From the new paper by McComas et al.
The last solar minimum, which extended into 2009, was especially deep and prolonged. Since then, sunspot activity has gone through a very small peak while the heliospheric current sheet achieved large tilt angles similar to prior solar maxima.
The solar wind fluid properties and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) have declined through the prolonged solar minimum and continued to be low through the current mini solar maximum.
Compared to values typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, the following proton parameters are lower on average from 2009 through day 79 of 2013: solar wind speed and beta (~11%), temperature (~40%), thermal pressure (~55%), mass flux (~34%), momentum flux or dynamic pressure (~41%), energy flux (~48%), IMF magnitude (~31%), and radial component of the IMF (~38%).
These results have important implications for the solar wind’s interaction with planetary magnetospheres and the heliosphere’s interaction with the local interstellar medium, with the proton dynamic pressure remaining near the lowest values observed in the space age: ~1.4 nPa, compared to ~2.4 nPa typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. The combination of lower magnetic flux emergence from the Sun (carried out in the solar wind as the IMF) and associated low power in the solar wind points to the causal relationship between them.
Our results indicate that the low solar wind output is driven by an internal trend in the Sun that is longer than the ~11 yr solar cycle, and they suggest that this current weak solar maximum is driven by the same trend.
Source of paper abstract:
Weakest Solar Wind of the Space Age and the Current “Mini” Solar Maximum
D. J. McComas et al. 2013 ApJ 779 2
OK … .Leif …. this is what I was talking about in the last thread … TSI .. vs “other” solar parameters that may interact with the earth’s atmosphere. While TSI varies very little, this paper seems to suggest that the solar wind is varying by a much greater margin.
… or … is this author just another person who doesn’t know what they are talking about??
There is much solar science to learn yet.
Dr. Deanster, really now. As a teacher I am obligated to say that there is no such thing as a stupid question, but this one gives me pause to reconsider. Before I do, I will hopefully assume you are not using the term “atmosphere” to include the temperature of the air I walk out in every morning to greet the sunrise. The magnetosphere is quite removed from that experience. And the solar wind will have a dickens of a time changing any part of my morning routine.
I wish someone would summarize exactly that means to us here on earth?
Do any of these Solar parameters that are much lower have anything to do with the reduced Accumulated Cyclone Energy, ACE, that we are seeing in hurricanes and tornados? Do any of them change the amount of electrical charge present in the lower atmosphere?
pocketsponsor says:
August 21, 2014 at 8:18 pm
Most of the subject matter experts here at WUWT (I am not one to be sure), point to the well established relationship between galactic cosmic rays (GCRs, those coming from supernovae and other very energetic events w/i or in the fringes of the Milky Way) and the solar cycle. Galactic cosmic rays are mostly protons but also heavier nuclei particles travel with sub-giga volt energies (about 0.3 GeV, i.e. relativistic speeds none the less). Since these are positively charged particles, our solar system’s heliosheath and the earth magnetic sheath deflect many of the particles from hitting the earth’s outer atmosphere during times of high solar activity. The rub comes when the sun’s solar wind dwindles during solar minima and the magnetic effects of the helio sheath are minimal, thus more of GCR’s strike the upper atmosphere where lots of very complex, poorly understood things may happen.
GCR’s entering the upper thin layers of the atmosphere induce a shower of charged decay particles as they keep decaying and colliding with gas atoms and move down into the lower atmosphere, thus creating charged condensation nuclei for water droplet to condense and form clouds.
Clouds can be either negative forcing for Earth’s radiation budget or positive forcing, depending on who you ask. From that point o, it’s quite controversial as to their effect of Earth’s climate system.
Water is a polar molecule, I.e. attracted / repelled by electric charges. There is a heck of a lot of water in our atmosphere, and the solar wind could well affect the electric charges up there as well. Think of how much effect ionisation changes in the upper atmosphere affect global radio signal propagation (I was a radio amateur / ham waaay back). Not much research about how water is affected by electric charges, or how the solar wind affects electric charges in the atmosphere?
