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,
One thing I’ve always wondered about is how are counts normalised so that comparing what we are able to observe with today’s instruments with centuries past with crude or no instruments are matched, even after accounting for the eliminate the outlier obs? It seems to me that past centuries could only observe the largest spots and so wouldn’t we have more spotless days if we use that as the standard?
Also isn’t it time to work out a better metric that is perhaps more valuable rather than just raw counts, but perhaps %age of surface covered so small spots are not given the same weight as large ones?
JEM (16:36:47) :
HarryG – you mean Anthony has his own Gore Effect?
Do we call random sunspots appearing after WUWT postings WattsSpots?
Yes – and it is well documented.
anon (23:55:02) :
See PowerPoint presentation here by Dr Svalgaard.
anon (23:55:02) :
Also isn’t it time to work out a better metric that is perhaps more valuable rather than just raw counts, but perhaps %age of surface covered so small spots are not given the same weight as large ones?
That’s exactly what the Layman’s Count attempts to do.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
The answer to one of the first posts about clouds and temps is easy. It is called radiational cooling. We get it a lot here in Northern WI, and clear skies are an integral part of those -30ºF nights we get in January. Look at the clouds like your hat. Both keep heat from radiating away from the source.
It is not surprising to see temps rise a little in the latest widget update. The El Nino has gained strength since October. There is some cold water showing up in Nino 1, so a guy can hope.
Welcome back Dr. Svalgaard! I very much appreciate your contributions here.
So as I understand this, we currently have:
1. A strong El Nino, which tends to increase global temperature;
2. A strong and sustained sunspot minimum which tends to decrease global temperature;
3. A PDO/AMO index on the wane which might point to a trend of decreasing temperatures.
Seems to me the following scenarios are possible:
1. A short-term increase in temperature as the El Nino effects and slowly rising sunspots join forces.
2. A longer-term significant fall in temperature as the greater propensity for La Nina takes over due to the PDO/AMO state.
3. The magnitude of the decrease being dependent on the nature of the next two sunspot cycles and the contribution of heat release from oceanic stores.
4. If carbon dioxide contributes something, this may ameliorate any effects as it is still rising fairly strongly and will continue to do so up to 2020.
Any thoughts from the sages as to what the most likely scenarios are based on those parameters and any thoughts on the probabilities assigned to them?
marchesarosa (17:42:33) :
Corbyn won’t reveal all his work as he maintains that it is commercially sensitive! I can understand therefore why he wouldn’t release too much “how to” stuff. The “trick” is, does he get it right most of the time? He had approached the Met Office & the government in the past, & like all potentially great scientific/engineering discoveries made in the UK, it was ignored, e.g Barnes Wallis’ swing wing concept. BW always claimed that he must have upset someone in the Air Ministry before or just at the start of WWII, as he was frequently blocked at every twist & turn ever since.
I will be watching the Solar activity with a keen eye over the next few weeks. It will be interesting to see whether such a potential milestone event will be reported by the BBC straigh away, or more likely, waiting several weeks when a suitable moment appears in the news front, such as a natural disastar or regretfully a terrorist attrocity, where such a momentous point can be lost , as in “now would be a good time to bury bad news” sort of thing, as is there wont!
May you “hide the decline!”.
AtB
Dave The Engineer (16:34:37) :
“I figured this was coming. I pulled some strings to get moved to South Carolina. It may not be far enough south…”
Don’t say that Dave, I moved to North Carolina from the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts. It looks like Maurice Strong, “Father of Global Warming” made the correct move when he took over the Bacca ranch in Colorado. It is sitting on some of the most fertile land in the USA, three major underground water sources and of course oil.
If there is an Ice age, what will Strong’s ranch look like?
“At the most extreme stage of the last glaciation, most of Canada and much of the northern USA were covered by an ice sheet thousands of metres in thickness. Colder and often drier than present conditions predominated across most of the USA. The eastern deciduous and conifer forests were replaced by more open conifer woodlands with cooler-climate species of pines and a large component of spruce. The open spruce woodland and parkland extended somewhat further west than present, into what is now the prairie zone. As a result of aridity and lowering of sea level (which lowered inland water tables), much of Florida was covered by drifting sand dunes. Notably moister than present conditions occurred across much of the south-west, with open conifer woodlands and scrub common in areas that are now semi-desert.” Reconstruction of North America during last Ice Age
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html
Looks like Strong is very well placed if an Ice Age comes along. I have always wondered if he actually believes his own hype. If the elite really think we are headed for an ice age [Milankovitch cycle], it would explain the grab for power and control of the food supply, the attempt to kill the transportation industry as well as why Baxter sent out a bio-weapon instead of a flu vaccine material to medical distributors in 18 countries. Are the plans to drastically cut back the population and prevent them from easily moving to better territory?
“Was the viral contamination intentional?
