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:
Leif Svalgaard (18:45:54) :
I am quite aware its not about a reduction of the number of spots, but the underlying Guass strength involved. They should still show on the magnetogram if “invisible” sunspots are in production.
1027 had a high reading of 2237 Guass, 1024 had a high reading of 2332 (much larger group). Before that we have to go back to April 2008 to get a higher reading of 2294. There is not enough data yet to make any conclusions.
@Mark Wagner
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/the-2007-2008-global-cooling-event-evidence-for-clouds-as-the-cause/
Apparently Spencer is working up a paper that has not yet been finalized.
@Gene Nemetz
I agree that it re-enforces the potential for predictive value, however always remember that the first duty of any scientist is to poke a hole in a current theory. Its finding the places that theories break that expand our understanding of the universe. I personally find the Svensmark GCR theory quite compelling. Its not all there is, of course, the odd volcano can really ruin your forecasts, but absent that, there appears to have predictive value. Certainly more than you can say about the IPCC models. But then again, the CO2 AGW folks have turned it into a religion, not a science. That is in addition to the ones that have turned it into a game of enriching themselves at the expense of their fellow human being.
Geoff Sharp (19:11:48) :
They should still show on the magnetogram if “invisible” sunspots are in production.
And they do, as there have been several examples of recently.
There is not enough data yet to make any conclusions.
sounds a lot better than: “There are signs of a small recovery in the1026 and 1027 readings”.
As for the cycles 1-8, if there’s a group, it’s because there are spots.
And, like someone stated earlier, it’s our surviving records that are more of a problem than not.
Ron de Haan (16:58:53) :
“What then is the actual cause of sudden stratospheric warming?”
Leif Svalgaard (17:14:31) :
Mountain ranges and land-sea temperature contrasts generate long (wavenumber 1 or 2) Rossby waves in the troposphere. These waves travel upward to the stratosphere and are dissipated there, producing the warming by decelerating the mean zonal flow. The Sun has nothing to do with this.
Nice copy/quote from Wikipedia, Leif. Shouldn’t you have referenced it?
And, regardless of whether or not “the sun has nothing to do with this”…
the jury is still out as to what causes the SSWs.
Also you may have forgotten this…
http://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=446&Itemid=305
The jury is still out on the cause (more like causes) of SSWs.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
rbateman (19:48:08) :
As for the cycles 1-8, if there’s a group, it’s because there are spots.
That’s not the problem. It is that we don’t have observations on every day, so cannot make a count of days with no groups.
Is there a 200 year solar cycle? The Dalton Minimum occurred about 200 years ago and the Maunder Minimum about 400 years ago… just wondering.
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
It takes time. There’s normally only a 0.1C difference between minimum and maximum.
It’s when the minimum persists for a long time that the cooling really begins. That hasn’t happened yet. One would not expect much effect at this point. If cycles 24 and 25 are busts, however, the effects could “snowball”.
(Note that this is correlation. No causation has been definitively established as of yet.)
Is there a 200 year solar cycle? The Dalton Minimum occurred about 200 years ago and the Maunder Minimum about 400 years ago… just wondering.
It is believed so. It is called the Seuss (or DeVries) cycle.
And, yes, we’re about due.
We also have a Gleissberg cycle, believed to occur every 80+ to 100 years. Last one was in the 19-teens and the one before that was the Dalton Minimum.
And yes, we’re about due for that, too.
There’s also a proposed 2300-year cycle (The Hallstatt cycle), but I’m not sure where we are in that one.
Wheels within wheels. But it’s very complicated and there’s no way to tell for sure. Also, severity is impossible to predict.
savethesharks (20:07:56) :
Nice copy/quote from Wikipedia, Leif. Shouldn’t you have referenced it?
Saves me typing, and saves you to go there, and find the relevant text.
the jury is still out as to what causes the SSWs.
I don’t think so. We have known how this works since 1971 at least.
Also you may have forgotten this…
No, I have not, but that has nothing to do with what causes SSWs.
The muons don’t cause the SSWs, the SSWs [or simply the temperature] modulates the muons, so they can be used as a probe of stratospheric temperature.
As always…Wikipedia or not, Leif is on point.
Here is a great study on the Wiki reference as to the cause of SSWs.
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/users/isavelyev/GFD-2/Rossby%20waves.pdf
Regardless…Earth is not a closed system…and someday interstellar variations on climate and even weather…may be recognized.
