NOAA SWPC has updated their plot page of solar metrics, and the slump continues.
At spaceweather.com Dr. Tony Phillips writes:
SO THIS IS SOLAR MAXIMUM? Forecasters have long expected the Solar Max of 2013 to be the weakest of the Space Age. It might be even weaker than they thought. As shown in this 20-year plot of sunspot counts vs. time, the sun is underperforming:
Sunspot numbers are notoriously variable, so the actual counts could rapidly rise to meet or exceed the predicted curve. For now, however, the face of the sun is devoid of large sunspots, and there have been no strong flares in more than a week. The threshold of Solar Max looks a lot like Solar Min. NOAA forecasters estimate no more than a 1% chance of X-class solar flares in the next 24 hours.
===================================================
Here’s the other metrics, which are also “underperforming”.
The Ap magnetic proxy for the solar magnetic activity also continues weak, never having recovered from the step change seen in October 2005.
Henry@ur momisugly Ray Tomes
I do appreciate your reaction to my comment. Maybe I was not so clear, as English is not my first language.
Ray Tomes says
By changing models to use annual rate of change, the correlation will be much less, but the prediction will be more accurate.
Henry says
I did change to rate of change. But this is not a model. This is statistics. These are the results from a careful randomly selected sample of weather stations. And I still got r2=0.998 on the binomial.
data in degrees C or K per annum are:
0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs)
0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs),
0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and
-0.016 from 2000 (12 years)
You can accept that these data (of observed maxima) of the change in global maximum temperature are correct.
Even though the binomial looks very good, I still think the sine wave fit (wavelength 88 years) seems more probable to me.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Also note the sine wave from Anchorage from 1942 (shown below in the above blog quote).
This means that “global warming” theoretically started around 1927 because the global temp. records from before that time cannot seriously be taken as correct. In fact, I doubt if anyone can find me a calibrated thermometer from before 1920.
Accepting that my sine wave is correct means that we are globally moving in an 88 year cycle of fluctuating energy-in.
So my final question is: Accepting, or assuming – if you don’t trust me- that my results are correct, do you accept my 88 year sine wave as being correct or would you have or propose another best fit for my data (like 104 years?)?
I’m not quite sure why the lynx population oscillation period is of interest here since it’s the result of a classic prey-predator interaction?
Phil. says:
November 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm
I’m not quite sure why the lynx population oscillation period is of interest here since it’s the result of a classic prey-predator interaction?
Ray: It was thought to be so, and it may partially be so. However a number of other species follow the same 9.6 year cycle, and many of them do not eat each other. Something else is going on to do with the environment. One possible clue is that ozone shows a 9.6 year cycle also.
Ray, so do snowshoe hares but their max population occurs a couple of years before the peak in the lynx population. Exactly as you’d expect due to the prey-predator interaction, particularly as the main cause of death for the hares is predation nor starvation etc.
From Ray Tomes on November 13, 2012 at 7:34 pm:
One possible clue is that ozone shows a 9.6 year cycle also.
Which would naturally follow from a 9.6 yr cycle in solar UV output.
Let us know when you find that one as well.
Kadata, I do not have any data for UV time series longer than about 9 years. Do you know of any?
@ur momisugly Ray Tomes,
NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
Solar Indices Data
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/results?t=102827&s=1&d=8,4,9
Select “Solar Ultraviolet Emissions”. Read the descriptions of the different datasets, of assorted types of direct measurements and proxies. Then try the SOLAR2000 model, note the “E10.7” index. In the description is the link for a 1947-2002 “extracted dataset” covering 5 solar cycles. If you click through to the space weather site looking for more, under “Products” you want SIP, Space Irradiance Platform (new name for SOLAR2000).
Back at the original link page, select “Solar Radio Flux: Flux”. See “Descriptive Information” to read about Solar Radio Data. Then you can examine the 2800MHz (10.7cm, F10.7) solar data. “Penticton_Observed” runs from 1947 to current. If you can figure out or find out how SOLAR2000 got E10.7 from F10.7, then you can make a 1947-current E10.7 database, and have over 65 years of the UV proxy to play with.
You could creatively cobble the other UV databases together. You’re looking at timing, normalize then scale the Y data as needed to line up the overlaps, etc. Within the limit of matching like to like, of course.
kadaka says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/06/solar-cycle-24-continues-weakly-perhaps-weakest-of-the-space-age/#comment-1147081
Henry says
The only possible correlation I found between my fit (from the available data)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
is that ozone declined from around 1950 when (natural) warming started and that ozone started rising from 1995 when (natural) cooling started. Ozone is not the only chemical being manufactured up there “on top” by UV from oxygen. There are also a number of other HxOx and NxOx compounds also being formed by the UV coming in. More of all of these causes more back radiation (by more EUV or FUV) , and hence we now have cooling as ozone & others are increasing.
I cannot relate to values of the E-10 and F-10 and Lya being quoted accept that everything seems to come back to normal on the zero dates of around 1950 and 1995, meaning perhaps that you have to see those oscillations in an another plain, going up or down.
In all of this, it is important to see the first parameter/variable of the heat coming in through the atmosphere as the most important: maximum temperatures.
