A quiet cue ball sun

Source: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg

A couple of people have noticed (as did I) that the sun is essentially blank.

There was one small sunspot sunspeck 1511 yesterday, giving a sunspot count of 13. Today there’s a a small cluster of spots near the SE limb:

Source: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_HMII.jpg

While this quiet sun not unprecedented, given the expected solar maximum is only about 7 to 9 months away, it is interesting and lends credence to the idea that this is one of the quietest solar cycles in a very long time.

You can check the latest status and imagery on the WUWT Solar Reference Page

BTW in case anybody is wondering, the WUWT climate widget has had problems getting updated sunspot numbers posted, I’ve had to resort to manual updates until such time I can wade into the issue. So if the spot and 10.7CM numbers are wrong, you know why.

 

About these ads

110 thoughts on “A quiet cue ball sun

  1. Bill Livingston, trying to get a measurement today, just reported that he could not find any spots to measure.
    Such days of blank sun is quite normal during weak cycles, see e.g. this comparison of cycle 14 and 24 http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
    The yellow curve shows daily SSNs, the pink 27-day average, and the black yearly average. Note: we think that modern sunspot numbers are about 20% “too high” compared to the historical record [before 1945]. The graph has not been corrected for this [it should]. We have just had the 2nd SSN workshop in Brussels. You can see more about the workshops here http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home

  2. In late May or early June, the photo of the sun on space weather.com had no observable sun spots, even when the photo was enlarged to maximum on my iPad. Yet space weather.com did not update the sun sport number for three days until there were obvious sun sports. Did anyone else catch this? Space weather.com still indicates that there were no zero sun spot days this year. How small does the “spec” (what magnification) have to be before not being counter?

    Bill

  3. Very interesting cycle, is it just me?, have I read Leif say that “Such days of blank sun is quite normal during weak cycles” more than usual? ;)

  4. Bill Yarber says:
    June 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    How small does the “spec” (what magnification) have to be before not being counted?
    The sunspot number should be counted with a small telescope [aperture 8 cm and magnification 64]. In addition, it should have a life time exceeding a few hours and be seen by multiple observers. So, short-term variations can [and do] easily occur.

  5. Solar Cyle 14 was not a cycle wherein there was a Livingston and Penn effect, thus I would not be surprised if this cycle was more “normal” in length and presages a lower low than cycle 15.

  6. Sparks says:
    June 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    have I read Leif say that “Such days of blank sun is quite normal during weak cycles” more than usual?
    I have a bit of a problem parsing your comment, but such days are not unusual in weak cycles. In fact, cycle 14 had perhaps an even higher incidence than the current cycle.

  7. Already have plans to get south if the Snow Hits the Fan.

    At our current population levels and dependency on others for fundamentals like energy, if we do go into even a minor cooling period it will get very ugly.

  8. One of the things Mann’s h stick tried to suppress is the Little Ice Age. Turns out we’ve been in a process of a recovery from the LIA, but any sign of even mild warming, fully amplified by the h stick travesty, was jumped on by the warmists as proof of coming doom. Interesting, my less understanding is that prior to around 1960 the greenhouse gas theory was not widely accepted. Only with the rise of the environmentalists did the greenhouse gas theory find its new home.
    Now, with the sun stuttering, if temps start to drop in an even more pronounced way, expect the warmists to abandon all previous contentions, and in fact proclaim that the sun is to “blame” for the lack of warming. But expect the drum beat to continue about cutting CO2 on the basis that once the sun restarts, we’ll be in for it again. Expect that to fall upon ignoring ears, so the warmists will… become coolists. Just like the drastic cutbacks in industrial production proposed as a remedy by the global cooling fanatics of the 1970s, and by today’s global warmists, the warmists turned coolists will shout out that we need to cut industrial output to prevent disastrous global cooling. They will say: “Industry, STOP what you are doing right now, or else expect this cooling to become a freezing the likes of which our world has never seen; previous ice ages will be nothing in comparison, we’re talking a snowball earth in 20 or 30 years where we all will meet snowy graves.”

  9. J. Martin-

    Leif Svalgaard, Bob Livingston, and Bill (?) Penn are showing a changing sun wherein the magnetic field which drives sunspots is changing. Data here on Leif’s webpage:

    What this shows is that the magnetism per sunspot is changing, and some specualte this could lead to a grand minimum. Some posts at WUWT are on topic here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/

    Minimum mention here: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn%20Data%20and%20Findings%20so%20far.pdf

    Now to my comment, there was no Livingston and Penn effect in cycle 14, so is it the right comparison?

  10. I said above:
    “Interesting, my less [than perfect] understanding is that prior to around 1960 the greenhouse gas theory was not widely accepted.” So, “than perfect” was omitted, as I was in the process of trying to edit to leave it at just “understanding” as sufficient for an indication of less than perfect knowledge. Anyway, if anyone can confirm some of the particulars of the greenhouse gas theory’s less than stellar acceptance within the scientific community in the olden days, I’d appreciate hearing about it. Thanks!

  11. From the looks of Stereo, it will have an “official” sunspot count of zero very, very soon once this small group rotates away. There is just plain nothing coming over the horizon.

  12. I believe the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. I can and will explain specifically what has happened and what will happen next, if the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted, is correct. (i.e. If and when there are multi sunspot less days and no explanation as to why there are multi sun spotless days when the sun should be at the maximum of the solar magnetic cycle. (As noted previously, I become interested – about 10 years ago – in anomalous astronomical observations and the physics of the collapse of very, very, large objects. Quasars, magtars, AGN, naked quasars, cyclically varying quasars, ultra luminous x ray sources, galaxy evolution, second generation stars that formed on the collapsed core of a super nova and so on. This is a connected suit of anomalous astronomical observations that are explained by the mechanism.)

    The paleo geomagnetic data (the geomagnetic specialists have spent the last 10 years confirming the geomagnetic field abrupt changes which is not possible for a liquid core change) indicates that some pseudo periodically force is changing the geomagnetic field. These abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field correlate with mild climate events such as the medieval warming period and the little ice age and abrupt climate changes( the mild climate change events such as the medieval warm period occur with a periodicity of roughly four hundred years and are caused by abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field tilt). The abrupt climate change events such as the Younger Dryas and the interglacial period terminations occur when there are geomagnetic excursions or attempted excursions, at which time the geomagnetic field strength drops in by a factor of 2 to 5 times. The earth’s orbital configuration about the sun at the time of the forcing event and the severity of the solar magnetic cycle event interruption controls how the geomagnetic field is changed (whether the massive solar event causes a temporary reduction in the geomagnetic field (1000 years) that is followed by a geomagnetic field increase or whether the event attempts to reverse the polarity of the field which leads to either a geomagnetic excursion or a geomagnetic reversal.)

    The super strong geomagnetic field intensity change events correlate with Heinrich climate change events and the termination of the interglacial period. The orbital parameter that amplifies the forcing event is the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit and the seasonal timing of perihelion (whether the earth is closest to the sun during the winter or summer of the Northern hemisphere. (think of the tilt of the planet when when the event occurs.) It this orbital parameter that explains why the interglacial periods are roughly 10,000 years long.

    It appears the sun is the driver of the abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field and the other anomalous field orientation of the other planets in the solar system. (For example, see the anomalous magnetic field orientation of Uranus and Neptune. The effect of the mechanism changes depending on the tilt of the planet at time of the occurrence of the event.)

