably because of bad data caused by the burst – this happens all the time]. SSW-event happens from time to time. Google what causes them.
And does extraordinarily low solar activity like we are experiencing now correlate with the Earth being more subject to cosmic bombardment?? (not saying gamma bursts Leif I get your point)
‘cosmic bombardment’ is too vague and undefined. Low solar activity admits more cosmic rays [that are really particles], but not much more [a few percent depending on their energy].
@Leif Svalgaard (08:25:49) :
The gamma rays are not particles, so solar activity has no influence on such events.
uh, that’s not what I learned…
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR9MQ4KKF_index_0.html
“Galactic cosmic rays carry with them radiation from other parts of our galaxy,” said Ed Smith, NASA’s Ulysses Project Scientist from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, USA. “With the solar wind at an all-time low, there is an excellent chance that the heliosphere will diminish in size and strength. If that occurs, more galactic cosmic rays will make it into the inner part of our Solar System.”
also, here…
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/physical_science/physics/atom_particle/cosmic_rays.html&edu=high
I know that photons aren’t supposed to be deflected by EM fields, but perhaps because the solar wind consists of charged particles that the photons can be scattered by….?
Oh, wait, you were just referring to gamma rays, not “cosmic rays” of which gamma is a subset?
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (13:59:19) :
“The gamma rays are not particles, so solar activity has no influence on such events.”
uh, that’s not what I learned…
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR9MQ4KKF_index_0.html
“Galactic cosmic rays
Ask for your money back 🙂
Cosmic rays are not gamma rays and gamma rays are not cosmic rays. The ‘ray’ moniker is a holdover from the discovery almost a century ago of cosmic ‘rays’, when they didn’t know what they were. Back then, everything was ‘rays’.
Gamma rays are very shortwave light, while cosmic rays are charged particles.
Since we see stars very sharply [outside the atmosphere of the Earth], the solar wind does not scatter photons appreciably. [it is very thin]
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (14:11:00) :
Oh, wait, you were just referring to gamma rays, not “cosmic rays” of which gamma is a subset?
gamma rays are not considered a subset of cosmic rays. A hundred years ago, people had just discovered X-rays [and ‘rays’ were all the rage], and it was found that radioactive substances gave off three kinds of ‘rays’:
alpha rays, beta rays, and gamma rays.
Alpha rays turned out to be Helium nuclei [particles, not photons]. Beta rays turned out to be electrons [particles, not photons], and Gamma rays turned out to be genuine rays [i.e. photons].
So, galactic cosmic rays are not rays and do not have gamma rays as a subset.
You can, of course, in layman’s terms, privately say that you consider all cosmic ‘stuff’ to be some kind of ‘radiation’ without being specific about what kind of stuff it is, but it helps in discourse to use a consistent and established terminology.
“”” Leif Svalgaard (14:45:55) : “””
Say Leif, when I was in college (University) the accepted value for TSI due to folks like Thekaikara et al was 1353 W/m^2; maybe 1351.
I think these were ballon and rocket borne sensors.
What’s the chance that their residual atmospheric correction would have been good enough for that number to have been real, given todays 1366-7-8 or so ?
George
George E. Smith (16:50:52) :
the accepted value for TSI due to folks like Thekaikara et al was 1353 W/m^2; maybe 1351.
[…] What’s the chance that their residual atmospheric correction would have been good enough for that number to have been real, given todays 1366-7-8 or so ?
Even today we have discrepancies. SORCE gives TSI around 1361 while the others are about 5 W higher. I think the answer is that the absolute scale is uncertain to the point that somewhere in the range 1350-1370 is all we can say. The relative precision is VERY good though [0.007 W/m2].
Leif Svalgaard (12:05:23) :
savethesharks (11:01:02) :
What WAS IT that was recorded and what caused (or amplified) the super-SSW event which occurred coincidentally at the same time?
What was recorded was a gamma ray burst [the simulation was screwed up probably because of bad data caused by the burst – this happens all the time]
I asked Leif about that youtube movie of the bowshock on the earth’s magnetosphere in the japanese simulation of real time data.
So, a gamma ray burst. Where did it come from Leif?
