More on the NRC 10.7 observatory here
JohnA writes in:
Just in case you wondered whether the recent large sunspot indicated an upswing in radio flux from the Sun: I went and asked Ken Tapping.
The answer: http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/
This could be the first “radio quiet” solar cycle
Previously on this blog, I’d mentioned my skepticism that one decent sunspot marked the end of the hiatus in the solar cycle we’ve seen for nearly two years. It might be my nature, but everybody has been wrong before.
As part of my public duty to actually ask real scientists monitoring the Sun, I wrote to Dr Ken Tapping of Canada’s National Research Council at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in British Columbia:
Dear Dr Tapping
For the first time in a very long time, the Sun has managed to produce a sunspot (1024) which has lasted more than a few hours.
Is there any sign of an upswing in radio emissions indicating an end to the hiatus?
Best regards
John
and Dr Tapping replied (with my emphasis):
Hi John,
Last weekend I saw a really nice sunspot group on the Sun, which could have been part of the new cycle. The solar radio flux went up a little while it was there. However now the flux has slumped back to low values again.
Some theorists have suggested the new cycle is currently under way, but that for some unknown reason we are not getting the spots to go with it. I’m not sure what that really means, so I am making no suggestion as to what is going on.
Being very conservative, according to the measurements being made under our Solar Radio Monitoring Programme, we have yet to see signs the next cycle is really under way.
Regards,
Ken
Now this is what I’d thought, that the nice sunspot (1024) we’d seen did not presage a change in the behavior of the Sun: the solar wind speed remained subdued, coronal holes remained very small, there were no prominences to speak of.
It also baffles me how “some theorists have suggested the new cycle is currently under way, but that for some unknown reason we are not getting the spots to go with it”. If there are very few sunspots and the radio flux remains extremely subdued, on what basis are these theorists making their statements?
It could be that this is the first “radio quiet” solar cycle … anyone believe that?
So for solar physicists, it remains “interesting times” and probably a time to clear out some old theories and start again.
My thanks to Dr Tapping for the correspondence.
The question that I would like see valid data on is how is the our Sun’s magnetic wave output performing? I am getting tired of getting zapped by near record levels of cosmic rays (and so is my DNA). Is there any official scientific definition of exactly what parameters need to be at certain levels to state with certainly that solar cycle 24 has begin?
It seems to me the answer to the question of how anyone can say sunspot cycle # 24 is currently underway is obvious. The polarity of all sunspots we’ve seen in recent months have been consistent with cycle # 24. The mixture of cycle # 23 and cycle # 24 polarities that marked the transition between cycles has disappeared in favor of exclusively cycle # 24 polarities. Doesn’t that, by definition, indicate cycle # 24. lame though it may be, is underway?
CH
“It also baffles me how “some theorists have suggested the new cycle is currently under way, but that for some unknown reason we are not getting the spots to go with it”.”
Surely you understand. It’s the same as the global warming in the “pipeline.”
“If there are very few sunspots and the radio flux remains extremely subdued, on what basis are these theorists making their statements?”
hope and change.
Now I wonder, will the Senate vote for Waxman-Markey-KingCanute or not?
http://www.toonpool.com/user/3035/files/king_canute_443255.jpg
Re: Claude Harvey (13:23:39)
I have been watching the polarity of the recent sunspots and although most of them seem to be cycle 24, some cycle 23 spots still show up. The last and largest spot had its polarity aligned north south for a while, broke into what looked to be a cycle 24 half and a leading cycle 23 spot. This is from memory so play the magnetogram loop and see if it is as clear as you recall it. I don’t think cycle 24 is well established yet. There is a reason solar cycles are called in retrospect. If this were the usual cycle you are right that cycle 24 spots would be regularly popping up by now.
“Some theorists have suggested the new cycle is currently under way, but that for some unknown reason we are not getting the spots to go with it.”
As with AGW necromancy in which the Consensus is seeing demons and evil netherworld opponents, science is going over to alchemic fantasy – probably in 50 years scientists will be wearng pointy hats and capes with moons, planets and stars on it. What ever can be imagined or divined will constitute proofs.
The idea of “cycles without spots” is not new. By using radioisotopes generated by cosmic rays as an inverse proxy of solar activity, we can see that the solar activity cycle continued more-or-less unabated through sunspot-free periods in the Maunder Minimum. It looks like the sun never stops cycling its magnetic activity, but that only relatively strong cycles produce sunspots, just as all wind makes waves but only strong wind makes whitecaps. (See: J Beer et al. An Active Sun Throughout the Maunder Minimum. Solar Phys. 181(1), 237–249. July 1998.)
This Finnish gentleman sees current state below the Dalton minimum:
http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-New-Haven-County-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d6-Solar-Physicist-Predicts-Ice-Age-What-happened-to-global-warming
Graph by Leif Svalgaard shows recovery of the solar flux (http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png), but broader look is not so convincing (http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png) – since Leif´s graph starts exactly at 2008, where local maximum in F10.7 occurred.
As I understand it the “new cycle” has begun when #24 spots outnumber #23 spots.
I agree with Claude Harvey.
No point in getting irrational, the cycle, though weak, seems clearly underway. Unless the 10.7 flux has fallen back to old lows and cycle 23 spots start showing up there’s really not much argument.
I recall that Dr. Svalgaard has posted that he believes we are past the absolute minimum and that Cycle 24 has begun – although in an extremely slow and very subdued fashion.
I am not a scientist.
No matter whose graph I look at, if you back out to 2 solar cycles, it’s readily apparent how long and low of a slide SC23 came in on. SC24 is still bouncing around near the bottom, though it showed some activity at closeup, it’s still not changed a whole lot on the grand view.
I chalk that up to remembering how long it took to get to this point, and the grazing angle of descent.
Doubling the rate of descent for an expected ascent, the Flux will reach 80 average in about a year, unless it takes a good upturn.
It hasn’t done that yet.
It’s climing, no doubt.
What seems to worry some is that it’s taking it’s sweet time about it.
That it is.
You have to make up your mind Anthony, is this cycle ramping up or no, going back n forth it loses interest…
REPLY: I post things that interest me, such as the correspondence with Tapping. If you don’t like it, tough noogies. – Anthony
Gary from Chicagoland:
SC24 has started already (months now)…
The issue is that one sunspot does not make a cycle. As I’d suspected, the Sun is not producing more radio energy as you’d expect if the next cycle were really ramping up.
The question is why did Space.com not make a basic check of the radio emissions before issuing a news article claiming that the minimum was over? I did, and it took one e-mail to establish the facts.
Why am I doing the job of a journalist without the pay? Is this the new, cool, Internet way?
Well, cosmic rays, or not, the oceans seem to be heating up quite nicely.
Looks like we’re going to get a pretty good jump in temperatures in July.
I never read about Hurricanes/Typhoons being important in radiating heat out of the water and into the upper atmosphere/space. It seems to me they would have to disperse enormous amounts of heat away from the surface.
Has anyone ever looked into the chronological relationship between High SSTs, Huricanes/Typhoons, and La Ninas?
By every measured feature the Sun is in minimum, 26 months or so of reduced input to our thermal budget to be released by 2012 or sometime thereabouts.
This is the coolest July in my memory, high temp 83 in central MN and no prospects for more next week.
In ’83 we had 31 highs above 90 with three above 100.
No sweating El Nino here.
Why people keep bringing this into the GW “debate” I cannot understand.
However here is a plot of monthly average 10.7 flux
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4917/solar107month.jpg
from the link in the header data here
ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/monthly_averages/maver.txt
To my eye it looks to be on the way up unless it has taken a dive this month.
Kum Dollison said:
Were you thinking of August by any chance. Sitting here in Mountain View and spending time in Santa Clara, things seem to have been pretty cool and it is now July 12.
