It is looking more and more like a double sunspot peak for solar cycle 24.
Sunspot count is down again:
A similar drop occurred in radio flux.
The Ap magnetic index remains low, but is up 3 units from last month:
On July 1st, solar scientist David Hathaway has updated his prediction page:
|
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 67 in the Summer of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012) due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high. The smoothed sunspot number has been rising again over the last four months. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906. |
I mean, I can get RMS values out for some time bands, but that far back the span width is starting to get very large.
Based on a x^1.3371…. Digital RMS Power series for running average time spans on the data which would appear to be the way that natures disapates energy whe forced to ‘keep time’.
(my new name for the presentation I think.)
vukcevic says:
July 12, 2013 at 1:12 am
Let’s have this clear, my research is my own, …
Releasing the data file now may raise some superficial interest
Nobody is interested in the data file. What is of interest is how the data file is constructed so that the research can be evaluated and replicated. Without that you have nothing and your ‘findings’ are worthless. You sound just like Jones: “why should I give you my data so that you can shoot holes in my research”.
William Astley says:
July 12, 2013 at 2:50 am
A dynamo mechanism cannot explain the current observations. There are fundamental errors in the solar model.
The dynamo mechanism generates the magnetic field, the magnetic field is always torn to pieces by the convection, the re-assembly into spots is not part of the dynamo.
What will happen next to the sun, will have a profound effect on cosmological theory and on fundamental physics theory, in addition to causing a Heinrich event.
What happens next has happened many times in the past. Last time it was called the Maunder Minimum. Heinrich events are not caused by the Sun: http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf
The normal solar magnetic cycle is … not an interruption to the mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes that rise up to the surface of the sun to form sunspots.
Nobody says it is.
The principal mechanism that forms the magnetic ropes at the tachocline is not a dynamo mechanism. The principal mechanism that forms the geomagnetic field is not a dynamo mechanism.
The magnetic ropes are probably not generated at the tachocline, but in the shallow shear layer much closer to the surface. All magnetic fields are generated and maintained by self-sustaining dynamos, if not they decay away with time.
Solar cycle 24 is a special once in 10,000 year cycle.
Similar cycles probably occurred during the Maunder Minimum.
All three dilemmas could be circumvented if the dynamo was placed at the base of the convection zone. Parker (1975) made this suggestion early on to solve the magnetic buoyancy dilemma….
Is again taken out of context. What Hathaway is describing is what he thinks does not work. He supports instead a shallow dynamo. However, the location of the dynamo is not critical to its working.
Ian H says:
July 12, 2013 at 12:29 am
If there is less solar energy then why do we have more cosmic rays at solar minimum Leif
In the most general terms you could say that it takes energy to turn the cosmic rays away. The cosmic rays are not generated by the Sun, but comes to us from the Galaxy, solar activity results in obstacles to the propagation of the cosmic ray particles.
John Day (July 11, 2013 at 7:40 pm) asked “Because EUV variance(and atmospheric ionization) is notably affected by magnetic activity on the Sun? But what is the actual cooling mechanism on Earth?”
Ferdinand alluded to a possibility above: “influencing the ozone layer and the jet stream positions due to an increased temperature difference equator-poles in the lower stratosphere. That influences wind and cloud/rain patterns in each hemisphere…”
My belief (not quantitative) is that meridional flow (i.e. blocking patterns and/or “wavering” jet) causes net cooling. It may not be substantial since the warm side of blocking patterns tend to have positive feedback from warming and drying.
Solar modulation of the jet seems to make a lot more sense than the “low Arctic ice” theory, which I have never seen written up with any formality. Related to that is the “Arctic Amplification causing reduce gradient causing wavy jet” theory (e.g. by Francis) that may have some merit in the autumn, but should be inapplicable in the spring and this spring and summer in particular.
I also understand there is dominating terrestrial feedback into the upper air patterns. So we cannot expect that the sun exerts lots of control. Nor can we rule out GHG influences within the weather patterns. But it is clear that these patterns (blocking, wavy jet, etc) are mostly natural.
