From Spaceweather.com
The sun is showing signs of life. There are no fewer than five active regions on the sun’s surface, shown here in an extreme ultraviolet photo taken this morning by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO):
Each circle contains a sunspot or proto-sunspot belonging to new Solar Cycle 24. After two years of record-low sunspot numbers and many month-long stretches of utter quiet, this is a notable outbreak. Whether it heralds a genuine trend or merely marks a temporary, statistical uptick in activity remains to be seen.
Dan Hampton (23:56:57) :
I am particularly interested in knowing if there is a known relationship between the cycles of planetary motion and solar activity.
Lots of them. Earth/Moon orbit in sync with TSI for one. http://virakkraft.com/TSI-perigee-09.png
On a larger scale, Venus (and EMB) AM and solar activity: http://virakkraft.com/Venus-AM-SSN-1800-2009.png
rbateman (10:30:55) :
A butterfly diagram from Debrecen
Interesting diagram Robert, the gap in the data after 2003 looks strange?
The SC24 pattern is certainly more sparse than the 2 previous cycles.
If we start with the studies of what works in climate forecasting, the Milankovitch cycles, and expand on what has turned out to be true about solar cycles according to Theodor Landscheidt, ( the only one to correctly forecast the long solar minimum we are passing through). The evidence points to the natural variability factors as being the effects of the rotation or the galaxy and the swirl imparted to the local area of the spiral arm we seem to reside in (Milankovitch), and by the inertial dampening of the planets effects on the barycenter of the solar system, moves the sun’s center of mass around as it tries to stay magnetically and gravitationally centered in the swirling magnetic fields, plasma, and dust clouds, and other stars joining us in this dance to the celestial music as it were.
(Landscheidt) Found the driving forces of the Inertial dampening of the system and defined it to the point of predictability, it only seems that that the next steps would be to analyze the effects of the interactions of the Inner planets, which have a rhythmic pattern to their orbital relationships, and their relations to the weather patterns they share.
The magnetic impulses in the solar wind, from the rotation of the tilted ~12 degree magnetic poles of the sun, alternates the polarity of the magnetic fields introduced into the solar wind.
Which in turn have driven the Moon / Earth into the declinational dance that creates the lunar declinational atmospheric tides in phase in the atmosphere. Because of the pendulum type movement the Moon hangs at the extremes of declination almost three days with in a couple of degrees then makes a fast sweep across the equator at up to 7 to 9 degrees per day.
At these culminations of declination movement, the polarity of the solar wind peaks and reverses, causing a surge in the reversal of the ion flux generated in the Earth’s homo polar generated fields as a result. Because of the combination of both peak of Meridian flow surge in the atmosphere, and reversal of ion charge gradient globally occurs at the same time like clock work most severe weather occurs at these times.
The 18.6 year Mn pattern of Minimum to Maximum extremes, drive the decade long oscillations of the ocean basins, in combination with the timing of the Synod conjunctions of the outer planets, as a compounding signal, in the strengths and weakness of the cycles.
The Lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere, are the major mixing mechanism for the transportation, of tropical ocean warmth, and moisture over the land masses, in the mid-latitudes and polar regions, where it radiates away into space.
Because of the semi boundary conditions caused by mountain ranges, the Rockies, Andes, Urals, Alps, Himalayas, that resulted in topographical forcing into a four fold pattern of types of Rossby wave, and resultant Jet stream patterns, I had to use not a 27.325 day period but a 109.3 day period to synchronize the lunar declinational patterns into the data to get clearer repeatability.
I have quietly undertaken the study of the relationships between the interactions of the Sun’s magnetic fields borne on the solar wind, and it’s interactions with the Earth’s weather patterns to the point I have found the cyclic patterns of the shorter decade long durations, that show up as the natural background variances in the climate RAW data sets.
Starting with the history of research into planetary motions and the Lunar declination, there were several things I had to consider, In order to find a natural analog cycle to define the composite effects, that is the patterns in the weather .