Here is something I didn’t notice posted here. Monthly mean sunspot numbers
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY
I have a post here:
http://www.houlihane.co.uk/blog/2009/07/12/observing-the-minimum-through-solar-flux/
which indicates a healthy ramp up of cycle 24, albeit at a very early stage. It is true to note that sunspots are looking a little different these days when compared to previous minima, but the flux appears fairly normal.
Kum Dollison (15:19:33) :
Well, cosmic rays, or not, the oceans seem to be heating up quite nicely.
The oceans are cooling down, the currently warmer surface is an indication that heat stored during the run of high cycles is now being sucked out into the cooler troposphere. This will produce modoki an el nino, followed by a downward step change in temperature.
Gary from Chicagoland (13:19:45) : Even with a few more cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, their effect on your body is probably minimal. The effect actually seems to have not been determined, although it has been considered for decades. The decay of K and C-14 in your body is undoubtedly greater. Particularly the several C-14 atoms in our DNA which change to nitrogen each second.
the_Butcher: Going back and forth it loses interest? NASCAR and tennis fans have a few words for you. If there also were fans of the rock cycle, they’d be in there too, but too many people lose interest within a few laps.
Richard Sharpe (15:37:11) :
To your north here. You have what we had last year. Those darn incessant winds of last year, they never went away, and this year they are decidedly cool.
A quick check of a Harry Geise style long-range based on the sunspot activity shows a deteriorating season starting in August, leading to rains in September.
We’ll see.
Excellent analogy, tallbloke. Cold-phase PDO’s produce weaker El Nino’s, and La Nina predominates the menu.
Modoki.
Welling up the warmer waters where the heat can be sucked out.
To be replaced with ever colder waters.
Down scope.
Warmer water being “sucked up” to replace the Cooler Water, above?
That’s doesn’t pass the “huh?” test. The surface has to be warming as a result of the heat not being dissipated. It will, eventually, warm the cooler water farther down if it’s not dispersed. The quickest, most efficient way of doing this has got to be Storms.
Remember, the “Storm Index” has been very low for the last year, or so.
Perhaps we should expect a few peerreviewedpublishedpapers on Sol-24 modoki 😉
Kum Dollison etc. there is some serious discussion about HADCRUT SST’s NOAA’s SST don’t seem to correspond with RSS at CA and Lucia’s Blackboard. Also yes UNISYS seems to look very different to NOASS SST graph Knowing NASA’s stand on AGW… Houston we have a problem LOL
bill (15:35:35) :
“Why people keep bringing this into the GW “debate” I cannot understand.”
bill, are you really questioning why one might want to consider the activity of the local star/giant ball of fire in the sky, when debating Earth’s climate?
the_Butcher (15:06:31) :
No one knows for certain what is coming. But if people like Piers Corbyn are right (and he is right much more than he is wrong) then we are heading for cooling.
One thing that has become clear is that the climate models that forecast disasters coming to the earth from manmade co2 are flawed and unreliable. Their predictions are not happening.
“Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean.”
http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf
“The results show that models perform poorly…. …a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671?cookieset=1
Just The Facts (17:10:14) :
bill, are you really questioning why one might want to consider the activity of the local star/giant ball of fire in the sky, when debating Earth’s climate?
The ball of fire is very important, however its variability (currently) is very unimportant.
A real scale image of its importance is shown here:
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/7777/tsico2realscale.jpg
The variability is minimal hence the effect on climate is minimal.
In spite of how you interpret what Ken Tapping says it is plain that solar cycle 24 has begun:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
What he probably meant was that SC24 has not yet produced any serious solar activity, no X-ray flares, for instance. But there can be no discussion that we are in SC24 right now. F10.7 is perhaps the cleanest indication, but also the ratio between SC23 and SC24 activity.
Bill says: “The ball of fire is very important, however its variability (currently) is very unimportant. The variability is minimal hence the effect on climate is minimal.”
You assume that TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) is the only way that the Sun can affect Earth’s climate. Svensmark has suggested another patthway. What if solar minimums and volcanic eruptions correlated?? To quote Dr Jack Eddy:
“Were God to give us, at last, the cable, or patch-cord that links the Sun to the Climate System it would have on the solar end a banana plug, and on the other, where it hooks into the Earth—in ways we don’t yet know—a Hydra-like tangle of multiple 24-pin parallel computer connectors.”
Aw, c’mon. Quit picking on the poor sun. It’s trying as hard as it can to sprout spots!
bill (17:32:22):The ball of fire is very important, however its variability (currently) is very unimportant.
When you say “currently”, you mean, “based on our limited current understanding”? All because we don’t fully understand how the sun works and how it impacts Earth’s climate, doesn’t make it unimportant. TSI is a measure of one of the Sun’s impacts on Earth’s climate system. There are probably several more that we don’t fully understand yet, e.g. solar impact on cosmic rays and cosmic rays impact on cloud formation. Dismissing what we do not understand is generally not an effective technique for expanding human knowledge.
bill (17:32:22) :
“The variability is minimal hence the effect on climate is minimal.”
It appears we’re running the experiment to test that hypothesis right now.
One obvious effect of the sun (and also the moon ) on this rock is gravity. That means tidal effects, not just on the oceans, but also the atmosphere and the mantle, etc. Has anybody bothered to plug that into a model?
One sunspot does not make a complete cycle, neither does one fine group, similarly one brief time of sunspot observations will not make a solar scientist entirely happy.
(Apologizes to Aristotle and his comment on swallows and summer)
Most of the July sunspot activity is related to one small group which has disappeared behind the sun’s limb. Nothing is seen emerging and the sunspot count for July 11 is now zero.
SIDC
TODAY’S ESTIMATED ISN : 000, BASED ON 09 STATIONS.
SOLAR INDICES FOR 11 Jul 2009
WOLF NUMBER CATANIA : 000
10CM SOLAR FLUX : 068
AK CHAMBON LA FORET : ///
AK WINGST : 006
ESTIMATED AP : 003
ESTIMATED ISN : 000, BASED ON 16 STATIONS.
http://sidc.oma.be/products/meu/index.php
Even if Cycle 24 has started the issue is “how strong will it be?”
We won’t really know how intense it will be until Cycle 24 ends and Cycle 25 begins.
The Sun, in its 4 billion year life, may have had about 400 million sunspot cycles. We are now trying to predict its behavior based on 24 cycles of 400 million.
How much confidence would you have in a poll of about 20 people of 304 million US citizens?
As one who has followed the travails of the experts trying to first forecast Cycle 24 and then trying to explain the dearth of sunspots, we should not declare the “minimum is over”.
Yes, we have “The One”, but does it mean that we won’t have another period of low or no activity?
It was only a few years ago, that the experts predicted a very intense Cycle 24 based on their “theories” and their proven accuracy in predicting the intensity of Cycle 23.
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast19oct98_1.htm
“Oct. 19, 1998: Scientists at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center appear to have done a good job of predicting Cycle 23 of the sunspot cycle.
“They expect Cycle 23 to continue until sometime in 2006 when the next cycle, Cycle 24, should begin.” (If you invert the 6 in 2006 … they were correct.)
Too bad the Sun wasn’t invested in the “proven” theory.
No expert predicted the late start of Cycle 24 or the deep quiet phase of the sun in all measurable energies.
We live in exciting Solar times … stay tuned for the conclusion of Cycle 24 … and, if possible, the complete Cycle 25.
Tallbloke: Do you know of any papers that describes that phenomenon, do you have any articles to back it up, just curious?
The oceans seem to be on the downslope temp. wise again according to UNISYS, with SST’s in the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and apparently the South Pacific winding down.
“Warmer water being “sucked up” to replace the Cooler Water, above?
That’s doesn’t pass the “huh?” test. The surface has to be warming as a result of the heat not being dissipated. It will, eventually, warm the cooler water farther down if it’s not dispersed. The quickest, most efficient way of doing this has got to be Storms.
Remember, the “Storm Index” has been very low for the last year, or so.”
