Below I have the latest solar cycle progression the NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
Sunspots look to be on a course for a peak well below the forecast red line.
The 10.7 centimeter radio flux remains anemic.
And the magnetic personality of the sun (The Ap planetary index) isn’t ramping up, just bumping along.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Chris Thorne:
“I was startled the other day by the sharp drop in SORCE TSI as I looked over Anthony’s solar reference page.”
Yes, I noticed that decrease in TSI too. It really is very marked indeed. Can anyone provide an explanation or is it a sensor error?
Dr. Svalgaard,
I can understand being skeptical of gravitational forces within the solar system being responsible for the length of the solar cycle. But if the solar dynamo had its own characteristic period that was close to the length of certain orbital parameters, I don’t see how you could feel comfortable ruling out resonances between those periods, that would result in cyclic variations among the solar cycles. There is ample demonstration of resonances in the orbits of the planets themselves between bodies with much weaker interactions than the Sun and Jupiter, the description of the resonances and cycles of Pluto’s orbit in wikipedia is a prime example.
Under general relativity, an extended body like the Sun is not in free fall, but experiences differential accelerations due to the planets and the fact that gravity travels at the speed of light (or less). The Sun is 4.5 light seconds in diameter, so the far side of the Sun is experiencing gravitation from planets when they were in a position and an angle 4.5 seconds earlier in time. The gravitational force vectors at any instant be at different magnitudes and directions all over the sun.
Richard111 says:
August 9, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Over the the period 1921 to 1991 I note the incoming energy from the sun increased by about 1W/m^2. This amounts to an extra 5.095 x 10^14 joules of energy per second. I realise I am ignoring albedo but if most of the increase is in the UV band then that energy will be absorbed.
This is equivalent to heating 121.8 cubic kilometres of water by 1 degree every second of every day over a period of 70 years.
Yet the warmists still claim the sun has no effect!
TSI at TOA should be showing a down turn in a few years.
I agree with the sentiment of this post but I think you have to be careful with the maths. A lot of the increase is in the UV but much of this will be absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches the ground level. Also an increase in surface temperature of about 1C is all you need to compensate for this radiation increase. If this increase in temperature was instant there would be no energy imbalance and no nett increase in absorbed energy. However as you imply (but do not actually explain) the UV which does reach the surface of the sea will be absorbed at a depths of 10 to 100 metres. This is significant because most of the visible light warms the surface and results in increased surface temperatures and higher levels of covection and radiation which balances the radiation increase. The increase in UV will tend to increase the bulk temperature of the sea and I presume will lead to an increase in the frequency and power of the warm ocean cycles.
For a long time I have considered this to be likely cause of the instability associated with the Milankovitch cycles. Since the accumulation of heat in the oceans during a previous warming cycle would eventually lead to an increase in evaporation, increase in cloud albedo and increase in surface radiation at night. This might occur just at the time when the radiation input takes a down turn. This might well lead to the catastrophic cooling we actully observe. Conversly a subsequent increase in UV, warming the depths of those parts of the oceans which are still ice free, might allow centuries of deep ocean warming without changing the surface temperature, if the ocean currents were primarily focused on melting the ice caps from underneath and releasing ice bergs that keep the surface cool. Thus the energy acccumlation is initially unchecked. Once all the ice in the normally temperate latitudes has melted there would be a dramatic warming of the sea surface, an increase in precipitation and reduced cooling of the land by onshore winds.
So I agree with your conclusion that solar variability could well account for all or most of the climate variation that the world has seen but the mechanisms are very complex so we cannot be confident about any scenario until we have much more data particularly from satellite radiation measurements
I
Leif Svalgaard says:
But we on the Earth do not feel that force. Just like an astronaut in free fall around the Earth is accelerated all the time [his direction is changing], yet is weightless and feels nothing.
This is assuming that a body is a point mass, right? The sun however, is no point mass, but has a diameter of almost 1.4 million kilometers. If the sun experiences a force from the outside (such as the gravitational pull of its planets), then this must have different effects on different parts of the sun. This is comparable to the moon that exerts a tidal force on the earths oceans. It is not ebb and flow at the same time for each part of the earth’s oceans, but there is a time difference. And neither is the difference between ebb and flow (in meters) uniformly spread throughout the earth’s oceans.
