Many commenters have mentioned “The Watts Effect”, whereby within a short period of time after I do a post about the sun on WUWT mentioning the lack of sunspots, one appears.
I figured it was time to settle the issue with a test, a big one. The sun is blank, here is my post. We are about to break the monthly calendar record (again) for a calendar month without sunspots. Ironically this last occurred in August 2008. Depending on whether you believe NOAA or SIDC in Belgium about whether a sunspeck noted by one observatory (Catainia in Italy) was a valid sunspot or not determines if August 2008 was a sunspotless calender month or not. Let’s hope neither Catainia, SIDC, or my nefarious and dubious spot producing solar powers spoil this run.
But wait, there’s more.
This was in Spaceweather.com today:
Inspect the image below. It is a photo of the sun taken by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). Can you guess what day it was taken? Scroll down for the answer.
August 28th, today. But it could have been taken on any day of the past seven weeks. For all that time, the face of the sun has looked exactly the same–utterly blank.
According to NOAA sunspot counts, the longest string of blank suns during the current solar minimum was 52 days back in July, Aug. and Sept. of 2008. If the current trend continues for only four more days, the record will shift to 2009. It’s likely to happen; the sun remains eerily quiet and there are no sunspots in the offing. Solar minimum is shaping up to be a big event indeed.
=========
Here’s the count as of August 30th:
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 51 days
2009 total: 193 days (80%)
Since 2004: 704 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
Leif Svalgaard (12:51:57) :
So why if you, Cliver and Kamide 2005; Schatten and Tobiska 2003, Duhau 2003, Wang 2002 and Badalyan 2001, were all predicting lower solar activity for the coming cycle(s), were NASA/MSFC/Hathaway only pushing the predictions of Tsirulnik 1997, and Hathaway and Wilson 2004 for a highly active solar cycle 24?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/solarcycleupdate/ssn_predict_l.gif
Why have NASA, the Marshall Space Flight Center and David Hathaway failed to provide the public with an accurate representation of the uncertainty and differing predictions associated with the forthcoming solar cycle?
We are currently having a .8 to 1.1 total reduction Sat vs Earth measurement. (uncorrected-actual)
Use that magical talent to find the bones of Judge Crater or gaydar for the RNC.
“Observed:
Lower cloud bases, even during warm summer days.”
Thanks for the note on cloud heights. This morning we had freeze/frost warnings a couple of hours north with a High dropping in. Now, with the declining sun, the sky is almost white with a nearly solid cirrus cover. Unusual for an August high.
The last clear blue skies I recall were those of a very hot June 2007. By Sept. PDO had flipped and even frigid, dead-still Jan. mornings have had a whitish haze to them here in the absence of cirrus.
Add to that Bateman’s drop in solar faculae by an order of magnitude with regard to other minimums and I’d say we have some cold years in the pipeline.
[snip OT should be in the tip and notes]
“Purakanui (13:20:42) :
I wonder if there’s not something in this idea of deep solar minimum and seismic activity? New Zealand gets a lot of earthquakes, usually small to almost undetectable.
However, in the last few months, we have had a run of quite big ones. A month or so ago, we had the biggest for over 80 years, in a remote part of Fiordland, felt throughout the South Island; significant aftershocks keep on coming. There was a swarm of unsettling quakes around Rotorua in the North Island and now Wellington has just had a big quake that residents describe as ‘the worst in 35 years’.
This is probably just coincidence, but it does seem that there have been quakes in the news much more than is usual. Nothing from the volcanoes, yet, though.”
And that region is now about 1 metre closer to Australia. The Earth is wonderful, and we are insignificant.
I meant to add too, Wellington suffers quakes all the time. A few years back there was a quake swam, a good few each day, over some weeks. A poster in a blog was trying to convince people that this, in a quake prone zone, was “unusual” and climate change was responsible.
I had to laugh…
I can just imagine that it takes a while after crustal contraction weakening due to whatever is going on (cooling, etc.) because of Deep Solar Minima for the Magma to wend it’s way to the surface.
If indeed that is the correct way to look at it.
Maybe someday someone will get inspired to post a study about it.
Bill H (14:14:34) :
Maybe I should qualify my statement as TSI as measured by satellite vs TSI measured at the earths surface…is a total reduction of .6-1% (average atmospheric reduction was 0.286 over 2000-2005 time period)
You need to define what you mean by ‘reduction’ [I may have misunderstood you].
Just The Facts (14:15:32) :
Why have NASA, the Marshall Space Flight Center and David Hathaway failed to provide the public with an accurate representation of the uncertainty and differing predictions associated with the forthcoming solar cycle?
NASA had become a victim of their own overhyped press releases. Check Dikpati and Gilman and Flux Transport.
Internally NASA is relying on our prediction, e.g. in their decision to not de-orbit the Hubble.
The polar and toroidal fields shown at lmsal/latest_events are currently in the sun’s “thrusting down her uplifted skirt” fashion, characteristic of the remotest plumb of ‘solar minimum’.
Leif Svalgaard (19:35:04) :
“NASA had become a victim of their own overhyped press releases.”
