The sun has seen a resurgence of activity in December, with a number of cycle 24 sunspots being seen. The latest is group 1039 seen below:
2009 is ending with a flurry of sunspots. Indeed, if sunspot 1039 holds together just one more day (prediction: it will), the month of December will accumulate a total of 22 spotted days and the final tally for the year will look like this: From Spaceweather.com
The dark line is a linear least-squares fit to the data. If the trend continues exactly as shown (prediction: it won’t), sunspots will become a non-stop daily occurance no later than February 2011. Blank suns would cease and solar minimum would be over.
If the past two years have taught us anything, however, it is that the sun can be tricky and unpredictable.
If this linear trend continues, by June 2020 the Sun will be entire covered with sunspots.
Ronaldo (12:51:09),
Thanks for the link!
THis whole thread has been interesting, though it will take some time to digest.
Michael Larkin (08:05:48),
Sorry – I actually meant to thank you instead at (08:30:28). Thanks for taking the time Michael, I appreciate it!
Leif Svalgaard (13:27:25) :
“In one of the ‘papers’, the following empirical formula is assumed to control the fractional abundance in the sun of elements with mass M relative to Hydrogen:
f = (1/M)^4.56
Inserting M =1, 4, and 56, gives fractions for
Hydrogen f = 1
Helium f = 0.00179
Iron f = 0.0000000107
[I could have counted the number of zeroes wrongly, as there are so many]”
Leif, the formula [ f = (1/M)^4.56 ] is defined by measured abundances of isotopes in the solar wind.
You confused fractional abundance with mass fractionation effects.
You can see the mass fractionation effects here:
Surface: http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm
Interior: http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
tallbloke (15:46:44) :
Well if you accidentally post ad homs like that one on my blog, I’ll accidentally delete it for you. 🙂
You should pay attention to smileys [and not remove them when you quote something in your zeal to something look bad].
Invariant (15:47:05) :
With TSI constant equal 1366 ± 0.5 W/m² the last 300 years, I am not sure whether we can blame an increasing sun for the global warming since the little ice age.
Jack Eddy is often mentioned as the scientist that suggested that solar activity was a major driver of climate [Maunder Minimum vs. today]. I just received Jack’s book [ISBN 978-0-16-08808-8; The Sun, the Earth, and Near-Earth Space, NASA 2009, which he finished just before hos death] from his widow Barbara. On the last full page he writes: “Thus solar forcing of surface temperature is for now relegated to a secondary, second-order effect in terms of its impact on present trends in surface temperature. Any claim that the accelerated global heating of the past 60 years can be attributed to a changing Sun – thus conveniently absolving ourselves of any guilt in the matter – is clearly wishful thinking”. This matches what he said in his after-dinner talk at the 2003 SORCE meeting.
Simon Filiatrault (15:47:22) :
I would have liked a bit more information from Leif Svalgaard why he thinks that link is “meaningless”. But I will still sleep fine if he does not.
A significant part of the link deals with the ‘scalar sum’ of angular momenta. Since AM is a vector the scalar sum is meaningless.
Zeke the Sneak (15:51:36) :
The Sun’s galactic power source is the main driver of climatic variability.
is complete New-Age nonsense.
Geoff Sharp (16:24:21) :
Also interesting that the Babcock believers have no answer for two low cycles that usually go together during grand minima…..the “crap shoot” logic obviously failing.
It is a standard feature of B&L that ‘on average’ the polar fields should be a reflection of the cycle that makes them, so a small cycle means weak polar fields and hence a weak next cycle. Because there is enough randomness in the system, this rule is eventually broken and a large polar field results, leading to several large cycles, until a weak polar field again by accident arises, etc.
It is OK to criticize B&L, but you need to grasp what the theory says and predicts before shooting your mouth off.
E.M.Smith (17:07:56) :
But seriously, I do think that ‘fringe discussions’ are interesting precisely because they add some unexpected spice to the pot luck.
That would be so if they made at least a modicum of sense. otherwise they are time wasters.
Anthony Watts (19:05:03) :
Leif can you tell me when this plot was last updated?
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
No time stamp so I have to ask.
