Solar cycle 24 contines to be lower than the vast majority of predictions that came out during the waning years of solar cycle 23. David Archibald gives an update on the current progress of solar cycle 24, showing that it remains quite low, and under-performs almost all of the “official”predictions based on models and other forecasting tools, some of which claimed as late as 2006 that cycle 24 would be 30-50% stronger that cycle 23. So far, solar Cycle 24 has been most like Solar Cycles 10 to 15 which started in 1855 and ended in 1923. It is noteworthy that solar cycle 10 produced the famed Carrington event, which if it occurred today, would likely wreak havoc with our sensitive electric grid and electronics.
Guest essay by David Archibald.
Figure 1: Sunspot Number
Source: SILSO data/image, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels
Solar Cycle 24 has been stronger for longer for about a year now. This plot of sunspot number that decline from the second peak is underway.
Figure 2: AP Index 1932 – 2015
The Ap Index, a geomagnetic index driven by the Sun’s magnetism and the solar wind, remains at levels of previous solar cycle minima.
Figure 3: Sunspot Area versus Ap Index 1932 – 2105
From Jan Janssens’ website Solaemon, this graph plots the Ap Index with sunspot area from 1932. Absolute lows in the Ap Index correspond to solar cycle minima but the peak in the Ap Index can be much later than peaks in the solar cycle. Note that the Ap Index was quite strong during the 1970s cooling period up to the Solar Cycles 20/21 minimum.
Figure 4: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2015
The F10.7 flux is not subject to observer bias and thus many prefer it to the sunspot number. This chart confirms a second peak in Solar Cycle 24 over the last year. A F10.7 flux above 100 is warming, below 100 is cooling. So the last few years have put a little pulse of warming into the climate system.
Figure 5: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2015
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle flattens at solar minimum. For the Solar Cycle 23/24 minimum, that occurred in October 2009. From that minimum, the tilt angle had the fastest ascent of the instrument record which happens to be only three and a half cycles. The peak in the tilt angle this cycle is also the broadest in the instrument record. If that means anything, it possibly means that there is not much drive behind it.
Figure 6: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1967 – 2015
This graph shows a rise from the low in the late 1960s to the peak at Solar Cycle 22 maximum and then the 23 year decline from that peak. It is this flow that modulates the flow of galactic cosmic rays in the inner planets of the solar system.
Figure 7: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2015
Galactic cosmic rays produce a continuous shower of neutrons in the lower atmosphere. The climatic significance of these neutrons is that they provide nucleation sites for cloud droplets. Clouds in turn reflect more sunlight than land or open ocean, cooling the planet. The neutron count follows solar activity with a lag of about a year, reflecting the time the solar wind takes to get to the outer parts of the solar system.
Figure 8: Sum of Solar Polar Field Strengths 1976 – 2015
This data is from the Wilson Solar Observatory and thanks to Dr Hoeksma for updating the data. As with the broad top in the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle, there appears to be a broad top and not much energy in the system.
Figure 9: Smoothed Sunpost Number in months from minimum
Also from Jan Janssens, this figure shows Solar Cycle 24 (green line) compared to the averages of Solar Cycles 10 to 15 (solid blue line) and Solar Cycles 16 to 23 (solid red line). In terms of analogue cycles, Solar Cycle 24 has been most like Solar Cycles 10 to 15.
Figure 10: Sunspot Latitude
Yet again from Jan Janssens, this figure shows the sunspot latitude of Solar Cycle 24 (green line) compared to the average of Solar Cycles 19 to 23. Note for the purpose of this graph, a different month of minimum is used. In this case it is August 2007. This graph is important in that it shows that Solar Cycle 24 is no faster or slower than the previous five cycles. That does not preclude Solar Cycle 24 from becoming a very long cycle if the tail includes a period of no sunspots.
David Archibald is a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington.
His most recent book is Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
thanks vuk
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/historic_snows_has_climate_pause_deniers_spinning/
This is from Weatherbell. It shows they have been using solar/lunar analogs to predict winters and this has been when solar activity was not in the prolonged minimum phase it is now in.
To many this little ‘disagreement’ of an amateur with Dr. S may not be of much interest, but occasionally Dr. S comes up with a ‘gold nugget’ and should be credited for it.
