Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 05 Dec 2016, 08:38:45

News from NASA. Pretty pictures to go with story at link below the quote.

The sun could be the star of some interstellar Clearasil commercial right now, because there’s barely a spot on it. According to NASA, our nearest star is looking so fresh and clean because it hit its lowest level of solar activity since 2011 — almost exactly five years ago.

On Monday, NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory posted a video of our squeaky-clean sun, and explained that it was on its way to solar minimum, a time in the sun’s roughly 11-year solar cycle when there are almost no sunspots. NASA describes it as a “pendulum-like pattern,” and notes that there have been very, very few sunspots over the past “several days.”

The last time the sun was this spotless was in 2011 in mid-November, during a stretch that lasted from the 14th to the 18th. A few years after that, the sun reached its most-recent peak of solar activity in early 2014.

NASA says the number of sunspots — normal, temporary blemishes on the star’s surface as a result of reduced surface temperature in that area — has been declining faster than they expected, though it doesn’t appear that the quicker rate will move up the solar cycle timeline. The sun is still expected to hit its true solar minimum in 2021.

Just because the sun is spot-free now, and headed towards an even cleaner future, doesn’t mean there won’t be some sunspot breakouts before then. In fact, they might be sprouting up with a vengeance. “No doubt more and larger sunspots will inevitably appear, but we’ll just have to wait and see,” NASA wrote in its blog post.


https://www.inverse.com/article/24395-s ... cycle-nasa
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14045
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby sparky » Mon 05 Dec 2016, 18:24:00

.
Well that is to be expected , we are at the end of cycle 24 after all ,
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar ... rogression

the first spot of cycle 25 should appear shortly , on the sun Northern hemisphere
the pundits are still strangely silent ,no forecasts , which is weird

the most creditable of the heliophysicists is Dr Leif Svalgaard (Stanford University, California, USA)
he got the very official World Data Centre [WDC]–SILSO to correct their historical sunspot counts
he was one of the very few who made a good call on Cycle 24 intensity
that got him to be abused as a "denier"
his take is that cycle 25 will be similar to the last one
which get him to be dismissed as a global warming stooge

a fun site , with plenty of data , including the meteorites forecast and space radiations
http://www.spaceweather.com/
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby dissident » Mon 05 Dec 2016, 19:08:25

Anyone who claims the surge of warming in the last 30 years is due to solar activity is a crank and a denier. The TSI has actually gone down during this period. The TSI is measured and not guessed at.

Some people have a hard time understanding a repeating harmonic superimposed on a linear trend line. If you want warming to be accounted by the TSI over the last 30 years you need and large increase in the solar output beyond anything known by science. A factor of six increase on the current solar cycle magnitude.

That somebody guessed some sunspots right is nothing to write home about. Your hero does not have a solar dynamics model which he could make actual quantitative forecasts with. Such models don't exist. Empirical black box models based on the observational history are limited by definition. In short we do not know all the variables and assuming the past is a perfect predictor of the future is BS.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4947
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby sparky » Fri 23 Dec 2016, 18:43:19

.
Hurra! the very first sunspot of cycle 25 has just been observed
http://www.stce.be/node/359
it's a bit of a weird one , much lower latitude than expected !
Still , it came pretty much on time and can give some indication of what is to come for the next 11 years

the brave souls which stick their necks out forecast the same intensity as cycle 24 , between 60 to 70 Ri
it's not very strong at all but the fear of a missing cycle seems to have been too pessimistic .

that will drive down the Total Solar Irradiance average , it will be then possible to quantifies the Solar forcing

P.S @ dissident
"That somebody guessed some sunspots right is nothing to write home about. Your hero does not have a solar dynamics model "

Leif Svalgaard is a tenured professor at Stanford university , his works have 3000 citations in published papers
he has been on NASA panels on the subject of Heliophysic ,
recently his work on the re-calibration of the solar intensity record has been accepted by the World Data Center for the production, preservation and dissemination of the international sunspot number , that's the OFFICIAL body .
http://www.sidc.be/silso/home
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby kiwichick » Fri 23 Dec 2016, 22:59:44

Hi Sparky.....thanks for your post.....and in words of one syllable ....what is the significance of quantifying the solar forcing.....apology's for my denseness...........
User avatar
kiwichick
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 24 Dec 2016, 02:14:37

kiwichick wrote:Hi Sparky.....thanks for your post.....and in words of one syllable ....what is the significance of quantifying the solar forcing.....apology's for my denseness...........


Not Sparky but will throw in my 2 cents. Solar forcing is the relationship between the number of sunspots and the total energy output by the surface of the sun that can be received by the Earth and other planets. A very active peak to the 11 year cycle makes the Earth slightly, and I do mean slightly, warmer than a low peak or the current nadir point.

With 400 ppmv CO2 plus other GHG in the atmosphere the variation in irradiance from the sunspot cycle becomes very much less significant than it was when we siting around 275 ppmv and went through the Maunder Minimum.

Some people blame the little Ice Age on the Maunder Minimum, the period when the sun had only a few spots at a time from 1645 to 1715 as seen in this graph tracking back to when Sunspots were first discovered.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... umbers.png
Image

If you look at the spikes and swoops in the graph you might notice that over the top of the 11 year cycle everyone talks about there is also a 100 year cycle which you can see as a low sunspot number in the first full cycle after 1800 and again after 1900 and not surprisingly also in the most recent cycle after 2000. There are a number of scientists who support or disagree with the 100 year cycle and a large number of cycle lengths other than the 11 year short cycle have been proposed by various scientists over the years. It is even possible that there are several competing cycles that all line up around some longer number like 105 years or 2500 years.

If cycle 24 has actually ended early and Cycle 25 is about to start then the next 6 years will possibly lead to a much higher number at peak than the last 11 years did. The truth is scientists don't understand the physics well enough yet to predict with any accuracy how strong the next cycle will be. We could set an all new record high number or stay with a very low number for a decade or several decades, we can see evidence of both events occurring in the 406 years since sunspots were discovered in 1610.

Oh and from maximum to minimum the difference in solar output over the 11 year cycle is on the order of 1 Watt per square meter of the disc of the Earth. CO2 alone is providing a 1.9 Watt per meter square forcing 24/7/365 compared to pre industrial. On top of that the current Methane forcing is around 0.5 Watts m^2 and Nitrous Oxide is around 0.2 Watts m^2. With the forcing from just those top three man caused GHG changes we are talking about 2.6 Watts m^2 which totally swamps the 1 Watt m^2 effect of the solar cycle.

Solar cycles are interesting and worth learning about, but they are no longer considered by most climate scientists as a major driver of change unless the planet is right at a threshold value. The Little Ice Age caused very noticeable effects because the pre industrial GHG forcing levels were significantly lower than they are today. Then if you factor in the large volcanic events of the later 1700's and early 1800's the cooling effect had a large impact on crops in Europe and North America which caused crop failures that have been blamed in part for the French Revolution. Hungry people are liable to trow out whomever is in charge in hopes that the replacement will provide a better opportunity to survive.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14045
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby kiwichick » Sat 24 Dec 2016, 04:36:34

thanks for that T.....I think I've got it .....could I summarize that as ....we have been though a period where the sun has sent us (very ) slightly less energy but we could be heading towards a period of (very ) slightly more energy heading our way .....or not...


10.30 pm Christmas Eve here ...its just getting dark outside.....I can still see the last of the twilight off to the southeast......Merry Christmas everyone....and may 2017 be a great year for you and yours .....kc...
User avatar
kiwichick
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby sparky » Sat 24 Dec 2016, 07:27:46

.
The Sun forcing effect is what drive the Earth temperature from about 3 degree Kelvin to 286 Degree Kelvin
it is responsible for 99.9% of the Earth temperature
( the residual is tidal stress from the moon , internal radioactive transfer and background cosmic radiations )

the variation of the Total solar irradiance is badly understood , while the IPCC give a forcing of +0.05 (0.0 to +0.10)
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf

please note than a quoted lower value of 0.0 wm2 would mean that the sun has no influence on the Earth temperature
which is plain rubbish and the IPCC should bow its head in shame.

