Ultralong Solar Cycle 23 and Possible Consequences
By Joe D’Aleo, Monday, May 26, 2008 [here]
In 1610, shortly after viewing the sun with his new telescope, Galileo Galilei made the first European observations of Sunspots. Daily observations were started at the Zurich Observatory in 1749 and with the addition of other observatories continuous observations were obtained starting in 1849. As a climatologist, I always found it amazing that we have had regular sunspot data far longer than we have had reliable coverage of temperature or precipitation.
Sunspots appear as dark spots on the surface of the Sun. Temperatures in the dark centers of sunspots drop to about 3700 K (compared to 5700 K for the surrounding photosphere). They typically last for several days, although very large ones may live for several weeks. Sunspots are magnetic regions on the Sun with magnetic field strengths thousands of times stronger than the Earth’s magnetic field. …
While the sunspots tend to make the Sun look darker, the faculae make it look brighter. During a sunspot cycle, the faculae actually win out over the sunspots and make the Sun appear slightly (about 0.1%) brighter at sunspot maximum that at sunspot minimum.
The sunspot number is calculated by first counting the number of sunspot groups and then the number of individual sunspots. The “sunspot number” is then given by the sum of the number of individual sunspots and ten times the number of groups. Monthly averages (updated monthly) of the sunspot numbers show that the number of sunspots visible on the sun waxes and wanes with an approximate 11-year cycle…
It appears from the evidence… that cycle 23 has not yet bottomed out and thus is at least 12 years long. …
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715, a period known as the Maunder Minimum. …
Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes.
[S]olar cycle length has been shown to correlate very well with temperatures. In an important paper in 1991, Friis-Christensen et al., compared the average temperature in the northern hemisphere with the average solar activity defined through the interval between successive sunspot maxima. …
Global temperatures appear to have peaked in 1998. The current longer quieter cycle 23 may be behind the cooling in the last 7+ years.
[T]here have been just four spots or pre-spot magnetic activity with characteristics of cycle 24. Meanwhile cycle 23 cycle spots continue. This suggests that cycle 24 may not kick in until later 2008 or even 2009. …
[NASA and others project that] cycle 24 will be quieter than 23 and that 25 and 26 will be very quiet and result in colder decades ahead.
A similar finding was made by Archibald who speculates a major cooling ahead that could rival or be worse than the Dalton Minimum.
Summary:
The sun undergoes cyclical changes on multiple time scales that appear to correlate very well with temperatures. Long and relatively quiet solar cycles historically have been associated with cold global temperatures, short and very active cycles, warm periods. The current cycle 23 appears to be the longest in at least a century and may project to quieter subsequent cycles and cooling temperatures ahead. [more]
by owl
I beg to differ, Owl. On all points. Solar cycles do not overlap, Solar Cycle 24 has not begun (or if it has, it has no spots), variation in cycle length correlates closely with global temps (unlike CO2 which doesn’t correlate at all), 2006 was cooler than 1998 (as have been all years since 1998-the warmest year since the 1930’s), and there have not been 3 La Nina’s in the last decade.
For expert discussions on all these points, I recommend ICECAP [here] and Watt’s Up With That [here].
by REX
me too Owl June July 08 still no spots actually 21 continuous days blank = 0. July temps might hit records low -0.5C to date see
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ 600mb
prominent Modelers/believers in AGW (Lucia) have falsified all the IPCC predictions, even Gavin (RC) has joined this discussion so there you go LOL
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/yet-another-way-to-test-the-ipcc-projections-they-still-arent-so-hot/
by John J.
Our family just returned from a camping trip in Yellowstone Park. We had not seen the park since the 1988 fires and we were expecting the worst. We were pleasantly surprised. The park has recovered quickly and the Yellowstone Fire Interpretive Center explains why. We recommend the park and the fire center highly. The fire center explained that 1988 was an extraordinary drought year and that, together with history making dry lightening, simply overwhelmed the park in fires. The fire center displays noted that these fires reoccur regularly every 250 to 400 years. It is interesting to research the 1988 Yellowstone fire and the factors leading up to it from a global warming perspective. Solar cycle 22 started just a couple of years before that summer of drought and dry lightening. Relative to other cycles, that solar cycle had 1) a very fast rise time - 2.8 years, 2) a very short cycle length - 9.7 years, 3) a high minimum sun spot number - 12.3, and 4) a high maximum sun spot number - 158.5. That solar cycle period can now be contrasted with the extended duration of solar cycle #23, to understand the increasingly cold winters we are experiencing. To help understand these natural forces at work, here is some additional information from by Richard Thompson. © Copyright IPS - Radio and Space Services.
Solar Cycle Number 22 (1986 - 1996) in Review
“Cycle 22 certainly provided us with many highlights. Early in the cycle the smoothed sunspot number (determined by the number of sunspots visible on the sun and used as the traditional measure of the cycle) climbed rapidly; in fact more rapidly than for any previously recorded cycle. This caused many to predict that it would eclipse Cycle 19 (peak sunspot number of 201) as the highest cycle on record. This was not to be as the sunspot number ceased climbing in early 1989 and reached a maximum in July of that year. Whilst not of record amplitude, Cycle 22 still rated as 4th of the recorded cycles and continued the run of recent large solar cycles (Cycles 18, 19 and 21 were all exceptional!). A very notable feature of Cycle 22 was that it had the shortest rise from minimum to maximum of any recorded cycle.