Did the big gamma ray burst in 1998 have any effect on instrumentation you know of?
tallbloke (03:32:39) :
So, a gamma ray burst. Where did it come from Leif?
From a magnetar, presumably. I have not looked carefully, but the poster had a link to a report of that.
Did the big gamma ray burst in 1998 have any effect on instrumentation you know of?
Again, I have not looked carefully at this [no particular interest], but Space is a corrosive environment. Both energetic particles and photons can wreak havoc with detectors.
Go to http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/data_query and select LASCoC3, images, and time 2003-10-30 and look at all the ‘snow’ in the images. This is from particles. Gamma rays are photons and may trigger the photoelectric effect [same that drives solar panels]. On the other hand, this http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2009,1,21 shows no particular disturbance on Jan. 21. Now, if there were glitches in the communication link and the real-time data was bad, that may not show up on the ‘cleaned up’ data shown. So I don’t really know where the data for the simulation comes from. The plot I just referred to show no shock wave, so who knows. Perhaps, folks who want to make something of this look into this before asserting that there is something of interest. Bottom line: I don’t think there is any connection between the magnetar and the SSW.
Leif Svalgaard (20:03:50) :
Psi (19:38:23) :
I recommend reading Svensmark’s The Chilling Star. I’m not quite clear why Leif refers to this work as “fringe.”
For once because he refers [page 224 bottom] to me as being Swedish 🙂 . More seriously, the book has lots of useful general- purpose information. As for the meaning of ‘fringe’, Wikipedia has this definition:
“We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.”
I rest my point, Lief. By this definition it is impossible retrospectively to distinguish paradigms or pathbreaking theoretical models from those that went nowhere. “fringe” simply means, “does not belong to the reigning clique. Many scientific theories that “have not gained scientific consensus” at a particular moment later came to be accepted, but usually only after the gatekeepers of traditional dogma died or stepped aside. Normally the theories they replace or complement were “consensus theories” too dogmatic to understand the implications of the new discoveries and their theoretical justification.
Your response indicates a lack of fact checking on matters not relevant to the book’s basic scientific arguments. Perhaps you have not had the experience Svensmark has had, of being ostracized for not marching to the drumbeat of an orthodoxy. I have.
Leif said,
The issue is that different observers use different telescopes, have different eyesight, count little and big spots differently, etc., and we need to bring all observers ‘on the same page’.
Similar thing with the sunspots. We need to know that when observer X says x spots what that count would have been for a modern observer. Once we figure that out, we can use the old data with confidence and trust them. Before we have figured that out, WE CANNOT. Simple as that.
I think this is the wrong way round, by all means use modern equipment, you must though surely also use the old equipment in tandem. Modern observers using old equipment are on a level playing field when comparing past sunspot counts, when using modern equipment they are not. It is like the hurricane counts, modern equipment = more hurricanes because they are now counting the small storms that were nor visible in the past.
You mention missing days in the old sunspot counts, I don`t see that matters, if there were little or NO spots in the Daulton minimum then missing days due to cloud would not matter. As the rotation of the sun is I believe 26 days it is unlikely there would have been a series of cloudy days lasting 13 days or more and if spots of any consequence were present they would have been visible for at least one day in that period.
I consider the sun specks similar to the recent observed spot should be discounted as they would not have been seen with the old equipment.
Could it be that when you compare apples with apples there is a clear link between the sun spot count and earths varying temperature and this present cooling.
Psi (07:22:36) :
Perhaps you have not had the experience Svensmark has had, of being ostracized for not marching to the drumbeat of an orthodoxy. I have.
That your theory disagrees with the mainstream is not in itself a mark of quality. Once your theory gets it together, the conversion of mainstream is swift. Newton, plate tectonics, DNA, evolution come to mind.
Rob (07:56:24) :
you must though surely also use the old equipment in tandem. Modern observers using old equipment
The sunspot numbers are counted using old [or at least similar to the old] equipment. This is done on purpose.
You mention missing days in the old sunspot counts, I don`t see that matters
If you read my post more carefully you would see that I said precisely that. It is enough to look at the Sun a handful of times a year to construct a decent solar cycle graph.
I consider the sun specks similar to the recent observed spot should be discounted as they would not have been seen with the old equipment.
