The sun went spotless yesterday, the first time in quite awhile. It seems like a good time to present this analysis from my friend David Archibald. For those not familiar with the Dalton Minimum, here’s some background info from Wiki:
The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years.[2] The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. Solar cycles 5 and 6, as shown below, were greatly reduced in amplitude. – Anthony
Guest post by David Archibald
James Marusek emailed me to ask if I could update a particular graph. Now that it is a full two years since the month of solar minimum, this was a good opportunity to update a lot of graphs of solar activity.
Figure 1: Solar Polar Magnetic Field Strength
The Sun’s current low level of activity starts from the low level of solar polar magnetic field strength at the 23/24 minimum. This was half the level at the previous minimum, and Solar Cycle 24 is expected to be just under half the amplitude of Solar Cycle 23.
Figure 2: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle
It is said that solar minimum isn’t reached until the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has flattened. While the month of minimum for the 23/24 transition is considered to be December 2008, the heliospheric current sheet didn’t flatten until June 2009.
Figure 3: Interplanetary Magnetic Field
The Interplanetary Magnetic Field remains very weak. It is almost back to the levels reached in previous solar minima.
Figure 4: Ap Index 1932 – 2010
The Ap Index remains under the levels of previous solar minima.
Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2010
The F10.7 Flux is a more accurate indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number. It remains low.
Figure 6: F10.7 Flux aligned on solar minima
In this figure, the F10.7 flux of the last six solar minima are aligned on the month of minimum, with the two years of decline to the minimum and three years of subsequent rise. The Solar Cycle 24 trajectory is much lower and flatter than the rises of the five previous cycles.
Figure 7: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 210
A weaker interplanetary magnetic field means more cosmic rays reach the inner planets of the solar system. The neutron count was higher this minimum than in the previous record. Thanks to the correlation between the F10.7 Flux and the neutron count in Figure 8 following, we now have a target for the Oulu neutron count at Solar Cycle 24 maximum in late 2014 of 6,150.
Figure 8: Oulu Neutron Flux plotted against lagged F10.7 flux
Neutron count tends to peak one year after solar minimum. Figure 8 was created by plotting Oulu neutron count against the F10.7 flux lagged by one year. The relationship demonstrated by this graph indicates that the most likely value for the Oulu neutron count at the Solar Cycle 24 maximum expected to be a F10.7 flux value of 100 in late 2014 will be 6,150.
Figure 9: Solar Cycle 24 compared to Solar Cycle 5
I predicted in a paper published in March 2006 that Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would repeat the experience of the Dalton Minimum. With two years of Solar Cycle 24 data in hand, the trajectory established is repeating the rise of Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum. The prediction is confirmed. Like Solar Cycles 5 and 6, Solar Cycle 24 is expected to be 12 years long. Solar maximum will be in late 2014/early 2015.
Figure 10: North America Snow Cover Ex-Greenland
The northern hemisphere is experiencing its fourth consecutive cold winter. The current winter is one of the coldest for a hundred years or more. For cold winters to provide positive feedback, snow cover has to survive from one winter to the next so that snow’s higher albedo relative to bare rock will reflect sunlight into space, causing cooler summers. The month of snow cover minimum is most often August, sometimes July. We have to wait another eight months to find out how this winter went in terms of retained snow cover. The 1970s cooling period had much higher snow cover minima than the last thirty years. Despite the last few cold winters, there was no increase in the snow cover minima. The snow cover minimum may have to get to over two million square kilometres before it starts having a significant effect.
David Archibald
December 2010
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
vukcevic says:
December 21, 2010 at 2:55 pm
“”The energy is not necessarily converted to heat, two magnetic fields acting against each other produce heath only in so called ‘reconnection’ (currents short circuit), it is either mechanical movement which may cause tremors (as investigated by NASA) or more likely miniscule effect on the originator of the magnetic field itself, the Earth’s rotation or LOD, hence its direct correlation with solar activity, and rise of a hypothesis that LOD is cause of GW.””
Reply;
My bet would be on homopolar generator effects (MHD) producing electromotive forces to shorten the LOD, at the same time as generating an increase in pole to equator static charge, that results in less cloudiness in the tropics, giving rise to increased radiation penetration SW warming not related to changes, or lack there of in TSI but coronal hole affected changes to the solar wind.