The storm index has been very low for 30 odd years, I believe. I think of it this way. You have this enormous amount of liquid water with a tiny amount of gaseous water and other gases ( the atmosphere) between it and the terribly cold vacuum of space. Would the temperature of the gas control the temperature of the water? It doesn’t seem very intuitive. What controls the temperature of the water? Well, have you ever stood outside in the tropics on a cloudless day? Imagine all of that heat energy hitting the surface of the oceans. What happens next? Again… does the average temperature of the gas control the average temperature of the liquid?! Or maybe it’s the other way around? Surely the climate is a function of how the heat absorbed from sunlight by the oceans is transmitted back into space? Of course, the atmosphere effects how much heat gets to the surface of the ocean in the first place via cloudiness which in turn is strongly influenced by the surface temperature of the oceans… negative feedback?
bill (15:35:35) : The late small upturn is completely upstaged by the years-long, really big looking downtrend that preceded this minimum. Who knows if it will start going up at the rate it went down over the last several years??
Madman (17:58:33) You are on to something madman. The solar model was not able to call the length of this minimum and the current “forecast” amplitude of this cycle was revised downwards. If the people trying to model the Sun would just confess they don’t know any more than the tea-leaf reader down the street, they might have some credibility. But as it stands, you might as well ask a 5 year old … the answer will be as good or better.
This casual PDF might be of interest. Comes from ongoing things I am doing with a variety of data.
http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/radio_flux_a.pdf
Even with a few more cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, their effect on your body is probably minimal.
Radiation in small doses actually improves immune system function.
The effect is called hormesis. Hormesis is a general term. It means stress on the immune system improves its function. Some poisons do that as well.
Curiousgeorge (19:03:42) :
One obvious effect of the sun (and also the moon ) on this rock is gravity. That means tidal effects, not just on the oceans, but also the atmosphere and the mantle, etc. Has anybody bothered to plug that into a model?
Why do you call yourself CuriousGeorge?…
I don’t think that anybody has plugged tidal effects on the atmosphere and the mantle into their models. They probably haven’t plugged half of the things we know about into their models. And for sure they haven’t plugged any of the things we don’t know about yet into them…
In mid May we saw the strongest plage readings in over a year. On June first we saw the strongest x-ray background flux reading in 400 plus days.
The most recent group on the sun, Region 1024, produced as many flares as we had seen during the prior fifteen months. And the strongest at that. The group was also the largest in this time frame as well.
And people think it’s still going flatline with what has shown up in the past 60 days ? It’s going to be a quieter cycle and most realize this now. But Cycle 24 is not going to jump right up and start cranking out large sunspot regions and major flares on a daily to weekly basis.
“Warmer water being “sucked up” to replace the Cooler Water, above?” huh? test….ok.
Oh for crying out loud, there is but a little imagination required.
Warmer than the waters at the surface that have been blasted by the colder winds or cooled by extended winter. They then sink.
How else do you expect the ocean to get on the downslope temp?
“Ring…..ring….ring”
‘ Ocean control here’
“yeah, hey Neptune, Gore order #311b2 is to drop the water temp for the next 30 years, but not until the Master Agenda is in place.’
‘Hmpffhh. Whatever. Ok, I’ll get to it in a year or two’.
(heh..heh….heh… I’ll fix him.)
Leif Svalgaard (17:41:19)
What he probably meant was that SC24 has not yet produced any serious solar activity, no X-ray flares, for instance.
——————-
They haven’t really added up to a hill of beans but there have been some Cycle 24 flares.
Madman (17:58:33) :
“What if solar minimums and volcanic eruptions correlated??”
Maybe Ra is angry. Lets find a virgin and head for the volcano!
Jim Hughes (20:53:34) :
They haven’t really added up to a hill of beans but there have been some Cycle 24 flares.
Small ones, yes.
I am a big fan of this website and truly appreciate all of the contributions made here. I am far from any kind of expert on climate.
I have been watching proponents of AGW downplay solar activity. Eigil Friis-Christensen’s paper showed how much climate matched solar activity over the past 250 years up until early 1980’s. Then, according to warmers, we see temps climb while ‘solar activity dropped’, and that seems to be where warmers say carbon took over.
Can it really be said that ‘solar activity dropped’?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
It looks like the cycles that dominated the last 50 years of the 20th Century established an entire new baseline compared to previous cycles. Don’t we have to look at that baseline more that individual cycles? I can see S22 & S23 were a little lower, but just by eyeballing the baseline over 50 years… it looks like you would have to expect a continued increase in temps.
It sure takes some fancy footwork to downplay the solar input of the last half of the 20th Century. Isn’t it completely incorrect to say climate didn’t match solar activity for the last 50 – 60 years?
Here’s a neat, informative article on El Ninos, SOI, and Typhoons on Guam.
http://lumahai.soest.hawaii.edu/Enso/articles/2003%20Articles/2003MarPDN2.htm
Synopsis seems to be: El Nino brings rain, and Typhoons, followed by dry Spring. Maybe, Hurricanes the following year in the Atlantic.
When solar activity dropped a bit in the 80’s (compared to previous XX century activity, not to its 400 years of known history) , ENSO and PDO were in a warming phase. The sun influences climate but it is not the only thing that influences it. And we also have CO2, which has some influence as well (only much smaller than IPCC and its models consider). You can not play down the sun because of the late XX century. To do that you first need a good explanation for europeans Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age (I mean, something better than “just a local anomaly which happened to be coincidental with appropiate levels of solar activity”).
Okay. SC24 has begun. But what difference does it make?
The low activity level, compared to the last maximum, is continuing.
All signs seem to indicate the Earth is cooling, very lowly, but cooling.
CO2 is still rising. Which is the climate driver?
Those eras, Nylo, were in many places, not just Europe.
In the same way as an El Nino brings heavy rains to the Western US, it takes away the Monsoons for SE Asia. But, El Nino is short lived. PDO a little longer.
The eras, however are much longer, and then you have even longer time spans.
We shouldn’t be looking at such things as El Nino and PDO to explain the much longer eras, periods and epochs. They oscillate too quickly. Things that affect the Solar System environment, like the Sun, passing stars, comet swarms, Galactic clouds, spiral arms, etc. The Earth and it’s evirons do not exist in a vacuum.
Richard111 (23:42:25) :
Maybe a better question to ask is what things drive the multitude of climate cycles. Plural.
david alan (14:43:32) :
I am not a scientist.
Geoff Sherington:
I was, but I cannot understand why we are discussing sunspots. Do they form pixie dust and nucleate rainstorms?
J Gary Fox: Wrong. David Achibald has predicted exactly what is happening
Kum Dollison (16:49:05) :
Warmer water being “sucked up” to replace the Cooler Water, above?
That’s doesn’t pass the “huh?” test. The surface has to be warming as a result of the heat not being dissipated. It will, eventually, warm the cooler water farther down if it’s not dispersed. The quickest, most efficient way of doing this has got to be Storms.
I see a different chronology. The cooling tropospheric temps of the last months causes a greater differential between ocean surface temp and air temp. The air is also drier, permitiing faster emission of outgoing longwave radiation from the ocean, with less humidity and water vapour to stop it by reflecting it back. This allows a momentum of upward moving warm water heated and stored during the run of high amplitude-short minimum cycles to build. So we see the SST’s have been rising even as the lower tropospheric temps have been falling over the last few months.
Then air temps will rise, but the momentum built up in the upwelling warm water will keep going for a while until the newly warmed air slows it down again. This is what will produce the modoki el nino spike. Afterwards, the lowered ocean heat content will reduce it’s warming of the atmosphere above it and there will be a downward step change in global temperature. This is also what happened after the 2006 el nino.
