Clock paints picture of a more orderly, predictable Sun
Jun 10, 2020 – by Laura Snider
Solar scientists have taken a mathematical technique used by Earth scientists to analyze cyclic phenomena, such as the ebb and flow of ocean tides, and applied it to the confounding irregularity of cycles on the Sun. The result is an elegant “Sun clock” that shows that solar activity starts and stops on a much more precise schedule than could be discerned when looking at observations of the Sun in the traditional way – plotted linearly over time.
The new research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, was led by the University of Warwick in England and involved researchers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and NASA.
Solar cycles – marked by the rhythmic waxing and waning of activity on the Sun – occur every 11 years on average, but they can last years longer or shorter. They also vary in their strength. While they all build from a quiet start toward the cycle’s solar maximum before quieting again, the magnitude of that maximum can change significantly from cycle to cycle. During and after solar maximum, the Sun is more likely to produce space weather that can impact Earth, damaging satellites, scrambling radio communications, and disrupting power grids, among other impacts. The new sun clock could be used as a planning tool to help keep space- and ground-based infrastructure safe.
The clock was created using a technique known as the Hilbert transform to convert the linear observations of past solar cycles onto a circle, stretching and shrinking the cycles as necessary to a standard 11 years. As the cycles were overlaid on top of each other on the clock’s face, distinct “times” on the clock face when solar activity is flipped on and off came into focus.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not sure if it has anything to do with solar minimum but all three of my ruhbarb plants tried to bolt to seed last week, usually doesn’t happen until late July
All they’re saying is that the oscillatory behavior of the sun’s magnetic field strength can be classified in terms of a Hilbert space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space). Meh…
When I looked at winter storm activity in the NE U.S., I (anecdotally) saw an increase or cluster in activity in the couple or few years during the ascending phase of sunspot cycles, just a year or two after solar minimum and the new cycle had begun, and then persisting through the next 2 or 3 winters. This was not for all solar cycles, but frequently enough for me to notice it. And, winters were generally worse in El Nino years that coincided with these periods of an ascending sunspot cycle. Of course, as we know, correlation does not mean causation. However, at least I’m trying to look at things which might have something to do with the effects we see. I don’t have specific examples to cite here, but if I wrote a paper on it, I believe I would be able to show examples of this. Perhaps others have noticed this tendency?
I’ve previously described in a few random solar cycle posts on WUWT, with either no response or at least one negative comment, that a group of 6 consecutive solar cycles constitutes a 65-70 year period, half of which is a warm period for at least the NH, if not globally, followed by a cool period. This is a well-known cycle in the literature, perhaps (or even likely) modulated by ocean cycles (AMO, PDO), which in turn might be influenced by some effect from these solar cycles. I wonder if these solar cycles manifested in a warmer period from ~1910 to 1945, followed by a cooler period from 1945 to 1976 or the late 1970s. That cycle was followed by a warmer period from 1976 to about 2010. We haven’t seemed to cool much since 2010, but if this periodicity is anywhere near correct, we should have a relatively cool period from 2010 to 2040 or 2045. There 65-70 year cycles may be seen going back in time as well. In addition, I think I see another ~200 year cycle, situated on century years, which oscillates warmer and colder.
Both of these cycles nest within the much more dominant 600-800 year cycle which gives rise to our well-known major warm and cool periods, e.g. the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages Cool Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and our current Modern Warm Period, but the smaller cycles can modulate the large one by phasing or anti-phasing, giving rise to variations within the dominant warm or cool phase.
So, I hypothesize that a group of 6 consecutive solar cycles acted from 1910 to 1976 or so to produce first warmer, then cooler temperatures, and the next 3 operated from the late 1970s through 2010 for warmer temperatures. The first 3 solar cycles in each warm temperature phase of the cycle were dominated by an odd polarity to the sunspots, 2 odd to 1 even. The next 3 cycles in the cool phase were dominated by an even polarity, 2 even to 1 odd. So, perhaps sunspot polarity has some kind of effect on our (upper) atmosphere, such that UV is affected, giving rise to atmospheric pattern shifts. Or, perhaps there is some effect on CR modulation, which influences cloud amount, which in turn influences ocean cycles. Or, a combination. Or some other McGuilicuddy (unknown) effect. (My old professor (actually the same age as I) always said to try to add physical reasoning into your theory.) So, to summarize, groups of 6 consecutive solar cycles would comprise a warm-cool cycle of 65-70 years. I like to call this the Ludlum Cycle, after Dr. David Ludlum, the late eminent meteorologist / State Climatologist who chronicled NE U.S. winter weather and hurricanes. Similarly, 3 groups of 6 solar cycles (18 solar cycles) would comprise the ~200 year cycle, cycles which I think lately have been coincident with centuries – 1600-1700 (cooler), 1700-1800 (warmer), 1800-1900 (cooler), and 1900-2000 (warmer). Remember, these more minor cycles are of smaller effect than the more dominant 600-800 year cycles.
