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.
Number of sunspots is one thing. What about their intensity to get a better idea of how much energy is being emitted (& thus influencing Earth temps)? Does more sunspots = higher temps, or can higher temps still be achieved with just a few big ones?
Interesting none-the-less…
Latest Solar Cycle Numbers: the doldrums continue
Posted on August 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts
I think, there are real connections to be recognizable in the solar system, which have to be explained by the authorities, and not rejected from an orthodox understanding of physics. The hierarchy is that that what is determines what has to be the object of science, and not some authorities in the sciences community have to determine was has to be or not to be. Determining is not a scientific method; it is a political method (s. AGW), and all words which are used to explain, why xyz has no reality, is spam.
One of the most asked questions in this time of global warming is the question, whether the global temperatures will arise, keep warm, or will fall in this century. It seems that this question now can be answered.
Since J.A. Eddy in 1976 has shown that there is evidence that 14C tree ring data indicate a period of roughly 1000 years with a maximum between about 1100 and 1250 AD and a minimum between 1650 and 1700 AD, which was in a remarkable agreement with the warm and cold periods in the last millennium, a mechanism for this frequency is still missed. But now there is evidence that by using well known solar system geometries a remarkable correlation factor can be shown with well known global temperature proxies and the origin of the ~1000 year period.
A few people, like the pioneer Theodor Landscheidt, have analyzed celestial cycles of the known celestial bodies and compared with warm and cold global eras. Landscheidt has given some correct climate predictions out of the solar system geometry, but there were no high fidelity simulations of global temperature proxies for the era of 3000 BCE to 3000 CE.
In June 2002 Chad Trujillo and Michael E. Brown have discovered the plutino Quaoar and this object takes about 286 years around the sun. In February 2010 I was thinking about a cycle in the solar system that is in harmony with the 14C period J. A. Eddy has shown, and I have discovered that the synodic period of the couple Pluto/Quaoar is about twice J.A Eddy’s 14C period of 1000 years, precise 913.5 years. A calculation from NASA ephemerides of the absolute heliocentric aspects have shown then that alike the tide on earth the conjunctions and oppositions are related to the warm times, but the square aspects like the nip tide on earth are related to cold times. The whole real cycle measure 1827 years. Using the published sidereal periods, the cycle p in years is: p = 1/((1/247.68)-(1/285.97)) = 1849.8 years. Because of the very eccentric path of Pluto, the synodic path exhibits mostly three maxima and three minima and fits well with the low frequency temperate proxies not only with the 14C from J.A. Eddy but with all well known temperature proxies.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/solar_fig_3.gif
But this phenomena is not only visible in the functions of the terrestrial global temperature proxies of the last millennium, it is also present in the phase shift of the ‘doldrum’ sun spot tops.
The logic is this. There is an average frequency of the sun spot oscillation of 1/11.196 y^-1 for the time since 1600. The real occurrence of the top sun spot number in time differs over the time range as well as prior the cycle of exact 11.196 y bur also later for some years. In other words the occurring frequency sometimes is increased and sometimes decreased. There is a correlation visible between these shifted frequencies and the terrestrial temperature proxies in that way that an increasing frequency is connected to a higher global temperature and a decreasing frequency – as today – is connected to a lower global temperature. Moreover, the simple added heliocentric tide aspects of 4 some more celestial couples inclusive the couple Pluto/Quaoar is strongly correlated with both, the global temperature proxy per example the curve from E. Zorita, and the added tide functions.
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/ssn_shift_ghi4.gif
The function of the phase shift of the sun spots is recognizable also in temperature proxies reconstructed by C. Loehle, A. Moberg, Buentgen et al, or the measured data from Hadcrut3:
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/sunspot_shift_vs_temps.gif
The pattern that can be related to heliocentric tide geometries is no more a simple function, because of the eccentricity of the bodies. But as it is visible in case of some 3 more couples as the fundamental couple Pluto/Quaoar the existing temperature reconstructions of the last millennium fit well with only four couples.
