Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
dennis1983

Solar cycle 24 update

dennis1983
9 years ago

Hi

It has been awhile when i last time updated solar cycle 24 situation, so let's look where we are now. As i said earlier solar cycle 24 began in december 2008. Solar cycle comes from sunspot, which is darker area in sun surface and are cooler than other areas in surface so they can be seen. Solar cycle last on average 11 years, that is on average 4 years rise to solar cycle minimum to maximum and 7 years decline from solar cycle maximum to minimum. We use SSN which is smoothed sunspot number to smooth daily sunspot number so we can get big image of sun and reduce daily sunspot number fluctuation as sunspot number can go up and down day to day basis. Strong solar cycle rise faster than average to maximum, decline faster than average to minimum and last shorter time than average. Weak solar cycle rise to maximum slower than average, decline to minimum slower than average and last longer than average. If we draw image of solar cycle strong solar cycle have sharp peak, weak solar cycle looks like a having less sharp peak. That is main thing about this.

When sun is active and solar cycle is strong world is warm and temperature is warm. When sun is not active and weak solar cycle world is cold and temperature is cold. I have read on internet world is better place to be when weather is warm and when weather is cold it is less good place to be. I have read on internet quite abit about solar cycle, but let's keep this simple so it might be easier to get it idea without too much details.

Now we can look at our current solar cycle 24. Solar cycle have so far reached highest SSN in april 2014, we had earlier peak in 2012 but this SSN is higher than then so solar cycle 24 maximum moved here. That makes 64 months rise from solar minimum to maximum. That is 5 years and 4 months , which is longer than average rose time to maximum. Actually average rose time is not exactly 4 years, it is 50,8 months which is 4 years and 2 months. Same way decline from maximum to minimum is 81,5 months which is not exatly 7 years, it is 6 years and 9 months. If you round those numbers, you get that 4 years rose time and 7 years decline time. I didn't count decimal, so that number is not exactly right but you might saw it from those numbers. If we assume solar cycle 24 maximum is april 2014, i think we need to wait little bit to get confirmation to this, rose time from solar cycle minimum to maximum is 1 year and 2 months longer than average. That is sign of weak solar cycle.

When did rose time to maximum last time lasted this long? Solar cycle 16 which peaked in1920's after 62 months, that is 2 months shorter than current solar cycle rose time, solar cycle 12 peaked in 1880's after 61 months, solar cycle 7 peaked in 1820's after 74 months, solar cycle 6 peaked in 1810's after 68 months. Last solar cycle 23 rose 49 months, so current solar cycle 24 rose 1 year and 3 months longer time. Last solar cycle declined 102 months, which was second longest decline.

Now let's take a look solar cycle length, which is rise time + decline time of solar cycle. Last solar cycle 151 months which is 12 years and 7 months, average is 132,3 months which is 11 years. So last solar cycle was longer than average. Now if we assume solar cycle 24 had maximum in april 2014 and is 1 year longer in decline than average which is 8 years, that would give minimum in april 2022. I think this might not be case. Jovian perihilion is in april 2022. That is when jupiter is nearest to the sun. I have read sun don't have minimum same time as jupiter is nearest to the sun. Minimum is 0,5 - 2 years before or after when Jupiter is closest to sun. 0,5 years before that time would be O.K, but it is more of sign of strong solar cycle which solar cycle 24 is not so i think after that would be better estimate. So let's assume 0,5 years after that time, that would be october 2022. That would make solar cycle 24 13 years and 10 months long, that would be long solar cycle. That would make solar cycle one of longest solar cycles. Rush to the poles has been in solar cycle 24 much weaker and slower than in previous cycles. The shape of emission suggest that solar cycle 24 will be quite extended. Line suggest solar cycle 24 might end 2026 which would make solar cycle 24 18 years long. That would be very long solar cycle.

Solar cycle 24 might be one of weakest solar cycles in 200 years. I am not surprised of this. I have found on internet that longer sun is in weak state, colder temperature are in world. It is that solar cycle length which can show temperature change in world. We might be heading toward similar to Dalton minimum which was in early 1800's. This means we are going to global cooling, or something like declining temperature. I am little cautious about word global temperature, because i don't know what global temperature is, i meant definition of that. I know it somehow shows world average temperature. Going to time when temperature decline. That is based what we know temperature about past and what sun has doing past. I have read quite a bit this, but i keep it simple here. I have found on internet that temperature decline in some amount, when solar cycle length increase 1 year. If you remember above, current solar cycle 24 is behaving differently than newer cycles, it is more of line early 1900's or 1800's. I should perhaps mention, that solar cycle 25 which come after solar cycle 24 might be one of weakeast one in 400 years. I have read that previous cycle length can show temperature during next cycle (I guess there is some time lag in temperature). I don't remember how much temperature decline i saw on internet for Providence, Rhode Island but i think something about 1 celsius decline for next solar cycle 24. That is for annual temperature i think. Dalton minimum was in early 1800's, which was cold time. In that time there was year called year without a summer which is year 1816.

My message seems to be quite long, i think it would be good to think is it possible to we are going to have global cooling? I think it is possible. We are going to have 200 year cycle in solar cycle 24 or coming solar cycles. That cycle occurs in 200 years time intervals, it was last time in Dalton minimum time about 200 years ago, so we are due for it. In 2 000 years there is 10 those cycles (2 000/ 200=10). During past 2 000 years once this cycle failed to occur during medieval warm period, so it occured 9 times that is then 90% accurate. That this cycle timing is more accuretely 200 years +-20 years which 180-220 years but 200 years is good to say. Sun might put us to global cooling. That means we might have global cooling coming and temperature might be begin decline.

Comments (9)

  • northwoodswis4
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thank you, Dennis, for that very well-put explanation. It sounds like I had better look for zones 3 and 2 nursery stock from now on. Borderline hardy is not worth the gamble.
    Northwoodswis

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    What I don't get is they refuse to confirm solar activity is related to earth temperatures. But it seems pretty obvious from past data. I guess because the scientists are being paid to say other things, so they ignore this data. It sucks as I doubt I can wait 200 years for it to get warmer. The last time we had this large a decrease in sunspots (well as predicted to occur) we had a mini ice age. Looks like another is coming.

    These winters remind me of the winters when i was a kid. Snow in November. I guess we better get used to it.

  • dennis1983
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Northwoodswis hi

    You said about getting harder fruit trees. I think if global cooling is coming it wouldn't be straight line to down, i think there might be warmer weather time to time too. You have warmer summer there in U.S.A than about same zone farther nothern than you are so there might be more time to make fruits in fruit trees in U.S.A. Also when fruit trees become older they might become more tolerant of cold weather.

    Drew51 hi

    You have some questions there, i can give some ideas about them.

    "What I don't get is they refuse to confirm solar activity is related to earth temperatures."

    You are probably thinking about that when they are saying getting more co2 in air, temperature rise. Well let's try to see how they see it, something like this. They have seen co2 to rise and temperature rise. They see correlation here and when co2 rise, temperature rise is what they are seeing. Now someone says them to look at sun, they then to look at it. First they look at total solar irradiance which is how much energy sun sends out or something like that. That varies about 0,1% from maximum to minimum. Then they look at our temperature and say no that kind of small change would explain our temperature change, our temperature change is much bigger. If we think about sun how old it is and how long it is going to be there, bigger say many % deduction would be too much to loss in short time. Sun is there for many billions years, as we nowdays know. They may have looked data, but think humans are bigger factor here so they give bigger value of human things than sun. Yes you are right that it is obvious using common sense data, but that data needs to be right data not the data which don't shows real things or data that hide important information.

    " I guess because the scientists are being paid to say other things, so they ignore this data."

    If we think above mentioned thing, they think they have some kind of consensus or science is settled on this that human is causing warming, if you say something that doesn't fit their observation about warming you don't get money for study this because it is against their idea. Or you can have your own opinion, but we wrote it is not our group scientist opinion and say human activity over ride those other factors. Also i have read there has been things to try to hide decline or hide to medieval warm period, things that would make us to see that humans are causing warming. They want to keep their idea and don't like if you trying to tell things which don't fit their idea.

