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,
I know about CERN’s CLOUD experiment but seems to me this might be the real deal but I admit I have no clue that’s why I ask.
Jimbo (13:46:14) : 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?
Indeed! We are all awaiting the experiment in CERN to reveal the mechanism anytime soon, almost like kids are looking forward to Christmas! Certainly I am not an expert here at all, still if the world continues to cool in 2010 and 2011, we cannot conclude that the sun is not involved. While it surely is impossible to prove a relationship between cosmic rays, cloud cover and climate, such a relationship may still exist…
HELIOSPHERE TO SHRINK EVEN FURTHER, RISE IN COSMIC RAYS?
“Since early today, the solar wind has virtually vanished, reaching exceptionally low speeds (now at 250 km/s), low densities (< 0.1 electron/cm3) and low plasma temperatures (< 10⁴ K), based on ACE and SOHO/MTOF data."
http://sidc.oma.be/index.php
Bryan Madeley (13:00:29) : 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.
Agreed. Leif er det motsatte av løgn, forbandet løgn og statistik…
http://hodja.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/climategate-l%C3%B8gn-forbandet-l%C3%B8gn-og-statistik/
Skål!
vukcevic (14:26:06) :
I assume that there is a standard correction to be applied (what index doesn’t have one) that would make the Solar Wind speed > 250km/s, but the PRESTO alert makes it clear: The solar wind did shut down today to minimum speed. There is a minimum due to the laws of physics that Leif explained, it has a floor due to expanding plasma.
Perhaps we get a real measurement to verify the physics, eh?
Wow, after looking at these graphs and correlating all my Raw data which I have now disposed of, it has become clear to me the the rapid decline in the sunspots is MAN MADE.
Yes, the debate is over, we are to blame and unless we take drastic action right now the polar bears will die and life as we know it will end.
I suggest, no demand, that we create a new world government charged with reversing the damage we have caused to the sun. They should have unrestricted authority over all nations and governments but not be seen as dictators.
I am going to hold a summit called Solarhagen where the world leaders will agree to sign to all my binding terms.
Let’s make Solarhagen Hopenhagen, vote now!
Brian B (12:25:07) : to James F. Evans (09:47:59) : Your innuendo about his (Dr. Svalgaard) motives throughout your post are quite repugnant, regardless of the patronising pat on the back you give him at the end.
Fully endorsed, Brian.
Leif: Could you weigh in on the Solar Wind reaching minimum today?
Wow … not just ‘populists’ *, but fatalists …
Any of you folks _ever_ considered running for office?
Ever heard of Sarah Palin – or are familiar with her story?
I’ll preempt any nonsensical comments with this: “Right … ”
(Sorry mods, but if you’re going to allow some of these comments I feel compelled to rebut.)
* Populism – a political discourse that juxtaposes “the people” with “the elites.”
Let’s look at Bolshevism – founded by Vladimir Lenin and who considered themselves as the vanguard of the revolutionary working class (of Russia).
Sound just a little bit similar?
.
.
.
James F. Evans (09:47:59) :
God-dang-it…..just when we think we got him back…and you have to write those barbs, James.
Completely uncalled for.
Leif…please weigh in. Your opinion is needed here….and greatly respected.
Ignore the emotional chaff here. You know…It’s science that counts.
And you are damn good at the science.
Even though you and I don’t seem to get along on this blog, I HIGHLY respect you and your life’s work.
Your opinion is most needed…especially in uncertain science times like this.
Thank you.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
And there’s Chris … with another all-italics post …
The ONLY one on the site with that trait!
(hard to tell what you’re quoting from other posters, Chris)
.
.
Jim (22:31:07) :
It must be your medium for viewing Jim. I have a Mac. And most people can discern my italic quotes from the rest.
Stop making an issue of it….as I have explained in the past….I am following the rules.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
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?
It would say that it takes a long time to cool off a few billion tons of sea water… This isn’t like a light bulb. Sun damps, cold now. It’s more like a wood stove. No new wood in at midnight, still heats the house all night, only cooling the next day. But with decades instead of days.
rbateman (16:27:56) :
“…….Perhaps we get a real measurement to verify the physics, eh?
…….Leif: Could you weigh in on the Solar Wind reaching minimum today?”
It is a wander of nature that whenever we may think we know its limits, it pulls out a surprise.
I hope good old doc Svalgaard is keeping an eye on this unruly bunch.
His comments and guidance are great inspiration. Fact that I often go down slippery slope of quasi science, rather than well trodden path, is the excitement of stepping into unknown.
So Dr. S we need you here.
E.M.Smith (04:12:14) :
“…..It would say that it takes a long time to cool off a few billion tons of sea water…”
I think it is the slow moving oceans’ currents that do the long term job.
While I will not put words in Dr. Svalgaard’s mouth, I was clearly under the impression that he has stated that sunspots do not cause warming in the past. I can definitely agree with that. Sunspots are generally an activity indicator, and are therefore not causal. Sounds like sound reasoning to me if I have read it correctly.
By all means Dr. Svalgaard, please stay here! I have been frequently guilty of skipping post just to read yours when pressed for time.
Regardless of the counting bias of current tech vs historical counts, what I find really telling is that we are in the front end of the cycle and the current cycle is already way up in the list of cycles with spotless days. Consider that all the other cycles are complete cycles and this is just a partial one. That would be like having 60 home runs by the mid-session All Star break in baseball and showing up on the list of all time hitters. We live in interesting times.
Just as I find time to read all the way through, and find to my delight that Leif is back, he goes again! May I add to the caucus of appreciation and requests to stay with it and ignore the poor tone of some commentators.