“Based on a x^1.3371…. Digital RMS Power series for running average time spans ”
Based on a x*1.3371…. Digital RMS Power series for running average time spans – duh!
Eric1skeptic says:
July 12, 2013 at 3:58 am
I claim to have been the first to set out a hypothesis whereby changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun acting via ozone quantities in the stratosphere alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles thereby allowing the jets and climate zones to slide latitudinally beneath the tropopause.
The effect is to alter global cloudiness and the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
That process is then heavily modulated by the lagging oceanic response such that the climate trend at any given time is a result of the netted out effect of the top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences.
GHGs may have some effect but indiscernible in comparison.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 12, 2013 at 6:07 am
I claim to have been the first to set out a hypothesis whereby changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun acting via ozone quantities in the stratosphere alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles thereby allowing the jets and climate zones to slide latitudinally beneath the tropopause.
The effect is to alter global cloudiness and the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
That process is then heavily modulated by the lagging oceanic response such that the climate trend at any given time is a result of the netted out effect of the top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences.
GHGs may have some effect but indiscernible in comparison.
There is no way that you are the first…perhaps time to get off your high horse.
There are many that recognize in literature that low solar conditions affect atmospheric changes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 3:43 am
Nobody is interested in the data file. What is of interest is how the data file is constructed so that the research can be evaluated and replicated. Without that you have nothing and your ‘findings’ are worthless. You sound just like Jones: “why should I give you my data so that you can shoot holes in my research”.
You might be sooner than you think. Most of people here think that the SSN number reduction will lead to the temperature fall.
You do not.
When the N. W. European winters get much colder, either you will have to support ridiculous notion that ‘warming cases cooling’, scramble for some new ideas, or eat your hat.
If you look at the second graph here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN_NAP.htm
you could see how the data file is constructed
t = time
n = number of events in a unit of time (already known)
k = integration period
Value for k is only questionable, but since it gives very good correlation with two known and as yet considered independent variables: sunspot number and the long term variability of the N. Atlantic temperature (see link above) than conclusion is that the k- factor is most likely correct (represents kind of an ‘ocean currents time constant’ which indeed may change somewhat over period of many decades or a century.
k- factor establishes link between the two above mentioned variables.
I suspect you may respond in your customary manner:
“N. Atlantic temperature does not cause the SSN fall”, and I say ‘indeed it does not’.
66. I think I read that in a paper a few years ago.
In reply to:
RichardLH says:
July 12, 2013 at 3:36 am
William Astley says:
July 12, 2013 at 2:50 am
“Solar cycle 24 is a special once in 10,000 year cycle.”
And where, in which thermal history record, did you find that information? You got one THAT long?
William:
There are two types of cyclic and pseudo cyclic climate change events: 1) Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and 2) Heinrich events. The Medieval warm period and the Little Ice age is an example of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, a warm period caused by a series of active solar magnetic cycles. The warming of the planet is caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover rather than an increase in total solar irradiance. The regions of the planet that have warmed in the last 70 years are the same regions of the planet that warmed in past Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. The warm period is followed by cooling when the sun enters a Maunder minimum.
The Heinrich event is also caused by a special solar magnetic cycle change. The mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes that rise up to the surface of the sun is interrupted. The planet then cools due increased cloud cover that is caused by an increase in cosmic flux (high speed protons) as the solar heliosphere (name for the pieces of solar magnetic flux that ejected by the sun) is very weak and hence does not deflect as many high speed protons. The high speed protons create ions in the atmosphere which increase the amount and the albedo of the low level clouds.
The effect of the solar magnetic cycle restart is dependent on the earth’s orbital parameter at the time of the restart. The current configuration is optimum to create a geomagnetic excursion which explains why there is currently rapid movement of the North magnetic pole and the rapid increase in the Southern Atlantic geomagnetic anomaly.
ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM
Abrupt shifts between warm and cold states punctuate the interval between 20 to 75 ka in the Greenland isotope record, with shifts of 5–15C occurring in decades or less (Figure 1). These alternations were identified in some of the earliest ice core isotopic studies [e.g., (22)] and were replicated and more precisely dated by subsequent work (23). Further analysis of diverse records has distinguished two types of millennial events (13). Dansgaard/Oeschger (D/O) events are alternations between warm (interstadial) and cold (stadial) states that recur approximately every 1500 years, although this rhythm is variable. Heinrich events are intervals of extreme cold contemporaneous with intervals of ice-rafted detritus in the northern North Atlantic (24–26); these recur irregularly on the order of ca. 10,000 years apart and are typically followed by the warmest D/O interstadials.
Both Heinrich and D/O events exhibit clear global impacts. ….
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
The Younger Dryas (YD, 12.9}11.6 ka cal BP, Alley et al., 1993) was a cold event that interrupted the general warming trend during the last deglaciation. The YD was not unique, as it represents the last of a number of events during the Late Pleistocene, all characterised by rapid and intensive cooling in the North Atlantic region (e.g., Bond et al., 1993; Anderson, 1997). During these events, icebergs were common in the N Atlantic Ocean, as evidenced by ice-rafted sediments found in ocean cores. The most prominent of these episodes with ice rafting are known as Heinrich events (e.g., Bond et al., 1992, 1993; Andrews, 1998). A Heinrich-like event (H-0) was simultaneous with the YD (Andrews et al., 1995). Moreover, the YD seems to be part of a millennial-scale cycle of cool climatic events that extends into the Holocene (Denton and KarleHn, 1973; Harvey, 1980; Magny and Ru!aldi, 1995; O’Brien et al., 1995; Bond et al., 1997). Based on analysis of the 14C record from tree rings, Stuiver and Braziunas (1993) suggested that solar variability could be an important factor affecting climate variations during the Holocene … ….Estimates for the increase in 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise: 40}70& within 300 years (Goslar et al., 1995), 30 to 60 %/% in 70 years (BjoK rck et al., 1996), 50} 80&in 200 years (Hughen et al., 1998) and 70 %/% in 200 years (Hajdas et al., 1998). This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records (Goslar et al., 1995). Hajdas et al. (1998) used this sharp increase of atmospheric 14C at the onset of the YD as a tool for time correlation between sites.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Gulf.pdf
vukcevic says:
July 12, 2013 at 7:17 am
you could see how the data file is constructed
No, it does not specify what the variables are and how they are constructed.
William Astley says:
July 12, 2013 at 7:32 am
The Medieval warm period and the Little Ice age is an example of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, a warm period caused by a series of active solar magnetic cycles.
No, the OD-events have a much simpler explanation [nothing to do with the sun]: http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf
The warming of the planet is caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover rather than an increase in total solar irradiance.
There is no good evidence for such a link: http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
The Heinrich event is also caused by a special solar magnetic cycle change. The mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes that rise up to the surface of the sun is interrupted.
You have never defined was ‘interrupted’ means and there is no ‘special solar magnetic cycle change’
The effect of the solar magnetic cycle restart is dependent on the earth’s orbital parameter at the time of the restart. The current configuration is optimum to create a geomagnetic excursion
Pure speculation with no physical content. Even worse than Vuk’s.
William Astley says:
July 12, 2013 at 7:32 am
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
Estimates for the increase in 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise … This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records
Unfortunately the timing is wrong. The newest version of the INTCAL series [INTCAL09] shows no increase at the start of the YD: http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL09-and-YD.png but much later and not particularly sharp. There are many such increases in the record.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 9:07 am
The newest version of the INTCAL series [INTCAL09] shows no increase at the start of the YD: http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL09-and-YD.png but much later and not particularly sharp
earlier, of course.
Now, the event around 13,000 was not designated as a Heinrich event, by Heinrich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heinrich-events.png and doesn’t fit the ~7000 years recurrence.
Heinrich events do not correspond to any special changes in 14C: http://www.leif.org/research/Heinrich-Events-and-14C.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 9:07 am
earlier, of course.
Jeez, should be later. Better go get that cup of coffee to wake up.
