Another anemic solar cycle 23 sunspeck, could 19th century astronomers have seen it?
From Spaceweather.com
SUNSPOT 1016: A ring-shaped sunspot numbered 1016 has emerged near the sun’s equator. Its magnetic polarity identifies it as a member of old Solar Cycle 23. Until these old cycle sunspots go away, the next solar cycle will remain in abeyance.
DJ (18:47:47) :
PS Awfully hot in Alaska ATM – http://www.wunderground.com/US/AK/Fairbanks.html . Perhaps worth a report?
Does it matter that Fairbanks ended the month of April below normal as a whole? Or would that be the ‘conveniently left out of the article’ in the alarmist “Fairbanks breaks April record; global warming cited” news stories that are circulating
DJ, check out the jet stream as to why Fairbanks is warm and Russia is cold just across the strait.
Yes it has and no it doesn’t. Just do a search on solar output and global temperature. You will find lots of articles. Doesn’t mean they are any good. Read with a discerning eye. Slop does and always will get published. Climate models actually have a tiny little calculation (using the wrong TSI) for solar input. But even if they used the right one, it wouldn’t make a difference. The noise is too great.
Leif Svalgaard (10:41:01) :
vukcevic (10:13:52) :
…….. it is just peace of NAÏVE ART
Perhaps there is [another] blog for that
Ok, I will call it ‘Solar Naïve Art’ ; even NASA has space for some arty stuff.
I thought it would brake monotony while some of us are waiting for a paltry inadequate sunspot to make its appearance.
Leif Svalgaard (10:41:01) :
The ~108 year period is the Gleissberg ‘cycle’
Mine is 107 years, so to be true to my immodest self I will call it ‘Vukcevic Cycle’
It precisely defines alternative occurrences of long min followed by reduced cycle in regular sequence, that is what I call a cycle.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SSNanomaly1.gif
But, I am confused, not long ago you were saying G’s cycle is 82 or 89 years, now 108. As you know, cycle is something that repeats itself regularly, so it can’t be 82 and 108 years at the same time.
By the way, what is your definition of the Gleissberg ‘cycle’, I hope it is as nice and neat, as my definition of 107 year cycle and represented by my formula (is there one for the Gleissberg cycle ? ). Perhaps you could tell us when did last Gleissberg cycle started and finished.
Leif Svalgaard (11:07:52)
I meant take the two cycles to the left and extrapolate those to the right.
Sorry, failed to understand ! My brain is wired for an obscure dialect of a miner South European language.
Leif Svalgaard (11:07:52)
The MWO data for the first cycle are not any higher that the WSO data for the second cycle, so the extrapolated line should not go up on the right, if the goal is for it to match the data.
I am lost again, did you mean to the left? However, here is part of my post you may have missed in your hasty call ‘burn the heretic’.
vukcevic (04:14:39) :
One shouldn’t necessarily assume that reduction in the intensity is absolutely linear and that it should have started from an excessively high level. Amplitude envelope is most likely another longer term cycle, which may take us back to SC13 and further back (cyclically) to Dalton and Maunder, and forward to New Dalton in the late 2020s.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/LP-project1.gif
Leif Svalgaard (11:07:52)
As I said, there is no base for your linear extrapolation.
But it does look pretty good, don’t you agree ?
May I conclude this exchange with my expression of thanks and gratitude, your challenges are great inspiration to me, if you persevere, I may even take up proper science.
That Independent article is a real cracker, suggestive of public perception paradigm shift in the offing IMO
Maybe I missed it but if compass needle deflection and solar flux are proxies for sunspot activity and those records go back 250 years (well at least the compass needle deflection), then how much of the sunspot activity were they missing by direct observation back then as compared to today (excluding the flies in the ointment)?
Thanks Leif
I had forgotten Wolf etc. I should have remembered.
Ancient Sun Counting Revisited – Looks like my last post was contracted. Anyway, the ancients probably used colored glass, since it was avialable about 4000 years ago. They also could have used a device we made as kids, called the “camera obscura” . It’s like a pinhole camera, that projects a image on a surface in a darkened room. By a simple mirror one can project the image on a table. They were well aware of what would happen by gazing at the sun to long.
vukcevic (12:25:59) :
But, I am confused, not long ago you were saying G’s cycle is 82 or 89 years, now 108. As you know, cycle is something that repeats itself regularly, so it can’t be 82 and 108 years at the same time.
Even you has used the phrase ‘solar cycle’, in spite of the period being anywhere from 7 to 17 years.
One shouldn’t necessarily assume that reduction in the intensity is absolutely linear and that it should have started from an excessively high level.
In that case the line should not have been drawn to be linear.
But it does look pretty good, don’t you agree ?
No, it looks lousy as per the above comments.
if you persevere, I may even take up proper science.
God forbid 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (22:37:52) :
Dr Svalgaard
Thank you for the erudite explanation.
Here is the link to Leif’s comment for reference:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/30/see-speck-run/#comment-124646
John G (12:55:41) :
how much of the sunspot activity were they missing by direct observation back then as compared to today (excluding the flies in the ointment)?
about 40% before 1890s and 20% up to 1945. see http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle 24.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (15:26:46) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
John G (12:55:41) :
how much of the sunspot activity were they missing by direct observation back then as compared to today (excluding the flies in the ointment)?
about 40% before 1890s and 20% up to 1945. see http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%24.pdf
better link
Hello Leif
Neither link worked for me. I’d like to see.
vukcevic (12:25:59) :
One shouldn’t necessarily assume that reduction in the intensity is absolutely linear and that it should have started from an excessively high level.