Bob Tisdale’s graph of OLR confirms this. When the sun was strong and temps were rising, el nino’s correlate with downspikes in OLR, but since solar cycle 23 started winding down, the el ninos have been able to lose a lot more heat to space.
http://i25.tinypic.com/2035ed.png
Jason S. (21:10:49) :
I have been watching proponents of AGW downplay solar activity. Eigil Friis-Christensen’s paper showed how much climate matched solar activity over the past 250 years up until early 1980’s. Then, according to warmers, we see temps climb while ’solar activity dropped’, and that seems to be where warmers say carbon took over.
Can it really be said that ’solar activity dropped’?
No. Although the maximum amplitudes have been falling since the 60’s the minima between cycles has been short, so overall TSI incident on the earth was rising, and the oceans have been storing the extra heat. It’s the oceans which set the temperature of the atmosphere, not co2. There is more heat capacity in the top 2.5m of ocean than in the entire atmosphere above it.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=sst-nino-ssa.jpg
I haven’t run the calcs yet, but once I have, I’ll know what amplification factor is required to account for the extra heat inthe oceans. Then it’s up to Svensmark and friends.
Leif Svalgaard (17:41:19) :
In spite of how you interpret what Ken Tapping says it is plain that solar cycle 24 has begun:
Agreed. It’s just being weak and slow about it.
Please could you tell me where I can get a dataset of daily TSI covering 1993-2003.
Thanks
Gary Fox: Theodore Landscheidt also predicted the current solar low – by calculating the transfer of angular momentum from the giant planets to the sun’s spin – he predicted in the 1980s that the solar grand maximum would peak with cycle 22, and that cycle 23 would be about 30% down on 22, then 24 would be further down, moving with an 85% probability into a Maunder type minimum, and 15% Dalton type.
In a 2003 paper in Energy & Environment, he predicted that the 2002 El Nino would be the last significant ENSO event and that it would obscure the fall in ocean temperatures consequent on declining solar activity – until 2007, when global cooling would become apparent.
Landcheidt doesn’t get much credit – perhaps because he was not academic or institutional based physicist and he was also a competent astrologer (just like Newton and Galileo).
Roddy Baird and Peter Taylor.
Thank you both. You may find the discussion lower down this thread of interest on both ocean/air and SIM/precip.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/08/weve-never-had-frost-in-july/
Bill (17:10:14)
That’s just fine & dandy then, the Met Office KNOW EXACTLY how the sun works, & what effects it has on our planet’s climate, EXACTLY! Did they not write the script for the BBC doc on the Sun a while back now? – “NO ONE can explain WHAT EFFECT the POWER of the Sun has on OUR CLIMATE, but WHATEVER it is, IT’S ALREADY been overtaken by MANDMADE GLOBAL WARMING!” – Simples peoples! ‘A’ has an effect on ‘B’ but we don’t know what or how exactly, only roughly, yet mysteriously (through sophisticated technical processes, I expect) we know for a fact that ‘C’ overpowers ‘A’, regardless of the magnitude of either element. I don’t fink so! I am no scientist, but elementary physics suggests it foolhardy to rule it out of the equation just yet, unless for political objectivity!
BTW Peter Taylor;-)
I think they were both Astronomers as opposed to Astrologers? One talks sense, lives in the real world, & is modestly rewarded, the other talks bunkum, lives with the fairies, & earns a fortune! I know which one I’d rath…………………….. I think you’re going on a mysterious journey with a talk dark stanger! AtB
Wat’s likely to happen?
http://climaterealists.com/?id=3702
“Can it really be said that ’solar activity dropped’?”
Yes, it dropped from extremely strong sun cycle 22 to weaker 21, but 21st cycle is still stronger than majority of cycles since 1600s, see
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/195013/armaghcetssn.jpg
Remember that MWP was not caused by few extreme strong cycles, but many mediocre cycles not interrupted by weak cycles; the solar energy accumulated over times in the oceans.
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/195013/solanki2.jpg
Peter Taylor (03:07:13) : Thanks for that. This guy and his theory seem pretty remarkable. His theory is testable to the extend that it can make predictions that can be falsified. But from what I’m reading, his predictions have held up well. It is monumentally simple compared to the GIGO models used by the IPCC. Of course the climate is complex, but if the Sun is the driver of first order, that simplifies the task somewhat.
If any real climatologists are lurking about, what is your take on this?
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
Geoff Sherrington (01:57:17) :
I was, but I cannot understand why we are discussing sunspots. Do they form pixie dust and nucleate rainstorms?
The pixie dust is the galactic cosmic ray that seem to be stronger when TSI is low. Some how these GCRs can magically create clouds at low altitude (where they have a high albedo, and heat transfer from ground to space) where normal cloud condensation nuclei of which there is an abundance cannot.
CCN are abundant in the atmosphere and range from a few 10s per cubic centimeter over oceans and rural areas to tens of thousands per cubic centimeter in heavily urbanized areas. CCN are comprised of many natural and human made particles. They include dust, pollen, silicates (from soil), smoke particles and sea salt which is distributed into the atmosphere by oceanic wave action….With more condensation nuclei, the moisture available in a cloud is spread over more droplets. As a result, the droplets are smaller, the reflectivity of the cloud is increased, and precipitation may be delayed or reduced. Areas downstream from where the aerosols are produced can experience acid rain.
http://calipsooutreach.hamptonu.edu/pbl/pbl01-clouds.html
tallbloke (02:45:40) :
Can it really be said that ’solar activity dropped’?
No. Although the maximum amplitudes have been falling since the 60’s the minima between cycles has been short, so overall TSI incident on the earth was rising
Here is a plot to put this in perspective.
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/5881/tsi.jpg
A small change to the average TSI would of couse show smaller variation!!!!!!
tallbloke (02:55:57) :
Please could you tell me where I can get a dataset of daily TSI covering 1993-2003.
http://www.leif.org/research/download-data.htm
Peter Taylor (03:07:13) :
he predicted in the 1980s that the solar grand maximum would peak with cycle 22, and that cycle 23 would be about 30% down on 22…
J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19.
“ABSTRACT. The secular cycle of solar activity […] The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990. It will be more pronounced than the minimum in 1811.”
Ed Fix (18:06:20) :
Aw, c’mon. Quit picking on the poor sun. It’s trying as hard as it can to sprout spots!
Sunspot sprouts are as anemic as economic green shoots.
tallbloke (02:55:57) :
Please could you tell me where I can get a dataset of daily TSI covering 1993-2003.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
tallbloke – Thanks. I missed that. It’s good to know better minds are already on the job 🙂
If I were a betting man I’d say cycle 24 started more than a month ago. The bigger picture may involve solar changes different in type from recent solar cycles or perhaps of opposite sign. So the solar guys are in a wonderful position to observe and theorize and perhaps advance our knowledge.
bill (06:17:41) :
Geoff Sherrington (01:57:17) :
“I was, but I cannot understand why we are discussing sunspots. Do they form pixie dust and nucleate rainstorms?”
Take a look at the noctilucent cloud story over at SpaceWeather.com right now:
http://www.spaceweather.com/
“NOCTILUCENT STORM: Last night, after a two week intermission, noctilucent clouds returned to Europe in force. “It was one of the best displays of the summer,” reports Jan Koeman of Kloetinge, The Netherlands. “The beautiful rippling structure of the electric-blue clouds reminded me of the skin of a Great Blue Whale!” He took this picture using a Nikon D300:
Similar reports poured in from Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Scotland, Ireland, England and France. “They were so bright I could see them from one of the most light-polluted places one could imagine–the Brussels Ringway,” says Philippe Mollet, who made a movie of the clouds gliding over the urban heart of Belgium.
2009 has been a good year for noctilucent clouds–and that’s no surprise. Noctilucent clouds almost always surge during years of solar minimum. No one fully understands why, but here is a popular idea: Low solar activity allows the upper atmosphere to cool, promoting the formation of ice crystals that make up the clouds. Browse the gallery for observing tips and more snapshots from July 12th and 13th:
http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/images2009/12jul09/Jan-Koeman1.jpg?PHPSESSID=1hsbgpc1d0aerneemb261m59t5 ”
Yes, it appears that when the big ball of fire belches less fire there is an increase in “pixie dust” that appears to facilitate cloud formation and may impact Earth’s climate.