Thus reflecting the warming in sync with both LOD shifts, and CME activity levels.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:12 pm
There is indeed some confusion about this. Waldmeier always claimed that a factor of 0.6 was necessary to bring Locarno to agree with Zurich’s 80 mm telescope.
This post and one previous is the first time I have heard you talk about a double step, I think there is much more to uncover. How many steps are in place is hard to fathom, it would be good to get to the bottom of this. The Waldmeier weighting step as you say looks to occur at 1945 (the proxy records backing this up), later in 1981 Locarno takes over with a bigger telescope that is not controlled by Waldmeier as the SIDC are now in place. On the whole there does not look to be an extra reduction factor in place for the bigger telescope although on some days the Locarno value has extra discount. I did some more checking on the Locarno values and the raw values look to be discounted about 0.6 to arrive at the SIDC finished count, but a thorough analysis should be done.
So there is a possibility of three increases since Wolf’s day.
1. The higher speck ratio this cycle not being allowed for with Wolfer’s 0.6 factor.
2. Waldmeier step for weighting.
3. More specks observed when moving from the 80mm to 150mm telescope.
But in the back of my mind there are a few dilemmas, that email from SIDC stating Wolfer was actually using the bigger telescope which was available and included when he introduced his 0.6 factor. Two reports I have read that states Wolfer introduced the weighting system (that you have mentioned Waldmeier thought also) and although Waldmeier reports the 80mm telescope was used his 3 observatories all had the 150mm telescope.
Does anyone know if there is an update to the Altrock-2009 Green Corona Brightness figure found in the following post?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/another-parallel-with-the-maunder-minimum/
John M Reynolds
Speechless, Lief says that when I switch on an appliance,it generates its own current!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do the “ropey” things, to use the “scientific” term rather than the laymans Birkland current, get here. Pulled from the sun by gravity.
By seeing the link, observing real effects, we determine that rise and fall in current flow between the Earth and the Sun, can effect temperature.
Merry Christmas all, off to have a warming drink
To Crosspatch,
Joseph D’Aleo observed that these type of cycles come in pairs.
See mationalforestlawblog.com
October 2009 newsletter under my name. Begins around page 27 of paper “Low Sunspot…
I did a short interpretation of his work in that section.
richardholle says:
December 21, 2010 at 9:46 pm
…………..
On number of occasions I suggested that the solar activity (mainly the magnetic storms) act as an electro-magnetic brake on the Earth’s rotation, as confirmed by the correlation of the GMF at the North pole and LOD :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
If climate changes are to be fully understood than all Earth’s layers from magneto-, strato-, atmo-, hidro- all the way to litho-sphere and even further down, should be considered as interacting parts of a complex system.
DR. Svalgaard
Dec 21/2010
I think there will be several low cycles, but this is guesswork.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=622&page=43
I am pleased you have to come round to recognise value of my formula:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Grey Lensman says:
December 22, 2010 at 1:49 am
when I switch on an appliance,it generates its own current
When I mount my old bicycle and begin to pedal it generates enough current to power a headlight [required by law].
How do the “ropey” things, to use the “scientific” term rather than the laymans Birkland current, get here. Pulled from the sun by gravity.
How does a spacecraft get to the Moon? Powered by an initial explosion [“we have ignition”] and coasting the rest of the way. Coronal Mass Ejections are no different.
vukcevic says:
December 22, 2010 at 5:01 am
“I think there will be several low cycles, but this is guesswork.”
I am pleased you have to come round to recognise value of my formula
Your formula has no value.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 21, 2010 at 11:41 pm
But in the back of my mind there are a few dilemmas, that email from SIDC stating Wolfer was actually using the bigger telescope which was available and included when he introduced his 0.6 factor.
Instead of relying on an email from SIDC just read Wolfer’s, Brunner’s, and Waldmeier’s own words on this. They all categorically and repeatedly state that the old 80 mm telescope is used. SIDC and others are confused on this because other telescopes were present, but used for other things [prominences, etc]. Sunspot counting has ALWAYS [from Wolfer on through to Keller and Friedli]] been done with the SAME physical telescope [not just a similar one].
Leif Svalgaard demolishes vukcevic
LS. I think there will be several low cycles, but this is guesswork.
v. I am pleased you have to come round to recognise value of my formula
LS. Your formula has no value.
v. Strange you should agree with something that ‘has no value’.
