NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) produced their monthly solar cycle progression update yesterday. The news is not encouraging. We’ve had a drop in solar activity again in December, The sunspot count is lower, but the really worrisome thing is the Ap geomagnetic index. The solar dynamo has now dropped to magnetic activity levels last seen in late 2009. Readers may recall this post from December 23rd: Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index Hits Zero which was a bit unusual this far into cycle 24.
Here’s the Ap Index from SWPC:
The Ap value of 3 was last seen in late 2009 and early 2010, which bracketed the lowest value seen in 10 years (on the SWPC graph) of Ap=2 in December 2009. It was also the lowest value in the record then. SWPC has since revised their data upwards from 1 to 2 for December 2009. Here’s what it looked like then:
And here is the story at that time:
The 10.7 centimeter radio flux is a bit more encouraging, but still rather anemic compared to where to where it should have been in the solar cycle.
Here’s the data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
The last major update to NOAA’s prediction came in May 2009 when they wrote:
May 8, 2009 — The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.
It seems to be time again for an update, since it seems likely that the “consensus prediction” has failed.
The Livingston and Penn data (from Dr. Leif Svalgaard) continues unabated and on track for sunspots to become invisible when the umbral magnetic field reaches ~1500 gauss.
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
But the rest of the world is now just getting around to realizing the significance of the work Livingston and Penn are doing related to sunspots. Science ran with a significant story: Say goodbye to sunspots
Here’s a prominent excerpt:
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning.
…
Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun’s face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
We live in interesting times.
I really love it when nature refuses to do what arrogant humans ‘want’ it to do!
The Sun does not have any Political alignment.
It does not care what the consensus is.
it will do whatever, and it shows that we know very little about it, since when ‘they’ say it should be higher and it isn’t, show us we need more money for research before we go gang busters over some trace gas called CO2….
Remove all the nanospots that were added to the count and that the sun should almost be a flat-liner.
Someone needs to tell Sol to shape up or ship out
I don’t want to pile on the solar scientists, but this went past embarrassing a long time ago.
And the sun is something we’ve been studying much longer than climate, and with quite a few less variables involved.
Should be an object lesson for all of science that yes, they’ve come a long way, but just a fraction of the total distance. Most of them seem to get fixated on the former, and miss the later. It’s called hubris.
Polar fields are on course for max around 2012
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
Polar field equation (updated from 2003/4) predicted long lasting slump, at least 2 more cycles.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
L&P effect has bottomed out and is not explaining anything exept that sun’s magnetic field grows weaker at periods of low cycles, so probably it was there in 1910, and 1810.
On the other hand high predictors may use it as a handy excuse for their failure.
Solar cooling….
Don’t know why folk are worried about the Sun, like that’s got anything to do with climate or weather (oops sorry I still had the sarcastic lock on my keyboard on!)…
Just what does “a low sunspot count” mean?
… anything between “nothing to see here” and “the beginning of the next iceage”.
The only thing we know for sure is that solar activity is not man-made, but as that’s never stopped the idiots in the eco-numbskull brigade from creating propaganda, I’m sure it won’t be long before we see: “man-made sunspot decrease!”
AGW is infectuous? How many other bodies in the solar system will be adversely affected by man’s continued disregard to the environment?
/sarc
Because of “settled science” being defined by “consensus”, that latter word has now become a standing joke in our house. “It is the consensus view”, announces my wife “that you will not be getting a glass of sherry before dinner.” And then she pours it.
The Livingston & Penn “B Gauss” graph looks like it’s trending to reach 1500 in around 2020 but earlier graphs they’ve drawn (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/) show 2015. Have they changed their prediction from 2015 to 2020?
“From the dawn of time, Man has yearned to destroy the Sun!”
— Montgomery Burns
I do not like the way NASA separates the actual data year average by six months from the predicted average curve. I wish they would extend the red prediction curve back six months before present so that we can see the predicted values for the next six months. The way it is now there is a six month gap.
Of course, this would reveal the error in their prediction, which they don’t want revealed.
The only part of the latest official ISES SSN prediction that might be right is the 2013 time of cycle 24 peak activity. If that is true, however, the peak ISES SSN is likely to be 60 or less. Just drop NOAA/SWPC’s ISES SSN prediction curve from 2011 to 2017 down 30 points to visualize what this might look like. Spotless again in 2017, probably.
My own theory is that solar activity is a lagging indicator of hemlines.
“Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.”
See, the supermajority overrides the sun’s veto power, so it now must conform to the panel’s decree. If it doesn’t, it will be seized and removed from power forcibly. Then we’ll elect a new sun from some other star system or something.
Oh my, and all those silly cosmic rays too. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/12/05&starttime=00:00&enddate=2011/01/05&endtime=23:18&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on You would think that they might have something to do with clouds or something.
CO2 just HAS to have something to do with this.
As a ham radio operator – I’m starting to get depressed.
Dan… Is that your theory… or your hope?
I’m sure some algorian politician will say mankind is to blame.
One implication of this is that you will be unable to use the excuse “it’s the Sun” to explain the continuing global warming over the coming decade.
“Solar physicist David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, agrees but with a caveat. “It’s an important paper,” he says. But the sunspot magnetic field calculations don’t take into account a lot of small sunspots that appeared during the last solar maximum. Those sunspots have weaker magnetic fields, which, if not included, could make the average sunspot magnetic field strength seem higher than it really was.”
Some cherries, some pie… ;-(
“It’s the PDO” has also bolted as an explanation. Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming (I say ‘if’ but I am quite sure it will) despite a negative PDO and a deep solar minimum (well we’ve already had that any look at 2010 temperatures!)?
Vuc,
Why do you say that the L&P effect has bottomed out?
It looks pretty linear to me, heading towards zero.
@Dan Collins,
Hemlines and cleavage. Don’t forget cleavage.
At least NOAA and others watch, count and graph . . . since . . . a picture is worth a thousand words.
There is this graph of Sunspot numbers that appears to the same one I printed for myself years ago. . .
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/ssn_yearly.jpg
and then there is this one which is not as visually appealing
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CJNBTtLEB_YJ:science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction/+Graph+of+yearly+averaged+sunspot+numbers+1610+to+2010&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
But. . . both charts demonstrate that there are “variations in the variation”.
Gosh, I hope this is not a national secret!
. . . .
Question. Is there some measure for sunspots analogous to ACE for hurricanes? That would seem to be a more usable number of relative sunspot activity than just counting spots.
onion, what warming and how do you measure it? GHCN? LOL
I have another little irritant for a bunch of solar scientists: their reconstruction of solar magnetic field is a ‘no-no’, or they will be faced with a proof of a powerful Sun – Earth magnetic link.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AllvsVuk.htm
field strong enough to control the Arctic temperatures, and from there most of Northern Hemisphere’s climate.
Link 1 and Link 2
Curious says: Have they changed their prediction from 2015 to 2020?
More or less yes they did. At that time there was too much critic how they achieved this. So they extend their observations and made the timeframe wider and later.
Under pressure everything becomes flexible.
However the trend remains and as it looks now the maximum will be in 2012 with ssn
30(smoothed)35(peak) and the radio flux 90(smoothed)95(peak). According L/P the expected ssn in 2015 is around 10-15.
The argument will be: “it’s little understood natural variability, not the trace gas CO2”.
I like the F10.7, it removes the arguments about that should be counted. When the dust has settled, we can maybe go back and see how the spot count has fared since it seems likely there are some new effects here.
Onion is quite sure of his facts, but seems to miss the point that some of us expect changes for reasons which are not yet clearly identified. Being able to better quantify any solar effect has to be good. In the sense that an 11 year cycle is not very clear in the data, we are only just at the point where the current cycle might appear to be low anyway. IFF it is a factor, the effect may take the rest of the cycle to notice – by which time the causality ought to have been observed. Interesting times indeed.
Maybe Leif it is time to introduce Ms. Janet Luhmann to the group here and what she had to say at the AGU Fall meeting of 2009 about the higher order spherical harmonics and their relationship to PFSS potential source surface fields. Reason being we gots no polar fields so might as well talk about source surface fields.
Excerpt AGU 2009 SF
Presentation Janet Luhmann starts 43:24 min into program
“Mapping the Sun’s Atmosphere into Interplanetary Space:
How recent changes in the solar dynamo are affecting the solar wind around us.”
..54:16
In addition, the higher order spherical harmonics contributions to the surface field are
stronger
relative to the dipole
than in the previous two cycles.
The traditional picture of the solar minimum solar wind emphasizes the idea of a dipolar corona and outputs from polar coronal hole sources that diverge to fill interplanetary space.
The solar wind density and interplanetary field both depend in part on the coronal hole areas.
The field also depends on the amount of photospheric flux that maps out of those areas.
Have coronal hole areas and the inferred flux that maps out changed this minimum?
57:21
The Potential Field Source Surface (PFSS) coronal field model allows global approximations to the coronal holes and interplanetary field for any surface field distrubution. The model captures the persistent low latitude coronal holes producing the recent solar ecliptic wind.
I wish people would expunge from text books all these stricltly dipolar solar wind pictures! Because they’re not generally applicable. There are times like the preseent where the solar wind really has low latitude sources that are;
dominating the ecliptic,
dominating our solar activity,
dominating what we are measuring upstream of the earth.
Another thing we found was that, we had to move the surface source of this potential field, source surface model, closer to the sun, in the past it had been fixed to assume 2.5 solar radii. (1.5-1.8 vs 2.5 solar radii)”””
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/U34A.shtml
Predicting solar cycle 24 has been a real bear. See:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
Predicting climate change is a lot easier since it is all so vague. Tipping points and disasters to be named later.
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm (Edit)
“It’s the PDO” has also bolted as an explanation. Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming (I say ‘if’ but I am quite sure it will) despite a negative PDO and a deep solar minimum (well we’ve already had that any look at 2010 temperatures!)?
2010 temperatures were dominated by an el nino which took two years to build. I would estimate that the ocean cooling currently under way will continue well into this year. I have predicted -0.32 +/- 0.05 by September on Roy Spencer’s metric. Temperature will end up lower than the low point before the last El nino started to build because heat content i n the topp 700m of ocean has fallen since 2003 when the sun went below 40SSN. The lag is thought to be around 7.5 years, so from June, global surface temp will start to tumble.
If I thought you had any money I’d offer you a bet.
Is there any data as to any changes in the constituents, density or speed of the solar wind (photons and particles) between a period of high solar activity with lots of visible sunspots and a period of high solar activity when the L & P effect is in full force and no sunspots are visible despite their presence?
I hesitate to suggest that the the sun is genuinely less active when the sun merely appears to be less active because Leif often tells us that there is little or no effect on TSI or activity levels when sunspots are rampant as compared to when they are invisible (but still present) due to the L & P effect.
Has anyone decided whether the Maunder Minimum was genuinely a low sunspot period or whether it was just an earlier example of the now named L & P effect ?
I noted a previous comment in the earlier thread that the progress of the L & P effect is ‘independent’ of the usual 11 year (approx) solar cycle. That would be just what we need to explain climate changes on a 1000 year climate cycle from MWP to LIA to date without having to worry about lack of reliable correlations with the 11 year solar cycle.
We could well have four entirely different solar states to consider as opposed to just the normal two, namely active with visible sunspots, inactive with no visible sunspots, active with invisible sunspots and inactive with no invisible sunspots.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Who’s been monkeying around with the Galactic Dimmer Switch? 😉
All NOAA and the worshipers in the Church of AGW have to do is read the works of Theodor Landscheidt and the Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1983-1999, The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity, S. Duhau and C. de Jager, to understand that the warming is over. We are entering a Little Ice Age, and meager CO2 increases from oceanic outgassing cannot slow it down one iota. Prepare for the brutal cold that awaits us in the winters of the next many decades.
These people are so brainwashed they have so subtly insert credence to the global warming science-via-consensus philosophy by stating that such decision-making is the norm in science.
Personally, I hope the world cools dramatically, I love the cold weather and such an event will hopefully wake up millions of people not only to the AGW lie but to other lies they’ve been told by the same people over the years (economic myths in particular).
It really could start a new Enlightenment.
‘Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming ‘
I don’t believe anyone shows any warming since 1998. The word “continues” is misleading in this context as it would imply that we are experiencing warming. We aren’t.
Yes, there certainly was warming between 1976 and 1998, but I don’t have any evidence of any warming since that time.
Thats easy view the sun through this,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/galileonewton.jpg
or this,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Scheinerscope2.jpg
But not this,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Wolf-Telescope.png
onion
January 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm
derrrp!
@ Onion: the “sceptic argument” will at least address true data, not fiddled GISS figures adjusted post hoc so that a warming trend always appears.
And please don’t trouble to come back until the warming you are so sure of approaches levels in the MWP. Take your time now …
when looking at the solar polar fields, be aware that
“[7] The polar field reversal is caused by unipolar magnetic flux from lower latitudes moving to the poles, canceling out opposite polarity flux already there, and eventually establishing new polar fields of reversed polarity [Harvey, 1996]. Because of the large aperture of the WSO instrument, the net flux over the aperture will be observed to be zero (the ‘‘apparent’’ reversal) about a year and a half before the last of the old flux has disappeared as opposite polarity flux moving up from lower latitudes begins to fill the equatorward portions of the aperture.”
You can see the polar field evolution as the second Figure
here
Reasonable extrapolation puts the apparent reversal past 2012, so the real maximum will probably be 2014. If Livingston&Penn are correct there might not be any visible spots, but their magnetic fields will still be there, we will still have a solar wind, and cosmic ray modulation. Already, the sunspot number is running way below it should be for the F10.7 values: http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-divergence.png
“Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming …”
Continues? When does it start?
