Guest essay by David Archibald
The sun today – spotless
Image from the Solar Dynamics Observatory HMI Continuum
Solar Update October 2017
Solar activity continues to look weak. If the 23/24 solar minimum was the end of the Modern Warm Period, it does not look like it will be followed by a compensating period of especially low solar activity.
Figure 1: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2017
Figure 2: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2017
The solar cycle isn’t over until the heliospheric current sheet flattens. It is now in striking distance of flattening.
Figure 3: Aligned on minimum by solar cycle
Aligned on solar minimum, Solar Cycle 24 plots on top of Solar Cycle 22 at the same time elapsed from cycle start. If it followed 22 from here, it would be another 15 months long with the minimum in December 2018.
Figure 4: Solar Polar Field Strength
After timing, the next consideration is solar cycle amplitude. The best indication of that comes from the solar polar field strength at minimum. While that is at least a year away, current indications are that Solar Cycle 25 will be of an amplitude similar to that of 24.
Figure 5: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2017
Neutron count has fallen over the last few months in reponse to the higher solar activity evident in Figure 1.
Figure 6: Ap Index 1932 – 2017
The Ap Index during this cycle has remained around the previous floor of activity.
Figure 7: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2017
The IMF has not weakened despite being late in the cycle.
Figure 8: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2017
David Archibald is an independent researcher based in Perth, Western Australia. He is author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
Natalie;
+100
Javier
Of course you are entitled to your views and conclusions regarding both, your unquestionable conviction in the existence of ‘pentadecadal’ cycle and that the 10Be ‘proxy is perfect’, but have to say I do not buy either.
I have recorded number of your extensive articles from here at WUWT and Climate etc blog for future references, but in the light of the above discussion, I may well reconsider taking anything in there for granted.
Thank you for your comments; however any further discussion is pointless.
With regards.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 472, Issue 3, 11 December 2017, Pages 2913–2918, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2206
Published: 29 August 2017
Abstract
Applying the Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) method to the yearly average sunspot group (SG) number reconstructed by Svalgaard & Schatten, we investigate the periodicity of SG number from 1610 to 2015. Our main findings are summarized below. Periodicities of 3.56 ± 0.24 (Quasi-Triennial Oscillations), 9.22 ± 0.13 (Schwabe Cycle), 16.91 ± 0.99 (Hale Cycle), 49.25 ± 0.96, 118.64 ± 2.52 (Centennial Gleissberg Cycle), and 206.32 ± 4.60 yr are statistically significant in the SG numbers. During the Maunder Minimum (MM), the occurrences of the Schwabe Cycle and the Hale Cycle, extracted from SG numbers, are suspended; before and after the MM, Schwabe Cycle and the Hale Cycle, extracted from SG numbers, all exist. The results of applying the Morlet Wavelet Analysis to the SG number confirm that, for SG number, the occurrence of the Schwabe Cycle is suspended during the MM, and, before and after the MM, the Schwabe Cycle all exist. Then we investigate the periodicity in the annual 10Be data from 1391 to 1983, which are given in a supplementary file to McCracken & Beer, using HHT and the Morlet wavelet transform. We find that, for the 10Be data, the Schwabe Cycle and the Hale Cycle persist throughout the MM. Our results support the suggestion that the Schwabe Cycle is too weak to be detected in the sunspot data.
lsvalgaard October 10, 2017 at 5:23 am
The polar fields come from only a handful of active regions [compared to the total number of about 3000 for the cycle]…
—————————————————–
Hi Dr. S., do the active regions that feed the polar fields, always come from the same location on the solar disk? Is there a drift of the regions?
You know me, I do have a problem with cyclomania.
The Milky Way is very chaotic and messy place. Even the LISM local interstellar medium, can be messy at times…..past present and future.
do the active regions that feed the polar fields, always come from the same location on the solar disk
Generally no. Although the eruption of active regions is not entirely random:
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU-2016-Fall-SH31B-2548.pdf
You may also enjoy:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gough-Is-the-Sun-a-Magnet.pdf
“It has been argued (Gough and McIntyre in Nature 394, 755, 1998) that the only way for the radiative interior of the Sun to be rotating uniformly in the face of the differentially rotating convection zone is for it to be pervaded by a large-scale magnetic field, a field which is responsible also for the thinness of the tachocline. It is most likely that this field is the predominantly dipolar residual component of a tangled primordial field that was present in the interstellar medium from which the Sun condensed (Braithwaite and Spruit in Nature 431, 819, 2004), and that advection by the meridional flow in the tachocline has caused the dipole axis to be inclined from the axis of rotation by about 60◦ (Gough in Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 106, 429, 2012). It is suggested here that, notwithstanding its turbulent passage through the convection zone, a vestige of that field is transmitted by the solar wind to Earth, where it modulates the geomagnetic field in a periodic way. The field variation reflects the inner rotation of the Sun, and, unlike turbulent-dynamo-generated fields, must maintain phase. I report here a new look at an earlier analysis of the geomagnetic field by Svalgaard and Wilcox (Solar Phys. 41, 461, 1975), which reveals evidence for appropriate phase coherence, thereby adding support to the tachocline theory.”