As you can see he extrapolated the solar feedback formula well before we had any data (I hope he doesn’t remove it)
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-21.png
It is a very simple approximation, no way any reasonable person would expect its 100% precision for the what is happening at solar poles,after all ‘the sun is a messy place’
But what I hope you can clearly see is: the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, early 1900s minimum, and finally the forthcoming minimum.
Of course we have no data before 1960s but since then the formula shows an unexpectedly high correlation as displayed above: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/15/solar-cycle-24-update-for-february-2015/#comment-1860843
Thank you all
Of course we have no data before 1960s
We do have data before 1960s, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Polar-Fields-Faculae-Andres.pdf and the geomagnetic 22-year cycle back to at least the 1840s. As everyone can see from the figure you reproduce, you get the sign of the polar fields wrong every 100 years. That is why your formula and its underlying hypothesis don’t work.
Earth’s magnetic field has it’s own 22 year cycle
see:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/15/solar-cycle-24-update-for-february-2015/#comment-1861071
No evidence for that.
Analyse Eart’s core magnetic field data from Jackson, Bloxham & Gubbins
When data we do not like, we claim no evidence.
When no data, we call onto a fuzzy-wuzzy logic
Say no more
Your mistake is to believe that those phenomena are in any way related. So, say no more.
In one comment you claim [wrongly] “Polar fields at their strongest as measured around 1975 were estimated to be around 300 microTesla. Magnetic field of the sun as any other falls off with the square of distance. Sun is 149,600,000 km away, no magnetic needle located on the earth can tell us what is the sun’s polar field doing.”
Now you claim that they influence the Earth’s core. Pseudo science at its worst.
Gross misinterpretation:
Earth’s core magnetic field data (Jackson, Bloxham & Gubbins) shows 22 year cycle. Only a full could claim that the sun’s polar field of few hundred microTesla at a distance of nearly 150 million km would move the earth’s core field.
There are two possibilities:
a) Sun’s cycles (as feedback hypothesis goes) are affected by Jupiter/Saturn magnetic feedback. Earth happebs to be part and parcel of such feedback (there is 400 day sub-cycle present in most solar cycles, most notable around 1940’s (used as reference in my formula), At this epoch the Earth’s field went ‘nuts’ Link1
b) more likely scenario is that the Solar initiated geomagnetic storms are the cause. Energetic charged solar particles colliding with the Earth’s magnetic field short term oscillations in the polar regions (particularly in the Arctic, where the field is split) modulates the high altitude atmospheric density, in turn interfering with polar vortex. As the Earth’s core has number of components directly related to climate, scenario b) appears to be more likely
Link2
Link3
The polar fields are responsible for the sign of the 22-year cycle of geomagnetic activity [as any fool can see] and control the size of the heliospheric magnetic field at low solar activity. Geomagnetic storms are not controlled by “Energetic charged solar particles”, but by the magnetic field from the Sun interacting with the Earth’s magnetic field. None of these have any influence on the core field.
Oh yea, yea sun’s solar polar field of 2-3 hundred microTesla at best, at a distance of nearly 150 million km makes Earth move.
No chance !
NASA:
“NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms”. Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.”
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/203795main_FluxPower_400.jpg
The flux ropes don’t make the Earth move either. In both cases the magnetic field is the agent. At solar minimum the polar fields supply the HMF, at solar maximum, the flux ropes add a similar amount.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
“The polar fields are almost sufficient to provide for the interplanetary magnetic flux”
The flux ropes provide the rest.
Changing the tune, arn’t you. Interplanetary field is is just few nanoTesla
Educating you [if that is possible]. Flux ropes are also a few nanoTesla [e.g. http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3 ] and they are intermittent so their average effect is comparable to the background few nT.
And the magnetosphere is present at all times, even when no flux rope impinges on the Earth’s magnetic field, so it is incorrect to say that ‘the flux ropes powers the magnetosphere”. the flux ropes disturb the magnetosphere slightly. From: page 34 of [from NASA publication]
http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
“The energy deposited in a substorm [lasting 2 hours] corresponds to about 2 minutes of solar wind input. We see that substorms are not major collapses of the magnetosphere, but rather have the character of minor internal adjustments to changing external conditions”
Seen as the Earth uses the solar particles. Low solar activity and the strong response of the magnetic field.
http://oi57.tinypic.com/2hncspl.jpg
But what I hope you can clearly see is: the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, early 1900s minimum, and finally the forthcoming minimum.
