The sun seems not to be in cooperative mood again this month. It has gone blank again.
And from SWPC, the brief upticks of April were not repeated in May:
More info at the WUWT solar page
The sun seems not to be in cooperative mood again this month. It has gone blank again.
And from SWPC, the brief upticks of April were not repeated in May:
More info at the WUWT solar page
BTW, thanks, Leif.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 13, 2011 at 10:50 am
“Rudolf Wolf [1816-1893] did not observed during the Dalton Minimum. ”
Thanks for correcting my error as he applied his method to the observations off that time and also your perspective on the Layman’s sunspot count too.
Just as well i don’t count spots, as i may put a few more… or less in, depending how i look at things at the time?
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 13, 2011 at 12:00 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:55 am
Hi Leif, please could you tell us more about the way f10.7 radio flux has been calibrated to the sunspot number in your graph.
In order not to open another can of worms, the F10.7 flux was only calibrated using data from cycle 24, i.e. from 2009 on. I’ll keep this graph up to date going forward.
Ah, OK. So what is the numerical relationship between the F10.7 calibration for cycle 24 and previous cycles please?
I won’t start worm counting, promise.
Thanks for the graph, and keeping us updated, Leif! It’s really cool seeing the similarities between 14 and 24. Looks like a pretty broad cycle too.
Because the sun rotates with just the same speed now, as it did then. Those ‘spurts’ are just the same active regions rotating in and out of view?
The way I have it, the flux came unhinged from the spot area sometime around April, 2009:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
Why does the flux continue upward while the spot area runs level?
@ur momisugly John Marshall
But that’s the UK for you weather does not obey the UK Met Office who again forecast record summer temperatures, but did not mention bar-b-qs.
The Met Office stopped doing seasonal forecasts more than a year ago. Where did you find this forecast?
jorgekafkazar says: June 13, 2011 at 12:28 pm
It’s wiggle matching, so it’s problematic. Have you tried taking the derivative of the SSN and plotting it against CET?
……….
Yes I have, with delta =11 years, visual matching appear to be slightly better, but the correlation is lower. For period 1710 to 1960 R^2 = 0.2678, but if extended to 1710 – 2000 is even less R^2 = 0.1566.
tallbloke says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Ah, OK. So what is the numerical relationship between the F10.7 calibration for cycle 24 and previous cycles please?
I think we have gone over that ground many times. But up to second order they are:
before 1996: SSN = -7.8954E-04 F^2 + 1.3101E+00 F – 7.7957E+01
1996-2008: SSN = -7.5501E-04 F^2 + 1.1995E+00 F – 7.4518E+01
2009-Now: SSN = -7.9905E-03 F^2 + 2.7103E+00 F – 1.4826E+02
These are for monthly means. I don’t have them handy for daily means [and what would you do with those, anyway?]. The ones on the plot for SC24 are for daily means:
SSN daily = -3.32018E-03 F^2 + 1.89378E+00 F – 1.13883E+02
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Because the sun rotates with just the same speed now, as it did then. Those ‘spurts’ are just the same active regions rotating in and out of view?
No, as the spurts last many rotations. Within each spurt there is 27-day modulation.
rbateman says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Why does the flux continue upward while the spot area runs level?
The spots are harder to see and are smaller, so their area is smaller.
Vuk at June 13, 2011 at 10:17 am
Vuk – while you’re on the CET you might do one for CET vs previous solar cycle length using the DMI data. You should find a much better correlation.
@Dave Springer says:
June 13, 2011 at 8:42 am
“Interestingly it isn’t colder winters which make glaciers advance. It’s colder summers that do the trick…… So watch out for lower average summer temperatures in higher latitudes as that will be the mark the beginning of the undoing of our civilization.”
then why was there not more glacial advance in the early 1900`s than the early 1700`s:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm
1595: Gietroz (Switzerland) glacier advances, dammed Dranse River, and caused flooding of Bagne with 70 deaths. 1600-10: Advances by Chamonix (France) glaciers cause massive floods which destroyed three villages and severely damaged a fourth. One village had stood since the 1200’s. 1670-80’s: Maximum historical advances by glaciers in eastern Alps. Noticeable decline of human population by this time in areas close to glaciers, whereas population elsewhere in Europe had risen. 1695-1709: Iceland glaciers advance dramatically, destroying farms. 1710-1735: A glacier in Norway was advancing at a rate of 100 m per year for 25 years. 1748-50: Norwegian glaciers achieved their historical maximum LIA positions
Fit_Nick says:
June 13, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Thanks for correcting my error as he applied his method to the observations off that time and also your perspective on the Layman’s sunspot count too.
Yes and remember it is just his perspective.
Anything is possible says:
June 13, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Is this the Livingston & Penn effect?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
REPLY: No there will be more sunspots this year, the L&P effect is gradual…don’t expect it to drop of in contrast until around 2015-2017 – Anthony
The contrast should drop off around SC24/SC25 minimum but is still experiencing a rise in contrast since SC23/SC24 minimum before reducing again. This is the normal state of affairs but the overall contrast is weaker because of the weakness of SC24.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sunspot_darkness.png
@tallbloke (June 13, 2011 at 8:06 am)
There’s no lag.
lgl wrote (June 13, 2011 at 9:45 am) “Paul I can’t find the evidence.”