Any observer of the sun effect on the Earth would even seriously question the 0.10 Wm2 value as too low
the whole point of calibrating cycle 25 is to have a better estimate than the present guesswork fantasies
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby dissident » Sat 24 Dec 2016, 07:51:00

When comparing the solar "constant" variation in W/m^2 one has to consider geometric effects. So a 1 W/m^2 peak to trough variation has to be divided by a factor of 2 to account for the fact that the Sun does not shine on both sides of the planet. Another division factor needs to be applied to account for the geometry of the planet (the poles receive much less solar flux than the equator since solar photon streams are perpendicular to them); this is a cosine of latitude factor which integrates from pole to pole to a value of 0.5 and so we have division factor of 2. Then we need to take into account albedo since a large fraction of incoming sunlight gets reflected back to space without changing the energy budget of the ocean-atmosphere system. Expressed as a multiplicative factor it has a value of about 0.7.

Thus, the relevant number for the solar cycle incoming flux variation is not 1 W/m^2 but 0.175 W/m^2. This is almost 1/6 the primary input value. The thermal flux associated with CO2 is not subject to the above correction factors. So 1.9 W/m^2 is what you get everywhere and not for half the day and with no albedo effects. Another important thing is that taking the solar cycle change in TSI is meaningless. It is only the long term changes in the solar constant (TSI) which matters. The Earth has been exposed to the 11 year solar cycle for hundreds of millions of years. If that was the only solar variation then it would be in equilibrium with it. This brings me back to my point in my previous post. Since 1980 there has been a drop in TSI that is not related to the 11 year cycle. So the solar input trend is anticorrelated with the temperature trend.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4947
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby kiwichick » Sat 24 Dec 2016, 15:09:00

thanks Diss...so can I read from your post that the variation is essentially insignificant

and we are also receiving slightly less energy from the sun ??
User avatar
kiwichick
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 24 Dec 2016, 21:00:06

kiwichick wrote:thanks Diss...so can I read from your post that the variation is essentially insignificant

and we are also receiving slightly less energy from the sun ??


Exactly, take a look at this graph,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... e-data.png
Image


The solar irradiance intensity varies from 1365.5 to 1366.7 watts per square meter. 1.2 watts over a base number of 1365 is so much less than a 1 percent change it is really a trivial factor unless things are balanced on a knifes edge between Glacial and interglacial states.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14045
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby dissident » Sat 24 Dec 2016, 23:47:05

kiwichick wrote:thanks Diss...so can I read from your post that the variation is essentially insignificant

and we are also receiving slightly less energy from the sun ??


Yes. The climate responds not to the 11 year cycle but to the longer term variations in solar output. From the figure Tanada posted you can see a negative trend in solar irradiance since 1980. One way to look at it is that the 11 year cycle mostly cancels itself out, but these multi-decade and multi-century variations (and the associated trends) can persist long enough to build up a signal.

Someone may object that periodic forcings can produce resonances in systems (e.g. Tacoma Narrows bridge failure due to KH instability in the air flow). The atmosphere is not a solid structure like a bridge, building, or a vehicle. It is extremely difficult to induce a resonance. There is enough variation in this ocean-atmosphere system that it does not have the same resonance modes at all times. Solid objects have a coherent set of resonance modes that do not change significantly as the system is being forced.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4947
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby sparky » Tue 27 Dec 2016, 18:54:35

There has been a certain amount of controversy on the subject ,

While it certainly appear to be a disconnect in recent decades for TSI and global temperature
probably due largely to an anthropogenic component
the Numbers given by the IPCC are somewhat between fantasy and fraud

There is some pretty solid correlation ,
both from centennial trends and shorter ones , both for a positive to a negative forcing

Cycle 14 , at a pretty miserable 60 Ri ...world temperature were around -0.5 Dg
Cycle 6 , it didn't even make it to 50 Ri... it coincided with the "Dalton minimum"
Before 1755 and cycles got a number , there was the "Sporer minimum " and of course the infamous "Maunder minimum"

P.S @ dissident , just take the Earth as a disk of 7.4 Km2 ,that's where it all start ,
the interception of incoming solar radiation
It's not quite right of course , the Earth is an oblate sphere and there is the atmosphere refracting a bit more , it give us those colorful sunrises and sunsets !