Rudolf Wolf deliberately did not count small spots. Only big ones. Modern counts are indeed to high. A good deal of my work [should you care to check it http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf ] is directed at correcting the sunspot number.
Could it be that when you compare apples with apples there is a clear link between the sun spot count and earths varying temperature and this present cooling.
There is no evidence of that. My own work indicates that solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries was not significantly lower than in the 20th, yet temps were [as far as we can tell].
Leif said,
There is no evidence of that. My own work indicates that solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries was not significantly lower than in the 20th, yet temps were [as far as we can tell].
Are sun spot numbers just a visual indication of some other factor that is not fully understood, sun spot numbers do appear to correlate with warming and cooling, see graph below.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/400yearsofsunspots.gif
Rob (15:55:31) :
sun spot numbers do appear to correlate with warming and cooling, see graph below.
The graph shows an increase os sunspot numbers since 1700 [we keep the Maunder Minimum out of it for now] and temperatures are said to show a similar increase [although it is not so certain, see for instance the Central England Temperatures here: http://www.leif.org/research/CET2.png ], but the whole point is that the sunspot number in the 18th and 19th and first half of the 20th century is too low (or alternatively since ~1950 too high]. Compensating for this systematic error, removes any correlation with an increasing temperature.
cycle length is more appropriate for the temp.
long cycle= cooler
short=hotter
CO2 AGW claims .07C
Leif claims .1C change for sun
I am just saying
Tim L (19:08:05) :
cycle length is more appropriate for the temp.
long cycle= cooler
Here are the cycle lengths and the temperatures:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
Tell me where the correlation is? I don’t see it.
Tim L (19:08:05) :
cycle length is more appropriate for the temp.
long cycle= cooler
Here are the cycle lengths and the temperatures:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
Tell me where the correlation is? I don’t see it.
Leif Svalgaard (14:45:55) :
“you can, of course, in layman’s terms, privately say that you consider all cosmic ’stuff’ to be some kind of ‘radiation’ without being specific about what kind of stuff it is, but it helps in discourse to use a consistent and established terminology.”
You are preaching to the wrong audience. Did you not notice the quote that I highlited from the ESA website, quoting NASA? I repeat…
So, don’t be acting like I’m the ignoramus when I’m only using the terminology of the “experts” at NASA. Don’t berate me for not using the terminology YOU think should be standard, if the industry standard isn’t what you want it to be, OK? And I agree with you about what that SHOULD be. But it isn’t, so I’m just using what appears to be the accepted terminology. If you want the “standard” to be reset, (a great idea btw) please get NASA to make the jump to the 21st century. If you can’t manage that, then please to be getting off my case about it, thank you.
And, remember what you said about the amount of material coming from the sun was only equivalent to a hamburger? Well, in this article the other day…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-magnetic-field-has-massive-breach-scientists-baffled/
…, we find that “galactic cosmic RAYS” (there’s that outmoded term again) are a lot more abundant than previously thought. A.W. wrote that “Jimmy Raeder, also of New Hampshire, says “10e27 particles per second were flowing into the magnetosphere”. Avogadro’s# is 6.02e23, which means that there are 1661 moles of whatever that is coming in. If it’s protons, that’s just over 3 and 1/2 lb of them. That’s one pretty big mac. And that’s every second. And even if it’s electrons, an hours worth would add up to about 7 lb. Sure, it’s spread out, (and when the “shields are up” maybe a lot of that doesn’t get in????). I just mention that to bring out that (1) they also need a lecture on proper terminology, and (2) it’s surprising to me that the sun puts out only a fraction of what actually arrives here from elsewhere.
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (20:28:35) :
then please to be getting off my case about it, thank you.
Maybe that is the way to deal with you, I’m off your case. Don’t ask me anything again, thank you.
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (20:28:35) :
10e27 particles per second were flowing into the magnetosphere”. Avogadro’s# is 6.02e23, which means that there are 1661 moles of whatever that is coming in. If it’s protons, that’s just over 3 and 1/2 lb of them. That’s one pretty big mac.
The magnetosphere is a lot bigger than the Earth, and most of what get’s into the magnetosphere doesn’t get down to the Earth.
Hence the difference.