What we can see is that you get the Dalton Minimum timing wrong by two solar cycles:
http://www.leif.org/research/MM-Not-So-Grand.png
So, as I said, the formula and the hypothesis are no good.
Further conformation of the formula you failed to notice
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Shows clear that you are two solar cycles out of phase with the Dalton Minimum, and also for the 1900-minimum. So, again, the formula and the hypothesis are no good.
If you look at the LINK you could see that at the time of the Dalton minimum there was a change phase by 90 degrees due to very short SC4a, which the formula picked out correctly. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LostCycle4a.gif
Details here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.0063.pdf
by time you get modifying all sunspot data records you’ll see it
I am glad Leif ,just sent his latest chart.( the real data probably a blend of this and what was earlier thought which does not matter.) What matters is the strong correlation which I pointed out earlier between the solar secular cycle (the black line) and global temperature trend and absolute global temperatures.
100 is key , which when broke on the down swing ,global temperatures trend down and on the upswing global temperatures trend upwards. It looks like the 100 value line has been broken around 2010 which is the first time since approximately 1830 which is when the Dalton Solar Minimum ended, and the solar secular cycle line crossed that value on the upswing and the temperature trend followed in an upward trend.
Note how high this value has been from 1930-2005 ,and note the global temperature trend.
The global temperature trend should be down from here to 2020 and probably beyond if solar minimum activity materializes the way it could very well do which I think is very possible.
From Vuk.
But what I hope you can clearly see is: the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, early 1900s minimum, and finally the forthcoming minimum.
I say it can not be any clearer from the data that was just presented from the post Feb 16 at 8:56 am
Except that Vuk’s formula does not get the timing right. E.g. for Dalton is two cycles wrong.
Your own graph shows the Dalton Minimum from 1790-1830.
No, from 1798 to 1825. Vuk’s formula has it from 1765 to 1805, 20-30 years off.
Vuk’s formula has it from 1765 to 1805, 20-30 years off.
Nonsense ! !
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSC400yr.gif
There was no small cycle 4a. Regardless of what Usoskin thinks, see http://www.leif.org/EOS/j143-Lost-Cycle.pdf and that still does not help you being off by 20 years for the Dalton Minimum.
http://www.leif.org/research/MM-Not-So-Grand.png
What I see from this data is Maunder Minimum around 1660-1705, Dalton Minimum from around 1790-1830 a slightly weaker period of solar activity from 1880-1910 and then rather strong solar activity from approx. 1930-2005.
I see what you are saying, but I am going by your data Leif.
What Dr. S is trying to do, is to use extrapolated polar field for which we have no data before 1969’s instead of the sunspot numbers for which we have data.
See February 16, 2015 at 10:23 am above.
We DO NOT KNOW what polar fields were doing before 1960s !
Actually the Babcock’s measured the polar fields in 1952, but the other indicators are valid as we understand the physics involved, See: http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf . Here you can see the predicted distribution versus the observed [when the effect is large enough to be unambiguous: http://www.leif.org/research/22-yr-Cycle-in-Geomagnetic-Activity-png The colored circles indicate the polar field polarity.
http://www.leif.org/research/22-yr-Cycle-in-Geomagnetic-Activity.png
If you can’t see it, look at this overlay. Red box is where Vuk has his Dalton Minimum but where the two largest cycle of the 18th century actually happened. Blue box is the real Dalton Minimum
Wrong !
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSC400yr.gif
Indeed you are wrong. And changed your formula to boot.
Forgot the Figure:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-22.png
Clearly Vuk’s formula is no good.
Another nonsense, formula was published in 2004
so what? it is still wrong.
Indeed you are wrong. And changed your formula to boot.
see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/15/solar-cycle-24-update-for-february-2015/#comment-1861255
Vuk, what years do you think the Dalton Minimum occurred in? From when to when? I think it is 1790-1830.
Take Usoskin as your guide
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LostCycle4a.gif
see :http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.0063.pdf
I would equate the year 1790 as being approximately equal to current conditions today, in relationship to when the next minimum will set in. I would call this pre-minimum conditions. My expectation is that 2017 will be the kickoff year.
Here are the real facts:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-23.png
Formula NFG.