Of what? Must be some misunderstanding.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Yes and remember it is just his perspective.
Actually Wolf’s, as Wolf had cycle 5 to be about twice as strong as you think it was.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:32 pm
“Is this the Livingston & Penn effect?”
The contrast should drop off around SC24/SC25 minimum but is still experiencing a rise in contrast since SC23/SC24 minimum before reducing again.
Here is our poster from the Solar Physics Division [of the AAS] meeting in Las Cruces today: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Poster.jpg
The L&P effect is doing fine. Right on track.
@ur momisugly geo says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:25 am
If it steadies around the +0.2 to +0.3 range during neutral ENSO that certainly would dampen AGW proponents spirits but in terms of Skeptics I think that it may highlight the issue again about the validity of the downward adjustments of historical observations. The 1961 to 1990 reference period was straddling a cooler climate cycle. Maybe 0.2 to 0.3 referenced to that period is about the long term average if we take longer term raw rather than adjusted data? Or are you thinking it will stabilise at the 0.2 to 0.3 level referenced to the new reference period of 1970-2000?
Looking at the latest data point, it seems to be a bit low (or if you prefer, behind) for the predicted curve, but it’s still reasonably on track. This is a down-tick amongst lots of up and down ticks over a larger trend that seems to be going upward.
The Australian government keeps telling us that “time is running out”. What they really mean is they need to get those Carbon Tax dollars rolling in before the earth starts cooling on it’s own accord.
Paul
Of what? Must be some misunderstanding.
Of no lag between TSI and temperature.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 13, 2011 at 7:02 pm
@tallbloke (June 13, 2011 at 8:06 am)
There’s no lag.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but since you don’t engage with mine, or provide explanation of your own, we just get the usual lack of mutual understanding.
“Sunspot says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:36 pm”
Would that be because of a Russian prediction of a 30 year cold period, similar to the ~1940 – ~1975 cold, starting around about 2015?
@lgl (June 14, 2011 at 1:05 am) & tallbloke (June 14, 2011 at 1:24 am)
One possible explanation for the ongoing disagreement / “misunderstanding”:
A different definition of lag.
For example, if your definition of lag is strictly temporal and mine is spatiotemporal, or if you are thinking in 0th derivatives and I am thinking in 0th, 1st, & 2nd derivatives.
Worst case “misunderstanding” would be if you are thinking in 0th temporal derivative (1 dimension) and I am thinking in 0th, 1st, & 2nd spatiotemporal derivatives (12 dimensions).
I’d bet on the latter.
At a minimum, the study of phase relations requires the application of complex numbers. And there’s no need to limit such a conceptual framework to 2 temporal dimensions. The effect is always instantaneously “somewhere” spatiotemporally as a wave travels across space & time. The notion of a lag is an artificial & seriously misleading construct that arises by narrowing focus to a string of spatiotemporally biased samples. The “temporal chaos people” totally don’t get this.
tallbloke, once you start framing semi-annually & interannually-spatiotemporally, your solar-SOI promotions might start gaining some traction. You might remember Cheetham’s graph. I’m sure you remember Tisdale’s Steps. You might also recall Warren White’s ideas. There’s a connection with LeMouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot’s seminal 2010 findings. The thing interfering with human ability to connect the dots is maladaptive 0th derivative temporal notions of lags that promote fantasies about temporal chaos and overlook the spatiotemporal order of the interannual global-wave mixer:
1) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Ocean_currents_1943_%28borderless%293.png
2) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/15/interannual-terrestrial-oscillations/
Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) inform us about GLOBAL CONSTRAINTS and the timescales at which they operate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/on-the-amopdo-dataset/#comment-678688
There’s a connection with terrestrial polar motion. For now I’ll just say this: It looks like it wasn’t the Chandler wobble that reversed phase early in the 20th century, but rather the…
= = = = = =
Leif,
I found the poster educational. Thanks.
The concluding text line from the poster was, “We do not understand the physical mechanism behind these changes or the effect, if any, it will have on the Earth environment.”
Question: That line made me curious about what ideas you solar scientists have germinating after hours in the dim lighting of the bars where solar scientist hang out. What nascent thoughts you guys/gals have to bracket the range of potential candidate mechanisms.
John
Paul Vaughan says:
June 14, 2011 at 6:11 am
@lgl (June 14, 2011 at 1:05 am) & tallbloke (June 14, 2011 at 1:24 am)
you are thinking in 0th temporal derivative (1 dimension) and I am thinking in 0th, 1st, & 2nd spatiotemporal derivatives (12 dimensions).
Wow, 12 dimensions. Impressive.
The effect is always instantaneously “somewhere” spatiotemporally as a wave travels across space & time. The notion of a lag is an artificial & seriously misleading construct
You know, I always thought the ankle bone must be connected to the leg bone rather than the lag bone, and this confirms it!
I’ll just say this: It looks like it wasn’t the Chandler wobble that reversed phase early in the 20th century, but rather the…
Dammit, looks like they got him before he could divulge the secret.