Solar cycle #24

[orionjim]

You can't tell anything about global climate change from short term local weather. And there's no mystery about the cause of this weather...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/28/weather

Come-on there dmr81, you left out the humorous part, the part your grand kids and great grand kids will be asking, “What on earth were you thinking!”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...ll//print.html

It sort of reminds me of the Al Gore concert in Buenos Aries last year that was almost snowed out. It was their first snow in 89 years.
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=261846

[dmr81]

your grand kids and great grand kids will be asking, “What on earth were you thinking!”

Please explain what you mean by this.

It was their first snow in 89 years.

Repeating the same fallacy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...ll//print.html
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=261846

Politics and conspiracy theories are off topic for this forum.

[orionjim]

Politics and conspiracy theories are off topic for this forum.

I just thought it was funny, that while the House of Commons debated Global Warming - the first October snow fall in London since 1922 was going on. It reminded me of the first snow in Buenos Aires in 89 years that almost shut down the global warming concert last year.

How on earth could you think it has anything to do with politics or conspiracy theories? It was just an observation!

[dmr81]

How on earth could you think it has anything to do with politics or conspiracy theories?

By reading the articles to which you linked, the first of which was all about politics and the second of which advocated a conspiracy theory. If you are claiming that either article provided any scientific arguments, quote them.

your grand kids and great grand kids will be asking, “What on earth were you thinking!”

Explain precisely what you meant by this remark or explicitly withdraw it.

[orionjim]

By reading the articles to which you linked, the first of which was all about politics and the second of which advocated a conspiracy theory. If you are claiming that either article provided any scientific arguments, quote them.

The articles were to show that the snow events happened. They happened to be at the top when I Goolgled them. If you are looking for a deep or mysterious meaning to them you are wasting your time, because there was none.

As far as the comment: “your grand kids and great grand kids will be asking, “What on earth were you thinking!” was an attempt at humor. Some sort of decision was made by the House of Commons to impose some sort of legislation on manmade causes of climate change. (You know much more on this than I do.) But as an outsider, I see that you have a snow event that has ~0.3% chance of happening based on the past 86 years, happening. And you say it’s just a chance thing. Things like that happen. But when the IPCC says there is a 10% chance that something won’t happen you seem totally willing to ignore that portion.

Of course I’m not stupid. You need to take action on the fact that there is a 90% chance that the manmade global warming will happen. The House of Commons did that. But I hope they also covered the 10%, because if they didn’t it will be your grand kids and great grand kids that will be paying the bill.

[dmr81]

You need to take action on the fact that there is a 90% chance that the manmade global warming will happen. The House of Commons did that. But I hope they also covered the 10%

Again begging the question, after it has already been explained to you how you are misrepresenting the IPCC report.

[orionjim]

Read the 2007 IPCC Report. You need to take the time to understand what “very likely” means. There is a reason it is in italics. The 10,000 years means they are very certain that their uncertainty is about 10%. Until you take the time to understand this you are just wasting my time. Putting in links back to your misunderstanding proves nothing.

[dmr81]

Originally quoted text for combined greenhouse forcing...

The combined radiative forcing due to increases in CO2, CH4 and N2O is +2.3 [+2.1 to +2.5] W/m2

The margin of error on the forcing is specified numerically ("2.1 to 2.5"). There is not 10% chance that there is no forcing, as you claimed.

And for CO2 alone...

Using the global average value of 379 ppm for atmospheric CO2 in 2005 gives an RF of 1.66 ± 0.17 W m*2; a contribution that dominates that of all other forcing agents considered in this chapter. This is an increase of 13 to 14% over the value reported for 1998 in Ramaswamy et al. (2001). This change is solely due to increases in atmospheric CO2 and is also much larger than the RF changes due to other agents. In the decade 1995 to 2005, the RF due to CO2 increased by about 0.28 W m*2 (20%), an increase greater than that calculated for any decade since at least 1800 (see Section 6.6 and FAQ 2.1, Figure 1).

From WG1 chapter 2.