I challenge anybody here to come up with a fit for the data of maxima that I obtained?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/06/solar-cycle-24-continues-weakly-perhaps-weakest-of-the-space-age/#comment-1144912
Thanks kadaka. It turns out I already had data from 1947 to 2010. I have to get used to different names for the same thing. One day it is 2.8 GHz, another 10.7 cm and then another it is UV. 🙂
Of course this time series is dominated by the 11 year sunspot cycle which averages 10.8 years over this period, and so a cycle at 9.6 years is not easy to see. In fact these two periods only make beats over a period of 86 years, so cannot properly be split in a shorter period such as 63 years as we have. Anyway,the strongest period is 10.8 years followed by a cycle of 8.4 years. But that period will be a bit unreliable because it is so close to a much stronger period that it cannot be properly resolved from. There is a period of about 8.47 years in longer term sunspots, so it may be that same peak that shows up. The multiple peaks in sunspots near 11 years cannot be resolved in this UV data.
Conclusion: Not enough data to be sure, but no sign of a 9.6 year cycle.
So sorry you guys did not get it. Or you did not want to get it.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/#comment-202
It is plain. Too easy.
Natural global warming and natural global cooling have been with us, like, forever, or at least for as far back as I can see….
Don’t worry about the carbon. Start worrying (a bit) about the cold…
Henry, I agree that natural cycles are the dominant factor in climate change, and most of this comes from the Sun. The longer time frame we look at the bigger the cycles fluctuations are. Although we are in a downtrend on the 50-60 year climate cycle for another 15 years, it will then turn up. On the 208 cycle we will be downward for this entire century. But the 2300 year cycle is still heading upward. Who knows when the next ice age downtrend will click in. We do not (yet) have the precision of cycles timing for that. While Carbon is not a serious problem I suspect, human pollution is. CO2 isn’t pollution, it is plant food. Regards, Ray
No Leif, blending models in a committee is not science.
Resourceguy says:
November 17, 2012 at 5:43 pm
No Leif, blending models in a committee is not science.
1: what do you know about this? Have you ever been in a committee or panel to decide something?
2: who said ‘blending’? The work of the panel was to examine each proposal and eliminate the ones that we did not think would make the cut, until only one was standing.
Sorry to ask, which model was the last one standing? Henry
HenryP says:
November 18, 2012 at 4:11 am
Sorry to ask, which model was the last one standing? Henry
Mine
Henry@leif
That is great! Congratulations.
But where is it for me to admire, and compare it to my own,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
which is not a model.
Hi doc
I assume you wouldn’t discuss this with your host:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm
HenryP says:
November 18, 2012 at 10:53 am
But where is it for me to admire, and compare it to my own,
http://www.leif.org/research/
vukcevic says:
November 18, 2012 at 11:36 am
I assume you wouldn’t discuss this with your host
I’m in Japan [Nagoya today] to talk science
Dr. S
Science will take care of itself; I hope you have a good stay
Mt Fuji from Nagoya : http://www.japanican.com/tours/tourdetail.aspx?tc=GMT01NGOONFUJI
vukcevic says:
November 18, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Science will take care of itself
No, science needs constant nurture to prevent pseudo-science creeping in. Here is some science:
http://www.leif.org/research/Total-Field-Pacific.png showing the variation of the total field for locations surrounding Japan.
Hey Mosher, have a look at this photograph and tell me that there are no cycles going on.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/further-terrestrial-evidence-of-planetary-cycles-affecting-climate/
The beach ridges are regular as clockwork at 45, 90, 180 and 360 years. All of them important planetary periodicities.
Or do you fancy hving a go at explaining them with Richrd Mullers volcanoes and co2 theory?
You ignorant schmuck.
lsvalgaard says:
November 18, 2012 at 1:30 pm
………
Ah, so you are interested then. There are few places where the thermal convection may be in a closer contact with the crust. All good places are in the ocean with strong currents, and high seismic activity, next to Honshu another good example is area north of Svalbaard (Gakkel Ridge), try 82N,0E, but it trails Honshu by further dozen or so years.
vukcevic says:
November 18, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Ah, so you are interested then. There are few places where the thermal convection may be in a closer contact with the crust
No, just pointing out that your correlation is spurious and your explanation wrong. Not that I think you’ll take any notice. Both Honolulu and Sitka are places with volcanic activity so should qualify on that account. Hunting around for places where the seem to be a correlation is called ‘cherry picking’. What you do is pseudo science at its worst.
vukcevic says:
November 18, 2012 at 3:31 pm
There are few places where the thermal convection may be in a closer contact with the crust
Both Honolulu and Sitka are places near the ocean with volcanic activity and thin crust so should qualify on that account. Places with almost the same variation as your spurious correlation but far from volcanic areas and the ocean and with a very thick crust are Dehra Dun and Irkutsk http://www.leif.org/research/Pacific-Total-Field.png
In any case, the secular variation is due to changes in the circulation in the core so your ‘considerations’ don’t apply.
lsvalgaard says: November 18, 2012 at 6:57 pm
…….
It is not disputed that there is great variability in the change around the globe, there is both positive and negative ‘correlation’. From the dipole at 3000km down we should expect more uniformity; changes in the field might be happening closer to the surface.
This is obvious by looking at the secular variability (Z) and the distances between hot spots in 1940 epoch http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/Z_map_sv_1940.pdf
when secular variability went ‘nuts’; but this was the consequence of the Earth’s magnetosphere found itself well within the solar feedback loop as demonstrated here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sub-cycle.htm