NASA JPL on New Insights on How Solar Minimums Affect Earth

The Sun today, quiet, small spots - click for more

This is the first of what I’m sure will be a series of solar stories related to the stunning (at least to people who have not been following WUWT since 2008) announcement that it appears sunspots are on the wane, and we may be headed to an extended Maunder type minimum.

See: BREAKING – major AAS solar announcement: Sun’s Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity

From NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab website:

Since 1611, humans have recorded the comings and goings of black spots on the sun. The number of these sunspots waxes and wanes over approximately an 11-year cycle — more sunspots generally mean more activity and eruptions on the sun and vice versa. The number of sunspots can change from cycle to cycle, and 2008 saw the longest and weakest solar minimum since scientists have been monitoring the sun with space-based instruments.

Observations have shown, however, that magnetic effects on Earth due to the sun, effects that cause the aurora to appear, did not go down in synch with the cycle of low magnetism on the sun. Now, a paper in Annales Geophysicae that appeared on May 16, 2011 reports that these effects on Earth did in fact reach a minimum — indeed they attained their lowest levels of the century — but some eight months later. The scientists believe that factors in the speed of the solar wind, and the strength and direction of the magnetic fields embedded within it, helped produce this anomalous low.

“Historically, the solar minimum is defined by sunspot number,” says space weather scientist Bruce Tsurutani at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who is first author on the paper. “Based on that, 2008 was identified as the period of solar minimum. But the geomagnetic effects on Earth reached their minimum quite some time later, in 2009. So we decided to look at what caused the geomagnetic minimum.”

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/sun/20110614/magnetometer-full.jpg

Small magnetometers like these measure magnetic strength on Earth and in the atmosphere to determine how much of the sun's magnetic energy has been transferred to Earth's magnetosphere. In 2009, that energy reached record lows. Images credit: Glassmeier, et al.

Geomagnetic effects basically amount to any magnetic changes on Earth due to the sun, and they’re measured by magnetometer readings on the surface of the Earth. Such effects are usually harmless, with the only obvious sign of their presence being the appearance of auroras near the poles. However, in extreme cases, they can cause power grid failures on Earth or induce dangerous currents in long pipelines, so it is valuable to know how the geomagnetic effects vary with the sun.

Three things help determine how much energy from the sun is transferred to Earth’s magnetosphere from the solar wind: the speed of the solar wind, the strength of the magnetic field outside Earth’s bounds (known as the interplanetary magnetic field) and which direction it is pointing, since a large southward component is necessary to connect successfully to Earth’s magnetosphere and transfer energy. The team — which also included Walter Gonzalez and Ezequiel Echer of the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research in São José dos Campos, Brazil — examined each component in turn.

First, the researchers noted that in 2008 and 2009, the interplanetary magnetic field was the lowest it had been in the history of the space age. This was an obvious contribution to the geomagnetic minimum. But since the geomagnetic effects didn’t drop in 2008, it could not be the only factor.

To examine the speed of the solar wind, they turned to NASA’s Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), which is in interplanetary space outside the Earth’s magnetosphere, approximately 1 million miles toward the sun. The ACE data showed that the speed of the solar wind stayed high during the sunspot minimum. Only later did it begin a steady decline, correlating to the timing of the decline in geomagnetic effects.

The next step was to understand what caused this decrease. The team found a culprit in something called coronal holes. Coronal holes are darker, colder areas within the sun’s outer atmosphere. Fast solar wind shoots out the center of coronal holes at speeds up to 500 miles per second, but wind flowing out of the sides slows down as it expands into space.
“Usually, at solar minimum, the coronal holes are at the sun’s poles,” says Giuliana de Toma, a solar scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research whose research on this topic helped provide insight for this paper. “Therefore, Earth receives wind from only the edges of these holes, and it’s not very fast. But in 2007 and 2008, the coronal holes were not confined to the poles as normal.”