    "It sucks as I doubt I can wait 200 years for it to get warmer."

    I didn't say it would take 200 years for it to get warmer, i think we don't know when it gets warmer. I think it might depend on sun. That might take some time, to get big image how long cold weather last. Yes i know it is not good, but sun is the thing which we don't have control. Sun do it own things, it doesn't depend us you want it or not. But there is no need to feel guilty about it, if we are going to have bad time when global cooling comes, they also probably had bad time when it was cold last time during dalton minimum. I meant people who lived that time. Here would be could to take a thing from genesis james king bible : "And God said, Let there be light: and there was a light.". If you got the idea what i meant by that.

    "The last time we had this large a decrease in sunspots (well as predicted to occur) we had a mini ice age. Looks like another is coming."

    Well we had solar cycle 24 predictions, and some predictions for solar cycle 25. We don't have much predictions that would use our current techinical device to look sun as we didn't have those device to look sun long time yet. I meant satellite and that kind of to measure sun. Nasa use techinical approach for sun, but space age i think is about 50 years or something like that. We had telescope from about early 1600's. As this space age was relatively higher solar activity compared to 1800's sun they are surprised sun current activity. If you looked sun in the past, you could see that this weak solar cycle is coming, but i guess it is not so scientific idea to use cycles as ideas what sun is doing future. I think they want it to see sun in their calculations and measurement device and that way figure it out but, we have that way much more less data in time. You can use common sense to see those cycles. Mini ice age which you said is better known as little ice age but you mentioned same thing. We don't know yet how deep this global cooling is going to be but i think some cooling is probably coming. It depends on sun how much global cooling we might get. Yes there is chance for maunder minimum type cooling, you think we get that cold?

    "These winters remind me of the winters when i was a kid. Snow in November. I guess we better get used to it."

    I think it wouldn't be straight line to down, there might be some warm time there too.

  • windfall_rob
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    What data forms/evidence and measurements are being used to produce the historical records of previous solar cycles?

    How are these calibrated and correlated over time?

    How complete is the record and how much is estimated or projected?

  • steve333_gw
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thank you Dennis. Your info basically restates what I have been reading elsewhere.

    As you say, it is not simple "mechanics" here, but indicative of a general trend or tendency.

    One point, that cold summer of 1816, was due in large part to volcanic activity. That it happened during an overall cool spell probably made it worse, but it was not solely the effects of sunspots which caused that summer to happen.

  • dennis1983
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Windfall_rob hi

    We have sunspots which form solar cycle. Sunspots are darker area which is cooler area in solar surface so it can be seen in sun. We see them using telescope. You need filter in telescope to look at sun. Telescope was founded in early 1600's. When we look daily sun, we count sunspots to get sunspot number. Sunspot number is then calculated to get smoothed sunspot number. Nowdays we see smaller sunspot which we didn't see earlier times. Some say we count nowdays sunspecks. Smoothed sunspot number is smaller than average of monthly sunspot, i have not look at closer look much about calculation of SSN. I have looked in common way how SSN is calculated.

    I don't understand your second question. Our temperature measurements might be adjusted, i have read there might be 1 celsius difference on older data, difference of real temperature and measured temperature. Older temperature record is made By people, so people needed itself reading temperature and write it on paper. We might have some issues also in urban heat island. Also i have seen some people want to hide cooling in 1970's, correct it that way image looks more that humans is causing warming.

    First numbered solar cycle 1 began in 1755. We have sunspot numbers from about 1700's. It should keep in mind we have more sun data than temperature data. Our temperature data from 1800's is less amount than what we have from 1900's.

    Steve333 hi

    I think it is quite simple, i meant to get idea of solar influence our weather if you have looked enough it and think it yourself. I meant thinking what the other says about sun and thinking what that means and how it is going to work what they say.

    We got col during dalton minimum, but Mt Tambora eruption in 1815 was largest volcano eruption in 10 000 years. It put so much ash to the atmoshphere that it caused more cooling and temperature dropped further down.

  • windfall_rob
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    It's interesting stuff, I looked up answers to my questions.
    It appears that the really solid data with intentional measurements runs back to 1845.
    And there is pretty good data from 1750 on, but prior to that data gets weak and spotty, with lots of inferred peaks and mons from historic recollections of aurora displays and such.

    It seems likely the cycle can reveal a fair bit about the workings of our own star.
    But with only 250 years of decent data and a single climatic swing correlation during that time (which is likely accounted for by volcanic activity) it is a bit of a stretch to draw any strong conclusions of the cycles link to global climate. Most climatic science uses multiple data sources spanning 10's of thousands of years.
    It would be interesting to see if the record could be stretched back over a greater period. Obviously direct sun spot measurements can't predate telescopes with appropriate filters, but perhaps secondary effects of changes in incoming high energy radiation could be correlated. Something akin to cosmogenic nuclide dating.

    I was unclear on the relationship of jupiter's orbit with the solar activity. Is this presented as causal or coincident?

  • Konrad___far_north
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here some information about our sun, which our scientist still don't know...

    This was the question...
    Billy:

    ... But that which interests me now relates to our sun, its eruptions, the dark spots on the surface of the Sun, the magnetic field, the plasma vortex and energy mass, and the size in proportion to all planets and moons, and so forth, and everything of significance all around. I am especially interested in regard to the next year in which the Sun’s 11 year cycle of activity again occurs which, under certain circumstances, can lead to massive electromagnetic disturbances on the Earth, and in its outer realm of influence. If you can just say something general in a language understandable for us lay persons, about, for example, what occurred in recent years, what is happening presently and what can result in the coming time?

    Here is a link that might be useful: Sunspot Activity: Potentially catastrophic for Earth electronics.

  • dennis1983
    Original Author
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi

    One thing to add to that that Dalton minimum. When ever solar activity decrease, volcanic activity has increased. It is also said when volcanic activity increase, global temperature drop (suddenly plummet) down. When mt Tambora eploded, it put ash to the atmosphere, which prevent sunlight to get in to earth. That way next year 1816 was a without a summer because that ash from that explosion circulation around earth atmoshphere and preventing sun light to get in sun surface.

    Windfall_rob hi

    Your message seems quite critical. If you are looking sun data critically, you need to look also temperature data critically if you want found some ideas between them. Our temperature data from weather station is much weaker than it is from sun. If you look temperature from weather station you only get 1900's or late 1880's to have enough data to get some kind of overall temperture imag. Earlier than that you need to look proxies, which is not direct measurement of temperature. We have some temperature to going to 1600' but less weaher station with data so data is less reliable that way and that might increase about are those temperature correct let alone are they good overall image of temperature. We have 100 years of temperature or little over for man stations. If we would ask is the 100 years of temperature data enough for some conclusion or idea for geolocist they would shot it down immediately and say you can't say anything from so small time range. They use millions years from tree rings that kind of things to determine weather. Last 100 years temperature don't include Dalton minimum or other cold time, only mostly warm, relartively warm weather. Some cold wether in early 1900's and 1950's-1970's or so. It is good to ask is this 10 0 years or so temperature data good representation of wordl weather? It might be too short time, to say human is causing warming. I don't know what data you looked into. I have seen we have some data in earlier times, but as i told we haven't telesope before 1600, we have some earlier data you meantioned as you mentioned it.

    Do you mean i mentioned Dalton minimum? Weather during Dalton minimum was cold, but it is not only one with effect on temperature on here earth. I have wrote things simple way here. I have looked many weather text on internet. I have not looked only this Dalton minimum, other information too.

    Your last question about jupiter, when it is looked statistically sun try to avoid minimum when jupite is nearest to sun. Text said minimum and jovian perihilion never exatly meet. Also i have read if cycle maximum coincides with jupiter perihilion, maximum is either delayed or very low.