Leif Svalgaard (15:23:07)
In that case the line should not have been drawn to be linear.
Remember something called Taylor/Maclaurin series:
Sin x = x – (x exp 3)/3! +….. etc
The rest is inconsequential chat, one just might have over glass of Napa white.
Just The Facts (20:17:13) :
Hello Leif
Neither link worked for me. I’d like to see.
I think this is the URL Leif tried to post twice, but unsuccessfully.
http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf
This one works here.
vukcevic (12:25:59) :
One shouldn’t necessarily assume that reduction in the intensity is absolutely linear and that it should have started from an excessively high level.
Leif Svalgaard (15:23:07)
In that case the line should not have been drawn to be linear.
I suspect by invoking the Taylor/Maclaurin for small value of x
Sin x = x – (x exp 3)/3! +….. etc
Dr. Svalgaard (true and consistent scientist as he is, the guardian of the classical solar science thought) may not be entirely satisfied.
Taking up his challenge, by modifying my already quoted SSN Anomaly formula
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SSNanomaly1.gif
I have produced (another example of naïve solar art) an approximation to show that the Solar Magnetic Field have a (non linear) cyclical oscillations. The graph covers period of 300 years 1750 – 2050.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SMF-strength.gif
Y = A (1.5+COS(3pi/2+2pi(t-1941)/118)+0.5COS(2pi(t-1941)/(3*96)))
This is only an initial attempt, but it clearly shows near linear change from 1980 – 2020 as suggested previously:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/LP-project1.gif
If you follow my posts, I will combine two in the next few days.
Note: Solar magnetic field will never ‘drop and stay at zero’ (result may be longer period random surface field with multi polarity distribution).
If this chart is an approximate reflection of reality ( nonsense! says Dr. S. ) than it is to be expected that ‘new Dalton’ wouldn’t be as low as Dalton proper, but deeper than SC14.
Thanks for the link Leif. 40% early on and 20% later are pretty big discrepancies. Do they use your recalibrated sunspot numbers now?
vukcevic (04:26:33) :
I have produced (another example of naïve solar art) an approximation to show that the Solar Magnetic Field have a (non linear) cyclical
I don’t think you get the point. Any short enough piece of a curve can be approximated by a straight line, it is just that there is no physical basis for assuming that the Sun follows that line (especially since the fit isn’t that good to begin with).
John G (07:08:18) :
Thanks for the link Leif. 40% early on and 20% later are pretty big discrepancies. Do they use your recalibrated sunspot numbers now?
No, and that may take twenty years or more. A case in point is the Group Sunspot Number by Hoyt and Schatten. It differs a lot from the Wolf number and people cherry pick which one of the series to use depending on what they want to show. A definition of ‘good’ data has always been the set that supports one’s pet ideas the best.
Leif Svalgaard (07:41:02) :
I don’t think you get the point…. it is just that there is no physical basis for assuming that the Sun follows that line…
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SMF-strength.gif
You are convinced that there is no physical basis to it. I got that point some time ago.
On the other hand, as you often say, “sun is a messy place”, so just it might be.
The problem here is:
I’ve shown that there might be something to it, too many coincidences in the formulae to be ignored. I accept: “there is no physical basis as far as the current science knows”, but that leaves tiny possibility that I am right, and that wouldn’t do.
On the plus side, according to this ‘astrology’ your estimate of SC24 is close to the mark but SC25 may be a bit too optimistic. I feel privileged that our predictions more or less agree, even if methods do not, but I am sorry that as a result, our exchanges could not be a bit more productive.
Thanks for keeping my brain awake.
vukcevic (09:36:39) :
You are convinced that there is no physical basis to it.
No, this is totally wrong. I’m not convinced there is no basis. You have to show that there is and convince me there is.
On the other hand, as you often say, “sun is a messy place”, so just it might be.
‘might be’ is not correct. If a prediction is right for the wrong reason, it is actually wrong.
I’ve shown that there might be something to it, too many coincidences in the formulae to be ignored.
As I have pointed out many times, the number of degrees of freedom is so low that coincidences could easily be ignored by people with even a minimum of statistical training or knowledge.
our estimate of SC24 is close to the mark but SC25 may be a bit too optimistic.
SC25 cannot be predicted yest [it can be guessed at].
Thanks for keeping my brain awake.
Then put it to use…
Leif Svalgaard (09:57:31) :
No, this is totally wrong. I’m not convinced there is no basis. You have to show that there is and convince me there is.
I have to convince myself first.
M.V. Thanks for keeping my brain awake.
L.S. Then put it to use…
That is easier said than done.
vukcevic (10:38:23) :
L.S. “Then put it to use…”
That is easier said than done.
It shows 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (07:32:49) :
Geoff Sharp (04:21:01) :
I would like hear Leif’s account of how much CO2 is affecting world temps. His past statements to the press would suggest quite a bit?
I would estimate a few tenths of a degree at the most.
Recent CO2 data suggests an increase of
388ppm-280ppm = 108ppm increase
108/280 doubling = ~39%
Estimated effect of doubling CO2 on global temps ~1.0-1.2 degrees (without feedback) 39% X 1.1 (ave.) = .43 degrees.
Considering your recent revelation (to me at least) of expertise in atsmospheric physics, I would like your opinion on the above disparity between IPCC estimated effect and yours. Or is .43 essentially equivalent to a few tenths.
Respectively submitted,
Tim
That should read “Respectfully”, Leif always intimidates my typing.