Thank you for all your challenges, they were more productive than I ever thought possible.
Marry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family; may all your wishes come true.
Peace and harmony among men.
Hey mod
Can you change that to Merry Christmas (in my previous post)
I should disable spell checker !
Merry Christmas to you and all mods and especially to Anthony and family.
Now 4 consecutive days without a sunspot. (1:21pm, CST, 12/22/10)
Vuk etc. says:
December 22, 2010 at 10:31 am
LS. Your formula has no value.
v. Strange you should agree with something that ‘has no value’.
Your formula is just curve fitting to old data and as such has no predictive value apart from what is already evident from the curves [an approximately 100 year ‘wave’ that everybody has known about for the past 150 years]: http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 22, 2010 at 12:24 pm
an approximately 100 year ‘wave’ that everybody has known about for the past 150 years.
Absolutely.
In addition now, thanks to my sterling effort, you know why that ‘100 year wave’ is there, with the extra benefit of being able to extrapolate.
“I think there will be several low cycles, but this is guesswork.”
I also think there will be several low cycles, but no need for anyone to fall back on the guesswork.
SSNs are old hat anyway, see you in the New year for more magnetic challenges, I may add more details:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
vukcevic says:
December 22, 2010 at 1:40 pm
In addition now, thanks to my sterling effort,
People who self-aggrandize like that quickly move to a very low point on my scale of worthiness.
you know why that ‘100 year wave’ is there
Already Wolf suggested Jupiter/Saturn and was as wrong as you are. The difference is that he eventually realized that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm
………….
Absolutely. I’ve never seen you promoting your views or papers as the ‘gospel truth’.
Your scale of estimation is reflection of your subjective values, and matters very little or none, to anyone else.
Wolf was talking about gravity, but you failed to notice, I am talking about electro-magnetic feedbacks within heliosphere. Two radically different things.
Not realizing that after hundreds of comments, or even worse, realizing it but distorting my comments, in order to invalidate them, wouldn’t put it very high on anyone’s scale of worthiness. But I do not have such scales. Everyone deserves respect, until they forfeit it by committing one or more of ‘The Seven Deadly Sins’.
vukcevic says:
December 22, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I’ve never seen you promoting your views or papers as the ‘gospel truth’.
Of course, you haven’t, because I don’t do that. I don’t believe in gospel truth. And I don’t ‘promote my papers’ e.g. by cross posting references to such promotion on several blogs.
Wolf was talking about gravity, but you failed to notice, I am talking about electro-magnetic feedbacks within heliosphere.
With even less effect; at least with tidal interactions there would be a chance.
Everyone deserves respect, until they forfeit it by committing one or more of ‘The Seven Deadly Sins’.
I don’t know what they might be and to what extent you have committed them, but your failure to learn means that scientific respect comes out low.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 21, 2010 at 7:40 pm
HenryP says:
December 21, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I gather that 200 years ago, to do the measurement, they projected an image of the sun on a screen and do an actual count (was that done every day?). And you say it can be reasonably accurately determined that compared to how we do it now (how?) they missed 50%?
Since about 1850 sunspots have been counted [every day] by visual inspection [and often not by projection, but with a filter]. Before that we’ll take any and all observation by whichever means and try to calibrate them in modern terms. There are other means of calibration the sunspot count – counting aurorae, observing wiggles in the Earth’s magnetic field, measuring radioactive isotopes in ice and tree rings, in meteorites, and more. As we go back in time, we are not ‘missing’ counts, they just become more uncertain ans we are not sure if a count of 75 back then is actually that or any other value between 50 and a 100 [or worse].
Robuk says:
December 21, 2010 at 1:00 pm
You are counting sunspots today with superior equipment, unless you can show the exact, etc…
I’m not sure what kind of learning disability you have, but sunspots today are counted [and/or reduced to] what observers back in 1850s would have seen with the telescope I have shown you [and which is still being used for that purpose]. Astronomers deliberately use ‘inferior’ telescopes for two reasons: 1) to stay compatible with the old counts, and 2) once the telescope is ‘good enough’ improving its resolution does not show anymore spots,
====================================================
The telescope you show wasn`t to my knowledge made available until the mid 1850`s, I believe the Maunda and the Daulton minimum were over by that time.