Leif, I haven’t seen any info on solar wind recently. Do you have a good chart on this? Has solar wind picked up as Cycle 24 has begun?
Leif Svalgaard (06:37:14) :
tallbloke (02:55:57) :
Please could you tell me where I can get a dataset of daily TSI covering 1993-2003.
http://www.leif.org/research/download-data.htm
Thanks Leif, and Tim Clark too.
I notice TSI isn’t correlating with sunspots as well as it was, any comment on that?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/mean:3/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1979/scale:0.006/offset:1365.5
There’s a range of around 1.7W in the last 6 years. Seems a bit more variable than it used to be. Do you think significantly lower TSI might be a feature of long minima?
bill (06:17:41) : So the Sun varies 0.07% compared to the CO2 concentration of 0.04%. Looks like the Sun wins 🙂
Roddy Baird (07:32:09) :
tallbloke – Thanks. I missed that. It’s good to know better minds are already on the job
Your sound intuition, logical reasoning and clear expression were a joy to read. Grab your calculator, pull up a spare polar bear and join us.
Why the huge difference in sunspot numbers in these two NGDC.NOAA sites.
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/AMERICAN_NUMBERS/2009
A curios amateur.
tallbloke (08:32:14) :
I notice TSI isn’t correlating with sunspots as well as it was, any comment on that?
Two reasons [and I have commented on those before]:
1) recent PMOD is wrongly calibrated
2) Recent Sunspot numbers are also wrong.
Leif Svalgaard (09:09:42) :
tallbloke (08:32:14) :
I notice TSI isn’t correlating with sunspots as well as it was, any comment on that?
Two reasons [and I have commented on those before]:
1) recent PMOD is wrongly calibrated
2) Recent Sunspot numbers are also wrong.
I haven’t managed to keep up to speed aon all the solar threads. I know there’s been a lot of discussion about over counting pores as sunspots so I guess the count should be lower. What about the PMOD though? What do you think is wrong with the calibration and is it too low in your opinion?
Jim (08:36:00) :
bill (06:17:41) : So the Sun varies 0.07% compared to the CO2 concentration of 0.04%. Looks like the Sun wins 🙂
the sun intensity is likely to remain within your figure of .07%. CO2 is not limited in such a manner. (I have not checked your figures!)
tallbloke (09:26:34) :
What about the PMOD though? What do you think is wrong with the calibration and is it too low in your opinion?
PMOD is too low now. Comparison with SORCE/TIM showed that PMOD was drifting lower since 2003. Claus Froehlich [in charge of PMOD] acknowledges this [in emails to me] and knows that the calibration is wrong. He has tried to correct it, but the correction was also wrong, so the bottom line is that PMOD is suspect. This whole topic is too large to discuss in a short comment, but I might do another article on this, although I’m waiting for Claus to figure out what went wrong.
To wet your appetite, here are some excepts from our email exchanges:
Leif: Apr.14, 2009: I notice a profound change. Before the difference between PMOD and SORCE was decreasing by 0.0177 W/m2 per year, now the decrease is a lot smaller 0.0036 W/m2. A year ago the decrease was 0.0186 W/m2 per year.
2009/4/14 Claus Fröhlich :
Yes, you may have noticed that the VIRGO data are now Version 6.002 and I changed an internal correction – I did this already in SF [at AGU]. A few years ago I found a linear trend between the corrected PMO6V and DIARAD time series and allocated it to DIARAD. At SF I realized that this was probably wrong and remembered also that the re-analysis I started 2 years ago and never completed showed that the corrections of PMO6V-B (the less exposed backup) was with the early increase as determined for PMO6V-A too much changing – so I attributed the trend to PMO6V and obviously got a smaller change relative to TIM, which was a kind of initiator of this whole action.
My reply:
Claus, a detailed comparison of SORCE and PMOD composite, shows good agreement in the details [not in trend] until 2008.6, but then PMOD becomes much more erratic, not in keeping with the dead quiet the Sun has been the past nine months:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202008.png
Claus: From that time on we have a problem with DIARAD I have not yet solved, but need to look into in much more detail – for the moment I used a simple correction, which may not be correct.
—-
Bottom line: let Claus correct his calibration before we jump to any conclusions.
Leif Svalgaard (10:49:03) :
tallbloke (09:26:34) :
What about the PMOD though? What do you think is wrong with the calibration and is it too low in your opinion?
PMOD is too low now. Comparison with SORCE/TIM showed that PMOD was drifting lower since 2003. Claus Froehlich [in charge of PMOD] acknowledges this [in emails to me] and knows that the calibration is wrong.
Leif, thanks for the detail. The correlation between sunspot numbers and TSI is very good until 2000, not long after the Acrimsat took over the portege of the sensors. Was the sun doing anything different, or has Claus generally had more problems with the Acrimsat mounted equipment than he did with the previous satellite platforms?
tallbloke (02:36:13) : I see a different chronology. The cooling tropospheric temps of the last months causes a greater differential between ocean surface temp and air temp. The air is also drier, permitiing faster emission of outgoing longwave radiation from the ocean, with less humidity and water vapour to stop it by reflecting it back.
I would only add that you left off ozone. This map of present conditions:
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/Curr_allmap_g.htm
currently shows fairly low levels all over the globe (nothing over 400 range, and large areas of the globe at 300 units or less; on a scale that ranges up to 625) while the anomaly map further down shows only one small area of over 10%+, the tropics at basically normal, and the poles at significantly low levels ( -30% at the S. Pole area).
Ozone is the only gas plugging the 9 to 10 micrometer “window” in the IR emissivity to any significant degree. It’s gone low, and the IR is leaving at the poles. Then the cold polar winds bring me The Big Blue Blob 😉
At least, that’s my working theory on ozone …
Yeah, it’s still a work in progress…
Oh, and on the issue of the planets causing some of this:
There is a neat “toy” that is basically a ball with a gyro in side of it.
http://www.powerballs.com/works.php?m=Works
You bob it up and down while twisting your wrist and the gyro spins up, eventually to the point of providing significant force against your hands and arms. There is also a paper being published in Russian that says that the PDO and similar ocean currents correlate with changes in the length of day. My speculation would be that something similar to the “toy” is going on.
As the planets and sun rotate around the combined center of mass and bob up and down out of the plain of the ecliptic and have precession going on, this causes a very small change of rotation rate that slops the ocean around and gives us the PDO flip, et. al. It all fits together nicely.
One Small Problem:
I’ve not been able to find any technical description of the exact order of motion that causes a gyro to spin up. Yeah, I can find the general gyro formulas, but stare at them as I might, I don’t see how to work them to make the gyro spin up from bobbing it around, yet that clearly does happen (existence proof of the “toy”). So I can’t get a “sanity check” by asking “does the earth move in that pattern, even if just a little bit?”. So this whole thing could be proven by a good fit of the formulas to the actual planetary motion, or shot down by a failure to fit; and I can’t see how to start cutting the clutter to see the answer. Never did like angular momentum problems… probably ought to have paid more attention in physics class 😉
If someone with better AM and gyroscope skills than mine can show this is a broken thought, I’d greatly appreciate the opportunity to let go of it. As it is, I can see the Gyro Spin Up Shiny Thing, but not make it go away, nor welcome it in… I suspect that there is something like a physical restraining of the poles of the gyro in the toy that does not hold for the planet that lets the toy spin up, but I just can’t prove it. Heck, I can’t even see how bobbing it around can change the spin rate… Sigh.
tallbloke (11:23:23) :
Leif, thanks for the detail. The correlation between sunspot numbers and TSI is very good until 2000, not long after the Acrimsat took over the portege of the sensors. Was the sun doing anything different, or has Claus generally had more problems with the Acrimsat mounted equipment than he did with the previous satellite platforms?
