Ken Tapping: One year on into the minimum
From John A’s solarscience.auditblogs.com
I’ve just been in e-mail correspondance with Dr Kenneth Tapping, asking him to comment on the progress of the solar minimum and his opinion on the likely size of SC24 when it does deign to appear.
Dear Dr Tapping
After you published your rebuke to Investor’s Business Daily, I put your entire reply onto my blog (see http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2008/04/22/ken-tapping-the-current-solar-minimum/ ) which I notice is the second listing when anyone googles your name. I hope you didn’t mind.
Since that reply the Sun has appeared to have gone into an even deeper slumber than it was when you wrote your article, more than a year ago. You ended that article with a statement
AT THE MOMENT IT IS UNJUSTIFIED TO ASSUME THE SUN IS UNDERGOING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN BEHAVIOUR. ON THE BASIS OF SUNSPOT NUMBER DATA, WE CANNOT ASSUME ANYTHING ODD IS HAPPENING UNLESS THE NEXT CYCLE DELAYS ITS START INTO 2009 OR 2010
Well it’s now nearly mid-2009 and the only spots to be seen very very occasionally are SC23 polarity.
Do you have any further comment on the Sun’s (lack of) activity? Are we close to unusual times in solar activity? Is the sun undergoing a significant change in behaviour?
Best regards
John
He replied [with my emphasis]
Hi John,
I’ve just got back here from the Space Weather Workshop, which was held in Boulder, Colorado. The opinion there is that the next cycle is coming, although forecasts are for a low cycle with a late start.
Our radio telescopes have detected no sign of the new cycle yet. However a statistical study of indices that I have been doing suggests the Sun did show a significant change in behaviour over the last few years, but that things are starting to slip back towards the normal situation, which could suggest the Sun is at least showing signs of waking up again. It’s deciding to take an additional lie-in cannot be ruled out.
Activity is certainly very low.
Regards,
Ken
When I asked for that “statistical study of indices”, Dr Tapping replied that it was being submitted to a journal and he’d let me know when its in pre-print – which is fine by me.
I think it’s fair to say that all solar scientists have been caught out by the length of the solar minimum and the delay to SC24. In subsequent posts I’ll be reviewing the prognostications of solar models, in an effort to understand what exactly goes into predictions of solar cycles.
In other news, as reported on Watts Up With That:
NOAA/SWPC will be releasing an update to the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction on Friday, May 8, 2009 at noon Eastern Daylight Time (1600 UT) at a joint ESA/NASA/NOAA press conference
I can hardly wait.
[The wait is over, and the announcement was made Friday, which you can read here – Anthony]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Those big undefined magnetic anomalies only happend about the same latitude on the North Pole side of the sun… why?
idlex (09:14:25) :
“Hmmm… The sun’s been looking a tad pale recently. Another case of swine flu?”
More like SHINE flu if you ask me.. O_o!
If we want to compare the current minima to the Dalton/Maunder/Oort/Lamb/Damon etc.. it all boils down to sunspots. Not flux, or faculae… only spots.
Our reliable solar records (from the observatories) that go back to those periods are only of sunspots, and when comparing spots only, we can see that this minimum is long and has never been experienced by any living scientist. Quiet has been firmly in place for almost the entire first half of 2009 (so far), even though most predicted an uptick in mid 2008.
None of the big gamblers go to the track anymore to directly observe a thoroughbred, so most aren’t aware old yellow is running. All the big money is in computer gambling these days where they bet heavily on computer generated fictitious nags. Its no surprise that when questioned they are only willing to place Two bucks each way.
On “http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2008/04/22/ken-tapping-the-current-solar-minimum/”, I read:
“The histogram Figure 3 shows how the durations of the cycles as seen in the *sunspot data* have varied since 1700. A 13-year activity cycle is not that unusual.
Figure 3: Distribution of solar cycle durations over the last 300 years. The 1964-1977 cycle, having a duration of 13 years is unusual, but not that unusual.”
I do’n know anything about a 1964-1977 cycle (sunspot data) with a duration of 13 years. SC20 was 140 months long (from October 1964 to June 1976), i.e. 11 years and 8 months.
NOAA wrote: “If the December prediction holds up, at 12 years and seven months Solar Cycle 23 will be the longest since 1823 and the third longest since 1755.”
If Dr. Kenneth Tapping had used the right data, he should have written perhaps more serious articles?
Leif Svalgaard (10:18:13) :
Thanks, for a moment I thought they had discover a new method for detecting that start up.
