Welcome to Solar Maximum and a Spotless Sun

Posted: April 9, 2012 by Rog Tallbloke in Astrophysics, Politics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

We were told by the mainstream solar physicists Dikpati and Hathaway back in 2008 that they expected solar cycle 24 to be one of the largest ever. Their prediction model failed. I predicted in 2009 that the cycle 24 solar maximum monthly sunspot count might reach around 50 SSN, similar to levels reached in the Dalton Minimum at the start of the 1800’s.

Leif Svalgaard predicted 70-75 SSN on the basis of a heuristic approximation derived from the strength of the solar polar magnetic fields. With some help from some creative counting by SIDC, who started including the tiniest of ‘spots’, or ‘pores’ in the SSN figures he has been proved right in terms of the peak sunspot number reached so far, but according to Geoff Sharp’s ‘Layman’s Sunspot Count’ his and my lower predictions have been proved correct. Today the Sun is all but spotless. At 9am this morning the last small spot can be seen disappearing over the Eastern Limb of the Sun. This is a highly anomalous situation for this stage in the solar cycle, recently annotated on Leif’s daily updated chart of solar activity with the Legend:

Welcome to Solar Max


This is one sorry assed solar maximum, and the planetary theorists have been expecting a big solar slowdown around now, as predicted by Theodor Lanscheidt in 1988. Tim C and I came to the same conclusion last year, with our study on the cyclicities making up the solar variation. We published a plot giving a 50 year forecast:

Methods of solar prediction using cycles analysis  are proving to be more useful than those used by mainstream solar physicists. The reason for this is they represent an underling reality which holds across long time spans, unlike the capricious and unstable output of overtorqued dynamo models that rely on inherent instability to generate variation. As our research and theory development moves forward, I expect we’ll be adding more strong evidence that the consonance between planetary motion and solar activity first intuited by Johannes Kepler in 1619 and elucidated by Theodor Landscheidt in the 1970’s and ’80’s is real, and the need to reorganise our conceptions of the nature of interplanetary space will become more urgent. Something is transmitting force which can’t be accounted for within the current paradigm, the fundamental forces of gravity and electro-magnetism are more effective across the void than theory can currently explain.

Time to revisit the long believed in interplanetary medium Einstein eventually rejected on the basis of falsely reported results perhaps.

Comments
  1. Joe Lalonde says:

    TB,

    With the sun having very little activity, it has effected our outer atmosphere from picking up particles that would normally be spewing out of the sun. This then has changed the insulation thickness value as our atmosphere is still constantly losing mass to space.
    Due to our incorrect measuring of atmospheric pressure, we have missed the physical changes to the planet surface which has a different density from the atmosphere.

  2. Wayne Job says:

    Interestingly science seems to have ignored the fact that in a hard vacuum tube electrons appear uninvited. The missing ingredient in the universe is not dark matter or dark energy it is the void itself unrecognised seething with creative energy. Science has had its head buried in the sand for a hundred years trying to make sense of non sense.

    That a wrong turn occurred is becoming more obvious as the billions of $’s achieve nothing, going back to the original thinkers as you are doing may show the point where science took the wrong road. Looking from the outside the standard model and quantum mechanics look rather shaky as they run out of plugs to fill the holes.

    These are consensus science models in the same vein as the climate consensus models and as such are in about the same parlous condition.

    Keep pushing the truth Tallbloke it always wins.

  3. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Tallbloke: The reason for this is they represent an underling reality which holds across long time spans…
    Which is true, and such “underlying reality” cannot be denied anymore.

  4. Stephen Wilde says:

    Quite a number of theorists who referred to solar system dynamics having an effect on internal solar dynamics appear to be becoming vindicated.

    Timo Niroma was another who correctly anticipated the current solar quietness:

    http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html

  5. adolfogiurfa says:

    Up to recent times science supposed a space vacuum where some saw the deviation of the light from the stars around the sun, seen during an eclipse, as a “proof” of gravity acting on light, where the humble diffraction (an electromagnetic effect) explained it.
    Cosmic laws are not hidden from anyone of us, they are to be found everywhere provided we accept its existence, which has been rather “inconvenient” for the ideology of “chaos”, a way of thinking which could be the same as that of “cancer cells” if they could have something resembling a thinking.

  6. Richard111 says:

    @Stephen Wilde: thanks for the link to Timo Niroma. I can’t remember the CERN results on the cloud experiments. Anyone have a link please.

  7. SergeiMK says:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/625/1/522/pdf/61797.web.pdf

    You seem to be using an old version of TSI reconstruction. Leans etc version in the above paper is to all intents the same as svalgaard’s.

    Is it possible to replot using the more recent and so valid reconstructions?

  8. SergeiMK says:

    For some real matching of data and cycles there is this.

    http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/simulation

    An almost “perfect match” of cycles to temperature! Using a mere! 38 cycles (or 6 cycles).