Sunspot Cycle Number Year of Minimum Minimum Sunspot Number Year of Maximum Maximum Sunspot Number Rise to Max (yrs) Fall to Min (yrs) Cycle Length (yrs)
14 1901.7 2.6 1907.0 64.2 5.3 6.6 11.9
15 1913.6 1.5 1917.6 105.4 4.0 6.0 10.0
16 1923.6 5.6 1928.4 78.1 4.8 5.4 10.2
17 1933.8 3.4 1937.4 119.2 3.6 6.8 10.4
18 1944.2 7.7 1947.5 151.8 3.3 6.8 10.1
19 1954.3 3.4 1957.9 201.3 3.6 7.0 10.6
20 1964.9 9.6 1968.9 110.6 4.0 7.6 11.6
21 1976.5 12.2 1979.9 164.5 3.4 6.9 10.3
22 1986.8 12.3 1989.6 158.5 2.8 6.8 9.7
23 1996.4 8.2 ? ?
The maximum phase brought some extraordinary intervals of activity. Prime amongst these was the March 1989 period which started on March 6th with the appearance of a large sunspot region on the eastern edge of the sun. The next 14 days produced 11 “X class” flares (the largest category in X-ray emission) and 48 “M class” (still very large flares). However, the most outstanding feature of the interval occurred on March 13-14 with one of the largest geomagnetic storms in the last 50 years. This storm had an amazing list of effects on earth and in space. Power systems in Canada and Sweden failed as large electric currents were induced in power lines and tripped protective relays. Increased atmospheric drag, resulting from the expansion of the earth’s outer atmosphere during the disturbance, altered the orbits of many satellites with the result that NASA lost track of some of them for a short period. Satellite navigation systems failed to operate and High Frequency (HF) communication systems were also out of action. Aurorae were sighted at quite equatorial latitudes.
The maximum phase of the cycle appeared to end rather abruptly in early 1992 when monthly values of sunspot number dropped significantly. The decline of Cycle 22 to its minimum in May 1996 was also remarkable because of the lack of major flare activity. The cycle had a multiple personality - malevolent in its first half and quite benign in its decline. This behaviour contrasts with Cycle 21 which was more active in its decline than during its rise or even its maximum.
The cycle was less than 10 years in duration - a fair bit shorter than the “traditional” eleven year cycle. However, it is an interesting fact that all but one of the last seven cycles have been less than eleven years (Cycle 20 was the exception). We are in an era not only of large solar cycles but also short ones!
There is an old saying that there is “nothing new under the sun” - but this does not apply to the sun itself! Cycle 22 proved to be a remarkable cycle by any measure.” Google “Solar Cycle 23” to get a better understanding of the current changes we are experiencing in our climate. Google “Solar Inertial Motion” to get a better understanding of the long cycles of solar activity and their impact on earth’s climate.
Regarding the “recovery” of YNP. It is ALL BULL****!!!
I was in YNP a couple of years ago with the Chief Scientist for Parks Canada, other scientists from Parks Canada, and Bob X [a well-known wildlife biologist]. Aspen has NOT recovered and willows have increased in height in only a few, select locations.
The idea that Ripple and Beschta floated in the scientific literature, and which has become the darling of the Greens and the media, that the wolves are moving the elk around thus allowing plant recovery, is pure scientific fiction! R&B do not claim that wolves have had any significant impact on elk numbers and instead claim wolves have induced elk behavioral effects called “the landscape of fear”.
At the end of our multi-day field trip, I asked Bob X a simple question. Yes, the wolves have moved some elk from point A to point B, and the willows have grown taller at point A, BUT (and this is a very large BUT) there used to be tall willows at point B where the elk are now concentrated. How are you ever going to restore tall willows at point B?
I and the Canadians are still waiting for an answer, because there is none under R&B’s view of the world. As to beaver, yes there are more beaver than in the past because a few,recently formed colonies on the northern range is more than the former 50 year mean of ZERO. Beaver have NOT been restored to their previous abundance! That too is BULL****.
In the Rocky Mtn parks of Canada, willows and beaver have just about completely recovered and aspen has recovered in high wolf use areas — all since wolves recolonized the parks, and this is on top of predation by grizzlies, black bears, and mtn lions. But, unlike here in the US, the Canadians readily admit this is because combined predation pressure has reduced the elk population by 80-90% or more. Plus, moose have just about been eliminated, as have mule deer.
Did you ever wonder why the Feds and the Greens never mention the work that has been done in Canada? It is because it does not fit their claim that predators have no effect on game numbers, which, of course, is more fiction. You may also be interested to know that Parks Canada now has a policy of allowing native hunters to reduce overly abundant ungulate populations in that nation’s national parks. The Canadians are light-years ahead of the Americans in park management, thanks in large part to Steven Woodley, Chief Scientist; Cliff White; Ian Pengelly; Tom Hurd, and others. “Natural” includes native hunting AND aboriginal burning.
I suggest people read Fred Wagner’s recent book on YNP [here].
There’s nothing unusual about overlapping cycles. Cycle 24 started in January 2008. Cycles are 9-13 years long; there’s nothing definitive about 11 years. NASA predicts Cycle 24 to be stronger, not weaker. The breakdown in the correlation between sunspots and global temps is a feature of current AGW evidence. There is no ‘7 years of cooling’- 2006 beat 1998 for warmest year overall (and 1998 featured a strong El Nino). Weaker temperature increases is mostly relates to 3 La Nina’s in the last decade.