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.
Robuk (14:40:59) :
“…John Butler and his colleagues at Armagh Observatory report that data gathered there as far back as 1795 show that the average air temperature varies with the length of the sunspot cycle. The Armagh astronomers found that the highest temperatures correspond to years in which the cycle has a shorter-than-normal duration.
Our data support the contention that solar variability has been the principle cause of temperature changes over the past 2 centuries,” says Butler.”
“Throughout the 20th century the Sun was unusually active, peaking in the 1950s and the late 1980s. Dean Pensell of NASA, says that, “since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high. Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.” The Sun became increasingly active at the same time that the Earth warmed. But according to the scientific consensus, the Sun has had only a minor recent effect on climate change.
What this means is that the climate scientists are fully aware of the almost perfect correlation with sunspot numbers and the earths temperature but have NO idea how this link works. The link is obvious and undisputable and unlike co2 and temperture it can only be one way round.”
Reply: It seems it isn’t just Butler & Pesnell who think there is a link. Here’s a couple of quotes from ‘The missing sunspots: Is this the big chill?’ from the Independent:-
Marc Hairston of the University of Texas. “…And it’s not just the sunspots that are causing concern. There is also the so-called solar wind – streams of particles the Sun pours out – that is at its weakest since records began. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree.”
David Hathaway – NASA solar scientist, “…This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century, but this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.
Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect. But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought.”
Link to full article here:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html
Leif Svalgaard (16:00:00) :
Robuk (14:40:59) :
John Butler and his colleagues at Armagh Observatory report that data gathered there as far back as 1795 show that the average air temperature varies with the length of the sunspot cycle.
People keep saying this, but there is little support for this. If you simply take the trouble to look for yourself [e.g. here: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf ] you see either no correlation or a very weak opposite correlation].
According to your graphs, the correlation looks quite good up until around the time tom Wigley took over at CRU and Jim Hansen took over at GISS.
Did the Sun and Earth start doing something different or the individuals who control the temperature records?
“In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree.”
Anyone know where I can find data on the longer term motion of the solar magnetic axis?
Leif?
Quote: Robuk (14:40:59) :
“What this means is that the climate scientists are fully aware of the almost perfect correlation with sunspot numbers and the earths temperature but have NO idea how this link works.”
You are exactly right!
The standard solar model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun cannot explain the observations.
NASA and the Geophysics Division of NAS are not about to admit now that they have manipulated “space age” data since the Apollo Mission returned samples from the Moon in 1969 to hide evidence of an error in the ssm of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.
C-SPAN News captured an embarrassing moment for NASA when its Administrator was finally forced to release data in 1998 from the 1996 Galilleo Mission to Jupiter.
That data confirmed severe mass separation in the Sun [“Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33 (1998) A97, paper 5011: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
tallbloke (02:50:58) :
According to your graphs, the correlation looks quite good up until around the time tom Wigley took over at CRU and Jim Hansen took over at GISS.
Did the Sun and Earth start doing something different or the individuals who control the temperature records?
tallbloke (03:27:10) :
“In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree.”
Anyone know where I can find data on the longer term motion of the solar magnetic axis?
Leif?
~~~~
Two very good questions tallbloke.
Leif?
~~~~
tallbloke (02:50:58) :
According to your graphs, the correlation looks quite good up until around the time tom Wigley took over at CRU and Jim Hansen took over at GISS.
The blue curves are the cycle lengths [there are two of them – one from min to min and one fro max to max] and the pink curves are corresponding cycle average temperatures. There is no correlation.
tallbloke (03:27:10) :
“In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree.”
Anyone know where I can find data on the longer term motion of the solar magnetic axis?
The Sun’s magnetic axis is not tilted at all. The regular equator and the magnetic equator [and thus the axes] coincide strongly in Hale’s polarity laws: the polarity of sunspot pairs reverse upon crossing the equator. And the polar caps are at the poles. Some people have the [wrong] idea that the polar field reversal is due to the general field ‘turning’ or ‘flipping’ over by the polar magnetic fields ‘rotating’ in latitude. This is is an appealing picture [first suggested by Ester Antonucci], but is not what is observed. The polar fields reverse in place by growing weaker, then stronger with the opposite sign.
Leif Svalgaard (06:49:11) :
~
Thank you, for the response Leif.
All of this, yust keep driving me nuts..
Ah, so where does Mr. Marc Hairston of the University of Texas,
get his information from, that allows him to be so confident, as to
release it to the press?
Oliver K. Manuel (04:36:30) :
The standard solar model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun cannot explain the observations.
As always, one stands aghast, awestruck, when the greatest scientist of our time gushes like this. If only the 99.99% of astrophysicists that have been corrupted would see the light, all our troubles would be over.