Note that such a primordial field would not be cyclic but have a lifetime exceeding that of the Sun’s age at this time.
lsvalgaard October 10, 2017 at 8:11 am
..It is most likely that this field is the predominantly dipolar residual component of a tangled primordial field that was present in the interstellar medium from which the Sun condensed (Braithwaite and Spruit in Nature 431, 819, 2004),..
—————————–
Thank you Dr. S., that’s pretty neat..and the links.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
“Periodicities of 3.56, 9.22 16.91, 49.25,118.64, 206.32 years are statistically significant in the SG numbers.”
Oh, yes indeed, cyclomania rampant
All nonsense my dear doc.
I have looked at spectrum of the data 1700 – 2016, 1700 –1900 and 1800 – 2016.
In the first two selections there are all sorts of periodicities some of those mentioned above and some extra depend how long is the period.
I did lot of spectral analysis of communication signals, I can say about the above is that prior to around 1800 sunspot data contains lot of noise (either sun was more random or data isn’t fully representative of the solar activity).
However, when 1800 – 2016 data is analysed, there is a much cleaner spectrum with strong10.9 years component (made of trio of periodicities 10.1 @ur momisugly 12%, 10.8 @ur momisugly 21% and 11.8 @ur momisugly 9%) while 216 years of data may not be long enough to accurately and conclusively determine accurate periodicity of the ‘centennial’ component.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-SC.gif
p.s. couldn’t see who is the author, using the Svalgaard & Schatten data.
I think I’ve got your SG numbers data file, will look into it and keep you posted, till then I assume on the basis of the RAS finding you will be applying to join the cyclomania club.
Well, the 44-yr and 54-yr cycles are there, but as all the other ones, not real physical cycles, just sub-harmonics of the only REAL cycle: the 11-yr cycle.
How would you propose that solar minima arise from a sub-harmonic of the ~11 year cycle?
Subharmonics means that there are cycles with intermittent periods that are integer multiples of the one and only real cycle [the 11-yr one]. Since cycles have maxima and minima, the minima occur naturally [otherwise they wouldn’t be part of cycles]. No special mechanism need be invoked.
See e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Feynman-Subharmonics.pdf
An 88yr double doubling of Hale cannot track the recent solar minima starting from SC5, from SC12, and from SC24.
And that is why there is no strict period cycle of 88 years. Nor of 107 or of 208, so cyclomania just will not work.
That’s why sub-harmonics won’t work. There must be another explanation for the cyclicity of solar minima that also accounts for the variance around the mean.
That’s why sub-harmonics won’t work
Nevertheless, sub-harmonics are there, see e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lomb-Sunspot-Cycle-Revisited.pdf
“all five of these longer-term periods in the modified sunspot data are subharmonics of the main 11-year periodicity”. This is an indication of chaos. On the other hand, as Lomb also remarks: “there is no indication if any of the modulation periodicities are real or if they just represent a Fourier fit to a random variation.”, so we have to leave it at that.
Though still cannot account for the highly variable intervals between onset of solar minima. What do you make of the sunspot cycles between solar minima tending closely to a mean length of 10.39 years maximum to maximum? e.g. 1907 to 2000.
I don’t think the Suns has any memory of past cycles more than one or two, so I don’t attach any significance to such variation.
I was remarking upon the relative lack of variability of max-max cycle length in that period: 1907, 1917.6, 1928.4, 1937.4, 1947.5, 1957.9, 1968.9, 1979.9, 1989.6, 2000.5.
A fixed 10.39yr length gives: 1907, 1917.4, 1927.8, 1938.2, 1948.6, 1958.9, 1969.3, 1979.7, 1990.1, 2000.5.
The maxima are ill-defined, e.g. look at cycle 14:
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycle14.png
or cycle 20:
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycle20.png
or even cycle 23 and 24:
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png
When is maximum? Hard to say.
From the standpoint of the physics, it is the minima that determine the cycle start and end.
The minima of solar cycles 13 through to 23 follows the same ~10.4yr interval.
But failed for the minimum in 2008-2009. So, there is no fixed cycle length.
