Amateur telescope photographer Thierry Legault has gained renown in recent years taking photographs of spacecraft in orbit… from the ground, with them either reflecting sunlight as they cross the terminator, or silhouetted by the moon, or in recent days, silhouetted by a near spotless sun.
His most recent accomplishment is this solar silhouette of the International Space Station docked with Space Shuttle Atlantis on its STS-132 mission. While many have marvelled at his accomplishment, we’ve heard less about the continuing near-spotless state of the sun in his photograph. This one sunspot region counted enough on May 22nd to make the daily sunspot count be 15!
It appears that the sunspot and 10.7 progression for Solar Cycle 24 have hit a bit of a roadblock in recent months, according to NOAA’s Solar Cycle Progression and Prediction Center.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hockey Schtick says:
June 27, 2010 at 12:42 pm
incorrect adjustments
You can learn more about these issues here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/1.07_Dewitte_TSI.pdf
ACRIM is clearly the odd man out.
For a good many papers on the topic, visit the SORCE 2010 site: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/agendas.html
and check out some of the papers [including the posters]. I will say that this collection represents the status of our knowledge [including various disagreements] on this.
Here is another article from the Journal of Cosmology site that reaches virtually the same conclusion about a Forthcoming Grand Minima, but relies on an entirely different method to get there: C-14 dating of tree rings.
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange104.html
Very interesting site BTW
Mr. Alex says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm
however here are a 3 examples
None of these qualify as ‘regions’ [too small and ephemeral] in the NOAA sense. When you go to smaller and smaller spots and magnetic areas, their orientation becomes more and more random, to the point, where ‘reversed’ does not make sense anymore.
This spot may have been named 1084, but the spot count (SN) is still zero as of 18:06 UTC June 27.
http://sidc.oma.be/products/meu/index.php
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/solar_indices.html
both have it.
Perhaps it is time to begin to pay attention and believe in what people report 🙂
\
Policyguy says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Forthcoming Grand Minima, but relies on an entirely different method to get there: C-14 dating of tree rings.
Their conclusion:
“However, our carbon-14 based observations do not indicate the imminent occurrence of the Maunder Minimum”
They also invoke Livingston&Penn as a possible explanation for the lack of visible sunspots during the Maunder [and I tend to agree with that] while at the same time there was a solar modulation of cosmic rays.
Leif,
Glad you are on this post. What do you think about this article from Journal of Cosmotology. It relies on solar physics to reach the authors’ conclusions.
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html (Duhua and de Jager, The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity, Journal of Cosmology, June 2010, Vol 8, 1983-1999).
Dr. Svalgaard,
My only “agenda” is to find the truth. Interesting that you feel I’m biased, Willson is biased, Hoyt is biased, D’Aleo is biased, Scafetta is biased… but you and your friend Judith Lean have no bias and the adjustments of the data you choose to favor are unquestionably correct.
Also interesting that after you point out all the potential uncertainties and various interpretations of the TSI data, that it doesn’t seem to bother you that the IPCC makes no mention of these uncertainties & controversies and chooses the “consensus” of the only solar physicist, despite protests by the representative of the Norwegian government who argued for a more balanced presentation incorporating alternative views.
Also interesting in light of the fact that multiple recent findings show the “solar constant” is not so constant and the sun is much more variable than previously thought.
Also interesting that proxies of solar activity have found the sun to be more active in the 20th century than over the past 8000 years:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15385
Policyguy says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:11 pm
It relies on solar physics to reach the authors’ conclusions. […]
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html (Duhua and de Jager,
It may look like solar physics [and deJager used to be a highly respected solar physicist], but is smacks too much of ‘cyclomania’ for my taste. People have been looking for cycle ever since Schwabe discovered his, but with little success [despite the may claims – pick any number at random and there will be someone claiming a solar periodicity close the that 🙂 ]. Careful analysis of solar proxies going back some 12,000 shows that grand minima do not a periodicity to them.
Now, I won’t disagree with the next cycle being weak, but one has to be correct for the right reasons.
too many typos, here is a better one:
Policyguy says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:11 pm
It relies on solar physics to reach the authors’ conclusions. […]
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html (Duhua and de Jager
It may look like solar physics [and de Jager used to be a highly respected solar physicist], but it smacks too much of ‘cyclomania’ for my taste. People have been looking for cycles ever since Schwabe discovered his, but with little success [despite the many claims – pick any number at random and there will be someone claiming a solar periodicity close the that 🙂 ]. Careful analysis of solar proxies going back some 12,000 years shows that grand minima do not have a periodicity to them.
Now, I won’t disagree with the next cycle being weak, but one has to be correct for the right reasons.