There has been no statistically significant ‘global warming’ in 20 years. Or so says Phil Jones. We still are worshipping Phil, arent we?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:06 pm
You can see the polar field evolution as the second Figure
here
Tallbloke, speaking of bets, I can’t wait until 2017. In 2005 Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev bet climate modeler James Annan $10,000 that the globe would be cooler in 2012-2017 than it was 1998-2003.
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“It’s the PDO” has also bolted as an explanation. Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming (I say ‘if’ but I am quite sure it will) despite a negative PDO and a deep solar minimum (well we’ve already had that any look at 2010 temperatures!)?
Do you mean the natural warming green or the man made warming red.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/nEWzEALAND1900-2008.jpg
@Onion
The skeptic argument doesn’t lie directly with earth’s temperature so future rising temperatures, while surprising, won’t really change anything. The beef we have is with shoddy science pointing the blame at something that’s scientifically unlikely but politically desirable. If warming continues and someone can prove it’s man made using good science ™ then we’ll all become happy little consensus totting greenies too. If they can’t then we’re back to square 1, politicians getting rich off of bad science, skeptics one failed theory closer to truth.
What would I say if the world continues to warm?
Good – warmth is good.
Next stupid question.
New math:
source Al Gore
Humans = Infinity
I only started paying attention to the subject four years ago, but I seem to recall at that time the projections were calling for sunspot counts to max out above the level of the cycle 23 maximum, with a peak to peak cycle length less than the typical 11 years.
It would be instructive if someone could round up (or point to a collection of) the past projections for comparison.
Coaldust, I also do not like it that NOAA removes a month of the red line forecast each month, so there is a half-year gap between the moving average and what it was predicted to be.
They are Hiding the Incline. Another case of simply deleting inconvenient portions of a graph.
“The argument will be: “it’s little understood natural variability, not the trace gas CO2″.”
Who is going to really buy that though? You guys are quite clearly in the cooling prediction camp now. If the world instead warms over the next 2 decades that will be a massive successful prediction for AGW given how strongly advocating of cooling everyone here seems to be.
Already cooling is failing to happen. 2010 might have had an El Nino, but 1998 did too – and in fact that El Nino was stronger than the 2010 one. So why are UAH satellite temperatures for 1998 and 2010 tied?
Especially as 2010 is in a deep solar minimum and in a negative PDO. 1998 wasn’t in either of those conditions.
So what’s going on?
My suggestion is: Global warming is continuing. The PDO switch and solar minimum have merely slowed it down, not even been able to reverse it’s course. Now the sun and PDO can’t get any lower…expect imminent upward jump in global temperature. By the end of this La Nina I expect we’ll be clearly higher than previous ENSO neutral periods.
Robuk says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:00 pm
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Scheinerscope2.jpg
But not this,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Wolf-Telescope.png
You still have not learnt that the telescope does not matter, as scientists correct for any differences and that atmospheric turbulence [“seeing”] sets the limit, no matter how good the telescope.
@Mike Haseler:
I’m sure it won’t be long before we see: “man-made sunspot decrease!”
Typical denier, to refuse to accept the perfectly valid and proven ASS (Anthropogenic Solar Slump) theory. ASS models demonstrate that the recent increase in human electromagnetic activity is causing changes to the sun’s electromagnetic field. Although it may resemble similar changes observed in the past, we know without doubt that it’s different this time, since humans are producing radio waves – something that’s never happened in the past.
The only way to prevent catastrophic ASS is by immediately enacting legislation to curtail electromagnetic emissions – ESPECIALLY during the day, when they can reach the sun. We’re going to have to cut out radio and television broadcasting (except for NPR, since they broadcast on a frequency that doesn’t have any effect), cell phones, microwaves, etc., and start a definitive program for trading of RF Offsets. If we don’t act NOW, the Sun is going to go totally dark within as little as 20 billion years!
Here we are!…in the middle of “interesting times”, and it was all forecasted here in WUWT.
At the brink of an Apocalypse (Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις Apokálypsis; “lifting of the veil” or “revelation”)….
Then we are witnessing the “lifting” of many “veils”, the “revelation” of knowledge, as we see in this same post and commentaries.
NASA now predicts 59 to be the maximum sunspot count, lower than the 64 Ira reported last month here at WUWT. Ira also predicted a lower sunspot prediction, maybe a post-Christmas discount, and Ira was correct.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm
LOL! Onions makes crying
Curiousgeorge says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Who’s been monkeying around with the Galactic Dimmer Switch? 😉
~
Wasn’t me, I wasn’t the only one in the department at the time. (but usually make a good scapegoat) not laughing.
Heh.
Consensus is a tool for ordering pizza, not devising predictions with important policy effects.
Andrew,
"The sunspot count is lower, but the really worrisome thing is the Ap geomagnetic index. The solar dynamo has now dropped to magnetic activity levels last seen in late 2009. "
Your juxtapositioning of ‘Ap geomagnetic index’ and ‘solar dynamo’ is very misleading, implying that Ap is a measure of solar magnetism.
The Ap index is _not_ a measure of the solar magnetic field. It is a _planetary_ measure of disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field (along with its logarithmic cousin, Kp, the planetary K index)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-index
Yes, these indices are affected by solar activity, but only via the solar wind, a stream of charged particles from the Sun, which create counter currents which induce changes in geomagnetism.
Furthermore, it is not a measure of the magnetic field _strength_, rather it only measures _changes_ in the Earth’s magnetic field strength. Calling is a ‘solar geomagnetic index’ is a misnomer, because it is measured by magnetometers situated around the Earth, not by instruments measuring the solar magnetic activity.
So, “Ap=zero” does not mean the Earth’s magnetic field has vanished, merely that is “calm”, i.e. not changing. Higher numbers mean more disturbance, which are called “geomagnetic storms”.
Think of geomagnetic storms as magnetic “quakes”, analogous to earthquakes, except the magnetic field is trembling, not the ground. In this sense, the Ap/Kp indices are roughly analogous to the Richter scale used to measure the intensity of kinetic disturbances in the Earth’s crust.
onion says: January 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“It’s the PDO” has also bolted as an explanation. Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming (I say ‘if’ but I am quite sure it will) despite a negative PDO and a deep solar minimum (well we’ve already had that any look at 2010 temperatures!)?”
There are more oscillations than the PDO. I found out thanks to this site that there are more than half a dozen (what a load of reading over Christmas that was!). They interact, overlap, cancel and boost each other in patterns we don’t understand. It may be solar controlled or it could also be volcanic (both land and undersea).
We skeptics don’t know and we admit that we don’t know. We also have a silly thing about requiring a disprovable hypothesis. There is some real science being done and it is very fascinating to say the least.
We skeptics don’t look for the “next excuse”, we look for things that are wrong with theories. That is what we are supposed to do.
After what little SC24 has to say, the solar wind could just stop as it did for two days eleven years ago.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
The earth would quickly become shrouded in clouds and a new ice would start. Could the solar wind vanish for thousands of years; wind speed too low to break through the sun’s gravity. What evidence do we have that this could not happen?
If they can’t tax CO2, then maybe they’ll tax sunlight instead.
“Already cooling is failing to happen. 2010 might have had an El Nino, but 1998 did too – and in fact that El Nino was stronger than the 2010 one. So why are UAH satellite temperatures for 1998 and 2010 tied?”
Typical lightweight Alarmist analysis. It’s not just strength that matters in calculating an annual average, it’s also duration!
1998 2010
Jan 0.58 0.64
Feb 0.76 0.61
Mar 0.53 0.66
Apr 0.76 0.5
May 0.65 0.54
Jun 0.57 0.44
Jul 0.52 0.49
Aug 0.52 0.51
Sep 0.45 0.6
Oct 0.41 0.43
Nov 0.19 0.38
Dec 0.27 0.18
“There has been no statistically significant ‘global warming’ in 20 years.”
Yes there has. That’s why I said the world is warming.
So far the heroes in all this Svensmark and David Archibald, go unrecognized what a travesty. I can verify that cloudiness and precipitation here in Queensland, Australia anyway is increasing quite dramatically the mixture of the La Nina effect plus cosmic rays with of course low pressure troughs. I am predicting that DA’s massive drop in temps forecasted a few months too early will now occur globally or is occurring now…. I notice Leif has not made any comments re cosmic rays or does he still hold on to his objections to it? Look at Oulu graph carefully.
Onion says at 1:16pm
“My suggestion is: Global warming is continuing. The PDO switch and solar minimum have merely slowed it down, not even been able to reverse it’s course. Now the sun and PDO can’t get any lower…expect imminent upward jump in global temperature. By the end of this La Nina I expect we’ll be clearly higher than previous ENSO neutral periods.”
_____________________________________________________________
The PDO switch and solar minimum have only just begun. They don’t need to get any lower, just to persist for the next 20-30 years or so.
If that happens and the Earth continues to warm, then the case for AGW becomes a lot stronger.
If, on the other hand, the Earth cools back to pre-1980 levels or worse, then it has to be acknowledged that most of the observed changes during the 20th. century can be explained by natural variability (which is what I believe.)
The problem, on both sides on the debate, is that everybody is too impatient.They want answers today to questions that will be more clearly resolved when we have better evidence tomorrow.
I expect by the end of La Nina that I will win the Power Ball Lotto.
If not I will be in decline.
My curve data set.
crosspatch says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm
“I don’t believe anyone shows any warming since 1998. The word “continues” is misleading in this context as it would imply that we are experiencing warming. We aren’t.”
10 years is too short to measure any trend. Has there been a statistically significant lack of warming? Nope. The period is too short.
“Yes, there certainly was warming between 1976 and 1998, but I don’t have any evidence of any warming since that time.”
But there wasn’t any statistically significant warming between 1980 and 1995, so how can that be true?
The answer: 15 years, let alone 10 years is not enough time to conclude warming has stopped. So what we have is the current situation of warming in recent decades with no evidence that trend has stopped.
Andy Newport says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:09 pm
“The skeptic argument doesn’t lie directly with earth’s temperature so future rising temperatures, while surprising, won’t really change anything.”
Well it does. Sites like icecap.us and iceagenow.com only reinforce that skeptics have put their marker on the Earth cooling. There are plenty of advocates for ice ages and that global warming has peaked in 1998 and is now heading down. For good reason – all the natural factors are trending downward (ocean cycles, the sun). But if the Earth does continue warming what is left to explain it?
On one hand there is a good theory – manmade global warming – that expects such a thing. On the otherhand we have…nothing left. With PDO, solar cycle, etc all gone down the tube there really isn’t any fathomable explanation for why the Earth would continue warming. Not to mention the havoc another 0.3C warming will do for promoting an unprecedented level of modern warming vs the MWP.
I would say climate skepticism is quite firmly dependent on warming continuing no more.
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm
“The argument will be: “it’s little understood natural variability, not the trace gas CO2″.”
Who is going to really buy that though?
—-
A: Intelligent people.
—-
You are assuming the warming will continue when it has already stopped. Onion, it’s time to pull off your blinders and follow the data. The reliable (read: unadjusted) data.
geo says:
January 5, 2011 at 11:39 am
I don’t want to pile on the solar scientists, but this went past embarrassing a long time ago.
And the sun is something we’ve been studying much longer than climate, and with quite a few less variables involved.
Uh, maybe you should learn something about solar science, before you comment!
onion says ….
At the risk of feeding a potential troll, let me respond to your posts above.
What you don’t seem to understand is a true skeptic is skeptical because at the end of the day all good science is done via skeptical thinking. At the end of the day, a true skeptic wants scientific truth. Period. Plenty of right wing politicos have glommed on to the skeptical position because it fits their ideology, just as plenty of left wing politicos have glommed onto the AGW hypothesis because it fits their ideology.
Weather & climate are highly interpretative sciences – it’s not like a chemistry lab experiment where you can fully describe a procedure & conduct it under controlled conditions & be able to predict the result. If you aren’t skeptical when it comes to interpretive sciences, then you are only fooling yourself & in the end, you will lose.
The problem with AGW is that there is much more at stake. To suggest you shouldn’t be skeptical with so much on the line – bets being placed on an interpretive science – is absolutely the most absurd things I have ever heard suggested.
I have made a successful living being skeptical working in a profession based on interpretative science. In my professional life, the skeptics always come out ahead in the long run & I see no reason why AGW is any different. Why – because they make decisions based on data, not models. Let’s give it 30 year & collect more data – then, hopefully, we will actually have enough data that we can make some intelligent decisions.
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm
“If the world instead warms over the next 2 decades that will be a massive successful prediction for AGW given how strongly advocating of cooling everyone here seems to be.”
The ‘C’ in (C)AGW is based on the late 1970’s to 1990’s trend accelerating.
Without the ‘C’, AGW is right up their next to ‘increases in agricultural productivity’ on the list of human accomplishments.
JJ says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:06 pm
“Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming …”
Continues? When does it start?
There has been no statistically significant ‘global warming’ in 20 years. Or so says Phil Jones. We still are worshipping Phil, arent we?
20 years? Got a quote on that?
Or hey, talk to Dr. Spencer about it. I bet you can put a trend line through his data that says something to ya — http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-published-1998-still-warmest-year-in-the-uah-satellite-record/
Hey onion ever hear of the AMO?
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm
My suggestion is: Global warming is continuing. The PDO switch and solar minimum have merely slowed it down, not even been able to reverse it’s course.
Now here’s a cluebat candidate if ever I met one. Don’t you read the replies people take the trouble to give you?
Numpetry. Sheer numpetry.