For now….the Rossby Wave theory is a good and reasonable one.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Got a question(s):Ok, if the sun does not make much of a difference in output as far as warming goes,Albedo may indeed be a factor.How can we measure the Earth’s
Albedo? Lunar surface reflectivity? Satellites? If we can easily, what would that show?
evanmjones (20:38:10) :
It’s when the minimum persists for a long time that the cooling really begins.
It doesn’t matter how long the minimum persists, the cooling will not go on.
rbateman (19:48:08) :
As for the cycles 1-8, if there’s a group, it’s because there are spots.
Because of missing data we don’t know what the number of spotless days were for those cycles. One might try to estimate how many spotless days there were for each year. It goes like this example: in 1804 there were 106 days with no observations, thus 260 days with observations. Of these 126 were spotless [i.e. groupless], and one could then assume that the proportion 126/260 would also hold for the full year and guess that the number of spotless days were 126/260*366 = 177, and so on. I’m interested in how Paul Stanko estimated his counts, now that he has clarified what the cycle numbers meant.
Leif Svalgaard (20:16:54) :
I thought I already said that, but in case you misunderstood me, there is ample evidence of dedicated observers, but less than ample located/surviving records.
Now, where did I put those papers?
savethesharks (20:51:26) :
As always…Wikipedia or not, Leif is on point.
If what Wiki says jives with what I otherwise know, I have no qualms lifting their verbiage to save typing. The entry is probably lifted from a more technical source anyway. Good phrases live forever.
someday interstellar variations on climate and even weather…may be recognized
And maybe even remote control by aliens, who knows what’s out there 🙂
It doesn’t matter how long the minimum persists, the cooling will not go on.
So you have often said. Yet I remain unsure. There’s a correlation going back as far as the actual observations go.
The Oort, Wolf, and Spoerer minimums are prior to continuous observations. We know them only by proxy. Same for surface temperatures, for that matter. So a bit of fuzziness in correlation prior to the Maunder is to be expected.
I agree that there is no established causal connection. (That doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t any.)
“And maybe even remote control by aliens, who knows what’s out there
:-)”
You left out unicorns…
evanmjones (21:14:06) :
“It doesn’t matter how long the minimum persists, the cooling will not go on.”
So you have often said. Yet I remain unsure.
If you set the thermostat to 70F the room will reach 70F after some time. Then you turn down the thermostat to 69F and the room will cool a degree, but it does not continue cooling a degree to 68, 67, 66, … no matter how long the thermostat stays on its lower setting.
savethesharks (21:28:48) :
“And maybe even remote control by aliens, who knows what’s out there :-)”
You left out unicorns…
I’ll let you supply implausible ones… [there is an inexhaustible supply]
evanmjones (21:14:06) : “I agree that there is no established causal connection. (That doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t any.)”
A fair and reasonable observation…with the door left open to other possibilities.
The inductive method at work.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
rbateman (21:04:48) :
there is ample evidence of dedicated observers
Even the most dedicated observer still falls victim to overcast, lest he makes up some numbers…. As Hoyt and Schatten did when they interpret “I haven’t seen a spot for two years prior” as 730 days of bona fide observations of 0 spots.
Douglas DC (20:53:24) :
How can we measure the Earth’s Albedo? Lunar surface reflectivity?
Yes, there is a long-term project running measuring Earthshine on the Moon’s dark side and in that way measuring the albedo. They find variations, but not linked to the solar cycle. Google: Earthshine Albedo Palle
If you set the thermostat to 70F the room will reach 70F after some time. Then you turn down the thermostat to 69F and the room will cool a degree, but it does not continue cooling a degree to 68, 67, 66, … no matter how long the thermostat stays on its lower setting.
What I’m proposing is that (by analogy) normally the thermostat is set to 65, but long before it gets that cold the thermostat is set back to 75, so the cooling stops at around 69.
But what if there’s a grand minimum and the thermostat doesn’t get set back to 75? The temperature will continue to drop towards 65, at which point it will bottom out until the thermostat is turned up again. That sort of thing appears to be what happened during the Little Ice Age.
evanmjones (21:53:59) :
That sort of thing appears to be what happened during the Little Ice Age.
During a cycle there is a 0.1% variation = 0.07K, so the set points on the thermostat are only 0.07K apart…
And the little ice age lasted centuries. Much longer than any of the minima. We may only have come out of it in the 1910s or so.