If the sun spots number maximize in the beginning of the year 2014, as it is suggested by the prophets, then there is a seeming delay of 13.8 -11.196 y = 2.6 years to the average clock of the sun. But because of the increased frequency of the last 40 years, connected to a warmer terrestrial climate, this is first only a relaxation to the center clock of the sun.
However, evidence is given by geometric facts without any logical contradiction. There is no valid argument that if there is a celestial pattern based on solar system geometries, this should not be valid tomorrow.
The rejection of the solar tide functions, using the Newtonian physics, make the visible correlations not untrue, and it is not out of the question that a possible other physical explanation can be found.
s. http://volker-doormann.org/climate_code_s.htm
I think it would be a new x-gate if new scientific work would be dull flattened by orthodox authorities again who know always what NOT is, and spend arguments on this over and over and over.
in Febrary 2010 I wrote: “The climatic cycles on earth are indicated by the planets. A short main cycle amounts to 2 X 913 years, which does not run monotonous, but precisely. After this cycle we are in a time of warm climate top in 1997, then it is cooling down until 2063 and rise up again to the year 2138 on a still warmer climate level than now. After that the earth climate cools down until 2704.”
This cycle is also to be found in the work of Gerard Bond et al., ‘Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene’ (Science , December 2001), back until 10000 BCE.
V.
Latest Solar Cycle Numbers: the doldrums continue
Posted on August 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts
I think, there are real connections to be recognizable in the solar system, which have to be explained by the authorities, and not rejected from an orthodox understanding of physics. The hierarchy is that that what is determines what has to be the object of science, and not some authorities in the sciences community have to determine was has to be or not to be. Determining is not a scientific method; it is a political method (s. AGW), and all words which are used to explain, why xyz has no reality, is spam.
One of the most asked questions in this time of global warming is the question, whether the global temperatures will arise, keep warm, or will fall in this century. It seems that this question now can be answered.
Since J.A. Eddy in 1976 has shown that there is evidence that 14C tree ring data indicate a period of roughly 1000 years with a maximum between about 1100 and 1250 AD and a minimum between 1650 and 1700 AD, which was in a remarkable agreement with the warm and cold periods in the last millennium, a mechanism for this frequency is still missed. But now there is evidence that by using well known solar system geometries a remarkable correlation factor can be shown with well known global temperature proxies and the origin of the ~1000 year period.
A few people, like the pioneer Theodor Landscheidt, have analyzed celestial cycles of the known celestial bodies and compared with warm and cold global eras. Landscheidt has given some correct climate predictions out of the solar system geometry, but there were no high fidelity simulations of global temperature proxies for the era of 3000 BCE to 3000 CE.
In June 2002 Chad Trujillo and Michael E. Brown have discovered the plutino Quaoar and this object takes about 286 years around the sun. In February 2010 I was thinking about a cycle in the solar system that is in harmony with the 14C period J. A. Eddy has shown, and I have discovered that the synodic period of the couple Pluto/Quaoar is about twice J.A Eddy’s 14C period of 1000 years, precise 913.5 years. A calculation from NASA ephemerides of the absolute heliocentric aspects have shown then that alike the tide on earth the conjunctions and oppositions are related to the warm times, but the square aspects like the nip tide on earth are related to cold times. The whole real cycle measure 1827 years. Using the published sidereal periods, the cycle p in years is: p = 1/((1/247.68)-(1/285.97)) = 1849.8 years. Because of the very eccentric path of Pluto, the synodic path exhibits mostly three maxima and three minima and fits well with the low frequency temperate proxies not only with the 14C from J.A. Eddy but with all well known temperature proxies.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/solar_fig_3.gif
But this phenomena is not only visible in the functions of the terrestrial global temperature proxies of the last millennium, it is also present in the phase shift of the ‘doldrum’ sun spot tops.
The logic is this. There is an average frequency of the sun spot oscillation of 1/11.196 y^-1 for the time since 1600. The real occurrence of the top sun spot number in time differs over the time range as well as prior the cycle of exact 11.196 y bur also later for some years. In other words the occurring frequency sometimes is increased and sometimes decreased. There is a correlation visible between these shifted frequencies and the terrestrial temperature proxies in that way that an increasing frequency is connected to a higher global temperature and a decreasing frequency – as today – is connected to a lower global temperature. Moreover, the simple added heliocentric tide aspects of 4 some more celestial couples inclusive the couple Pluto/Quaoar is strongly correlated with both, the global temperature proxy per example the curve from E. Zorita, and the added tide functions.