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/sun/20110614/alfven-waves-full.jpg

The magnetic fields from the center of coronal holes in the sun's atmosphere have large fluctuations known as Alfvén waves, while those from the sides have smaller fluctuations. The side fields do not transfer energy as well from the sun to Earth's magnetosphere. Image credit: NASA/Park

Those coronal holes lingered at low latitudes to the end of 2008. Consequently, the center of the holes stayed firmly pointed towards Earth, sending fast solar wind in Earth’s direction. Only as they finally appeared closer to the poles in 2009 did the speed of the solar wind at Earth begin to slow down. And, of course, the geomagnetic effects and sightings of the aurora along with it.

Coronal holes seem to be responsible for minimizing the southward direction of the interplanetary magnetic field as well. The solar wind’s magnetic fields oscillate on the journey from the sun to Earth. These fluctuations are known as Alfvén waves. The wind coming out of the centers of the coronal holes has large fluctuations, meaning that the southward magnetic component – like that in all the directions — is fairly large. The wind that comes from the edges, however, has smaller fluctuations, and comparably smaller southward components. So, once again, coronal holes at lower latitudes would have a better chance of connecting with Earth’s magnetosphere and causing geomagnetic effects, while mid-latitude holes would be less effective.

Working together, these three factors — low interplanetary magnetic field strength, combined with slower solar wind speed and smaller magnetic fluctuations due to coronal hole placement — create the perfect environment for a geomagnetic minimum.

Knowing what situations cause and suppress intense geomagnetic activity on Earth is a step toward better predicting when such events might happen. To do so well, Tsurutani points out, requires focusing on the tight connection between such effects and the complex physics of the sun. “It’s important to understand all of these features better,” he says. “To understand what causes low interplanetary magnetic fields and what causes coronal holes in general. This is all part of the solar cycle. And all part of what causes effects on Earth.”

Written by Karen C. Fox
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Science, Solar and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to NASA JPL on New Insights on How Solar Minimums Affect Earth

  1. Krishna Gans says:

    The “big question” by alarmists is, how can it get warmer on earth during a solar minimum ?

  2. ShrNfr says:

    I told everyone that when I got my H alpha solar telescope a year ago that sun spots would be a thing of the past. They all laughed at me. Now will you believe me?

  3. Robertvdl says:

    Summary
    In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted that the greatest single
    impact of climate change could be on human migration—with millions of people displaced by
    shoreline erosion, coastal flooding and agricultural disruption. Since then various analysts have tried
    to put numbers on future flows of climate migrants (sometimes called ‘climate refugees’)—the most
    widely repeated prediction being 200 million forced climate migrants by 2050.

    http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/papers/brown_oli.pdf

    They were right. but for some other reasons.
    Agricultural disruption is still a good one.

  4. brewster says:

    Silly people!

    The low geomagnetic field can be easily explained.
    Magnetism is affected by temperature and goes away at a certain point (Curie temperature). Obviously the earth is approaching it’s Currie temperature (due to global warming) and is losing its magnetic field.

  5. Latitude says:

    and 2008 saw the longest and weakest solar minimum since scientists have been monitoring the sun with space-based instruments.
    ===============================================================================
    I hate it when people do this…..it’s like they are trying to hide something or fudge something
    Why not just say “since 1965″ or something like that?

    Does anyone know what time frame they are talking about?

  6. iurockhead says:

    So when we enter another Maunder Minimum-style Little Ice Age, will it be blamed on CO2?

    I’m sure the Rube Goldberg-style explanation of how global warming caused it is being crafted as we speak (or type).

  7. Anything is possible says:

    Latitude : The first space-based solar observing satellite was OSO1, launched in 1962.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSO_1

  8. Roberto Carioca says:

    This is of course the biggest story on climate ever for our generation. Unfortunately like climate it is a very slow process and we may not experience the worst parts of it. However our children and theirs are likely to and this could have incredible repercussion (s@@@, im sounding like the worst type warmistas Joe Romm etc)!. I am now living in a tropical country and seriously considering becoming a citizen so I can stay here when the ice creeps over New York. This is one of the reasons. I would be interested in getting feedback on the time lapse for the real cold to start based on this suns last 11 years activity

  9. crosspatch says:

    “The “big question” by alarmists is, how can it get warmer on earth during a solar minimum ?”