If this is anywhere close to being correct, then, in trying to be predictive, 2010 to 2040 or 2045 should overall be a somewhat cooler period. Or, perhaps the tendency for modulation toward cooler temperatures will be offset or even overwhelmed in a part of the 30-35 year period by the dominance of this major cycle. The period 2010-2020 so far has seen either slight warming or steady temperatures globally. We should be cognizant of the fact that we have rebounded out of the LIA and are almost one-half of the way through our Modern Warm Period, perhaps nearing the peak. So, we should not expect “significant” cooling through 2100, just some weak modulation by the two smaller cycles. If one wants to go out even further on a limb, the period 2040/45-2070/80 should be one of marked warmth, for the 65-70 year cycle will have switched to a warm tendency and we will still be at or just after the peak of our warm Modern Warm Period. Only the cool tendency of the ~200 year cycle will counteract that.
In summary, there do seem to be at least two if not three distinct NH / even global decadal- and century- scale temperature cycles in operation, and groups of solar cycles with attendant dominance of polarity could fit in to correlate with, if not explain, these cycles. Lastly, it was noticed that winter storms were more numerous and significant in the ascending phase of a new sunspot cycle, a year or two after the cycle began, and lasting for 2-4 years.
I shudder to think what kind of response will be elicited from Dr. Svaalgard.
I’ve seen that graph before.
It was on the main screen of the Death Star, right before it destroyed Alderaan.
Yes . . . even a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, there were the equivalent of today’s CAGW alarmists in power that maintained they had to destroy a planet in order to save its inhabitants (from climate change).
Beware of Emperor Palp-a-Teen!
I suspect we are missing something important with a cycle clock that doesn’t treat the N and S hemispheres separately. There is clearly a history of one hemisphere moving through the cycle faster than the other. As a result there are two large humps in the last few cycles (averaged), and the gap widens.
“During and after solar maximum, the Sun is more likely to produce space weather that can impact Earth, damaging satellites, scrambling radio communications, and disrupting power grids, among other impacts.”
That does not always hold true. There were major lows in the solar wind speed and pressure at sunspot maximum in 1969 and 1979-80.
The sunspot cycle is a derivative of the underlying (Hale) magnetic cycle which is far more robust (less variable) than Schwabe’s. The terminators mark the end points of the Hale cycles – their signature is not so subtle: https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.09083 – they occur between min and max. Solar/sunspot minimum is a period of cancellation of FOUR Hale bands inside of 35 degrees from the equator that is only broken when two of the four cancel at the equator – the sunspot pattern rapidly blossoms on the remaining mid-latitude bands that started their passage to the equator some decade earlier at around 55 degrees latitude. We don’t see this once, but 14 times – the full extent of the photographic record of the Sun.
The “clock” here – queued by terminators, think of a superposed epoch analysis – helps to illustrate how solar activity (from eruptive, particulate and radiative) occurs over and over again in the context of the Hale cycle. A large number of variables/proxies have been put against this clock and they help us to understand the physics going on.
The opposite of the terminator, dubbed the “pre-terminator” in this work seems to be the switch off of activity. It has its own interesting physical signature that will be the subject of a forthcoming paper! These “Camerons” (gotta keep the theme going although a “Reese” or “Kyle” might have been just as good) are fascinating things. They would not have been so obvious without SEA – further, their clear phasing with the Hale cycle wouldn’t either…
Solar minima form a horribly subjective means to do the same type of thing as terminators, but make for considerably statistically sloppier SEA. Unfortunately in the solar literature these approaches shape the canon and leave far more interpretative wiggle room than our analyses do!
A wise mentor – and broadly respected member of the Chicago school – once told me – “ if you think you’re right, make a forecast” We have, they’re published, starting awhile ago 2012 – 2014 protracted peer-review battle over a new interpretation of sunspot cycles in terms of the Hale cycle – https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3071 (the interested reader can see almost all of the older papers in the series here: https://arxiv.org/a/mcintosh_s_1.html)
We have a paper locked up by a myriad of political (likely) and lack of breadth problems (even more likely) of peer review issues since 2017/18 that’s finally emerging from the permafrost – the focus of Javier’s interest and fine analyses of a few of our presentations. A second is in the works in a high profile journal around the implications of our recent work on clocks, terminators and the strength of sunspot cycles – which incidentally points to that of cycle 25 significantly breaking the 30 year downward trend… Only time will tell if we are on the right path, but it won’t be long – we’ve been tracking cycle 25 since 2012….. community inertia is very difficult to overcome – even if the system behaves as you anticipate!