As Leif always points out – the correlation between low solar or interplanetary field and cooler temperatures on Earth is not as good as some would have it. Not enough to convince him, anyway – and we should bear that in mind.
Others have pointed to the heat storage of the oceans. I think there has to be a prolonged low in the field – a shift in the jetstream (which does correlate well), and then timelagged forces that deplete heat stores – it then takes time to recover. The Earth’s system is still in recovery from the Little Ice Age, and as the cycles turn, we may be about to return to a one. I don’t think there is any prospect of a big ice age, as these are controlled more by orbital changes which are slow and not predicted to take effect for another few thousand years. If we are at the peak of the modern maximum, then the next peak in a thousand years time could be higher than now – long interglacials (20,000 years) are about 2 C warmer than short ones (10,000 years) and most climate science thinks we are half way through a long one.
“Since early today, the solar wind has virtually vanished, reaching exceptionally low speeds (now at 250 km/s), low densities (< 0.1 electron/cm3) and low plasma temperatures (< 10⁴ K), based on ACE and SOHO/MTOF data."
The duration of this near absense of solar wind is important to observe & measure.
Should it continue for an extended period of time, it will also be important to observe & measure phenomenon within and including the Earth's magnetosphere for signs of corollary changes.
Apparently, aurora activity is also at a minimum.
What else may be effected?
Will the height of the ionosphere be effected?
Dr. Svalgaard is correct about direct TSI. Here are regional temperature reconstructions from two top climatologist of last centuary (before politics became essential component of climate science) H. Lamb (UK) and J. Eddy (USA). http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gif
Notice both show regional temperature drop well before onset of the Maunder minimum and rise well before the Mm ended.
Dr. Svalgaards commented :
“The LIA lasted several centuries and [as you point out] the coldest temperatures were at the high solar activity when Galileo [and others] first observed the spots. If you look back through the record the past 2000 years [shown in my link above] it is hard to get the notion that there is any relationship at all.”
However, I believe that there is a magnetic connection as shown here:
Pre 1900: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HL-GMF.gif
Post 1900: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-temGMF.gif
Since I do not have convincing hypothesis it is not surprising that Dr. S. would reject it. After comments by Dr.S. I abandon an initial attempt, did lot more research and now I am having another go.
savethesharks (22:25:18) :
[James F. Evans (09:47:59)]
God-dang-it…..just when we think we got him back…and you have to write those barbs, James.
Completely uncalled for.
By popular demand, I’ll try again, but with fair warning to Mr. Evans and his ilk.
The effect of low solar wind:
The solar wind speed cannot fall below 250 km/sec [subject to the normal random fluctuations of some tens of km], because that is the escape velocity at the altitude from where we get the solar wind [this altitude may vary a bit too]. The density of the solar wind depends on how many protons are escaping which in turn depends on the density and temperature of the corona [which in turn depends on solar activity (which in turn depends on …, etc)]. But even if the temperature varies there will always be a ‘tail’ of protons with higher speed that the average, and it is from this tail that the solar wind is formed. But because the tail is ‘thin’ there are fewer and fewer protons with speeds high enough for escape for a lower temperature corona. So, some will always escape, but very few if the temperature is low. Thus the density of the solar wind can fall to very low values [100-1000 times lower than normal] for the slow wind. The magnetic field, on the other hand, is always dragged out no matter how thin the solar wind plasma is [within reason], so the magnetic field will not be significantly lower [there will still be compression and rarefaction regions due to solar wind with different speed being emitted in the same direction (because the Sun is rotating), but on average over a solar rotation the solar wind will be rather constant [currently about 4 nT]. Many CMEs will add further magnetic flux, so at solar maximum the HMF will about double. Cosmic rays are not modulated by the solar wind speed or the density, but by tangled magnetic fields, and since the magnetic field does not go to very low values, I would not expect any change in the GCR modulation. It takes 6-18 months [feel free to quibble] for the solar wind to fill up the heliosphere, so the GCRs will begin their decline about a year after solar ‘minimum’, so about now. The exact delay will depend on how much the new activity has added to the HMF, which may not be much, so a further delay is possible. We need some good-sized coronal holes at medium latitudes to produce significant modulation. All of this will, naturally, have little or nothing to do with any cooling/warming we observe at present or in the near future.
Welcome back Dr. Svalgaard
Interesting about magnetic field, B is related to the individual protons, regardless of their number ?
Presumably front end of the E’s magnetosphere would react if the ‘magnetic pressure’ drops due to the current low count?
More on slow solar wind:
Since Helium is more massive than Hydrogen [alpha particles vs. protons] we would expect the ratio between alpha particles and protons to decline as the solar wind speed declines, because it is harder to expel a heavy alpha than a light proton. And sure enough that ratio does decline, to the point where it reaches zero [or rather: there are too few alphas to be able to measure them] when the speed declines to ~250 km/sec.
vukcevic (10:39:49) :
B is related to the individual protons, regardless of their number ?
No, B is dragged out by being frozen to the plasma. As long as there are enough protons to carry the current involved in freezing in of the plasma, B will be dragged out.
Presumably front end of the E’s magnetosphere would react if the ‘magnetic pressure’ drops due to the current low count?
No, the shape of the magnetosphere is largely determined by the density and the speed and not the magnetic field. The effect of erosion by a southward B is minor compared to that. During the famous ‘solar wind disappearance’ on 11 May 1999, the magnetosphere swelled to be six times larger than normal, even though B was close to the average long-term average.
Thank you, Leif. Happy holidays!
Buy long underwear before the Progressives tax ’em.