Carla (08:32:58) :
Ah, so where does Mr. Marc Hairston of the University of Texas,
get his information from, that allows him to be so confident, as to
release it to the press?
Ah, press releases are now gospel truths 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (09:08:07) :
Carla (08:32:58) :
Ah, so where does Mr. Marc Hairston of the University of Texas,
get his information from, that allows him to be so confident, as to
release it to the press?
On a more serious note: the so-called [misunderstood] ’tilt’ of the ‘magnetic axis’ often comes from the calculated value of the maximum inclination of the Heliospheric Current Sheet. I’ll make an appeal to authority here: I was one of the builders of the Wilcox Solar Observatory. I [and Tom Duvall] were the first to accurately measure the Polar Fields. I wrote the program they use to calculate the shape of the field. So, I know whereof I speak.
Here is a graph of the ’tilt’ [but remember the ’tilt’ is an artifact of the formalism]: http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif The full and dotted curves show two different ways of doing the calculation. The bottom line is that at each solar minimum the tilt reverts to about the same low value. There is [as you can see] nothing unusual about this minimum.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (08:46:35) :
“As always, one stands aghast, awestruck, when the greatest scientist of our time gushes like this. If only the 99.99% of astrophysicists that have been corrupted would see the light, all our troubles would be over.”
May the continuing spotlight of public attention on Climategate relieve you, NASA, the Geophysics Section of NAS, and astrophysicists of all your troubles.
It must have been an exhausting experience, trying to manipulate and/or hide all experimental data that would refute the SSM of a Hydrogen-filled Sun – like the xenon data from the $1,000,000,000 Galileo Mission to Jupiter!
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
You are not completely at fault for insisting that solar heat must come from H-fusion Nuclear physicists share some of the blame for failing to recognize repulsive interactions between neutrons in nuclear rest mass data.
Best wishes for relief in 2010!
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Leif Svalgaard (10:17:52) :
The bottom line is that at each solar minimum the tilt reverts to about the same low value. There is [as you can see] nothing unusual about this minimum.
~
Very nice explaination Leif, thank you.
“There is [as you can see] nothing unusual about this minimum.”
Except, it shows a prolonged minimum. Must be that calm in your eye again.
Oliver K. Manuel (11:05:41) :
May the continuing spotlight of public attention on Climategate relieve you, NASA, the Geophysics Section of NAS, and astrophysicists of all your troubles.
As I have admiringly emphasized several times now [even attracting comments from the bad-manner police]: If everybody would just listen to the greatest scientist of our time the science would finally be settled.
Carla (11:10:50) :
“There is [as you can see] nothing unusual about this minimum.”
Except, it shows a prolonged minimum. Must be that calm in your eye again.
One, evidently, has to be overly precise: ‘the ’tilt’ achieved at this minimum is not different from previous minima in this particular graph’. The whole issue was about the ’tilt’ of the magnetic axis, remember.
Oliver K. Manuel (11:05:41) :
May the continuing spotlight of public attention on Climategate relieve you, NASA, the Geophysics Section of NAS, and astrophysicists of all your troubles.
Perhaps it would be more fitting to call this ‘Neutrongate’ or even ‘Universegate’ because of its sweeping implications for all of science. Anthony should be given immortal credit for giving this flickering flame a secure home here at WUWT. Future generations would certainly appreciate the intellectual courage it takes to spout things like this.
Carla (11:10:50) :
“There is [as you can see] nothing unusual about this minimum.”
Except, it shows a prolonged minimum. Must be that calm in your eye again.
If you take the trouble to look you’ll see that was prolonged is not the minimum but the middle part of the cycle from 2001 to 2007. You can also see that there is no prolonged minimum here: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
which compares the F10.7 microwave flux during the minimum between cycles 18 and 19 [read] with the current minimum [blue].
Yogi Berra once said: “one can observe a lot by just looking’. Heed those wise words…
Leif Svalgaard (12:00:33) :
If you take the trouble to look you’ll see that was prolonged is not the minimum but the middle part of the cycle from 2001 to 2007.
~
Yeppers Leif, hit the submit comment, put computor to sleep, leave house and shoot, realized I had phrased that incorrectly. ok
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (11:22:51) :
quotes Oliver K. Manuel (11:05:41) : ‘May the continuing spotlight of public attention on Climategate relieve you, NASA, the Geophysics Section of NAS, and astrophysicists of all your troubles.’
“Perhaps it would be more fitting to call this ‘Neutrongate’ or . . . ”
No, Galileo-gate.
The -gate suffix is reserved for those who manipulate or hide data, especially data purchased by the public. Nuclear physicists simply overlooked evidence of repulsive interactions between neutrons.