Johann Rudolf Wolf born in 1816 reconstructed the sunspot record back to 1749 using the geomagnetic record as his baseline. Wolf used this background scale to adjust the values taken before 1847 to align with his count method. During his time Wolf did not count small spots and specks
He was trying to match his records with the past, the prior records were recorded through telescopes of lesser technology. Even so he had to make adjustments to the older record.
His own telescope only saw the minor spots/specks when conditions were good.
Leif is saying that we match modern sunspot observations with the past by using what was a very advanced telescope developed around the 1850`s, after the event.
I ask why Wolf did not consider this brilliant idea and match his observations with an earlier Newton telescope, he chose to ADJUST the past observations to match his own instead, where have we heard that before.
Leif says,
Once the telescope is ‘good enough’ improving its resolution does not show anymore spots, because there is a minimum size to what we call a spot.
So how big was a visible spot seen through a Newton telescope, is this classed as the minimum size when comparing the modern count, is this Newton classed as good enough.
Leif, you are just trying to disprove the link between sunspots and temperature.
Anyway if galileo and Newton could only see large to medium size spots and the lack of them coincided with the most prelonged cold period in a thousand years, that indicates a dormant sun is directly linked to a cooling earth. It doesn`t matter about the number of small spots and specks, just because you don`t understand why can`t take away the fact that when there is a lack of sun spots it turns cold.
Leif just for fun, why not build a replica Newton and check it out.
Robuk says:
December 22, 2010 at 4:52 pm
So how big was a visible spot seen through a Newton telescope, is this classed as the minimum size when comparing the modern count, is this Newton classed as good enough.
Many of the early 17th century telescopes were very good. Here are some drawings:
1625: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/sunspots/schex3.jpg
1644: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/sunspots/hvex3.jpg
From ~1850 until this very day, sunspots are counted with the same telescope. Trying to adjust the older values to the same scale as that telescope is challenging [as has only been partly successful]. This has nothing to with what telescopes were used in the past. We use all available data, no matter where they come from.
Leif just for fun, why not build a replica Newton and check it out.
No need to, we even have Galileo’s original, but it doesn’t matter as I have explained so many times.
can`t take away the fact that when there is a lack of sun spots it turns cold.
Ah, there is your agenda. Well, there is no evidence of that if we go even further back in time [using cosmic rays]. But regardless of what you believe, the calibration of sunspot numbers has nothing to do with temperatures.
Here is a hypothesis worthy of many commenters: during the LIA it was so cold that rimefrost http://www.flickr.com/photos/ulri/92522806/ was forming on the lenses, preventing sunspots to be seen, thus proving conclusively a connection between sunspots and cold.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 21, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Two reports I have read that states Wolfer introduced the weighting system (that you have mentioned Waldmeier thought also) and although Waldmeier reports the 80mm telescope was used his 3 observatories all had the 150mm telescope.
Since I’m trying to track down where this notion comes from, I would like to get references to those two reports [other than the ones I have already given]. That the observatories ALSO had other telescopes does not nullify that the 80 mm was the one used for visual sunspot counts in Zurich, compounded with the fact that every observer categorically and repeatedly state so.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 22, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
December 21, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Two reports I have read that states Wolfer introduced the weighting system (that you have mentioned Waldmeier thought also) and although Waldmeier reports the 80mm telescope was used his 3 observatories all had the 150mm telescope.
—————————-
Since I’m trying to track down where this notion comes from, I would like to get references to those two reports [other than the ones I have already given].
A Czech paper.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980BAICz..31..267K
Your reference to Waldmeier’s knowledge of a Wolfer weighting scheme sept 19 2;31am HERE.
Peter Tayla writes HERE.
Waldmeier’s 1968 observatory report listing 3 /150 mm refractors but no mention of the 80mm wolf telescope HERE.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 22, 2010 at 7:57 pm
A Czech paper.
Peter Taylor
Both of these are just parroting Waldmeier’s 1968 report. No new information.
Your reference to Waldmeier’s knowledge of a Wolfer weighting scheme
Waldmeier did not know of Wolfer’s scheme [Wolfer didn’t have one as I show in my recent AGU presentation http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf ], but invented the scheme himself.
Waldmeier’s 1968 observatory report listing 3 /150 mm refractors but no mention of the 80mm wolf telescope
Here is Waldmeier’s last report [1978]:
page 1: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Waldmeier-1978-1.jpg
page 2: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Waldmeier-1978-2.jpg
I translate from page 2, line 9 ff:
“The best one can do and also must do, is to preserve the homogeneity. To obtain that goal even today we use for our observations the telescope that Wolf used, and the counting technique has been transferred from one generation of observers to the next by several years of parallel observations.