Leif Svalgaard (20:43:47) :
thank you
Leif Svalgaard (20:36:29) :
no problem, and thank you again.
Leif said: “The magnetosphere is a lot bigger than the Earth, and most of what get’s into the magnetosphere doesn’t get down to the Earth.
Hence the difference.”
But in the event the sun’s magnetosphere grows weaker and the heliopause contracts or weakens….how does THAT change the equation of …”most of what gets into the magnetosphere doesn’t get down to the Earth.?”
Nobody really knows from firsthand experience and observation because none of us have never experienced a grand minimum in our lifetimes.
Unless somebody is channeling Charles Dickens or J.S. Bach…maybe they would know.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
savethesharks (22:23:46) :
But in the event the sun’s magnetosphere grows weaker and the heliopause contracts or weakens….how does THAT change the equation of …”most of what gets into the magnetosphere doesn’t get down to the Earth.?”
If the solar wind weakens [and I don’t think it will weaken much further] the Earth’s magnetosphere grows larger and even less stuff gets down to Earth.
MY GUESS IS THIS IS A TOTALLY FAUX, OR SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED, QUOTE…
“If global warming does slow down or partially reverse with a sunspot crash, industrial polluters and reluctant nations could use it as a justification for turning their backs on pollution controls altogether, makingmatters worse in the long run. There is no room for complacency, Svalgaard warns: “If the Earth does cool during the next sunspot crash and we do nothing, when the sun’s magnetic activity returns, global warming will return with a vengeance.”
If that is fake, it shows the lengths the Left will go, and NewScientist has, as best I can tell from other articles I’ve read, a very Leftist tilt.
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (11:42:47) :
There is no room for complacency, Svalgaard warns: “If the Earth does cool during the next sunspot crash…
We have gone over this many times already. The quote is a bit out of context, as I was discussing the hypothetical “IF there is GW and IF solar influence is significant, THEN …”. That did not [perhaps on purpose] come across in the NS article. I guess they have their own agenda to nurture. But let that crap rest. There are worse things to be up in arms over…
Leif Svalgaard (20:01:23) :
Tim L (19:08:05) :
cycle length is more appropriate for the temp.
long cycle= cooler
Here are the cycle lengths and the temperatures:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
Tell me where the correlation is? I don’t see it.
28 02 2009
Leif,
your chart is upside down…. the short cycle is hotter…..
Tim L (19:08:05) :
your chart is upside down…. the short cycle is hotter…..
Turning it over does not make the missing correlation any better.
The proper way to do this is shown here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
The blue curves show cycle lengths as a function of time. There are two blue curves, one from max to max and one from min to min. The two pink curves show 11-year average temperature anomalies centered on the cycle mins and cycle maxs. The bottom panel shows the correlation between the lengths and the temps [pink open circles]. The coefficient of determination is R2=0.0324, signifying no correlation. Now, perhaps the significant trend in the temps is lousing up the correlation [although the trend was supposed to be a result of the correlation…]. To check this, we de-trend the temp curves and get the green curves. The dashed lines show for both what the trends are.
In the lower panel we correlate the detrended curves and get the green dots with an R2 of 0.2 which is usually deemed a very weak correlation [if any] and the correlation is positive: longer cycles -> hotter. The last data points for cycle 24 are estimates only, but have very little effect on the conclusion. So, no significant correlation between cycle length and global temperatures is present in the data [reliable since 1850 only].
Looking for correlations between long cycles and temp is probably a goose chase. But there are certain long cycles that do herald substantial reduction in solar activity….the solar system like nature does not follow strict repeating patterns.
OK, save these to hard drive, and links.
BUT, you did not do apples to apples.
we need this in cycle length anomaly vs temp anomaly.
See what I mean?
there will also be a lag in temp.
Thank You for the charts.
We can see the hockey stick in there, no wonder they are on a panic attack!
Geoff Sharp (04:36:45) :
Looking for correlations between long cycles and temp is probably a goose chase. But there are certain long cycles that do herald substantial reduction in solar activity….the solar system like nature does not follow strict repeating patterns.
Nature repeats better than mans influence!
The cycles are there but do we listen to them? no a deaf ear at best!
We are a part of nature BTW, civilizations have come and gone.