Dr. Svalgaard
I ran across ge0050’s comment on Climate Etc. related to “Scenarios: 2010-2040. Part III: Climate Shifts” and wonder if Orbital Mechanics are considered a valid indicator of activity?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/04/scenarios-2010-2040-part-iii-climate-shifts/#comments
ge0050 | January 5, 2011 at 11:58 am
The climate cycles are well predicted by orbital mechanics. Much better then by CO2 models.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/fairbridge_rhodes.pdf
Each 179 years the sun begins a new cycle of the epitrochoid family of barycentric orbits; the most recent of these began in 1996 with Sunspot Cycle No. 23. Whilst the sun is in the beginning phase of the new epitrochoid cycle, solar output of all types is understood to decline and the climate on the earth cools. The four previous epitrochoid cycles began in about 1790, 1620, 1430 and 1270 respectively. Solar activity diminished during the first several decades of each of these epitrochoid cycles, resulting in a cooling of the earth. For example, Europe between the 1620s to the 1710s (the Maunder Minimum) was a time of intense cold, causing extensive havoc and misery. The Thames froze each winter and the alpine glaciers grew deep into the valleys. Between the 1790s and 1820s (the Dalton Minimum) was also a time of intense cold throughout Europe, with 1816 being considered one of the coldest of the last 250 years.ix All of the cold intervals have been well documented in both the standard climatological records and the broader historical record (FAGAN, 2000).
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbridge-ClimateandKeplerianPlanetaryDynamics.htm http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=bfeddc8e-90d7-4f54-9ca7-1f56fadc7c2b
My eyes are watering again. Is that onion misrepresenting my arguments and then knocking down the misrepresented argument? How fiendishly clever.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:06 pm
………..
Polar field curve
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
(including extrapolation) calculated by Excel as:
y = -0.0054x^6 + 65.532x^5 – 328589x^4 + 9E+08x^3 – 1E+12x^2 + 1E+15x – 4E+17
but curious thing is that PF max was in 2006, so this cycle is 4 years old, say another 2 years to max, would suggest at least 13+ year long cycle, similar to SC4, hence:
we are in new Dalton!
Leif
Are you in a position yet based upon observations, to lower your forecast of a peak SSN of 72 for Cycle 24? Do you have any thoughts yet on Cycle 25?
Thanks
Well said, Onion!
We have just ended the warmest year (2010) of the warmest decade on record (the 2000s), that during the deepest solar minimum in a century!
Now it seems that the sun is heading to a new Dalton Minimum…
Let’s make a bet:
in a few years if the climate scientists are right (as have been for decades) warming will continue in this decade, reaching new record warm years in a few years (just wait for the next moderate El Niño)…
If the “skeptics” are right, the warming trend that was observed between the 1970s and the 2000s will be replaced by a cooling trend driven by low solar activity.
Now let’s see what prediction is realized. So far the warming has continued unabated despite the deepest solar minimum in a century…
When will we be getting the promised raft of consolidated data on the sun, as we now have with polar ice levels? We spent too much effort on counting angels on pinheads in the latter case, and not enough on the former.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Already, the sunspot number is running way below it should be for the F10.7 values
Wow. Maybe not quite conclusive yet, but that is pretty clear. I see why you are so dismissive of anyone who claims the current count is inflated. It hardly matters what the current count is if we can’t understand this better.
onion says: Global warming is continuing
Well duh, just as it has done every century since the ice age. Now show us the calamity. Sky not falling, nothing to see here… move along
Leif Svalgaard, Jan 5th at 1.19 p.m.
I can only concur with that statement. With the low winter sun it is often difficult to achieve the same value in ‘seeing conditions,’ that you get 6 months later with the sun at a higher altitude, or if you try to observe in the morning or late afternoon.
With the sun you definitely DON’T need large apertures. In fact many telescope owners with ‘scopes of 6 inch diameter, or greater, stop the aperture down. Even with white light projection, or with the great array of filters now commonly available, it is patently obvious to the observer when the seeing is really good. The tiny spores that observers refer to now have always been visible in white light with small apertures in good seeing conditions. It is the increased resolution of larger aperture, and focal length telescopes that led to Wolf and Wolfer to making their adjustments to compensate for the difference. That adjustment continues today with the work of skilled amateurs and professionals alike.
Onion Says:
So what’s going on?
My suggestion is: Global warming is continuing
Good Doggie! Al has a cookie for you.
thegoodlocust says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:53 pm
“…Personally, I hope the world cools dramatically, I love the cold weather and such an event will hopefully wake up millions of people not only to the AGW lie but to other lies they’ve been told by the same people over the years (economic myths in particular).
It really could start a new Enlightenment.”
“Hunger does not breed reform; it breeds madness, and all the ugly distemper that makes an ordered life impossible.” – Woodrow Wilson
Wait. We just had an especially long minimum (not as long as the Maunder-minimum). Did you take that into account and move the projected increase slope forward on the chart?
… a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
From Saint-Simon’s memoirs of Versailles during the 17th and 18th centuries, an eyewitness account:
http://iamyouasheisme.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/the-little-ice-age-view-from-versailles/
So which is “better” . . .NASA at sun predictions or the MET at forecasting snow or BBQ summers?
Oh, I get it now. Disregard previous comment. You used their value of 2013 as the next maximum, which we’re not likely to hit, showing their poor accuracy in predicting sun cycles.
You are making several not necessarily valid assumptions.
First – you are assuming that temperature is the way we should measure if the earth is heating or cooling. Many of us do not, feeling heat content is more appropriate since hot dry air can actually hold less heat energy than cooler moist air.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html
Second – you are assuming that the concept of “global average temperature” is a valid and meaningful concept. Many of us do not.
Third -you are assuming that the data gathered to compute that value is valid and suitable for the task. Many of us think the data input is horribly corrupt.
Fourth – you are assuming that the math and statistical methods used to massage that data yield valid and appropriate output. Many of us do not believe that is true.
Fifth – You are assuming that temperature is correlated with and driven by CO2 levels and that AGW folks have proven this connection. Many of us do not.
Sixth – You have assumed that no other mechanism could explain such a “hypothetical” future increase in temperature. Many of us have proposed other mechanisms that are at least as well correlated.
All of those assumptions must be correct for you supposition to be true. If any one of them is not true, your assertion fails.
I suspect you are wrong on most of those assumptions.
We are not all in the “cooling camp”!
Many of us suspect that there may be cooling coming due to either solar output levels or the effects of the ocean surface temperatures or changes in the global precipitatable water content of the atmosphere (to name just a few of the possible mechanisms some of us are speculating on).
We are in the early stages of the scientific method — making observations, proposing mechanisms and suggesting the logical result of those mechanisms if they are true. If they fail it in no way “proves” CO2 has anything to do with world wide temperature increase, or that the AGW models are remotely accurate, it only proves that that specific speculation does not result in the expected outcome. That means, using the scientific method we will go back and re-evaluate the assumptions and theories proposed for the mechanism and try again.
If AGW scientists were doing the same, they would have tossed out CO2 as a driving mechanism a decade ago, since none of their detail predicted outcomes of increasing CO2 have panned out. During the same time others have pointed out serious flaws in method and data that their conclusions absolutely require for their assertion that CO2 is the climate driver to be correct.
You are jumping to unsupported conclusions because you refuse to consider equally valid means that explain climate variability at least as well if not better than CO2 levels.
Not the least of which, is we have no clue what drives climate!
What ever it is, it has been warming our climate slowly (with a superimposed variability) for something like 10,000 years.
There is an apparent correlation between sunspot number counts and climate, but no one presumes to state exactly why that correlation exists and the mechanism that might cause it. There are several “theories” about how that might happen, (TSI variation, solar magnetic effects on cosmic ray flux and cloudiness, indirect effects on the atmosphere due to changes in IR or UV radiation that some how modulate heat transfer/ heat gain), but we are probably 200 years away from having the data to prove any of them.
We simply do not have good data with a long enough history to do anything more that the early stages of the scientific method — ie make observations, gather data, propose possible correlations and mechanisms to explain those correlations then propose falsifiable means of testing those theories.
We have however identified many problems with data currently used, how it is gathered, and how it is processed and strongly suspect that the global average temperature anomaly numbers are absolutely useless for their intended purpose.
In fact they are worse than useless, they are manipulated data that leads researchers in a totally useless direction, and causes them, there time and funding to be used on a fools errand.
If the AGW camp was doing the same methodical scientific process (which it has absolutely refused to do to this date). They would have discarded the theory that CO2 was a significant factor in global climate, a decade ago.
Larry
Greg Goodknight says:
It would be instructive if someone could round up (or point to a collection of) the past projections for comparison.
Last update for this was Feb 09. There should be enough for a few to claim success eventually!
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
Onion said..
2010 might have had an El Nino, but 1998 did too – and in fact that El Nino was stronger than the 2010 one. So why are UAH satellite temperatures for 1998 and 2010 tied?
i thought that 1998 edged 2010 out by 0.01deg,C
And 1 year does not make a trend,lets see where we are in 2-3 years time when the SST’S are way down and we enter a La Nina dominated system,by then the warmist’s will shouting from the rooftops “Ah but it the LA NINA that’s cooling it down.
I seem to remember The Sun changed allegiance at the last election and moved to the right politically!
Onion, here’s an experiment for you to try:
Take a large pan of water and set it on your stove – let’s call it’s starting temperature the baseline temperature . Heat until it boils then turn the heat down but not off. It will continue boiling for a while.
Now turn the heat off, wait a minute or two after the heating has stopped and then stick your hand in it. No-one else here would be surprised to find that it’s still damn hot even though the heating has stopped, and will continue to be for quite a while!
Go on, try it, you know you want to – that’s real experimental science that is….
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“It’s the PDO” has also bolted as an explanation. Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming (I say ‘if’ but I am quite sure it will) despite a negative PDO and a deep solar minimum (well we’ve already had that any look at 2010 temperatures!)?
If it`s the second warmest that must mean there has been no warming for 16 years,
Phil Jones I believe.
Do you mean this PDO
This PDO,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/SolarPDO.jpg
I agree with Onion. He is making good point here. Northern hemisphere was plunged into LIA, and than continue to go warming to the present day. TSI change, we are told was insufficient to account for it, PDO and AMO were not even invented (that happened in 1990s) in order to account for previously nonexistent natural cycles. Their role is important since when you take them out again, you end up with exponential rise in temperature. The AMO and PDO invention was real turning point in understanding AGW. As onion says we have to ask what then was warming the earth from 1700 to the time CO2 took that role on itself.
Maybe Onion wants to make a bet.
There is some serious betting going on at Pierre Gosselin’s blog
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/05/warmist-daringly-bet-5000-that-2011-2020-decade-will-be-even-warmer/
Onion said:
“With PDO, solar cycle, etc all gone down the tube there really isn’t any fathomable explanation for why the Earth would continue warming. Not to mention the havoc another 0.3C warming will do for promoting an unprecedented level of modern warming vs the MWP.”
They haven’t gone down the tube yet but in any event it is a bit early to be on the turn following the recovery from the LIA so there is still a chance that energy in the thermohaline circulation since it was put there during the MWP could still be on the way back to the surface to skew PDO to the warm side for a few more 30 year periods.
Against that we do have the sudden change in solar behaviour but it’s a bit early to be able to assess the long term significance of that.
Still, with a strong La Nina in progress now that should produce a tropospheric temperature decline soon enough. It takes a few months for air temperatures to follow sea surface temperatures so that La Nina has barely hit the system yet.
What we need to watch is the global albedo and ocean heat content trends under the influence of a quiet sun and more meridional jets with more clouds. At current albedo levels the ocean heat content should soon start to decline and it is some time later that that decline starts to skew the relative dominance of El Nino and La Nina.
The question then is whether that is enough to reverse the ongoing recovery from the LIA.
hotrod ( Larry L )’s post at January 5, 2011 at 2:37 pm
exactly echoes my thoughts on the subject, and should be re-read by any who missed it.
I would add that, as we all know, correlation is NOT causation, however correlation would be required to show causation. There is no correlation between CO2 and “temperature”.
WAIT!
I get it. It’s not “onion”. It’s The Onion. BWAAHAHAHAHAHA! Everything you said makes prefect sense now. Thanks for the laughs.
To be fair, Onion is asking an interesting question and Onion, please do NOT stick your hand into a pan of water that is just short of the boiling point.
Nearly all the studies I’ve read related to Natural Cycles indicate we’re headed into a cool phase for the next 30 years. Its good for algae and bad for humans.
The climate system is very chaotic but if we don’t cycle into the cooling phase then there is something else going on.
CO2 however requires an input of solar energy to create a Greenhouse effect so we already know CO2 wouldn’t be causing the deviation from the norm under an extended solar minimum unless the temperature was consistently within the same range and it already isn’t.
I really wish they stop pointing at silly anomalies like Arctic Sea Ice and conclude global warming.
John from CA says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm
oops, last sentence should read:
I really wish they would stop pointing at silly anomalies like Arctic Sea Ice and dismiss global warming.
Hi, Anthony.
I think you make an error when comparing the data above.
You point out forecast level and current level in the graphs.
The date for your “Current level” do not match the “Forecast level”.
The predicted values is a smoothed centered value and and should be compared with the smoothed meassured value, NOT the monthly value. That graph do not make any prediction on monthly level.
So what is actually compared is December 2010 predicted level with the june 2010 smoothed meassured value or december meassured value.
I guess you see the problem allready…
What should have been done is comparing the forecast level för june 2010 with the smoothed meassured level for the same month. That graph do not offer that possibility since there is a 6 month gap between predicted level and measssured smoothed level. Maybe something for NOAA to reconsider so values can be compared better?
By eyeballing that graph I estimate that the smoothed forecast for june 2010 was ~35, not ~48 as pointed out.
/Jerker Andersson
EUV is also suffering the doldrums. The values are usually behind by about 2 weeks, but judging by the F10.7 values the current output of EUV is as low as seen during the SC22/23 minimum.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:49 pm
I noted a previous comment in the earlier thread that the progress of the L & P effect is ‘independent’ of the usual 11 year (approx) solar cycle.
This is what L&P want you to believe, but when you dig deeper it is very obvious that magnetic activity follows the solar cycle. There is no L&P effect, we are just experiencing a grand minimum cycle. A debunking HERE.