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/ssn_shift_ghi4.gif
The function of the phase shift of the sun spots is recognizable also in temperature proxies reconstructed by C. Loehle, A. Moberg, Buentgen et al, or the measured data from Hadcrut3:
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/sunspot_shift_vs_temps.gif
The pattern that can be related to heliocentric tide geometries is no more a simple function, because of the eccentricity of the bodies. But as it is visible in case of some 3 more couples as the fundamental couple Pluto/Quaoar the existing temperature reconstructions of the last millennium fit well with only four couples.
If the sun spots number maximize in the beginning of the year 2014, as it is suggested by the prophets, then there is a seeming delay of 13.8 -11.196 y = 2.6 years to the average clock of the sun. But because of the increased frequency of the last 40 years, connected to a warmer terrestrial climate, this is first only a relaxation to the center clock of the sun.
However, evidence is given by geometric facts without any logical contradiction. There is no valid argument that if there is a celestial pattern based on solar system geometries, this should not be valid tomorrow.
The rejection of the solar tide functions, using the Newtonian physics, make the visible correlations not untrue, and it is not out of the question that a possible other physical explanation can be found.
s. http://volker-doormann.org/climate_code_s.htm
I think it would be a new x-gate if new scientific work would be dull flattened by orthodox authorities again who know always what NOT is, and spend arguments on this over and over and over.
in Febrary 2010 I wrote: “The climatic cycles on earth are indicated by the planets. A short main cycle amounts to 2 X 913 years, which does not run monotonous, but precisely. After this cycle we are in a time of warm climate top in 1997, then it is cooling down until 2063 and rise up again to the year 2138 on a still warmer climate level than now. After that the earth climate cools down until 2704.”
This cycle is also to be found in the work of Gerard Bond et al., ‘Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene’ (Science , December 2001), back until 10000 BCE.
V.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 11, 2011 at 1:19 am
I have provided detailed data for 3200 years that you have not as yet rebuked.
To my recollection, I have done that repeatedly.
###
And to my recollection as well.
Anthony says: “The 10.7 centimeter radio flux [progression] remains anemic.”
How can this be reconciled with the enormous gravitational forces at play on the sun’s surface?
Furthermore, since the sun is quiet and global temperatures are increasing, doesn’t that prove that nothing — not the sun, not CO2 pollution, not even “El Nino” — can alter temperature, as the Earth’s temperature is self-correcting?
steven mosher says:
August 11, 2011 at 9:24 am
Geoff Sharp says:
August 11, 2011 at 1:19 am
I have provided detailed data for 3200 years that you have not as yet rebuked.
To my recollection, I have done that repeatedly.
###
And to my recollection as well.
Show me one example where he provided evidence against the correlations I have presented other than repeated handwaving.
Leif vs the psuedo astrologers… hmm tough call.
What’s the appeal anyway, auto-contrarianism?
Zer0th says:
August 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Leif vs the psuedo astrologers… hmm tough call.
I take it that you consult your newspaper’s horoscope column regularly 🙂
Geoff Sharp says:
August 11, 2011 at 10:50 am
Show me one example where he provided evidence against the correlations I have presented other than repeated handwaving.
Perhaps, mosh could say if he finds your ‘correlations’ convincing…
Pamela Gray, can we all “bare with you” ??
Actually, in the interests of honest disclosure, I should confess reading Jonathan Cainer’s astrology site. Not for its forecasts, rather his pithy, Rorschache-inducing, philosophical mon bots. Leo, tomorrow: Some people say, ‘Don’t look back.’ Others say, ‘Don’t look back in anger.’ I prefer to say, don’t look back unless you think it will help you look forward more clearly.
Ahem, anyway… I’m still curious as to the attraction of these alt-theories. What’s the motivation?
