With Climategate sucking all the oxygen out of the blogosphere, we’ve neglected some of our regular reporting duties here at WUWT.
Thanks to Paul Stanko, who has been tracking sunspots for WUWT for awhile now who writes in with this update. It looks like we’ll soon surpass 2008 for the number of spotless days. – Anthony
Guest post by Paul Stanko
With November now in the past, I’ve got a fresh set of statistics, and it looks like this cycle is falling ever further into an even deeper funk. The attached graphics are revamped according to Leif’s impromptu peer review and I believe are
much improved. They are a few days old, though.
The 2009 spotless days are now 262 and the cycle 24 spotless days are now 774. On the cycle graph, I now calculated three different sets of spotless days per cycle. Minimum just counted the actual observed and reported days of zero sunspots. Maximum assumed that all missing obs were zero sunspot days. Likely assigned spotless days to the missing obs in the same ratio as the reported obs for that year.
The graphs were reporting what I now call Minimum. They now report Likely, hence the increase in values for some of the older cycles. There is a second number now too, a % confidence. I calculated this by the following formula: 100% * (1 -((Maximum – Minimum) / Likely)). When all obs are reported, Maximum = Minimum = Likely so this becomes 100%.
Any cycle where the confidence is 0% means I gave it my level best estimate, but anybody else’s estimate is more than likely just as good.
Comparing the actual months to the updated prediction gives some interesting insights once again… all numbers are SIDC 13 month smoothed… the predicted peak is 90, which I use to estimate suggested peak…
Jan 2009 had 2.1 for a prediction, 1.71 actual. Suggested peak = 73.16
(18.71% low)
Feb 2009 had 2.7 for a prediction, 1.67 actual. Suggested peak = 55.62
(38.20% low)
Mar 2009 had 3.3 for a prediction, 1.97 actual. Suggested peak = 53.83
(40.19% low)
Apr 2009 had 3.9 for a prediction, 2.24 actual. Suggested peak = 51.79
(42.46% low)
May 2009 had 4.6 for a prediction, 2.36 actual. Suggested peak = 46.16
(48.71% low)
Jun 2009 had 5.5 for a prediction, but requires December data for actual
numbers.
To put these into context, I looked at the 13 month smoothed peaks of all the numbered cycles. 80, as well as 90, would be the weakest cycle since 1933.
66 to 75, which includes Leif’s prediction of 72, would be the weakest cycle since 1913. 50 to 65, which includes my prediction of 60, would be the weakest cycle
since 1823. 49 would be the weakest cycle since 1810. 48 or less, which includes Dr. Archibald’s prediction of 42 (and my May 2009 update) would be the weakest cycle since the Maunder Minimum.
Also, keeping in mind the current cycle has 774 spotless days racked up
already…
The mean number of spotless days excluding both Dalton and Maunder
minima is 557, with a standard deviation of 258. We are almost 1 sigma above the mean. The mean number of spotless days including the Dalton but excluding the
Maunder is 777, which we have the potential to reach in just a few days, with a
sigma of 578.
Listing the weakest numbered cycles by month is also interesting…
The values for the first 4 months of cycle 6 were 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 and
0.00. (Dalton minimum)
The values for the first 4 months of cycle 7 were 0.08, 1.65, 3.32 and 4.15
The values for the first 4 months of cycle 12 were 2.41, 2.58, 2.50 and 2.58
The values for the first 4 months of cycle 15 were 1.55, 1.57, 1.58 and 2.88
and the values for the first 4 months of cycle 24 were 1.67, 1.97, 2.24
and 2.36.
So, it seems the only solar cycle which rose even slower than this one was cycle 6.
Hope you and your readers find this interesting,
Leif Svalgaard (17:49:38)
Many apologies!
My conversion of decimal years to months failed dismally.
your version :
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
is prettier than mine!!!:
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9093/f107flux1209.png
I’m rather indifferent to staring at sunspot numbers, in isolation. I’d suggest adding TSI data for context.
Thanks for the information.