I’m STILL holdin’ my BREATH on CodeTech’s: There is no correlation between CO2 and “temperature”., though…’cause I’m fixated on the ABC Radio’s ‘mind numbing’ tripe it spews daily. Talk about POLLUTION!
And, I’m very very very glad that ‘they’ (these radical Marxist’s) can’t find ‘gigantic oven mits’ and ‘touch the sun’ to somehow alter it, like my little brother tried to when he took a broom outta the house one evening and tried to ‘touch the moon’! ‘Cause they’ve already built GIGANTIC PIN WHEELS as happy reminders from our childhoods…
And, Now, NOW I ‘really know’ why we’re so darned far away from that glowing ball o’ fire called the SUN.
It MUST BE ‘fiercely independent’ & ‘freedom loving’ – and I – for one, am glad it’s so.
…mebbe that’s how the ‘greenies’ got their names…? (It COULDN’T be ’cause GREEN is supposed to be an ‘intelligent’ color… They chose ‘Green’ ’cause their ‘moon’ was made of nasty old cheese…
C.L. Thorpe
(who’s forever preferred ‘The Sneeches’ to ‘Green Eggs an’ Ham’.)
jakers says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Uh, maybe you should learn something about solar science, before you comment!
++++
Why? Not knowing enough certainly hasn’t stopped the solar scientists from continuing to look like fools with wrong prediction after wrong prediction. Are they using something more accurate than chicken entrails to do their predictions? Can you actually prove it? Perhaps if they upgraded to a dart-throwing monkey they’d be closer?
I’d love to shut up about how horrible they’ve been –just as soon as they stop being horrible.
Mark Adams says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:39 pm
After what little SC24 has to say, the solar wind could just stop as it did for two days eleven years ago.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
The earth would quickly become shrouded in clouds and a new ice would start. Could the solar wind vanish for thousands of years; wind speed too low to break through the sun’s gravity. What evidence do we have that this could not happen?
~
whoooooooaaaaa.. knocked my socks off clear across the room. Had to slow down and think about this for a moment. (looked up alittle Slade off Sladest “were all crazy now”) Came back started reading and said to self.
What would happen if the interstellar wind changed from blowing from behind heliosphere to blowing into the nose of heliosphere? Maybe something like that, perhaps.
retraction from earlier, should’nt have said we gots no polar field. Should have said “we gots low low solar polar fields.”
we gots is a you know
But thanks for the article it is a keeper. Anyone with a good and reasonable explanation?
@hotrod ( Larry L ) says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:37 pm
You rock, sir.
onion says: “I would say climate skepticism is quite firmly dependent on warming continuing no more.”
Wow, you have nailed it, onion. This is the absolute test of climate skepticism. So, now, tell us . . . what is the absolute test of your warmist beliefs? What is one particular action (over some particular time period) that could occur that would instantly change you to a climate skeptic?
The NAO has now been strongly negative for 18 months, how long can it go?
My local climate here in the UK is cycling pretty much as normal. We’re a maritime climate so a small temp drop here may well be offset, (in energy terms,) by a much larger temp increase in a more arid climate.
On the Global scene I note an approximately 60 to 70 year cycle with possibly others superimposed. Lets just say we have passed a peak of the cycle in the last decade, that would indicate possible cooling in the near future.
I note, the Russians are having a few minor problems with some excessive ice in the Sea of Okhotsk and China is having a little snow. Also, South East Australia is a little cool and wet.
DaveE.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:11 pm
EUV is also suffering the doldrums. The values are usually behind by about 2 weeks, but judging by the F10.7 values the current output of EUV is as low as seen during the SC22/23 minimum.
~
tisk tisk tisk Good observation though. Sorry, suffering cyclomania aftermath.
I don’t think we should say Grand Max or Grand Min. Grand Max maybe would be like no ice at either of earth’s poles. And Grand Min would be ice almost pole to pole.
Maybe we should call them Medium Maximum and Medium Minimum, or some such thing.
Ok nuff playin around.
We’ve got solar scientists that can’t predict….
…climate scientist that can’t predict
The only thing we know is that from the mid 1940’s to the mid 1970’s – 30 years – it cooled off. Scientists saw a “trend” and tried to predict another ice age “if this continues”
From the mid 1970’s to the mid 2000’s – 30 years – it bounced back up. Scientists saw a “trend” and tried to predict global warming “if this continues”.
Good ole Dr. Phil says no significant warming since then…
Does anyone else see a “trend” in this…………………………………………
The only trend is starting that “average” “normal” line in the 1970’s, too much of the bounce back is in that average………
and onion is so lame he thinks it’s all about temperatures
Well, here’s a thought. The solar minimum is lasting longer than expected, yet temperatures are at the highest level on record. Could it possibly be that the effect of solar irradiance is now dwarfed by the effect of accumulated GHGs? I know it’s a wacky theory that no one’s thought of yet, but maybe we should rule out solar variations as THE dominant climate forcing these days.
Don’t you know that we tree huggers have a new acronym for this phenomenon? We call is ASS or Anthropogenic Sunspot Shrinkage. Obviously this is humans doing again, and we are going to have to trash our economy to fix it. Why can’t you deniers see this? I’m working on the consensus right now.
John Day says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:33 pm
So, “Ap=zero” does not mean the Earth’s magnetic field has vanished, merely that is “calm”, i.e. not changing. Higher numbers mean more disturbance, which are called “geomagnetic storms”.
It is partly correct to say that Ap is a measure of the Sun’s magnetic field, because the small variations on top of the Earth’s magnetic field are, in fact related to the sun’s field [albeit in a complex manner]
Mark Adams says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:39 pm
After what little SC24 has to say, the solar wind could just stop as it did for two days eleven years ago.
Does happen from time to time, although it didn’t ‘stop’, just got really thin for a short while.
The earth would quickly become shrouded in clouds and a new ice would start. Could the solar wind vanish for thousands of years; wind speed too low to break through the sun’s gravity. What evidence do we have that this could not happen?
Even if it did happen it would have almost no impact on the Earth, as the energy in the solar wind is a million times less that in the ordinary heat and light we receive every day.
stephan says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I notice Leif has not made any comments re cosmic rays or does he still hold on to his objections to it? Look at Oulu graph carefully.
The variation of cosmic rays is but a few percent. It is very difficult to maintain a constant calibration over decades [as instruments, people, environment change]. Oulu has been especially bad in this respect. Here is a plot of cosmic rays from several long-running stations: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic%20Ray%20Count%20for%20Different%20Stations-Oulu.png
Oulu is the thin blue line. If you take Oulu’s values and divide by the mean of the other stations you get the triangles. As you can see, that ratio has been drifting upwards by some 4% over the past half-century, meaning that Oulu has not maintained a constant calibration. I don’t think there has been any change worth writing home about.
John from CA says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:13 pm
if Orbital Mechanics are considered a valid indicator of activity?
No, that is nonsense.
http://judithcurry.com
It is sad to see that the rot has also affected Curry’s blog.
Dennis Wingo says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Are you in a position yet based upon observations, to lower your forecast of a peak SSN of 72 for Cycle 24? Do you have any thoughts yet on Cycle 25?
The forecast is based on past polar fields so cannot change [it can be falsified, that is another matter]. There is a fine point though: what we predicted is solar magnetic activity of which F10.7 and EUV may be good proxies. The sunspot number used to be a good proxy too and we expressed the prediction in terms of of that more familiar quantity [as there was a firm relation between the proxies]. If L&P are correct [and it seems more and more so], it no longer makes sense to express solar activity by the SSN [which may go to zero]. Our prediction is equivalent to F10.7 around 120 sfu so that prediction will stand. Statistically we would expect SC25 to be low as well, as low cycles come in bunches.
Sean Houlihane says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Wow. Maybe not quite conclusive yet, but that is pretty clear.
Yes, this is the main reason I believe that L&P may be correct.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:11 pm
This is what L&P want you to believe,
and what their data shows, consistent with the growing discordance with F10.7.
A true Grand minimum is likely to be just an extreme L&P effect. It remains to be seen if it will happen this time [I hope so, but am not ready to commit to this as we don’t know if L&P will hold up].
Upon one of my occasional stops at WUWT, I see the desperation increasing among the choir. Still clinging to the “no warming since 1998” straw, the hymnists now must try to stay afloat when handed the anchor of the feeble sun, while trying to explain away the warmest year and warmest decade.
How about more of those high quality Easterbrook and Goddard posts to soothe the angst, Anthony?
Ah, wish we had some comments on decline of gauss.
From:
Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
Matthew J. Penn
and
William Livingston
..The linear decrease of 65 Gauss per year predicts that Cycle 24 will peak with a smoothed SSN of
66, and Cycle 25 will peak with a smoothed SSN of 7. Using a value of 50 Gauss per year suggests
a smoothed SSN of 87 for Cycle 24 and 20 for Cycle 25..
I not so interested in the exact number of spots, but the gauss decline here.
The way it is coming down is interesting.
good night hmm spherical harmonics oh my
coaldust says:
January 5, 2011 at 11:54 am
I do not like the way NASA separates the actual data year average by six months from the predicted average curve. I wish they would extend the red prediction curve back six months before present so that we can see the predicted values for the next six months.
…
Here ya go. Current figures as against the last three predictions (including this month’s new prediction):
http://www.lexacorp.com.pg/misc/sunspotpredictions.png
Adam R, me boy, thanks for increasing the WUWT traffic – not that your input counts for much.
I’m still waiting for a credible answer from the alarmist crowd to my oft-asked question:
Can you show us any empirical, testable and verifiable evidence of planet-wide harm due to the increase in CO2?
So far, these things have all been debunked. But maybe a smart guy like you can show us some global CO2 damage.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm
John from CA says: January 5, 2011 at 2:13 pm
if Orbital Mechanics are considered a valid indicator of activity?
No, that is nonsense. http://judithcurry.com It is sad to see that the rot has also affected Curry’s blog.
========
Thanks!
In the last 150 years, how many times has the World been going to either fry or freeze?
We reach a warmest ever every fry panic & a coldest ever every freeze panic.
WHY PANIC?
DaveE.
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“It’s the PDO” has also bolted as an explanation. Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming (I say ‘if’ but I am quite sure it will) despite a negative PDO and a deep solar minimum (well we’ve already had that any look at 2010 temperatures!)?
James Hansen and his lying elves.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:11 pm
This is what L&P want you to believe,
——————
and what their data shows, consistent with the growing discordance with F10.7.
A true Grand minimum is likely to be just an extreme L&P effect. It remains to be seen if it will happen this time [I hope so, but am not ready to commit to this as we don’t know if L&P will hold up].
No…their data is only from SC23 cycle max, before that a different measure of collection using only large spots skews the results. Plus their data collection method is heavily biased towards speck measurement which also skews the results. It’s a pity most people don’t bother to to acquaint themselves with the facts, it can be a dangerous thing as we know on the AGW side. The fact that Anthony runs the L&P graphs in this story is a testament to that. I would like to see a story on WUWT fully exploring the L&P method instead of taking it for granted. Are you up for it Anthony?
Thanks Anthony,
Good article!
It it now has links from “Observatorio ARVAL – Climate Change; The cyclic nature of Earth’s climate”, at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm
and “Observatorio ARVAL – Cambio Climático; La naturaleza cíclica del clima Terrestre”, at http://www.oarval.org/CambioClima.htm
Both pages quote from “Say Goodbye to Sunspots?”.
John-X says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:29 pm
“Hunger does not breed reform; it breeds madness, and all the ugly distemper that makes an ordered life impossible.” – Woodrow Wilson
Wilson was a power mad fascist and a fool. The only wisdom you can find in his words is by applying the opposite.
OK, time to go over the basics again, please, Leif. This Livingston and Penn effect may well be the Eddy Minimum coming on. Once more please tell me why we’ll not necessarily cool? I know, the mechanism isn’t nailed down, but surely there’s more now to the story than the last time I tried to understand it.
================
Geoff Sharp says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm
No…their data is only from SC23 cycle max, before that a different measure of collection using only large spots skews the results. Plus their data collection method is heavily biased towards speck measurement which also skews the results.
Ignoring the points before 2000 makes no difference because there are so few. Even you should be able to see that. Their method is not biased as they measure everything when they have telescope time [which does not depend on the sun]. Even you should also be able to see this.
A very strong support for L&P is the discordance with F10.7 [Especially the Canadian one as Ken Tapping discovered]. We have already had a L&P article on WUWT. A new one might be good now that L&P has been strengthened by the latest data. But I don’t see what new [other than the additional support] can be brought to the table.
Baa Humbug says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Leif a question to you if I may.
Is there any evidence that suggests these sorts of eruptions happen more often when the sunspot activity is low?
As comments seem to be closed on the “Global” thread you get the answer here:
1) theoretically one would expect this as magnetic fields can be wound up more, without being disturbed by other activity
2) observationally there may be support too. From http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf :
“[10] Several other recent predictions [Schatten, 2003; Schatten and Tobiska, 2003; Badalyan et al., 2001; Duhau, 2003; Wang et al., 2002], but not all [Tsirulnik et al., 1997; Hathaway and Wilson, 2004], also seem to indicate lower solar activity for the coming cycle(s). Such low cycles will be important for calibration of various empirical relationships between solar and interplanetary conditions and terrestrial phenomena, many of those derived during intervals of rather high solar activity [Lockwood et al., 1999; Svalgaard et al., 2003]. Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity, but the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. In fact, they may become more common. Two of the eight strongest storms in the last 150 years occurred during solar cycle 14 (Rmax = 64) [Cliver and Svalgaard, 2004], while three of the five largest 30 MeV solar energetic proton events since 1859 [McCracken et al., 2001] occurred during cycle 13 (Rmax = 88).”