The telescope used for determination of the Relative Sunspot Numbers comes from the shop of Fraunhofer and has an objective lens with aperture 8 cm and with 110 cm focal length, with an eye piece that yields a magnification of 64.”
Every annual report since the 1890s with the definitive sunspot numbers for each year repeat that singular fact. As is clear from Waldmeier’s report this is deliberate and necessary to ensure the homogeneity of the series. I hope we can close that chapter now and accept the words of the observers on this point.
Leif,
Conclusions,
Combined with daily observations by Picard, La hire, Eimmart and others, information on more than 200 days per year during much of the maunda minimum is now available. It indicates the probability of failing to observe sunspots during these years is SMALL.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Flam6.jpg
Here again we have possibly flawed reconstructions when the actual observational data was available.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g621x2918n7l05q6/fulltext.pdf
From galileo`s time, telescopes were improving, what could be seen in the Dalton could not possable have been seen in the maunda, the count went up.
Again it doesn`t matter about small spots it is about what could not be seen on the sun in the maunda and what was felt on the ground at that time. With the equipment they had they saw no spots, this information came from the top scientists of the day, what they couldn`t see doesn`t matter.
Comment on this study.
Robuk says:
December 23, 2010 at 3:49 am
Combined with daily observations by Picard, La hire, Eimmart and others, information on more than 200 days per year during much of the maunda minimum is now available. It indicates the probability of failing to observe sunspots during these years is SMALL.
Of course, nobody disputes that. In fact, I argue [speculate] that the spots were completely invisible and nowhere to be seen. See slide 22 ff of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 23, 2010 at 12:02 am
Geoff Sharp says:
December 22, 2010 at 7:57 pm
A Czech paper.
Peter Taylor
Both of these are just parroting Waldmeier’s 1968 report. No new information.
Chicken and egg I guess, but there was a link that might be worth checking (McKinnon 1987). But did see your Wolfer sunspot drawing, more of that would be good.
Your reference to Waldmeier’s knowledge of a Wolfer weighting scheme
Waldmeier did not know of Wolfer’s scheme [Wolfer didn’t have one as I show in my recent AGU presentation http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf ], but invented the scheme himself.
Yep…just going on your comment. You are supposed to be the man?
Waldmeier’s 1968 observatory report listing 3 /150 mm refractors but no mention of the 80mm wolf telescope
Here is Waldmeier’s last report [1978]:
page 1: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Waldmeier-1978-1.jpg
page 2: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Waldmeier-1978-2.jpg
I translate from page 2, line 9 ff:
“The best one can do and also must do, is to preserve the homogeneity. To obtain that goal even today we use for our observations the telescope that Wolf used, and the counting technique has been transferred from one generation of observers to the next by several years of parallel observations.
The telescope used for determination of the Relative Sunspot Numbers comes from the shop of Fraunhofer and has an objective lens with aperture 8 cm and with 110 cm focal length, with an eye piece that yields a magnification of 64.”
Every annual report since the 1890s with the definitive sunspot numbers for each year repeat that singular fact. As is clear from Waldmeier’s report this is deliberate and necessary to ensure the homogeneity of the series. I hope we can close that chapter now and accept the words of the observers on this point.
Perhaps you are too trusting. The sunspot count is a bit of a boys club, surely you don’t believe everything you read?
There is good reason for doubt, the data is not solid. But lets get back to your earlier statement. You say there are two factors in place, a 0.6 factor that Wolfer introduced to align his new counting method with Wolf, and then another 0.6 factor on top for the change in telescopes when Locarno took over. I do not see any evidence to back up your statement?
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 23, 2010 at 4:10 am
Of course, nobody disputes that. In fact, I argue [speculate] that the spots were completely invisible and nowhere to be seen. See slide 22 ff of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Robuk has some valid points. The telescopes may not have picked up the micro specks as seen today, but they were diligent and still recorded very little. There is no doubt the Maunder was a very deep minimum. I cant understand why you invoke L&P (whatever that is) to describe grand minima. You say there was isotope modulation during the Maunder, but how does it rate when compared with active times like recent decades past?