Well that is normal for cycles to lengthen when entering a solar minimum. The previous nine lengths are remarkably regular, and the same regular length is also seen between previous solar minima. Because it’s an astronomical period.
I don’t think so.
I know so. It is a phase relationship between four bodies, that breaks down exactly at the onset of Maunder, Dalton, Gleissberg, and from SC24, with each solar minimum ending at the point that the phase relationship is restored.
Yeah, spurious relations have a tendency to break down from time to time.
What a tragically comical response. It breaks down consistently and exclusively at the right points, strongly suggesting that it is authentic. This is neither cyclomanic projections or sub-harmomic mathurbation, it is empirical evidence for the real timing and duration of each solar minimum.
Your faith is strong. Perhaps it is time for me to agree with Javier about you.
it is empirical evidence
Sorry to burst your bubble. The actual empirical evidence shows otherwise:
http://www.leif.org/research/Variability-Solar-Cycle-Length.png
The average length is 11.1 years as already Rudolf Wolf found long ago.
There is nothing special about your 10.39 years except that it clearly does not fit the data.
“Sorry to burst your bubble”
Sorry that you think I have one.
“The actual empirical evidence shows otherwise:
The average length is 11.1 years as already Rudolf Wolf found long ago.
There is nothing special about your 10.39 years except that it clearly does not fit the data.”
Patently I have been referring to observed cycle lengths between solar minima and not the average length.
“Your faith is strong. Perhaps it is time for me to agree with Javier about you.”
That is rather desperate and inconsistent after agreeing with me about the highly variable lengths between solar minima. If the best that you can do is return a specious counter argument accompanied with insults, we’ll end the conversation right here.
Patently I have been referring to observed cycle lengths between solar minima
The graph shows [yellow symbols] the length between minima;as you can see it is not constant [10.39 yrs] but varies random randomly around its mean 11.1. Do I need to show it again?. Just let me know if you have difficulties..
You’re talking rot, I have already shown that they are shorter.
(2000.5-1907) / 9 = 10.388.
(2014.3-1761.5)/23 = 11.0
And your ‘calculation’ is not even correct:
With dates from http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engzonnecyclus.html
we find 10.52 years, but only for that special period.
Pick another period and the result is different.
So, there is no basis for asserting non-variability.
Here we are, sir
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC-gs-ssn.gif
Nonsense, as I said.
In my past career of analysing transmission signals I (and my colleagues) had standard practice that anything below 30% below the principal component’s amplitude to be dumped into the basket labelled ‘NOISE’, here set at 7% while for the GS 1610-2015 should be a fraction lower.
As you can see both sets of data after 1800 have only two components of significance, while GS1610-2015 is all over place.
You miss the point completely. All the peaks except the 11-yr one are noise [or chaos if you prefer]. But that the noise is there cannot be denied.
.. missing the point is easy, I often miss an infinitely larger circle.
you didn’t say who is/are author/s of the Royal Astronomical Society’s paper.
It’s not Svalgaard & Schatten, or are they ?
P. X. Gao
Yunnan Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650011, China
Thanks doc
I looked up the author. he also did solar flare periodicity
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138410761000120X
Considering he was using your data do you have intention of commenting in any other forum?
If so I could do a periodograph up to 220 years and a more detailed one below 60 years so you can compare to any spectral analysis you might do.
considering there are one or two other readers that may be interested, the Sunspot Group Number spectral composition graphs I’ve done (as mentioned above) are available here
Cycles of solar fracture 0d about 11.2 years on average have the cause of the phenomenon, and whether these cycles and the phenomenon itself does not affect the climate change on the planets, it is an indication that something is causing temperature changes then.
A human factor does not have such power that it can cause climate change, but it can affect local projections, mainly pollution of the atmosphere.
Cycles of 11.2 years, as well as many other shorter and longer arise due to mutual relations of the planet and the sun between each other. The main triggers of the phenomena that cause these changes are the four planets with the sun. How and why this occurs, I try to publish, but I am not known in science because I do not deal with the wrong theories that are much more acceptable to today’s science than they are true because In truth, they do not make money. And today’s science is mostly politically colored and dominated by tycoons. Why today’s every scientific institution and magazine necessarily ask for them to pay for the publication of some scientific novelty, no matter how much the work of the author is valid. For journals and scientific institutions, it does not matter how valuable it is to mankind, it’s important that they fill their pockets with that publication. I have many new things that can change the direction of the movement of today’s science (I give a “positive spin”). The same is true for climate change on planets (this does not only apply to the Earth, which tells a lot about the true causes of the phenomenon).
As an example, take a butterfly diagram of about 123 years-cycle. That’s 11.2×11