That astronomical society and NASA have already released a statement last month that there is a missing jetstream on the sun, and they expect cycle 25 to be non existent throughout the whole cycle.
Looked at on a daily basis, rather than just monthly, SSN has picked up a bit since July and looks like it is averaging around 70-80. Pretty well on the red curve.
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/SunspotGraph.jpg
Interesting to see the lack of willingness to predict the sun’s activity while many are suggesting we accept models of climate over decades as fait acompli
A. Watts says: “Even with the recent triple CME and X class solar flare, overall the sun is still in a funk for cycle 24”. It should be noted that the plot uses data **through** July and the recent activity is no contemplated. In any case, the last two weeks full of flares (we got one almost X10) is probably having and end today when AR 11263 crosses the west solar limb. Probably before leaving us, it will show some intense activity (look at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html). After this AR, I cannot see any new one coming (http://www.solarmonitor.org/full_disk.php?date=20110810&type=strb_00195). Therefore, mean values will continue to be low.
Guigue
Latest Solar Cycle Numbers: the doldrums continue
Posted on August 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts
“Even with the recent triple CME and X class solar flare, overall the sun is still in a funk for cycle 24.
Below I have the latest solar cycle progression the NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
Sunspots look to be on a course for a peak well below the forecast red line.”
It’s a puzzle of some frequencies in our solar system and their strengths. I think more than the maxima of the sun spot number the phase shift of the maxima is an indicator. A spline smoothed curve of the phase shift in time correlates weak with global temperature proxies:
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/sun_shift_buent.gif
A fundamental ‘clock’ frequency of the sun spot can be found from historic data with f = 1/11.196 years. A delay is correlated with decreasing temperatures and acceleration with increasing global temperatures. If we take this pattern seriously, it means that the global temperatures will decrease in the next decades.
The appearance of the sun spots and its phase shift in time is inverse related to the ‘cosmic ray’ data (climax), which is taken from H. Svensmark as input. In other words, if the sun spot number increase the stream of ‘cosmic ray’ from the sun is reduced.
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/ssf_ghi12_.gif
In the discussion about tide effects on the sun, imagined from some 12 neighbor couples, I have sum up 10 tide aspects of 10 couple and weighted. It seems that there are relations between these motions and the sun spots.
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/ssf_ghi12_dec.gif
The tide aspects of the two plutinos Pluto and Quaoar, are related to the temperature proxies on a scale of a millennium or maybe six.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/solar_fig_3.gif
However, the puzzle is challenge.
V.
cal says:
August 10, 2011 at 2:52 am
Thank you for your comments and you are quite correct. I am being bit tongue in cheek about UV mainly because I am not sure what can reflect UV. I am fairly sure clouds absorb some but enough seems to get through to give one a suntan on a cloudy day 🙂
But the main point of my post was any change in the sun, however small, continues for rather long periods.
Alberto says:
August 10, 2011 at 2:54 am
“This is comparable to the moon that exerts a tidal force on the earths oceans. It is not ebb and flow at the same time for each part of the earth’s oceans, but there is a time difference. And neither is the difference between ebb and flow (in meters) uniformly spread throughout the earth’s oceans.”
Due to scale, wouldn’t a better example be Pluto’s effects of the tides on the Earth?
Alberto says:
August 10, 2011 at 2:54 am
“This is comparable to the moon that exerts a tidal force on the earths oceans.”
Moon is very bad example here because it is way out of scale.
It is rather comparable to the ISS that also exerts a tidal force on earth (including its oceans and atmosphere). ISS may be smaller in comparison but it is much closer and orbits faster so the total influence of ISS on earth climate is about comparable to total influence of planet’s tidal forces on sun.
Is there any? Sure. Measurable? Probably not.