With Vuk’s Sunspot Formula added [the one he professed was ‘nonsense’:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-23.png
Another nonsense:
Here is Vuk’s formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSC400yr.gif
In the top panel you have SIN for the blue curve. In the bottom you have COS.
Here is your formula’s performance:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-24.png
NFG
You cant help yourself writing nonsense.
It would help if you read what is written rather than squandering time on your nonsensical graphs.
Here is what is said:
If you look at the LINK you could see that at the time of the Dalton minimum there was a change phase by 90 degrees due to very short SC4a,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/15/solar-cycle-24-update-for-february-2015/#comment-1861102
and here is what is said in 2003, published Jan 2004:
“ Prior to 1813 a 90 (degrees) phase shift is required ( ‘Sin’ instead of ‘Cos’ functions).”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401107v2.pdf
page 1, se also Fig.1
It doesn’t do any good to your reputation making up things.
Since there is no cycle 4a, you are still wrong:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-23.png
http://www.leif.org/EOS/j143-Lost-Cycle.pdf
“All the above arguments taken together provide very strong support for the proposal that cycle 4 was a single sunspot cycle and that no cycle has been lost.”
Over 70% of the Earth surface is covered by the ocean, preferably at lower latitudes. It can be reliably estimated, that – due both the geographic distribution of the ocean on the surface of the Earth and its extremely low albedo – about 90% of all the solar radiation reaching and absorbed by the surface of the Earth and converted to heat is absorbed by the ocean. The ocean mostly is liquid water. Some of the liquid water optical properties (reflectivity, absorbtivity) are EXTREMELY wavelength dependent – e.g. the difference between the water absorbtivity in the visible vs. UV and IR regions is couple of orders of magnitude. The solar spectrum peak region happens to be almost same as the water absorbtion spectrum (google: Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png) low (it is merely a coincidence). Therefore it looks that even a slight solar spectrum composition change should significantly change the total amount of the solar energy which is absorbed at the Earth surface and converted to heat. Such spectral shifts due to the changes of the solar activity during the solar cycle and very possibly beyond are very strongly suggested by the SORCE satellite SSI data (see Ermolli et al 2013) – Even if the TSI stays completely flat, if the solar spectrum composition changes the amount of the solar radiation absorbed by the ocean and tranformed into the heat content there per unit of time can significantly change, especially if the solar spectrum composition change trends in some way over longer periods of time than one solar cycle and the heat content there accumulates or dissipates. In terms of energy carried the most significant region of the solar spectrum reaching the surface of Earth is the visible region. The SORCE data suggest that the total energy carried in the visible region of the solar spectrum (and also SWIR region) very significantly RISES during the solar cycle MINIMUM period while the energy carried in the UV (and only fraction of it reaches the surface of Earth due to its absorbtion in the atmospheric ozone layer) and NIR regions significantly declines and therefore, if the SORCE SSI data are right, the models trying to link the TSI and the global surface temperature changes are obsolete. If the SORCE SSI data are right it clearly couldn’t work so simply like that. In such case we would need to have quite longer than one solar cycle SSI dataset for deciding the question whether the solar activity changes are or aren’t responsible for the global average Earth surface temperature changes. Without it the claims that the solar activity changes do not have anything with the GW observed in the past or the claims to the contrary would be scientifically more or less unreliable and baseless.
Quite right. But the pronounced UV flux variability can also affect climate.
Changes in the UV flux marking the solar cycle certainly play its role in the climate, no question about that and the question is only how much, however due to the higher atmosphere effectively absorbing large part of it such UV intensity changes only partially reach the surface of Earth. Also as the reanalysis of the SORCE SSI data show (for quick comparison see the figure 2 in the Ermolli et al 2013 – http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf) its share on the ΔSSI/ΔTSI is considerably lower than previously calculated (although still higher than previously measured in other solar spectrum researches) and is more or less on par with the opposite changes in the visible region. On the other hand most of the visible region of the solar spectrum reaches the lower troposphere, with clear sky the surface of the Earth and even penetrates relatively deep into the ocean (orders of magnitude deeper than the UV and IR) even at very high incidence angles (because the index of refraction of water is much higher than that of the air and also because there is waviness on the surface of the ocean, relatively lowering its reflectivity considerably and especially near terminator) where it is almost fully absorbed and converted to heat.