    A bit meaningless really but doesn’t that applies to any curve fitting?

  9. tallbloke says:

    Hi Sergei, well if the ‘co2′ period of 2508 years in your linked curve fitting and it’s amplitude are right, we’re all gonna fry so there’s no point worrying about burning the gas. However, I doubt that any self respecting alarmist would admit to any such cyclicity, So the plot is junk, since it won’t hindcast the medieval warm period anyway.

    Regarding our plot, your concerns are addressed in the article it comes from, so I recommend you read that.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/

  10. Sparks says:

    Even tho I was expecting this, I’m actually a bit shocked that it happened, I watched as the SSN dropped to 38 then to 1 during solar maximum. How exciting is that!

  11. tempestnut says:

    The sun is a fascinating subject, and I have noticed a certain similarity between some solar physicists and climate scientists as the wheels come off their predictions. Why can’t they just say “we don’t know” rather than knock others predictions?

    One thing that has puzzled me has been how the inner planets contain so many, and so much of the heavier elements. We know they come from supernova, right,? and that this material is blasted to all corners. If our sun is just a “hydrogen ball” then why are the inner planets rocky?. The sun must contain lots of iron right? more than it has produced from its own fusion reaction. So what keeps it from collapsing given that iron cannot fuse further? Perhaps the reaction that drives the sun is something other than just hydrogen fusion? Perhaps we don’t know as much as we think and this is why the sun behaves as it does.

    Peter

  12. Roger Andrews says:

    A dumb question.

    How accurately can we count sunspots?

    I tried counting the number of sunspots on

    http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/391/cache/new-sunspot-prediction-method_39110_600x450.jpg

    and came up with anywhere between 20 and 50 depending on the criteria I used to define a sunspot. Eventually I decided that there was no correct answer. It all depended on how small I allowed the sunspot to become before I decreed that it wasn’t a sunspot any more.

    But then, what do I know about sunspots? Maybe one of you solar specialists could do a recount. :-)

  13. Sparks says:

    Roger Andrews says:
    April 9, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    that’s not a dumb question!

    (In official sunspot numbers It’s interesting to note that 0 = no sun spots)

    An observer using a high-powered telescope might see 10 or 20 Sun Spots. Using a space-based observatory At the same time you could see up to 50 or 100.

    NOAA uses a formula devised by Rudolph Wolf in 1848:

    R=k (10g+s),

    * s is the number of individual spots,
    * g is the number of sunspot groups, and
    * k is a factor that varies with location and instrumentation (usually <1) that accounts for observing conditions and the type of telescope (binoculars, space telescopes, etc.).

  14. tallbloke says:

    Tempestnut, good questions! Visit Prof Oliver Manuel’s website if you dare. :)
    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/

    We ran a thread for him here long ago when the blog was young and the world more innocent.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/oliver-manuel-on-the-solar-system/

    Roger A: See Geoff Sharp’s excellent work on the subject
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

  15. Roger Andrews says:

    Sparks:

    Interesting. Thank you.

    But at what point does a collection of individual sunspots become a “group”? And how large does a sunspot have to be before it’s a sunspot? And how is “k” quantified? There’s obviously still a lot of subjectivity here.

    One of the things that strikes me about the image I posted above is that if we replace the sunspots with mineral grains it would look just like many of the slabbed rock sections that I’ve looked at. But we geologists wouldn’t even attempt to count the individual grains on a section like that (we have to take our socks off to count over ten). Instead we would simply make an estimate of the percentage of mineral grains on the surface, which takes both number and size into account. And that’s the way I would do it for sunspots too.

    Another thing that strikes me is that the best way of estimating overall sunspot intensity might be with spectrophotometry (percent dark vs. percent light, or percent yellow vs. percent brown or whatever). Has anyone tried this?

  16. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    I took a look at Geoff Sharp’s work. A lot to take in all at once, but it answers some of my questions about threshold levels for defining sunspots, although they do seem to be constantly changing.

    However, I’m still left with questions like:

    Do sunspots tend to be larger during solar maximum or solar minimum, or are they the same?

    Do sunspots tend to be larger on the front or the back side of the solar cycle, or are they the same?

    What’s more important, the number of sunspots or the number-times-area product ? (seems to me it should be the latter).

    On a totally unrelated issue ,I see that at any moment now you will pass 750,000 hits, if you haven’t already done so. Congratulations.

  17. tallbloke says:

    “takes both number and size into account. And that’s the way I would do it for sunspots too.”

    There is the Greenwich sunspot area data, which Hathaway was keeping up to date as a hobby.
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml

    It is usefully seperated into N and S hemisphere, and I used it to conduct a study on sunspot hemispheric asymmetry, which I need to get back to, because it is important.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/sunspot-asymmetry-barycentre-to-solar-centre-link/

    I’m seeing 749,924 on the hit counter. About 40 mins to go. :)

  18. J Martin says:

    TB. Tim,

    Re your replication of the Lean TSI reconstruction.