Geoff Sharp says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm
No…their data is only from SC23 cycle max, before that a different measure of collection using only large spots skews the results. Plus their data collection method is heavily biased towards speck measurement which also skews the results.
Ignoring the points before 2000 makes no difference because there are so few. Even you should be able to see that. Their method is not biased as they measure everything when they have telescope time [which does not depend on the sun]. Even you should also be able to see this. These things have been explained to you again and again, perhaps you would now acknowledge that you have understood them…
kim says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Once more please tell me why we’ll not necessarily cool?
Why would we ‘necessarily’ cool? We may not cool because the change in solar output is so minute, unless you believe the Earth’s climate is hypersensitive to very small perturbations. If so, it has had many [millions] chances to run-away responses over geological time. Rather, it looks like the climate is rather resilient and has enough negative feedbacks to prevent hypersensitivity. Roy Spencer can tell you more about that. Buy and read his book.
Here are my thoughts on this: http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
“crosspatch says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm”
Despite observations to the contrary, here in the Australian MSM, particularly the ABC, the decade to the end of 2010 is still being touted as the warmest on record. I am not sure how long this AGW story will continue.
And the east coast summer, in Sydney at least, continues to be a lot cooler than normal/average.
If I could afford it Leif, I would buy Dr. Spencers book.
It seems to me that climate psientists posit reducing Arctic sea ice as a positive feedback. I posit that it is a negative feedback.
I decided this some years back & placed it open to ridicule sometime in the last year and a half here.
When ice level is high, so is albedo but the ocean is insulated by ice and loses energy only to the ice, not to the atmosphere and thence to space. This causes the sea ice to diminish.
When ice level is low, albedo is lower but because this is late in the melt season, incidence of radiation is also low meaning that reflection off surface water is quite high, also the intensity at that latitude is quite low anyway. More open water means that ocean energy is lost to the atmosphere, thence space. Lower ocean energy causes ice to extend and this season, late freeze in the West Greenland area means a lot of ocean energy will be lost. I suspect we will start to see a significant recovery of Arctic ice.
This will likely be cyclic with variable overshoots.
Hope this explains my view coherently
DaveE.
Rarely do I disagree with Leif, even when he is trying to make a joke, but here
goes.
” Already, the sunspot number is running way below it should be for the F10.7 values”
Not so correct an assumption. The sunspot number and the F10.7 values are what
they are. The sun is fundamentally correct, and it is man’s task to try to understand.
The sun is not confused, but rather doing exactly what it should do –whatever that
happens to be. The “should be” implies a body of knowledge we do not have.
I too am one of those ham guys. Newly Extra, with a new high-end Yaesu radio and
a new antenna. But propagation is really bad. My antenna is on a flat 13’x33′ steel
roof, generally considered an ideal configuration. It is not-quite-useless. Not a good
time to enjoy radio.
Holy necro-post. With this continued cooling, some time at the depth of the coming
solar minimum, we will be able to make carbon dioxide snow at the south pole. Is
anybody betting on the date for the first recorded CO2Snowstorm?
thegoodlocust says:
“Wilson was a power mad fascist and a fool. The only wisdom you can find in his words is by applying the opposite.”
Correctomundo, Locust.
Wilson was the third worst president of the twentieth century, after J. Carter, the 2nd worst. And for the same reason – both were clueless about human nature.
Leif @ 7:08 PM
Thanks, that’s how I understand it. If the sun directs climate, we’ve got to explain the lack of hypersensitiveness given climate excursions greater than TSI variability.
Once more for me, please, why the isotope evidence argues against large changes in TSI and in cosmic rays during previous grand minimums. Also, do you still believe that volcanic albedo changes produced the bulk of the cooling noted around the times of previous solar minimums?
I need reminding, but some here need minding. I’m amazed how often otherwise knowledgeable commenters at other sites are ignorant of the Livingston and Penn effect.
================
I’m impressed that everyone is treating onion like he is a grown up with serious ideas despite, well, you know. In small doses he and his new playmates do provide a modicum of humorous relief. Hotrod (Larry L) said it all and quite well, too.
David E Evans: “WHY PANIC?”
If crop choices have been made over the last warming cycle lead to crop failures in the coming cooling cycle, feeding 6 billion (2 billion more than 30 years ago) might be an issue. Add in the issue of corn being burned in fuel tanks and there could be catstrophe for some.
There is a glaring omission in all this discussion about what has happened to the temperature in recent years (rising, flat or falling – take your pick).
What is missing is the impact of UHI.
Recent research has shown that Phil Jones and the IPCC were incorrect.
Most or all of the measured rise in temperature during the last 100 years or so, may be explained by the growing impact of UHI on the measuring instruments.
Adjust the data for UHI and all you have is the natural fluctiations from the 60 plus year zigzag cycle that runs through global data and throught all the oscillationns like the AMO and PDO.
Having made that adjustment, we must now just sit back and wait to see if the variations in the mangetic forces at work between earth and sun (that also change the number of observed sun spots) have any influence on the earthly climate.
While we need to wait about 30 years to see the effect of the 60 year cycle, I suspect we won’t have to wait nearly so long to feel the effect of the solar variability.
Man, as the adv once said “I think I’m feeling it right now” or words to that effect.
If variations in the sunspot cycle do not relate to variations in earthly climate, then what was the cause of the very large swings during the last 1,000 years?
It would be good to have two theories which we could test against the data as it comes in:
Theory A – fluctiations in sun’s magnetic forces caused climate change over last 1,000 years.
Theory X – X caused climate change over last 1,000 years.
Has anybody got a good candidate for X?
May I suggest that it would be an inverse indicator? After all the colder it gets the longer hemlines would be expected to be …or maybe that’s what you meant.
Smokey:
What about Ronald Reagan, that massively funded and armed islamic extremists in Afghanistan (that two decades later destroyed the World Trade Center) and sold weapons to Iran to fund the anti-sandinista “contra” guerrilla in Nicaragua…
And Herbert Hoover, that make economic policies that lead to the Great Depression?
David A. Evans says:
January 5, 2011 at 7:33 pm
If I could afford it Leif, I would buy Dr. Spencers book.
email me your shipping address and i’ll buy it for you.
Frank Perdicaro says:
January 5, 2011 at 7:45 pm
>i>” Already, the sunspot number is running way below it should be for the F10.7 values” Not so correct an assumption. The sunspot number and the F10.7 values are what they are. The sun is fundamentally correct
The ‘should be’ refers to our understanding, not to the sun. We have a reasonably good understanding of the F10.7 emission from basic physics (bremsstrahlung and gyro-synchrotron radiation) and thus have a good cause for saying that the F10.7 flux is a good measure of solar ‘activity’ [we could even define solar activity to be that measured by F10.7]. This would make sense because we use F10.7 in the models to calculate the density of the thermosphere which in turn determines satellite drag [which is monitored VERY closely]. So, as far as satellite operators [and I think also ham-operators are concern sunspots are irrelevant, F10.7 is king].
In the past, there has been a VERY strong correlation between monthly means of F10.7 and sunspot numbers. This was taken as evidence that the SSN also was a good proxy or indicator for solar activity. Hence the interest in the SSN. The SSN also goes back in time much longer than F10.7 and is therefore important for assessing the long-term variation of solar activity. Other than that, nobody gives a hoot about the SSN. We can reconstruct F10.7 back some 120 years, backed up by measurement of UV emission seen in the Calcium K-line, and by the effect on the conductivity of the ionosphere [which we can infer from the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field], and all that time the SSN tracks the true solar indicator [F10.7 and friends] very well.
Now, sunspots form by coalescence of small pores, specks, and magnetic elements that sometimes erupt en masse followed by rapid assembly of sunspots from these magnetic pieces. Their magnetism manifests itself in the corona from where we get the resulting F10.7 emission. If the process that collects the magnetic flux into spots [and we don’t know what that is – although we are not without ideas http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf ] becomes less efficient we would still have the magnetic flux, but it would not be concentrated and the field would not be strengthened [the field strength is flux divided by area, so less area means stronger field for same flux] in the photosphere where the spot would form. A weaker field means that the ‘spot’ will be warmer [as the field helps divert heat convected up from below away from the spot] and hence harder to see [smaller contrasts]. So we would predict something like what L&P observe, if the ‘percolation’ is weaker [for some reason yet to be found out]. The sunspot count would then be lower than what it would have if the percolation were operating as usual. So, under the assumption that the Sun is operating as it always has, the ‘SSN would fall below F10.7 compared to what it should‘ under that assumption. We therefore conclude that the assumption is false and that something is afoot. So, that SSN is below what it ‘should’ be simply means that we have a phenomenon we have not seen in the record so far. When this happens we learn something.
kim says:
January 5, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Once more for me, please, why the isotope evidence argues against large changes in TSI and in cosmic rays during previous grand minimums.
If by ‘isotope’ you mean 10Be and 14C then:
1) people don’t infer TSI from those directly
2) they infer the solar magnetic field from the cosmic ray modulation and then under some assumptions calculate what the think TSI would be as caused by that magnetic field. Thus we have a case of ‘calibrating under assumptions’, thus junk in, junque out.
3) this may work in reverse: TSI may influence climate which in turn influences the deposition of the isotopes. The isotopes are created elsewhere and transported to the polar regions or the forests by circulation.
Also, do you still believe that volcanic albedo changes produced the bulk of the cooling noted around the times of previous solar minimums?
For some there is direct evidence, e.g 1809-1815.
I need reminding, but some here need minding. I’m amazed how often otherwise knowledgeable commenters at other sites are ignorant of the Livingston and Penn effect.
Even at WUWT there are trolls [‘irritants’] denying L&P.
AusieDan says:
January 5, 2011 at 8:21 pm
If variations in the sunspot cycle do not relate to variations in earthly climate, then what was the cause of the very large swings during the last 1,000 years?
You deny that the Earth swings, but are comfortable, it seems, with the Sun doing it…
Can anyone expand on this please.
“Remove all the nanospots that were added to the count and that the sun should almost be a flat-liner.”
There must be a pony, somewhere beneath that massive pile of horse-pucky.
There was a fellow in Defense a few years back who discussed known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Solar and climate investigators may want to keep that in mind.
Instruments of varying accuracy and precision have been at this for about 30 years, some perhaps a few hundred years, trying to explain things with geological observed
cycles stretching beyond 100,000 years in a system aged 4.5 billion years. What we essentially have is an instantaneous measurement, and it matters not the instrument you prefer, and are trying to forecast based on a single data point. You may think you have a lot of observations, but are they measuring on an up cycle or a down cycle, and which cycle and of what duration.
Anything is Possible
January 5 2011 at 1.45pm
has hit the nail on the head. Regardless of what happens over the next decade or so to ‘global average temperature’, a fatuous concept to describe climate IMHO, it is much too early to be taking drastic measures. As I recently suggested in a letter to The Australian, degrees of certainty in relation to climate sience vary from high, as to the fact of 20th century warming, less so for it’s magnitude, even less so for it’s cause, virtually non-existent as to it’s long term effects and right back up to high as to the fact that proposed mitigation efforts will be both outrageously expensive and spectacularly ineffctive.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm
It is partly correct to say that Ap is a measure of the Sun’s magnetic field, because the small variations on top of the Earth’s magnetic field are, in fact related to the sun’s field [albeit in a complex manner]
Really? Just a week ago you’ve been fiercely defending the view that there is no such connection.
Carla says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Mark Adams says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:39 pm
After what little SC24 has to say, the solar wind could just stop as it did for two days eleven years ago.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
Anyone with a good and reasonable explanation?
I don’t know if it is significant, but before he died, Timo Niroma noted that the two day lull in the solar wind coincided with the perihelion of Jupiter.
The next one is this spring, so maybe we’ll get a repeat performance. Not too long to wait now.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/a-test-for-planetary-solar-connection-jupiter-perihelion/
From Onion & From Peru.
Nope! From Uranus. Verbal diarrhea. Just passing through are you?
Even at WUWT there are trolls [‘irritants’] denying L&P.
Rather than deny L&P, that wouldn’t do, it looks like it is bottoming out (I would like to have latest numbers, this is only to September)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
since there is no mechanism proposed, there are some ‘experts’ who firmly believe that L&P is caused by sun-planetary magnetic interaction, but of course there are some deniers of this obvious relationship.
Hopefully the mods will allow me to respond to this off-topic collection of lies by …
Did you just imply that there were Afghans on those four airplanes on 11-Sep-2001? What would possess you to utter such nonsense? Those would have to be some very old Hijackers no? Of course if you had to tie together two widely separate eras (Afghanistan 1983/2001) you might correctly associate the Afghans we helped with what would later become the Northern Alliance, but certainly not the Pakistan driven Taliban invaders. But please continue your fantasy and your smearing of people fighting for their very lives and their country.
And about President Reagan, (actually his basement crew led by Ollie North) they correctly circumvented an unconstitutional usurpation of Executive power (Boland Amendment, etc) by cleverly using a 3rd party (Israel) to sell old parts to a moderate (at the time) in Iran and funneled the proceeds to the Ant-Communist freedom fighters in Nicaragua. Many of us chipped in as well, and we still do even to this very day. You see, the Communists and their local puppet figure-heads are the bad guys. [snip] As it stands now you have everything as backwards as possible.
Hmmm, no. Hoover became President on March 4, 1929, the Stock Market collapsed in October, 7 months later. What policies did Hoover ram through at impossible speed to cause this? If you had said he later prolonged the Depression by authorizing proto-Roosevelt New Deal style central government you may have had a point. But you didn’t say that. You are just reading from the progressive/communist propaganda playbook which unfortunately is distributed to fellow travelers worldwide without the burden of facts.[ok that’s enough . . take it somewhere else now]
It is such a shame, your post. You see, before today and without fail, every Peruvian I have met has been brilliant, interesting and independent. You are none of these things. Peru is one of the bright spots on a continent full of Communist wannabes. Therefore Occam’s Razor suggests that you meant to type From Venezuela or from Cuba. Adios.