Under the “There Ot’a Be a Law” category –
Almost on a daily basis I keep looking at –
the latest Sunspot Pic at
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/
Leif’s Solar Status Chart at
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
“Solar Terrestrial Activity Report” at
http://www.solen.info/solar/
and, sometimes every first week of the month or so, the SIDC Monthly Sunspot Report at
http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/
The Little Problem I can’t get my head clear about, for some reason, is “What’s a Spot?” and “Whats NOT?”
It sure seems some folks in the Sunspot Biz are counting every little almost spec as a spot and doing the 10×1+1=11 (or more) trick just to jack up the numbers. When I look at the Nasa Pic and the Count each day, there’s usually one VERY BIG Disconnect between what’s being counted and what’s being seen. Is this science or is this art?
Gorgias says:
August 10, 2011 at 4:18 am
Interesting to see the lack of willingness to predict the sun’s activity while many are suggesting we accept models of climate over decades as fait acompli
Those that profess to be in the know really have no clue on future solar activity beyond a cycle length. They suggest random movements control each cycle making prediction impossible over the longer term, but other areas of science can be quite different. If the theory holds up SC24 and SC25 will be below 50SSN (old Wolf scale) with a revival during SC27. Beyond that expect no strong grand minima for the next 1000 years at least.
Richard111 says:
August 9, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Over the the period 1921 to 1991 I note the incoming energy from the sun increased by about 1W/m^2.
We have no measurements of TSI before 1978…
Rik Gheysens says:
August 10, 2011 at 12:43 am
The update of your page http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png is currently rather hilarious. We see the words “Welcome to solar max…” next to a historically (since 2008) low TSI !!
The low TSI is caused by the presence of rather large sunspots [which are dark and thus lowers TSI]. You can see the effects on large spots on this graph http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Do you think this is a point of interest or is it a “normal” evolution of solar activity?
It is quite normal that the two hemispheres are out of step. On http://sidc.oma.be/html/wnosuf.html you can clearly see this.
SandyInDeby says:
August 10, 2011 at 12:43 am
How do tides in Earth’s seas work then?
Because there is a small difference in gravity from the Moon across the diameter of the Earth. There is also a small difference in gravity from the planets across the diameter of the Sun causing tides less that 1 millimeter in height.
crosspatch says:
August 10, 2011 at 12:43 am
The latest Hathaway prediction (Aug 2) is 69, in June of 2013.
Hathaway’s curve is not a prediction in the sense as that could have been made in 2004 well ahead of cycle 24, but is a curve fit to the actual evolution of SC24, so should be interpreted thus: if the rest of SC24 behaves as previous small cycles, then based on what we have seen so far, this is what to project.
RobB says:
August 10, 2011 at 1:48 am
Yes, I noticed that decrease in TSI too. It really is very marked indeed. Can anyone provide an explanation or is it a sensor error?
These dips occur when dark sunspots are on the solar disk, and are what to expect from high solar activity, see the similar dips here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
africangenesis says:
August 10, 2011 at 2:40 am
The gravitational force vectors at any instant be at different magnitudes and directions all over the sun.
The deviations from free fall [due to the gravitational field varying across the solar diameter] are very small [and do raise millimeter-sized tides]. The tidal effects can be contrasted with the movements of the regular overturning of the solar outer layers, where Texas-sized convection cells move a billion times as far at speeds up to a million millimeters per second.
Alberto says:
August 10, 2011 at 2:54 am
This is comparable to the moon that exerts a tidal force on the earths oceans
Correct, and there are also such tides tides on the Sun, see some of my comments above in this posting.
Mike Jonas says:
August 10, 2011 at 4:11 am
Looked at on a daily basis, rather than just monthly, SSN has picked up a bit since July and looks like it is averaging around 70-80.
You are plotting the NOAA sunspot numbers which are ~50% higher than the official sunspot number. You can see the difference here
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png
The bottom curves show the sunspot numbers, the small black symbols and thin black curve is the official sunspot number.
Another question I have is how many sunspots have occurred this cycle and what is normal up to this point in a cycle?
Chris Thorne:says
“I was startled the other day by the sharp drop in SORCE TSI as I looked over Anthony’s solar reference page.”
Yes, I noticed that decrease in TSI too. It really is very marked indeed. Can anyone provide an explanation or is it a sensor error?