[orionjim]

[...]
Here is what the current report says:

The combined radiative forcing due to increases in CO2, CH4 and N2O is +2.3 [+2.1 to +2.5] W/m2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years

My Bold and I set the "very likey" back in italics like it was in the report. Also you left out the last part of the sentence and I've provided that part you want to ignore.

The statement of uncertainty is in the "very likely".

You keep removing the italics and chopping off the part you don't like, like they don't mean anything. The report had one full page of terms they use, and for whatever reason you want to ignore them.

The 2.1 to 2.5 mean nothing to me. I look for how certain the people that put the report together were. And they were very clear on that point, they said "very likely" and "very likely" has a meaning.

[orionjim]

Had I seen your edit of your last post I wouldn't of wasted my time on my last post.

Bye.

[dmr81]

The statement of uncertainty is in the "very likely".

The "very likely" does not apply to the fact that there is a forcing, as I've explained several times. There is no doubt that there is a forcing. The magnitude of the forcing has a margin of error, which is specified numerically. That's the "2.1 to 2.5" that you said means nothing to you.

[PraedSt]

Solar cycle 24

Just to bring this back to the OP. The Sun Shows Signs of Life

After two-plus years of few sunspots, even fewer solar flares, and a generally eerie calm, the sun is finally showing signs of life. "I think solar minimum is behind us," says sunspot forecaster David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

His statement is prompted by an October flurry of sunspots. "Last month we counted five sunspot groups," he says. That may not sound like much, but in a year with record-low numbers of sunspots and long stretches of utter spotlessness, five is significant. "This represents a real increase in solar activity."

Phew!

Oh yes, if this has already been posted somewhere on BAUT, soz.

[Nadme]

Hi PraedSt: Yep. That bit was also posted to spaceweather.com a few days ago. Yaaay! Once activity really starts picking up I'll invest in a solar telescope.

I just hope this time the scientists are right that Cycle #24 has indeed begun. They made that (apparently premature) announcement many months ago.

[PraedSt]

Hi PraedSt: Yep. That bit was also posted to spaceweather.com a few days ago. Yaaay! Once activity really starts picking up I'll invest in a solar telescope.

I just hope this time the scientists are right that Cycle #24 has indeed begun. They made that (apparently premature) announcement many months ago.

Good site that.
You're not considering hooking up the telescope to your PC are you?

[Nadme]

Good site that.

It's a favorite. I check the sunspot count nearly every day. Of course for a long while there was basically nothing to check. :-\

You're not considering hooking up the telescope to your PC are you?

Lol! No. The house probably WOULD blow up if I tried that.

[William]

This winter will be interesting from the perspective of solar observations.

Solar wind speed is continuing to drop and is now at the lowest speed in SOHO observational history.

There was been an unusually large number of spotless days at the end of solar cycle 23, the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots has been linearly decreasing, and the solar meridian conveyor speed has dropped 30% in the Solar Northern hemisphere and 75% in the solar Southern Hemisphere.

There are conflicting views as to the implications and reasons for the current solar observations.

It has been noted that the observed number of spotless days is similar to 1956. I have seen no explanation as to why the solar meridian conveyor speed has suddenly decreased or why the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots is linearly decreasing.

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/

The geomagnetic field was quiet on November 22. Solar wind speed ranged between 269 and 275 km/s (average speed was 271 km/s, the lowest average in recorded SOHO history).

Comment:
Has any one looked at the theories as to how CME, sunspot activity, and the length of the solar cycle; affect the magnitude of the solar large scale, magnetic field?

[orionjim]

[...]
There are conflicting views as to the implications and reasons for the current solar observations.

It has been noted that the observed number of spotless days is similar to 1956. I have seen no explanation as to why the solar meridian conveyor speed has suddenly decreased or why the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots is linearly decreasing.

[...]

Comment:
Has any one looked at the theories as to how CME, sunspot activity, and the length of the solar cycle; affect the magnitude of the solar large scale, magnetic field?

Hi William,
I have followed sunspot theories and this is a link, here, that explains some of the different people and their theories. Basically they fall into two categories; one predicts based on the last two cycles and the other predicts on the last cycle only. Once we are into about a quarter of a cycle the prediction gets pretty good. There are a lot of differences of opinion on cycle # 24; hopefully once we get into it we can see who has the better method.