Yes, I pointed out that the Ap is affected by solar activity, but my point was that Andrew’s post (and previous posts) gives the impression that the formal purpose of the Ap index is to measure solar magnetism. It’s purpose is to measure very tiny fluctuations in terrestrial magnetism. These fluctuations are influenced by the Sun, but by other non-solar factors too.
It would be like saying “the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a measure of personal income”, perhaps indirectly true in a statistical sense, but not true as a formal statement of purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average
Alexander Feht says:
January 5, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Not a bug, a feature.
AusieDan says:
January 5, 2011 at 8:21 pm
If variations in the sunspot cycle do not relate to variations in earthly climate, then what was the cause of the very large swings during the last 1,000 years?
It would be good to have two theories which we could test against the data as it comes in:
Theory A – fluctiations in sun’s magnetic forces caused climate change over last 1,000 years.
Theory X – X caused climate change over last 1,000 years.
Has anybody got a good candidate for X
~
Some of those reconstruction of SSN gragphs using 10Be back 10 to 14 thousand years really show solar activity within a fairly steady state. But before that woweeeee talk a bout grand mini. eeek gads. But a good candidate for X hmm. Let’s ask someone else. Just kidding, Interstellar influences might be a good candidate. Could start with interstellar material sailing 26 km/sec through heliosphere via gravitational focusing. Which is also the same speed as the solar orbit (AT THIS TIME) through interstellar space.
Tallbloke .. I must be using the wrong ephemeris or something. I’m still wondering about the earths reaction to the event not to mention what causes such an event. In particular for me as it coincides with some other solar funk that begins to manifest itself in Cycle 23 that whole extra lengthy polar reversal etc…… It is a good one and I am tempted to sidetrack on this for a while. Seems to be heavily documented.
And Leif, “average spaceweather” thanks for a good morning laugh. Ya know sometimes .. somethings just hit the funny bone. Vuks has it wrong, you do have a sense of humor.
David A. Evans says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:08 pm
WHY PANIC?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
David, there has to be a constant state of panic (CSOP) because without it there would be no need for research grants. Climate scientists (and in this case I use the word scientists loosely) need to keep the pot either boiling or freezing because to merely let the world quietly simmer as it has always done (okay, not when it was being formed, but anyway, always at the behest of the sun, not Mann) would be committing financial suicide. Therefore, man is responsible, say the scientists, so please keep sending us those research grants so that we can argue endlessly about a couple of degrees temperature rise/fall or a few millimetres sea-level rise/fall (in either case over a couple of hundred years) and make a nice living in the process thank you very much.
Do you think I’d get a grant for doing research into CSOP? Perhaps the UEA will get Dr. Jones to organise a course.
Alexander Feht says:
January 5, 2011 at 11:57 pm
“It is partly correct to say that Ap is a measure of the Sun’s magnetic field, because the small variations on top of the Earth’s magnetic field are, in fact related to the sun’s field [albeit in a complex manner]”
Really? Just a week ago you’ve been fiercely defending the view that there is no such connection.
Perhaps you could substantiate that?
In http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf I show:
“Physical Meaning of IHV (and am, aa, ap)
Geomagnetic activity as given by the three-hour am-index has been found [Svalgaard, 1978] to depend on solar wind parameters and the geometry of their interaction with the Earth as this: am = k (nV^2)^(1/3)(BV) q(α, f) S(Ψ) where the various factors have meaning of Momentum flux, Magnetic Reconnection, and Geometric Modulation, and where B is the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) strength, V is the Solar Wind Speed, q is a function of the angle α between the IMF and the Earth’s magnetic field”
Vuk etc. says:
January 6, 2011 at 3:16 am
(I would like to have latest numbers, this is only to September)
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png is up to date through December.
John Day says:
January 6, 2011 at 4:48 am
the formal purpose of the Ap index is to measure solar magnetism. It’s purpose is to measure very tiny fluctuations in terrestrial magnetism. These fluctuations are influenced by the Sun, but by other non-solar factors too.
The purpose of Ap [and similar indices] is to measure solar magnetism using the Earth as the instrument. We go to great length to exclude non-solar influences
Julius Bartels [who invented the Ap-index] said about it:
“In conclusion, we may roughly classify solar phenomena according to their effects on the earth’s magnetism as follows: (1) Individual flares of ultra-violet light: these produce brief geomagnetic effect simultaneous with radio fade-outs. (2) The general change of ionizing wave-radiation in the course of the sunspot cycle; this governs the general intensity of the solar daily variation. (3) Moderate corpuscular radiation: this produces ordinary aurora and minor magnetic disturbances, and is the main factor governing the daily character-figure C. [early forerunner for Ap] (4) Intense corpuscular radiation: this produces magnetic storms, and aurorae outside the auroral zone. It is the main factor affecting the u-measure of magnetic activity.”
From http://www.leif.org/research/Determination%20IMF,%20SW,%20EUV,%201890-2003.pdf
“.. while trying to explain away the warmest year and warmest decade.”
I get so tired of hearing this.
Whenever I bring up the MWP, it’s pointed out that they mean “warmest in the last 150 years”. Ok – I understand that – but why is it that only the last 150 years matter when we’re talking about climate? We’ve definitely been warmer in the past, but that isn’t relevant for some reason.
There’s plenty of flippancy around here (and I’m pretty good at engaging in it myself) – but I’m asking this seriously – I really don’t understand the argument favoring AGW that so readily discounts previous warm periods.
Onion: “Why? Not knowing enough certainly hasn’t stopped the solar scientists from continuing to look like fools with wrong prediction after wrong prediction.”
Only a fool would assume total knowledge to the point of financial predictability (enough to bet trillions of taxpayer dollars on) in either of these two massive systems. Now we here other sciences should ‘hurry up’ (in their observations) and get with the CAGW program and stop looking like fools. Ain’t that just the scienciest?
I see where the name Onion may come from, peel away the all layers and there’s nothing inside.
correction to last message: hear, not here.
Much gracious, Leif. As ever, it’ll be the clouds.
============
Carla says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 6, 2011 at 5:38 am
AusieDan says:
January 5, 2011 at 8:21 pm
~
I might add to that comment about a steady state for the past 12,000 or so years.
Add a few TSAS (tiny scale atomic structures) such as MM (molecular medium) clouds and even the “so called” grand max’s and grand mini’s can be explained. Because TSAS and MM vary in size. What does make it different this time is the suggestion that the solar systems orbit has brought us to the S1, S2 shell boundary.
tallbloke says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:32 am
Carla says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Mark Adams says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:39 pm
After what little SC24 has to say, the solar wind could just stop as it did for two days eleven years ago.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
Anyone with a good and reasonable explanation?
~
One other thing Tallbloke, I’m looking for the evidences that the solar system did encounter a faster moving interstellar wind associated with the S1, S2 shell boundary. The month of May has Earth on the apex side of the solar system when it encounters the inflow of material from the interstellar regions. What kind of SST occurred during that event? Might have some confirmations. And SOHO saw nothing. huh….
“Extreme ultraviolet images of the Sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) revealed nothing unusual during the interval from May 9-11, 1999. Credit: European Space Agency/NASA”
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/news/9912/immovies.html
I’d love to change the world..Alvin Lee..timeless swt..
Blade, for some people the only way to make sense of history is to lie about it. And thus does tragedy become farce.
============
tallbloke says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:32 am
Carla says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Mark Adams says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:39 pm
After what little SC24 has to say, the solar wind could just stop as it did for two days eleven years ago.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
Anyone with a good and reasonable explanation?
~
Same year as the Gakkel Ridge volcano in the polar region under all that water oh my..
Surprise: Explosive volcanic eruption under the Arctic ice found
Posted on June 25, 2008 by Anthony Watts
Far away in the Arctic Ocean, at 85° N 85° E, a similarly violent volcanic eruption happened almost undetected in 1999 – in this case, however, under a water layer of 4,000 m thickness.” So far, researchers have assumed that explosive volcanism cannot happen in water depths exceeding 3 kilometres because of high ambient pressure. “
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/25/surprise-explosive-volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/
More of those kwinky dinks so to speak.. good day
Today NOAA still has a sunspot count for region 11141 which is a spotless plage that’s rotating out of view, but since sunspots have been “under-counted”perhaps they are correct to attach a number to a blank “region” and boost the count to 50 today.
Hurray, sunspot maximum is coming!
Leif Svalgaard could you kindly update your graphics:
L TSI-F10.7-MF-SSN-Solar Activity Recent solar activity (daily)
K F107 at Minima 1954 and 2008 Comparison between minima (daily),
which have both not been updated for a while. Thanks.
The flux curve is most interesting.
Carla says:
January 6, 2011 at 7:10 am
After what little SC24 has to say, the solar wind could just stop as it did for two days eleven years ago.
Anyone with a good and reasonable explanation?
~
Same year as the Gakkel Ridge volcano in the polar region under all that water oh my..
My car blew a tire that day, perhaps that rocked the sun [seems as likely as Jupiter, Gakkel, or S1]
Mr. Alex says:
January 6, 2011 at 7:57 am
Leif Svalgaard could you kindly update your graphics
They are updated every day. Try to reload (F5) the page…
@Leif
> The purpose of Ap [and similar indices] is to measure solar magnetism using the
> Earth as the instrument. We go to great length to exclude non-solar influences
> Julius Bartels [who invented the Ap-index] said about it:
> “In conclusion, we may roughly classify solar phenomena according to their
> effects on the earth’s magnetism…
You (and perhaps Bartels, who predicted the existence of coronal holes) are speaking as solar scientists, so you would regard the terrestrial influence on Ap as ‘noise’.
But are there not physicists who use Ap to investigate terrestrial geophysics, and who would regard the solar influence as ‘noise’? (perhaps yourself and Bartels, wearing different hats?)
Also, when you say ‘solar magnetism’ I think you are referring to the magnetic component of the solar wind, which interacts with the Earth’s field. I think Andrew was referring to the Sun’s internal magnetism, in light of his remark about the Ap index revealing the slow-down of the ‘solar dynamo’. That’s a stretch from solar wind magnetism (and the main point of my rant)…
In any case, I defer to your much greater knowledge in these fields. Thanks for the the paper, it has already given me a new perspective on these indices, and seems to explain why Ap is not best index for solar work.
John Day says:
January 6, 2011 at 8:35 am
But are there not physicists who use Ap to investigate terrestrial geophysics, and who would regard the solar influence as ‘noise’? (perhaps yourself and Bartels, wearing different hats?)
No. When studying the Earth itself, e.g. when prospecting for oil or minerals or determine the secular variation of the main field, Ap is often used to exclude data, e.g. they don’t include days where Ap is high, because then their analysis would be tainted by the solar influence.
Also, when you say ‘solar magnetism’ I think you are referring to the magnetic component of the solar wind, which interacts with the Earth’s field. I think Andrew was referring to the Sun’s internal magnetism, in light of his remark about the Ap index revealing the slow-down of the ‘solar dynamo’. That’s a stretch from solar wind magnetism (and the main point of my rant)…
the solar wind derives its magnetic field directly from the Sun so no stretch.
… the really worrisome thing is the Ap geomagnetic index. The solar dynamo has now dropped to magnetic activity levels last seen in late 2009. …
The relationship is a bit more complex than just a simple comparison can show. And there is a tiny fly in the ointment. When I said that Ap is not terrestrial, but solar, there is a subtlety that I glossed over: the instrument [the Earth] that we use to measure Ap with introduces a systematic error, namely that Ap is too low [by some 25%] at the solstices [like in December]. We should correct for this [and do, for serious work, see http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf section 3.2 and Figure 10.
explain why Ap is not best index for solar work.
The ‘best’ is the enemy of the ‘good’. Ap is not too bad for this and is easy to get.
Blade:
About Ronald Reagan, I suggest you to see this documentary:
SOVIET AFGHAN WAR DOCUMENTARY Part 1/5
See all 5 parts, then comment.
A total shame to the United States. A shame that not only costed million of lives of Afghans, but also 3000 people in the Twin Towers. Yes, the 9-11 terrorists were arabs, but Al-Qaeda was originated by the islamic extremists that went massively to Afghanistan (inluding the Arab Osama Bin Laden), backed by the United States.
I have to admit that Jimmy Carter began the problem (and for that I am no Jimmy Carter fan, as he was surrounded by anti-peace advicers), and Reagan aggravated it (that, unlike Carter, believed that everything is right if it is against the Soviets).
About Hoover, you are right. I wanted to say the Republican presidents before him (I don’t checked the date of the beginning of his amministration, my apologies for that). He just inherited the result of a decade of lassez-faire capitalism that permitted a surge of financial speculation that lead to the stock market crash of 1929.
But Hoover weak policies permitted the Depression to worsen, until Rooselvelt take over and with agressive state policies (the New Deal) began the (slow) recovery.
SOLAR WIND DISAPPEARANCE
It appears velocity was OK but density fell to near zero.
For the experts and connoisseurs here is list of links with graphics of all parameters:
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/19990510_ace.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/990508-10_el_magneto.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/990508-10_hb_magneto.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/990510-12_hb_magneto.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/990510-12_geokp.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/extended.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/990510-13_wi_swe-mfi.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/lp051199.jpg
vukcevic says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:08 am
It appears velocity was OK but density fell to near zero.
The magnetic field was a bit higher than normal. In toto there was nothing very special about this event which probably was a local ‘hole’ in the wind. i.e. the solar wind didn’t disappear at other places around the Sun. Such ‘holes’ occur regularly.
From Peru says:
January 6, 2011 at 9:25 am
Sorry From Peru – you are completely off on FDR. Indeed, I agree with you about Hoover, but FDR only magnified the problem! After 10 years, nothing had changed (except the deficit), and it was WWII that actually pulled the country out of the depression. FDR, like Obama’s, policies only served to siphon off money from the private sector thus inhibiting job creation and growth.
