No sunspots, nada, zip....
Posted on 02/13/2008 7:53:28 AM PST by Rurudyne
Sun's low magnetic activity may portend an ice age
The Canadian Space Agency’s radio telescope has been reporting Flux Density Values so low they will mean a mini ice age if they continue.
Like the number of sunspots, the Flux Density Values reflect the Sun’s magnetic activity, which affects the rate at which the Sun radiates energy and warmth. CSA project director Ken Tapping calls the radio telescope that supplies NASA and the rest of the world with daily values of the Sun’s magnetic activity a “stethoscope on the Sun”. In this case, however, it is the “doctor” whose health is directly affected by the readings.
This is because when the magnetic activity is low, the Sun is dimmer, and puts out less radiant warmth. If the Sun goes into dim mode, as it has in the past, the Earth gets much colder.
Tapping, who was originally from Kent, says that “Typically as you go through the ten or eleven year solar activity cycle you see the numbers go up or down. The lowest number is 64 or 68. The numbers 71 or 72 are very low, but they usually start to go up. We are at the end of a cycle, but the numbers still haven’t gone up. We have been joking around coffee that we may be seeing the Sun about to shut down.” (To date Tapping has been far more concerned about global warming.)
Here is the link to the latest flux report: http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/icarus/www/current_flux.shtml
(Excerpt) Read more at britsattheirbest.com ...
FRegards! TigersEye
I note in your post that you provide two different numbers:
“The average period for those cycles was 33 months with a standard deviation of +/- 5 months.”
Then later you say 38 months with a sd of +- 5. That makes a huge difference, given the current lag of 49 months.
If the correct number s 33 and the distribution of the lags is normal, then we are beyond 3 standard deviations—the probability of that happening randomly is less than 1%. OTOH if the number is 38, we are at about 2 standard deviations. The probability of that happening randomly is about 5%.
Does anyone know where to get the raw numbers from which these values were computed. The distribution of the numbers is just as important as the standard deviation and mean and I need the raw data to make any decisions about the distribution.
Thanks for the ping.
Having gone back, I see what you’re saying.
The value of “38 months” was based on the quote I cited that said that 33 +- 5 was “average” (please not that I used “If” in that post on at least one occasion). So “38” was only meant to indicate the long side of 33 +- 5 and not “38 +- 5”.
So at the time of posting (6 months ago), we were, as you say, beyond 3 standard deviations. Now we would be around 55 months instead of 49 (beyond 4 SD).
Post #400 briefly picked up on something along these lines: how the variation in the length in solar cycles correlates to warming and cooling.
I’ve looked a bit at the link AFPhys had provided (and which I reposted in #400) in hopes of finding clarification on solar cycle length; but, it suffers a bit from poor form ... as most people are really benefited if writers use more description as well as employ the old “tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you just told them” routine. Still, some data is there (in that link) as well as pointers to where more raw data should be.
Thanks. I’ll nose around a bit and see if I can come up with the data series. If that fails, I have a friend in CA who is a solar physicist. I’ll bet she knows where to find it.
Sure!
Have you heard of the Mexican scientist who has been suggesting that global cooling (even NASA has been predicting SC25 as the start of a Dalton minimum type era, others SC24 ... there’s a link to that back in post #120) may yield an 8 decade long mini-ice age?
I’m still not revising my investment portfolio to prefer canned beans and shotgun shells though.
FR automatically makes the links as long as you have no html tags in your text; otherwise you have to resort to the href stuff.
Thanks! Someone eventually explained it to me.
BTW ... Post #120 has a (not typo free ... the one about the amount of meat the sun produces is funny) exposition and summery if you’ve not been here before.
Yes, I have. But the article only cites his conclusion. Unless he has made a breakthru in predicting solar cycles of fundamental importance, it sounds like a lot of arm-waving to me. My attitude toward what he says is about the same as my attitude toward the AGW nuts. Show me the data. Show me your model. Show me your model does a good job predicting on data that wasn't known when you built your model. Then show me that it does a better job than simpler models do. Until then, it is all arm-waving. Either of them could be right. But we don't have any evidence that they are. (Caveat. The conclusion I reached about the Mexican scientist was based on a newspaper report. Maybe he has a better basis for his conclusion than my speculation based on that article.)
Sounds like you’re not revising your portfolio either. ^.–
Thank you for the ping. Sorry I’ve been away.
I’ve been interested in this correlation of cycle length to earth’s temp for some time now. I have to say that I was incredibly skeptical when I first ran across the suggestion that cycle length could even BE correlated, however, I’m now convinced that is the easiest and most accessible parameter we have now. I’ve been keeping track of this, and occasionally posting about it, for a couple years now. That Lassen paper I linked is a good summary, but not the only study of the cycle length vs. temp.
The one and only part that I’m really fuzzy about is the “lag time”, or “phase” relationship with temp vs. length. Clearly, the is one. I’m believing that using about a 25yr cycle length average, and a 5 yr lag of temp with that is on the order of reasonable. There are, however, definite VERY long time lags that get built in by the “Ocean Conveyor” and probably other ocean mechanisms as the heat that gets absorbed by the oceans is transported lower and then back up again. ... and who knows what other absorption/release mechanisms can result in delays or buffering of some type? Those really make it difficult to figure out what is going on. One certain thing is that this can be correlated to the bulk of the temperature changes seen the last two centuries.
Thanks for this thread, and the GoreHanson Minimum watch.
That “emerging spot” touted the last day or two certainly didn’t pan out much, did it?
2 Sep 08. Still no spots.
The solar cycle is important because it is a indicator of solar activity. There is correlation between earth temperatures and solar activity and as you note a time lag is involved, but sometimes there is deviation from the solar activity rhythms. There are additional Earth based factors. For example, volcanic eruptions on land can cool the lower atmosphere, while volcanic eruptions under water can warm the oceans.
How are things going? Any new updates?
Things are going ok, I guess.
But watching the solar flux has been a bit like watching some operas: you can leave for a while and by the time you get back very little has happened.
Case in point, today’s values:
Flux Density Values in sfu for 20:00 on 2008:09:19
Julian Day Number : 2454729.322
Carrington Rotation Number : 2074.746
Observed Flux Density : 0067.9
Flux Density Adjusted for 1 A.U. : 0068.4
URSI Series D Flux, Adj. x 0.9 : 0061.6
Hey...I was hoping this thread would last for the next 50 years!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.