How the solar dynamo works is still one of the great unsolved mysteries and there are several theories on why the conveyor speed changes. But none of them cover all that is observed.

I have attached a chart of sunspots with 1956 noted. If there was a slow conveyor speed then it didn’t seem to affect the number of sunspots on the next cycle.

Jim

[William]

Hi Jim,

I believe there are four related solar observations: 1) Abrupt drop in the solar conveyor speed, 2) the increase in the number of days without sunspots, 3) the current very low solar wind speeds, and 4) the linear drop in the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots.

1) Drop in Solar Conveyor Speed
I have not heard why there was an abrupt change in the solar conveyor speed in 2006 or what the implications are of the abrupt change in solar conveyor speed on the solar cycle. (i.e. There must be a physical explanation for what abruptly slowed down the solar conveyor speed in 2006.)

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._longrange.htm

May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."

"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."

2) Days without Sunspots
Hathaway’s recent comment that solar cycle 24 is not unusual, did not answer the question why the solar conveyor speed suddenly changed.

Hathaway’s comment was that the number of sun spotless days for cycle 23/24 is not unusual as compared to other solar cycles. Say for example solar cycle 18 which ended in 1956 and was followed by a large solar cycle, solar cycle 19 as per your attached thumb nail graph.

It is my belief based on what I have read that an abrupt slow down in the solar conveyor speed indicates a deep solar change. As there was not an abrupt slow down in the solar meridian speed for cycle 18/19 there is no reason why cycle 23/24 would be the same as cycle 18/19. In fact as far as I am aware there has never been an observed abrupt slow down of the solar meridian speed.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ycleupdate.htm

3) Very Low Solar Wind Speeds
I had read that solar physicists thought that the minimum the solar wind speed could reach was around 300 km/sec. As noted the solar wind speed is currently 271 km/sec which is the lowest measured.

4) Linear Drop in the Magnetic Field Strength of Individual Sunspots
As far as I am aware there is no explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots is linearly dropping.

Based on Penn and Livingston's observations (see above) if the trend where the magnetic field strength of new sunspots continues to drop there would be no sunspots post 2012.

[tusenfem]

3) Very Low Solar Wind Speeds
I had read that solar physicists thought that the minimum the solar wind speed could reach was around 300 km/sec. As noted the solar wind speed is currently 271 km/sec which is the lowest measured.

I have to disagree here, there was the time in May 1999, which got famous for "the day that the solar wind disappeared." A brief description is here

Based on Penn and Livingston's observations (see above) if the trend where the magnetic field strength of new sunspots continues to drop there would be no sunspots post 2012.

Well, as the Earth is going to end in 2012, we may never discover if the sun is going to be allright, that makes me sad.

[orionjim]

Hi Jim,

I believe there are four related solar observations: 1) Abrupt drop in the solar conveyor speed, 2) the increase in the number of days without sunspots, 3) the current very low solar wind speeds, and 4) the linear drop in the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots.

[...]

Based on Penn and Livingston's observations (see above) if the trend where the magnetic field strength of new sunspots continues to drop there would be no sunspots post 2012.

Hey William,

Personally I think there may some relationship between the four but not a direct one. That’s just a guess on my part. The measurement of the magnetic conveyor seems to be the one Hathaway favors for his sunspot predictions.

As far as the Penn and Livingston's observations and prediction for 2015; it really isn’t that far off from Hathaway’s cycle #25 prediction, and it looks like they're measuring something similar to what Hathaway is using. From what I understand he is predicting cycle #25 that peaks in 2022 will be the start of a deep minimum. Or as he’s saying “it will be off the bottom of the charts”. Just Google Hathaway +”cycle 25”, (I got 905 hits).

I think if we do go into a deep minimum we will really start to figure out how the sun works. Right now we really know very little about how the solar dynamo actually works.

Jim

[William]

In reply to tusenfem's comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post
3) Very Low Solar Wind Speeds
I had read that solar physicists thought that the minimum the solar wind speed could reach was around 300 km/sec. As noted the solar wind speed is currently 271 km/sec which is the lowest measured.

Original Posted by Tusenfem: I have to disagree here, there was the time in May 1999, which got famous for "the day that the solar wind disappeared." A brief description is here

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2697v1

Tusenfem,
Thanks for the link.

The May 11, 1999 solar wind density and speed abrupt drop, is interesting but that is a transient event. The current drop in the solar wind speed and density I would assume is related to the abrupt drop in the solar conveyor speed and the linear drop in the magnetic field strength of new sun spots which appears to be a long term solar change.

A recent, detailed study of the well-known “solar wind disappearance event” of 11 May 1999 traced its origin to a coronal hole (CH) lying adjacent to a large active region (AR), AR8525 in Carrington rotation 1949. The AR was located at central meridian on 05 May 1999 when the flows responsible for this event began. We examine the evolution of the AR-CH complex during 5−6 May 1999 to study the changes that apparently played a key role in causing this disappearance event.

In reply to Orionjim:

Jim,
I support your comment that there are a number of unanswered questions concerning the solar dynamo.

[William]

Sun Spotless Days per Calendar Year
As of December 5, 2008 there have been 243 sun spotless days, for 2008. 242 spotless days breaks the 1954 record of 241 sun spotless days in a calendar year.

The sun is currently spotless, if there are 10 or more sun spotless days before the end of 2008, the 1913 record of 252 sun spotless days in a calendar year will be broken.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Sunspotless_days.JPG

Accumulated Sun Spotless Days Cycle 23 to Cycle 24
As of December 5th, 2008 there have been 483 sun spotless days for the Cycle 23 to Cycle 24 transition.

86 more sun spotless days are required to break Solar Cycle’s 17 (1930 to 1933) record of accumulated sun spotless days of 568 days.

This out of date summary (Last Updated September 1, 2008) provides a comparison that shows that Solar Cycle 23/24 is setting records for consecutive sun spotless days and for accumulated sun spotless days per month of its cycle.

The number of sun spotless days in the next 3 to 6 months should determine whether cycle 24 can recover.

http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/S...html#Evolution

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/

[William]

This is interesting the solar cycle length appears to change periodically.

http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/8


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blizzard_of_1899


http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html

Cycle – Approx. year of maximum
24 – 2003
23 – 1993
22 – 1982
21 – 1970
20 – 1959
19 – 1948
18 – 1938
17 – 1927
16 – 1918
15 – 1907
14 – 1885
13 – 1872
12 – 1848
11 – 1837
10 – 1828
09 – 1817
08 – 1805
07 – 1790
06 – 1770
05 – 1765
04 – 1750
03 – 1738
02 – 1728
01 – 1718
00 – 1705

[tusenfem]

This is interesting the solar cycle length appears to change periodically.

http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/8

taken from this link:

The figure shows that prior to solar cycle number 3 (minimum in 1775) the period of the cycle was generally shorter than 11 years. From that time until solar cycle 15 (minimum in 1913) the period was mostly longer than 11 years. Since then, solar cycles have again been shorter than 11 years. Approximate trends are shown in the figure as a series of dashed lines, although it would also be reasonable to fit a curved line through the data.

this cannot be a correct explanation of that figure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blizzard_of_1899

What is this link supposed to show? pretty cold I guess

http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html

Cycle – Approx. year of maximum
24 – 2003
23 – 1993
22 – 1982
21 – 1970
20 – 1959
19 – 1948
18 – 1938
17 – 1927
16 – 1918
15 – 1907
14 – 1885
13 – 1872
12 – 1848
11 – 1837
10 – 1828
09 – 1817
08 – 1805
07 – 1790
06 – 1770
05 – 1765
04 – 1750
03 – 1738
02 – 1728
01 – 1718
00 – 1705

My bold, are you sure you have these numbers right?
Mmmm looking at the link, it does seem to indicate something like that.

However, as the solar magnetic field is basically created by "rotational" motion (be it rotation of the Sun or convective motion), I would not be very surprised that apart from the 11 year quasi-period, there will be other periods superposed on it.

[orionjim]

This is interesting the solar cycle length appears to change periodically.

http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/8


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blizzard_of_1899


http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html

Cycle – Approx. year of maximum
24 – 2003
23 – 1993
22 – 1982
21 – 1970
20 – 1959
19 – 1948
18 – 1938
17 – 1927
16 – 1918
15 – 1907
14 – 1885
13 – 1872
12 – 1848
11 – 1837
10 – 1828
09 – 1817
08 – 1805
07 – 1790
06 – 1770
05 – 1765
04 – 1750
03 – 1738
02 – 1728
01 – 1718
00 – 1705

Dr. MartinV did pick up on something. Something I totally missed and that is Cycle #24 is the cycle that is just trying to start so it couldn’t have maxed in 2003. I took your idea and re-did the data:

Cycle – Approx. year of maximum
23 - 2001
22 - 1990
21 - 1980
20 - 1969
19 - 1958
18 - 1948
17 - 1937
16 - 1928
15 - 1918
14 - 1906
13 - 1893
12 - 1884
11 - 1871
10 - 1860
09 - 1848
08 - 1837
07 - 1830
06 - 1816
05 - 1805
04 - 1788
03 - 1778
02 - 1770
01 - 1761
00 - 1750

The changes didn’t really change the result in the differences in cycle length that you saw.

I don’t do very well looking at numbers so I put it in chart form and attached it so other people can see what you are seeing.

Jim

[William]

In reply to tusenfem's comment:
However, as the solar magnetic field is basically created by "rotational" motion (be it rotation of the Sun or convective motion), I would not be very surprised that apart from the 11 year quasi-period, there will be other periods superposed on it.

I thought the timing of the solar cycle was due to the speed of the solar conveyor. Assuming Parker's mechanism where the magnetic seed for the next cycle's sunspots are carried down into the tachocline where differential rotation between the radiative zone and the convection zone create a strong magnetic field in the tachocline, which then floats up to the surface of the sun.

I am not sure what would cause a change to the solar conveyor speed.

The large planets move the sun so perhaps when there is a change in solar direction the differential motion of radiative zone to convection zone reduces the spacing in the tachocline thereby affecting the timing when the new sunspot is released. The new sunspot's magnetic field strength must be sufficient to survive its trip through the convection zone.

If the tachocline were disturbed, assuming that mechanism, sunspots for the next cycle would still be produced but would not survive the trip through the tachocline.

After an interrupted cycle the next cycles would no longer have magnetic seeds to restart the process. I wonder how the sun would restart a deep interrupted cycle.

If solar cycle 24 has been interrupted there should be data to prove or disprove a number of theories.

Comment: The first sunspot for December has appeared in the south west limb of the sun.

[tusenfem]

However, as the solar magnetic field is basically created by "rotational" motion (be it rotation of the Sun or convective motion), I would not be very surprised that apart from the 11 year quasi-period, there will be other periods superposed on it.

I thought the timing of the solar cycle was due to the speed of the solar conveyor.

[snip]

If solar cycle 24 has been interrupted there should be data to prove or disprove a number of theories.

Comment: The first sunspot for December has appeared in the south west limb of the sun.

Interesting! This whole big answer has absolutely nothing to do with the comment I made about there being a possibility of multiple periods being present in the magnetic cyclus of the sun.

[William]

Originally Posted by Tusenfem: Interesting! This whole big answer has absolutely nothing to do with the comment I made about there being a possibility of multiple periods being present in the magnetic cycle of the sun.

The point is the solar magnetic cycle variation (length, magnitude, and so forth) has both internal and external drivers. As noted if the large planets change the tachocline, then there is both long and very long periodicity in the change.

[William]

Jan Avestad’s daily solar activity summary site has moved to:

http://www.solen.info/solar/

[pie33]

However, as Dr. Willian Campbell Douglass notes: “The longer our current cycle 23 lasts before we see a true ramp up of cycle 24, the greater chance it seems then that cycle 24 will be a low one.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/1...-sunspots-gone

Cycle 24 is starting late, by the middle of 2009. This 13 year late cycle means that cycle 24 may also be low output, which then lead into cycel 25 and the the comming mini ice age.