After first seeing the SORCE solar spectral irradiance data results in the Ermolli et al I was very intrigued by it, especially by the paradox behaviour in the visible region, suggesting strongly it is not so simple with the solar irradiation intensity as it so far looked and due to my previous research into the ocean insolation I have immediately suspected that such spectral shifts could interact with the extreme optical properties of the water in the ocean on such magnitude and amplify the effect in such manner that it would be a big game changer for whole the quest for the solar activity – surface temperature link. So I was deeply looking into the data and the issue trying to replicate Ermolli et al results – which more or less I now confirm – at least for the UV, visible and NIR regions (for the SWIR there are some startling artifacts in the data which unfortunately make it unreliable enough for me to be able to confirm the results fully and I unfortunately haven’t succeeded to resolve this problems with the LASP – the SORCE satellite program coordinator). When I’ve applied the results to my working finely grided (1°) empiric ocean insolation model assuming for the moment that such changes counteract the changes in the UV spectrum in order suggested by the relatively still short SORCE SSI series I came to the conclusion that in such case the presumed higher intensity in the visible spectrum during the solar cycle MINIMUM periods of the last couple of solar cycles could explain the the 1970-1990s warming period, because it would both by the principle and order of magnitude explain the reason for the rise of the ocean heat content (the ocean is carrying by far most of the heat content at the surface of Earth resulting from the solar irradiation, order of magnitude more than land and atmosphere combined, not speaking about its tiny CO2 content…). To reliably confirm such conclusion empirically I would need considerably longer SSI data series than the data acquired by the SORCE satellite. But in any case, because the liquid water optical properties have such a potential to amplify the solar spectral irradiance changes influence on the ocean heat content distribution throughout the epipelagic zone of the ocean and its total amount coming to the existence over a unit of time, I now strongly believe that if there will be a physical link between the solar activity changes and the global average surface temperature changes confirmed in the future it will be by the SSI not TSI and it will be more due to the spectral composition changes in the visible (which reaches lower troposphere and surface of Earth almost unipeded and mostly gets absorbed and converted to heat there in the depths of the ocean epipelagic zone), than UV regions of the solar spectrum. I can be of course mistaken, but after looking into the solar data for years including the spectral data I’m almost sure the future research will confirm this my “prophecy”. I strongly think that this is not a layman blablabla ad hoc choosing a belief but based on years long deep looking into the actual solar data including the most recent ones so far looking to have a potential of causing a fundamental paradigm shift in the understanding of the solar activity – climate link.
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-23.png
which I agree with.
So, you agree that Vuk’s formula has failed.
Yes, because the Dalton Minimum did not occur where the blue box is.
cor where the red box is.
here is what is published in 2003
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401107v2.pdf
Take a good look at Fig.1.
Dr. S graphs are nonsense.
Your paper states: ” For the period prior to 1800 correlation fails.”
Another nonsense:
Here is Vuk’s formula
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/15/solar-cycle-24-update-for-february-2015/#comment-1861206
Still wrong, unless you are referring to your formula.
No I was not referring to my formula, I was referring to the little green man from Mars.
Lets’ speculate a little.
Question IF (a big if) the AP index stays at these levels or goes lower from here and IF(a big if) the polar fields stay as is what would that be indicating to you, besides weak solar activity? Leif ,that question is for you?
As geomagnetic activity usually rises to a [perhaps second] maximum some years after solar maximum, I expect Ap to go up. The polar fields will also increase as it usually does until about three years before the next minimum, so I don’t see anything unusual.
Let us leave it at that for now and see, since that has occurred in the past.
The past is often a pretty good guide for the present and the future.
In the illustration the top graph is what I published in 2003, the bottom one is what Dr.S would like you to believe what my graph shows
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/V-S.gif
You are welcome to make your own mind, I do not intend to deal any further with continuous stream of this made up nonsense.
btw link http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401107v2.pdf
As is clear, your correlation [both in my rendition and yours] fails for the Dalton Minimum. So, your formulae are no good.
Even if you change the SIN to COS in 1800 the correlation still fails [even more spectacularly]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-25.png
So, your formulae are NFG.
I just wonder why do you persist with that utter rubbish, it is an embarrassment.
Copy of the formula I published available here
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401107v2.pdf
And here is screen-shot of what the Excel makes of it (just done).
