Usually, and that means in the past year, when you look at the false color MDI image from SOHO, you can look at the corresponding magnetogram and see some sort of disturbance going on, even it it is not visible as a sunspot, sunspeck, or plage area.
Not today.
Left: SOHO MDI “visible” image Right: SOHO Magnetogram
Click for larger image
Wherefore art though, cycle 24?
In contrast, September 28th, 2001
Ninderthana (15:41:21) : If you want evidence backing up this arguement, please read my presentation
I didn’t realize who you were through the pseudonym. FWIW, I’m fairly certain that you are right. I had been working my way down this path, some significant distance behind you, and Geoff Sharp pointed me at your paper.
IMHO, your paper shows that as the solar orbital angular momentum approaches very small (as the orbital position vector of the sun tends toward small), ends up being conserved at least in part via changes in the planetary spin angular momentum (our spin rate changes) via spin-orbit coupling. This would explain not only the PDO action, but also the observed correlation of volcanic and earthquake activity with periods of low solar orbital angular momentum (as our spin rate change flexes the earth crust a bit).
Season with a bit of GCR increase changing albedo and reducing O3 levels (letting heat out via the 9-10 IR window that only O3 significantly blocks) and you can account for just about everything.
Your paper is the key that opens this door. Thank you.
Now if you can just show a spin-orbit coupling of solar orbital angular momentum into solar spin angular momentum and a subsequent modulation of the traditional solar cycle you could wrap everything up rather nicely. A lot of work to do it, and who knows if it can be done, but think that truth lies down that path…
The planet has been through plenty of variations like this before and here we are all happy as Larry. What’s the problem;)
The idea that the earth and moon are ‘coupled’ while the sun is not doesn’t make sense to me. The effect may be small, but all the larger planets, particularly Jupiter must raise a tide on the sun. And that tidal bulge must have some interesting characteristics with two major drivers and two minor drivers. The complex cycloid movement of the sun around the barycentre suggests that the tides do not have uniform speed, and I wonder if it is possible that the sun might make such a sharp pivot that the tide might run retrograde for a very short period. Also the distance from the sun to the barycenter (which is almost always between the sun and jupiter varies by a couple of solar diameters, and that should cause a change in tidal height as well. To me that’s a ‘couple’, and a chaotic one at that, with possible neutralizing effects mixed with occasional harmonic amplification.
If sunspots are related to the fact that the sun rotates at different speeds at different distances from the equater, then anything that causes tidal variances could be relevant.
Robert A Cook PE (15:32:33) :
“If the PDO/AMO/El None/La Nina drive year-to-year temperature rises and falls, WHAT changes/energizes/starts/stops the PDO/AMO/El None/La Nina variations?”
Maybe this document contains the answer to your question:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
Richard deSousa (19:34:50) :
It appears like Cycle 23 is like Lazarus
~~~~~~~~~~
Or the energizer bunny . . . . .
Leif Svalgaard (23:28:09) :
tallbloke (23:02:35) :
Given the failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour
“What failure? One of the best prediction methods we have [based on solid dynamo theory] predicts a very low cycle [‘smallest in a hundred years’]. Such cycles are slow starters, so the Sun is doing just what it should.”
Your prediction was for maximum around 2011. If your prediction is not a failure, and you knew that the Sun would be doing “just what it should”, do you still expect a maximum of what was it, 72 in 2011?
OT: Here is a quote from a post on SeekingAlpha.com by Michael Fitzsimmons
“If the goal is to reduce foreign imports as Obama said, how come he has yet to even utter the words “natural gas transportation” in any energy related discussion since elected? As a result, America’s greatest industrial asset, the 2.2 million mile natural gas pipeline grid connecting 63,000,000 homes where 130,000,000 cars and trucks park every night, remains underutilized. Obama seems content to rely on the Gore environmental purists for energy policy.
“I wish someone would explain to Obama that over the next 10-20 years, there is simply no realistic way that wind and solar energy source will significantly reduce the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline the US burns every day. In this era of government and professional double-speak, it’s very apparent that the environmental purists are actually responsible for increasing CO2 emissions. An ideology that lumps natural gas in the same category with coal and oil simply because it is a “fossil fuel” is simply wrong headed, illogical, highly polluting, and keeps us addicted to foreign oil. Obama’s energy policy grade: “D-“.”
Remainder is at: http://seekingalpha.com/article/127110-a-natural-gas-centric-revitalization-program
In defence of Mr Watts’ moderation:
I have to say I’ve been vilified on several sites for daring to engage in debate, be that the Ski Club of Great Britain website (talking about snow conditions since 1975); the Marohasy site, where an obnoxious physicist displayed his contempt for debate and discussion in a way which I found pathetic and worthy of one of the most controlled furious dressing-downs I’ve ever delivered in my life; and the Daily Telegraph’s blogs stimulated by Chris Booker’s articles. At this site, I’ve read a lot, added a few comments and not seen any evidence of thuggery or intimidation. [Will this cause it to emerge, just as this article caused new solar activity to emerge, me wonders?!]
I’ve seen little on this site to suggest that censorship exists, which is unlike almost every UK newspaper site. Even http://www.telegraph.co.uk now engages in censorship, a sad state of affairs indeed……….
And that’s the way it should be, because if you guys want world opinion to move in your direction, you need to engage with those who disagree with you. Otherwise all we’ll have for years to come is two sets of self-serving diatribes from diametrically opposed camps refusing to consider where the other lot are coming from……….
Might it be a good idea to post a solicited article summarising all modulators and hypothesised drivers of climate change, with postulated cycle lengths and driver modulators, so that a large audience can see, at one source, a current best picture view of the holistic position?
John Adlington (18:34:52) : Given historical records that co-relate grain production and sun-spot numbers I think we are up the proverbial without a whotzit
The good news is that thanks to the high CO2 level, plants are producing somewhere around 20% more (IIRC) from CO2 fertilization. Add in the added productivity from the green revolution short stem grain varieties (about another 25-50%?) and added optimized fertilization levels and we’re talking one heck of a lot of grain!
Further, as I’ve noted before, it takes 10 units of feed to get one unit of Beef. So the ‘worst case’ is that instead of the 1 pound beef steak you take the 10 pounds of grain and eat it instead. 10 pounds of grain takes a very long time to eat…
Yes, it will likely be rough during the realization / transition period, and prices will rise, but it is very manageable. I have been buying the grain ETF, though (ticker JJG ) as a way to hedge the likely price impacts… I also got good at growing cold cycle plants in my garden this winter (cabbage, kale, onions, peas, beets / chard, etc.) to get ready for the coming colder seasons. Maybe I’m a year or two ahead of the herd, but other gardeners will catch up pretty quick. (Last year I planted my first cold tolerant tomato – Siberia. This year the nursery had 3 more varieties… someone has a clue. Two of these bear fruit in 40 to 45 days! so shorter seasons will not be as critical either.) There has been a lot of work on short season vegetables. Maize, for example, was 120 days to maturity 50 years ago. Now 55 days is old hat and 40 something is the goal.
And then there is the whole movement into greenhouse farming. In many areas of the world (even here in California!) many of the tomatoes, specialty lettuces, italian squash (you call them courgettes?) and several other vegetables come from greenhouses. We have year round ‘hot house’ tomatoes, so a little cold isn’t very important…
So I wouldn’t worry too much about food supply (unless you were a beef cow… but then food would be the least of your worries 😉
Just Want Truth… (22:27:05) :
“hareynolds (17:40:24) : (b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum”
Al Gore’s name shouldn’t be attached to anything except the fact that children can’t sleep good after seeing his moving. This is the only thing he has earned being remembered for.
The solar cycle minimum ought to be named for someone of merit in the field of solar research. The attendant cold period, however….
Somehow “The AlGore Pessimum” has a very nice ring to it, but I could be convinced to go for “The Hansen Gore Pessimum”!
Many here talk about focussing on the other factors rather than the sun (PDO, cloudcover etc). The focus is on the sun because what happens on the sun will effect the other factors. Maybe not tomorow but the effects could be seen in a few years. Yes the sun is not directly affecting temps, but PDO is likely driven by solar activity!~ ie weak sun -> cold PDO -> cooler conditions (2020s?)
A new “microspeck” has appeared at 24 latitude but 23 (25!?) polarity… I say “microspeck” because solarcycle24.com have actually included an image that shows this spot to be literally one or two pixels in size!! People are getting desperate lol
Anthony, as allways when you make a post about that there are no spots on the sun, a spot appears..
Now look what you have done again!
http://solarcycle24.com/
John F. Hultquist @ur momisugly 16:09:57
Well, yeh, OK, the Sun is completely inert; I didn’t mean it quite like that :^)
For those who would prefer a ranked list…
1) Solar Cycle 4 was 164 months long (13.67 years)
2) Solar Cycles 6 and 13 were tied at 157 months long (13.08 years)
3) Solar Cycle 9 was 150 months long (12.50 years)
4) Solar Cycle 23 is currently 145 months long (12.08 years)
5) Solar Cycle 5 was 144 months long (12.00 years)
6) Solar Cycle 20 was 140 months long (11.67 years)
7) Solar Cycle 11 was 139 months long (11.58 years)
8) Solar Cycle 14 was 138 months long (11.50 years)
9) Solar Cycle 1 was 135 months long (11.25 years)
10) Solar Cycle 10 was 134 months long (11.17 years)
11) Solar Cycles 17 and 19 were tied at 126 months long (10.50 years)
12) Solar Cycles 7 and 22 were tied at 125 months long (10.42 years)
13) Solar Cycles 12 and 16 were tied at 122 months long (10.17 years)
14) Solar Cycle 18 was 121 months long (10.08 years)
15) Solar Cycle 15 was 120 months long (10.00 years)
16) Solar Cycles 8 and 21 were tied at 117 months long (9.75 years)
17) Solar Cycle 3 was 110 months long (9.17 years)
18) Solar Cycle 2 was 109 months long (9.08 years)
So, we’re already in the 75th percentile. If Cycle 23 persists another 5 months, which indeed it might, we could break the 80th percentile. Could go even higher, but we’ll have to see.
Later,
Paul
Surely the increase in carbon dixode in the atmosphere on Earth caused by anthropogenic emissions is the reason for the quiet Sun!
It shouldn’t be too difficult to create a computer model to validate this perfectly rational theory. After all, there is more than enough peer review validated computer model output data to be used as inputs to this new model.
E.M.Smith (23:52:52) :
Ninderthana (15:41:21) : “If you want evidence backing up this arguement, please read my presentation”
I didn’t realize who you were through the pseudonym. FWIW, I’m fairly certain that you are right.
Wow, wow, wow, Ninderthana, your presentation is one of the clearest, most fantastic I’ve yet seen from anywhere in Climate Science, showing the evidence for the solar driver. At the very least, this is worthy of one of Anthony’s threads. If I were running a blog I’d put it right up but since I just run a forum I’m going to start a forum thread about it.
Thanks.
and btw Anthony I sympathize totally with your position re barycentre though I don’t agree. I have to draw lines too and I know that sometimes I’m throwing out good stuff! However, IMHO this paper goes a long way towards showing the evidence we need.
I’m sorry, but a visit to solarcycle24.com showed a close up of the SOHO image and this “speck” is about 1 1/2 pixels. We’re counting this? I’ve got a high resolution screen with a dedicated satellite picture and it still had to have a circle around it to spot it? “dud” seems a bit lacking…
Also, FWIW, I’m “barycenter friendly” so if folks want to discuss it in peace (and if Anthony does not find it worthy to have here) they are welcome to conduct their discussions over on chiefio.wordpress.com (presently being kicked around under the quakes thread:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/
though I could add another related to solar stuff if desired.
As near as I can tell, angular momentum conservation requires that as the solar position vector shortens with the sun center approaching the barycenter, the solar orbital angular momentum (r x p or: position vector crossproduct linear momentum) approaches zero, so the angular momentum must go somewhere. There are not a lot of choices.
Solar spin. Planet orbit. Planet spin. Two out of the three ought to have significant effects on the sun or the oceans, and planet orbit might well effect seasons. Is it enough? I don’t know, someone better with vector calculations and with all the relevant orbital mechanics knowledge needs to do the math.
But the mass of the sun orbiting at 2 solar radii is not a small r x p and that must be conserved as r approaches zero. That is physics, not opinion. So where does it go?
Re – Lee (23:56:04) :
“The idea that the earth and moon are ‘coupled’ while the sun is not doesn’t make sense to me. The effect may be small, but all the larger planets, particularly Jupiter must raise a tide on the sun.”
It’s all down to Gravity.
F = GMm/R²
Where F is force in Newtons, G is the gravitational constant (6.67*10-11 N-m²/kg²) M & m the masses in Kg and R² the squared distance between the two bodies in metres.
Earth/Moon
Average distance 3.84*10^8 m
Mass of Earth & Moon 5.98*10^24 kg & 7.35*10^22 kg
Sun/Jupiter
Average distance 7.7657*10^9m
Mass of Sun & Jupiter 1.9891 ×10^30 kg & 1.898*10^24kg
I believe in a previous thread, Dr Svensmark said that the tide raised upon the surface of the sun by Jupiter was in the order of a few millimetres.
ie diddly-squat!
New forum thread: Evidence for solar barycentre effects on our weather Happy to take the load off you for this Anthony if you like. Just want good science 😉
OT – the ICCC conference has finally gor some coverage in a UK newspaper: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/world/Case-against-climate-change-melting.5096564.jp
Needless to say they get some quotes from alarmists to counter, e.g.
“… Kert Davies, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace, said that the experts giving talks were “a shrinking collection of extremists” and that they were “left talking to themselves”.
The comments are generally favourable however, although Slioch has just appeared.
If TSI does not include solar magnetic flux then perhaps we should look a little closer at the effects Coronal Mass Ejections have on the planet.
Its been noted high intensity CME’s have been related to a lengthening of the Earths Length of Day by a few miliseconds. and that durnig periods of solar minimum the earth speeds up. We get more earthquakes at solar minimum, and more volcanic activity. Perhaps evidence of core /mantle interaction.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm
has some interesting observations.
I would like to say that Anthony’s site has been relatively free of Ad Hom attacks and trolls. That is what keeps his readers and posters coming back and adds up to the best scientific blog.
The discussions are always lively and full of well intentioned debate, free of put downs and there are always voices of reasons such as Dr. Svalgaard’s.
Long may it last.
‘“hareynolds (17:40:24) : (b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum”
Al Gore’s name shouldn’t be attached to anything except the fact that children can’t sleep good after seeing his moving. This is the only thing he has earned being remembered for.’
Gore and Hanson’s name should only be remembered in infamy. Like “Gore’s global warming scare” or “Hanson’s surface temerature debacle”
REPLY: I would say when SC24 is so late that SC25 should be starting. – Anthony
Well, at that stage there will be no doubt, for sure. But that implies waiting another 10-11 years. You don’t have to wait until a corpse reaches ambient temperature to call it dead 🙂
But to [maybe over-] simplify things a little, let us say we end up having more than 1000 spotless days some time next year (we are just under 600 now). That would be a pretty strong sign I think. I know we have 2 cases (#12 and #15) with just over 1000 spotless days, but from then on we are in ‘unchartered territory’.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Main
Another useful metric is perhaps if we go beyond 1 standard deviation of the SC10-15 average
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution
So I think if the situation is largely similar as today by mid 2010, it would be safe to declare a grand minimum?
Slightly OT: A different take on it all. A look at the ethics of the global warming debate: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3