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:
Just a thought – the center of the earth is a big iron ball and the variations in sun spots (or lack thereof) lead to variations in the electromagnetic climate, if you will, of the earth. How would this effect the amount of heat generated in the core of our planet?
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
Or so disquieted to see
The forest for a single tree.
==================
I remain confused by Dr. Svalgaard’s views on his peer and friend, Dr. Jack Eddy. Dr. Svalgaard clearly admired, and was fond of, Eddy.
And Eddy will likely be known for generations to come for his scientific research and theorizing regarding the bottom-most depth of the Little Ice Age, to which he gave the name of “Maunder Minimum.”
But here we have Dr. Svalgaard belittling, aggressively, anyone who simply repeats the major tenets of his good friend’s scientific analysis (let alone expands upon them).
I don’t anticipate ever figuring this one out.
erlhapp (07:07:10) :
Must have trouble reading.
Having trouble making sense of what you write.
Grant (07:07:26) :
In 1991 Friis-Christenssen and Larsen showed a very strong correlation between length of the sun-spot cycle and temperature. Later, they noted that the correlation did not continue into the latter part of last century, and so stepped back from their earlier hypothesis – showing their scientific integrity.
They argued that the reason their ‘finding’ did not hold up was AGW – that we have warmed the atmosphere over and above what the Sun did.
The truth is that there is no such correlation.
See for yourself: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
The blue curves show the cycle length [two ways: min to min and max to max]. The pink curves show the temperature anomalies averaged over the cycles as determined by the blue curves. The correlation [or rather lack thereof] is shown in the second graph as open pink circles. The green curves are the temperature curves with the long-term trend removed. Still no correlation [there is a weak – not statistically significant] positive correlation, if you insist, in the sense that longer is warmer.
Greg (07:09:13) :
How would this effect the amount of heat generated in the core of our planet?
Not in any measurable way.
Harold Ambler (07:30:10) :
I don’t anticipate ever figuring this one out.
Instead of you waiting for eternity, let me TELL you right here and now and valid for all time to come:
(1) They really didn’t see many spots during the Maunder Minimum, so that is not in doubt
(2) When Eddy looked at this it was thought [based on Abbot’s measurements that a 1-2% change in solar constant depending on solar activity was possible. That translates into a ~1 degree K change in temperature, so a Maunder Minimum was a plausible cause of the LIA.
(3) Measurements during the space age showed a variation 10-20 times smaller, leading to a correspondingly smaller temperature change
(4) Jack Eddy gave the After-Dinner talk at the SORCE 2003 meeting
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2003ScienceMeeting/dec03_meeting_final_science_program.html
Nice photo of Jack here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf
He told us that when the spacecraft data became available, it was clear to him that the association between MM and LIA would have to be abandoned on grounds of energy: there is simple not enough variation in the sun’s output to have much of an effect. And I happen to agree with him.
erlhapp (00:10:13) :
There is a new post at: http://climatechange1.wordpress.com
Interesting reading Erl, I think there will be a day when our 2 area’s will come together. Scafetta has shown that there is correlations between the PDO and Solar velocity, your work and others is showing the importance of UV in the regulation of cloud cover and a possible driver of ENSO. And Svensmark of course has his lumbering giant. TSI may vary slightly and have some impact on ocean heat retention but perhaps a bigger player is the positive feedback that comes with the TSI variations. The Earth uses those positive feedbacks (cloud cover and ocean cycles) to further regulate the solar TSI, everything is solar related and I believe I have the answer for solar output. Us fellow Aussies should get together someday, I’m sure Archibald, yourself and myself could have an interesting discussion.
Leif Svalgaard (08:26:52) :
He told us that when the spacecraft data became available, it was clear to him that the association between MM and LIA would have to be abandoned on grounds of energy: there is simple not enough variation in the sun’s output to have much of an effect. And I happen to agree with him.
His last slide was based on the TSI reconstructions of Lean 2000 and showed a 4 W/m2 change since the MM. At the time [2003] there was already evidence that this change was too large [today we think it is about five times lower]. Any lowering of the change would further undermine Eddy’s initial assessment as he readily admitted. He was already uncomfortable with the need of continuously having to bump up climate sensitivity to cope with the ever-shrinking change since the MM. As he said: on energy grounds it made sense in 1976, not in 2003 [and even less in 2009].