    You stopped the projection much much much too early. It’s clear from the 2nd chart that the two major / longer term cycles were coming together and both trending down.

    It looks as if the projected TSI therefore had some considerable distance to fall, possibly going lower even than the Maunder minimum.

    Please resurrect the software that produced that graph and re-run it to 2200.

    Looking at chart 2 and attempting to estimate the lengths of the two largest cycles the purple and yellow cycles, I get the minimums of each to occur at;

    purple 2150
    yellow 2130

    giving a guestimated TSI drop well below the Maunder Minimum of;

    1.5 ?

    Did I read somewhere that we only need a drop of about 3 w /sq m to start a glaciation ?

    I don’t know what that would translate to in terms of temperature, but if TSI continues to relate to temperatures as per the first of the TSI graphs, then the UK (and all of the northern Hemisphere) would likely experience some difficult, perhaps impossible agricultural problems in 100 years or so. Would that be step one down into the next ice age ?

    That is one horrific potential projection you guys have produced. Please extend that graph to it’s obvious conclusion in 2200.

    – – – – –

    It’s interesting to note that the two largest cycles cancelled each other out during the Dalton Minimum, and that it was only the effect of the smaller cycles that produced the Dalton Minimum.

    It’s also of note that the two largest cycles were not in phase during the Maunder Minimum and that the TSi was held higher than might otherwise have been the case by the three smaller cycles.

    In other words from your unfinished projection we can expect the next minimum to be a great deal worse than the Maunder over the next 200 years. This time frame would tie in with the stuff Landscheidt was predicting.

    It should indeed be named the Landscheidt Minimum.

  19. Ninderthana says:

    I suppose, I better add my two cents into the mix by quoting our
    2008 paper http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS06018.htm
    based on research done in 2006.

    Note: The syzygy of Jupiter/Saturn nearest the solar maximum
    for solar cycle 24 was in March 2011. Since the
    maximum for solar cycle 24 will occur after March 2011,
    the prediction from my paper is that the next two solar
    cycles will be weak with peaks in sunspot number < 80.

    We performed a detailed comparison between the timing
    of the syzygies of Jupiter and Saturn and the times of solar
    maximum for all solar cycles since 1700. This comparison
    showed us that the peak amplitude of a given solar
    cycle depends on whether the syzygy that is nearest in
    time to solar maximum is before or after that maximum.

    If the syzygy of Jupiter and Saturn nearest solar maximum
    occurs after solar maximum, the peak wolf sunspot
    number at solar maximum is above 80. We find that the
    Sun remains in this ‘normal’ state for extended periods
    ranging from 55 to 115 yr. At the end of this extended
    period of ‘normal’ activity, the solar cycle appears to suffer
    a phase catastrophe, with the syzygy nearest the next
    solar maximum occurring before that maximum. When
    this happens, the peak amplitude of the sunspot cycle
    collapses, falling below a peak wolf sunspot number of
    80. The sunspot cycle remains in this collapsed state for
    approximately one Hale cycle before returning its ‘normal’
    state. We also note that when the ‘normal’ state is reestablished,
    the strength of the first Schwabe cycle remains
    subdued.

    This is exactly the type of behaviour you would expect
    to see if there is a drifting phase locked resonance between
    the 19.86-yr period of the planetary induced torques and
    the 22.3-yr period for the level of sunspot activity.
    In this model, when the syzygies of Jupiter and Saturn
    occur after solar maximum, the planetary torques acting on
    the Sun are in phase (or phase locked) with the solar cycle,
    producing a peakWolf sunspot number at solar maximum
    that is ‘normal’. However, the difference in the length
    of the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.86 yr)
    and the length of the Hale Cycle (22.3 yr) ensures that
    the resonance lock is broken once the two cycles drifted
    out of phase with each other by half a synodic period
    (∼9.9 yr). This would take ∼90 yr i.e. four Hale cycles
    (4.0×22.3=89.2 yr) or four and a half synodic periods
    (4.5×19.86=89.4 yr).

    The breaking of the phase lock is marked by a phase
    catastrophe. After this event, the syzygy of Jupiter and Saturn
    nearest solar maximum occurs before the next solar
    maximum. In this case, the planetary torque acting on the
    Sun is out of phase with the solar cycle, resulting in a collapse
    of the peak wolf sunspot number. Lose of phase lock
    initiates a phase drift between the planetary driving mechanism
    and the sunspot cycle that continues until phase lock
    is reestablished. The rate of phase drift between the two
    cycles is enhanced by a significant increase in the length of
    the collapsed sunspot cycles (∼2 yr) compared to the normal
    cycles. This leads to the reestablishment of phase-lock
    after only one Hale Cycle.