When will this one be done? 2012?
We shall see.
Tim L (08:27:52) :
BUT, you did not do apples to apples.
we need this in cycle length anomaly vs temp anomaly.
See what I mean?
I did an apple on the tree vs. and apple on the ground. Cycle length anomaly is what? Subtracting the mean cycle? This will change nothing except the scale on the graph. The correlation or lack thereof will stay the same.
Leif (16:52:55) : said
The graph shows an increase os sunspot numbers since 1700 .
The whole warming and CO2 link came to prominence with Mann`s Hockey stick graph which indicated that present temperatures are the warmest in 1000 years. Why should the mauna minimum not be included when looking for a correlation between the activity of the sun and global temperatures.
Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full
Rob (12:18:37) :
The graph shows an increase of sunspot numbers since 1700
This kind of statement is too vague. If the very year 1700 were a sunspot minimum year [which is was], it is indeed true that most years since then have not been minimum years. One has to take a longer view:
My own work indicates that solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries was not significantly lower than in the 20th
Why should the Maunder Minimum not be included when looking for a correlation between the activity of the sun and global temperatures.
Partly because the data we have is not good enough for that. The discussion was about solar cycle length and we no not know well enough when minima and maxima were in the 17th century.
Leif Svalgaard (12:49:47) :
Rob (12:18:37)
This is all true for observed:
But not for the last million years, not so.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full
If this link is time locked, and the solar model is worth spit, then it will truly get colder.
we shall see.
I hope I am wrong truly wrong! warm is much better.
just in the news Grand Traverse Bays maybe officially frozen as of Tuesday 3-3-09.
they have not frozen for 20 years. whether alone in the month of march .
Tim L (15:35:50) :
This is all true for observed:
But not for the last million years, not so.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full
That is pure speculation with little or no basis, ‘except’ this:
“Reported cycles in various climate-proxy data show a tendency to emulate a fundamental harmonic sequence of a basic solar-cycle length (11 years) multiplied by 2N (where N equals a positive or negative integer).”
There is no firm evidence for such cycles.
Speculating on what happens on a million-year time scale is a rather safe occupation as it takes a while to be proven wrong.
Why should the Maunder Minimum not be included when looking for a correlation between the activity of the sun and global temperatures.
Leif said,
Partly because the data we have is not good enough for that.
From fig. 4, it can be seen clearly that the length of the solar cycle was longer during the Maunder. Minimum, 11.7a, than in the period of 1545 to 1745 AD,
http://219.238.6.200/getfile?category=article&code=99WD0578&file-name=00KY2118.PDF
Comment please.
Rob (16:29:36) :
Partly because the data we have is not good enough for that.
The [proxy] data is still coming in and we are not so sure of it yet.
Comment please.
Their Figure 5 shows that 1680-1700 the cycle length was short [even down to 8 years], yet at that time it was cold, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.PNG
or Loehle’s global reconstruction http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
The bottom line is that the data is not good enough or uniform enough to be generally accepted.
Leif said,
Their Figure 5 shows that 1680-1700 the cycle length was short [even down to 8 years], yet at that time it was cold.
Does the length of the solar cycle matter when the suns activity is low or almost none existent as in the maunda, surely the length of the cycle is only relevant when the sun is active as has shown to have been the case over the last 60 years or so.
According to proxy evidence the solar cycles are present whether the sun is active or not.
If the gas is not turned on it does not matter how frequently you place the pan of water on and off the stove or how long you leave it on the stove it will never boil.
It appears to me that solar cycles only play a part once the power has been switched on, are there any other factors at play.
Rob.
Rob (03:53:38) :
It appears to me that solar cycles only play a part once the power has been switched on, are there any other factors at play.
A simpler explanation is that the cycles do not play a part at all. During the time when activity was high [recently] I showed that there was no correlation, so it does not seem too far fetched to find that there is no correlation either, when the ‘power is off’.
Leif says,
A simpler explanation is that the cycles do not play a part at all.
Are you saying Leif, that the lack of sunspots in the cold periods of the Maunder and Sporer minimums were just a coincidence and that the recent high level of activity and higher temperatures is also a coincidence.
Thanks.