Here Sin is changed to Cos at 1800
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Formula-ScreenShot.gif
And here is the formula you used to make your point:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-26.png
From
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSC400yr.gif
Doesn’t look like your Excel formula…
But then you have been known to change formulae as the rest of us change underwear…
You will persist with a nonsense and innuendo.
You can not read, can you?
Only difference is a phase shift 2pi/3 (120 degrees) instead 2pi/4 (90 degrees), it can be either, to be determined for the best phase coincidence.
But what about your embarrassing rubbish, if I were you I would remove it from http://www.leif.org/research/ website, before too many people see it.
.
Such manipulating after the fact to make things fit better is a no-no, and the effect is major: almost completely removing the solar cycle at 1800:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Formula-ScreenShot.gif
Reducing selected sunspot numbers by 20% is just fine.
I sincerely hope that your calculations for so called ‘corrected’ sunspot numbers are a bit more sound than reproducing my formula. No surprise no one wants to know Svalgaard’s ironed out solar cycles.
Changing tune again? The point is that your old formula does away with a cycle in 1800, the new one still gets the Dalton minimum wrong: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-25
Formulae no good.
Heh, listen who is talking?
That was just quick test to show that you were plotting an ‘embarrassing rubbish’.
But even if I did change something, it is my formula, my property not yours.
In contrast, you go around changing other peoples data, internationally accepted to be good for many decades, collected day by day, by dozens if not hundreds of dedicated people, just to suit some god knows what agenda.
In view your utter failure to plot sum of two Cosines, perhaps you should rush back and check your compass readings. I fill huge sympathy for the people of whose work you are attempting to make another utter mess. Not much else I can say, so I am off to bed
.
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-25.png
So, Vuk, since you change formulae as the wind changes you could cut through all that by simply reproducing this Figure with what you think is your best SSN and PF formulae.
By the time you finish fiddling sunspot data, a strait horizontal line will do just fine.
Have you ever offered your services to the global temperatures record keepers, or maybe they turned you down, it is an exponential (hockey stick) line they need.
It is past midnight here, good night doc!
It would be appropriate for you to do what I suggest, if you are man enough for it.
As for In view your utter failure to plot sum of two Cosines you seem to trust Excel, so here are the Excel formulae for my plot:
F768: 1799.857143 0.74937503
=2.3*ABS(SIN(PI()/2+2*PI()*(F768-1941)/(2*11.862))+SIN(2*PI()*(F768-1941)/19.859))
F769: 1800.142857 1.036998485
=2.3*ABS(COS(PI()/2+2*PI()*(F769-1941)/(2*11.862))+COS(2*PI()*(F769-1941)/19.859))
If you are not up to it, it doesn’t matter because we know the result:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-25.png
As for sunspots, perhaps this is helpful:
http://www.agenciasinc.es/en/News/The-Sun-s-activity-in-the-18th-century-was-similar-to-that-now
There is no way of sensible discussion between those who will insist on settled science and those genuinely interested in the events cause-consequence relationship.
This is particularly obvious with the CAGWs and in great measure with the solar scientists.
Solar scientists insist that Babcock – Layton hypotheses from 1960s is cast in concrete.
It states that polar fields drive next sunspot cycle, (based on probability of 1 in 100 of dead spots generate polar field, which then drives next cycle – ?!) , and the relationship between two is permanently fixed.
Up to date we have just about two polar field cycles (with a rather fuzzy start in the 1960s).
Question is could a solid theory be built on historical data of just tow cycles?
I doubt it. Why? You may ask.
Because it appears that the ‘fixed’ relationship between sunspot cycles and polar fields is heading for the breakdown !
Here SSN a PF are plotted on the same scale, where SSN is moved so it follows polar fields by about 5 years, as ‘settled science’ would have it, whereby polar field max is a measure of the next sunspot cycle max.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-SSN.gif
There is a possibility, as we head on towards the forthcoming Grand Minimum that the breakdown of the phase relationship between sunspot and polar field cycles is the cause of the regular occurrence, about every 110 years (1690, 1800, 1910, 2020) of the pronounced sunspot minima.
In view of the above altering of the old sunspot records (whereby the past significant minima and maxima are eliminated) is an attack of science, I would define it as an anti-science practice
Science modifies hypothesis and theories as to fit not only existing past but contemporary acquired data.