There does seem to have been an improvement recently, e.g. in the May 29, 2009 press release:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
“New Solar Cycle Prediction” seems like an appropriate title and “If our prediction is correct” seems like a reasonable way to caveat the forecast. It would be nice if the NOAA/SWPC forecast chart offered several additional cycle predictions in order to help demonstrate uncertainty and a range of potential outcomes. However, I much prefer the NOAA/SWPC forecast chart to the one that NASA/MSFC/Hathaway use, with the big, dopey, distracting, really active sun in the background.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
Leif Svalgaard (19:35:04) :
Bill H (14:14:34) :
Maybe I should qualify my statement as TSI as measured by satellite vs TSI measured at the earths surface…is a total reduction of .6-1% (average atmospheric reduction was 0.286 over 2000-2005 time period)
You need to define what you mean by ‘reduction’ [I may have misunderstood you].
Reduction = Total sum loss of energy when passing through a defined space. in this case the earths atmosphere.
When you look at TSI at the outer edge of the atmosphere and calculate the loss that occurs between that point and the earths surface you will get a factor (percentage) of the whole. Some of this energy is absorbed by particulate matter in the atmosphere and some is reflected back into space. The calculation of energy reflected back into space is the one were after because that is heat loss increase for the planet.
I look at it like this…
The Sun is fairly static because of its reaction. there are things that can cause it to fluctuate by 0+-2% but most of those would be catastrophic for the earth and its inhabitants. With the sun operating at about 1385 w/m^2 there must be some other function that drives the earths systems. Solar Gravity Fields (solar wind) is what controls the amount of Ion radiation (cosmic rays) that the earth is bombarded with. the higher the stream flow the lower the ion reactions in earths atmosphere.
SO the sun controls the flow of Ions which increase or decrease lower cloud formation and albedo (reflection of energy). we must quantify WHAT THE TOTAL LOSS THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE IS GIVEN EACH SOLAR PHASE.
In 2000 through 2005 the average was .286% loss. Since 2007 that loss has steadily increased in relation to increased cloud formation.. Roughly .22% Cloud increase to .1%TSI reduction at the earths surface. SO our 2.6% increase of lower cloud formation has resulted in a .6-1% TSI reduction at the earths surface…
We want to document what the effects of differing states of solar activity cause within the earths atmosphere. By determining solar levels at the atmospheres edge and surface of the earth simultaneously.
This minima is rather interesting. It has allowed us to investigate cosmic ray interference and its total effect on the earths atmosphere. It has also shown that CO2 is not the driver many think it is. As it continues i expect to get many answers to questions about how and why certain actions on the sun create changes on the earth…
Has everyone got their winter clothing together.? Geese flying south already… Deer have shed their Velvet 2 weeks ago, and heavy fur on the puppy’s….
Bill H (21:27:09) :
In 2000 through 2005 the average was .286% loss. Since 2007 that loss has steadily increased in relation to increased cloud formation.. Roughly .22% Cloud increase to .1%TSI reduction at the earths surface. SO our 2.6% increase of lower cloud formation has resulted in a .6-1% TSI reduction at the earths surface…
Thanks Bill, do you have a link or resource showing how these measurements are taken?
“The Watts Effect” has failed to live up to its reputation. Stereo behind is looking very still with nothing on the horizon showing any potential.
Instead maybe we could build a huge bon fire, drink too much and dance naked trying to appeal to the Sun god. Somehow I think we might be doing a lot of dancing over the next 20 years, but the fire will come in handy.
(More) typo’s? Bill H, where is
“With the sun operating at about 1385 w/m^2”
coming from?. Depending on whom is quoted, PMOD, TIM (SORCE), VIRGO etc, I get about ~1361 to ~1366 w/m^2.
Bill H (21:44:00) :
What general part of the continent are you in that you see geese flying south?
Coming up to 52 spotless days according to spaceweather.com.
Bill H (21:27:09) :
In 2000 through 2005 the average was .286% loss. Since 2007 that loss has steadily increased in relation to increased cloud formation.. Roughly .22% Cloud increase to .1%TSI reduction at the earths surface. SO our 2.6% increase of lower cloud formation has resulted in a .6-1% TSI reduction at the earths surface…
This still does not make sense. Try again.
To think that other info suggests reduced cloud forming [with the same or increased vapor] thus increased insolation to include with damaged ozone layer, more UV penetration. Cooler stratosphere also suggests more heat retention. And HadCRUT giving the JJA quarter a prelim 3rd warmest on record. Yes it must be cooling, but I’ve not found where and how global.
denial from liberals won’t change reality…
Sekerob (07:18:15) :
You are suggesting that the atmosphere is a one-way valve headed for the heat of Venus??
Bill H (21:27:09) : “TSI reduction at the earths surface…”
Do you mean insolation? If so it would be less confusing if you said it that way. If not, could you explain the difference.
Geoff Sharp (23:17:43) :
“The Watts Effect” has failed to live up to its reputation. Stereo behind is looking very still with nothing on the horizon showing any potential.
Instead maybe we could build a huge bon fire, drink too much and dance naked trying to appeal to the Sun god. Somehow I think we might be doing a lot of dancing over the next 20 years, but the fire will come in handy.
=============================================
I suspect many of the readers here will be long dead before we see sc24 maximum…that’s why leif acts a bit nervous trying to hold his upward trend in his graph with ghost spots…
Sekerob (07:18:15)
more heat retention…where?, because, as you know, the atmosphere has a volumetric heat capacity of 0.001297 J cm-3 K-1 and water 4.186 (3227 times more than the atmosphere). The atmosphere hardly keeps any warm.