Long range models show cold coming on with a vengeance. The 700 mb plot looks a lot like it did in October but with much colder temps.
lmg (17:25:14) :
Heat leaves earth mainly by convection – hardly any leaves by radiation. clouds prevent convection – not necessarily vertical convection. An overcast night gives stable air layers, and convection is not occurring. A clear sky means convection is occurring. There is a lot of convectional loss unless its blocked by layering stable masses, since the earth is warmer near the surface.
carrot eater: You can check the WFT (Wood for Trees) link at the bottom of the list of WUWT recommended “tools” sites above. TSI since 1979 is one of the indexes you can compare to temps and sunspots.
addendum – when working with thermal imaging at night, especially with overcast nights, if you point at the ground you see nothing – no radiation, yet if you point at the sky, you see a glow of heat spectra..
I suggest those who have access to such equipment try this to see just how little radiation leaves the surface.
November has been a big letdown for those expecting a ramp up of solar activity. The SIDC unsmoothed monthly average coming in again at 4.2. There is such a long way to go before even reaching 50SSN which is the max number I am banking on for SC24.
The last time the SIDC monthly mean was over 5 is around Feb 2008, This month according to the Layman’s Count we arrive at 1.7. Many specks were counted by SIDC and NOAA during November which artificially raises the count based on past methods.
The Layman’s Count for 2009 spotless days is at 297 with one month to go. If we used the Layman count to compare with on Paul’s chart it would be even more impressive, but we must keep in mind the yearly count is not really that significant.
More stats and charts for November available here:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Norman,
There is an atmospheric effect which has been called greenhouse effect, but it is not the same as for a glass greenhouse (which traps air & stops convective loss). CO2 does absorb and re-emit some portions of long wave IR and this does raise the ground temperature some. However this is a fairly small effect. Water vapor is a larger effect. Clouds are an even larger effect, with some difference in the absorption physics. Water droplets are approximately black bodies for long wave IR. Black body radiation has a term (T hot to the forth power -T cold to the forth power), with all temperatures in degrees above absolute zero. If there were no gases or water droplets, the ground would radiate to space, where space (T cold) is ~4 degrees K, so the second term is very small. However the absorbing gases (e.g., water vapor and CO2), and water droplets are much warmer than space, so the effective radiation from the ground is partially reduced by the second term. That is the so called greenhouse effect. However, since Earth is mostly covered in water, the water vapor and clouds totally dominate this effect. Locally, clouds are the biggest effect, and make a large difference in cooling from the ground. However, the fact of CO2’s portion of the effect on the average is the whole issue of the debate. It appears now that the water vapor and cloud levels self correct at least part of other greenhouse increases to make it of little average change.
bill (18:50:04) :
is prettier than mine!!!:
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9093/f107flux1209.png
To compare with the minimum in 1954:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
Somehow I don’t think Planet Earth is much concerned by what we lable as sunspots or spotless days. It will be the total change in delivered energy that effects the future climate.
The radiant temperature of the sky (as seen from the ground) depends strongly on the dew point. A clear cloudless sky indicates a very low dew point (ie no clouds) and as a result a very cold sky. On a cloudy night the radiant temperature of the sky is much higher (less heat lost to the sky/space).
http://www.ceen.unomaha.edu/solar/documents/SOL_29.pdf
Larry
Look forward to seeing it Robert at your leisure
Well, this handily explains the dew on my car, and sometimes ICE/frost on the car as well in the morning although the air temperature is above freezing and/or the dewpoint.
(Not.)
I would recommend some field observations for you chaps over a night-time cycle with a couple thermometers in various locations then draw some conclusions.
.
.
odd, Space Weather.com is reporting 252 spotless days, not 262. Wonder what the divergence is?
Nonoy Oplas (16:16:51) :
Very interesting! Thanks Paul. Meanwhile, why is spaceweather.com’s sunspotless days (252) a lot different from SIDC (262)? Is the former trying to “minimize” the contributory factor of the current solar minimum in the Earth’s climate?
Hi Nonoy, The International Sunspot Number from the SIDC takes a large number of observations from all over the world. They then have a procedure where they eliminate the outlier obs. I’ll bet spaceweather.com is just repeating the values from NOAA’s space weather prediction center. With all the tiny, short lived micro spots, and NOAA’s superior observational equipment, I wouldn’t be at all surprised that 10 days where NOAA found a spot got thrown out as outliers. The SIDC then multiplies by a calibration coefficient to attempt to make up for the improvements in technology. For instance, if you look at the formula, the lowest possible sunspot number (other than 0) is 11. Yet SIDC is often reporting 7, 8, 9 etc. I use the SIDC numbers because I figure the multiple obs from all over the world makes it rather robust. I’ll have to check out Geoff’s Layman’s Count though.
Hope this helps,
Paul
In addition to the dearth of sunspots in the current cycle there has been a steady decrease in the intensity of the magnet fields that cause the spots. This has been going on since 1990. As the field intensity decreases so does the darkness of the spot. If the trend continues there will be no visible spots after about 2015. This is based on the work of Livingston and Penn at the NSO. Here is a link to the journal article…check out figure 3.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf
I came across a discussion of this in CQ Magazine’s radio propagation column, Dec ’09 issue (not on-line)
So 1932, 1933, and 1934 are all in this club of top 20 spotless years, and yet 1934 was the ‘hottest’ year (at least in the USA). Hmmm.
ginckgo (20:36:45) :
“So 1932, 1933, and 1934 are all in this club of top 20 spotless years, and yet 1934 was the ‘hottest’ year (at least in the USA). Hmm”
The oceans are a humongous heat sink, thus there is a lag as temperatures during the minimum are impacted by the release of the heat that the oceans had absorbed previously. At present the higher monthly UAH figures are being driven by an El Nino, i.e. the oceans dissipating previously captured heat.
It must be snowing in hell. Climategate made it to the CBC tonight. 3rd story from the top. In my opinion, quite balanced. Even mentioned that Canada is one of the biggest skeptic countries.
Read on a blog a few days ago an opinion from some chap who felt that the mainstream media, was holding off on the story to release it closer to Copenhagen for more effect. May have been right……
Last time I checked, the clouds go whither the winds blow them. And can appear from what seems to be nothing but clear sky . . . and appear and even snow quite heavily a couple of hours after a weather report of “fair and clear the next 3 days.” I have personally experience the last on more than a couple of occasions.
I would suspect, being only a civil engineer, that the clouds are a result of other things happening, as opposed to them being the master of any weather events.
ginckgo (20:36:45) :
And there were diurnal ranges much larger than todays. 68 degrees between daytime high and nightime low is a lot. Helped out in no small measure by single digit Relative Humidities.
There is no simple magic formula or bullet. You also have to deal with the state of the oceans at the time.
That being said, there is something to think about in long runs of spotless days resulting in the Weather morphing into the Wild Thing.
Leif Svalgaard (19:52:18) :
That graphic says a lot. Don’t change anything, just keep up the good work.
this is at once most fascinating, and received with great appreciation. I had wondered for some time what had happened to the usual sun blog here whilst recognizing the immense importance of the climategate fiasco.
I often look at the inactivity of the sun with one eye on the interesting apocalyptic theories surrounding 2012. Somehow these sun data seem to be telling us we are converging on something massive about to happen.
Whilst a lot of 2012 theories may be viewed by some as pseudo science let us bear in mind there are many historical precedents saying we are in for some turbulent times and the sun may be at the heart of this. I wonder, can you say if there is any mileage in the theory we are entering the galactic center so to speak? And will this have a bearing on the suns activity?
If there is a stronger gravitational field as we enter the plane of the ecliptic I believe it is called, will this have an effect on the sun, on its magnetic fields? I take note of what Patrick Geryl says, can anyone comment on this?
If the sun is inactive is it because its magnetic fields are so entrapped about themselves it us like a pressure vessel, and is simply containing energy in itself, until these magnetic stresses no longer hold and as Geryl says, then the whole sun will flare into extraordinary activity?
Thus, can we expect a magnetic bow wave and solar mass ejection when these stresses no longer hold? And is this what the authorities are worried about as we approach 2012? I have a wide open mind on all this may I say.
Googling around I found this old Physics World article that may give another look at solar activity in the past.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676