    Based on the premise that the period of the meridional
    flow in the convective zone of the Sun determines the
    length of the solar cycle, we propose that the mean period
    for this flow (∼22.3 yr) is determined by a Synodic (phase
    locked) ‘resonance’ between the flow period, the 178.7-yr
    period of the planetary induced torques on the Sun and the
    19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn. This is an
    8:9 resonance, with eight Hale cycles equal to nine synodic
    periods of Jupiter and Saturn equal to 178.8 yr (∼one
    de Vries, or Suese, Cycle).

    We propose that every 55 to 115 yr, the planetary driving
    mechanism for the solar cycle experiences a phase
    catastrophe that subdues the level of solar activity for
    roughly one Hale cycle. The timing of the phase catastrophe
    is a quasi-stochastic process that is loosely set by the
    temporal phase difference between the length of the Hale
    Cycle (∼22.3 yr) and the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn
    (19.86 yr). The quasi-stochastic nature in the timing of
    the phase catastrophe comes about simply because neither
    of the two interacting cycles has a fixed length. The length
    of the solar sunspot cycle can vary from 8.7 to 12.7 yr
    (Usoskin&Marsula 2003), while the length of the synodic
    period of Jupiter and Saturn can vary between 18.9 and
    20.6 yr. However, on average, we expect the phase catastrophes
    to reoccur roughly every 90 yr (∼ one Gleisberg
    cycle).

    Interestingly, the Sun’s solar cycle has been in the phase
    locked mode for the last 105 yr (1900–2005) and the
    indications are that it is about to suffer another phase catastrophe
    in the later part of cycle 24 (i.e. the solar cycle
    that will peak in ∼2011–2012). If this is the case, then
    we should expect that in the two decades following the
    phase catastrophe, the world’s mean temperature should
    be noticeably cooler i.e. the cooling should start in the late
    2010s. This claim is based on the precedent that there were
    noticeable decreases in the world’s mean temperature following
    the last two phase catastrophes. The cool period
    know as the Dalton Minimum (1800–1820) that followed
    the phase catastrophe in the early 1790s and a similar cool
    period called the Victorian Minimum (1880–1900) that
    followed the phase catastrophe in the late 1870s.

  20. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    Agreed. That looks like important stuff.

    Any chance of getting the data you used to construct the plots?

  21. tallbloke says:

    J Martin: we don’t want to start a panic :)
    It’s unlikely a glaciation would be provoked by a solar minimum. This is because glaciations are primarily a function of Earth’s changing orbital parameters, the Milankovitch cycles. Looking at those, we may get away with it, even though going on the last million years of regularity, we are due for glaciation at any time. We don’t want to try to project beyond 50 years yet, because the values for the cycle lengths the software derived from the Lean TSI proxy (which is imperfect), are not close enough to actual planetary cycle lengths to be confident beyond that time period.

    Another thing we intend to get back to. Bottom line is, no-one knows the future.

    Roger A: I’ll email you for a chat.

  22. tallbloke says:

    We’re over 3/4 million visits. Thanks everyone for keeping me busy. 8-)

  23. J Martin says:

    TB.

    From the end of the referred to article.

    “Given that the Lean TSI reconstruction is no doubt imperfect, there remains the question of how a curve generated by nearby exact planetary synodic frequencies would look compared to it. This is a project I’ll be undertaking soon.

    What happens when you project the synthesized curve further backwards and forwards in time?

    Watch this space, it’ll be worth your time, I promise.”

    Myself, I’m looking forward to it. One request though, take it to 2200.

    Actually if the public did panic it would at least have the beneficial side effect of bringing to an end the waste of money on windmills that increase co2 instead of lowering it. Putting money into heat pumps instead of windmills would be far more cost effective, and could even reduce co2.

    If the future does indeed start to look severe, I might have to start living like EM Smith, though as I would prefer a Mediterranean climate I might have to move somewhere warm and civilised first.

  24. Gerry says:

    Ninderthana,

    I agree that much can be learned by looking at solar-planetary dynamics as a recurrent phase-locked-loop system. In such a system loss of lock, with resulting loss of phase coherence, will frequently occur through “cycle slippage.” The instances of cycle slippage are what Landscheidt and others have called “phase catastrophes.” Phase-locked-loop systems have the inherent ability to regain phase lock and phase coherence at some point, however. Even in a robust and relatively simple system, though, it is difficult to predict exactly when cycle slippage and consequent loss of lock are apt to occur, or when phase-lock/phase-coherence is likely to be regained. Both these circumstances depend on the inherent resonant tuning of the system, and the solar-planetary system resonant tuning is quite complex. Jupiter is a clearly dominant driver, but the state of the entire system as a whole determines whether it is in a locked (coherent) or out-of-lock (noncoherent) phase mode.