@vuk
Vuk,
I looked at your wiggle-gram, and I think I understand the ‘mechanism’ underlying this amazing precursor prediction. It’s called the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy”, named after a Texan who claimed to be a sharpshooter by firing random shots at a barn, then drawing a bullseye centered around the holes which formed the tightest pattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
So, you overlaid two different plots and slid them back and forth until you could fit a few peaks in an “interesting” way. That occurred at a shift value of 7 years, right?
But I may be mistaken about this. If there actually are some new discoveries in geophysics and solar science involved here, then please explain where your data came from and exactly how you prepared this plot, including the formula which predicts the 7-year shift strictly from the independent variables, i.e. no fudging.
In other words, show us some science, not wiggle-grams.
😐
Leif said ” I don’t think so, but such cooling seems to be the prevailing dogma among sceptics.”
Pretty reasonable dogma, though. Given the correlation with the Dalton and the Maunder.
Any Jupiter effect is too drawn out, so unless you have any alternative explanation as to why it shouldn’t be different this time then it seems reasonable to stick with the cooling dogma until such time as events show otherwise.
There is always superstition, 3rd time lucky perhaps. Guess that church is closely related to the co2 church.
I look forward to reading a paper on Jupiter authored by Leif. If you aren’t already working on it then please do.
Stephen Walters said:
“There is no way that you are the first…perhaps time to get off your high horse.
There are many that recognize in literature that low solar conditions affect atmospheric changes.”
It is not enough to simply note that low solar activity affects the air circulation. I agree that many have done that on a regional basis including James Hansen until he switched to CO2 as a primary influence.
As far as I am aware nobody else has suggested that it is global, that it affects the latitudinal positioning of both jets and climate zones and that the solar variations cause a change in the slope of tropopause height between equator and pole so as to allow such changes.
Nor that the resulting cloudiness changes affect the amount of energy entering the oceans to drive the climate system
If you know of someone else then please specify.
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm
‘cyclomania’ http://www.leif.org/research/Comment-Planetary-Peaks.pdf
############
what a tidy demolishing of crack pottery. I really enjoyed that Leif
Are you saying that a fast Fourier transformation of Synthetic Sunspot numbers disproves empirical observation of both the solar system and solar activity made by astronomers and solar physicists?
So are astronomers and solar physicists now crack pots for pointing out there appears to be a link between the timing of the solar system and the suns activity.
I hope that I have read this the wrong way.
John Day says: July 12, 2013 at 10:32 am
It’s called the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy”,
But I may be mistaken about this. If there actually are some new discoveries in geophysics and solar science involved here, then please explain where your data came from and exactly how you prepared this plot, including the formula which predicts the 7-year shift strictly from the independent variables, i.e. no fudging.
John
Thank you for your thorough appraisal. I know little about Texas and even less about sharp-shooting, so you lost me there.
I’m sure Dr. S. is more than capable of shooting down, whatever needs to be shot, not to mentioned all the collateral damage around too.
Your request is way beyond my meagre ability (D&K you know), my apology but I won’t even bother to try. Have a nice day now, or whatever they say down south.
J Martin says:
July 12, 2013 at 10:50 am
I look forward to reading a paper on Jupiter authored by Leif. If you aren’t already working on it then please do.
Such paper was written long ago by Milankovitsch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles “The Earth’s eccentricity varies primarily due to interactions with the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Saturn”
Sparks says:
July 12, 2013 at 11:12 am
Are you saying that a fast Fourier transformation of Synthetic Sunspot numbers disproves empirical observation of both the solar system and solar activity made by astronomers and solar physicists?
It demonstrates that all the peaks observed can be explained as harmonics of a single period and therefore are not necessarily independent and that the calculation of 99.999999999% confidence under the assumption that they are independent is not correct.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2013 at 11:31 am
It demonstrates that all the peaks observed can be explained as harmonics of a single period and therefore are not necessarily independent and that the calculation of 99.999999999% confidence under the assumption that they are independent is not correct.
So its basically demonstrating that the equations are Synthetic sunspot numbers. Wave matching?
Can it be useful?
Dr. Svalgaard, I would like to express my thanks for your active participation on this thread, as well as the many others where you have shared your expertise and knowledge. I would also like to congratulate you for the accuracy of your Cycle 24 SSN predictions. If I recall correctly, even prior to the Cycle 23-24 minimum you predicted a Cycle 24 SSN count that looks like it will be very close to dead-on. At the time, I believe that your prediction was quite the outlier, as most (including D. Hathaway) had predicted a very intense Cycle 24 with very high SSNs.
I also sincerely appreciate your attitude as a scientist. You seem to always to be skeptical-to my mind one of the hallmarks of a true scientist. My impression is that you go where the data takes you, instead of looking for the data that supports your hypothesis. (While I quite enjoy reading some of the other commenters here on this thread, several other commentators seem to be emotionally attached to their ideas – a serious drawback in anyone claiming to follow the scientific method.) You share your data and your methodology (numerous examples on this thread alone) and are prepared to defend them in an open forum such as this, absent the insults and ad hominem arguments (for the most part, anyway.) You seem to be willing to continue to engage others on the thread until all questions are answered or issues addressed – that is a significant donation of your time (obviously).
I have learned from this thread, and other threads you have joined. You have the knack of writing about a very complex subject in a way that allows a layman of moderate intelligence to grasp the basic concepts, and to begin to understand how they may fit together. I am sure that there are many others who feel as I do: I sincerely appreciate your participation and contributions, and I extend you my sincere thanks.
Dan Murphy
Dan Murphy says:
July 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Ditto!
vukcevic says:
July 12, 2013 at 11:24 am
“John
Thank you for your thorough appraisal. I know little about Texas and even less about sharp-shooting, so you lost me there”
Vuk,
What he means is that normally one would set up a target circle then shoot at it to see if one could hit the inside the circle thereby demonstrating how good a shot one is. In John’s example, a bad shot would shoot first and then see where most of the shots hit. He would then place the target circle around those shots thereby falsely demonstrating that he intended the shots to go there.
Milankovitch may set a part of the background conditions, but given the many well documented problems with the Milankovitch cycles there are clearly other missing factors, certainly for the 100k world, although the 41k world was clearly governed by obliquity.
I have read on this site that some are convinced the 41k world hasn’t gone anywhere and that we are within 500 years of the point where changing obliquity starts the Earth’s trip down to a glaciation. If that is the case it ties in quite nicely with work I have seen on another site that also suggests that a glaciation will start in about 500 years, this work was not based on obliquity if I recall correctly. Aside from the 41k world, I remain sceptical about the rest of the Milankovitch stuff.
With regard to the small reduction in TSI when there are no sunspots, other factors need to be examined, Svensmark for one, though this is contentious but is at least being examined at CERN. Another factor may be EUV and it is thought by NASA that the current reduction in EUV has had an effect on dropping the height of our atmosphere. Does a thinner layer of insulation allow more heat out ? And does the difference in height of the atmosphere between the tropics and the poles emphasise any effect ? Questions for the mathematicians and physicists perhaps.
What I was meaning earlier Leif isn if you say that the sunspots are cooler than the normal sun areas in sunspot min how come the cosmic rays are more. obviously more solar output action from sunspots is causing at max is causing more destruction of cosmic rays. Therefore there must be more solar outputs from sunspot activity than from normal solar non sunspot areas and more solar outputs at solar max
Sparks says:
July 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm
So its basically demonstrating that the equations are Synthetic sunspot numbers. Wave matching?
What it demonstrates is that if there is a 1024-yr wave that is not a pure sine-wave, then automatically the can be many other peaks [happen to match the ones claimed to be in the real data] so that these other peaks are not independent and that therefore the probability that there are all there by chance is not so astronomically small.
J Martin says:
July 12, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Milankovitch may set a part of the background conditions, but given the many well documented problems with the Milankovitch cycles there are clearly other missing factors, certainly for the 100k world,
I think those problems have been resolved: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf