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,
Can anyone tell me how the solar winds reported on Space weather.com can be 241.4km/sec? I was under the impression that the minimum solar wind needed to be 250km/sec for the solar wind to escape the suns gravity.
Well, somewhere after Plato – all the people who followed his mistake of the mind-body dichotomy have gained the upper hand in the power struggle.
Especially bad marks to those who believe a shallow polemic named Karl Marx. Ayn Rand describes their agenda in “The New Left – The Anti-Industrial Revolution” (newer edition called Return of the Primitive” as that is what they want to push humans back to).
OTOH, Aristotle got the right answer, and the CRU schemers are an example of avoiding reality of his maxim “A is A”.
Ooops, somehow I over-wrote the quote from an earlier post:
I could qualify to work at CRU?
Oh, fiddle – the usual email quoting marks (chevrons) doesn’t work on this blog software – an example of how easy it is to goof up.
So “Where did humanity get it wrong? Was it in Montreal, or in Kyoto?
Ecotretas”
Perhaps the moderator could kindly put the quoted above into my first post and delete the correction posts? Thankyou.
If anyone out there is interested in true science, you must read the following report:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (19:52:18) :
As I recall, there was a lot of cold weather after 1954 and into the 70s!
nofreewind (17:56:49) : GCR are composed (90%) of protons (hydrogen nucleii)
“Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from outer space that impinge on Earth’s atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, almost 10% are helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% are heavier elements and electrons (beta minus particles).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays
Gail: You are absolutely right there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. The financial elite control both. As one senator (forget which one, but he was a Democrat) recently claimed: “The bankers own the place [Congress].” The financial elite also own and control the media so all we hear is what those elites want us to hear.
It is just that people like David the Engineer do not seem to understand what is going on.
The financial elite are extraordinarily good at making the rest of us fight over much ado about nothing. Divide and conquer. Very Machiavellian.
And the health care bill will be a fiasco for everyone but the insurance companies and big pharma. Without a real choice between government insurance and private insurance, the private insurance monopolies will just tighten their grip on the rest of us.
True insurance choice would be like getting to choose between public education and private education.
JohnV (16:11:14) :
It will be interesting what happens if 2010 is very warm despite the deep solar minimum. What would that say about the influence of GHG-induced warming relative to the influence of a solar cycle?
Yes, it will be interesting to see what occurs in the near future. If there were only two factors in play, GHG and sunspots, and no noise in the observations or system to worry about, then we would have a filled table of contrasts and be able to say what cause what. Unfortunately the situation is not all that simple.
danzo (07:36:01) :
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 assumption.
The MF has little to do with the actual minimum. The Mean Field [MF} measures the average field over the central half of the disk [actually 1/4] and thus reflects the presence of low-latitudes coronal holes. As the field in coronal holes originate from decaying sunspots and because there are no more SC23 low-latitude spots, the MF is decaying too and will only begin to pick up when SC24 spots begin to show up at somewhat lower latitude. So, there is no doubt that minimum was in December, 2008, assuming that it is meaningful to define a minimum at all. Cosmic rays begins to decline 6-18 months after minimum so should begin the decline soon, unless Oulu decides to ‘hide the decline’ 🙂
Mr. Alex (07:39:34) :
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?
Yes the average field was 1969 G and intensity 0.831, right where they should be. My plot at http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png is always up-to-date as Bill Livingston sends all his data to me as soon as he has them.
davidgmills (08:38:10) : So…let’s get acquainted with someone of the elite..☺
Readers haven’t read much from Dr. Leif Svalgaard recently because the posts have been dominated by Climategate and Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t have much to say about that…telling.
From what I’ve gotten from Dr Svalgaard, he is an AGW proponent — but he doesn’t know how strong the supposed AGW effect is.
Dr. Svalgaard has repeatedly and forcefully stated that sunspots or the lack thereof has little or nothing to do with climate variations.