Too early to speculate. Let him correct his data first.
I have a question – a very, very naive question perhaps….
Does the Sun ever show signs of explosive sun spots? What I mean is, could the activity be building “sub surface” like a volcano for example? I know its a star, without a crust etc, but I was curious if the sunspot energy could be building and not be seen (because we’re not looking for it correctly).
I think the answer is probably no – sunspots don’t build and then “explode” – but I was curious.
“”” Kum Dollison (16:49:05) :
Warmer water being “sucked up” to replace the Cooler Water, above?
That’s doesn’t pass the “huh?” test. The surface has to be warming as a result of the heat not being dissipated. It will, eventually, warm the cooler water farther down if it’s not dispersed. The quickest, most efficient way of doing this has got to be Storms. “””
And just who is it that would be stopping the surface heat from being dissipated. Certainly the warmer (hypothesized) surface water would result in increased conduction to the atmosphere; it would also contribute to increased evaporative cooling from the surface;a dn finally, nobody is going to stop that warmer surface water from radiating at an increased rate.
So now where again is the blackage in the system ?
Chris Taylor (12:04:18) :
I think the answer is probably no – sunspots don’t build and then “explode” – but I was curious.
Sunspots do not explode, but the magnetic field in them and above them can be twisted up by motions of the solar plasma, and a twisted magnetic field can and does explode. A solar flare results.
The Coriolis and trade winds are connected. When trade winds die down or rev up, I wonder of the Coriolis has changed in some way to set this up. Or is this another example of one thing causing the other to begin and then the affect continues the cause?
Magnus
As a direct descendant (possibly) of King Canute, can I just point out that he was demonstrating that he didn’t have the power to halt the tides. Entirely the opposite of the hubris that is frequently attributed to him.
E.M.Smith (11:42:04) :
There is also a paper being published in Russian that says that the PDO and similar ocean currents correlate with changes in the length of day. My speculation would be that something similar to the “toy” is going on.
I’ve not been able to find any technical description of the exact order of motion that causes a gyro to spin up.
Tentative at this stage, but Paul Vaughan is doing interesting work with wavelet analysis on the chandler wobble, and has provided links to his graphs, and to lot’s of LOD and AAM related papers. There’s even a mention of the solar system b*#yc@ntre but mums the word.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/08/weve-never-had-frost-in-july/
towards bottom of thread.
Jim (06:00:16) :
Peter Taylor (03:07:13) : Thanks for that. This guy and his theory seem pretty remarkable. His theory is testable to the extend that it can make predictions that can be falsified. But from what I’m reading, his predictions have held up well. It is monumentally simple compared to the GIGO models used by the IPCC. Of course the climate is complex, but if the Sun is the driver of first order, that simplifies the task somewhat.
If any real climatologists are lurking about, what is your take on this?
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
I am no climatologist, but the hypothesis of spin orbit coupling has been covered extensively here and elsewhere. As you say, his theory is testable. It can be tested against
standard physical laws (gravity), and if you do that, it fails. See http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/
The long thread about that issue: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/
We may well be looking at a deep solar minimum like some have predicted. But if it happens, the mechanism to trigger it must be something else than spin orbit coupling.
I see we’re already back to zero sunspots:
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/sept/swcenter/sunspot.html
Surprise, or no surprise?
Pamela Gray (12:55:48) :
“The Coriolis and trade winds are connected. When trade winds die down or rev up, I wonder of the Coriolis has changed in some way to set this up. Or is this another example of one thing causing the other to begin and then the affect continues the cause?”
The Coriolis Effect is probably one of the worst taught phenomena in science. It is solely due to the spinning of the earth. Consider the earth and air at the equator. They travel the entire circumference of the earth west to east as the earth makes one full rotation – a speed that’s better that a thousand miles every hour. At the other extreme, the air/earth at the poles travel essentially zero as the earth rotates. So when air at a lower latitute (e.g., equator) moves to a higher latitude, it is traveling west to east faster than the air/earth at that higher latitude. So you have a west-to-east wind. Vice versa if the air is moving from a higher latitude to a lower one.
So unless the speed of earth’s rotation changes, then there is no change in the Coriolis.
If the trade winds die down, it is simply an indicator of a smaller north/south movement of air.
I was criticized for saying that, “No expert predicted the late start of Cycle 24 or the deep quiet phase of the sun in all measurable energies.”
That’s fair. Since I haven’t done a exhaustive review all solar scientists and their predictions, I should have been clearer and limited it to the “usual suspects” of the NASA and NOAA scientists who have been in the forefront of “official” predictions. They have been described by NOAA as, “an international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA”
Peter Taylor noted in his posting that
“Theodore Landscheidt also predicted the current solar low – by calculating the transfer of angular momentum from the giant planets to the sun’s spin – he predicted in the 1980s that the solar grand maximum would peak with cycle 22, and that cycle 23 would be about 30% down on 22, then 24 would be further down …”
I don’t think Landscheidt gets much credit … or deserves much credit for his predictions … since he made a ton of them using both astrology methods and mathematical analysis. The proven method of being accurate in forecasting is: Predict frequently.
If you believe in astrology and mysticism read Landscheidt many strange predictions using the Golden Ratio and Golden Section in the link below.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/consider.htm
Paul Jose in 1965 published a detailed analysis of the Sun-Jupiter Angular Momentum and the sunspot relationship using mathematic and no mysticism. This is a seminal work using recently available powerful computers to precisely demonstrate the relationship. I wonder how much the Mystic borrowed from Jose?
“Sun’s Motion and Sunspots” Paul Jose
The Astronomical Journal
Vol 10 Num 1 April 1965
Jose article is available at:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/n3lm39
For a non-mathematician I found two articles that were very helpful in helping me understand the effects of Angular Momentum and the Sun – Planets connection.
The first puts AM into very understandable terms.
“What figure-skaters, planets, and neutron stars have in common”
TinyURL.com/lkmjbk
The second is a comprehensive 2008 review of past work in this area and updates and discusses possible mechanisms of Solar System Angular Momentum. It also gives proper credit to pioneer Paul Jose.
“Does Spin Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?”
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2008, 25, 85–93
http://tinyurl.com/ncuj9k
It was only a few years ago, that the experts predicted a very intense Cycle 24 based on their “theories” and their proven accuracy in predicting the intensity of Cycle 23.
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast19oct98_1.htm
“Oct. 19, 1998: Scientists at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center appear to have done a good job of predicting Cycle 23 of the sunspot cycle.
“They expect Cycle 23 to continue until sometime in 2006 when the next cycle, Cycle 24, should begin.” (If you invert the 6 in 2006 … they were correct.)
—
Found a copy of that 1998 Solar Cycle 23-24 graph a few days ago: Predicting the minimum in 2006, and (now) in mid-2009 we “should have be” ramping well up towards the inflection point. Instead? One single, solo, isolated stable big spot the entire first half of the year.
Just The Facts (08:28:01) : 13 07
Pixie dust.
Sunspot counts correlate with some past global climate measurements.
GHG can be shown to have some plausible global climate effects.
Beware the illogical trap.
Leif Svalgaard (17:41:19) :
In spite of how you interpret what Ken Tapping says it is plain that solar cycle 24 has begun:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
What he probably meant was that SC24 has not yet produced any serious solar activity, no X-ray flares, for instance. But there can be no discussion that we are in SC24 right now. F10.7 is perhaps the cleanest indication, but also the ratio between SC23 and SC24 activity.
I agree..I think this is what he was trying to say…not that my opinion is important
Regarding Landscheidt 1981 publication vs. 1990s pubs vs. 2000+ pubs:
There is a clear progression in his work as his insights evolved. His progress did not die; rather he died. His work was not finished. Great care should be exercised in studying his works. For every stimulating idea, there is something that could really trip-up an unscrutinizing mind. His work is very-much worth studying, but I advise regarding it as an unfinished-starting-point for those with nearly-infinite-patience.
jtom (16:51:49) :
As I recall a couple years back they added a leap second.