If you are tired of this guessing game by professional scientists, why not enhance your confusion by reading hypothesis from a total novice (amateur researcher would be too generous), it may not be recognised science, but it is different. One day you may be able to say that you’ve seen berth of a new theory (if am lucky, that is). Good doc LS might say: this infant will never see a respectful adulthood, but you never know, nothing to loose …have a go!
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/N-S-excess.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SMF-strength.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk links for solar current and solar subcycle
Good night to all.
In my utterly worthless opinion we have passed the minimum. We are seeing the flux value rise and there have been more plages with cycle 24 polarity. For me it’s all about Penn and Livingstone at the moment. Why are sunspots ceasing to be visible? What does that mean, if anything for our climate? At this stage nobody knows.
I might start having nightmares about this “nobody nose”. This disembodied proboscis sailing around the world causing discord, froward bickering, the shaking of fists. Who would have expected this from a nose? I certainly didn’t pick it…
And yet: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20090508/US.SCI.Space.Weather/
Few scientists will admit they don’t know what is happening. Sure fire way to get your funding cut. Better to be wrong than uncertain. We’ll get lots of predictions, and eventually, one of them will be right.
My money is on Leif.
The blue dots is TSI [not F10.7] and may follow slightly different rules. TSI comes from the photosphere, while F10.7 comes from the corona. For each quantity there are two smooth curves. A dashed one which is an honest fit to all the data, and a full one which is my eyeball fit to the bottom envelope of the data. One of the research projects I’m engage in right now is to try and understand what we see, so perhaps I can give an answer sometime down the road. Right now would only be speculation 🙂
Leif
Is it possible that what the 10.7 cm data is showing is an energy increase in the corona related to a weak cycle. I don’t remember where I read this, but I read in a paper somewhere that it is speculated that the 1859 Coronal mass ejection was of such magnitude because the Corona had been pumped due to the lack of flares. The argument was that the weak cycle of that time resulted in fewer flares, thus fewer “discharges” through the Coronasphere. This effectively pumped the energy level in the Coronosphere to such a level that when a flare did happen that initiated a CME, that the energy level was much higher than it would have been during a stronger solar cycle.
I wish I remembered where I read that paper. Do you know what I am recounting here? Also, if this is a fair guess, is the increase in the base energy level of the Coronasphere an possible indication of this charge pump in action?
kim (10:58:11) :
Thanks, and thanks for not speculating. Can anyone correct Tapping? It seems he is clearly wrong.
I’m working on a WUWT post about F10.7 ….
Ron de Haan (13:08:27) :
Leif, it’s possible Tapping referred to earlier data.
No, he has all the data from 1947 until this noon.
Dennis Wingo (16:14:12) :
Is it possible that what the 10.7 cm data is showing is an energy increase in the corona related to a weak cycle.
I don’t know exactly what is going on, but some of us [at UC Berkeley this time] are looking into the increase of F10.7 to see where it comes from. See our science nugget #99 at: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/RHESSI_Science_Nuggets
-Roger Sowell (10:18:31)
Your post brings to mind another novel by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Michael Flynn called Fallen Angels. While the work does contain embarrassing lip service to the sci-fi fandom, it also deals with much that is relevant to the present physical and political climate.
First published in 1991, the novel deals with a future Earth ruled by a totalitarian green government suffering economic and technological collapse as a Maunder style solar minimum occurs. Science has been replaced with politically correct dogma and green police have the power to arrest for thought crime.
Am I missing something here?
Solar cycle 14
1900 – >150 spotless days
1901 – >280 spotless days
1902 – >250 spotless days
Solar cycle 15
1911 ->200 spotless days
1912 ->250 spotless days
1913 ->310 spotless days
Solar cycle 24
2007 ->160 spotless days
2008 ->260 spotless days
2009 ->100 and counting
Is cycle 24 unique? Doesn’t look like it to me.
Don’t recall hearing about impending ice age after 1914 – the story might have been buried with the outbreak of European hostilities.
TerryBixler (08:56:45) said :
The amateurs are equal or better than the experts on this minimum. We are all waiting and guessing.
HOW TRUE, despite what it’s doing to “science.”
The underlying reason is that the “experts” are simply extrapolating, and in fits-and-starts at that.
Any amateur well-versed in numerical methods (and without the political hatchet hanging over their heads) can and should do better, if only because we can extrapolate more accurately based on the actual data, rather than an expected outcome.
Les Francis (17:13:30) :
>>Is cycle 24 unique? Doesn’t look like it to me.
Aber doch. More than 13 y have already passed from the last minimum (April 1996). This is sufficiently longer than the average value (10.7 y) and now approaching the 13.6 y for Cycle 4, that led to very weak Cycles 5 and 6 during which the Dalton Minimum was observed.