So did I for seventeen years (1983-2000) after I knew that H-fusion could not be the main source of solar luminosity:
Measurements first showed that the Sun is mostly iron in 1983 [1]: http://tinyurl.com/224kz4
Students helped plot nuclear rest mass data in a way that revealed repulsive interactions between neutrons in 2000 [2]: http://www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf
The 1983 paper predicted that the $1,000,000,000 Galileo Mission would observe excess Xe-136 in Jupiter. That was observed, but the data were hidden until I requested it from the NASA Administrator when he was on C-SPAN News [3]: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
[1] “Solar abundance of the elements”, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222.
[2] “The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy”, 32nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conf., Paper 1041 (2001) LPI Contribution 1080, ISSN No. 0161-5297.
[3] “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33 (1998) A97, paper 5011
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (13:29:09) :
No, Galileo-gate.
Ot OliverGate.
It is not for me to dispute the findings of the greatest scientist of our time. Suffice it to say that I’m so far in the dark and so incapable of grokking the profound statements spouted by said genius that you are wasting your valuable time trying to educate me on something I do not have the capacity of understanding. Perhaps you can establish a following among the other pseudo-scientist [much smarter than I] that frequent this site.
How about addressing the peer reviewed science linked by Oliver? That might be more edifying than lambasting the other contributors to this site.
tallbloke (17:39:54) :
How about addressing the peer reviewed science linked by Oliver? That might be more edifying than lambasting the other contributors to this site.
I cannot address the links as they make no sense. And I’m certainly not lambasting anybody. On the contrary, I’m crediting them with a cleverness and smartness that are beyond me.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (15:22:07) :
“It is not for me to dispute the findings of the greatest scientist of our time. Suffice it to say that I’m so far in the dark and so incapable of grokking the profound statements spouted by said genius that you are wasting your valuable time trying to educate me on something I do not have the capacity of understanding. Perhaps you can establish a following among the other pseudo-scientist [much smarter than I] that frequent this site.”
Leif, personal attacks will not save you now nor relieve your pain.
NAS, NASA, and influential friends in climatology, astro- and solar physics cannot even protect themselves from the seriousness of these revelations:
a.) Fudging climate data that was financed with public funds.
b.) Spending $1,000,000,000 of tax funds on the Mission to Jupiter.
c.) Hiding results that show the SSM of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is wrong.
d.) Being on C-SPAN News when finally ordering the data released.
At best these events only confirm the absurdity of telling lies.
More serious charges are possible. Governments provide funds for science as a means of protecting our national security – e.g.:
Funding for nuclear sciences during WWII, and
Funding for space sciences during the Cold War.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Leif Svalgaard (18:35:01) :
tallbloke (17:39:54) :
How about addressing the peer reviewed science linked by Oliver?
“I cannot address the links as they make no sense.”
for example, the first link was purporting to prove that H is not abundant in the Sun. The only place I see any hint of discussion of this is this passage “Fractionation that enriches lighter nuclei at the solar surface can accommodate these conclusions and the occurrence of high abundances of H, He …”
This is no demonstration at all. If the Sun was 91% H to begin with [as all other stars are, being formed from interstellar gas of that composition], you could still have fractionation of all the rest without impacting the 91%. Typical of pseudo-science is the piling on of irrelevant [but true] details, such as the composition of the noble gases above He.
I have asked Oliver many times to explain how this works [getting rid off the H], but I cannot penetrate the purported logic behind his ‘explanations’. They make no sense. It is, of course, possible that I’m just too dumb to understand this explanation given by the greatest scientist of our time; nay, perhaps the greatest of all times.
As Oliver points out [quoting Crichton] the greatest scientists went up against consensus. This is an example of the Holberg logic “A stone cannot fly; you cannot fly; ergo: you are a stone”, or “the greatest scientists fight consensus; Oliver fights consensus; ergo: Oliver is one of the greatest scientists”. As oliver goes against all the astrophysics that thousands of people have worked hard on piecing together, then thousands of astrophysicists are dead-wrong. If true, that would indeed make Oliver the greatest of all times.
Against such greatness I stand in awe and I said, give up trying to understand what is clearly beyond me.
Perhaps you could understand it and try to explain it to me and the folks?
Oliver K. Manuel (19:16:57) :
Leif, personal attacks will not save you now nor relieve your pain.
How can proclaiming you to be the greatest scientist of all times ever be construed to be an attack?
I could be wrong, of course, that that would be a failing of me to jump to conclusions.
Oliver K. Manuel (19:16:57) :
Leif, personal attacks will not save you now…
NAS, NASA, and influential friends in climatology, astro- and solar physics cannot even protect themselves from the seriousness of these revelations:
More serious charges are possible.
Speaking of attacks, I would take the above [since much of my work has been funded by NASA, etc, and I’m on a NASA panel] as a serious attack on me. On the other hand, I’m not paranoid and shall here just gloss over such accusational excesses.