    What I believe is a major contributor is a change in the spectral balance of solar radiation. While the total TSI might not change much, if the spectral distribution of that energy changes, it can have considerable impact. I recently read that recent measurements of the Sun showed less energy in the UV portion of the spectrum. UV light penetrates deeper into the ocean than any other portion of the spectrum. It is also the most energetic of the light reaching Earth. It might be that this reduced UV is resulting in less energy absorption by the oceans. This would be reflected by cooler atmospheric temperatures.

    Does anyone know if a site that provides public access to solar spectral distribution data that can be viewed and tracked over time?

  10. karl hawksworth says:

    Did Miss C Fox mean to say “effect on climate.

  11. bob paglee says:

    Is the Sun getting tired of all that malarky about a warming effect of CO2 and going to teach us something about magnetic solar cooling?

  12. Roberto Carioca says:

    This is the one thing that I think will stop the whole global warming movement in its track MSM are now disseminating the story worldwide http://news.google.com.au/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=solar+activity&btnmeta_news_search=Search+News

  13. Latitude says:
    June 14, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    Does anyone know what time frame they are talking about?
    Since 1962, but this is again a bit misleading, as the solar wind in 2008-2009 was down to what it was around 1900, so it is not that the recent minimum is unprecedented. BTW, shouldn’t the climate now not be like that around 1900 is the sun is a major driver? Or are we still climbing out of the Little Ice Age, and perhaps will continue to do that as long as temperatures go up? :-)

  14. Jack says:

    Just heard on the radio about the prediction of a minimum. No mention of how it would effect weather, though. Did the Maunder Minimum correspond to a cold period?

  15. Sean Peake says:

    Leif: “Or are we still climbing out of the Little Ice Age, and perhaps will continue to do that as long as temperatures go up”
    Good question. I’m trying to see what the state of the PDO and AMO were at that time. These factors could answer your question… Where’s BobTisdale when you need him?

  16. Rhyl says:

    Aren’t we into the 12000 year area of an Interglacial period? Don’t these periods last around 12000 years?
    Maybe we need to get some solar panels to keep the house going when the magnetic stuff happens and wipes out the electicity grid!
    Maybe the sun did it!

  17. Bill in Vigo says:

    We it seems have plenty of room for speculation on the beginning of the next cold period. I, for what it is worth, think that we have already entered the next cold/cool period. The real question is how cold and how long. By time frames we are at a point where several of the sun’s cycles are coming into sync at least according to several of the articles I have read here on WUWT. Perhaps it may be time for we in the deep south of the US to start looking at food crops needing shorter growing periods. I did hear on the news that the congress was considering removing the “bonus for ethanol production” dumb thing to start with. Any way just my scattered thoughts.

    Bill Derryberry

  18. aaron says:

    Lief, no, but we should be heading there.

  19. aaron says:

    Lief, only if the activity was similarly high prior to 1900.

  20. TrueNorthist says:

    Roberto Carioca says:
    June 14, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    This is of course the biggest story on climate ever for our generation.

    And meantime nobody has a clue that it is happening thanks to the fact that media science editors have been carrying water for the global warming crowd. But we do! Heck, we even have our very own tamed solar physicist! The next 20-30 years should be interesting. I expect we will all be watching the Watts Up With That? Network by then.

  21. Anthony Watts says:

    Aaron, please learn to spell Leif’s name correctly

  22. Bob Tisdale says:

    Sean Peake says: “Where’s BobTisdale when you need him?”

    Right here reading your comment and wondering what you’d like to know.

  23. Latitude says:

    Thanks Anything, thanks Leif
    I hate it when people do that. He obviously knew that time frame.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 14, 2011 at 3:13 pm
    BTW, shouldn’t the climate now not be like that around 1900 is the sun is a major driver?
    ====================================================================
    dunno, is there a lag involved?
    Do we even know that?

    The 1920′s were a mess, and that led to the 30′s-40′s drought and dust bowl.

  24. aaron says:

    Thanks.

    Sorry Leif, fingers and brain don’t always co-operate. Pain, swelling, nerve problems. Of course, that’s only an excuse, lately I’ve have the phonic Leef in my head rather than Life.

