After an exciting encounter last week with some genuine sunspots that weren’t arguable as specks, pores, or pixels, the sun resumes its quiet state this week.
People send me things. Here’s the latest email from Paul Stanko, who has been following the solar cycle progression in comparison to previous ones.
Hi Anthony,
Out of the numbered solar cycles, #24 is now in 7th place. Only 5, 6, and 7 of the Dalton Minimum and cycles 12, 14, and 15 of the Baby Grand Minimum had more spotless days. Since we’ve now beaten cycle #13, we are clearly now competitive with the Baby Grand minimum.
Here’s a table of how the NOAA panel’s new SC#24 prediction is doing:
November 2008: predicted = 1.80, actual = 1.67 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 83.7)
December 2008: predicted = 1.80, actual = 1.69 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 84.7)
January 2009: predicted = 2.10, actual = 1.71 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 73.2)
February 2009: predicted = 2.70, actual = 1.67 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 55.6)
March 2009: predicted = 3.30, actual = 1.97 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 53.8)
April would require the October data which is still very incomplete. If this analysis intrigues you, I’d be happy to keep you updated on it. Please also find a couple of interesting graphs attached as images.
Paul Stanko
Here’s the graphs, the current cycle 24 and years of interest are marked with a red arrow:
And how 2008/2009 fit in:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ed (20:40:26) :
I would be interested in the geomagnetic data you refer to.
“There are data ‘out there’ on this. I’ll do some digging”
Here is some more on this and some further pointers:
http://igpphome.ucsd.edu/~cathy/Publications/Preprints/dipole.pdf
Geoff Sharp (04:07:44) :
John Finn (01:17:31) :
Your temperature sample is based on an average of 17 stations….do you think that is enough to go on when determining world temperature trends?
And you have what exactly to show that the Dalton Minimum was a particularly cold period in history? I accept that some regions could remian warm even during a prolonged global cold period, but I think we’d be somewhat unlucky if locations with the only recorded temperatures of the period to be in the non-cooling regions. In any case, there is a heavy bias towards european locations. This is where the LIA supposedly had most effect. All the anecdotal stuff talks about Napoleons march from Moscow and the Thames frost fairs, etc, etc. The fact that the Thames froze many times both before and after the Dalton Minimum (it even froze for 14 weeks in the MWP) and the Germans faced bittely cold conditions in Russia in WWII shows that events such as these were not limited to the Dalton Minimum.
Leif Svalgaard (04:39:02) :
People who claim that there was a significant temperature minimum during the Dalton will have to produce their worldwide records to show us.
This area is extremely shaky, I wouldn’t be putting my reputation on it. Some of the stations show a 2 deg fall during the Dalton, others dont. Proxy records are all over the place, this webpage will give you any result you want, just pick the graph that suits your cause.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord.htm
Yeah, I know, it’s about Nile River levels not about the sun. Hmmm. Small place, big effect. Oh, well, I’m sure it’s the clouds. Just sure.
====================================
Looking back, too, we seem to have had sub millenial scale alternations between warming and cooling phases, historically known at least as far back as the Roman Optimum. Perhaps the Grander Solar Minimums are also on a similar time scale, and the Dalton one not deep enough to have effected temperature much.
===========================================
Invariant (05:42:08) :
Good point. Do you have a similar time series for simple sunlight that goes back to 1850? What do you recommend?
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20%28Reconstructions%29.xls column C
Geoff Sharp (06:16:56) :
This area is extremely shaky, I wouldn’t be putting my reputation on it.
This works both ways. You are saying that one cannot trust the statement that the Dalton Minimum was a time of cold and that there is no hard evidence for that. I agree completely.
Dr. Svalgaard
After reading your recent presentation ‘Updating the Historical Sunspot Record’, I went back to the article by Usoskin, Mursula & Solanki
‘Reconstruction of solar activity for the last millennium using 10Be data’
Am I correct in assuming that there a very noticeable difference for pre 20th century results obtained by two methods.
(I have the articles but no link for the Usoskin et alia).
acementhead (13:17:39)
Yes I realised that just as soon as I had posted and regretted the absence of an edit function.
Sometimes one can post before engaging brain 🙂
Vukcevic (08:54:20) :
Am I correct in assuming that there a very noticeable difference for pre 20th century results obtained by two methods.
Yes, except that it is not a difference in methods per se. The difference derives from the fit of the 10Be cosmic ray record to the Group Sunspot Number, which means that their reconstruction has the assumption of the GSN being correct built in. You may expect them to wiggle and squirm about this for yet another solar cycle.
Leif Svalgaard (08:02:02) : http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20%28Reconstructions%29.xls column C
Thanks! Not any significant variations at all it seems. In fact all the columns from the various scientists in the sheet show nearly no variations. I did not know this. My conclusion is that the variation of HMF B is much larger. Your HMF B data has these statistical properties from 1850 to 2009.
min 4.1800 nT
max 9.6000 nT
mean 6.3446 nT
var 1.3959 nT
Then it becomes quite clear that the variations in TSI cannot explain the cold period in the beginning of the previous century.
I do not know if you have had time to look at my parameter estimation program, however, if you are interested, it is somewhat fascinating to see that the correlation between time integrated HMF B and global temperature becomes almost the same if we skip the first years of the available data set
0.0076 5.7848 (1850 – 2009)
0.0079 5.8711 (1860 – 2009)
0.0089 5.9328 (1870 – 2009)
0.0094 5.9160 (1880 – 2009)
0.0039 4.8103 (1890 – 2009)
0.0088 5.8551 (1900 – 2009)
So, if HMF B really can influence cloud formation, as Svensmark suggests, there should be a possible support in the available HMF B data set. A nonlinear correlation can possibly be even better.
Best Regards,
Invariant
Invariant (10:07:38) :
fascinating to see that the correlation between time integrated HMF B and global temperature becomes almost the same if we skip the first years of the available data set
0.0076 5.7848 (1850 – 2009)
0.0079 5.8711 (1860 – 2009)
0.0089 5.9328 (1870 – 2009)
0.0094 5.9160 (1880 – 2009)
0.0039 4.8103 (1890 – 2009)
0.0088 5.8551 (1900 – 2009)
Try to skip from the other end…
Leif Svalgaard (10:31:07) : Try to skip from the other end…
0.0076 5.7848 (1850 – 2009)
0.0053 5.6226 (1850 – 1999)
0.0030 5.2238 (1850 – 1989)
0.0014 4.1888 (1850 – 1979)
0.0013 4.1072 (1850 – 1969)
0.0012 3.8541 (1850 – 1959)
0.0008 2.8375 (1850 – 1949)
Invariant (11:57:32) :
Leif Svalgaard (10:31:07) : Try to skip from the other end…
0.0076 5.7848 (1850 – 2009)
0.0053 5.6226 (1850 – 1999)
0.0030 5.2238 (1850 – 1989)
0.0014 4.1888 (1850 – 1979)
0.0013 4.1072 (1850 – 1969)
0.0012 3.8541 (1850 – 1959)
0.0008 2.8375 (1850 – 1949)
Now the relationships change a lot, and systematically. Showing that there is no true relation.
Indeed. Things are not this simple. Obviously there many:
1. nonlinear oscillations, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Pol_oscillator
2. exponential decays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay
in the earth climate (driven) system, each with characteristic amplitudes, delays, time constants and eigenfrequencies. Thus if we observe too short periods in our climate (standard AGW arguments…:-), we will violate the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem and see no pattern at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem
At this point we cannot conclude. We cannot say that HMF B influences our climate, and we cannot say that HMF B does not influence our climate. We do not know. But my suspicion is that we may see a temperature drop the start of this century exactly as we saw in the previous century when Titanic unfortunately hit the ice berg. Then we can think “here we go again” and suspect that something fishy is going on. Let’s hope it is not mankind that hit the ice berg this time – we all know that the next ice age is overdue!
Invariant (13:28:06) :
We cannot say that HMF B influences our climate, and we cannot say that HMF B does not influence our climate. We do not know.
If we do not know, then our null-hypothesis must be that it doesn’t, to be [potentially] refuted at such time [if ever] when we do know.
Leif Svalgaard (13:48:56) : If we do not know, then our null-hypothesis must be that it doesn’t, to be [potentially] refuted at such time [if ever] when we do know.
Yes. This is the rational approach. But human beings including myself are irrational; and our hunch can sometimes lead us in the right direction. This sort of intuition is not black magic but instead based on our experience as scientists and engineers.
“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”
Albert Einstein
Leif Svalgaard (08:02:02) :
Dalton Minimum was a time of cold and that there is no hard evidence for that. I agree completely.
Good, so from now on I wont expect to see you saying the Dalton Minimum had no affect on temperature…we simply don’t have enough evidence to make a statement either way.
Invariant (14:42:03) :
“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”
When founded on solid knowledge and sound physical principles, otherwise it is called wishful thinking. Lots of that going around.
Agreed. Intuition without knowledge is nonsense. For example if I did not know the first law of thermodynamics, I would never had starter to integrate HMF B in the first place. Solid intuition, when it works, is much more advanced than the rather trivial rational approach that follows from simple algebra. In order to discover what we do not know there must be some trial and error guided by our intuition, we do not have time to investigate all possibilities – afterwards we can leave the details to the mathematicians. Thus in a sense the most rational and sophisticated mode of our mind is when we really are irrational…
Lief: The link/reference : http://www.leif.org/EOS/0906-2777.pdf does not work. Could you please point to original paper? TIA
One of the processes on blogs is ‘Distributed Intuition’.
=================================
If the solar cycle points to global cooling in the future, what excuse will there be when new global temperatures records are established in the next few years?
Just curious.
Silly rants won’t change the future.
jack mosevich (16:08:01) :
The link/reference : http://www.leif.org/EOS/0906-2777.pdf does not work.
Does now.
Invariant (15:56:45) :
intuition, when it works…
And when it doesn’t work [like in this case] becomes a millstone around your neck, because you can’t let go of it.
jack mosevich (16:08:01) :
The link/reference : http://www.leif.org/EOS/0906-2777.pdf does not work.
Was a test of the seriousness of the participants of the debate. If they don’t bother even look, how serious could they be? just peddling their stuff instead.
For the rest of us: the link works now. 🙂
“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”
Albert Einstein
I think I saw intuition operating in Brett Favre tonight. But so much in Aaron Rogers.
😉