Rob (10:00:57) :
“A simpler explanation is that the cycles do not play a part at all.”
Are you saying Leif, that the lack of sunspots in the cold periods of the Maunder and Sporer minimums were just a coincidence
“just” is a slippery word.
and that the recent high level of activity and higher temperatures is also a coincidence.
Solar activity the last 100 years was not higher than 100 years before that, while the temps were, so on that account there is no connection.
If there is no recent connection, why would there be an earlier one [Maunder/Spoerer]?
The little Ice Age lasted a lot longer than those two sharp periods of low activity, and the Oort grand minimum was in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period.
The problem with the solar connection is that people [perhaps such as yourself] need a short, handy, simple argument against AGW, not realizing that a solar connection is one of the strongest arguments for AGW.
Leif Svalgaard (10:52:48) :
The little Ice Age lasted a lot longer than those two sharp periods of low activity, and the Oort grand minimum was in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period.
An interesting statement that you have made previously, it might depend on your definition of the MWP timeframe.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/newc141.jpg
Leif said
The problem with the solar connection is that people [perhaps such as yourself] need a short, handy, simple argument against AGW.
No that is unfair, I am just trying to understand the logic behind the statements.
Dr Solanki says,
The most striking feature is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.
Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.
The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.
In some way, indicates he has no idea what.
Now you do not need an increasing heat source to achieve an increasing temperature, in this recent case just a high steady heat source will do and it.
Is Dr Solanki`s study valid.
Rob (16:22:02) :
Is Dr Solanki`s study valid.
With the assumption that the Group Number Number that he uses are correct, then the study is valid [he did not make any mistakes, etc]. But later work has shown that it is very likely that the sunspot numbers back in the 18th and 19th centuries were too low giving the false impression of a steadily increasing solar activity to go with the steadily increasing temperature.
Rob (16:22:02) :
Now you do not need an increasing heat source to achieve an increasing temperature, in this recent case just a high steady heat source will do and it.
If you shine light [heat] on an object its temperature will rise until it has such a value that the radiation from the object itself matches that from the source and the temperature will stay constant thereafter. Steady source = steady temperature.
Rob (16:22:02) :
Solanki’s 11000 year 14C record certainly shows us at a high point in solar activity in the last 6000 years.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/c14nujs1.jpg
Geoff Sharp (21:46:30) :
Solanki’s 11000 year 14C record certainly shows us at a high point in solar activity in the last 6000 years.
No, it still just shows the bias introduced by the last three centuries. One could make the climate argument here: there are indications that the MWP period was as warm or even warmer than today. If solar activity is the major driver, then solar activity back then should have been as high or higher than now. This is an argument that may have weight for the people that believe the Sun to be the driver. It has no particular weight for me, but if it works for you and Rob…
Leif Svalgaard (22:31:01) :
What the 14C records show us is how often the Sun goes into slowdown mode. The period from the end of the Dalton (which finished early) and today (which is starting late) is longer than normal. Less grand minima action coupled with increased angular momentum leads to higher solar activity as we have seen recently giving an elevated period of solar strength. The MWP is completely different , there was no grand minima downturn as you suggest (stands out on its own over the last 6000 yrs) because of very weak angular momentum which also saw fairly low solar activity, but when combined produced a relatively long period of reasonable warmth, I suspect not as warm/active as recent times. This type of occurrence is typical when weak Type”B” disturbances are prevalent as in 1000Bc and 100AD.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/solanki_sharp_detail.jpg
Leif said,
If you shine light [heat] on an object its temperature will rise until it has such a value that the radiation from the object itself matches that from the source and the temperature will stay constant thereafter. Steady source = steady temperature.
Depends when the steady heat source is applied, say from 1970 at the end of the 1940 to 1970 cooling.
