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.
Gene Nemetz (11:51:10) : A very prominent Russian scientist would roughly seem to agree with you : Habibullo Abdussamatov. Head, space research laboratory, Russian Academies of Sciences’ Pulkovo Observatory
Right! We all have to admit that there are many brilliant Russian scientists in the good old tradition of Landau and Lifshitz,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Landau#Landau_and_Lifshitz_Course_of_Theoretical_Physics
It is sometimes amusing to watch the so called climate “experts”, like the journalists, the lawyers and the economists, who have strong opinions about our climate – most of them cannot understand a single page in the Landau and Lifshitz Course of Theoretical Physics! We should really be extremely humble and acknowledge that we understand so little compared to the great minds in our time.
@ur momisugly ShrNfr
What’s the source for increases in cloud cover 2007/08? Anything published?
Phillip Bratby (12:59:44) :
Leif: You only offer criticism. Surely the sun is always active?
Not that we [and Corbyn] can see…
What explanation do you have for Piers Corbyn’s success rate compared to that of the Met Office?
He did not compare with anybody else for those 40 odd events.
Dennis Wingo (13:01:00) :
What do you think of the paper linked by Ron De Hann above?
Not much. This a claim that surfaces every so often, just like sun-weather/climate connections.
Gene Nemetz (13:03:27) :
>i>Activity on the sun is the main ingredient in his forecasts.
“Except there was no solar activity during that interval…”
I see. The sun was out of town then, I guess. 😉
It seems that Corbyn didn’t know that…or managed anyhow…
Phillip Bratby (12:59:44) :
Leif: You only offer criticism. Surely the sun is always active?
Not that we [and Corbyn] can see…
What explanation do you have for Piers Corbyn’s success rate compared to that of the Met Office?
He did not compare with anybody else for those 40 odd events.
Dennis Wingo (13:01:00) :
What do you think of the paper linked by Ron De Hann above?
Not much. This a claim that surfaces every so often, just like sun-weather/climate connections.
Gene Nemetz (13:03:27) :
Activity on the sun is the main ingredient in his forecasts.
“Except there was no solar activity during that interval…”
I see. The sun was out of town then, I guess. 😉
It seems that Corbyn didn’t know that…or managed anyhow…
Invariant (13:10:39) :
Right! We all have to admit that there are many brilliant Russian scientists in the good old tradition of Landau and Lifshitz
I’m sure that L&L would cringe at this quote from ‘the brilliant Russian scientist:
“Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”
As there are no sunspots and temperatures have not fallen should we think of another mechanism for the Little Ice Age. Dust in the upper atmosphere for example
35F.Snowing and rain,snowing on the Blue Mountains of NE Oregon,fire in fireplace,
Wife and Springer dozing peacefully, perfect late Novem…er, wait a minute….
I have a question,
Looking at the chart above The highlighted bar is flanked by Cycle “13 and 14”. Both of these cycles were over 100 years ago. The Cycle “14” according to what Ican tell occurred between cycle 13 and 14n and Cycle “13” occurred between 12 and 13. Given the listing I have this places the minimums at Feb 1902 and March 1890 respectively. Given that, how do we compare the record from that era to this era? The ability to see minuscule “Tiny Tims, Specs, Pores, or Blown Pixels” of today would probably point to an under counting of Cycle 23-24 spotless days in comparison.
I am not against counting these pores as spots, but we probably should not use them as historical comparisons to past events. Given what I have observed of cycle 24, the spots of the last week would have counted as only the second and third group for historical proposes. This in not a perspective issue, only a scientific one. I do not know whether this would change the historical count significantly, but it would be more accurate.
Ern Matthews (11:53:59) :
>nick-ynysmon (11:36:07) : One question, are we gearing up for the big one in 2012??
The one term wonder loses his job? Just asking. 🙂
Just teasing, more likely. Since homogenized global warming peaked eleven years ago, it is appropriate that Sen Kerry is introducing a climate bill to control it. That’s the fire truck arriving in time to hose down the ashes.
The assault on common sense coming from Washington DC is mind numbing. The AGW facts are on the table for them to see, but no one cares to look.
Three cheers for Rio, and get well Keith.
A casual look at the rate of change plot for SC24 spotless days since the first SC24 spotless day, available at: http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html, (see panel; Evolution of spotless days in SC23-24 and comparison with other cycle transits), indicates that the current sun spot accumulation/month may soon exceed the 1st standard deviation for the average of SC10-15. While these rates of change functions are not linear and it appears that SC24 is past the mid point of SC24 spotless day accumulation, it is not a stretch to expect SC24 spotless days to exceed SC15 @ur momisugly 300+ of the early 1900s.
The period SC10-15 (approx.1849-1930) is associated with cooler climactic conditions.
Just thinkin…
In my humble opinion, comparison of spotless day records is rather useless considering some of us today count spots that aren’t even visible with a Galilean telescope.