Zer0th says:
August 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Ahem, anyway… I’m still curious as to the attraction of these alt-theories. What’s the motivation?
The same reason why man looks to undertand in the first place: Current explanations are not exactly awe-inspiring, leaving much to be desired.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and man is a part of nature.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
August 11, 2011 at 10:50 am
Show me one example where he provided evidence against the correlations I have presented other than repeated handwaving.
Perhaps, mosh could say if he finds your ‘correlations’ convincing…
####
what correlations? he uses the word, that’s for sure.
I would like to thank Lief for his patience and good humour in his many and extensive replies above.
It would be good if the Solar Page of WUWT could include some explanatory text by someone of his erudition. At present it is full of poorly annoted graphs, and is very difficult to make anything of most of it.
With CERN about to announce its findings it is a good time for a major overhaul of the SolarPages.
ho hum
Everyone went home, not a post for a while here.
Sun is free fallin’ like Tom Petty’s song.
So what can break a free fall, something headed in our heliosphere’s direction moving faster than the suns free fall, with more density added and cooooler?
But not cool enough for an iceage.
So how did the planetary theorists explain the hemisphereic difference in this solar cycles sunspots anyway?
Where the heck are the Interstellar theorists? (why do I have to be the lone rangeress?)
Kinda like being last..
Carla says:
August 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm
You’re not alone, Carla.
The counts don’t tell the story accurately, the measurements do.
It’s the same old story here in Solar Topic Land: All attempts at discussion get shot down, like nobody really wants to talk about it. Fine.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uvp2324a.PNG hints at what is going on.
There is no significant progression in Latitude, and one might say it is halted.
The flux rises, as does the Active Region Count and the number of spots:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
But again, the total area does not rise except for the one step up.
Why? What clues do we possess?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2011 at 3:45 am
tallbloke says:
August 11, 2011 at 1:18 am
No. Bad analogy. Written in too much haste, I’m packing to go away for a few days. If the perturbing force is a gravitational force the inertia in both objects is overcome at the same rate.
Problem is that we are dealing with a mix of gravitational and electromagnetic force. Something causes the Dicke bulge at the solar equator. What is it? Hmmmm, I’ll think for a few days. Sorry Leif.
A repenting sinner is always welcome back in to flock
Heh, thanks Leif. I try not to stray too far into unorthodoxy. A question I want to think about is this:
A force different to the gravitational force will cause inertia in different objects freefalling in a hard vacuum to be overcome at different rates. This implies that objects falling under gravity in a non-vacuum will also have their inertia overcome at different rates. This will produce an effect similar to a centrifuge.
Thoughts?
Carla says:
August 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm
So how did the planetary theorists explain the hemisphereic difference in this solar cycles sunspots anyway?
Is the Greenwich data still being updated by Hathaway? I would think collating the data might be a job for Rob Bateman and Geoff Sharp, since speck counting will have contaminated the NOAA dataset. My look at hemisperic sunspot production asymmetry is here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/sunspot-asymmetry-barycentre-to-solar-centre-link/
tallbloke says:
August 15, 2011 at 12:52 am
A force different to the gravitational force will cause inertia in different objects freefalling in a hard vacuum to be overcome at different rates. This implies that objects falling under gravity in a non-vacuum will also have their inertia overcome at different rates. This will produce an effect similar to a centrifuge.
There are no such forces acting on the Sun at the present time in any significant measure compared to gravity.
Is the Greenwich data still being updated by Hathaway?
Yes.
I would think collating the data might be a job for Rob Bateman and Geoff Sharp, since speck counting will have contaminated the NOAA dataset.
If anything the current counts are too low. No overcounting, and specks must be counted too.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2011 at 7:16 am
I do NOT concern myself with counting methods any longer, or the endless parade of count recalculations. The only thing to be gained might be to proxy that which has no record to be measured with.
I look only at the MEASUREMENTS of area.
Whatever it is that Hathaway is doing, if it isn’t measuring, I’m not the least bit interested.
The Greenwich General System concerned itself with measurement of sunspot areas.
If someone wants to base discussion on area, I’m fine with that.