    -Gerry

  25. vukcevic says:

    Stephen Wilde says: April 9, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    Timo Niroma was another who correctly anticipated the current solar quietness:

    Less than a year before Timo died, he wrote this on the old defunct SC24 blog

    Oct 1, 2008, 12:38pm, tilmari wrote:
    Vuckevic,
    I somehow knew that, and since I first saw your formula, I was very excited about it, but still I think it needs some refinement. Anyway, I feel some such formula that you are aiming at is both useful and needed, but I think first of all that Sun is in different state at different times, and one formula is never enough to cover all its behaviour. I appreciate your attempts and would ask you to continue, although I think the formulas needed are not an easy task.
    Timo

  26. vukcevic says:

    Roger Andrews says: April 9, 2012 at 4:03 pm
    ……………
    Sunspot count method should be blamed on Rudolf Wolf. He was deliberating for months about the problem. One day he went to buy some cheese, two apparent identical slices were marked 10 and 11 rappens. To his amazement shop girl explained that the 10 rappens slice did not have any holes but the 11 r slice had one hole (more holes in Swiss cheese more expensive it is). Hurrah (in German) he shouted, the rest is as they say history. :)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/suns-magnetics-remain-in-a-funk-sunspots-may-be-on-their-way-out/#comment-488577

  27. Bart Leplae says:

    In addition to the sun spot cycle reaching a maximum, we have:
    – the Polar Magnetic Field that is preparing for a reversal: http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
    – the velocity of the Sun (relative to the plane of the Solar System) has reached a minimum at the end of 2011 and is about to accelerate: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3647

    I put forward the hypothesis that both go hand-in-hand.
    The engine behind Solar Cycle is “magnetic induction” caused by the Sun accelarating/decelerating in a strong magnetic field. The acceleration/deceleration is caused by the effect of gravity caused by the planets. The strong magnetic field (external to the Sun) is the same field causing the extreme heating the Sun Corona.

    The sun spot cycle has stopped increasing because the engine behind it (magnetic induction) paused. The Polar Magnetic field reacts with a delay to the effect of magnetic induction (the magnetic reversal). The reversal is happening at the moment the solar spot count should have increased rapidly … this is what is behind the phase catastrophe. With ‘normal cycles’ the solar spots continue to increase until a maximum has been reached that is dependent on the already available magnetism (built up during the prior cycles).

  28. Roger Andrews says:

    Vuk:

    So the moon is made of green cheese and the sun is made of swiss cheese. That explains everything. ;-)

  29. pyromancer76 says:

    Congratulations. That 3/4 million should grow quickly thanks to the openness and timely, fascinating discussions — with respect.

    I also want to refer to J Martin’s concern. If not the return of an ice age, or rather a continuation of “our” glacial period, aren’t we about due to one of those Bond Events? I refer to the 6th century — fall of Rome and entry into the Dark Ages. See E.M. Smith and Bond Event Zero. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/ According to all those graphs, Ice Ages come upon us “slowly”; we have time to travel south (or north).

    Even more reason to be grateful for blogs such as yours, Tallbloke. If enough people can understand that we must get the science right, we might be able to redirect CAGW funds towards something “useful” and “helpful”, including real scientific research. God help us when we begin to get polar weather in temperate zones!

  30. Stephen Richards says:

    tallbloke says:

    April 9, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Roger

    Last I saw solar scientists were still having problems nailing the mathematics of the sun – milankovitch cycles to earth temperature. As I remember, and that’s an achievement these days, the MCs don’t change the solar insolation sufficiantly to produce an ice age. Am I correct.?

  31. tchannon says:

    In answer to questions here and previously I have written this article, posted below the top item
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/are-solar-flecks-being-counted/

  32. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Niderthana: ..When this happens, the peak amplitude of the sunspot cycle collapses,…
    Something happens, though more rapidly, in an electric induction motor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_motor ), when changing polarity from one stator field to another, and that is how energy is converted into work (gravity?).
    Anyway, it seems this week will be remembered as the “week when the cycle 24 solar dynamo belt broke” :-)
    Not forgetting that every Cycle is a Wave, and every wave is the way electromagnetism propagates.

  33. tallbloke says:

    Tim, excellent, thanks.

    Richard: In raw TSI terms the numbers are not big, but combined with changes in ocean circulation, I think they are sufficient. But I wasn’t therre to witness it with a thermometer network last time round, so it’s an open question.

  34. James says:

    The Sun may well have less spots of late but it seems to have gone mental in attracting water. I have spent the late afternoon and early evening watching a totally empty Estuary fill to the brim and some more.

    What power in gravity. Why are we not exploiting this? The energy required to pump millions (billions) of gallons of water in and out of just one estuary must be close on equalling or bettering all the windmills in existance produce.

