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.
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.