The shocking answer is that this couldn’t have been an accident. Why? Because Baxter International adheres to something called BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) – a set of laboratory safety protocols that prevent the cross-contamination of materials. As explained on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosaf):”
To put it bluntly if penicillin can not be legally manufactured in the same facility as other medications due to cross contamination problems, then what the heck was a bio-weapon doing in a human medicine manufacturing facility???
ummm….. everyone?
“Leif Svalgaard (19:52:18) :
To compare with the minimum in 1954:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%20”
That graphic to me is misleading, the curves start off at totally different heights, the 2008 curve should include the period when F10.7 was at 120, and we would get a totally different picture.
The Layman’s count will be the only relevant count if we wish to compare with sunspot data before 1910.
According to spaceweather.com we are still in deep solar minimum. Bob k6tr at the SC24 discussion board disagrees with this and claims SM is over as we have passed its deepest point in Dec 2008.
That may be so, but looking at solar wind and Planetary K-index, they are both extremely quiet for November. Flare activity is near non-existent.
Whilst flux has increased slightly the monthly average has still not reached 75 to date.
Looking at magnetograms for November we see many tiny SC 23 signatures and reversed 24 signatures, tiny yes, but the most noticeable features during blank days. The rare large SC 24 magnetic regions for Nov only produced faint paint-spatter-like pores.
The monthly sunspot number has been below 5 for 20 consecutive months.
It would be interesting to know which month is month of sunspot minimum (smoothed) and what is its value according to the Layman’s count as it would probably differ to International.
We can still see that the sun is showing unusual behavior.
Regardless of what the official sunspot minimum is, we are clearly not yet seeing signs of a strong ramp up and we are much closer to deep minimum conditions than a strong recovery.
davidgmills (17:42:56) :
“…The liberal blogosphere thinks Obama is George Bush II. So much for HOPE and CHANGE.
And you thought there was actually a difference between the Republicans and Democrats??? Check your history. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was sponsored by democrats. A Democrat, Clinton (and his buddies at Monsanto and Cargill) gave us the World Trade Organization. I am betting the Health Care Bill, if it passes will be the Federal Reserve Act for Insurance companies after they finish modifying it. In other words the Insurance companies will have complete control and be exempt from Congressional oversight just like the bankers control our money with no Congressional oversight. It took the bankers less than fifty years to achieve than, I wonder how long the Insurance Companies will take?
If the elite want to slip a really pro-wealthy bill pass the US citizens they get the democrats to do it. Activists are so gullible they never bother to look behind the curtain and see where the money trail leads.
Waxman, of Cap & Trade fame, has a Food bill that is another pro-wealthy bill the democrats are pushing.
What the bill actually does: HR 2749: Food Safety’s Scorched Earth Policy http://farmwars.info/?p=1284
History behind the bill: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
Snowguy716 (18:15:09) : said
“I live in northern Minnesota, and as totally anecdotal evidence, I believe the climate has already begun to shift into a colder state here. Perhaps I’m just “seeing things” as it were… because we had an unprecedented run of warmth from 1998-2006… but the weather has been as cold since early 2007 as it was warm during the 1998-2006 “warm episode””
I live in NC and I compared 2009 to 2004 awhile back. In 2004 we hit 93F in April and by May we hit 98 twice. While in 2009 the maximum in May was only 89, June was 93, July 95 and August 96F. I have lived here since 1995 and spend most of my time outside building barns and putting up fences. Temperature between 95 and a 100 were typical for the summers here up until recently.
I also noticed the “reported” temperatures for the “location” are always higher when reported on the next day this year. I might have missed the actual high temp but the low at dawn is at or close to the minimum and there is no way it is going to be HIGHER than the temperature I saw in the morning the day before yet it is anywhere from 1 to 4F higher but never lower.
I am still amazed with the precision we detect sunspots today. We use satellite images which give us a resolution of the sun surface which was not available 50 years ago.
To what of a resolution were scientists able to observe the sun surface 50 or 100 years ago?
Does anyone try to observe the sun surface today himself/herself?
Just consider using a pair of “household” bino’s (7×50 or 8×40) with dark foil (or aluminium foil) and look into the sun?
Besides the cloud problem on rainy days, your eyes are going to hurt!
I would argue that there were tiny “missed” sunspots in earlier times (before the satellite age) and if you would apply those rules into our time – then we would have even more days without sunspots!
The Maunder minimum could easily been repeated today (Cycle 23-24)!
Just a thought!
Any comments?
Thanks, DET.
nick (22:17:07) :
” I wonder, can you say if there is any mileage in the theory we are entering the galactic center so to speak?”
The galactic CENTER? The distance of the Sun to the center of the Galaxy is 28,000 light-years.
“If there is a stronger gravitational field as we enter the plane of the ecliptic…”
The Earth is always in the plane of the ecliptic… by definition!
We are at about the right time for a de Vries minimum in solar activity. The cycle is someplace between 180 and 220 years long and its been about that since the Dalton minimum.