The results of the analog cyclic pattern I discovered repeat with in a complex pattern of Inner planet harmonics, and outer planet longer term interferences that come round to the ~172 year pattern Landscheidt discovered, so this is the shorter period set of variables, that further define the limits, of the natural variables needed to be considered, along side the CO2 hypothesis.
The longer term/period parents (Milankovitch and Landscheidt cycles) of these driving forces are valid. It would be in error if these shorter Lunar declination cycles, were not considered for their effects, and calculated into the filtering of the swings, in the climate data, for forecasting longer terms into the future.
A sample of the cyclic pattern found in the meteorological database is presented as the daily weather data, of the past three cycles composited together, and plotted onto maps for a 5 year period starting in 2008, and running to January of 2014, presented on a rough draft website I use to further define the shifts in the patterns, from the past three to the current cycle, to continue learning about the details of the interactions.
http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx
There is a pattern of 6554 days where in the inner planets, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury, make an even number of orbital revolutions, and return to almost the same relative position to the star field.
By adding 4 days to this period I get 6558 days the time it takes the Moon to have 240 declinational cycles of 27.325 days, so that by using 6558 days as a synchronization period I get the lunar Declination angle, lunar phase, perigee / apogee cycle, and the relative positions of the inner planets to align from the past three (6558 day) long cycles well enough that the average of the temperatures, and the totals of the precipitations give a picture of the repeating pattern, from the last three to forecast the next almost 18 year long string of weather related events.
The repeatability of the patterns, if used as a weather forecast, rivals the five day forecasts for accuracy, and does as well as the models do, out past a week. With the additional benefit of being usable for out to 15 years into the future.
All of this can be done, just by extending the knowledge of the interactions, of the Sun with the planets, and their combined effects, on the Lunar tidal effects on the Earth’s atmospheric global circulation. Resulting in the further defining of the transfer of the outgoing heat budget, from the oceans.
If by extrapolation, scientists could bother to study the interactions, between the close neighbors of the Sun, in the local arm of the Galaxy. With due consideration of their magnetic, radiative, and static field strengths, interacting the larger galactic fields, clouds and radiation background, the whole package of climate could be better seen.
The wave of Star growth, that passed through the local area, created the unsteady state we are in, the continued interaction as they mature, and become more stable, brought us out of the steady state solid ice ball phase.
The continuing solar stability as it ages, will give more stable climate in the future, why get all excited about it now. Just live and learn, asking the right questions, is the only thing that will give you the right answers.
Fredrick Lightfoot (07:46:35) :
What is the effect on the sun as we travel through space? as all is not equal.
To first order: none.
You might ask: “what is the effect on a blazing fire of the people sitting around the campfire and the insects flying around”. About the same.
On the other hand, pseudo-science is replete with all kinds of ‘influences’: electric currents, huge comets, aliens, …
Some things might have effects, but are too rare to be of concern: nearby supernova going off or collisions with other stars.
@rhodeymark (07:46:54) :
“With the chaos of the last week can you imagine if the Thames froze over again?”
It’s my understanding that for that to happen, London would need to reclaim their original bridge from Lake Havasu AZ. The new bridge offers substantially less back pressure.
When the Thames froze in the LIA, the London Bridge now in AZ wasn’t there, as it’s a much later structure. Now, to be scrupulously fair, I have no idea what effect the London Bridge of the time would have had on the issue and even less idea of the scientific questions involved – but it wasn’t that bridge. This is the bridge of the period, from a contemporary engraving:
http://urbanneighbourhood.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/the-living-bridge-over-the-thames/
And some documentary records of the freezings.
http://thames.me.uk/s00051.htm
Leif Svalgaard (13:00:04) :
Fredrick Lightfoot (07:46:35) :
What is the effect on the sun as we travel through space? as all is not equal.
To first order: none.
You might ask: “what is the effect on a blazing fire of the people sitting around the campfire and the insects flying around”. About the same.
Who restarts the fire and adds fuel when it has burned low?
Merry Christmas Leif.
tallbloke (16:24:49) :
“You might ask: “what is the effect on a blazing fire of the people sitting around the campfire and the insects flying around”. About the same.”
Who restarts the fire and adds fuel when it has burned low?