  25. Jack says:

    Hi Bob, please tell the proles (like me) the climatic implications of a Maunder Minimum. I’m asking because the radio report I heard didn’t mention the implications at all.

  26. Sean Peake says:

    Hi Bob (why do I feel that I’m being watched? ;-) )
    I’m wondering about a possible correlation between solar activity (direct or lagging) and the cycles of the PDO and AMO, or whether it is coincidental, especially when these two oscillations get in sync?

  27. Jim Arndt says:

    Hi,
    Leif that statement is a bit misleading.
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 14, 2011 at 3:13 pm
    “BTW, shouldn’t the climate now not be like that around 1900 is the sun is a major driver? Or are we still climbing out of the Little Ice Age, and perhaps will continue to do that as long as temperatures go up? :-)”

    That is like saying the sun is shining today like one month ago but why is the river higher.

    Jim Arndt

  28. Jimbo says:

    We are at a crossroads and something has to give. Warming or cooling – we live in interesting times of climate alarm. ;>)

  29. Jimbo says:

    I do hope that once the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scare is over it won’t be replaced by the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling scare. I’m serious – see Global Climate Disruption or AGW will cause milder NH winters or colder NH winters.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/20905
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013568

  30. Ulric Lyons says:

    “Working together, these three factors — low interplanetary magnetic field strength, combined with slower solar wind speed and smaller magnetic fluctuations due to coronal hole placement — create the perfect environment for a geomagnetic minimum.”

    ….and cold weather.
    And look, it peaked at 963km/s just before that brief heatwave at the start of June.
    http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html

  31. Steve B says:

    Theodore Landsheidt (who’s name is mud around here) predicted in 2004 a type of Maunder Minimum by about 2030 which would correlate with Solar Cycle 26. Why wasn’t anyone listening?

  32. Dan in California says:

    If the first space-based measurements were on OSO in 1962, was it in high enough orbit to measure the interplanetary effects, or was it inside the Earth’s bow shock?

  33. Brian Hall says:

    Jack;
    Yes, the various Minimums tie in to cold periods. The cosmic ray hypothesis says that they allow more cosmic rays (energetic particles) through to the atmosphere, increasing cloudiness and albedo resulting in cooling.

  34. Country Ham says:

    It’s all them Priuses

  35. Alcheson says:

    Don’t worry the Greenies and Lefties are busy at work hatching up another plot to make sure the solutions to this possible upcoming cooling are exactly the same as for the AGW scam.

  36. Geoff Sharp says:

    crosspatch says:
    June 14, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Does anyone know if a site that provides public access to solar spectral distribution data that can be viewed and tracked over time?

    I plot solar EUV from the SEM/SOHO satellite which is updated on a roughly monthly basis. Graph found HERE.

    Sean Peake says:
    June 14, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Hi Bob (why do I feel that I’m being watched? ;-) )
    I’m wondering about a possible correlation between solar activity (direct or lagging) and the cycles of the PDO and AMO, or whether it is coincidental, especially when these two oscillations get in sync?

    There may be good reason that cold PDO’s and quiet Suns co exist naturally. What drives them both is the movement and acceleration of the Sun around the SSB. Scaffetta and myself are working on this theory which is simplified in this graphic .

    Steve B says:
    June 14, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Theodore Landsheidt (who’s name is mud around here) predicted in 2004 a type of Maunder Minimum by about 2030 which would correlate with Solar Cycle 26. Why wasn’t anyone listening?

    Theodor’s method is the basis for further research but he actually missed the mark in some areas when predicting solar slowdown. We now have much better data in an associated field of research that can be used to accurately predict solar output and slowdowns.

  37. DCC says:

    @Jack who asked: “Did the Maunder Minimum correspond to a cold period?”

    Wikipedia is your friend (in this case.)
    “The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age”

  38. Well I am inspired.. Hello solar telescope

  39. meemoe_uk says:

    >BTW, shouldn’t the climate now not be like that around 1900 is the sun is a major driver? Or are we still climbing out of the Little Ice Age, and perhaps will continue to do that as long as temperatures go up? :-)
    Looking at the weather reports coming in from around the world, including items on wuwt, it’s strikes me we are seeing this return to LIA conditions. We’ve certainly had it in the UK with 3 bad winters. Don’t forget, we are coming into this after the 20th century warm period, while at 1900 they were still in the end of the LIA. i.e. we’ve got 100 years worth of extra heat reserviors such as lakes,seas,oceans working for us.