“Compared to values typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, the following proton parameters are lower on average from 2009 through day 79 of 2013 […]”
The IMF value is semi-relevant but at an extra step away from direct relevance, compared to the following metric:
Compared to the 1975-1995 average, the period from 2009 to 3/20/2013 had a 8.4% difference in average neutron count measured at a low altitude detector (indicating the amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth, predominately solar-modulated on this timescale).
However, the same figure for this year (2014) differs by only 2.5% from the same 1975-1995 average comparison period (oulu.fi), for, while the current solar maximum is weak, it is still a solar maximum.
The really interesting times come later, if, later this decade / soon beyond, there is a return to Grand Minimum levels of solar activity, when cosmic ray flux was tens of percent different.
(Even the mere 10-15% variation in cosmic ray flux over an ordinary solar cycle, corresponds to about 5% variation in tropospheric ionization, 2% in low cloud cover, and a corresponding magnitude of forcing in W/m^2 terms from the corresponding albedo change, as in the references in the subsequent link).
Matters are most easily illustrated by graphs, e.g., enlarging on further click, my usual link to http://www.webcitation.org/6PsOoxWKN
“Our results indicate that the low solar wind output is driven by an internal trend in the Sun that is longer than the ~11 yr solar cycle, and they suggest that this current weak solar maximum is driven by the same trend.”
Boyfromtottenham says:
August 21, 2014 at 8:57 pm
Your last point about: “how water is affected by electric charges, or how the solar wind affects electric charges in the atmosphere?,” is a very good question, one that many hard core atmospheric physcisits love to tackle beyond computer models with expensive experimental packages on high flying airplane and balloons. Big expensive balloons have been used for decades to ask this question. The more we learn, the more questions arise and the more we realize we just don’t know. The computer modelers on the other hand, needing to make many simplifying assumptions, hand wave it off and fall in love with their models and their “output data.” “model output data,” if you don’t know, is a ROFLMAO pejorative in skeptic circles.
So to give you a lame answer, Yes the solar wind affects our upper-most atmosphere, but so does our Earth’s weakening, ever changing deep dynamo-driven magnetic field and a lot of other factors such as ozone creation/destruction kinetics, and many things we probably don’t know that we don’t know about.
A decrease in the “solar wind” means the “Goldilocks zone” Earth orbits in will move in toward the sun, We won’t. pg
Dave says:
August 21, 2014 at 7:53 pm
There is much solar science to learn yet.
And Leif knows it all. Just ask him.
rent “mini” solar maximum
Dr. Deanster says:
August 21, 2014 at 7:41 pm
OK … .Leif …. this is what I was talking about in the last thread … TSI .. vs “other” solar parameters that may interact with the earth’s atmosphere. While TSI varies very little, this paper seems to suggest that the solar wind is varying by a much greater margin.
Of course the solar wind varies a lot more [just like the sunspot number does]. It is like the amount of loose change in your pocket varies a lot more than your total wealth [one might hope].
… or … is this author just another person who doesn’t know what they are talking about??
In addition, there is also that. For example, they are puzzled why [Figure 4] the relation between the sunspot number and the ’tilt’ of the heliomagnetic current sheet has ‘broken down’. This is complete and utter nonsense. Because the polar fields reverse at every solar maximum and thus goes through zero magnitude as they change sign, the current sheet ’tilt’ by definition goes to 90 degrees in every cycle, regardless of the sunspot number.
Also, the magnetic field strength the past 250 years has varied in a very predictable way, even calculated from the very theory [by Schwadron et al.] that is referred to in the paper:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-since-1749.png
The current cycle is no different from cycle 14, everything varies just in step with the usual solar activity. There seems to be a cottage industry to declare that things are unusual, strange, never-seen-before. They are not [but it is good for continued funding to claim that they are].
Solar wind, eh…
Hey – we can make solar windmills – two wacky green power “solutions” in one!
M Simon,
That is too harsh. I’ve met many scientists like Leif, he knows what he knows, and has well- grounded understandings, that unless you are an equal expert in the field, you should not challenge him in his field, unless you want a deserved beat down with data laden science. Further, he has been honest with what he does with solar physics, which is a lot more than can be said for many earth climate atmospheric scientists remain quiet, while the sophistry from Mann, et al spews forth.