Does not apply to the Sun [it will burn out]. Have we not have enough pseudo-science already? I have let several postings stand uncommented as testimonials to the dismal state of knowledge about how things work. Sadly, these serve to undermine the scientific credibility of this blog.
Don’t feel like arguing at this time of year so I’ll leave you content with your beliefs.
Enjoy the festive period and if the sunspot fire is rekindled, so much the better for all of us no matter what brings it about.
All the best.
tallbloke (17:06:03) :
Don’t feel like arguing at this time of year so I’ll leave you content with your beliefs.
Judged from past performance, I don’t think you could engage in cogent arguments anyway, so your decision is a wise one.
tallbloke: You wrote, “According to my model, the oceans will on average (notwithstanding cloud cover changes) lose energy when the SSN is below ~40 and gain energy when SSN is above ~40.”
Here a graph of Tropical Pacific OHC (0-700 meters) versus scaled Sunspot Number, NINO3.4 SST Anomalies, and Sato Mean Optical Thickness.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2dugxop.png
Of course the sharp rises in OHC happen during La Nina events, and those rises are the result of cloud cover changes, so I’m not sure how you would isolate solar from the ENSO-caused variations.
Happy holidays.
Leif Svalgaard (16:52:51) : … Have we not have enough pseudo-science already? I have let several postings stand uncommented as testimonials to the dismal state of knowledge about how things work. Sadly, these serve to undermine the scientific credibility of this blog.
The lure of the alchemist (one who was versed in the practice of alchemy and who sought an elixir of life and a panacea and an alkahest and the philosopher’s stone) remains strong, Leif. Your cautionary notes are welcomed and positive, engendering a healthy sceptcism… though you have every reason to at times doubt their effect.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (16:52:51):
“Have we not have enough pseudo-science already? I have let several postings stand uncommented as testimonials to the dismal state of knowledge about how things work. Sadly, these serve to undermine the scientific credibility of this blog.”
In a deplorable state of scientific stagnation, you confuse scientific progress with pseudo-science and scientific stagnation with mainstream consensus science.
What you think that you now know about the Sun -(A ball of 91% H + 9% He)- was information that I thought I knew in 1960, before starting to make measurements!
May I suggest that you meditate on the comment by Dan Hampton (08:39:51) :
“Consensus is the constipation of progress.”
Even well-funded constipation cannot compete with the joy of continuous discovery!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Reply: Dan Hampton (11:34:19) :
I recommend that you join and participate in the discussion group that Kirt Griffin formed and moderates on “Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy,”
neutron_repulsion@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an e-mail to neutron_repulsion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (20:42:46) :
What you think that you now know about the Sun -(A ball of 91% H + 9% He)- was information that I thought I knew in 1960, before starting to make measurements!
It seems that the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Leif :
Your graph of N-S magnetic field http://www.leif.org/research/WSO%20Polar%20Fields.png) has inhomogeneous variance across the period 2003 to 2009. From my eyeball calculation, the variance is much greater prior to mid-2006. Is this instrumental error, or, has the sun really changed in the previous ten years?
Based on my very brief acquaintance with your work, your trend line seems a little optimistic. I see this crap all the time in the biological sciences. You’ve thrown down the gauntlet and taken a stand. How long should we wait before we know if your position in incorrect?
JDN (21:29:08) :
inhomogeneous variance across the period 2003 to 2009. From my eyeball calculation, the variance is much greater prior to mid-2006. Is this instrumental error, or, has the sun really changed in the previous ten years?
Combination of both. During 2003 the polar fields were still forming and solar activity was rather high. That produces variance. 2005 to May 2006 the Green Filter [that we use to isolate the 525 nm line in the green part of the spectrum that we observe] was deteriorating before finally failing. That produces variance. Since May 2006 the instrument has behaved and the Sun has been rather quiet. In the summer of 2008 we had 2000 wild fires in Northern California [the WF]. That produced some variance. It is normal for the polar fields to begin the decrease as the new cycle shows up. At the coming maximum [perhaps in 2014], the polar fields will have decreased to zero, so the decrease is set to accelerate.