Also, Dr. Svalgaard tends to support conventional scientific thinking, the status quo — and regrettably, say what you want — the majority of scientists have remained quiet during Climategate because it throws an unfavorable light on the state of science in general in many disciplines because these kind of activities highlighted in Climategate have pereated more than just climate science.
(Heck, Dr. Svalgaard called on commenters being banned, here on this forum, because they made statements he didn’t agree with — sound familiar?)
So, I’d be suprised if Dr. Svalgaard offers an opus on Climategate (but I’d be very interested in what he has to say, if he chose to).
More likely, he’ll keep his head down and concentrate on what he does best (and does exceptionally well), measure the Sun’s output.
Mr. Svalgaard,
Thanks for the explanation on MF. I have an EE and nuclear physics background and semiconductors are keeping me very busy. So climate science is a hobby for me.
You indicated the minimum was in Dec 08. It seems many people see the minimum as a point in time rather than a threshold. For those of us who follow this science more as consumers rather than contributors, where can we find, or can you provide a list of “things to look for” to improve the general understanding of the events we see? Most of us with science backgrounds (applied or not) are accustomed to drawing our own conclusions based on data, and we try to do that based on what little we know. Therefore, it takes discipline to restrain judgement when we don’t have sufficient information when we think we might…. For the majority for whom climate/solar science is a hobby or even a passing interest, what guideance or direction do you suggest for those just getting started?
thank you for your time. danzo
James F. Evans (09:47:59) :
Readers haven’t read much from Dr. Leif Svalgaard recently
And considering the tone of your posting, you won’t hear from me again.
Dr. Svalgaard:
I would hope one man’s opinion wouldn’t keep you from speaking out. That certainly hasn’t been your pattern.
In a complimentary way, folks that are forceful in various professions, are known as “bull dogs” (again, this is generally a compliment to the tenacity of the individual).
I’m sorry if my “tone” was offensive. What “tone” was that? But I’m more concerned about facts and evidence. If I’m inaccurate in my statements or characterizations, I want that pointed out.
Many readers, here, have great respect for your opinions and expertise in tracking and measuring the Sun’s output, and I agree with that assessment, if not all the corollary conclusions you so forcefully express.
Please don’t punish readers of Watts Up With That? because I or others may disagree with your corollary conclusions.
Jonesll: Dream on. It’s those dreams of fortune that perpetuate the reality.
Leif Svalgaard (10:03:32) :
James F. Evans (09:47:59) :
“Readers haven’t read much from Dr. Leif Svalgaard recently”
And considering the tone of your posting, you won’t hear from me again.
Please, Leif, just ignore people like that. It is good having your input on sun matters, and all reasonable readers of this blog know how to classify such opinionated pieces as the one above.
Norman (17:23:22) :
“I was wondering, if carbon dioxide does not create a “greenhouse” effect and warm the Earth somewhat, what is the factor that allows a cloudy night to remain much warmer than a clear night?”
CO2 does not make clouds.
Clouds are water vapor. Clouds provide cooling during the day by reflecting sunlight away from earth. They retain heat (which is different from warming) at night by inhibiting the radiation of heat to space. Humid air is less effective at cooling the ground via wicking/evaporation/transpiration than dry air is, as well, however precipitation from clouds helps amplify this cooling effect.
So clouds can perform both warming and cooling depending on day or night, rainfall and wind speed, as well as, apparently what altitude the clouds are at, with high clouds more effective at reflecting insolation back to space, while low clouds tend to warm the troposphere and stratosphere more while radiating to space.
Note that I did not mention CO2 once here. The assumption that CO2 causes warming is based on some laboratory experiments on CO2 in a chamber, at high concentrations. I have not heard of a study that tests trace levels of CO2 in a low pressure environment akin to the high altitude that CO2 is supposed to be reflecting heat back from. If anyone knows of one please cite it.
James F. Evans (09:47:59) :
Leif’s work is an open book, he hides nothing.
He has his opinions, and we all have ours.