The plot is always up to date [so has no stamp], but is subject to data gaps when Livingston does not have telescope time. The abscissa is time. The last observation was on December 16th, 2009. Next will be around January 24th, 2010. We will have to do with a statistical sampling like this until the ‘powers that be’ are comvinced that Bill should have some priority. You might try to address his boss: Mike Giampapa at mgiampapa@noao.edu to plead.
Oliver K. Manuel (20:05:03) :
Leif, the formula [ f = (1/M)^4.56 ] is defined by measured abundances of isotopes in the solar wind.
You confused fractional abundance with mass fractionation effects.
In your paper you say that the formula gives the fractional abundance within the Sun.
You can [Anthony allowing] state HERE how the Hydrogen abundance deep in the Sun is calculated from your formula.
I could be completely wrong but if the core of a star has too much of the heavy elements (iron) the star becomes unstable and novas or super novas. This is what happens when star get old.
A “new” NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a “Little Ice Age” in several regions including North America and Europe.
It was new in 2001.
“The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth’s recent climate than human actions,” Shindell said. “The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases,” he added.
Indeed. There was no Maunder Minimum in 2001, quite the opposite. But the sun may indeed have had an impact by making things warmer, and greenhouse gasses could possibly be just the secondary factor.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html
Richard (21:53:39) :
A “new” NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a “Little Ice Age” in several regions including North America and Europe.
The Rindell model run used the obsolete Hoyt-Schatten TSI-reconstruction and is thus invalid anyway.
Jim Arndt (21:42:25) :
I could be completely wrong but if the core of a star has too much of the heavy elements (iron) the star becomes unstable and novas or super novas. This is what happens when star get old.
But only in stars much more massive than the Sun.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (21:03:50) :
quotes: Oliver K. Manuel (20:05:03) :
‘Leif, the formula [ f = (1/M)^4.56 ] is defined by measured abundances of isotopes in the solar wind.
You confused fractional abundance with mass fractionation effects.’
“In your paper you say that the formula gives the fractional abundance within the Sun.
You can [Anthony allowing] state HERE how the Hydrogen abundance deep in the Sun is calculated from your formula.”
Leif, element abundances in the Sun correlate with nuclear stability [See “The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy” Paper #1041, 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conference Houston, TX, March 12-16, 2001].
These four graphs based on experimental measurements communicate the idea better than words:
1. Solar surface: http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm
2. Mass Fractionation: http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig2.htm
3. Solar Interior (Based on fractionated isotopes in the solar wind)
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm
4. Solar interior (Based on fractionated s-products in the photosphere)
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig4.htm
Best wishes to all for the New Year!
Oliver K. Manuel
E.M.Smith (17:07:56) :
“Leif Svalgaard (14:44:59) : Wondrous that Anthony puts up with this, but I guess that shows his great tolerance for fringe comments.”
……….
Yes, sometimes the unexpected Jalapeno can be a bit vexing, but at other times one may be looking for something to shake up their comfortable predictable day…
Notice the difference. The salad maker knows that the jalapeno is there and it is a jalapeno, not avocado.
I also am intrigued by out of the box thinking theories, and agree they are fun. They should be though, in a scientific discussion, adhering to the very basic tenets of known physics: energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation. Once they have been demonstrated to violate these basic requirements, and barycentrinc theories of climate and sun control do that, we are talking of science fiction, and this is not the point of this blog.
I would also once again want to make the general comment that in addition to the “correlation is not causation” comment there is the observation that gravitational systems are giant clocks, i.e. have very specific and predictable functions of time for any kinetic variable (at least with computer models : ) ). All clocks will show correlations in periodic functions, by construction. The moon is a clock, the earth is a clock, the planets are clocks, but also the collective theoretical point’s motion, the barycenter, is a clock because they follow deterministic solutions of differential equations. When one gets the chaotic periodic behavior of sunspots, or PDO or etc. and finds correlations with one clock, there will be correlations with all clocks.
One has to find the physical forces entering to determine what is causative and what is simple correlation because of this inherent property of gravitational systems to be clocks.
And maybe the periodicities seen are chaotic, as Tsonis et al have shown for climate a while ago anyway, and no new physical forces are needed to explain them and it is just coincidence that some peaks and troughs are timed by the giant planetary clocks .