Dalton Minimum: 24 consecutive months below 5
SC 23-24 Minimum: 20 consecutive months below 5 (until November 2009)
1913 Minimum: 15 consecutive months below 5
“Det Riedel (05:24:02) :
I would argue that there were tiny “missed” sunspots in earlier times (before the satellite age) and if you would apply those rules into our time – then we would have even more days without sunspots!
The Maunder minimum could easily been repeated today (Cycle 23-24)!
Just a thought!
Any comments?”
This is true, refer to Layman’s Sunspot Count :
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Three things jump out at me.
First was that the record high temperatures of the 1930s came just after a three year span, and we so far are in a three year span of low sunspots.
Second was that between 1911 and 1934 (23 years) there were 10 years of low sun spots and from this point on we temperatures have steadly climbed. Apparantly helps if you start from a nice low point.
Third contributing to the warming would be only one set of low sunspots with of two consecitive years, the rest happen at the 10 to 11 year cycles.
Ipse Dixit (19:17:12) :
I know perfectly well where to get TSI data. I’m making a suggestion on how to improve articles like this about solar activity: instead of just giving sunspot counts in isolation, the TSI data would provide good context.
Det Riedel (05:24:02) :
I hate to sound like some health and safety pedant but yes it’ll hurt and you’ll probably blind yourself too!! Buy a solar scope or use decent purpose made solar filters on a standard one. Even a tiny pin prick in a homemade lash up will do considerable permanent damage. If you can’t afford that, project onto card in the time honoured fashion instead.
See http://www.spaceweather.com/sunspots/doityourself.html
mark in austin (16:21:30) :
” is there a lag in the temperature effects?”
Albuquerque growing season correlation to Ap Index shows a lag of 5 years. This winter or the next should be interesting.
Here are some things we should keep in mind in with Mr. Stanko’s to-the-point article; I’m sure readers will add others.
1. Some have referenced that the data collection methods for sunspot detection have improved. Being careful to remember it as a conservative assumption, a more accurate count now would mean that earlier (pre 1850 so Dalton and Maunder would be included) might be undercounted. And don’t forget we only look at half of the sun anyway but because of sunspot duration, the western limb data probably reflects up to at least 1/3 of the opposite side.
2. The graphic compilation http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png provides an up-close look a the cycle 23-24 transition. While TSI and F10.7 appear to show the beginnings of an uptick in Cyc24, the MF component and the recent presence of Cyc23 sunspots belie this assumptiom.
3. “Averaged over the globe, sunlight falling on Earth in January [at perihelion] is about 7% more intense than it is in July [at aphelion],” says Roy Spencer of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, AL.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast04jan_1.htm
— At at time when the hemisphere with the most ocean available for heating is pointed toward and closest to the sun, that hemisphere will experience it’s third perihelion (summer) season during this solar minimum. Hmmm…
4. It would be dubious to make predictions based on the latitudes of the sunspots during the current cycle 23-24 transition.
5. I’ve seen numerous comments about the El Nino. As I understand it, this pattern is most conducive to transferring heat out of the oceans and delivering it to the atmosphere. For this to occur during a minimum, where with the onset of cyc24, global ground temps are still running near recorded highs, my actually hasten a prolonged drop in temps.
6. I agree there is some correlation between long solar cycles and temperture (longer cycles and lower temps) and if you consider the ocean as a large thermal capacitor you would it expect to discharge at a higher rate when the input signal (simplified-radiant heat from solar forcing). In that context an El Nino would make sense.
All, this is one of most congenial sites I’ve seen during this climategate debate, and it is appreciated. However, I’m impatient to get past the politics and fraud alerts and to see the science get on the right track.
Leif, have Livingston and Penn collected readings for the spots numbered during the month of November for their Umbral data plot? Are the readings falling in line with the prediction?
When I say galactic center I mean the void that overlooks the center, not the literal center. Our position overlooking this center.
I believe we are in the process of passing through this less populated part of the galaxy now where it overlooks the central black hole so to speak. This point should be clear.
The information on Patrick Geryls website sums up the point I am making, also the work of Paul la Violette.
I am thus wondering, if we are approaching a more gravitationally intense part of the galaxy, in the next few years, if this will have a significant impact on the sun
Also, i am asking if there is something in the theory that the suns magnetic fields become so wound up over time eventually it responds by a huge release of energy and if this process is what we are observing in the presently, quiescent sun. And if this energy is being held until some stress release mechanism causes an expansion of the magnetic field and possible solar mass ejection.
I have no views on this at all, but these are theories that are bandied about, does anyone give any scientific credence to them?
Umm Det, I once used a 10 x 50 pair covered with aluminum foil and just two pin holes pricked into it. Apparently my corneas turned into a puff of smoke almost instantly… or so they say because I didn’t see it happen.
rbateman (16:49:40) :
Can you make a movie?