Leif: I think you are missing the point here by discussing how those magnetic field parameters can be calculated already. The main point is the effect of those changes to climate. Do you still deny that those solar wind variations could have an impact to earth climate?
Mark and two Cats says:
August 21, 2014 at 10:18 pm
“Hey – we can make solar windmills – two wacky green power “solutions” in one!”
I had one when I was a kid. It’s called a Radiometer.
get yours here:
http://www.amazon.com/Tedco-01800-Radiometer/dp/B0007YFJI2
But don’t expect much in the way of torque to drive a EMF generator. The math doesn’t work, unless you want planet-sized Radiometers in near-Mercury orbits.
Iv been keeping a record of the Solar wind speed every day at almost the same time each day for the last 20 months.
Solar wind speed is down from 419 km/sec same time last year.( the avg for 32 weeks up to this date) This year for the first 32 weeks the reading is 389 km/sec.
Solar wind speed on avg is going down now that the peck is past.
P.S I should say I get the readings from http://spaceweather.com/
Boyfromtottenham says:
August 21, 2014 at 8:57 pm
“Water is a polar molecule, I.e. attracted / repelled by electric charges. There is a heck of a lot of water in our atmosphere, and the solar wind could well affect the electric charges up there as well.”
Yes. Read
Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
Brian A. Tinsley, Fangqun Yu (2004)
http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v141/141GM22/141GM22.pdf
Also, the present article is talking about solar cosmic rays SCR, which are lower energy but higher particle count than Galactic Cosmic Rays GCR. Unlike GCR’s which are shielded by solar activity, SCR’s follow solar activity and it is these that energize the D layer and produce effects such as aurorae and influence transmission of certain radio frequency bands and also potentially cause the electroscavenging process that Tinsley and Yu discuss. Its still too early to say what part solar wind plays in the climate story as there are many other actors to consider as well.
MAK says:
August 21, 2014 at 10:34 pm
The main point is the effect of those changes to climate.
Calculate for me how large you think that effect is and we can discuss the matter.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2014 at 11:11 pm
MAK says:
August 21, 2014 at 10:34 pm
The main point is the effect of those changes to climate.
Calculate for me how large you think that effect is and we can discuss the matter.
When you include feed backs as produced by my model is of a billion nukes going off…. every second.
leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/weakest-solar-wind-of-the-space-age-and-the-current-mini-solar-maximum/#comment-1714712
@leif
interesting graphs! Thx. There is some good thinking there.
Note that the second graph shows some funny behavior in and around 1927, which I also expect to happen in and around 2016.[SSNc]
Have you any idea why it is going up and down like a jo-jo there? [SSNc]
Again I am warning people about the droughts that will come to the great plains of America from 2021 as happened before, in 1932-1939
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
Leif: You pretty well know that no-one is able to do such a calculation. The effects are extremely complex, but clear at the same time. For example: Boberg et al 2002 finds:
“Figure 2 present time series of twelve month moving averages of the NAO index, the electric field strength E of the solar wind, the planetary magnetospheric Kp index, and the dynamic pressure P of the solar wind for the period 1973 to 2000. General features of both E and Kp are significantly reflected in the evolution of the NAO index. An obvious exception to this similarity is the positive NAO phase during the second half of 1986. The linear correlation between E and NAO is 0.62. Assuming a normal distribution, this correlation is significant at the 99% level. The linear correlation between Kp and NAO is 0.57 at a 98% significance level.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL014903/full
From the other studies we know that NAO on the other hand has an effect on Gulf Stream. During negative NAO Gulf Stream (or AMOC) slows down and arctic sea cools.
Thus, the long solar minimum (which I suppose is coming) will return arctic sea ice to it’s previous glory.
Leif Svalgaard
Are these the slight changes?
“Compared to values typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, the following proton parameters are lower on average from 2009 through day 79 of 2013: solar wind speed and beta (~11%), temperature (~40%), thermal pressure (~55%), mass flux (~34%), momentum flux or dynamic pressure (~41%), energy flux (~48%), IMF magnitude (~31%), and radial component of the IMF (~38%).”
You are cited:
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/why-the-global-temperature-ris/32560214