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.
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!