  35. Scute says:

    I believe there was a post a few weeks ago about the neatness of the circa 11/22 year cycle of Saturn/Uranus conjunctions and oppositions (or I think I saw it in a link from a post). Anyway, I fed “2007” into the http://www.fourmilab.ch Solar System Live generator and found that Jupiter is exactly 90 degrees to the Saturn/Uranus opposition of that year. Seeing as what I had read was emphasising the effect that this S/U opposition might have on the Sun, it follows that Jupiter would have upset whatever that effect may have been in 2007. I realise that this would all be incorporated in Tim’s Algorithms but it’s interesting to see a possible instance of cause and effect. More importantly, that effect would seem to be influencing the generation of spots 5 years later. This would in turn shed light on the mechanisms that influence the development of the cycle and prove the fact that they are operating well in advance of the observed end result i.e. the spots, or lack of them.

    [ .ch added to link on the assumption that was meant --Tim]

  36. Roger Andrews says:

    Tim: Thanks for the data. I’m working with it now. So watch out.

  37. Sparks says:

    Well done, 3/4 million views and counting!!

  38. Sparks says:

    In 2004, The BBC posted a report titled “Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high”, the report inferred that the Suns spot cycle was amplifying man made global warming.

    “…over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth’s climate became steadily warmer”, “…the warming is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning”

    So, even tho the sun drives the Earths temperature “Causing it to warm and chill” the warming is being amplified by man made gases, remember the “1,000-year high”? Well, if we had just experienced man made global warming, caused by the sun amplified by the burning of fossil fuels, I think appropriate that man made global warming can NOW be considered unremarkable.

    Another BBC CAGW Cause and Effect = FAIL!!

    “The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.

    Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

    This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

    This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun’s latest attempt to warm the Earth. ”

    The BBC 6 July 2004
    Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3869753.stm

  39. Doug Proctor says:

    Interesting: a 2.0 W/m2 TOA TSI decrease by 2040, at the same time that reduced magnetic field protection could increase Earth’s cloud cover.

    Of course going from 26% cloud cover to 28% cloud cover (albedo change 0.15 to 0.65?) means that another 13.4 W/m2 of SI is reflected, for a total of 15.4 W/m2, whole earth 3.9 W/m2. Which is greater than the 2C proposed for a doubling of CO2 (3.4 W/m2). So we get some sort of global temperature drop (though I suspect buffering re-actions reduce a 2C drop to more like 0.4 – 0.6C).

    It’s all about adding up the various modifiers. Sometimes they combine positively, sometimes they negate, sometimes – like now – they combine negatively.

    Interesting times.

  40. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Sparks says: It´s time for us to forget those senseless ideologies. As I said time ago: “God is the ultimate conspirer”, so…..it´s over kids, game is finished!

  41. Ray Tomes says:

    One of the most consistent solar proxy and climate cycles is the 208 year cycle. Look back 208 years (actually 210 I think) and you have your answer.

  42. tchannon says:

    Ray, yes. What we need is the answer why. My suspicion is it lies in an unexpected place since many people have looked hard and found nothing. Outside the solar system is one possibility.

  43. adolfogiurfa says:

    @vukcevic: Hey Vuk, the time is due for you to give us a detailed explanation, as an electrical engineer you are, how this machinery works, presumably powered by the galaxy, a kind of induction electric motor with twelve stator coils around (?).

    It could be nice if someone manages to write a musical score which could be named “The Cycles of the Sun” out from your equation:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm

  44. lsvalgaard says:

    It is quite normal for low cycles to have zero or near zero sunspot number at maximum. The classical example is cycle 14:
    http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
    SC24 is thus not exceptional in that regard.
    The layman’s count is uncalibrated junk, trying to replicate solar cycle 5 in the mistaken belief that the SSN for that was determined by Wolf. Except that Wolf was not born yet and the values Rz has for SC5 were collected and processed by Wolfer in 1902. The numbers that Wolf collected were about twice as high.
    The SIDC is, if anything, undercounting the sunspot number, as they themselves admit.