If nothing else, at least the last 2 years should have reminded everyone that government cannot “spend” its way out of a recession. For all it does is rob peter to pay Paul – but does not create any wealth.
Geomagnetic activity is going to pick up today. It may be that low-latitude coronal holes my become more prevalent with low solar activity. Interesting times.
StuartMcL says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Thanks, Stuart!
harrywr2 says: January 5, 2011 at 2:00 pm
The ‘C’ in (C)AGW is based on the late 1970′s to 1990′s trend accelerating.
Hi harry. From my reading, the ‘C’ will come into play if temperatures climb by +3C. Such an outcome would occur whether temperature ramps up quickly or slowly grinds to that point. +3C will push many regions outside the agricultural norms enjoyed by humanity for thousands of years. Given that scores of studies using many different methods place climate sensitivity at around +3C for a doubling of CO2 I find this assessment very sobering.
I can only hope that cycle arguments or GCRs or negative cloud feedback or solar minima or whatever proves correct. In the meantime, the much vilified “onion” has a point. Condemning a theory when its central tenet is intact is perhaps premature. Whatever the cause, measured global temperatures are near record highs and ice continues to melt globally.
With the stratosphere so clear and so many eruptions of low altitude plumes I can see it getting quite warm. What we should concentrate on is how low will the next minimum go and how many VEI-5+, in my opinion.
In 1932 Julius Bartels wrote:
“If the time T of passage from the Sun to the Earth would be constant for all corpuscular streams, then our diagram could be conceived of as a chart of the Sun, indicating the heliographic longitude of the active regions on the Sun-which we shall call here M regions.”
Four decades later satellite observations showed that these “M regions” were the gaps in the corona that we now call “coronal holes”, that allow solar winds to escape from the sun.
Now are you saying that “low solar activity” (i.e. low solar magnetism) could lead to more holes, and an increase geomagnetic fluctuations (thus making the Ap index even more unreliable as a ‘solar activity’ indicator)?
Magnetic irony?
😐
BTW, a good place to watch geomagnetic storms hitting the north Western hemisphere is the Canadian magnetometer chain. http://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/common_apps/auto_generated_products/stackplot_e.png. It will light up, all yellow and red, when a really big storm hits.
vukcevic says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:08 am
~
Thanks Vuks. Couldn’t link an SST, found 44 between mid Nov. and mid March though.
oops my bad and break time
The Life Cycle of the Northern Hemisphere Sudden Stratospheric Warmings
pg. 2-3
..This study uses 44 years of data (1958–2001)
..Black bars (28 in all) indicate
events that correspond to sudden stratospheric major warmings (26) and minor warmings (2) as
defined by the WMO.
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/LimpasuvanThompsonHartmann.pdf
either way no May of ’99’
John Day says:
January 6, 2011 at 11:39 am
Now are you saying that “low solar activity” (i.e. low solar magnetism) could lead to more holes, and an increase geomagnetic fluctuations (thus making the Ap index even more unreliable as a ‘solar activity’ indicator)?
Well, Ap is a measure of the solar wind [which directly affects the Earth because we are sitting in it]. Most solar wind comes from coronal holes which are more prevalent at lower and moderate activity. Then occasionally we get a blast from the sun [a CME] that adds to the solar wind [and also drives up Ap]. The CMEs are more prevalent at high solar activity, so you have this curious mixture of both low and high activity contributing to Ap. This actually bedeviled the early scientists trying to figure out what was going on. So Ap is a very reliable indicator of the type of solar activity that hits the Earth via the solar wind [what used to be called ‘corpuscular radiation’], while F10.7 is a very reliable indicator of solar activity that hits the Earth via radiation [UV and TSI]. We need both kind of indices for a complete picture. From the hard work of generations of solar/terrestrial researchers [including yours truly] we have finally figured out how all that works. That is why there is no longer the debate that raged 100 years ago about whether the Sun had anything to do with of magnetic variations, storms, and aurorae [much the same kind of debate that still rages about solar variability influence on climate – which BTW started all the way back in the 17th century]. Once we figure out what goes on [or not] with the sun/climate that debate will come to an end too.
Magnetic irony?
Not really, just a warning about not being simplistic about this.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Thnx Leif, I appreciate it.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:37 am
Geomagnetic activity is going to pick up today. It may be that low-latitude coronal holes my become more prevalent with low solar activity. Interesting times.
The predicted magnetic storm will hit in a few hours. Perhaps Venus is in the sign of Aquarius or some such…
As further proof that not all significant changes in geomagnetism are solar-related, read this story from Tampa Florida. Authorities had to close an airport runway due to the movement of the North Magnetic Pole! :-]
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/jan/05/060831/shift-of-earths-magnetic-north-pole-impacts-tampa-/news-money/
Hi Leif,
In your post dated 5 Jan 2011 at 1h06pm you referred to a graph.
On the graph it is stated that the trendline is calculated with the Least Square method, a statistical method that came into use in the late 1970s. Least Squares is a very neat way to establish trends in experimantal data and I am very sorry that I only stumbled across this method so late in life.
In the programme that I downloaded as an add-on in Excel, you have to set two parameters: alpha; and Number of points.
My question to you is: Shouldn’t it be best practice to state and list these two parameters on the each graph where a trendline using Least Squares is shown?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:37 am
Geomagnetic activity is going to pick up today. It may be that low-latitude coronal holes my become more prevalent with low solar activity. Interesting times.
~
Interesting indeed.
Is going to pick up today or has picked up today?
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/images/test_6.20110106211517.jpg
John Day says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:03 pm
As further proof that not all significant changes in geomagnetism are solar-related
Of course not. The solar-related changes are minute compared with what the Earth does on its own deep down in the core. Even switches poles around. The major, major changes come from within. These huge swings change cosmic ray flux reaching the atmosphere much, much more than the puny solar changes. People who believe in cosmic rays running the climate, take note.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm
It occurs to me that cosmic rays vary just as much as the Suns ability to shield them out.
If true, then subtracting the solar wind output from cosmic ray incoming gives the variance (or anomaly) of cosmic ray incoming.
And then there are stations that are drifting, as you say, and not in calibration.
How do they calibrate to a zero point if there is variance in galactic incoming?
@Leif
> The predicted magnetic storm will hit in a few hours. Perhaps Venus is in
> the sign of Aquarius or some such…
Apparently due to a CME, which has already hit the ACE solar satellite located at the L1 langragian spot, about a million miles closer to the Sun than Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Composition_Explorer
You can see the on-board instrument readings here:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_6h.html
Since this morning solar wind speed has jumped from ~320km/s to ~500km/s. Density has decreased by an order of magnitude, but the “temperature” jumped from about ~20,oooK to 500,oooK! (But remember the solar wind is extremely rarified, only a few particles per cm³. So it would probably take many years to even fry an egg at that low density).
Since the Bz component of the solar wind magnetism is negative we can expect a connection to Earth’s magnetosphere (which is opposite polarity) allowing entry of solar wind to our atmosphere, so expect some “storm-time disturbances” to be registered at magnetometer stations around the world.
Watch the USGS or Canadian magnetometers for further developments:
http://geomag.usgs.gov/realtime/
http://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/common_apps/auto_generated_products/stackplot_e.png.
Loodt Pretorius says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:17 pm
On the graph it is stated that the trendline is calculated with the Least Square method, a statistical method that came into use in the late 1970s.
Goes way back to Gauss ~1794…
My question to you is: Shouldn’t it be best practice to state and list these two parameters on the each graph where a trendline using Least Squares is shown?
A reasonable substitute is the ‘R squared’ parameter that shows how much of the variation is ‘explained’ by the correlation. R^2 of .9 means that 90% of the variation can be ‘explained’ from the regression equation. This does not mean that there is a real physical connection.
Carla says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Is going to pick up today or has picked up today?
Density is high, Bz is high, when speed picks up it we’ll get it.
Give it another hour or two.
Carla
Arctic stratosphere in May 1999 was normal (SSW usually appear Nov-Mar).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/archive/10mb9065_1999.gif
rbateman says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:38 pm
How do they calibrate to a zero point if there is variance in galactic incoming?
The real factor is not the solar wind, not the sun, not the galaxy, but the Earth itself. That is where the shielding is. The solar modulation is only a few percent. The galaxy stuff changes too slowly. The Earth is the big shield.
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
shows the result of GCRs on 14C the past several thousand years. The big swing matches [inversely] the curve with the crosses on it showing the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field [seen by a cosmic ray at some distance from the Earth], the little wiggles are due to solar activity and the galaxy variations are nowhere to be found.
rbateman says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:38 pm
If true, then subtracting the solar wind output from cosmic ray incoming gives the variance (or anomaly) of cosmic ray incoming.
Since the solar modulation depend on energy [lower energies are modulated much more] one can calculate the so-called cosmic ray spectrum and deduce the unmodulated galactic part. Here is how it is done: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014532.pdf
Hi Leif,
Thank you for your reply. We are talking at cross purposes.
I thought that you were using something more advanced like a LOESS utility.
In 1979 William Cleveland published the LOESS (or LOWESS) technique for smoothing data, and in 1988 he and Susan J. Devlin published a refined version of the technique (references are given at the end of this article). For each X value where a Y value is to be calculated, the LOESS technique performs a regression on points in a moving range around the X value, where the values in the moving range are weighted according to their distance from this X value.
Read more: LOESS Smoothing in Excel | Peltier Tech Blog | Excel Charts http://peltiertech.com/WordPress/loess-smoothing-in-excel/#ixzz1AIVLXzjU
The LOESS method has some similarities (IMHO) to some of the geostatistical methods used in ore reserve estimating.
Hi Leif,
Reference to the Wikipedia entry which also mentions the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_regression
Loodt Pretorius says:
January 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Thank you for your reply. We are talking at cross purposes.
The real limitation for my use [which precludes sophisticated methods] is that the relationship is not linear, the data not random, the physics not understood, so I can only use regression as a rough cut.
@Loodt Pretorius
> The LOESS method has some similarities (IMHO) to some of the geostatistical
> methods used in ore reserve estimating.
I thought that was called “kriging”, a method of interpolating ore concentration samples over a geographic area to estimate the extent and best places to mine. So named after D.G. Krige, who developed the technique for estimating ore reserves of South African gold mines. Like LOESS, it is a kind of non-parametric regression:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VKz9Sswk1bkC&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=loess+kriging+ore&source=bl&ots=uUwZhC6u38&sig=4WDitzMMI01CyRE4_xpAOfZyHL4&hl=en&ei=g00mTZOpFoOClAfQlZT9AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
New to all this and not a regular but I find all this fascinating. The reason I’m here is because I recently watched “Conspiracy Theories with Jesse Ventura: 2012”. I know, I know. Anyway, he talked to some people from NASA who said that they were expecting sun activity to be higher in 2012 than it was 150 years ago and combined that with a major decrease in the Earth’s magnetic field to give us: catostrophic burning of Earth, essentially. Mass extinctions and so forth, fire and brimstone.
What I gather from these conversations is just the opposite or is there something to the “wind up” theory of Hathaway? OR is it all just interstellar junk? Thanks for your opinion, anyone.
Interstellar Overdrive says:
January 6, 2011 at 3:33 pm
is it all just interstellar junk?
sounds like a winner
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 6, 2011 at 3:14 pm (Edit)
Replying to
Loodt Pretorius says:
January 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm
…
The real limitation for my use [which precludes sophisticated methods] is that the relationship is not linear, the data not random, the physics not understood, so I can only use regression as a rough cut.
—…—
But then, given that non-linearity, not-all-of-the-physics-is-perfectly-understood, and (somewhat) random data, isn’t it all the more important that accurate data and simple trend analysis (much more than simple linear analysis/extrapolation into the future) be done first?
The theory must come later, in particular because it appears to me that every advance in nuclear physics theory/particle physics theory has come only after the observation of a (previously unknown and unsuspected!) phenomenon.
racookpe1978 says:
January 6, 2011 at 9:44 pm
But then, given that non-linearity, not-all-of-the-physics-is-perfectly-understood, and (somewhat) random data, isn’t it all the more important that accurate data and simple trend analysis (much more than simple linear analysis/extrapolation into the future) be done first?
Of course, if you seriously want to extrapolate, but in the case at hand, the trend line was indicative only. Use at own risk.
Thanks for your response. I’m sorry I didn’t notice your cosmic ray/ geodipole graph before I asked the question. I don’t think that graph can be understated for laymen type. I’m baffled by some of this stuff and I think that can only be attributed to scale. It’s nice to see the big picture. Just doing a quick google search on catastrophic events in 4500 BC, based on the scenario I was speaking of (low geomagnetism/high solar activity) and the first thing I clicked on corresponded well with that graph. Not catastrophic by any means but warm and prosperous, followed by cold climate shock. Maybe global warming is bred into the brain trust.
http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php?topic=16278.0;wap2
That’s bringing the correlation to life.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 6, 2011 at 2:06 pm
C14 is reported to have some problems in regards to contamination and can be a misleading/difficult proxy.
What else do we have?
rbateman says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:45 pm
C14 is reported to have some problems in regards to contamination and can be a misleading/difficult proxy. What else do we have?
10Be is the best, and we can drill as many cores as we like.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:58 pm
rbateman says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:45 pm
C14 is reported to have some problems in regards to contamination and can be a misleading/difficult proxy. What else do we have?
10Be is the best, and we can drill as many cores as we like.
~
“””There is an immense number of distinct compounds that contain carbon atoms. Some sources suggest that there are about ten million known compounds.[1] However, it is possible that the number is greater.”””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compounds_of_carbon
So.. what happens if the solar system, in its past, encountered an area of interstellar space that was rich in Carbon? (by the way an area has been observed made a mental note cause they used an exclamation point at the end of the sentence!) How would this mess with the data?