Leif Svalgaard (06:05:47) :
Geoff Sharp (01:16:37) :
The only other activity on the magnetogram has been whats associated with the specks that have been coming through, no convenient missing spots to speak off.
—————
An example was the active region so clearly defined by in the magnetograms for several days around April 1st, 2009. Yet there were no spots.
Nice try but you should know by now you cant fob me off with a quick fix that is not correct. The area on the magnetogram for April 1 is a plage left over from a previous sunspot the appeared at the same latitude on Feb 24-25. On April 1 we are seeing a remnant of an old region, not totally unlike 1026 only a little weaker. Nothing new going on here.
To do a proper analysis, every day of every spot needs to be recorded.
————–
No, it is enough that there be an unbiased selection of a subset of the data.
This has shades of Briffa, but nothing is intentional here of course. But all the data must be processed otherwise there is reason for doubt.
Looking at these factors I can see “signs of a small recovery” in the Gauss measurements.
———————————
People ’see’ what they want to see. The number tell a different story. The last batch of measurements had 12 values for a mean of 1917. The 12 measurements before that had a mean of 2098, the 12 before that was 2213. No ’small recovery’.
Perhaps you are seeing only what you want to see by only referring to a means value, the means can be skewed by the length of the spot appearance. I prefer to look at the maximum level achieved, and when we do this the result is different.
As for your ‘prediction’ out to 3000, that is just pseudo-scientific cyclomania as we have discussed so many times. There is no evidence for any of this.
Your typical answer when you have no answer or the topic is in disagreement with your thinking. You should leave your ridicule and ad hom at home.
“In terms of weather, if you disregard a few volcanic hotspots, are not ALL of climate drivers externally driven? There would be NO temperature, nor resultant weather and climate systems, were it not for the output of the Sun.
This is why I continue to believe that the primary driver for Earth climate will be found to be an external factor.”
You are misinterpreting what I am saying. It is a given that without the sun, we would have nothing to talk about here because we would not exist and Earth would be an ice ball.
What is being discussed is do the VARIATIONS in the Sun [spot cycles, TSI, etc.] cause the variations in Earth’s climate and to what degree, or not.
In terms of drivers….there are multiple ones, and, no doubt, undiscovered combinations of ones, as Stephen Wilde is trying to fish out.
But I am not in total disagreement about the possibility of external drivers…as a matter of fact, if you read my posts, I am certainly leaving that door open.
Wlide, Svensmark, Happ, Svalgaard and others….they are ALL on to something, some many more degrees than others, but regardless…the truth is out there somewhere.
The answers to Earth’s climate and what drives it are as unbelievably complex as one can imagine, but simple (notice I did not say simplistic) at the same time.
Will leave the “simplicity”, as it were to the fraud-science of the IPCC.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
E.M.Smith (03:18:35) :
Points taken. Thanks.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Jack Eddy, in a November 15, 2008, telephone interview that I did with him as part of the research for my forthcoming book, made the following remarks:
“I started to get into it 30 years ago. I found the situation where the Sun had become very irregular for 70 years and it seemed to coincide with a period of very cold weather in Europe, especially. It suggested to me that there would be a very strong correlation with climate, not just the 11-year cycle that people had seen, but a slowly progressing forcing function, that the Sun could have an effect on longer-term climate. I haven’t backed away from that at all.
“At the time that I did the study of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, I said that I saw a very strong correlation, and I’ve also taken the view that the Sun is indeed an important factor in climate change, and you can show that in many ways. There has been abundant research showing the Sun’s role.
“The effect of what the Sun can do, based on what we now know in terms of the Sun’s radiation and output of particles, those effects, though important, are now dwarfed by another factor that’s there. Most solar scientists would say that the Sun may be contributing a fourth or a fifth of the warming that we now attribute to greenhouse gases.
“If we were entering another Maunder Minimum it would be of interest to me because it would further confirm the reality of that event. We’re at a prolonged minimum now, of which there have been precedents. Whether we’re going to go into one of these profound minima or not, we won’t know until we get there. It might make me famous if it happens, but I don’t see that we know that it will happen.”
I will underscore three principal points made by Dr. Eddy:
1. He had not, in the months prior to his death, backed away from Sun-Earth climate connections “at all.”
2. He had also become persuaded, to a significant extent, of the relevance of co2 and other manmade greenhouse gases as a climate driver.
3. He retained, however, an open mind about the duration and effect of the current solar minimum.
It would be manifestly inaccurate to say that Dr. Eddy’s views may be summed up in any single way. The intellectual and scientific curiosity that led to his publication of “The Maunder Minimum” in Science, back in 1976, was still very much a part of the man until the end.
The relatively inactive sun is yet more confirmation that solar irradiance is not a substantial factor in this being the warmest decade since instrumental records began. It also means that the next time we have a decent El Niño combined with a solar maximum, record-breaking global average temperatures are virtually inevitable.
Lief,
Any ideas on the source of the 6200yr cycle recorded in 10be, C14 and the temp record? Hit a minimum at the LIA, also at 6200yrs ago…
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view¤t=10be_C14.jpg
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view¤t=Vostok_GISPS_AVG_DIV.jpg
Ed
Very insightful post, thank you, Harold.
Will look forward to that book!
And it is interesting to note that even Dr. Eddy can be in error:
“The effect of what the Sun can do, based on what we now know in terms of the Sun’s radiation and output of particles, those effects, though important, are now dwarfed by another factor that’s there. Most solar scientists would say that the Sun may be contributing a fourth or a fifth of the warming that we now attribute to greenhouse gases.”
To err is human….even for the brightest among us.
Certainly the rest of his comments are spot on.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Leif Svalgaard (06:05:47) : Suppose HMF B was absolutely constant at all times [then it would be hard to say that climate variations are due the unvarying HMF]. Now, integrate that constant HMF over time and you’ll find that it goes up, up, up, indefinitely, accounting for the rise in your Figure.
This is not correct. One of the parameters in my toy model is the equilibrium value at which the contribution from HMF B reverses sign. A constant HMF B below this value means that the temperature goes down, down, down, indefinitely. A constant HMF B above this value means that it goes up, up, up, indefinitely. Currently we are way below the equilibrium value and the temperature goes down which is in agreement with observations the last couple of years. The equation is:
T_est = 0.007640*cumsum(HMF_B-5.7848)-0.4470;
When do you think HMF B again will be larger than the equilibrium value 5.7848?
Geoff Sharp (09:10:15) :
The area on the magnetogram for April 1 is a plage left over from a previous sunspot
And so? That is what the active regions would look like when there are no spots. Remember that the region starts as a plage without a spot and ends with as a plage without a spot. L&P is about how visible the spot between these two stages will be. With moderate L&P there will be a speck [as we see now]. With full L&P not even that will be visible, but the region will still be there. I don’t see what your problem with this is. The whole point was whether we could see the invisible spots on magnetograms or not; and the answer is clearly “yes”. Nobody is trying to ‘fob’ you off, just to show you what a plage looks like without a sunspot, as you clearly had a problem with imagining that. Here is a region that never made it to a spot:
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/gif/m090527_1578_0fe1.png
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr090527.jpg
But all the data must be processed otherwise there is reason for doubt.
But all the data is processed. There is no other data. I don’t know what your problem with this is. There are times when no data can be taken [clouds, no telescope time, sick, etc]; that does not cast doubt on the data that could be taken.
I prefer to look at the maximum level achieved
maximum of what? The maximum level for the July data was 2332, for the September data it was 2237. For March 2008, 2658. Recovery?
Your typical answer when you have no answer
I point out there is no evidence that convinces anybody. The quantity you plot is derived by circular reasoning. You have not supplied any valid evidence, so the answer stays the same.
Harold Ambler (09:31:39) :
“At the time that I did the study of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, I said that I saw a very strong correlation”
Jack picked his words very carefully. His view at the end was that the Sun did influence the climate, but a lot less than he and everybody else back then suggested.
And there is no belittling in my remarks. The influence of a scientist does not lie in whether he is correct or not, but in the degree to which his work inspires and motivates other scientists, and in that department Jack scores very high. Perhaps you have forgotten my campaign for naming the next [when ever it occurs] Grand Minimum the Eddy Minimum. Does that sound as belittling?
Gene Nemetz (05:31:13) :
John Finn (17:52:17) :
Surely this implies an immediate effect. So which is it?
Just to make it clearer : there are sun spots, there are solar flares, there is the 11 year cycle. There is a focus on these. But these are not the whole picture. There are other things happening on the sun.
Right – and from these (or the lack of these) we can deduce what?
The immediate effect you are talking about is found in a view of the big picture—which includes the moon, cosmic rays, etc.— i.e., not just the traditional idea of solar activity.
Meaning what?
I asked about the climate lag following solar fluctuations. We’ve now had several years where the “solar activity” has been lower than it was in the early 1990s, say. When is the downturn in temperatures expected?
Gene Nemetz (06:00:12) :
John Finn (02:57:39) :
Whatever anyone says about temperatures peaking in 1998 (they didn’t)
I guess all them thar dad gum thermometers was wrong! 😉
There was an anomalous spike in 1998 caused by an particularly intense El Nino. The temperature trend (OLS) continued upwards after 1998. As I posted earlier, the 5 year period between 2004-2008 was warmer than the the 1999-2003 period which was warmer than the 1994-1998 period….and so on. The warmest 5 year period in the UAH satellite record occurred after the SC23 solar maximum and during ~3 years of the deepest solar minimum in a century.
“Icarus (09:35:50) :
The relatively inactive sun is yet more confirmation that solar irradiance is not a substantial factor in this being the warmest decade since instrumental records began.”
70 years of high solar activity in this modern maximum behind us and you expect a transition to Dalton-era climate overnight? Not happening, be patient.
Solar Irradiance may not have substantial impact but SI is not the only factor. Many are still unknown especially magnetic influences, and so a connection and mechanism cannot be ruled out.
We are currently experiencing a minimum never witnessed or recorded by modern science and we cannot jump to such conclusions until the experiment is complete, it has only just begun.
Ed (09:54:00) :
Any ideas on the source of the 6200yr cycle recorded in 10be, C14 and the temp record? Hit a minimum at the LIA, also at 6200yrs ago…
I thought the LIA was just a few hundred years ago… That aside, both 10Be and 14C are influenced by variations of the Earth’s magnetic field which does vary on such long time scales.
Invariant (10:31:50) :
A constant HMF B below this value means that the temperature goes down, down, down, indefinitely. A constant HMF B above this value means that it goes up, up, up, indefinitely.
I think you are trying to say that any set of values of B below your chosen equilibrium will mean runaway down and any set of values above will mean a runaway up, so should B fall to and stay for a thousand years the range 4.0-5.5 nT, the Earth would freeze up. I think that invalidates your model.
When do you think HMF B again will be larger than the equilibrium value 5.7848?
Five years from now.
IMO, El Nino is not a cause, it is another effect. What caused the El Nino event?
kim (07:28:00) :
Or so disquieted to see
The forest for a single tree.
That one’s a witty one!
That one tree would be YAD06 ?
Invariant (10:31:50) :
T_est = 0.007640*cumsum(HMF_B-5.7848)-0.4470;
applying this for B varying as a sine wave around 5.7848 [between 4.78.. and 6.78..] produces this result: http://www.leif.org/research/JUNK.png with the temp [pink going up towards infinity…
Leif Svalgaard (11:23:05) :
Invariant (10:31:50) :
T_est = 0.007640*cumsum(HMF_B-5.7848)-0.4470;
applying this for B varying as a sine wave around 5.7848 [between 4.78.. and 6.78..] produces this result: http://www.leif.org/research/JUNK.png with the temp [pink going up towards infinity…
I forgot to add that after a while I bump B up by 1 nT and kept it there.
with the temp [yellow] going up towards infinity…
gosh, when it rains, it pours…
Harold Ambler (07:30:10) :
I don’t anticipate ever figuring this one out.
I was in the same place as you, for months. But I realized I could lower my expectations. Then things made sense.