  45. vukcevic says:

    Adolfo pay attention please.
    This is ultimate in the pseudoscience.
    I have added one more graph which with the ‘customary modesty’ I will call ‘the Vukcevic cycle’.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
    Numbers are:
    2×2 x S =118.628 and
    2x2x2 x J = 94.896
    Amplitude modulation gives:
    Fo= (F1+F2)/2 or To = 2(1/4S + 1/8J) = ~2*52.7 =105 years
    or if you wish 2*105 = 210 for a ‘DeVries Cycle’.
    105 year is a destructive cycle!
    The equation equilibrium (zero values) are on the graph and do not show any J-S angular consistency so gravitational effect appear to be excluded.
    I would suggest some kind of cumulative effect with occasional energy release:
    – Gravity doesn’t accumulate
    – Magnetic field doesn’t accumulate
    – Electric charge does accumulate and discharge ( bingo !)
    Since period of the cycle is pretty consistent, just above 50 years, and not related to the solar cycles intensity, charging by solar particles doesn’t appear to be the case.
    If the EU wasn’t pseudoscience, I would say ‘electric currents’ enters heliosphere, connect to the sun end exits, in which case charge is built-up during each J/S transit of the ‘plasma beam’, eventually strong enough to connect to something or another, and partially discharge , but on some other more rare occasions discharge maybe so strong to shut down the solar oscillations e.g. Maunder minimum.:)
    I have ‘hundred forty three’.’seventy nine’. ‘hundred forty three’.’ten’ reasons to firmly decline to associate myself with any of the EU thinking.:(

  46. tchannon says:

    Vuc,
    I don’t want to get into an argument. You link a comment showing a spurious FT because it was not properly windowed. Given the name on that and a history of insults to do with FT and goings on (reason will become clear), I want nothing to do with it. Not to do with you.
    Maybe discuss this some other time.

  47. vukcevic says:

    tchannon says: April 10, 2012 at 10:58 pm
    ………..
    No problem Tim, just delete anything which may be contentious. If you refer to the link
    ‘FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN.png’ it has been renamed so link is inoperative (you may need to click ‘refresh’ since it may be stored in your pc’s ‘temp. internet files’. You can also delete preceding sentence.

  48. Zeke says:

    There is no indication from Vuk’s post that he has understood the electric sun model. In the event that any reader wishes to research the (externally powered) electric star model from a reliable and original source, please visit
    http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

  49. Ninderthana says:

    Tchannon,

    I note that you keep invoking the windowing of the discrete FT (Fourier Transform) as a reason to ignore the FT of certain time series. I would like to briefly highlight two of the common problems associated with obtaining the discrete FT’s of spatial or time series data and maybe you can explain the specific problem(s) that you are having with the plots that are being posted by Vukcevic.

    Underlying this discussion is realization that discrete FT is only an approximation to the continuous FT, since by definition the former produces a finite number of frequencies and the latter an infinite number.

    1. Aliasing

    Nature normally gives a continuous (analog) signal that is varying in space or time [for the sake of argument I will assume that we are dealing with a signal that is varying in time and not space].

    In the real world, however, we are often presented with a sample of the underlying continuous signal, with the sample points being equally spaced in time (i.e. a time series). This means that if we want to obtain the FT of the sampled signal, we must use the discrete FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) to obtain a FT.

    In order to produce a valid discrete FFT of the underlying (continuous) signal, we have to sample the original (time-series) signal often enough so that we can reproduce it as faithfully as possible. This means that we need to sample the original signal often enough to be able to capture the high-frequency variations in the signal (these are the really sharp spikes and fluctuations in the signal). (Please see the following YouTube video and pdf file)

    http://redwood.berkeley.edu/bruno/npb261/aliasing.pdf

    One way to ensure that we do this, is to sample the signal at a frequency (Fs) that is at least twice the maximum fluctuation frequency (Fmax).

    __________________________________Fs > or = 2 x Fmax

    ________________________________Fs / 2 > or = F max

    Nyquist frequency = 1 / (2 x sampling interval) > or = Fmax

    e.g. If you’re sampling a rainfall record once every year – this means that sampling interval = 1 year

    the Nyquist frequency = 1 / (2 x 1) = 0.5 years^(-1)

    This means that your final FT should be free of aliasing for fluctuations that have periods that are longer than 2 years [since period = 1 / frequency].

    2. Leakage

    This comes about simply because the first and last points in the original (time-series) signal are non-zero. This means that there is a sharp discontinuity or step at the beginning and end of the sampled signal which introduces very high frequencies (fast fluctuations) into the signal. If these fast fluctuations (high frequencies) are not removed from the signal then they will cause aliasing into the final discrete FFT.

    The easiest way to remove these discontinuities in the sampled signal is to normalize the data by subtracting the mean and then apply a hanning window. This is a fancy way of saying that you multiply the time series data by a mask that smoothly decreases the data values to zero at either end of the time-series. The gradual drop off in signal to zero at either end ensures that sharp discontinuities are removed.

    I assume it is the latter that you are referring to in your post above.

  50. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Vukcevic:
    – Gravity doesn’t accumulate
    – Magnetic field doesn’t accumulate
    – Electric charge does accumulate and discharge

    However, the three are but aspects of the electromagnetic phenomenon:
    High on the mountains a dam retains water in order to make it fall down (gravity, work, force)to produce electricity (by moving a conductor in a magnetic field), then energy is transmitted through wires to your kitchen´s blender.
    You wake up…and go to the kitchen, then put your blender on..electricity (gravity, work, force) makes the rotor coil to be attracted from one surrounding stator coil to the following, there, in every change, work, force, gravity is regenerated (the one that was released at the dam).
    http://www.giurfa.com/unified_field.pdf
    Funny, but if you accumulate electricity you are accumulating: work,force, GRAVITY, for stirring your blender.

  51. Wayne Job says:

    That the sun decided to have a holiday at the peak of AGW madness when we were but a hairs breadth from having a UN directive controlling our lives, does show that the gods have a sense of humour. That the crazy policies of the west are geared for warming, we may end up a few Watts short in our power supplies. It is the time for all those scientists such as those that have been side lined by the consensus who’s predictions are coming true, to shout the truth from the roof tops.

    The danger for the welfare of all people on planet Earth is cooling, warming and CO2 is beneficial it is life blood and food. This sombulent sun bothers me not, but I have children and grand children who will suffer the agony of a green agenda driven by false political manipulated pseudo science.

    The true nature of our solar system and the effect of the universe on it is a long way from our understand of it. The climate of our planet is controlled almost exclusively by outside influences, what happens on our planet is only weather as our thermostats try to reach equilibrium in the midst of chaos. Those of the consensus and others who disregard the outside influences are playing with weather and as can easily be seen, not doing well on climate prediction, nor weather as they ignore the outside influences.

    Of recent times over at WUWT Roger was being savaged as an astrologer and I mentioned to Willis that our climate was controlled as he should know by outside influences. He told me that he knew no such thing, virtually telling me I am full of crap. So I posted a simple reply.

    Take away the sun and the planets and we are a dead rock in the void. Willis agreed.

    Thank you all who have been branded esoteric scientists in the past who’s studies are proving to be worth while in the pursuit of the truth, the sine waves within sine waves of the known and yet to be know cycles are harmonic, all different frequencies and they will go in and out of sync in all sorts of time periods. Thus our climate varies. Some one more intelligent than I once wrote. “Climate is what you expect, what you get is weather”

  52. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Wayne Job That the sun decided to have a holiday at the peak of AGW madness when we were but a hairs breadth from having a UN directive controlling our lives, does show that the gods have a sense of humor.

    The gods do…but the guys waiting for profits don´t, they will ask all their butlers to attend the final meeting, at the Rio Earth Summit, next June. They will own the amazon jungle to lease it like “carbon shares”. Global Warming is “Sustainability” now. Business as usual….

  53. Zeke says:

    adolfogiurfa says:
    April 12, 2012 at 3:31 pm
    “Global Warming is “Sustainability” now. Business as usual….”

    Yes, it will be the same “experts” shifting to the use of Resource Misery and Scarcity model predictions.

  54. Carla says:

    vukcevic says:
    April 9, 2012 at 7:06 pm
    Roger Andrews says: April 9, 2012 at 4:03 pm
    ……………
    Sunspot count method should be blamed on Rudolf Wolf. He was deliberating for months about the problem. One day he went to buy some cheese, two apparent identical slices were marked 10 and 11 rappens. To his amazement shop girl explained that the 10 rappens slice did not have any holes but the 11 r slice had one hole (more holes in Swiss cheese more expensive it is). Hurrah (in German) he shouted, the rest is as they say history
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Hi Vuks,
    Not so fast there..

    The Long-term Variation of Solar Activity
    Leif Svalgaard
    Pg. 24
    “The evidence for the Waldmeier Jump begins to be mind-numbing..”
    http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf

    Careful Vuks, Leif said mind numbing. ooooh scarey

    Until you planetary theorists can explain the Interstellar Magnetic Field compression (‘like sitting on a beach ball.” “David McComas IBEX lead) of the heliosphere to the relationship of the now defunct solar POLAR field (squash) and the source surface field bulging in the middle being stronger than the polar fields and the flux flowing to and fro from the polar fields being in some weird arse slow motion, I can’t see your planetary theory, though it is sometimes kinda interesting.
    How’s that for a run on sentence?

    What is happening over at solarcycle24? Looks deader than a door nail.

    Now what about that comet Lovejoy defying the solar gravitational influence? huh

  55. Carla says:

    One more thing McComas didn’t say dent in the nose of the heliosphere. Two different compressions we have going on. Two different mechanisms.

  56. tchannon says:

    Maybe 10 rappen cheese is less wholesome.

  57. malagabay says:

    Taking a non-scientific “chartist” view of the latest Hathaway “prediction” is interesting.
    Cycle 24 is evidently very compressed both vertically and horizontally…
    but the underlying signal is a lot cleaner with far less noise…
    therefore, the “chartist” view is clearer:
    1) Solar Max: end of 2011
    2) Solar Min: end of 2014 / early 2015

    http://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ssn_predict_2012_10_chartist.jpg?w=640