  13. J.Gommers says:
    June 24, 2012 at 2:17 pm
    Cycle 23 had two peaks, the second lower. Are we now in between?
    I think so, or rather there may be several peaks. The first ones in the north, and the later ones in the south.

    Me says:
    June 24, 2012 at 4:31 pm
    What this shows is that the magnetism per sunspot is changing, and some speculate this could lead to a grand minimum. …
    Now to my comment, there was no Livingston and Penn effect in cycle 14, so is it the right comparison?

    The L&P effect affects the general level and probably not the sequence of peaks [they are just smaller].

    William Astley says:
    June 24, 2012 at 4:54 pm
    I believe the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.
    Explain what you mean by ‘interrupted’
    It appears the sun is the driver of the abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field
    The geomagnetic field is generated deep below [3000 miles] the surface and the conductivity of the lower mantle and the core is so high that the ‘skin depth’ is very small [50 to 0.2 km] meaning that magnetic changes get damped out over that distance [or a few of those], so the sun cannot change the core field.

  14. @William Astley

    I thought the geomagnetic field is governed by the fluid motions of the mantle inside the Earth, and not by the sun. So what do you mean when you say the sun is the driver of changes to the geomagnetic field?

  15. This cycle has been averaging lower SSN than Cycle 5 (1798). Ten years later (thanks to the sea and other natural buffering systems, we get a ten year lag time or so reprieve) was the coldest decade in the last 500 years (1810-1819), where millions died worldwide in famine and freeze.

    We had better get those nuclear and gas fired reactors planned, and oil wells dug and going right away. Nature has given us a healthy lag time to prepare—Question: Is man smart enough to take advantage of that fact?

  16. RE Astley’s comments and Leif’s rebuttal:
    Whether or not Earth’s magnetic field is generated by the core/mantle conductivity or not, the sun’s magnetic field DOES have an effect, any EE can explain induction.

  17. EW-3, I beat you to it. Bought a house on Paradise Island last Feb, stayed there until the end of May and will be going back mid Nov. Canada is no place to be when things get ugly.

  18. mikelorrey says:
    June 24, 2012 at 6:32 pm
    any EE can explain induction.
    But induction cannot proceed more a few times the skin-depth. Any EE knows that too.

  19. Eric Simpson, early mention of CO2 causing temperature increases.
    WUWT has had several articles on very early predictions and errors in those predictions.
    I found an Encyclopedia Americana 1957 yearbook at a thrift store and in the section on meteorology there was an article written by H. E. Landsberg, Director of Climatology, US Weather Bureau that stated: “A recomputation of the inflared absorption of carbon dioxide helps substantiate the belief that changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can bring about considerable temperature variations. For example, a doubling of the atmospheric content of CO2 would lead to a surface-temperature rise of 6.5 degrees F”. I was very surprised to see it mentioned in a 1957 book.

  20. ClimateForAll says:
    June 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm
    It really is a shame to see sunspots so poorly counted.
    It is very important that we count sunspots today the exact same way as two hundred years ago. Otherwise the historical record would be useless. So we go to great length and effort to make sure that we don’t count differently today.

  21. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    The geomagnetic field is generated deep below [3000 miles] the surface and the conductivity of the lower mantle and the core is so high that the ‘skin depth’ is very small [50 to 0.2 km] meaning that magnetic changes get damped out over that distance [or a few of those], so the sun cannot change the core field.

    That sentence makes little sense as written. In particular, I suspect that the skin effect has little to do with the inertia of the sun’s magnetic field. If anything, the skin effect will increase the damping factor of a system. Forcing the current into a larger loop will increase inductance but will also increase resistance by forcing the current into a narrower path. Unless the conductivity is actually zero, electrical energy is converted to heat and dissipated faster. By definition, that means that the damping factor increases.

    This may be counter-intuitive for some people so I will restate it. Increasing the inductance of the system (by making the loop bigger) makes it look like the inertia of the system should increase. The trouble is that the resistance of the system increases and energy is lost faster. Unless the energy of the system is somehow increased, that means that the damping factor of the system increases such that its time constant decreases.

    I willingly accept as fact that it is hard for the sun’s magnetic field to change rapidly. I do, however, have a hard time believing that skin depth has anything to do with it. The skin effect would have the opposite effect.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect Note that the first description of the skin effect was for spherical conductors (ie. the case of the sun). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Lamb

  22. commieBob says:
    June 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm
    “the ‘skin depth’ is very small [50 to 0.2 km] meaning that magnetic changes get damped out over that distance [or a few of those], so the sun cannot change the core field.”
    That sentence makes little sense as written. In particular, I suspect that the skin effect has little to do with the inertia of the sun’s magnetic field.

    It has nothing to do with the ‘inertia’ of the sun’s magnetic field [if I interprett correctly that strange word in this context]. The sun changes its magnetic field in cycles so the induction in the earth is like that of an external alternating current with a frequency given by the frequency of the solar changes. The numbers I gave was for changes on the scale of a rotation. But shorter and longer cycle exists, and the skin depth is inversely proportional to the square root of the frequency, so there is some variation there, but it is not great [because of the square root].

  23. Mike says:
    June 24, 2012 at 7:42 pm
    When was the last solar grand minimum ? And what solar cycles were involved ?
    Depends on how you define grand minimum. With my definition [really low for a long time] the last grand minimum was 1640-1710, and cycles were not numbered back then [one could give them negative numbers if one cared]

  24. commieBob says:
    June 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm
    I suspect that the skin effect has little to do with the inertia of the sun’s magnetic field.
    I forgot to stress that we are talking about induction in the Earth and changing [or not] the Earth’s field, not the sun.

  25. Having read through some of the comments, its good to see a light discussion on geomagnetism.
    Also good to see Leif hasn’t given up entirely on WUWT.

    Several things have become evident regarding cosmology.

    First.) IBEX discovered over a year ago a band of energy stretching around the heliosphere.

    It was undoubtedly thrilling to discover at the time this new ‘thing’ in the heliosphere, but without further studies, its implications may never be known.

    Second.) the IBEX mission discovered just a few months ago, or at the very least announces, that there is no bow shock beyond the heliosphere.

    I have my doubts that the bow shock just doesn’t exist. it just may be that it fails to appear in its current state. I imagine that we could have more intruments paying closer detail, we would find a bow shock does exsist, but that certain elements have reduced its form, capacity and strength to a nominal state.

    Third.) HESS has drawn conclusions that energy in the form of hard photons are discovered along the galactic plane.

    For the lack of better understanding, cosmological evolution is in its infancy. If a few telescopes in Africa detect higher energy waves to the power of 10 above what was previously understood, we should give the science some latitude to investigate further.

    Science may yet be able to determine the exact physical makeup of dark matter soon.

    Four.) Direction, speed and intensity of geomagnetic polarity has to be effected by some other outside source other than the Earth’s core.

    While some have speculated that the Sun may play a minor role, I doubt it. To presume that geomagnetism is uneffected by outside influneces would seem a fools errand.

    In all recorded data recent magnetic movement, never has the path of MNP(magnetic North Pole) ever been so unnatural as it is now. For thousands of years, the MNP meandered and traveled very slowly and never in the same direction for very long.

    In the last one hundred years, the path of MNP has been nearly flawless in one direction. The annual velocity nearly doubles every 14 years. It is unmistakably clear that some outside influence is at work, and only an extremely energetic source has that kind of attraction.

    Based upon past evidence, current understanding and near future discoveries, we may learn much in the coming weeks, if not days.

    Let me go on record that I postulate that our solar system has or is currently passing through a strong energetic field that has essentially pressed upon the heliosphere in such a way that the detection of the bow shock has made it undetectable. Previous science just doesn’t cease to exist because data can’t provide an answer. Scientists just can’t explain it.

    Let me also go on record that I postulate that a very high energetic field, either from the galactic plane or from dark matter is directly involved in effecting the earths magnetic field.

    Laugh and giggle all you want. I already know what most of you are thinking. Bear with my thought analysis for just bit longer.

    Just as our moon has found a certain balance with the Earth, so may our solar system with the galaxy that it travels within.

    All of the evidence I lightly present here and postulate on may very well be the beginning of a polar flip.

    Not Armageddon.

    If I read our current science right, the highly energetic galactic plane may take our solar system centuries to pass through. But if my calculations are correct, its already begun.

    The Heliosphere has shrunk and has become deflated. Several thousand millenniums of rotation can do that- at certain intervals.(Such as it is at this time)

    The Sun has entered a protracted state of lull. L&P figures suggest a complete nod in a few years. In addition, recent history suggests that this cycle may well have several maximums, like Lief commented. I imagine that after a century of compressed high solar cycles, the Sun needs to relax.

    Having a large amount of gravitational pressure placed upon it, causing both a band of energy and compressing the layers of its outer boundaries placed upon it, the heliosphere is in a position to withstand the upcoming events.

    As the Solar system continues on its path, we may certainly experience only what many will regard as a naked singularity event.

    Then again, I only postulate.

    Much like previous scientists did regarding bow shocks. Maybe I’ll become famous too, solely based on a hypothesis.

    Who knew !

  26. Has the rush to the poles happened yet? I saw an article over a year ago that was saying it was off to a late start and never found anything else.

  27. ClimateForAll says:
    June 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    Four.) Direction, speed and intensity of geomagnetic polarity has to be effected by some other outside source other than the Earth’s core.
    The conductivity of the core is so high that for all intents and purposes it acts as a superconductor preventing any outside magnetic influence to penetrate more than a few hundred meters into the core. To say that something ‘has to’ influence is just wishful thinking.

    never has the path of MNP(magnetic North Pole) ever been so unnatural as it is now.
    Well, ‘never’ is a big word…More to the point is that what we observe at the surface bears little relation to the actual field in the core. The latter is 20 times stronger than at the surface and is very irregular, does not really have well-defined dipoles, but consists of many individual poles scattered over the surface. This is what it looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Magn-Field-Core-Boundary.png and this is what the change from year to year looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/core-secular-change.png

    Having a large amount of gravitational pressure placed upon it, causing both a band of energy and compressing the layers of its outer boundaries placed upon it, the heliosphere is in a position to withstand the upcoming events.
    There is no gravitational ‘pressure’ placed on the heliosphere or the sun.

    Maybe I’ll become famous too, solely based on a hypothesis.
    We all like to discover something new and wonderful. It is just VERY hard to do, so be prepared for some sobering up.

  28. David says:
    June 24, 2012 at 8:43 pm
    Has the rush to the poles happened yet?
    In the north, not yet in the south :
    Presentation Number 123.03 at SPD meeting in Anchorage Alaska
    Presentation Time: Monday, Jun 11, 2012, 2:30 PM – 2:45 PM
    Title Cycle 24 Northern-Hemisphere Solar Maximum Observed in Fe XIV
    Author Richard C. Altrock
    Abstract The onset of the “Rush to the Poles” of polar crown prominences and their associated coronal emission is a harbinger of solar maximum. Altrock (2003, Solar Phys. 216, 343) showed that the “Rush” was well-observed in the the Fe XIV corona at the Sacramento Peak site of the National Solar Observatory prior to the maxima of Cycles 21 to 23. He found that solar maximum in those cycles occurred when the center line of the Rush reached a critical latitude. These latitudes were 76°, 74° and 78°, respectively, for an average of 76° ± 2°.
    Applying this method to Cycle 24 is difficult due to the unusual nature of this cycle. Cycle 24 displays an intermittent “Rush” that is only definable in the northern hemisphere. In 2009 an initial slope of 4.6°/yr was found, compared to an average of 9.4 ± 1.7 °/yr in the previous cycles. However, in 2010 the slope increased to 7.5°/yr (an increase did not occur in the previous three cycles). Extending that rate to 76° ± 2° indicates that the maximum smoothed sunspot number in the northern hemisphere ALREADY OCCURRED at 2011.6 ± 0.3. Unfortunately, the smoothed sunspot number uses 12-month running means, so the result may not be testable for several more months. Solar maximum may not [yet] be detectable in the southern hemisphere.

  29. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 24, 2012 at 9:03 pm
    David says:
    June 24, 2012 at 8:43 pm
    Has the rush to the poles happened yet?

    An alternative meaning to the question could be whether or not folks have started jogging, canoeing, driving, or skate boarding to the NP, or the N magnetic P, or to where the NMP was some time in the past. Maybe they got over that after freezing their butts and their booze during the last two years.

  30. The sea level on the sun is rising, swallowing up the sunspot islands.

    Stop solar warming!

  31. Thanks, Leif. 70 years Wow! That is grand. That would be more than 6 nominal solar cycles in that time period. Is that possible today ? Or are you expecting just a couple of weak cycles – 24,25 ? Or what ?

  32. Mike says:
    June 24, 2012 at 10:13 pm
    Or are you expecting just a couple of weak cycles – 24,25 ? Or what ?
    24 and 25 will be weak, 25 perhaps very weak, but a firm prediction of 25 is not possible yet [we need to see what the polar fields will be doing in five years time].

  33. @Leif Svalgaard + mikelorrey
    >>any EE can explain induction.
    >But induction cannot proceed more a few times the skin-depth. Any EE knows that too.

    It depends on the frequency. Basic EE’ing. That is one reason why chokes don’t have plates.

    How can an induced magnetic field created externally be separated from one generated at the core if you can only measure the sum at the surface?

    Perhaps an observed field reversal is necessary to add depth to the discussion (literally). They can take place in a very small number of days (according to research on SW USA lava flows). That is unlikely from a liquid core but I will await a real event before deciding.

  34. @Me
    An interesting PDF from Leif, and yes, page 11 may well be the bottom line. The straight line extrapolation of the Livingston & Penn graph on page 9 works out at about 2025 (by eyeball), and similarly a straight line extrapolation of the lower graph on page 19 gives about the same date. Staying with that graph the current reluctance to cross the line is also seen in the late 1960s early 1970s. But this time, I think, there is a difference, and we can see that on page 16.

    I fear we’re not looking at a 1970s cooling event here, it can now only go deeper and longer, (I hope not) though I think the Jury is still out as to whether we are looking at a repeat of the Dalton or Maunder. There was an interesting graph, (not fully fleshed out, based on tsi of all things, on Tallbloke’s blog), that hints at deeper than the Maunder.

    Leif’s last line “what a Wonderful Time”, I would replace with “what an interesting time”, if one lives somewhere warm, otherwise “what a scary time” if one lives somewhere potentially cold, might be more appropriate.

    @ WiIliam Astley
    The idea that geomagnetism is a significant player is attractive, but can you expound on what you said please in “It (is) this orbital parameter that explains why the interglacial periods are roughly 10,000 years long.”

    @ClimateForAll & @William Astley
    I find the ideas of external geomagnetic influence intriguing and currently feel that the sun may be the main local driver, but is not the only player, and must be influenced or even driven by external forces. Alternatively it may be that the Sun is not the cause here, but merely a visible beacon of larger solar system and or galactic effects.

    @
    We know that earthquakes can affect the motion of the entire planet, I think I read that last years Japanese earthquake had an effect on the wobble and or LOD that had been measured. We also know that earthquakes and volcanic activity increase during quiet solar periods, there is a graph of this somewhere, (Landscheidt, perhaps). It seems inevitable that the cause of all this is external to the Earth, and it seems reasonable that this could have a significant effect on the Earth’s presumed internal magnetic gyro, and that, crucially, the effect could lead to a relatively sudden step change in, for instance, obliquity, to produce the Younger Dryas, and the regular(ish) slide into glaciations, though the really sudden effect would seem to be the climb out of glaciations.

    Recently on WUWT we have seen extensive and well argued cases for different causes of the Younger Dryas, but, neither succeeded in being entirely convincing. However, a shift in the internal magnetic gyro could well produce the required effect without running into any of the counter evidence that plagued Chilcot and Evan’s posts.

    We have the evidence of a marked reduction in magnetic field strength, an increasingly mobile North pole(s), reduced sunspots, a restless planet etc.

    Regardless of the causes of glaciations, the timing and pace of this inevitable event is of crucial importance to mankind and will determine the fate of most of this planets population. Beside this, public and political concern about co2 and global warming are misplaced and is suicidal mass sleepwalking in the wrong direction.

    The Hypothesis that several of us are now considering is as follows;

    The relatively sudden change in magnetic fields of the Sun and Earth that are being measured may be a viable mechanism to explain a similarly relatively sudden change in obliquity which would in its turn be a viable mechanism to explain significant climatic shifts or phase changes such as the Younger Dryas and the beginning and end of glaciations. In all probability combined with a significant change in solar input.

  35. @ Leif

    The conductivity of the core is so high that for all intents and purposes it acts as a superconductor preventing any outside magnetic influence to penetrate more than a few hundred meters into the core.

    Then explain how something as unnatural and seemingly mathematical as the trajectory of MNP could happen. There has to be some other force involved, and its not the Sun, as you and I would agree. Have you had a chance to investigate the HESS data on the hard proton spectrum?

    Well, ‘never’ is a big word…More to the point is that what we observe at the surface bears little relation to the actual field in the core. The latter is 20 times stronger than at the surface and is very irregular, does not really have well-defined dipoles, but consists of many individual poles scattered over the surface.

    Never in recorded history to be more precise, yes. If the core is 20 times stronger that at the surface and irregular, makes me skeptical of the nature of our dipoles. As to many individual poles, there is no debate from me. The weakening of those type of poles and the amount do suggest that the core influences surface flux greatly, but it does not explain what the MNP is doing.

    Words.
    gravitational pressure….
    How about radiation pressure then.
    Or Energy transference.
    I would rather concede at this time on our opinion on gravity.

    Having said that, the heliosphere is not by any means, unimpeded by interstellar mass, energy or magnetic wave forms outside of the sphere. Something, in the form of energy is impinging on the sphere. Would you not agree?

    Lastly, I don’t drink or do drugs. Or smoke for that matter. All of which I feel i should have been awarded a medal for. But yes, sobering up may be necessary, but probably unfounded if I can prove any of this.

  36. It can only have one cause, mankind.

    We must have affected the sun with our “light pollution.”

  37. J Martin says: June 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm
    The Hypothesis that several of us are now considering is as follows…….

    I am not familiar with your experience in this field (link would be appreciated) but since you are regular contributor you may be aware of fact that:

    Vukcevic hypothesis, as developed step by step and made known to the WUWT during last couple of years, shows that Solar systems internal (mainly) electric currents and magnetic fields feedback is
    – strong enough to drive solar oscillations
    – strong enough to move the earth’s magnetic field
    – strong enough to drive global temperature change

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/VH.htm

    Any advance on the above would enrich existing understanding.

  38. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    June 24, 2012 at 10:52 pm
    How can an induced magnetic field created externally be separated from one generated at the core if you can only measure the sum at the surface?
    The external field changes are of the order of a few hundred of nanoTesla. The core field is a million nanoTesla.

  39. Steve says:
    June 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Good Lord! Are you wackos trying to blame the sun for global warming?
    —-

    Why shouldn’t we?

  40. vukcevic says:
    June 24, 2012 at 10:59 pm
    Sun, Earth and climate as seen through spectral analysis
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Vuk, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?

  41. J Martin says:
    June 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    An interesting PDF from Leif, and yes, page 11 may well be the bottom line. The straight line extrapolation of the Livingston & Penn graph on page 9 works out at about 2025 (by eyeball), and similarly a straight line extrapolation of the lower graph on page 19 gives about the same date.

    From the familiar (to us oldtimers here) “over time” graphs in slide 6, Livingston and Penn are showing measurements of visible spots. Robert Bateman and I noted this in one of the old posts on the subject and think that we’ve already lost some spots to the L&P effect.

    If you follow the peaks in the Intensity plot or the pits in the B Gauss plot, extrapolations to now pass the horizontal thresholds of invisibility. This changes what had been the straight line approximation they had used before to something approaching a hyperbola with the threshold as the asymptote.

    I have no problem with reporting data based on visible spots for now, it’s nice to hear some conservative reporting instead of the alarmist Schneideresque reports we read on other topics.

    This topic remains the most interesting item I’ve learned from WUWT, thank you Anthony and Leif.

    And yes, this is a great time to be a solar scientist.

  42. Hi Leif,

    You are very keen on noting that our current SSN is too high compared to historic recording and I think I am right in saying that this is why you don’t support Svalgaard’s cosmic ray theory (because there has been no real increase in SSN to account for the warming since 1980 or thereabouts). Please correct me if I am wrong here – I don’t want to put words in your mouth and I have to say that your arguments are very persuasive

    However, the SSN cycle is correlated with global temperature at some level so I guess what I would like to know is whether you think there is a causal link between them and if have any theories about a mechanism for this. I am still quite keen on the cosmic ray theory because it is something we can test and to date the mechanism holds up, but – as with any theory – it looks good until we get a better one and I wondered if you had anything that you thought was better.

  43. Sorry Leif, mixing up my Scandinavians’ here – Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of course. please forgive me!

  44. @ Lief

    “Quo usque tandem abutere, Vuk, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?”

    ++++

    Usquequo dubie sanctos patres vestros? De sancta gradalis dicitur: “Nihil sub sole novum,” apparently.

    Vuk, keep an open mind. I loved your sum of N magnetic poles v.s. temperature.

  45. MDR says:
    June 24, 2012 at 5:48 pm
    I thought the geomagnetic field is governed by the fluid motions of the mantle inside the Earth, and not by the sun. So what do you mean when you say the sun is the driver of changes to the geomagnetic field?
    ===============
    We have theories about the magnetic fields of the sun and earth. They are like bed-time stories. They make folks feel comfortable but have little predictive power, which suggests they are unlikely to be correct.

    The Curie temperature is 770 C for iron. The earth’s iron core is thought to be considerably hotter than that. This suggests the earth’s magnetic field cannot be internally generated. One possibility is that the field is the result of the motion of the earth in an externally generated electro-magnetic field.

    However, we know from the paleo records that climate change is associated with magnetic field change. We are in a period of rapid magnetic field change and rapid climate change. Since the IPCC has identified CO2 as the main driver of climate, this is strong evidence that CO2 drives the earth’s magnetic field. That rapid changes in the earth’s magnetic field are being caused by rapid changes in CO2 levels.

  46. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 24, 2012 at 8:56 pm
    ClimateForAll says:
    June 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    Four.) Direction, speed and intensity of geomagnetic polarity has to be effected by some other outside source other than the Earth’s core.
    The conductivity of the core is so high that for all intents and purposes it acts as a superconductor preventing any outside magnetic influence to penetrate more than a few hundred meters into the core.
    ===============
    That makes no sense at all. If the earth’s core is functioning as a super-conductor it will be extremely sensitive to outside electro-magnetic fields and these will induce a field in the super-conductor.

    What you are describing is a Faraday cage. However, a compass still works inside a Faraday cage, which shows that the cage is only shielding rapidly changing fields. A slowly changing field such as that induced by the earth’s motion is not blocked.

  47. ClimateForAll says:
    June 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    While some have speculated that the Sun may play a minor role, I doubt it. To presume that geomagnetism is uneffected by outside influneces would seem a fools errand.
    =============
    Agreed. The earth is in motion. Its core is a conductor, heated above the Curie point. Thus, the earth’s magnetic field is more likely induced by the earth’s motion within an existing field. The source of this field is quite possibly the sun.

  48. vukcevic, there’s something phase-confounded with solar magnetic ~22 year. I’ve never seen it reported or discussed anywhere. So far as I can tell, it’s completely off everyone’s radar.

  49. ClimateForAll says:
    June 25, 2012 at 12:28 am
    Then explain how something as unnatural and seemingly mathematical as the trajectory of MNP could happen.
    There is nothing magical or physical about the MNP. In the core the field is very irregular as it is generated by convection in the highly conducting liquid iron fluid as a system of convection cells, and there is really nothing dipolar about it. Rather there are many poles all over the core. One can describe the field as the composite of a set of spherical harmonics [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics the math looks tough, but at least look at the pictures. We use those functions also to describe the field of the sun, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Calculation%20of%20Spherical%20Harmonics.pdf ]. The important point is that the harmonics have a ‘degree’ n. For the monopole, n is 0, for the dipole n is 1, for the quadrupole n is 2, for the octupole n is 3, etc. The field from each pole decreases with distance, r, as 1/r^(n+2). This means that for an octupole, say, the field falls of as 1/r^5, thus very rapidly. So, the higher degree harmonics basically disappear at large distances from the source. This means that with increasing distance any field will look like a dipole. At the surface of the Earth the location of this fictional dipole [fictional because there is no such single dipole at the source in the core] is just determined by the accident of being at a certain distance form the source. Further away [i.e. out in space around the Earth] the dipole pole is a different place and has hardly moved at all.

    There has to be some other force involved, and its not the Sun,
    No special force is needed. The observed random fluctuations of the convection cells is all it takes. Here is what the changes in the field at the surface of the core http://www.leif.org/research/core-secular-change.png very disorganized and random.

    Have you had a chance to investigate the HESS data on the hard proton spectrum?
    Has nothing to do with magnetic changes in the solar system.

    Having said that, the heliosphere is not by any means, unimpeded by interstellar mass, energy or magnetic wave forms outside of the sphere. Something, in the form of energy is impinging on the sphere. Would you not agree?
    No, what is happening is basically the same as what happens to your hair when you run fast: you create an airflow around your head.

    vukcevic says:
    June 25, 2012 at 3:20 am
    Vukcevic hypothesis, as developed step by step and made known to the WUWT during last couple of years, shows that Solar systems internal (mainly) electric currents and magnetic fields feedback is
    – strong enough to drive solar oscillations
    – strong enough to move the earth’s magnetic field
    – strong enough to drive global temperature change

    All of which is pure nonsense asyou have been told so many times.

    vukcevic says:
    June 25, 2012 at 6:00 am
    Sed ita a principio incohatum esse mundum, ut certis rebus certa signa praecurrerent.
    nonsense in any language is still nonsense

    Rob Potter says:
    June 25, 2012 at 6:25 am
    You are very keen on noting that our current SSN is too high compared to historic recording and I think I am right in saying that this is why you don’t support Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory (because there has been no real increase in SSN to account for the warming since 1980 or thereabouts).
    I don’t support the cosmic ray speculation because it is refuted by observations. Svensmark claims that the low clouds are influenced by cosmic rays [and thus inversely by solar activity]. Solar activity has been decreasing since the 1980s and so, according to Svensmark, the coverage of low clouds should have been increasing [leading to decreasing temperature over that interval]. However, as you can see here http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif low clouds coverage have instead decreased and as we all know temperatures have increased]

    However, the SSN cycle is correlated with global temperature at some level
    Indeed, simple physics predicts a cyclic change over a solar cycle of 0.1 degree and some people claim to have found that.

    ferd berple says:
    June 25, 2012 at 7:15 am
    The Curie temperature is 770 C for iron. The earth’s iron core is thought to be considerably hotter than that. This suggests the earth’s magnetic field cannot be internally generated.
    The Curie temperature issue is for a permanent magnet where the magnetic domains get randomized at higher temperature. But this does not apply to magnetic fields generated by movements of the liquid core.

    If the earth’s core is functioning as a super-conductor it will be extremely sensitive to outside electro-magnetic fields and these will induce a field in the super-conductor.
    Exactly, but in the very outmost few meters of the core and that field will cancel out the external field and prevent it from penetrating further inwards to where the generation of the internal field takes place. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect

  50. ferd berple says:
    June 25, 2012 at 7:53 am
    Thus, the earth’s magnetic field is more likely induced by the earth’s motion within an existing field. The source of this field is quite possibly the sun.
    In fact, the induction part is very correct, except that the existing field is that of the earth itself, not the sun’s. The process is called a self-sustaining dynamo. The sun does the same, complete with reversals and all.

  51. Steve says:
    June 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Good Lord! Are you wackos trying to blame the sun for global warming?
    __________________________________________
    Steve, How warm would the earth be if there was no sun HMMMmmm?

    The sun is a variable star, even Lief will tell you we do not know everything there is to know about the sun. Hathaway & Wilson Predicted 160 ± 25 in 2006 and Horstman 185 in 2005 while Lief predicted 70 ± 2 in 2005 SEE: Prediction Panel: May 24, 2007 List http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/May_24_2007_table.pdf

    Even the National Geographic News seems to think the sun is going into a less active state.

    ….Three independent studies of the sun’s insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.

    The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what’s known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity….

    The predicted solar “sleep” is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.

    …”We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don’t understand the association,” said Dean Pesnell, project scientist for NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).

    Also, even if there is a climate link, Pesnell doesn’t think another grand minimum is likely to trigger a cold snap…..

    Another article on the same studies: Universe Today

    It looks like Nature herself is going to answer the question about whether the Sun has a major effect on the earths climate.

    If you have an inquiring mind you might want to look at these graphs:
    Solar spectrum from ~ LASP Colorado
    Solar and Terrestrial Radiation
    Solar radiation and intensity at diferent wafelengths at different Ocean depths
    Total Solar Radiance 2003 to 2012 ~ LASP Colorado

    PAPERS and NASA ARTICLES:
    Dec 2, 2003 ~ Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years.
    Sept. 23, 2008 ~ NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low

    NASA: Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment (Sorce)

    ….Analyzing the Sun and its affects on climate, however, is further complicated by the fact that the amount of radiation arriving from the Sun is not constant. It varies from the average value of the TSI—1,368 W/m2—on a daily basis…. Variations in TSI are due to a balance between decreases caused by sunspots and increases caused by bright areas called faculae which surround sunspots. Sunspots are dark blotches on the Sun in which magnetic forces are very strong, and these forces block the hot solar plasma, and as a result sunspots are cooler and darker than their surroundings. Faculae, which appear as bright blotches on the surface of the Sun, put out more radiation than normal and increase the solar irradiance. They too are the result of magnetic storms, and their numbers increase and decrease in concert with sunspots. On the whole, the effects of the faculae tend to beat out those of the sunspots. So that, although solar energy reaching the Earth decreases when the portion of the Sun’s surface that faces the Earth happens to be rife with spots and faculae, the total energy averaged over a full 30-day solar rotation actually increases. Therefore the TSI is larger during the portion of the 11 year cycle when there are more sunspots, even though the individual spots themselves cause a decrease in TSI when facing Earth….

    NASA: SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise

    In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

    “We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,” said Robert Cahalan, the project scientist for SORCE and the head of the climate and radiation branch at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md….

    Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.

    However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

    The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

    The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate….

    These wavelengths, “….the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum,… that increased, are the portion of the Sun’s spectrum that penetrate the ocean as seen in the above Graph So while the Total Solar Insolation may not vary much the ratios DO VARY. Do not forget that 70% of the earth is covered by oceans and the ocean has a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere. CO2 back radiation has very little if any impact on the ocean because the energy can not penetrate beyond the surface as the energy from the sun does..

    9/22/09 ~ NASA EVE: Measuring the Sun’s Hidden Variability
    …When the sun is active, solar EUV emissions can rise and fall by factors of hundreds to thousands in just a matter of minutes. These surges heat Earth’s upper atmosphere, puffing it up….

    Although EVE is designed to study solar activity, its first order of business is to study solar inactivity. SDO is going to launch during the deepest solar minimum in almost 100 years. Sunspots, flares and CMEs are at a low ebb. That’s okay with Woods. He considers solar minimum just as interesting as solar maximum.

    “Solar minimum is a quiet time when we can establish a baseline for evaluating long-term trends,” he explains. “All stars are variable at some level, and the sun is no exception. We want to compare the sun’s brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?”

    The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths. These results, which compare the solar minimum of 2008-09 to the previous minimum of 1996, are still very preliminary. EVE will improve confidence in the trend by pinning down the EUV spectrum with unprecedented accuracy.

    The sun’s variability and its potential for future changes are not fully understood—hence the need for EVE. “The EUV portion of the sun’s spectrum is what changes most during a solar cycle,” says Woods, “and that is the part of the spectrum we will be observing.”

  52. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 25, 2012 at 8:23 am

    All of which is pure nonsense as you have been told so many times.

    Top world institutions, NASA, NOAA, ETHZ, SIDC, Stanford –WSO, etc hold on their files data which is accepted by most scientists for their work.
    The fact that the data contain information which can be cross-correlated, and in doing so show relationships previously unknown, you may call ‘nonsense’, I call it good old fashioned research, which practical engineers often have to do before they embark on a request for financial resources and constructing a working model.
    Some elements of my model are assembled here

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/VH.htm

    including some of your data, you appear to be unwilling to reconcile with the rest of universe in which it exists

    Dr. Svalgaard, you are wrong to assume that the spectrum for the Earth’s magnetic field shown here (green line)

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-SH.htm

    is the surface field, it is the assumed field at the boundary of the earth’s core and mantle, and as you can see it is closely synchronized with solar magnetic cycle.
    You need to get your info updated. It may not be entirely productive that matters which we may not understand we just discard as ‘nonsense’.
    —————————————————-
    m.v. -“Sed ita a principio incohatum esse mundum, ut certis rebus certa signa praecurrerent.”
    l.s. – nonsense in any language is still nonsense
    —————————————————-
    It is not nonsense, it is a counter quote by the very same Marcus Tullius Cicero, this time talking about nature rather than politics as you would have it.

    Paul Vaughan says:
    June 25, 2012 at 8:06 am
    …………
    I am not certain what you might have in mind

  53. vukcevic says:
    June 25, 2012 at 9:44 am
    Top world institutions, NASA, NOAA, ETHZ, SIDC, Stanford –WSO, etc hold on their files data which is accepted by most scientists for their work.
    Nothing wrong with the data. That you find spurious correlations is the nonsense part. And worse, you dilute the scientific content of WUWT. Go over to tallbloke and add to his nonsense instead.

    Dr. Svalgaard, you are wrong to assume that the spectrum for the Earth’s magnetic field shown here
    is the surface field, it is the assumed field at the boundary of the earth’s core and mantle, and as you can see it is closely synchronized with solar magnetic cycle.

    It would help if you label your graphs. Also note WHERE on the core-boundary this is taken. You used to talk about the Y-shaped ‘tuning fork’ at the surface. So you have given up on that. At any rate, your graph does not show any synchronization. You used to plot the change of the field, are you now plotting the actual field? It is this moving target behavior that shows how shaky the whole thing is.

  54. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 25, 2012 at 10:18 am
    You used to plot the change of the field, are you now plotting the actual field?

    That is an odd question; (not to say nonsense, too overused), of course it is change in the field (an article will be online soon with all details) . If it were the field it would mean the Earth’s MF flips every 22 years.

    I see Petaluma contest was won by a Brit; what no local talent ?

  55. vukcevic says:
    June 25, 2012 at 10:44 am
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 25, 2012 at 10:18 am
    That is an odd question; (not to say nonsense, too overused), of course it is change in the field (an article will be online soon with all details) . If it were the field it would mean the Earth’s MF flips every 22 years.
    How about labeling the graph correctly? Here is the change of the field at the core boundary http://www.leif.org/research/core-secular-change-png.pdf which one of those blobs are you talking about?

    If it were the field it would mean the Earth’s MF flips every 22
    I would not put it past you to claim such, but actually you can add any [large] constant to a variable without changing the power spectrum, so no flip is needed.

  56. ClimateForAll says:
    “Let me also go on record that I postulate that a very high energetic field, either from the galactic plane or from dark matter is directly involved in effecting the earths magnetic field.”

    Your statement makes me wonder if our cosmos is like a large scale nuclear magnetic resonance instrument. The earth and/or sun, (galaxy) is aligned in a huge magnetic field. Occasionally, from somewhere, a huge electromagnetic event disturbs the alignment, and then the earth and/or sun return to be aligned with this huge magnetic field.

  57. @Eric Simpson,

    Interesting, my less understanding is that prior to around 1960 the greenhouse gas theory was not widely accepted. Only with the rise of the environmentalists did the greenhouse gas theory find its new home

    Actually, it is imho even more interesting than that from the point of view of the history of science. Unless I am mistaken, the greenhouse effect,” although known long before, was first popularized in the media when Carl Sagan sallied forth to do combat against the arch-heretic Emmanuel Velikovsky, who had upset the gradualist apple cart by claiming that Venus would be a hot planet because it was youthful in comparison to cooler planets of the solar system. When he turned out to be correct, the gradualists had to come up with an alternative explanation, and since Venus does have a very large amount of atmospheric Co2, the Greenhouse theory fit the fill.

    Again — I am far from an expert, but I have read that this explanation is impossible, since Venus actually radiates more heat than it absorbs from the sun, even given its close orbit. But no one bothered with that in the days of these heroic battles. Sagan was called upon to smite the boar, and he did.

    Assuming that this analysis is correct, it would raise some very interesting questions about the close connection between AGW theory and the defense of standard gradualist cosmology in the 20th (and now 21st) century.

    I am far from being a doctrinaire defender of Velikovsky — but it does seem to me that he was right about a number of things, and that in particular his emphasis on catastrophic events as shapers of the cosmos is far more correct than the dogmatic gradualism whose narcissism he had so offended by suggesting, for example, that the planets were not all formed at the same time through the gradual accretion of disparate particles of dust. That his offense may have shaped the ensuing history of the environmental movement makes the episode all the the more intriguing.

    -psi

  58. Dr. S.
    Emailed the graph, with ‘tuning fork’ oscillations too.
    I trust you will keep it to yourself until the article appears on my website. If not acceptable just delete the email.

  59. psi says:
    June 25, 2012 at 11:50 am
    Assuming that this analysis is correct, it would raise some very interesting questions about the close connection between AGW theory and the defense of standard gradualist cosmology in the 20th (and now 21st) century.
    Standard cosmology is not gradualist at all. It is widely accepted by mainstream scientists that the Universe is a very violent place.

    • Standard cosmology is not gradualist at all. It is widely accepted by mainstream scientists that the Universe is a very violent place.

      Glad to hear it. But by “gradualist” I was referring to the popular “just so” story that the planets of our local system were all created at the same time via the same process of accretion via gravitational attraction of smaller constituent particles. This is most certainly a gradualist doctrine and, arguably, a hangover of Lyellian gradualism. Correct me if I am wrong in supposing that this has always been, and still is, the dominant belief among academic cosmologists. That “standard cosmology” acknowledges the importance of catastropic events in other contexts is all to its credit but has no bearing on the specific point I was making.

  60. Dr. Svalgaard, you are wrong to assume that the spectrum for the Earth’s magnetic field shown here (green line)

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-SH.htm

    is the surface field, it is the assumed field at the boundary of the earth’s core and mantle, and as you can see it is closely synchronized with solar magnetic cycle.
    You need to get your info updated. It may not be entirely productive that matters which we may not understand we just discard as ‘nonsense’.
    —————————————————-
    m.v. -”Sed ita a principio incohatum esse mundum, ut certis rebus certa signa praecurrerent.”
    l.s. – nonsense in any language is still nonsense
    —————————————————-
    It is not nonsense, it is a counter quote by the very same Marcus Tullius Cicero, this time talking about nature rather than politics as you would have it.

    Psi’s Scorecard:

    LS: 2 pts for having the class to insult V in Latin.

    MV: 2 pts for responding with an apt Latin quote.

    V: 6 points for responding in witty Latin, and then defending MV by educating us in the Ciceronian source of the quotation, with an apt English zinger on the difference between politics and science (including an impressive excursus on the value of using the latest technology to collate data to discover unobserved patterns that may conflict with prevailing paradigms), something that English words like “nonsense,” when too readily pronounced on the tongue, tend to obscure.

    Whereby the bystanders may reasonably conclude,

    Dulce et decorum est pro theoria mori.

  61. vukcevic says:
    June 25, 2012 at 12:09 pm
    I trust you will keep it to yourself until the article appears on my website.
    The right thing to do is to keep it to yourself until published. This incessant pushing of unsubstantiated, spurious wiggle matching of physically unrelated things is a disservice to WUWT. As I said, push it onto tallbloke.

  62. Billy Liar says:
    June 25, 2012 at 12:06 pm
    What happened 7000 BCE?
    Just a larger than usual random jerk. Your question is akin to “what happened to him” when to see a professional basketball player.

  63. rstritmatter says:
    June 25, 2012 at 12:13 pm
    V: 6 points for responding in witty Latin, and then defending MV by educating us in the Ciceronian source of the quotation, with an apt English zinger on the difference between politics and science
    Cicero was not talking about politics, but about the personal qualities of Citalina. Here is the translation:
    “How long, O Catiline, will you abuse our patience? And for how long will that madness of yours mock us? To what end will your unbridled audacity hurl itself?”

  64. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 25, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    spurious wiggle matching of physically unrelated things..

    May be spurious, but compares well to the temperatures as shown here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC.htm

    Extracting information contained in reliable data moves science forward; talking about moving, I sense it is time for me to move on, I’ve posted far more than intended.

    Thanks to Crispin in Waterloo & rstritmatter and anyone else with any relevant comments.

  65. vukcevic says:
    June 25, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    Extracting information contained in reliable data moves science forward
    What you do is not science and does not move anything forward. Information has meaning but spurious correlations [especially when poorly done - no units, no location data, no sources] do not.
    I’ve posted far more than intended.
    Your problem started with the very first posting.

  66. rstritmatter says:
    June 25, 2012 at 2:58 pm
    Glad to hear it. But by “gradualist” I was referring to the popular “just so” story that the planets of our local system were all created at the same time via the same process of accretion via gravitational attraction of smaller constituent particles.
    That is basically the way it works, but with some catastrophic twists, e.g. the Moon was probably formed by a collision of a Mars-sized object with the Earth, and several other moons show signs of similar violent formation.

    • Thanks for the clarification. But, of course, your phraseology begs the question. “That is the way it works” sounds like like you are lecturing to an 18 year old freshman on theology.

  67. Jon says:
    June 26, 2012 at 5:26 am
    the most core secular change appears to occur in seismically and/or volcanically active areas.
    I’ll not discount that there is a connection, but the eye sometimes ‘see’ things that are not there. A more precise investigation is needed to confirm/deny any connection.

  68. rstritmatter says:
    June 26, 2012 at 5:44 am
    sounds like you are lecturing to an 18 year old freshman on theology.
    It was not meant that way, but there is a certain necessity here: the rocky planets [or with rocky cores] must have assembled from interstellar dust, so must have started from smaller particles that grew by accretion. The early solar system was a very violent place with lots of collisions and bombardments and probably even rearrangement of planetary orbits. The rest of the Universe is even more violent, so ‘gradualism’ is certainly not the current paradigm.

  69. Leif says: I’ll not discount that there is a connection, but the eye sometimes ‘see’ things that are not there. A more precise investigation is needed to confirm/deny any connection.
    _____________________________________
    It would be an interesting study to do!

  70. Michele says:
    June 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm
    I need date years : 2011 and 2012 for my graph
    My reply seems to have been lost [or moderated away], so here goes again:
    2008.5 4.34 4.21
    2009.5 4.11 3.93
    2010.5 4.55 4.67
    2011.5 5.42 5.25
    2012.3 5.76 5.96
    As always, the last few years are based on preliminary data and will change slightly as definitive data come in. The 1st column is the year, the 2nd is HMF [in nanoTesla] derived from IDV, and the 3rd is HMF observed by spacecraft.

    Correlation heliosphere & earthquakes
    I’m afraid there is no such correlation. This topic has been looked into and no correlation found. A powerful method is the ‘superposed epoch analysis’ where a large number of ‘key times’ are selected. For HMF one can use as key times the passage of a ‘sector boundary’ [after which HMF is almost always significantly enhanced] or the sudden beginning of a geomagnetic storm [where HMF is also high]. We can get such key times for the last ~100 years [there are about 2000 of each kind]. Then you count the number of earthquakes on each day for an interval around the key times. If HMF was correlated with earthquake activity there should be a peak or spike in at or just after the key times. Here is what one finds: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png using two catalogs of earthquakes greater than magnitude 6. As you can see, there is no peak, hence no correlation. The plot at the bottom shows the peak in geomagnetic activity caused by the high HMF [helped along by high solar wind speed]. Something like this is what we would expect [but do not find] in the earthquake count if there were a correlation.

  71. @ Leif

    Thanks,
    Leif for data.

    MANY PHYSICAL PROCESSES IN PROGRESS
    The mechanism is very complicated.
    Not only correlation Heliosphere & earthquakes but….
    tidal processes….planetary alignments

    Read papers
    Jakubcová and Pick, 1987 I. Jakubcová and M. Pick, Correlation between solar motion, earthquakes and other geophysical phenomena.
    or
    SUN, MOON AND EARTHQUAKES
    Vinayak G. KOLVANKAR
    or
    Astronomical alignments as the cause of ~M6+ seismicity

    http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.2036.pdf

    or
    Flare or CME (trigger)
    Change in magnetic field: an early warning system to understand
    seismotectonics
    S. MUKHERJEE and A. MUKHERJEE
    or

    http://fedgeno.com/documents/on-the-relation-between-solar-activity-and-seismicity.pdf

    On the relation between solar activity and seismicity
    “……..To he geoeffective, the solar wind from a coronal hole or from a CME has to first
    arrive at the Earth, so the geoeffectiveness of solar wind from a both coronal hole and from a CME mainly. depends on their position relative to the Earth. For the CMEs an additional factor is their size and speed. Faster and wider CMEs are more geoeffective……”

  72. Michele says:
    June 27, 2012 at 4:43 am
    so the geoeffectiveness of solar wind from a both coronal hole and from a CME mainly. depends on their position relative to the Earth. For the CMEs an additional factor is their size and speed. Faster and wider CMEs are more geoeffective……”
    The superposed epoch analysis shows that there is no effect of geoeffective CMEs.

  73. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2012 at 8:21 am
    “…The superposed epoch analysis shows that there is no effect of geoeffective CMEs…”

    I do not think…

    Electrons, protons trigger
    Eyjafjallajokul , Nabro, Puyehue-Cordon Caulle eruption …. M9 Japan
    etc ….
    etc …..

    Solar minimum output

  74. Michele says:
    June 27, 2012 at 2:16 pm
    “…The superposed epoch analysis shows that there is no effect of geoeffective CMEs…”
    I do not think [so]…

    There are lots of wild claims out there. The standard approach in science is called reproducibility. In the case at hand, one simply takes all CMEs [geomagnetic storms. proton flux, magnetic field, etc] observed in the last 100 years or so [when we have good earthquake data] and checks if there are any strong earthquakes at or just after such storms. That was the objective superposed epoch that I showed you. As you can see for yourself, the claimed effect is simply not there, so the claim is not reproduced using all available data, and thus the claim is falsified. Now, many people believe in things that are false, so you are probably in good [or at least, in numerous] company.

  75. Leif,

    How much has been learnt since this was posted in 2004?

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango

    I’m thinking paticularly of sun/ozone interactions (UV, flare events, etc.). How much quantitative work has been done to identify causality of recent stratospheric cooling and what is your take on that? Pointers to publications would be useful, not turning up much by WEB search.

    Many thanks.

  76. AJB says:
    June 28, 2012 at 3:18 am
    How much has been learnt since this was posted in 2004?
    NOAA has an assessment from 2010:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/

    That may be a good place to start. One conclusion: the long-term decrease in Ozone is not due primarily to the Sun.
    Generally, there are two causes of stratospheric cooling:
    a: depletion of stratospheric ozone
    b: increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
    Figure 7 of http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html shows the continued cooling of the lower stratosphere.

  77. Leif Svalgaard says, June 28, 2012 at 5:04 am
    One might argue that both TLT [lower troposphere) and TLS (lower stratosphere) have stabilized the last decade. It is hard to tell.

    Hmm, I see what you mean. Here’s a longer view:

    You could argue the same thing about the period between the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions so what caused the step change either side of both? Sudden fry-ups did something else perhaps, like driving H20 further up? NLCs on the increase sometime later perhaps, is that how more water gets right up there and why they appeared 2 years after Krakatoa went pop in 1883? More questions than answers.

    Isn’t the brightness temperature series heavily gridded/smoothed though and quite deceptive? What struck me more after quickly plonking around the RSS/MSU site was the TLT/TLS global picture in March each year, particularly 2011 when the arctic hole appeared. For example:

    … then compare with

    Large effect (ozone depleted by vortex driven brewing pot, etc. as down south). It seems to be a fast moving chaotic place up there; big globs of energy shunting around pretty quickly and randomly making their way from the tops of Willis’s big ‘ole tropical anvils to the poles.

    What happens in the other dimension? Does the shape of the temperature gradient up through the stratosphere and beyond lurch about violently in a similar manner? A lot for an uneducated layman with a day job to get a feel for.

    I’m having difficulty gauging the effect of stratospheric ozone in the IR. Is it wrong to think of the ozone layer as a GHG acting in both directions (i.e. diffusing incoming and outgoing IR at different frequencies)? I can’t find the IR spectrum (everything is UV focused) and I’m not sure how that would work at the quantum level anyway. Two lights shining through wispy fog but different colours [not refractive, probably irrelevant] and not directly opposing or static? Hmm, gradients everywhere; that changing zenith angle is the mother of complexity. The concentrations top and bottom would presumably alter the net effect significantly too; causing any assumed radiating height for S-B calculation purposes to shift up and down despite the layer remaining broadly in the same position. Or maybe that shifts too. Since there are different depletions top and bottom and it’s all blowing about like crazy, the IR performance of the layer as a whole must be immensely complex and chaotic. There are a lot of drivers potentially altering its IR characteristics, not to mention the question of thermosphere expansion/contraction top side following large solar particle events and heating from UV driven chemistry.

    It’s as if the Sun is gradually feeding the ozone layer popcorn [varying with the solar cycle and shifts in incoming UV frequencies] and occasionally instantly trimming its afro hairdo while a polar vortex arrives randomly and rips a hole in the seat of its pants. And it’s spinning about like a drunken sailor with a toothache the whole time. Heck there’s a tad more going on up there than the superficial outreach stuff portrays with its lovely smooth curves. Good luck modelling that lot; a Bayesian field of error bar tulips with lots of butterflies springs to mind. So what is in the climate models?

    Fantasy express journey terminated; please don black hat and point out where it started to leave the rails, no need to elaborate. This old graph with its rather well defined straight line trends has struck me as uncanny for a while though (Arosa balloon series):

    After all the anecdotal Viking arguments and zillions of dollars spent whittling things down, isn’t warming during the latter trend period more or less what we’re all now focused on? Arctic ice decline doesn’t follow directly but I tend to regard that as just another tulip field.

    Can’t get to the up-to-present Arosa graph (server appears down for maintenance) but Bronnimann et al (2004) ) made an interesting first pass read:

    http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/docs/climdyn_2004_broennimannetal.pdf

  78. ShrNfr says:
    June 24, 2012 at 4:52 pm
    From the looks of Stereo, it will have an “official” sunspot count of zero very, very soon once this small group rotates away. There is just plain nothing coming over the horizon.

    And yet a week later we’re back up around 160, to paraphrase Mark Twain: “the accounts of the sunspots death were greatly exaggerated.

Comments are closed.