how much of it get to the surface and what it does there is an interesting subject ,
but it can only be a much debated distribution problem ,the physic is OK ,the precise numbers still being worked on

as a brain teased , play with the numbers for human energy generation , the large part ending up as thermal waste

the world energy production is 588 quadrillions Btu per year ( EIA estimate for 2016 )
the conversion factor is 0.172325788 kWh for 1 Btu
there is 365 days , 24 hours
the earth radiating surface ( approximated as spherical ) is 510.1 million kM2
just work out the kWh forcing per square meter for radiating all this heat away
it is quite surprising
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 10 Jan 2017, 09:02:51

Flux and sun spots continue to diminish to almost nothing:

Image


Image
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16753
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby sparky » Tue 10 Jan 2017, 15:21:54

.
the trend toward zero sunspot is normal , we should be there in a couple of years or so
it's measured in "days without a sunspot" even at the bottom part of the cycle one pop out occasionally

Please note than the variation in irradiation go from 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 to 1362.8 ± 0.5 W m−2
the value were recalculated after the very deep and long lasting "quiet years" of 2006/2009
it is much more noticeable in the UV range .


NASA SORCE satellite has helped to re-calibrate the solar values and is used as one of the primary parameter for space Weather and climate modelling .
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sune ... 10yrs.html
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 23:12:17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmkOIlHbok

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffM ... ably-quiet

As Earth Warms Up, The Sun Is Remarkably Quiet

If you’re looking toward the sun to help explain this decade’s record global heat on Earth, look again. Solar activity has been below average for more than a decade, and the pattern appears set to continue, according to several top solar researchers. Solar Cycle 24, the one that will wrap up in the late 2010s, was the least active in more than a century. We now have outlooks for Cycle 25, the one that will prevail during the 2020s, and they’re calling for a cycle only about as strong as--and perhaps even less active than--Cycle 24.

Weak solar cycles tend to produce fewer solar storms, those dramatic bursts of magnetized material from the sun that generate spectacular auroral displays and play havoc with satellite-based systems and power grids on Earth. However, solar storms that do emerge during weak cycles can be among the most potent, notes Scott McIntosh (National Center for Atmospheric Research). Just as a catastrophic hurricane can occur in an otherwise quiet season, a quiet solar cycle can still cause devastating space weather, McIntosh told me.

If you look at the record of extreme events from the sun, they most often occur in weak cycles, and they almost always occur in the deep, descending part of the cycle,” he said.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16753
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby baha » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 07:41:38

In fact just this month we have reached 0 sunspots for an entire week. This is way early in the cycle. And yet the snow melted and the temp today will reach 70.

I worry about what happens when the Sun starts waking up again...there's going to be hell to pay. If we're still around.
A Solar fuel spill is otherwise known as a sunny day!
The energy density of a tank of FF's doesn't matter if it's empty.

https://monitoringpublic.solaredge.com/solaredge-web/p/kiosk?guid=19844186-d749-40d6-b848-191e899b37db
User avatar
baha
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2007, 02:00:00
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 11:18:58

All these projections that Cycle 25 will be as weak as 24 are unwarranted IMO.

They are based on computer models that use the current cycle as if it were a baseline, or so it appears. If you look at the available history going back to the 1600's there was a 100 year low cycle at the start of the 19th, 20th, and now 21st century. The next cycle after each of those low cycles however was much closer to an 'average' cycle. Looking at this I believe cycle 25 will be close to average no matter what the computer models are saying.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14045
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby dolanbaker » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 15:26:19

I did recently read somewhere that a sunspot from cycle 25 was spotted a few weeks ago which is perfectly possible as the cycles are not an exact science and they do overlap quite considerably, either that or it was a cycle 24 sunspot "in an unexpected location".
We won't know for sure until the actual minimum has "bottomed out" and cycle 25 starts ramping up as to what type of a cycle it is going to be, but there is evidence of there being several other cycles over the 11 year (or 22 year if you assume the full reversal of the magnetic field) a 100, 200 year and 400 year cycles have been reported.

Image
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3470
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 16:03:02

Or maybe they simply have the causality ass-backwards. Maybe clueless people driving SUVs are suppressing sunspots with excess atmospheric carbon dioxide, and causing a solar variation that is changing Earth's climate.

Yes, I'm sure if you hunt hard enough, you'll find that in peer-reviewed journals.

Image
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests