–
Frank B.
Immigration lawyer

High AM = high solar activity, but also causes grand minima when J/S angles are favorable (very common). Low AM coincides with low cycles (early 1900′s) but does not cause grand minima. Low AM is always when N/U are apposing.

The “center” of high AM is roughly 172 years apart, with windows of opportunity 40 years each side (partial line up). This gives us the Gleissberg type gap between high solar activity/grand minima that occur together. The gap changes depending on if all grand minima opportunities are taken. Before the MWP the J/S angles spread out the available grand minima type disturbances (green and red squares on 14C graph) You wont find solar high activity peaks or grand minima during times of low AM.

http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/solanki_sharp_detail.jpg

http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ultimate_graph2.jpg

Geoff Sharp (23:51:29) :
Less grand minima action coupled with increased angular momentum leads to higher solar activity as we have seen recently

Is presumably ‘the basics’: high Angular Momentum [AM] => high solar activity, thus low AM => low solar activity, and is associated with speeded up rotation, and this happens every 87 years.

So no longer an enigma…

perhaps not to me….but how you guys on the dynamo side come to acknowledge this pattern is very amusing.

The Doppler images do not show ’solar rotation’, but ‘winds’ in the atmosphere, much as the Earth has its trade winds [although the mechanism is different]. These winds [zonal flows as Rachel Howe correctly calls them] are caused by activity, not the other way around.

Thats one way at looking at the data…over the whole surface that might be a good explanation. But if we look at the equator where differential rotation due to latitude has little effect, there is a clear sign of rotation change.

So, low angular momentum speeds the Sun up? and occurs every 87 years…

Not even close…please learn the basics before embarrassing yourself.

As expected, the 14C records along with angular momentum records
So no longer an enigma…

As can been seen in current Doppler images the rotation rate of the Sun is increasing, this looks to happen when we have grand minima.
The Doppler images do not show ‘solar rotation’, but ‘winds’ in the atmosphere, much as the Earth has its trade winds [although the mechanism is different]. These winds [zonal flows as Rachel Howe correctly calls them] are caused by activity, not the other way around.

This phenomena also occurs when we have angular momentum disturbance and I suggest this is whats behind the Gleissberg cycle.
So, low angular momentum speeds the Sun up? and occurs every 87 years…

‘could’ is what we call a ‘weasel word’

Thats what “we” call a very cocky attitude…lets hope you dont fall in a heap. You have a lot riding on it.

Then, of course, it shows the Gleissberg cycle even better at 87.4 years

As expected, the 14C records along with angular momentum records clearly show a smaller period between the highs and lows of solar activity as we go back in time. This side of the MWP is very different to the other side.

Do you have a theory on what drives the so called Gleissberg cycle?
Many. Here is one: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999A&A…346..295P

More models…but a theory none the less. From what I can glean quickly this paper suggests differential rotation or torsional oscillation is the driver of the Gleissberg cycle, but doesnt offer much in the way of what changes this oscillation. A lot of science has recognized patterns and changes in the Sun, but not found the underlying cause. As can been seen in current Doppler images the rotation rate of the Sun is increasing, this looks to happen when we have grand minima. This phenomena also occurs when we have angular momentum disturbance and I suggest this is whats behind the Gleissberg cycle.

http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/doppler.jpg

Your power spectrum is as expected over the short time frame, how does the 100 year period look over 11000 years?
Then, of course, it shows the Gleissberg cycle even better at 87.4 years: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-INTCAL98-14C.png
The data is the 14C delta per mil. The same data used by Usokin/Solanky et al. It has 10 years resolution so cannot show periods shorter than twice that [20 years]. If one removes a running mean [or otherwise violate/massage the data, one can get rid off the rising power towards the longer periods.

Do you have a theory on what drives the so called Gleissberg cycle?
Many. Here is one: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999A&A…346..295P

Thanks for the abstracts and diagram, but I am confused and perhaps not seeing your point. Are you suggesting the 14C solar proxy data can be influenced by actions outside of those that create sunspots?

As an enhanced Biological response to increased uv.

Rob (16:22:02) :
Now you do not need an increasing heat source to achieve an increasing temperature, in this recent case just a high steady heat source will do and it.

If you shine light [heat] on an object its temperature will rise until it has such a value that the radiation from the object itself matches that from the source and the temperature will stay constant thereafter. Steady source = steady temperature.

Is the sun steady? or very slightly?
if slightly then what are the repercussions of even a small event? (For a length of time).
I think ( and no one cares what I think LOL) that this may be geo thermal linked, no proof, no evidence, just what I have seen in my pitiful 40 years, the ground is warmer. the air temp has not changed much, but the ground is warmer. had I known, I could have buried an outdoor temp. gauge 40 years ago and had proof.
Now prove CO2 has warmed the ground. second hand IR?

http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/newc141.jpg
Geoff Sharp (14:43:35) :
You got to love these hockey sticks showing up every where!

Thanks for the abstracts and diagram, but I am confused and perhaps not seeing your point. Are you suggesting the 14C solar proxy data can be influenced by actions outside of those that create sunspots?

Early 1900′s also coincide with low angular momentum, but hardly a grand minimum, and I wouldnt count your chickens yet, SC24 could be quite a bit lower than you have predicted.

Your power spectrum is as expected over the short time frame, how does the 100 year period look over 11000 years? Do you have a theory on what drives the so called Gleissberg cycle?

Here is a better perspective

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/nitratetemporal.png

EG http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000JA000238.shtml

And Here

Solar Proton Events: Stratospheric Sources of Nitric Oxide
Paul J. Crutzen 1, Ivar S. A. Isaksen 2, and George C. Reid 2

1 Aeronomy Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80302 and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Upper Atmosphere Project, Boulder 80303
2 Aeronomy Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder 80302

The production of nitric oxide (NO) in the stratosphere during each of the solar proton events of November 1960, September 1966, and August 1972 is calculated to have been comparable to or larger than the total average annual production of NO by the action of galactic cosmic rays. It is therefore very important to consider the effect of solar proton events on the temporal and spatial distribution of ozone in the stratosphere. A study of ozone distribution after such events may be particularly important for validating photochemical-diffusion models.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4201/457

Some would say that solar activity 1900-1920 was pretty low [as low as cycle 24 will be, it seems]. A FFT power spectrum of the sunspot series http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-1700-2013.png shows that the second largest peak is near 100 years. Clear evidence in the sunspot record as we have it. The period [100 years] would not be influenced by any uncertainty in the calibration of the SSN.

eg McCracken et al. (2001b) show that the SEP events follow the ~80-100 year Gleissberg cycle rather well.(As derived from no3 icecores)

The Gleissberg Cycle remains an enigma to me, I have not found any data so far, that backs up its cycle frequency other than perhaps the time frame between grand minima (which vary in intensity) which happens to fluctuate on average between 80-100 years…. although if we assume 2010 to be the next grand minimum and discount the SC20 single cycle relapse, we have a gap of roughly 180 years without severe solar slowdown. This is unusual and can account for the extra heat/activity in the system. Having said that, Solanki’s data finishes at 1895 and perhaps Usoskin’s reconstruction after 1895 might be considered exaggerated as also suggested by Svalgaard’s research.

What the 14C records show us is how often the Sun goes into slowdown mode.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/sep.jpg

eg McCracken et al. (2001b) show that the SEP events follow the ~80-100 year Gleissberg cycle rather well.(As derived from no3 icecores)