Many have repeated this on countless threads about the minimum: If all these pores and tiny tims that come up time and time again were not counted, we would be at 1000 spotless days at least.
A better comparison would be solar cycle length.
Looking at sunspot numbers (And for those that say SC 24 began in 2006 with a reversed magnetic signature; to be fair you cannot determine SC length by looking at Magnetic orientation, because in 1810 there were no magnetograms);
SC 23 is at least 12.6 years long, the longest since the Dalton Minimum and the 3rd longest on record. If the pores were eliminated from the count, it would probably make the cycle even longer.
These two new regions may have been impressive, but looking at solar wind, it is still very weak. SC 24 is trying but I have a feeling this is just another false start to a low cycle.
Aligner (13:03:10) :
According to these studies the level of activity on the sun affects your health :
At higher daily levels of GMA, RCA/LAD culprit lesions in AMI are equal; at low GMA and higher CRA (neutron) activity, LAD lesions are predominant.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167527307011771
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator recordings and treatment of episodes of VT/VF appear to be inversely correlated with the daily level of GMA and directly correlated with CRA (as measured by neutron fluctuations).
http://www.viamedica.pl/gazety/gazeta1/darmowy_pdf.phtml?indeks=101&indeks_art=1366&VSID=90da16d
A trend of a drop-off for all three immunoglobulins was seen on the far side of the maximal point of the solar cycle.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p7gn825670552312/
Leif Svalgaard (13:20:58) :I’m sure that L&L would cringe at this quote from ‘the brilliant Russian scientist:“Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”
Please explain. I am quite familiar with thermal expansion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_thermal_expansion
In Praise of Winter.
“The Frost
The frost moved up the window pane
Against the sun’s advance.
In line and pattern weaving there
Rich scenes of old romance;
Armies on the Russian snow,
Cockade, sword and lance.”
Ned Pratt
Invariant (13:50:40) :
“Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”
Please explain. I am quite familiar with thermal expansion
‘greenhouse gases’ only or especially? ‘lighter as a result of expansion’? perhaps the other way around…
The statement seems to be an attempt to explain how the ‘heated greenhouse gases’ influence our climate. The mushiness of this is in stark contrast to the precision of L&L [I had the pleasure (and a bit of pain as they were a challenge) of studying using their textbooks]
Paul
Many thanks for the plots. What I found just as interesting was the positons of cycles 18,20,21,22 and 23. All the shortest mins were in the recent cycles. Global warming ?
Invariant (13:10:39) :
We all have to admit that there are many brilliant Russian scientists
We should easily be able to admit it—we just need to remember Sputnik and how embarrassing that was to the USA.
But people forget.
Mr. Alex (13:44:36) :
A better comparison would be solar cycle length.
There is no significant correlation between temperature and cycle length. If anything there is a [weak – and not significant] positive correlation: longer cycles = warmer:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
Is there really any value in comparing calendar years with most spotless days? I mean, it surely matters if the minimum happens to occur in the middle of a year versus the boundary of two? It would make some sense if the average cycle length was much longer compared to one year, but with ~11 years, I think the “randomness” of where in the calendar the deepest minimum occurs contributes too much.
If the planet begins to cool due to reduced energy entering earths system, wouldn’t that ultimately reduce the amount of wind on the planets surface? It seems to me that a planet with reduced external energy input would be more temperature stable and thereby have less wind energy. Maybe this is too simple of a hypothesis. Though it would be a real pisser to rely on a bunch of wind energy and then have it disappear.
Mark Wagner (13:12:37) :
Anything published?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/the-2007-2008-global-cooling-event-evidence-for-clouds-as-the-cause/
Leif Svalgaard (13:15:36) :
I wasn’t agreeing with you Leif. Did you imagine I was??
Am I just seeing things or do some years that have a high number of spotless days are then followed by a very warm year or years?
Eg 1911-14 followed by a significant increase in temps in 1915 and 1916.
1922-24 followed by high temps in 1925 and 1926
1986 then follows increased temps 87 and 88
1976 and then a big increase in 1977
1996 and then a big increase 1997-1998
1964 followed by increases in 1965-67
1932-34 breaks the pattern a little (cool in 1935) but then increases from 1936-38
Is this a pattern?
carol smith (13:28:13) :
We could also consider there is a delay in reaction, like a delay in water in a freezer before it turns in to ice.
Leif Svalgaard (14:07:08) :
‘greenhouse gases’ only or especially? ‘lighter as a result of expansion’? perhaps the other way around…
Now, there I was wrong, they are warmer, expand, and rise. What really got me was the reference to ‘greenhouse gases’. This applies to all gases.
Paul Stanko: I’m interested in how you compute number of spotless days for cycles 1-8 when we don’t have [complete] daily values for those cycles.
Also takes care of:
Gene Nemetz (13:04:27) :
I see you don’t know Leif Svalgaard.