Geoff Sharp
What the 14C records show us is how often the Sun goes into slowdown mode.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/sep.jpg
eg McCracken et al. (2001b) show that the SEP events follow the ~80-100 year Gleissberg cycle rather well.(As derived from no3 icecores)
maksimovich (16:20:43) :
eg McCracken et al. (2001b) show that the SEP events follow the ~80-100 year Gleissberg cycle rather well.(As derived from no3 icecores)
The Gleissberg Cycle remains an enigma to me, I have not found any data so far, that backs up its cycle frequency other than perhaps the time frame between grand minima (which vary in intensity) which happens to fluctuate on average between 80-100 years…. although if we assume 2010 to be the next grand minimum and discount the SC20 single cycle relapse, we have a gap of roughly 180 years without severe solar slowdown. This is unusual and can account for the extra heat/activity in the system. Having said that, Solanki’s data finishes at 1895 and perhaps Usoskin’s reconstruction after 1895 might be considered exaggerated as also suggested by Svalgaard’s research.
Geoff Sharp (17:58:55) :
The Gleissberg Cycle remains an enigma to me, I have not found any data so far, that backs up its cycle frequency other than perhaps the time frame between grand minima (which vary in intensity) which happens to fluctuate on average between 80-100 years…. although if we assume 2010 to be the next grand minimum and discount the SC20 single cycle relapse, we have a gap of roughly 180 years without severe solar slowdown.
Some would say that solar activity 1900-1920 was pretty low [as low as cycle 24 will be, it seems]. A FFT power spectrum of the sunspot series http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-1700-2013.png shows that the second largest peak is near 100 years. Clear evidence in the sunspot record as we have it. The period [100 years] would not be influenced by any uncertainty in the calibration of the SSN.
Geoff Sharp (17:58:55) :
Here is a better perspective
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/nitratetemporal.png
EG http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000JA000238.shtml
And Here
Solar Proton Events: Stratospheric Sources of Nitric Oxide
Paul J. Crutzen 1, Ivar S. A. Isaksen 2, and George C. Reid 2
1 Aeronomy Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80302 and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Upper Atmosphere Project, Boulder 80303
2 Aeronomy Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder 80302
The production of nitric oxide (NO) in the stratosphere during each of the solar proton events of November 1960, September 1966, and August 1972 is calculated to have been comparable to or larger than the total average annual production of NO by the action of galactic cosmic rays. It is therefore very important to consider the effect of solar proton events on the temporal and spatial distribution of ozone in the stratosphere. A study of ozone distribution after such events may be particularly important for validating photochemical-diffusion models.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4201/457
Leif Svalgaard (18:28:30) :
Early 1900’s also coincide with low angular momentum, but hardly a grand minimum, and I wouldnt count your chickens yet, SC24 could be quite a bit lower than you have predicted.
Your power spectrum is as expected over the short time frame, how does the 100 year period look over 11000 years? Do you have a theory on what drives the so called Gleissberg cycle?
maksimovich (19:08:47) :
Thanks for the abstracts and diagram, but I am confused and perhaps not seeing your point. Are you suggesting the 14C solar proxy data can be influenced by actions outside of those that create sunspots?
Leif Svalgaard (18:02:09) :
Rob (16:22:02) :
Now you do not need an increasing heat source to achieve an increasing temperature, in this recent case just a high steady heat source will do and it.
If you shine light [heat] on an object its temperature will rise until it has such a value that the radiation from the object itself matches that from the source and the temperature will stay constant thereafter. Steady source = steady temperature.
Is the sun steady? or very slightly?
if slightly then what are the repercussions of even a small event? (For a length of time).
I think ( and no one cares what I think LOL) that this may be geo thermal linked, no proof, no evidence, just what I have seen in my pitiful 40 years, the ground is warmer. the air temp has not changed much, but the ground is warmer. had I known, I could have buried an outdoor temp. gauge 40 years ago and had proof.
Now prove CO2 has warmed the ground. second hand IR?
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/newc141.jpg
Geoff Sharp (14:43:35) :
You got to love these hockey sticks showing up every where!
Geoff Sharp
Thanks for the abstracts and diagram, but I am confused and perhaps not seeing your point. Are you suggesting the 14C solar proxy data can be influenced by actions outside of those that create sunspots?
As an enhanced Biological response to increased uv.
Geoff Sharp (21:18:56) :
SC24 could be quite a bit lower than you have predicted.
‘could’ is what we call a ‘weasel word’
Your power spectrum is as expected over the short time frame, how does the 100 year period look over 11000 years?