It will be interesting to see what response the satellite surface temp has if any to this drop in TSI. If you look back on the graph preceding you can find other TSI events which indicate a sharp drop. If this drop is extended and there is a coresponding drop in the surface temps one can draw the conclusion there may be a connection with the sun’s TSI and surface temps.
Leif, I try to use something I am familiar with to envision these advanced concepts. So bare with me. If a speeding car can be invisioned as the Galaxy and a ping pong ball inside the car the Sun, I can envision that as free fall. If the “Galaxy Car” were to suddenly halt, the “ping pong ball Sun” would suddenly move forward and hit the windshield. So, while the “Galaxy Car” is still moving, is that what you mean by the ping pong ball Sun being in free fall?
Pamela Gray says:
August 10, 2011 at 7:40 am
If the “Galaxy Car” were to suddenly halt, the “ping pong ball Sun” would suddenly move forward and hit the windshield. So, while the “Galaxy Car” is still moving, is that what you mean by the ping pong ball Sun being in free fall?
How would you stop the Galaxy Car? By applying some force on it. If you apply the same force on the ping pong ball, it would also stop and not impinge on the windshield. Only if the forces are different would there be an effect. Due to the finite size of objects there are always tiny differences in the forces causing tides. These are extremely small in the solar system, but can be huge in other systems, e.g. powerful enough to tear galaxies apart http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit4/interact.html
Since tidal forces decreases with the cube of the distance, bodies would have to be really close up and personal for tides to be significant. Move Jupiter in to 0.05 AU instead of its 5 AU, and its tidal effect would be a million times stronger [there are such close-in, massive planets around some stars], and that might cause some effects.
I remember reading (probably on this site) that the Sun is not permanently at the “center of mass” of the Solar System.
Simply put: At times it is. At times it orbits the center of mass (like the planets) — though the orbital radius is not large. And, the rest of the time the “tugs” of the planets is moving it from one orbit to another.
Given the diameter of the Sun, its fluid-like nature, and, perhaps, different masses of fluids inside the sun, its not hard to believe the differential “tugs” of the planets are changing some of the “currents” inside the Sun.
Since I have not done or read actual calculations, I won’t argue that the “changing orbit” of the Sun guarantees that “significant forces” are “distorting” the Sun and its internal currents.
But, as some others seem to feel, I’d like to see the complete calculations that “prove” planetary influence is negligible.
Allen63 says:
August 10, 2011 at 8:22 am
Given the diameter of the Sun, its fluid-like nature, and, perhaps, different masses of fluids inside the sun, its not hard to believe the differential “tugs” of the planets are changing some of the “currents” inside the Sun.
All parts of the sun are ‘tugged’ the same way by the distant planets [the ‘center of mass’ has no mass and does not ‘tug’], so move together [except for the very tiny millimeter-sized tides caused by the planets].
The visible doldrums
A.) the Butterlly diagram broken down into groups with umbra (red) and those without (blue)
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uvp2324a.PNG
B.) Measured umbra/5 (black), F10.7 (grey) and SC 14 (red)
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
The slope of progress towards the Solar Equator is very shallow, while to total spot area and spots w/fully developed umbra remains weak. Meanwhile, the flux rises, which should indicate energy buildup with no place to go except ‘pop’.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2011 at 8:20 am
Way too much space in between stars in the Galaxy, except in the core, and a Galaxy ‘collision’ is a very misleading event. The coherence of two galaxies in “collision” would be tidally disrupted, flinging great quantities of stars about, distort core structures, send shock waves about piling up dust and gas into fronts with new star formation. But, in reality, very few stars would actually strike one another.
Way too much space in between stars in galaxies.
The cores of two galaxies could merge, and over millions of mergers one might get 2 supermassive black holes to collide (as in strike each other) and the resultant outcome would be…. don’t think anyone has any math for that. Ask Steven Hawking.
Allen63 says:
August 10, 2011 at 8:22 am
But, as some others seem to feel, I’d like to see the complete calculations that “prove” planetary influence is negligible.
Here you go: http://www.leif.org/research/Tidal-Range-Calculation.pdf