2455374.322 2098.394 2010 06 26 2000 0074.5 0076.9 0069.2 2 OK
2455375.322 2098.431 2010 06 27 2000 0072.9 0075.3 0067.8 2 OK
I was expecting the 1084 spot to raise the flux.
I have noted that the flux drops when the last spot rotates off the limb.
Logic said the flux should rise as a spot rotates further into view.
What was I thinking?
Nobody should draw hasty conclusions, but everybody should look at the data to see what is actually happening:
http://leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
It’s still a waiting game.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 27, 2010 at 10:33 am (Edit)
That the IPCC didn’t involve more scientists on the solar issue is not a negative reflection on Judith. Perhaps it is more a reflection of how much [or how little] the IPCC believe the Sun is important. Lean’s analysis of this subject looks good to me: there is an influence, but it is small [barely detectable – otherwise we would not be discussing it].
The Sun’s influence on climate variation is dominant. There are clear lines of evidence to support this assertion.
The variation of the ‘TSI’ of the Sun cannot be considered on its own when it comes to the question of the Sun’s effect on climate. Irradiance at the top of the atmosphere does not equate to insolation at the Earth’s surface through a simple ‘divide by four’ rule. Insolation at the surface is also affected by clouds, which may or may not be affected by changes in TSI (Svensmark theory). Once clouds are also factored in, the link between the Sun and climate variation is pretty clear.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/willie-soon-brings-sunshine-to-the-debate-on-solar-climate-link/
The ISCCP data indicates that cloud cover was reduced during the modern warming period in which solar activity was high. Since the sun’s activity started reducing, cloud has increased again, according to several metrics including the Earthshine project. This also fits with Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a calorimeter.
The ocean absorbs and retains extra heat when solar activity is high, as shown by the increase in sea level due to thermal expansion. Since back radiation from greehouse gases can’t penetrate the ocean to heat it, the extra energy must be solar in origin. My calcs showed a 4w/m^2 excess during the 92-02 decade. Leif verified the calcs himself, but seems to disregard the implications.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/
Far from the Sun’s influence being “small” or “barely detectable” it is the main driver of climate change. DO NOT be decieved.
tallbloke says:
June 27, 2010 at 3:02 pm
The Sun’s influence on climate variation is dominant. There are clear lines of evidence to support this assertion.
Actually not. See: http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf slide 20 says in all. The arguments that TSI is not the whole story are tired. TSI and all the other solar variables vary much in unison because of the same underlying cause: the solar magnetic field.
‘Dominant’ is a big word. Care to quantify that? Otherwise you can say it with real meaning other than hand waving [which seems to be enough for some people].
Once clouds are also factored in, the link between the Sun and climate variation is pretty clear
Gee, yes. When it is cloudy it is less hot [lemme see if I can find a handy reference to that… hmm, here is one http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/weekend-weather-cloudy-wet-windy-and-cool.html ]
rbateman says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I was expecting the 1084 spot to raise the flux.
[…] What was I thinking?
When 1084 was at the limb, if the magnetic region were strong we should have seen strong faculae. In fact there were none [e.g. http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/20100627/20100627_0000_mdiigr_512.jpg ], so the heating of the chromosphere was weak, hence no increase of f10.7.
Hockey Schtick says:
June 27, 2010 at 2:26 pm
My only “agenda” is to find the truth. Interesting that you feel I’m biased
Indeed.
Willson is biased, Hoyt is biased, D’Aleo is biased, Scafetta is biased…
I don’t think they are biased the same way as you are, just wrong.
Also interesting that after you point out all the potential uncertainties and various interpretations of the TSI data, that it doesn’t seem to bother you
These uncertainties are much smaller than the solar variations and therefore have little or no influence on Lean’s assessment.
more balanced presentation incorporating alternative views.
Science not ‘views’ than can be voted on, resolved by consensus, or be more or less ‘balanced’. In fact, science should be as start and unbalanced as possible.
Also interesting in light of the fact that multiple recent findings show the “solar constant” is not so constant and the sun is much more variable than previously thought.
No, less variable. When the ‘solar constant’ was first reasonably well measured [e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Abbot-Variation-Sun.pdf%5D in the first decade of the 20th century the variations were cited to be about 50 w/m2 or 10-25 times larger than what we find today.
Also interesting that proxies of solar activity have found the sun to be more active in the 20th century than over the past 8000 years
That is very likely not so, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
“our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations.”
or
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
“Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.”
There are many myths out there that masquerade as ‘truths’ or are labeled as such by people with agendas.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Science is not ‘views’ than can be voted on, resolved by consensus, or be more or less ‘balanced’. In fact, science should be as stark and unbalanced as possible.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 27, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Yes, the faculae that rotated on after the spot (the spot led due to tilting of the region) are rather weak.
So are the rest of the presently visible faculae.
The spot is not visibly weak, albeit it is alone.
My personal preference is to use the SOHO MDI Continuums at 1024×1024 resolution. You lose too much with binning.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 27, 2010 at 3:12 pm (Edit)
The arguments that TSI is not the whole story are tired.
On the contrary Leif, it your argument that TSI is the whole story that is tired. Some of your solar physics is good, but your approach to climatology is rubbish.
Your use of a weather repost to dismiss Soon et al’s graph showing a correlation between sunshine hours and surface temperature at the centennial timescale is just laughable.
tallbloke says:
June 27, 2010 at 5:02 pm
On the contrary Leif, it your argument that TSI is the whole story that is tired. Some of your solar physics is good, but your approach to climatology is rubbish.
A good test of a theory is prediction, so calculate the temperature from your model for the past 10,000 years. This should be possible [indeed easy] as all input variables seem to depend only on planetary positions. BTW, one cannot have an ‘approach’ to science. It is either done right or not.
Your use of a weather repost to dismiss Soon et al’s graph showing a correlation between sunshine hours and surface temperature at the centennial timescale is just laughable.
fits with the general strength of your argument, which is indeed laughable. Soon’s argument is circular.
tallbloke says:
June 27, 2010 at 5:02 pm
The SELF consensus:
IPCC “Consensus” on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with http://climaterealists.com/?id=5910
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 27, 2010 at 11:39 am
The problem is that the detectors degrade in the harsh environment of space being in vacuum exposed to X-rays, UV, solar wind, cosmic rays, etc. The degradation is much larger than the solar changes in TSI and must be measured [estimated is a better word – ‘guessed at’ some would say].
Why then are satellite measurements of temperature, or of anything, taken seriously by anyone? Roy Spencer regularly points out that such sensors are calibrated to Pt thermometers. Could not some sort of correction such as flat field correction be done to normalise solar detectors?
Tallbloke
About Soon’s graph linking Japanese sun time with China temperature: is this not just a reflection of cloud cover? No need for any solar variation to explain this figure.
Leif Svalgaard
Also interesting that proxies of solar activity have found the sun to be more active in the 20th century than over the past 8000 years
That is very likely not so, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
“our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations.”
Am I right in assuming this is your explanation for the medieval warm period?
Thanks, Leif. I appreciate your input.
I looked at the plots on Leif’s website, such as
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
and it looks to me as if the recent uptick in solar activity might be due to just a couple of active regions that survive more than one solar rotation.
It ought to be possible, using the SOHO backside models and the Stereo images, to follow active regions all the way around. Has anybody done that for the recent spot groups?
Leif Svalgaard says:
Science is not ‘views’ than can be voted on, resolved by consensus, or be more or less ‘balanced’. In fact, science should be as stark and unbalanced as possible.
Yup,
http://www.wm7d.net/hamradio/solar/
phlogiston says:
June 27, 2010 at 5:30 pm
“The problem is that the detectors degrade in the harsh environment of space being in vacuum exposed to X-rays, UV, solar wind, cosmic rays, etc.”
Why then are satellite measurements of temperature, or of anything, taken seriously by anyone?
Both measurements are taken seriously, but they are completely different in nature. For TSI which we measure MUCH more precisely than temperatures in the atmosphere we keep track of the degradation. Here is how it is done:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/1.07_Dewitte_TSI.pdf
We measure TSI with a precision of 0.0068 W/m2 which is 1,000,000*0.0068/1361 = 5 parts in a million, or comparable to 10 feet of the distance between L.A. and S.F.
Tallbloke
About Soon’s graph linking Japanese sun time with China temperature: is this not just a reflection of cloud cover? No need for any solar variation to explain this figure.
Agree, as I said, when it is cloudy, it is cooler. Or in this particular case: cold weather over China means clouds, and those clouds move generally eastwards towards Japan.
Leif Svalgaard
“solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations.”
Am I right in assuming this is your explanation for the medieval warm period?
No, as first: there is little, if any influence by the sun on the climate, and second, 1600th and the 18th century were not part of the MWP, or any other warm period.
Jeff says:
June 27, 2010 at 5:36 pm
recent uptick in solar activity might be due to just a couple of active regions that survive more than one solar rotation.
Yes, not much to crow about.
It ought to be possible, using the SOHO backside models and the Stereo images, to follow active regions all the way around. Has anybody done that for the recent spot groups?
People do this kind of thing. Some try even to ‘see’ through the Sun. Not much have come of this.