    It took NASA and the AAS long enough to catch up with us on this solar minimum thing. How about Leif lambasting these institutions for being so very slow to catch up with our informal group?

  40. Geoff Sharp says:

    meemoe_uk says:
    June 14, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    Well said….

  41. Hank Hancock says:

    Geoff Sharp at June 14, 2011 at 8:15 pm says:

    There may be good reason that cold PDO’s and quiet Suns co exist naturally. What drives them both is the movement and acceleration of the Sun around the SSB. Scaffetta and myself are working on this theory which is simplified in this graphic .

    In looking at the graphic, I noticed that the PDO appears to be a 3rd order harmonic of the angular momentum curve. Is this coincidental or is there any significance to my observation?

  42. Ian E says:

    Of course this is great news for warmistas – they now have the perfect alibi for the increasingly obvious failure of their creed!

  43. tallbloke says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    June 14, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Sean Peake says:
    June 14, 2011 at 3:57 pm
    I’m wondering about a possible correlation between solar activity (direct or lagging) and the cycles of the PDO and AMO, or whether it is coincidental, especially when these two oscillations get in sync?

    There may be good reason that cold PDO’s and quiet Suns co exist naturally. What drives them both is the movement and acceleration of the Sun around the SSB.

    The correlation I found between solar inertial motion with respect to changes in Earth’s length of day and detrended temperature records supports this view too. Nicola Scafetta has been encouraging me to try to get it published. The time may be right soon.

    I blogged it back in 2009 around the same time Ian WIlson was working on LOD too. It meshes with Geoffs work on solar angular momentum nicely.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/planetary-solar-climate-connection-found/

  44. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Latitude says:
    June 14, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    and 2008 saw the longest and weakest solar minimum since scientists have been monitoring the sun with space-based instruments.
    ===============================================================================
    I hate it when people do this…..it’s like they are trying to hide something or fudge something
    Why not just say “since 1965″ or something like that?

    Does anyone know what time frame they are talking about?

    A flash in the pan compared to the age of the sun.

  45. Bob Tisdale says:

    Sean Peake says: “I’m wondering about a possible correlation between solar activity (direct or lagging) and the cycles of the PDO and AMO, or whether it is coincidental, especially when these two oscillations get in sync?”

    I’ve seen speculation in the blogosphere, but I’ve never seen a convincing argument. There’s some coincidence between ENSO and the solar cycle for the past three cycles, but it falls apart before then.

  46. Geoff Sharp says:

    Hank Hancock says:
    June 15, 2011 at 12:11 am

    In looking at the graphic, I noticed that the PDO appears to be a 3rd order harmonic of the angular momentum curve. Is this coincidental or is there any significance to my observation?

    Going on the theory there is no coincidence. Scafetta produces a graph based on solar velocity that is controlled by Jupiter and Saturn. (there is no doubt on this). The PDO seems to align with this oscillation but a mechanism (ala L&P) is unknown. Solar slowdowns occur when the 4 outer planets align in a certain manner, with Jupiter and Saturn being part of the mix. Both cycles are intertwined but the latter requires the addition of 2 more planets. There is now peer reviewed papers showing the link between solar output caused by planetary movements that control the solar path around the SSB….the tide is turning slowly.

  47. Martin Perry says:

    Dont worry,
    I predict a rapid rebranding of “carbon” taxes as “conservation” taxes. After all, we will need to preserve all our precious fossil fuels to keep warm. Similarly all the “renewables” will become even more important – Never mind that the windmills wont work on a cooler planet!
    Thus, the taxation / world government agenda will trundle on.

  48. Wucash says:

    Let’s remember that the little ice age also coincided with heavy volcanic activity. I’m thinking the sun hibernation was only a contributing factor in making it worse than it already was.