Anti-science modifies past data to fit contemporary ‘politically correct’ inspired views.
Altering past sunspot records belongs firmly in the anti-science classification.
p.s. If the relationship between polar field and sunspot cycles regularly or occasionally break down it is a folly to attempt to derive one from the other.
To have a sensible discussion about science you need to know something about the science, and since you don’t, it is indeed hard to have a sensible discussion. There are no indications that the relationship between polar fields and sunspot cycles are breaking down, on the contrary it is helping to understand the solar dynamo. The [long overdue] revision of the sunspot number is a necessary step in the understanding and prediction of solar activity. You accuse Hoyt & Schatten of anti-science because they introduced the Group Sunspot Number which disagreed with the ‘precious historical data’.
Your plot is misleading and wrong. You say:
“Here SSN a PF are plotted on the same scale, where SSN is moved so it follows polar fields by about 5 years, as ‘settled science’ would have it, whereby polar field max is a measure of the next sunspot cycle max.” You fail to take into account that solar cycles have different lengths and that small cycles generally are longer. This means that the maxima occur later than the polar field maxima [at solar minimum]. Here is the correct plot with the black arrows showing the pairing up:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-27.png
There are no indications of any breakdown. The cycle is formed from the dead remains of the previous cycle by dynamo amplification inside the sun. This is well-documented and understood, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/arnab-dynamo.pdf
You explicitly proved my point.
Look at right –ward inclination of your arrows; it has gradually moved from 90 degrees in 1970 to 45 degrees in 2007.
Let me explain what that means:
It means that the two relevant oscillation are moving out of a quasi-phase, or simply the relationship is not fixed, i.e. it is heading for breakdown.
Nonsense, there are not ‘two relevant oscillations’, but rather a single phenomenon: the self-sustaining dynamo converting poloidal fields to toroidal fields and back again. I take it that you did not bother to study http://www.leif.org/EOS/arnab-dynamo.pdf Do so, before putting your foot in your mouth again. As Al gore is reported to have said: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”. This seems to apply to you as well.
It contradicts the magnetic amplification (false) hypothesis.
Further the ‘dead’ spots (?!) sink, stronger the amplification by the internal dynamo, longer they take to resurface as the new ‘resurrected’ magnetic giants.
Implication: Longer cycles should be stronger not weaker.
Another ‘minor’ problem is the physics of this ‘magic’ amplification phenomenon, turning weak magnetic field of few microTesla to n x 100,000 microTesla or up to 5 orders of magnitude – a true miracle if ever there was one.
You are totally oblivious to learning. Study the link carefully: http://www.leif.org/EOS/arnab-dynamo.pdf
And here is more deep-going version: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Solar-Dynamo-Theory-Charbonneau.pdf
The amplification follows from Faraday’s induction law and the value found is just what the solution of the equation gives us. That you do not understand this does not mean that it isn’t so.
“It is typically formulated as an ad hoc ( Created or done for a particular purpose as necessary ) parameterization of the Babcock-Leighton mechanism, required here because a fundamentally nonaxisymmetric process must be “forced” into a global axisymmetric model,”
The above says it all.
Vukcevic with every month your rule increasingly confirmed and it is without discussion.
No, it just says that the calculations are constrained by the observations of a real-world phenomenon, as all theories must be.
You could benefit from studying http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Munoz.pdf
It would be appropriate for you to do what I suggest, if you are man enough for it.
But, apparently not.
Time will tell as the data comes in from this current cycle going forward.
Solar surface rotation: N-S asymmetry and recent speed-up
L. Zhang1,2, K. Mursula1 and I. Usoskin1,3
1 ReSoLVE Centre of Excellence, Department of PhysicsUniversity of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
e-mail: liyun.zhang@oulu.fi
2 Key Laboratory of Solar Activity, National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100875 Beijing, PR China
3 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
Received: 16 October 2014
Accepted: 20 January 2015
Abstract
Context. The relation between solar surface rotation and sunspot activity is still not fully resolved. The sunspot activity has been significantly reduced in solar cycle 24, and several solar activity indices and flux measurements experienced unprecedentedly low levels during the last solar minimum.
Aims. We aim to reveal the momentary variation of solar surface rotation, especially during the recent years of reduced solar activity.