Oliver K. Manuel (22:51:07) :
These four graphs based on experimental measurements communicate the idea better than words
No, they do not. They say nothing about the solar interior. This is now the tenth time I ask you to explain this. The nuclear stability is relevant for the processes that take place in a supernova, but does not establish what the Sun consists of. The sequence of events is that Hydrogen burning is followed by Helium burning, Carbon burning, Oxygen burning, etc. up to Iron, there the regular process stops. Other processes creates the other heavy elements, but Hydrogen, Helium, and Deuterium are primordial.
Oliver K. Manuel (22:51:07) :
These four graphs based on experimental measurements communicate the idea better than words
As the Figures show, they apply [if we assume for a moment that they make sense] to amu greater than 3 and therefore not to Hydrogen. Explain HERE why Hydrogen [and Deuterium] become deficient.
Leif Svalgaard (21:03:50) :
“It is a standard feature of B&L that ‘on average’ the polar fields should be a reflection of the cycle that makes them, so a small cycle means weak polar fields and hence a weak next cycle. Because there is enough randomness in the system, this rule is eventually broken and a large polar field results, leading to several large cycles, until a weak polar field again by accident arises, etc.”
This logic falls apart when looking at SC20 and the high cycles that surround it.
I still think this area of science is in its infancy.
Clive E Burkland (23:17:36) :
This logic falls apart when looking at SC20 and the high cycles that surround it.
No, there is nothing in the logic that says that there must be several low or several high cycles in a row. It could equally well happen that there is only one. The point is that the creation of the polar fields is essentially a stochastic process and any number of successive cycles could be small [but more and more unlikely as the number increases, just as the likelihood of keep getting heads in coin tossing goes does down with increasing number of tosses.
To give you a feeling for the process, note that the polar fields correspond t6o the magnetic flux of only a few [on the order of three] active regions. With such a small number, it could equally well be two or four.
You can see this process in action here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/images/smag.jpg
Note the blue and red ‘tongues’ of magnetic flux that make it to the poles.
anna v (23:01:11) :
I also am intrigued by out of the box thinking theories, and agree they are fun. They should be though, in a scientific discussion, adhering to the very basic tenets of known physics: energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation. Once they have been demonstrated to violate these basic requirements, and barycentrinc theories of climate and sun control do that, we are talking of science fiction
There is an ongoing effort to scour the available data for confirmation of the underlying mechanisms for which there are viable hypotheses, as yet untested. Without trying to imply I’m in his league, I understand how Henrik Svensmark feels waiting for CERN to conduct the cloud experiment.
there is the observation that gravitational systems are giant clocks, i.e. have very specific and predictable functions of time for any kinetic variable …the planets are clocks, but also the collective theoretical point’s motion, the barycenter, is a clock because they follow deterministic solutions of differential equations.
No they don’t. The solar systems orbiting bodies (including the sun) follow quasi cyclic but ultimately indeterminate courses. This is known physics. The current best guess is that the solar system has settled down to a beat wherein the planetary motions are chaotic, but mostly within bounds which greatly reduce (but do not eliminate) the chance of a collision between major bodies. If you are going to extrapolate in order to attempt a disproof of something (as if that were possible!), you should at least make sure you have your premises correct.
Leif Svalgaard (21:03:50) :
tallbloke (15:46:44) :
Well if you accidentally post ad homs like that one on my blog, I’ll accidentally delete it for you. 🙂
You should pay attention to smileys [and not remove them when you quote something in your zeal to something look bad].
I bear you no ill will and have no need or desire to make anyone look bad.
The other comments you have made about Oliver Manuel on this blog would have made your comment look bad even if the smiley had gold teeth in and wore a party hat. The hands you are in are your very own.
Now, let’s talk sunspots and future solar activity.
The prediction I made using readily available data seems to be panning out quite well so far. This is one of the tests of real science, can a theory make successful predictions?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/ap-prediction.gif
Too early to tell for my models, but at least they are not already falsified. If they stay on course, maybe then people will get more interested in our ideas about what modulates solar surface activity.
Thanks Anthony for your forbearance, and adherence to the right of free speech and the right to reply. I will continue do my best to keep replies on this topic to a minimum.
but more and more unlikely as the number increases, just as the likelihood of keep getting heads in coin tossing goes does down with increasing number of tosses
I know you know better. But for those who don’t.