  49. Martin Perry says:

    Think about it – are we not entering a period of heavy volcanic / seismic activity? (Eritrea, Iceland and Chile all erupting at present) Japanese / New Zealand earthquakes etc
    My pet theory is that the reduced magnetic flux from the sun causes global distortion (Iron core etc)
    We shall see!

  50. Ken says:

    Anthony,

    You attribute a quote to ‘From NASA JPL’s website”…to an article attributed to a NASA author from Goddard…and present links that link to other of YOUR blog items.

    PROVIDE A LINK TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENT!!! Its not that I don’t want to take your word for it…I don’t (as anyone can copy/paste & make errors of various types)…but providing accurate attribution is the proper thing to do.

    Its really dis-courteous,annoying–and irresponsible–of you to provide info and make it hard for your audience to follow-up.

  51. kuhnkat says:

    Ken,

    need help with using the search function in your browser??

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-181&rn=news.xml&rst=3032

  52. DesertYote says:

    Krishna Gans
    June 14, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    The “big question” by alarmists is, how can it get warmer on earth during a solar minimum ?
    ###
    No need to answer this. In the greenie mind, weakened solar activity is ‘hiding’ the warming.

    The warming is still there, we just can’t measure it. “Don’t be fooled by you’re limited uneducated experiences, trust our models. We’re scientists”

  53. DesertYote says:

    Ken
    June 15, 2011 at 7:05 am
    ###
    sheesh, took me less then 15 seconds. Maybe you should join the modern world, before the moonbats take it away.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html

  54. Cam_S says:

    Ken!
    I used this wonderful search service, called Google, and found this.
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/news/solar20110614_prt.htm

  55. DavidG says:

    Brewster, you are proof that a little intelligence is a dangerous thing. You have very little so fortunately you can’t endanger anyone here!:]

  56. DavidG says:

    Wucash, you and Brewster should start a know-nothing club! You CAGW fanatics will never give up on minimizing the importance of the sun, which is , as Richard Feynman always said, ‘Not even wrong’! Wake Up and look at the big light in the sky, buddy! Maybe it’ll give you an idea!

  57. Dell from Michigan says:

    Martin Perry says:
    June 15, 2011 at 4:16 am
    Think about it – are we not entering a period of heavy volcanic / seismic activity? (Eritrea, Iceland and Chile all erupting at present) Japanese / New Zealand earthquakes etc
    My pet theory is that the reduced magnetic flux from the sun causes global distortion (Iron core etc)
    We shall see!”

    Thats an interesting concept, and yes, given the Iron core of the Earth, it would be plausible that changes in magnetic forces of the Sun could have a dramati affect on the Earth’s magnetic fields and hence the molton Iron core which in turn could increase volcanic and geologic activity.

  58. Arizona CJ says:

    This morning, I was chatting with an acquaintance. She’s a AGW fanatic, who sees everything (warm days, cold days, drought, rain, earthquakes, etc) as signs of manmade global warming. We’ve argued many times. She usually reacts the same way a religious fanatic does if you question their religion.

    So, I could not resist asking her if she’d heard about the vanishing-sunspots story. She had, and to my abject horror, cited it as further proof of global warming;

    “With all the CO2 we’re putting in the air, of course this would happen! CO2 is used to extinguish fires, you know, and the sun is basically just a big ball of fire in the sky, so putting all this CO2 in the sky is of course going to make the sun start to go out!”

    She was, I believe, dead serious. I could not reply. I just stared, open mouthed, as she walked away.

  59. SteveSadlov says:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/06/15/state/n100842D71.DTL&tsp=1

    Expect more and more of this sort of thing as the cooling proceeds and the Second Great Age Of Migrations commences.

    And the wild beasts set upon the formerly civilized lands, imbuing the people with terror.

  60. Dell from Michigan says:
    June 15, 2011 at 12:11 pm
    it would be plausible that changes in magnetic forces of the Sun could have a dramatic effect on the Earth’s magnetic fields and hence the molton Iron core which in turn could increase volcanic and geologic activity.
    No, this does not happen. The Earth’s magnetic field in the core is a hundred thousand times stronger than the Sun’s magnetic field.