Then, of course, it shows the Gleissberg cycle even better at 87.4 years: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-INTCAL98-14C.png
The data is the 14C delta per mil. The same data used by Usokin/Solanky et al. It has 10 years resolution so cannot show periods shorter than twice that [20 years]. If one removes a running mean [or otherwise violate/massage the data, one can get rid off the rising power towards the longer periods.
Do you have a theory on what drives the so called Gleissberg cycle?
Many. Here is one: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999A&A…346..295P
Leif Svalgaard (22:26:41) :
‘could’ is what we call a ‘weasel word’
Thats what “we” call a very cocky attitude…lets hope you dont fall in a heap. You have a lot riding on it.
Then, of course, it shows the Gleissberg cycle even better at 87.4 years
As expected, the 14C records along with angular momentum records clearly show a smaller period between the highs and lows of solar activity as we go back in time. This side of the MWP is very different to the other side.
Do you have a theory on what drives the so called Gleissberg cycle?
Many. Here is one: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999A&A…346..295P
More models…but a theory none the less. From what I can glean quickly this paper suggests differential rotation or torsional oscillation is the driver of the Gleissberg cycle, but doesnt offer much in the way of what changes this oscillation. A lot of science has recognized patterns and changes in the Sun, but not found the underlying cause. As can been seen in current Doppler images the rotation rate of the Sun is increasing, this looks to happen when we have grand minima. This phenomena also occurs when we have angular momentum disturbance and I suggest this is whats behind the Gleissberg cycle.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/doppler.jpg
Geoff Sharp (01:13:24) :
“‘could’ is what we call a ‘weasel word’”.
as are ‘quite’ and ‘a bit’ …
As expected, the 14C records along with angular momentum records
So no longer an enigma…
As can been seen in current Doppler images the rotation rate of the Sun is increasing, this looks to happen when we have grand minima.
The Doppler images do not show ‘solar rotation’, but ‘winds’ in the atmosphere, much as the Earth has its trade winds [although the mechanism is different]. These winds [zonal flows as Rachel Howe correctly calls them] are caused by activity, not the other way around.
This phenomena also occurs when we have angular momentum disturbance and I suggest this is whats behind the Gleissberg cycle.
So, low angular momentum speeds the Sun up? and occurs every 87 years…
Leif Svalgaard (05:50:06) :
So no longer an enigma…
perhaps not to me….but how you guys on the dynamo side come to acknowledge this pattern is very amusing.
The Doppler images do not show ’solar rotation’, but ‘winds’ in the atmosphere, much as the Earth has its trade winds [although the mechanism is different]. These winds [zonal flows as Rachel Howe correctly calls them] are caused by activity, not the other way around.
Thats one way at looking at the data…over the whole surface that might be a good explanation. But if we look at the equator where differential rotation due to latitude has little effect, there is a clear sign of rotation change.
So, low angular momentum speeds the Sun up? and occurs every 87 years…
Not even close…please learn the basics before embarrassing yourself.
Geoff Sharp (06:35:16) :
“So, low angular momentum speeds the Sun up? and occurs every 87 years…”
Not even close…please learn the basics before embarrassing yourself.
Geoff Sharp (23:51:29) :
Less grand minima action coupled with increased angular momentum leads to higher solar activity as we have seen recently
Is presumably ‘the basics’: high Angular Momentum [AM] => high solar activity, thus low AM => low solar activity, and is associated with speeded up rotation, and this happens every 87 years.
Leif Svalgaard (07:59:24) :
High AM = high solar activity, but also causes grand minima when J/S angles are favorable (very common). Low AM coincides with low cycles (early 1900’s) but does not cause grand minima. Low AM is always when N/U are apposing.
The “center” of high AM is roughly 172 years apart, with windows of opportunity 40 years each side (partial line up). This gives us the Gleissberg type gap between high solar activity/grand minima that occur together. The gap changes depending on if all grand minima opportunities are taken. Before the MWP the J/S angles spread out the available grand minima type disturbances (green and red squares on 14C graph) You wont find solar high activity peaks or grand minima during times of low AM.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/solanki_sharp_detail.jpg
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ultimate_graph2.jpg
Sorry…i’m kind of in the dark here. What creates a “Cycle 24 Spot” and how long do they usually last?
—
Frank B.
Immigration lawyer