Les Francis (17:13:30) :
Is cycle 24 unique? Doesn’t look like it to me.
You are correct, it is not. It will be the lowest in a hundred years, but that in itself is not a disaster. In fact, we solar physicists [at least some of us] look forward to a low cycle(s), so we can verify our ideas about what the ‘ground state’ of solar activity is. Some are even hoping for a Maunder Minimum. That may be too much to ask for, but sure would clear up a lot of questions.
tokyoboy (17:32:54) :
Aber doch. More than 13 y have already passed from the last minimum (April 1996). […] the 13.6 y for Cycle 4, […]
Because solar cycles overlap by several years, the ‘minimum’ is not a physically meaningful thing in itself, and certainly not calculated to decimal places. The [smoothed – itself a dubious thing] minimum around 1890 had multiple ‘minima’ hovering between 5 and 6 during 1888 Aug – 1889 Jan and during 1889 Sep – 1890 Apr. The next minimum did a similar thing between 2 and 3 during 1901 May- Jun and 1901 Dec – 1902 Feb. How long was cycle 13 then? The current transition may show similar behavior.
In fact, there were local minima in 1996 May and 1996 Aug. which one to pick? The whole concept is to fuzzy and not very useful [and just plain silly to plot climate against].
Leif Svalgaard (16:46:31) :
I’d like to know where this increase in 10.7 cm flux is coming from also.
I even wrote to Penticon to ask them when was the last time they checked the equipment calibration, and they did.
So, as far as I can tell, the flux really is increasing but the spots are not.
The evidence mounts that during the big Grand Minima, the proxies record (the way I understood it) normal cyclic activity, but you can still be spotless.
Nothing like a good old fashioned scientific mystery!
I came up with a formula to fix minima using white-light faculae.
Here are my results:
1878 (1878.157 – 1879.113)(1878.4301 – 1879.3096) = 1878.8695 = 1878 11/13
1889 (1888.170 – 1889.363)(1888.4657-1889.9945) = 1889.84 = 1889/ 3/25
1901 (1900.144 – 1902.66) (1900.3945- 1902.1808) = 1901.28765 = 1901.105 = 1901/4/15
1923 (1923.3 – 1924.134) (1923.008 – 1924.367) = 1923.6875 = 1923.251 = 1923/9/7
1933 (1933.152 – 1934.130) (1933.416 – 1934.356) = 1933.886 = 1933.323 = 1933/11/19
1943 (1943.253 – 1944.84) (1943.693 – 1944.23) = 1943.962 = 1943.351 = 1943/12/16
1954 (1953.267 – 1955.7) (1953.732 – 1955.019) = 1954.376 = 1954.137 = 1954/5/17
1964 (1964.129 – 1965.147) (1964.353 – 1965.403) = 1964.878 = 1964.320 = 1964/11/16
1976 (1976.85 – 1976.285) (1976.233 – 1976.781) = 1976.507 = 1976.185 = 1976/7/3
1986 not avail.
1996 backdate not available (does not work well)
2008 (1996/08/03 – 2008/08/03 (min) – 2010/08/03)
Note: the 1996/08/03 facular count is a bit low but close to the value I use (>1000).
If the next available count >1000 is used (05/05/2006) then the ramp of spots in SC24 will commence upwards around Nov 2010.
Perhaps L&P trend will turn around long enough to see spots before our Solar eyes.
Pehaps not.
Correction: Darn – I forgot to change that 2008 (1996/08/03 -2008/08/03 (min) – 2010/08/03) to
2008 (2006/08/03-2008/p8/03 (min) = 2010/08/03
Argghhhh!!!
rbateman (18:34:38) :
I even wrote to Penticon to ask them when was the last time they checked the equipment calibration, and they did.
As far as I know they regularly check the calibration by observing supernova remnants Cassiopeia-A and Cygnus-A that other groups spend a lot of time getting absolute flux values for.
My money is on L&P.
The downside of allowing Anthony to copy my post is he gets to keep all the comments. 😉
There will be more on solar cycle predictions on my blog in the next few days including a review of the history of solar cycle prediction – and why it bears an uncanny resemblence to guessing.
rbateman (18:46:05) :
I came up with a formula to fix minima using white-light faculae.
Here are my results:
1878 (1878.157 – 1879.113)(1878.4301 – 1879.3096) = 1878.8695 = 1878 11/13
what do the numbers mean?
Leif Svalgaard (18:25:48) :
[and just plain silly to plot climate against].
Talk about pre-emptive denial. And the correlations are so good!
David Archibald (20:51:30) :
And the correlations are so good!
Yogi Berra: “If I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it”