Leif Svalgaard writes:
Some speculation that solar cycle 25 has already begun:
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf
Graph source: NASA News
This would be stunning, because it suggests that the sun has skipped a solar cycle (#24) . Researchers, three from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the other from Marshall Space Flight Center-NASA, have published a paper that suggests this possibility.
Does a polar coronal hole’s flux emergence follow a Hale-like law?
A. Savcheva1, J.W. Cirtain2, E.E. DeLuca1, L. Golub1
ABSTRACT
Recent increases in spatial and temporal resolution for solar telescopes sensitive to EUV and X-ray radiation have revealed the prevalence of transient jet events in polar coronal holes. Using data collected by the X-Ray Telescope on Hinode, Savcheva et al. (2007) confirmed the observation, made first by the Soft X-ray Telescope on Yohkoh, that some jets exhibit a motion transverse to the jet outflow direction.
The velocity of this transverse motion is, on average, 20 kms−1. The direction of the transverse motion, in combination with the standard reconnection model for jet production (e.g. Shibata et al. 1992), reflects the magnetic polarity orientation of the ephemeral active region at the base of the jet. From this signature, we find that during the present minimum phase of the solar cycle the jet-base ephemeral active regions in the polar coronal holes had a preferred east-west direction, and that this direction reversed during the cycle’s progression through minimum.
In late 2006 and early 2007, the preferred direction was that of the active regions of the coming sunspot cycle (Cycle 24), but in late 2008 and early 2009 the preferred direction has been that of the active regions of sunspot cycle 25. These findings are consistent with the results of Wilson et al. (1988) that there is a high latitude expansion of the solar activity
cycle.
Full paper here:
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard (13:29:02) :
…It is fun to see how some people will go off on a tangent on this and deduce all kind of weird things, and ‘what did I tell you’…
Well… That’s what I told you. Heh! Read my post at:
Nasif Nahle (13:23:02)
Dear Leif,
“It is fun to see how some people will go off on a tangent on this and deduce all kind of weird things”
Simply curious, simply asking. Was my post re Jan Janssens’s pdf totally far off?
If yes, it’s enough if you write “RTFM, KlausB”.
Best Regards
KlausB
I construe this to be evidence that the current solar sunspot minimum is more similar to the Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715 than to the Dalton Minimum of 1790 to 1820 (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ssn_yearly.jpg).
Skipped cycles seem an obvious possibility for the Maunder Minimum, despite the Wolf numbering system adopted. In contrast, there were no apparent skipped cycles in the Dalton Minimum.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:26:18) :
In any case, this could not be more exciting.
Small emerging or ephemeral dipoles have been observed for decades, but our knowledge of their orientation has been limited to lower latitude areas because the magnetic field is very difficult to measure in the polar caps, so we don’t really know if the same distribution of orientations exist everywhere [as we usually assume when we don’t know any better]. The new result in this paper is that the jets might be used to measure the orientation, because they should start at the speck with an orientation opposite to that of the polar field and then with time move away from the reconnection site towards the other opposite polarity speck [see their Figure 3 cartoon]. This allows them to assess the orientation.
“…unfortunately, we have not yet the capability of registering such changes in stars because we only perceive them as dots, even with high resolution telescopes.”
Here is some very interesting information about what it would take to image stars and how far advanced Nasa is with a stellar imaging project.
http://hires.gsfc.nasa.gov/si/
Regards
Michael
Leif Svalgaard-we live in interesting times indeed,just from my own vague understanding,what they say in the paper is a very short cycle24? if so, wasn’t the predictions for cycle 25-due to the slowing Solar conveyor to be some what of how to put it-a dud?
Good thing I’ve go more material for expanding my greenhouse…
The link I provided above was no longer active when I tried to go to it again. Please try:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Ssn_yearly.jpg
Did not Daviid Aechibald mutter something about the the length of a solar cycle having a bit to do with have cold it could be, (the longer the colder as I undersatnd it) If cycle 24 was only a few months then we we should be geting very warm. The warm thing I have not noticed.
Yes!!! This is what I was talking about on another thread, about 4 days ago a magnetic signature was stirring at high latitude and although it produced no spots, it was clearly visible on the magnetogram among the “background noise” as Cycle 23 but at such latitude could it have been cycle 25?
“Zer0th (12:46:08) :
So any apparent #23’s (like the tiny spot on 07/23 that didn’t make the grade) *could* be #25’s, speculatively?”
That spot was likely 23 because it was on the equator.
Come on Leif, I don’t see any health warning in the paper that this is all speculation based on very little data?
If this paper is correct, would it mean that polarity would not reverse between cycle 23 and the next cycle? That’d be weird.
We had a couple of Italian contributors a couple of months back who also suggested that cycle 24 might be skipped, based on something like “migration toward the equator” if memory serves (I sure didn’t understand and there wasn’t any detail). Does anyone know how to get back to their comments, and how to get their reactions to this paper?
We know Hathaway’s 2006 prediction for the early start and high strength of sunspot cycle #24 were wrong – he himself subsequently delayed his predicted start by about two years and cut the expected strength in half. Why should we accept his 2006 predictions that #25 will be very weak if it is based on the same type of modeling assumptions as his wrong predictions for #24?
Historic data indicates long solar cycles tend to be weaker than average short ones tend to be stronger. If #24 has come and gone within the past year or so, why wasn’t it really strong?
Odd-numbered cycles have different polarity from even-numbered cycles, which is why some speculate the recent “almost” sunspot could either be a left-over from #23 or the start of #25. How long have scientists been able to measure the polarity of sunspots? Are we sure that the previously numbered sunspot cycles from over a hundred years ago actually do have alternating polarities?
During previous minima, have sunspots from the old cycle intermixed with those from the new cycle or has there always been a clean transition (at least for those minima where scientists could measure polarity so they knew to which cycles the spots belonged) ?
The possibility the Sun has skipped cycle #24 seems like an extraordinary speculation which would require some extraordinary proof. However, if it turns out to be true, it seems it would throw nearly all solar models into question. If, as many of us believe “It’s the Sun, stupid”, that would throw virtually all IPCC climate models into question and invalidate arguments for AGW-dominated climate change.
*****************************
Leif Svalgaard (13:29:02) :
“Perhaps the model is not quite right”
********************
Given the success of models of complex systems, this one gets my vote.
Re: Bill Illis (12:37:57)
Bill, there’s a very recent update on that story:
Usoskin, I.G; Mursula, K.; Arlt, R.; & Kovaltsov, G.A. (2009). A solar cycle lost in 1793-1800: early sunspot observations resolve the old mystery. The Astrophysical Journal 700, L154-L157.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/apjl_700_2_154.pdf
–
Also possibly of interest:
Zolotova & Ponyavin (2007). Was the unusual solar cycle at the end of the XVIII century a result of phase asynchronization? Astronomy & Astrophysics 470, L17-L20.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2007/30/aa7681-07.pdf
This is a joke, no?
A follow up to the paper Bill Illis refers to, a paper published today – Cycle 4 (1784–1799) was actually two shorter cycles of 9 and 7 years – a ‘normal’ one and a very weak one. “A SOLAR CYCLE LOST IN 1793–1800: EARLY SUNSPOT OBSERVATIONS RESOLVE THE OLD MYSTERY”
http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/arlt2.pdf
Ot but its snowing in Santiago Chile (AGAIN!). SBS Australia news
More evidence that something may have influenced the Sun from behaving like it has usually for the last two to four centuries. Very interesting indeed.
Sky and Telescope has an article about the Sun this month. I’m sure the author will be lambasted by so-called experts. But the fact is, if there were experts who understood the Sun sufficiently, the article wouldn’t need to have been written.
I’m guessing that it’s s leftover from 23, and we still have 24 to get going. Since the sun doesn’t affect the earth’s climate, I’m not worried.
On the good side, at least it’s not anthropogenic.
Meanwhile, we’re having another long run of spotless days. No sign here of either cycle 24 or cycle 25:
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/sept/swcenter/sunspot.html
Curiousgeorge (13:22:39) : “…What can we expect from the various media and the general public regarding the supposed skipped cycle? No doubt the Ice Age contingent will be out in force. ;-)”
From the media? “CO² Cause of Solar Inactivity, Scientists Say.”
From the general public? “Solar cycles? Great! Can you ride ’em on the freeway at night?”
From the Warmist Willies: “We don’t know what this means, but we’re sure it’s worse than we thought.”
If you look back at the Maunder minimum, the solar cycles were not very distinct and confused. It’s quite possible that this erratic behavior is normal.
Maybe — The sun just runs out of juice and rests for a 100 years or so.
Why should it matter, the sun has no effect of the climate of the cooling earth.
I keep saying – the Sun has shifted into reverse, we’re going back to Cycle 23. Of course, no one takes me seriously, which is a Good Thing.
Given the short history of these measurements, let’s not rush too quickly to settled science, but it’s another thing worth watching.
The fascinating times continue!