How long should we wait before we know if your position in incorrect?
As there is no longer any SC23 activity, the polar fields can only decrease and they must disappear by 2014 [if our general ideas about how the Sun works and observations since 1926 are correct], so if by 2014 the polar fields have not gone away, something is amiss. That would be extremely exciting, but also extremely unlikely.
JDN (21:29:08) :
How long should we wait before we know if your position in incorrect?
I forgot to show you how the polar fields have varied the past 40+ years:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Polar%20Fields.png
More on polar fields:
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Geoff Sharp (12:16:04) :
The gap in the center of SC23 is due to the years 2004-2006 not having a full set of images collected.
Leif Svalgaard (21:48:37) :
Would you say that the decrease rate in the Polar Fields is a bit slow or normal?
Leif Svalgaard (17:49:00) :
tallbloke (17:06:03) :
Don’t feel like arguing at this time of year so I’ll leave you content with your beliefs.
Enjoy the festive period and if the sunspot fire is rekindled, so much the better for all of us no matter what brings it about.
All the best
Judged from past performance, I don’t think you could engage in cogent arguments anyway, so your decision is a wise one.
I hope someone puts something nice in your Christmas stocking. 😉
Bob Tisdale (18:32:23) :
tallbloke: You wrote, “According to my model, the oceans will on average (notwithstanding cloud cover changes) lose energy when the SSN is below ~40 and gain energy when SSN is above ~40.”
Here a graph of Tropical Pacific OHC (0-700 meters) versus scaled Sunspot Number, NINO3.4 SST Anomalies, and Sato Mean Optical Thickness.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2dugxop.png
Of course the sharp rises in OHC happen during La Nina events, and those rises are the result of cloud cover changes, so I’m not sure how you would isolate solar from the ENSO-caused variations.
Happy holidays.
Hi Bob,
my answer to that would be “by taking the longer term view”. Insolation at the surface is obviously more strongly affected by ocean-air caused cloud variation than solar variation, but clouds are also probably the amplifying mechanism for solar variation at the decadal and multidecadal scale, as far as we can tell from Nir Shaviv’s work and the ISSCP data. So although it all looks a bit chaotic in the short term, more general trends can be teased out using the right parameters. Changes in the trade winds are related to atmospheric angular momentum and the zonal ACI index. Variation in Earth’s length of day is a reasonable proxy for these, and when you combine that data with a cumulative count of sunspot numbers above and below the 40SSN I think represents the ocean equilibrium value, you get the black curve on this graph.
http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/planetary_temperature-12.gif
The Yellow curve represents the cumulative sunspot count combined with the motion of the sun with respect to the solar system centre of mass in the vertical ‘z’ axis. The green curve is derived only from planetary motion but I’m still working on that so I won’t go into it here as it’ll only wind Leif up and it’s the season of goodwill and peace to all men.
Have a great Christmas.
Is Leif the Grinch ? 🙂
rbateman (22:41:06) :
Would you say that the decrease rate in the Polar Fields is a bit slow or normal?
You can compare with other cycles here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Polar%20Fields.png
Since the polar fields are only half of what they used to be, their rate of decline down to zero should only be about half, too. Or perhaps even shallower since the cycle is drawn out, so I’m not surprised. This looks quite normal or, at last, understandable.
Daryl M (08:32:02) :
Leif, It would be a nice Christmas present if you would update the charts of the most recent IMF, SW and Solar Data. Hint, hint. 😉
Santa was early this year…
Dr. Leif Svalgaard: “Sadly, these serve to undermine the scientific credibility of this blog.”
As a warmist environazi who is rooting for a one world government taxing the hell out of all godloving Americans, I have to ask: What scientific credibility?
This site is not about science, never has, never will be. This site is about stalling action. It is so successful at it that it will help bring about exactly the thing it thinks it’s fighting: a very large reduction in personal freedom. I’ll be here to congratulate. In fact, I congratulate already.
[REPLY – Well, unlike nearly all pro-AGW sites, at least we don’t censor opposing views. If you think the evidence points the other way, you are welcome to adduce that argument. ~ Evan]