In the very unlikely event that you toss 345 heads in a row what are the odds that your next coin flip will be heads? 1/2. What you can say is that your NEXT 345 tosses are very likely to average very close to 1/2 heads.
In systems which tend to return to a value, ten heads in a row may well increase your chances that the eleventh will be tails. But then the tosses are not independent.
I would have liked a bit more information from Leif Svalgaard why he thinks that link is “meaningless”. But I will still sleep fine if he does not.
==
A significant part of the link deals with the ’scalar sum’ of angular momenta. Since AM is a vector the scalar sum is meaningless.
Think of it this way. Pick a spot in the center of the USA. Kansas City will do fine. Go 100 miles due north and then 100 miles due south (vectors). The question is: what is more important? Is the distance traveled (200 miles) more important than where you wind up (back where you started)?
I’m with Lief. Why is the distance traveled important? What does it tell you?
Anthony,
I love these solar posts. To me it is like being back in undergraduate physics classes (40 yrs ago).
Keep them coming.
And Prof Svalgaard, please keep coming back and keep actively participating.
John
“If the past two years have taught us anything, however, it is that the sun can be tricky and unpredictable.”
Indeed.
tallbloke (03:37:12) :
anna v (23:01:11) :
“there is the observation that gravitational systems are giant clocks, i.e. have very specific and predictable functions of time for any kinetic variable …the planets are clocks, but also the collective theoretical point’s motion, the barycenter, is a clock because they follow deterministic solutions of differential equations.”
No they don’t. The solar systems orbiting bodies (including the sun) follow quasi cyclic but ultimately indeterminate courses. This is known physics. The current best guess is that the solar system has settled down to a beat wherein the planetary motions are chaotic, but mostly within bounds which greatly reduce (but do not eliminate) the chance of a collision between major bodies. If you are going to extrapolate in order to attempt a disproof of something (as if that were possible!), you should at least make sure you have your premises correct.
I would appreciate a link to this claim.
It is true that the solar system is a many body problem even though the equations controlling it are known, but chaotic? The equations have been programmed both in analogue ( planetaria) and in computers so I think the claim far fetched but am open to convincing.
Nevertheless each individual planet is a clock and certainly their combined motion will be a clock too. Clock: a method of counting time.
Clive E Burkland (23:17:36) :
I still think this area of science is in its infancy.
~
More like the young adult period. Plenty of solar information, just missing the ‘combination’ link.
Wishing us all a safe and good New Year.
Thanks to Anthony for his hard work and dedication to this blog.
Not planning on a big hoopla this evening, just me and a nephew or two enjoying a few libations. But you never know. The roof has been raised many times before on this old basement bar room. So…I am going to plead the 5th now, just in case my foot lands in my mouth.
M. Simon (05:23:31) :
“but more and more unlikely as the number increases, just as the likelihood of keep getting heads in coin tossing goes does down with increasing number of tosses”
I know you know better. But for those who don’t.
Yeah, I put this clumsily. What I meant was that the a priori chances of getting a string of heads go down. e.g. the chances that I’ll get five in a row are smaller than getting four, etc.
tallbloke (03:37:12) :
The solar systems orbiting bodies (including the sun) follow quasi cyclic but ultimately indeterminate courses.
The ultimate course doesn’t matter. On time scales that we are talking about [even millions of years], the planets are good clocks.
Now, let’s talk sunspots and future solar activity.
The prediction I made using readily available data seems to be panning out quite well so far. This is one of the tests of real science, can a theory make successful predictions?
Not really. It must also make sense. There is tribe in darkest Africa that have a theory that beating tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. So far their theory has never failed. Or, take another example: on page 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf there are 75 predictions. One of those will be right on the money. This does not mean that that method is necessarily any better than neighboring methods. Only if your successful prediction is discordant with all other predictions does its success support your theory.
Leif Svalgaard (21:03:50) : Any claim that the accelerated global heating of the past 60 years can be attributed to a changing Sun
Did he write anything about the reasons for global warming between 1700 and 1950?
Invariant (07:52:05) :
“Did he write anything about the reasons for global warming between 1700 and 1950?”
Jack Eddy’s temp.chart
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gif