Methods. We used a dynamic, differentially rotating reference system to determine the best-fit annual values of the differential rotation parameters of active longitudes of solar X-ray flares and sunspots in 1977–2012.
Results. The evolution of the rotation of solar active longitudes obtained from observing X-ray flares and sunspots is very similar. Both hemispheres have increased their rotation rate since the late 1990s, with the southern hemisphere rotating slightly faster than the north. In the 1980s, rotation in the northern hemisphere was considerably faster, but it experienced a major decrease in the early 1990s. On the other hand, little change was found in the rotation of the southern hemisphere during these decades. This led to a positive asymmetry in the north-south rotation rate in the early part of the time interval studied.
Conclusions. The rotation of both hemispheres has been speeding up at roughly the same rate since the late 1990s, with the southern hemisphere rotating slightly faster than the northern hemisphere. This period coincides with the start of a significant weakening of the solar activity, as observed in sunspots and several other solar, interplanetary, and geomagnetic parameters.
Key words: Sun: activity / Sun: flares / Sun: rotation / sunspots / Sun: evolution
It is well-established that the rotation slows down for high activity, and hence speeds up for low activity:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Rotation-SOHO-EIT.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
Dr Leif Svalgaard
I have a question about the 2002-2011 SORCE TSI and TOA radiation data previously downloaded.
(Several years trend significantly (visibly) “out-of-normal” for 5 and 8 day periods, when plotted against the rest of the years for the same day-of-year. What is easiest for you to see the plots showing these periods: here (on this thread), by email directly, or as a posting to your website ( lsvalgaard.wordpress.com ). The website does not receive much traffic, and so does not appear to be monitored frequently.
The lsvalgaard.wordpress.com site is just a place holder and is not really used at this time. My work can be seen at http://www.leif.org/research/
A plot of TSI from 2003 to now is here http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-to-Now.png
Note how TSI in cycle 24 has risen well above the 2003-2005 level [as we would expect] invalidating the ill-fated Evans analysis so much discussed on WUWT.
I don’t know what you mean by “Several years trend significantly (visibly) “out-of-normal” for 5 and 8 day periods, when plotted against the rest of the years for the same day-of-year”. If you have something to show for it, WUWT is a good forum.
Understood.
Process. The SORCE data was combined into one plot by day-of-year. It produced a very smooth wave, which curve-fitted nicely.. with a few exceptions. When I looked at teach “bump” in the otherwise very smooth curve, single year periods were very apparent: 5 to 8 day periods were distinctly lower (or hoigher) than the other 10 years for the same point in the orbit.
Curve fit (in excel format against DOY as a named variable)
=1362.36+46.142*(COS(0.0167299*(DOY)+0.03150896))
Figured I’d ask you what was the cause, if not simple instrument variation. Or if it has been questioned before.
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=nvlS1L5AwLMD90%2FOaLdkOYh4l5k2TGxc#.VOVcni6Q6So
Entire plot, all data, by day-of-year
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=nvlS1L5AwLP2z0mAnGBEc4h4l5k2TGxc#.VOVdwS6Q6So
Residuals after curve fit of data.
Days 0 – 50. One very evident “bubble” -Surely the sun didn’t “go dark” for a little bit?
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=nvlS1L5AwLNLLOs2eiN814h4l5k2TGxc#.VOVexy6Q6So
Days 150 – 260
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=nvlS1L5AwLPRx1iVoo7aUYh4l5k2TGxc#.VOVesC6Q6So
Days 280 – 366
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=nvlS1L5AwLP7zf9PG2K9A4h4l5k2TGxc#.VOVehy6Q6So
Boggers! I dislike the distractions of tinypics!
The “bubbles” are due to the passage of large sunspots. Here is TSI [and other indices] the past year http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png Note the large dip caused by Active Region 2192.
Thank you for the quick check, the quick reply.
We discussed the ‘phenomenon’ some months ago
(vukcevic November 7, 2014 at 12:31 am
On the other hand TSI is down when F10.7 is high, …..
L Svaalgard = Mosher = Zeke same ilk self proclaimed warmists by all accounts here to troll. We niow know this and anything they post from now on will be viewed with great skepticism
[If you wish to attract their attention (productively, not destructively), we recommend you spell their names correctly. use “Svalgaard” or “lsvalgaard” .mod]
One should always view any comment ‘with great skepticism’, especially the likes of your comment.