As a source of Solar knowledge, he’s been an encyclopedia to us, including references.
He also happens to be one of the few to be left standing as regards SC24 predictions.
And the only one I know of that communicates directly.
That’s rare.
James F. Evans (09:47:59) :
“(Heck, Dr. Svalgaard called on commenters being banned, here on this forum, because they made statements he didn’t agree with — sound familiar?)”
Actually James, he didn’t, I did, but not against people who merely disagree with him. I think there is a vast distinction between reasonable and respectful intellectual discussion and debate, and some of the rude calling out on the carpet type attitudes we’ve seen from some people toward Dr. Svalgaard. I disagree with him on some things, but he knows a lot more about his discipline than I could hope to know, and look forward to learning more from him in the future, and hope he participates more here.
The alarmists claim that skeptics websites are full of rude and offensive snarky comments as an excuse to refuse to participate here, despite the clear evidence of worse behavior at RC and CP that anybody who has spent a few minutes browsing those sites can see with their own eyes. Steve McIntyre is pretty strict about posting on CA and despite him strictly policing comments there, the Team continues to insist its offensive there. Their opinion doesn’t matter to me so much as ensuring the public is able to tell the difference with their own eyes.
Just as we are winning the public battle in Climategate by sticking to message that data and methods should be open and transparent, and that peer review needs vast improvements, which any reasonable person cannot help but endorse as common sense and reasonable, it is important that we also win the PR battle on who has the more civil websites. Part of this is showing respect for science professionals who do post on skeptic blogs like WUWT and CA, even if we disagree with their positions. The only people we should be see rudeness from here are AGW cultists. Everyone else knows how to be better than that.
James F. Evans (09:47:59) :
–(Heck, Dr. Svalgaard called on commenters being banned, here on this forum, because they made statements he didn’t agree with — sound familiar?)–
Do you have a citation for that?
I have seen Dr. Svalgaard call baseless nonsense exactly that and I have seen him object to abusive ad homs and other such prattle.
I rather doubt he called for someone to be banned merely because they made some otherwise reasonable statement he didn’t agree with.
Your innuendo about his motives through out your post are quite repugnant, regardless of the patronising pat on the back you give him at the end.
Mike Lorrey
Low and mid level cloud decks do present the tendency to trap heat, so yes in the lower and mid levels of the atmosphere water vapor behaves as a hot house gas. As the amount of water vapor in the near earth & upper (& both are space cold) atmospheres increases, however, so does the rate of ice crystallization which acts to decrease TSI….mental arithmetic
When the galactic position of the sun induces it to share more of its energy the earth is not really able to keep near earth water vapor and as much upper atmosphere water vapor in tow, so…..do the mental arithmetic
The math on a warm/ cold planet is really that simple
What a joy to see that Leif is back amongst us!
I regard him as one of, if not the, most valuable major contributor to WUWT.
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
Do you know the works of Dr. Stephen E. Schwartz?
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html
It seems that he initially calculated the time constant of our planet to be around 5 years, but that he now has adjusted that to 8.5 years due to new research. If you look at equation (4) in his paper from June 2007
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf,
we see that he has a simple heat balance for our planet that also includes the Stefan Boltzman radiation term. This latter term would probably avoid the runaway problem we identified in my simple model a while ago,
Leif Svalgaard (11:12:30) : 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.
I am a little reluctant to include too many terms in a simple model like this, since too many terms and parameters can fit anything. Thus I would like to ask you whether you think the heat balance of Schwartz is scientifically sound, or whether it should be modified. Is this the simplest possible heat balance for our planet that also makes sense scientifically? If this is the case, perhaps it contains so much information that it actually can be a useful approximation?
Yours Sincerely
Invariant
Question:
What do people think might be the effect of the following on warming or cooling of planet Earth?
Is it an ideal time to test the cosmic ray theory on cloud formation?
Just asking.
NASA: 09.29.2009
“In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” according to Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29sep_cosmicrays.htm