Due to a very slight slowdown.
Re: rbateman (20:18:12)
Length of Day (LOD) time series can be obtained as follows:
Annual – RGO – 1623+:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html
Annual – Nasa JPL – 1832-1997:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/series/longterm/jpl_c.eop
Daily – IERS – 1962+:
http://www.iers.org/products/177/11221/orig/eopc04_IAU2000.62-now
More generally:
Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) series can be obtained via:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/
Important Note:
Measurement methods improved dramatically around 1960.
Strongly Recommended:
Plot the error estimates before working with the earlier data.
– –
Re: jtom (16:51:49)
Good way of explaining.
[snip] too much work to cut out the offending part ~ ctm
So does TSI include the energy transfer in ionospheric convection? Yah Im way over my head trying to figure this out..
Gary Fox (17:48:26) :
I don’t think Landscheidt gets much credit …
I wonder how much the Mystic borrowed from Jose?
Informative post but I think you are a little too hard on Landscheidt. He does credit Jose in several papers, much as Ian Wilson tips his hat to both Jose and Landscheidt. He is also to my knowledge in personal contact with the person who runs the Landscheidt document repository.
Regarding Landscheidt and the golden section. When many cycles and physical entities and phenomena in nature are found to contain the golden section, it’s not surprising he should take an interest. Discovering parallels between non-causally related phenomena to help derive general principles might not be the way mainstream science usually works, but that does not mean it is an invalid use of our capacity to apprehend insight.
In fact, many discoveries and scientific advances have been made in just this way. Newtons falling apple, Pasteur’s microbes, Einstein’s relativity, radio telegraphy, Edison’s electric light and many more.
These things are seen as logical progressions after the fact, when they have been codified into ‘science’, but they were a priori discoveries born from ‘mystical insight’ originally.
Landscheidt was a pioneer in his own way. To use his interest in astrology to dismiss him would be as foolish as Dismissing Newton for his interest in calculating a date for the creation, or his tendency to fool around with heavy metals and old alchemical textbooks at the equinoxes.
Anything goes.
tallbloke (00:59:42) :
Anything goes.
Eventually including this.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Solar_cycles.gif
I am not astrologer (occasionally labelled as such), just a realist looking a logic correlations.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ links for Solar Subcycle and Solar Current
Vukevic, I find your curves mathematically ingenious, but don’t understand how they relate to planetary motion. And I can’t get your website to load.
tallbroke (00:59:42)
Informative post but I think you are a little too hard on Landscheidt. He does credit Jose in several papers, much as Ian Wilson tips his hat to both Jose and Landscheidt. He is also to my knowledge in personal contact with the person who runs the Landscheidt document repository.
Your right tallbroke Landscheidt did give some credit to others. I was unaware that someone who has access to Landscheidt papers. Any idea of how to contact them ?
I’m guessing that Ian Wilson is also the same author of a paper that I read while visiting Carls Smiths webiste a couple of months back. (I recall the name Ian) It dealt with Jupiter and Venus and helieocentric latitudes and how this might play into things.
My only objection ? He claims it’s a new theory. I’ve been writing and speaking about the role of the importance of differential latitude for fifteen years now. And I even mention something about it in one of Landscheidt’s open forum discussion at John Daly’s website back in 2000. A snip of what I said….
” I based my Cycle 23 forecast on several things but one of my methods involves the actual latitudes of the planets. Conjunctions, oppositions, and alignments are also important but I have found the sharing of the same latitude to be very important. ”
And nobody to my knowledge had ever been considering the possible importance of this within the whole scheme of things. Not Landscheidt, Jose, Desmoulins , etc…
I even contacted Landscheidt on a couple of occasions through emails in hopes of him incorporating this into his own methodology but he was a little stubbborn and the talks basically got nowhere. A few others I contacted and sent some data to……Jean Pierre Desmoulins Jupiter-Venus sysmetry, Timo Niroma, Piers Corbyn, and of note within the solar field, Jo Ann Joeslyn, and the late Jack Eddy.
Oh and my Cycle 23 forecast didn’t hurt in the results department which is part of the science process. It was for a smoothed monthly peak of 115 and it ended up being 121. Which was closer than Landscheidt’s 105.
vukcevic,
I’m curious to know how you justify the “-3” in the “vukcevic formula” in:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1.gif
Ron de Haan (21:13:40) :
[snip] too much work to cut out the offending part ~ ctm
What offending part?
Thanks to all who took the time to answer my question regarding climate vs tsi.
Paul Vaughan (06:11:12) :
vukcevic,
I’m curious to know how you justify the “-3″ in the “vukcevic formula” in:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1.gif
Hi Paul,
The equation is basically same as the one used in tracking the periodicity of solar cycles. I subscribe to the Svalgaard, Schatten, Cliver method of cycles Rmax prediction., where polar fields just before cycle’s rump-up may intricate the cycle’s amplitude. This usually happens about 3 years prior to cycle’s max. Hence -3, keeping the reference year 1941 (or more precisely 1940.5) intact. There are three basic equations (polar fields/sunspot periodicity, SS anomalies and SS long term amplitude envelope), all feature this reference, while other parameters are orbital periods (or multiples) of two planets with the largest magnetospheres.
High correlation of all equations indicates that this is (hopefuly) a bit more than ‘just astrology’.
(p.s. astrology should be the correct name for the science that nowadays masquerades under the ‘star naming’ alias.)
Jim Hughes (05:11:40) :
Your right tallbroke Landscheidt did give some credit to others. I was unaware that someone who has access to Landscheidt papers. Any idea of how to contact them ?
I’m guessing that Ian Wilson is also the same author of a paper that I read while visiting Carls Smiths webiste
Jim, Carl passed away a couple of weeks ago, but the site is now under the care of Geoff Sharp. That is the Landscheidt document repository I referred to.
Last I heard Frau Landscheidt gave Theodor’s papers to a post grad student from Potsdam. I hope they turn up online sometime.
I like your take on my posting name. 🙂
Tau B00 has a magnetic cycle of about 2 years.
“This is the first detection of a magnetic cycle for a star other than the Sun. The role of the close-in massive planet in the short activity cycle of the star is questioned.
Two types of interactions (generically called Star-Planet interactions or SPI) were proposed to qualitatively explain the observations: magnetic and tidal interactions .
Magnetic interactions can induce reconnection events between the magnetic field lines of the star and those of the planet; the result is a modulation of the stellar activity with the orbital period.
Tidal interactions result in two tidal bulges on the star, and thus, enhanced activity will be modulated by half the orbital period. Potential phase lags (between the orbital conjunction and the epochs of activity variability enhancement) may result from the tilt of the magnetic axis relative to the rotational one.”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.4515v1.pdf
published 24/06/2009
Re: vukcevic (08:13:56)
Thanks for the notes vukcevic. You’ve inspired me to dust off a shelved wavelet investigation.
The flux once again has fallen to a 68.8 corrected (07/14 2000UT).
It would appear the flux resides on an baseline slightly elevated from the bottom.
Or, you could say that the side of the Sun that is inactive resides on the slightly elevated bottom.
Par for the course for the strange life of SC24.
In reviewing the comments on Landscheidt, I want to caution those studying his work to pay very careful attention to his struggle with mysterious phase relations. Landscheidt was seeing mysterious shadows of complex multivariate phase relations and at the time of his death he had still (regrettably) not managed to publish a final product. For those of you trying to reconcile his struggle with phase relations and his (early-stage) prediction of a minimum in 1990, I encourage you to consider alternate indices of solar activity, some of which are in ~anti-phase with those to which we normally pay attention. For example, one easy-to-discover solar index which reached a minimum in November 1990 is the absolute magnitude of the rate of change of sunspot number (on a log scale – shifted by +1 to avoid the singularity at log(0)). Applying variance-stabilizing transforms and differencing is not trickery; it is basic data analysis. Landscheidt was learning from his mistakes as time passed, something which is evident to a fair & patient judge tracing the development of his ideas. A major theme in Landscheidt’s work is that “things flip upside-down” — an interesting challenge is to investigate the complex, multivariate conditioning variables at play. It is important to stress that it would be a serious failure in judgement to regard Landscheidt’s works as a final product.
timbrom (13:40:25) : “As a direct descendant (possibly) of King Canute, can I just point out that he was demonstrating that he didn’t have the power to halt the tides. Entirely the opposite of the hubris that is frequently attributed to him.”
I’m sorry. I’m afraid I knew that. :I Sorry for a post with a picture used like if I was an AGW:er, or a tabloid, trying to reach highest effect no matter the truth. An immorality which may be the problem of our society?!
Waxman-TheSuperstitiousPeoplePeopleCanuteRuled bill. Decent pic:
http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/29500/29542/canute_29542_lg.gif
😉
Tallbloke ( 13:06:45)
Jim, Carl passed away a couple of weeks ago, but the site is now under the care of Geoff Sharp. That is the Landscheidt document repository I referred to.
Last I heard Frau Landscheidt gave Theodor’s papers to a post grad student from Potsdam. I hope they turn up online sometime.
I like your take on my posting name. 🙂
———-
TallnRich , Like it better ? 🙂
Thanks. Maybe we’ll be able to see all of his work one day. Even the controversial stuff that he may have laid low with after gaining some proper recognition.
I heard about Carl and I send my condolences to his family and friends. We had a couple of minor exchanges over at eastern some time back but nothing lengthy. But I also was never aware of his interest about the planets and how they effect the solar cycle.
What would the Sun look like, bare of sunspots, for a year ? What records do we have for a spotless year ? In 1810, Galileo & Co. were peering through earth observed telescopes. 200 years ago ! The data which to observe the sun now is fantastic. Sattellites beam data back to earth and display a wide array of solar spectrums for eager scientists to foam at the mouth over. And what is the verdict ? We don’t have a clue. Spew names all you want. Livingston & Penn. Michael Mann. Timo Niroma (my favorite). David Hathaway. etc… Dead or alive, the scientific community desperately wants answers to ageless questions. I just want one answered. What would the sun look like , now, with virtually no sunspots for a year or more? How does the sun go quiet? Should it be significant? Many jobs are at stake over these questions and that is a shame. When the world leaders in science should come together, they drift farther and farther apart. The sun is made up of layers of different activities. On the surface, plasma boils. Above it , temperatures rise dramatically. below it , a layer of magnetic fields bounce around in a cavity above the suns convection zone. For most of the recent recorded history, we haven’t seen the sun display such low level of activity. What if it continues? What effect, if any, will that have on the suns many different layers of activity? The one layer that intrigues me the most is the magnetic field. From fewer or more evenly flowed perturbences below the magnetic field, how would that magnetic field react? Magnetic fields have energy and that energy has to go somewhere. If not vertically, what about horizontally. Recently, I started reading up on solar magnetic flux tubes. Facinating stuff. With these tubes flattening out and lengthening, a huge amount of energy must be flowing through it. Enough to perhaps flow in a opposite direction than the suns orbit ? That’s all. Just answer that one little question. – David Alan –
david alan (03:59:43) :
That’s all. Just answer that one little question.
I count seven question marks. Which one is ‘that one little question’?
david alan (03:59:43) :
How does the sun go quiet?
When the several spoons which stir the porridge all stir against each other, the bowl swings round off centre and nothing gets properly mixed.
What would the sun look like , now, with virtually no sunspots for a year or more?
Like it looks right now, only instead of two 60+ virtually spotless day runs in 2008-9, there would be one 365 day virtual spotless run.
Interrupted only by a few Tiny Tim Mirage Spot rabbits somebody pulled out of a hat of a million pores on the face of the sun.
Yep, not much “ramping up” if you ask me.
As humanity is conned by virtual heat, the real world is confronted with real cold in the midst of summer in many places.
I know it’s only weather and it’s not the fault of the sun!
Are we still learning something or is it our oceans and a few burps caused by some of mother earth’s volcano’s?
Is it time to start with a clean sheet en try to explain what we observe.
Leif Svalgaard (07:59:44)
I count seven question marks. Which one is that one little question?’ Leif, Just the first question. ‘What would the sun look like ,bare, without sunspots?’ I know I raised many questions, my apologies. I do that. I’m just curious how the sun will look in a couple of years. Was it L&P (whom I respect) that suggested sunspot activity to cease altogether ? And then of course we got NASA stooges , (was it Hunt & Hill?) , blathering about ramped up solar jet streams , ready to kick off a firestorm of sunspots. If Livingston & Penn are right and let’s say NASA got it partly right, in six months or so or more, our sun might be the smoothest anyone has ever seen it. What I’m suggesting is this: Solar Electro-Magnetic Fields may be evolving in a way not before seen. With predictions about global cooling and jovian influences on our sun, I’m just curious what anomalies will form on the suns surface. I would like to see a few scientists with some mad skills render graphically their interpretations of solar events pertaining to a soon to be reached grand minima. – David Alan –
david alan (16:26:59) :
‘What would the sun look like ,bare, without sunspots?’
Like it does today, right now.
My colleagues and myself have assembled several lines of evidence that together suggest that the Sun at minimum resemble the Sun as a Grand Minimum, i.e. that there are no ‘new’ and unexpected phenomena that show up: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470
There are some 4000 comments to that thread [and its sequels], so some answers to further questions you might have could be buried in that mass.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotCyclePeriodLR1.PNG
Correction:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotCyclePeriod.PNG
“Jim, Carl passed away a couple of weeks ago”
Sorry to hear this. Carl predicted December 2008 as month of 24 minimum July 2007 and contributed expertly here at WUWT on a number of climate matters.
Leif Svaalgard ( 20:16:12 ) ‘there are no new and unexpected phenomena that show up.’ …… Well Mr. Svaalgard, I just can’t accept that. At least not yet. I encourage anyone with interest to observe an unexplained phenomena occuring now ,on or over, the face of our sun. Back on May 15, 2009 sunspot 1017 emerged and disappeared shortly there after. 2 months later , if you take a look at todays SOHO MDI (enlarged) images and study the location where ar11017 originated, you will see a defined dark speck. That dark speck has not moved for 2 months. Using http://www.spaceweather.com ‘s archived SOHO MDI images from the last 60 days , each image shows the same speck ! Now I’ve been waiting for any clarification as to the nature of its design. Could it be a MDI glitch ? Or an asteroid ? Or something else ? After 2 months of personal research, and still no clarification from any person or agency, I assume that either it truly is a solar phenomena or a unexplained reason not yet cited. Until some explanation is givin , I’m goin to go with solar phenomena. I’ve recently read hundreds of scientific articles dealing with solar activity and one regarding independent solar magnetic flux rings really jumped out at me. A terminological discription, that best suits my theory on this yet proven solar phenomena , is known as a ‘Serpents Head’. So while I wait for confirmation as to the nature of the speck (about the size of mars) on the suns surface, I am goin to assume that this grand minima has a lot more to offer than meets the eye. – David Alan –
david alan (16:18:01) :
“That dark speck has not moved for 2 months.”
Dark spot at 10 o’clock is a dead pixel on CCD chip and hopefully will be eliminated during next burnout.
Sorry to top-post but today we have a cycle 23 sun speck on the disk. The solar flux stands at 68 with 8+ days of spotless sun. Not much sign of a cycle 24 yet.
Leif Svalgaard, If this goes on for another year, and that must seem unlikely, what would that tell us about cycle 24? At what point would you say we are seeing something new?