  61. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 15, 2011 at 2:18 am
    There is now peer reviewed papers showing the link between solar output caused by planetary movements that control the solar path around the SSB….the tide is turning slowly.
    There have always been such papers. Here is one of my favorites: http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots.pdf with plates: http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots-Figures.pdf

  62. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 15, 2011 at 10:23 pm
    Geoff Sharp says:
    June 15, 2011 at 2:18 am
    There is now peer reviewed papers showing the link between solar output caused by planetary movements that control the solar path around the SSB….the tide is turning slowly.
    There have always been such papers. Here is a more recent one of the same ilk:
    http://ecrs2010.utu.fi/done/posters/session1/1.62_Stozhkov.pdf

  63. meemoe_uk says:
    June 14, 2011 at 11:21 pm
    It took NASA and the AAS long enough to catch up with us on this solar minimum thing. How about Leif lambasting these institutions for being so very slow to catch up with our informal group?
    Well, many here have labeled the L&P finding as bad science [and worse], so not everybody is on the bandwagon. But, generally, scientists are extremely conservative and want overwhelming evidence before accepting anything. When such evidence arises, scientists can [and often do] change their mind turning on a dime. This may not have happened with L&P yet, but give it another two years of decreasing sunspot magnetic fields and you’ll see rapid acceptance. Such conservatism is a good things.

  64. aaron says:
    June 14, 2011 at 3:31 pm
    Leif, only if the activity was similarly high prior to 1900.
    It was. See Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf

  65. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 15, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    There have always been such papers. Here is a more recent one of the same ilk:
    http://ecrs2010.utu.fi/done/posters/session1/1.62_Stozhkov.pdf

    Thanks for the laugh, that paper is more like a fairy tale (maunder butterflies). But it goes to show what can slip thru the system. L&P is in the same ilk although they did get rejected the first time.

    My reference was towards Wolff and Patrone which of course will never meet your standard.

  66. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 16, 2011 at 1:27 am
    Thanks for the laugh, that paper is more like a fairy tale
    Very typical of planetary papers

  67. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 16, 2011 at 2:19 am

    Geoff Sharp says:
    June 16, 2011 at 1:27 am
    Thanks for the laugh, that paper is more like a fairy tale
    ——————————-
    Very typical of planetary papers

    You are not in a position to make such a claim. Before you can criticize you must have an understanding of the basic principles involved ( a basic peer review requirement). The first step on your enlightenment path is to answer your challenge that is waiting for you HERE.

  68. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 15, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    Well, many here have labeled the L&P finding as bad science [and worse]

    That should display a red flag for you….the initial paper failed the peer review process and was criticized by Hathaway and others. How did the L&P paper become “published” considering the lack of proper science?

  69. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 15, 2011 at 10:23 pm
    Here is one of my favorites: http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots.pdf with plates: http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots-Figures.pdf

    Nice ones to add to my history of science collection, thanks Leif. Any more Planetary papers from the old days? Could you stick them all in one directory?

  70. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 16, 2011 at 6:50 am
    Before you can criticize you must have an understanding of the basic principles involved
    As you, one can always laugh.

    The basic principles will have to be described, explained, and made plausible first. All you have is unquantified hand-waving and eye-balling. No principles at all.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    June 16, 2011 at 7:01 am
    the initial paper failed the peer review process and was criticized by Hathaway and others. How did the L&P paper become “published” considering the lack of proper science?
    The initial paper failed because of its short time span, not because of problems with measurements, account keeping, or ‘bad science’. Your various accusations of Livingston’s work are unjustified and unseemly.

    tallbloke says:
    June 16, 2011 at 7:22 am
    Nice ones to add to my history of science collection, thanks Leif. Any more Planetary papers from the old days? Could you stick them all in one directory?
    Well, there are Wolf’s [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-VIII.pdf ] and more. But it is not worth my effort to collect them all; I’ll delegate that task to the enthusiasts.

  71. Pamela Gray says:

    If only all main paradigms of scientific understanding were as conservative and slow to accept new ideas as that regarding the Sun. I agree with Leif. It is a good thing that L&P are still being called upon to convince the stake holders of the main Solar paradigm to shift their thinking.

    If I were to postulate my own Solar theory, as Geoff does, and the likes of scientists such as Leif were to call upon me at every turn to prove it, it would be an honor. So buck up and put your nose to the grindstone. It all goes back to what you were asked to do in grade school. Show your work and stop whining about being asked to do so.

  72. SteveSadlov says:

    Weather not climate … maybe or maybe not related to cosmic ray flux …

    Looks like I might have prematurely declared the end of the rainy season (again) in another thread a few days ago. Seeing some returns about 50 miles west of San Francisco. Little cold front moving in. Probably virga, but still …

  73. ClimateRealist says:

    People, after reading few comments I need to clarify few things: something that is called a solar activity of the Sun refers to the activity of the Sun’s magnetic field and not to some kind of increase of thermonuclear reaction inside of the Sun ( which is pretty much constant). If we see more dark spots on the surface of the Sun, this we call a high solar activity period, mostly due to the increased emission of charged particles (protons, electrons) escaping from the areas with the dark spots (these areas have a weak magnetic field). In terms of energy flux from the sun to the earth, the higher the solar activity is -> ie. the more black dots are on the sun, the less visible light falls on earth. You can imagine a light bulb – if you draw black dots on it, the less light you’ll have in the room. So in this terms, The more black dots are on the Sun, the less visible light will come to earth thus I’d naively expect less energy coming to the Earth from Sun ->ie. the colder is going to be on Earth. It is therefore more interesting to raise a question, how it is possible, that in the decade of low Solar activity (when we had the maximum of visible light energy coming to earth) we have a clear decline in the Global temperatures? Shouldn’t the global temperatures rise even faster, according to the AGW theory?

  74. ClimateRealist says:
    June 16, 2011 at 12:22 pm
    ie. the more black dots are on the sun, the less visible light falls on earth.
    The sunspots are surrounded by enhanced magnetic fields that actually provide about twice the light the spot takes away, so the net effect is more light.

  75. SteveSadlov says:

    Update – the returns were bogus. There were no clouds in that location at the time of the reading. Dry cold front.

  76. damron walton says:

    I wonder coming soon will be little ice age this or next or few next year cause winter?

  77. Steve B says:

    “Theodor’s method is the basis for further research but he actually missed the mark in some areas when predicting solar slowdown. We now have much better data in an associated field of research that can be used to accurately predict solar output and slowdowns.”

    Where did he miss the mark? His methods were calculated on the sun’s spin and orbit. Yes the sun does not stay in the same place. It has a wobbly orbit around the mass centre of the solar system which tends to change the spin rate of the sun which from his studies causes magnetic changes in the sun and therefore its output.

  78. Steve B says:
    June 16, 2011 at 4:48 pm
    It has a wobbly orbit around the mass centre of the solar system which tends to change the spin rate of the sun
    That cannot change the Sun’s spin: http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf

  79. Geoff Sharp says:

    Steve B says:
    June 16, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Where did he miss the mark? His methods were calculated on the sun’s spin and orbit. Yes the sun does not stay in the same place. It has a wobbly orbit around the mass centre of the solar system which tends to change the spin rate of the sun which from his studies causes magnetic changes in the sun and therefore its output.

    Without Theodor we would probably have nothing today when understanding the planetary connection. He worked on the low points of angular momentum or torque when the Sun returns past the SSB which we now know is not when grand minima happen. The low points are normally either side of grand minima which is why he was out with his 1990 grand minimum prediction and a little late with the 2030 prediction. The new data was produced by the late Carl Smith who we are also indebted to.

    The actual driver is not nailed down yet, but Wolff and Patrone may have something that can be built on.

  80. Geoff Sharp says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    June 16, 2011 at 10:16 am

    If I were to postulate my own Solar theory, as Geoff does, and the likes of scientists such as Leif were to call upon me at every turn to prove it, it would be an honor. So buck up and put your nose to the grindstone. It all goes back to what you were asked to do in grade school. Show your work and stop whining about being asked to do so.

    Have you read my paper Pamela?

Comments are closed.