I have got to start taking better notes. repeat 3 times
Ok, off the newer topic.
Not exactly what I was looking for but an example non the less.
Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
of the Heliosphere over the past 60,000 years:
Impact of the Solar Journey on the Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux
at Earth
Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
Bottom pg. 3-4
..The gas-phase abundances in the CISM, which include unobserved H+, provided the first evidence that the Sun is in
shocked ISM. The abundance pattern in the gas is characteristic of the destruction of
refractory grains in 50–100 km s−1 shock fronts, such as associated with expanding
superbubble shells (Frisch et al. 1999). Abundances of the refractory elements Mg, Si,
and Fe are below solar by factors of 3–15, and C is overabundant.
Rob .. carbon 14 is messed up. I have got to read this again. But you should be able to get the gist of it here.
I wish this would paste correctly.
From the same article as my last post. Out of time here now.
pg. 10
5 Future: Improving Comparisons between Local ISM Structure and
Paleomagnetic Records
..Given the uncertainties, the attenuation of GCRs and ACRs by an ISM-modulated
heliosphere appears to be capable of accounting for several unexplained excursions
in the geomagnetic record. More study of the roles of anomalous cosmic rays versus
higher GCRs as source populations of the radio isotopes will be of interest, since differences
between the 14C, 10Be, 36Cl records are mandated if ACRs are a factor in
14C production rates. Only more data will reveal whether these interpretations are
accurate..
Carla says:
January 7, 2011 at 6:32 am
So.. what happens if the solar system, in its past, encountered an area of interstellar space that was rich in Carbon?
Since 14C is radioactive and half of it disappears in 5700 years there wouldn’t be any left. And there wouldn’t be any 14C there any way. The 14C we find on Earth is generated from Nitrogen in the atmosphere. There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe.
Slow down Dr. S
PASADENA, Calif. — Astronomers have discovered that a huge, searing-hot planet orbiting another star is loaded with an unusual amount of carbon.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer20101208.html
Vuk etc. says:
Astronomers have discovered that a huge, searing-hot planet orbiting another star is loaded with an unusual amount of carbon.
so? There are stars that consists wholly of carbon.
1. There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe.
2.so? There are stars that consists wholly of carbon.
1 or 2 ?
Vuk etc. says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:50 am
1. There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe.
2.so? There are stars that consists wholly of carbon.
1 or 2 ?
Both
Leif Svalgaard:
You have found that the Total Solar Irradiance(TSI) at the Maunder Minimum was very similar to the TSI at the bottom of any solar minimum, right?
So the difference in Solar Irradiance between the Little Ice Age(LIA) and the 20th Century was small?
If so, what do you think was the cause of the LIA?
Maybe high volcanic activity?(big volcanos emit SO2 that with water forms sulphate aerosols that reflect the incoming solar radiation, cooling the Earth)
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:37 am
Vuk etc. says:
Astronomers have discovered that a huge, searing-hot planet orbiting another star is loaded with an unusual amount of carbon.
so? There are stars that consists wholly of carbon.
~
Then the cosmic lexion must bbee wrong?
Cosmic Lexicon: Carbon dioxide
Home > Library > Science > Cosmic Lexicon
A compound formed by combining one carbon atom with two oxygen atoms, making the molecule CO2. Carbon dioxide is an important part of the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. Carbon dioxide gas condenses to a solid below -78 C. This solid is commonly known as dry ice. The polar ice caps on Mars are made of frozen water and carbon dioxide.
http://www.answers.com/topic/carbon-dioxide
Thanks Huxter Vuks ..good game, you too Dr S.
hmmm must have wire crossed here somewhere .. that’s ok though.. cus the sun seems to have few wires crossed at this time too. lol
Now I’m P Ode.
“Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:
1n + 14N → 14C + 1H
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes, but the carbon-14 readily mixes and becomes evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere and reacts with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide also dissolves in water and thus permeates the oceans. Carbon-14 can also be produced in ice by fast neutrons causing spallation reactions in oxygen.
Carbon-14 then goes through radioactive beta decay..””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
Still can’t find the exact carbon rich clumpy was looking for (it was on a site line) but..maybe putting it in Earth’s orbital path works better here. Or not..
The Galactic Environment of the Sun: Interstellar
Material Inside and Outside of the Heliosphere
P.C. Frisch · M. Bzowski · E. Grün · V. Izmodenov · H. Krüger · J.L. Linsky ·
D.J. McComas · E. Möbius · S. Redfield · N. Schwadron · R. Shelton · J.D. Slavin ·
B.E. Wood May 14, 2009
pg 14
“”..Interstellar particles with optical properties of astronomical
silicates or organic refractory materials are consistent with the observed radiation
pressure effects (Landgraf et al. 1999), however the overabundance of carbon in the CHISM
(Sect. 4.3) appears to rule out a significant proportion of organics. The heliospheric trajectories
of the largest ISDGs with radii ≥7 μm are determined by solar gravity. These large
grains are predicted to form a “focusing cone” downwind of the Sun (Grogan et al. 1996;
Landgraf 2000)..
circumheliospheric interstellar medium (CHISM),””
From Peru says:
January 7, 2011 at 4:50 pm
If so, what do you think was the cause of the LIA?
Any complex system has chaotic oscillations. If you think that the LIA was not one like that, but was caused by a change of the sun, then what was the cause of that oscillation? Is the sun allowed to have random fluctuations, but the Earth not?
Carla says:
January 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Then the cosmic lexion must be wrong?
I suggest that your grasp of these things is the tenuous part of the whole shebang.
The oldest objects that can be found on Earth are made of Carbon, it is thought they predate formation of the solar system (presolar), can be found only in two places (Bahia Brazil and Central African republic, hit by carbon meteorite, when two continents were part of a single land mass). They are carbonado diamonds.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Carla says:
January 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Then the cosmic lexion must be wrong?
I suggest that your grasp of these things is the tenuous part of the whole shebang.
~
The solar system accretes solids, gas, plasma and subs of . Whether it be carbon, oxygen or the H2o group or GCR or the multitude of other..and that depends on the availability (at any given time) within the very local interstellar medium. The carbon dioxide swings in Earth’s history can be quite dramatic. I’m not trying to say that mankinds contribution to the planets chaos is without effects. That oil thing bothers me more than the pollutions it can produce. Maybe I need to stop viewing crude as a lubricant. ..lol
Here get a grip on this, one for each hand q. .lol
http://lyrics.smashits.com/artwork/d8/d8048e4a87fb13de63bc23d9b62da8f7.jpg
Didn’t really want to go off on that carbon thingy. Goal was to do the indices lesson above that was so kindly provided by our good friend Dr. S..
Then start on that Mystery..
Vuk etc. says:
January 8, 2011 at 1:57 am
The oldest objects that can be found on Earth are made of Carbon, it is thought they predate formation of the solar system (presolar)
Everything on Earth is older than the formation of the solar system. The snowballs my grandkids are playing with contain Hydrogen which is 13.7 years old.
I said ‘object’, not atom or molecule.
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=07-X2
Read and leard.
You are master of a statement distortion (KGB?), as you have shown on many occasions.
Haven’t you got anything better to do?
Vuk etc. says:
January 8, 2011 at 10:17 am
I said ‘object’, not atom or molecule.
Objects consists of atoms too. When they assembled into an object is irrelevant for when they were created. A jeweler puts diamonds in a tiara, making that a new object. Your comment was needlessly off topic.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 10:47 am
Your comment was needlessly off topic.
Nonsense and again a deliberate distortion of the facts.
Point you raised was
‘There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe’..
Carbon is one of the most common elements in the universe. You are only showing your ignorance. Carbonado is rare and may be only solid carbon object (of considerable size) that can be found on Earth, older than and with the origin outside the solar system.
If Earth as a tiny speck in Galaxy was impacted by considerable quantity, then amount of it throughout universe must be immense!
Vuk etc. says:
January 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm
‘There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe’..
Carbon is one of the most common elements in the universe.
Do the math. Consider a column 1 square meter in cross section extending upwards from you to the end of the visible universe, and calculate the number of carbon atoms between you and the top of the atmosphere [TOA] and between TOA and the end of the visible universe. And compare and tell us.
Vuk etc. says:
January 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Nonsense and again a deliberate distortion of the facts. You are only showing your ignorance
Do the math. Consider a column 1 square meter in cross section extending upwards from to top of the atmosphere to the end of the visible universe
Hint: that column contains about 5 grammes baryonic matter.
Leif Svalgaard says: …..
===========
Thanks for the explanations, and the patience.
It is appreciated.
And enlightening.
u.k.(us) says:
January 8, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Thanks for the explanations, and the patience.
It is appreciated. And enlightening.
You are welcome. On others, my words sometimes fall on barren ground.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 5:07 pm
……………
Absolute nonsense.
Carbon (C), the fourth most abundant element in the Universe, after hydrogen (H), helium (He), and oxygen (O).
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
Astronomers have discovered that a huge, searing-hot planet orbiting another star is loaded with an unusual amount of carbon. Carbon is a common component of planetary systems.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-409
Earth and its atmospheric carbon (only 0.03%), Venus atmosphere is Earth size contains hundreds of times more carbon than the Earth’s , it is composed chiefly of carbon dioxide, which generates a surface pressure 90 times greater than that on Earth.
Earth is less than a spec on the expanse of the Universe. I hope rest of the stuff you write is more accurate than the above nonsense.
Vuk etc. says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:02 am
Absolute nonsense.
Carbon (C), the fourth most abundant element in the Universe
–Do the math. Consider a column 1 square meter in cross section extending upwards from to top of the atmosphere to the end of the visible universe
Hint: that column contains about 5 grammes baryonic matter.–
You didn’t do the math [you never do – you biggest problem]
The density of the Universe is 1E-27 kg/m3. The distance we can see is 13.7 billion light years. One light year is 1E16 m, so 13.7 billion of those is 1.37E26 m, so the column 1 m square in cross section is that many cubic meters 1.37E26 m3 at a density of 1E-27 kg/m3, for a total mass of 137 gram. Only 4% of that is baryons or 5 gram, and only 0.4% of that is carbon, for a grand total of 0.26 gram.
Now, you calculate the amount of carbon in the Earth’s atmospehre in a 1 m2 column and compare.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 5:07 pm
………………
Weasel words.
And that is rubbish too. Space above your head is volume ascribed by a 3-dimentional conus from centre of the Earth, which increases by cube of the distance.
Just to Proxima Centauri (nearest star) is (9,460,730,472,581 KM/6000km)^3 =1576788412^3 = 3920308631795189445760750528 times than you calculate. To the end of visible universe =
3920308631795189445760750528 x 3 000 000 000 = 1.2 x 10^37 greater than you suggest it to be.
But standing in the SH sun is straight above my head.
correction for the above:
final figure is 1.2×10^37 x 9 x 10^18 = 1 x 10^56 greater than you suggest it to be.
Vuk etc. says:
January 9, 2011 at 2:43 am
Space above your head is volume ascribed by a 3-dimentional conus from centre of the Earth, which increases by cube of the distance.
I specified clearly that I was talking about a 1 sq meter cross section column. This is a simplification of the real you. If you travel upwards your personal space say 2 meters of that column, travels with you. You can sample that space and count the carbon atoms in it. As you travel from the top of the atmosphere to the end of the visible atmosphere, you’ll encounter the 0.26 grams of carbon.
Done for now.
CO2 scewed.
Be10 scewed.
Starting to see a scew in the F10
too close and too far oh my..
Nonsense. Trying to dig your self out of the hole. No sq. m mentioned here.
‘There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe’.
Now, if top of your head is not part of an absolutelyconcentric circle (with the Earth surface) but a bit more rounded , then there is even bigger chunk of universe is about it.
If you do science that is 0.26 grams x 10^56 =2.60×10^52 kg.
The mass of the earth is 5.9736×10^24 kg
Or 4.5 x 10^27 the Earth’s mass.
vukcevic says:
January 9, 2011 at 9:04 am
Nonsense. Trying to dig your self out of the hole. No sq. m mentioned here.
‘There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe’.
It was implicit in the ‘you’. That you didn’t get it was perhaps my fault as I should have foreseen that and spelled it out for you in greater detail.
I, as any other rational person would, consider the whole of celestial hemisphere to be above my head.
Vuk etc says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:51 am
I, as any other rational person would, consider the whole of celestial hemisphere to be above my head.
From my initial statement any rational person would conclude that that was not what was meant. The purpose of my comment was to point out how exceedingly empty the Universe is, not that carbon was rare among elements; this should have been clear from the outset. If it wasn’t that is entirely my fault. Perhaps I presume too much and expect too much of the readership.
Above = higher than
At level = at same height
Below = lower then
This is getting ridiculous, I give up.
Vuk etc says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm
This is getting ridiculous, I give up.
I know the feeling. Perhaps you shouldn’t have gotten in in the first place.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Your generous offer is much appreciated but I will obtain myself by any legal means at my disposal. Thank you very much for the offer.
DaveE.
Does anyone have the latest status of the Landscheidt Grand Minimum??
John A. Jauregui says:
January 18, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Does anyone have the latest status of the Landscheidt Grand Minimum??
When the next Grand Minimum arrives it will be called the Eddy Minimum. Most likely not this time [but the Sun could surprise us]
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 8:23 pm (Edit)
u.k.(us) says:
January 8, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Thanks for the explanations, and the patience.
It is appreciated. And enlightening.
You are welcome. On others, my words sometimes fall on barren ground.
Hey! No barren ground here….
(I got me plenty of hair up on me head! 8<) )
racookpe1978 says:
January 19, 2011 at 12:34 am
Hey! No barren ground here….
(I got me plenty of hair up on me head! 8<) )
Good to hear that there is a fertile ground up there for all kinds of growths…