I’m writing this after doing an exhaustive search to see what sort of solar activity has occurred lately, and I find there is little to report. With the exception of the briefly increased solar wind from a coronal hole, there is almost no significant solar activity.
The sun has gone quiet. Really quiet.
It is normal for our sun to have quiet periods between solar cycles, but we’ve seen months and months of next to nothing, and the start of Solar cycle 24 seems to have materialized (as first reported here) then abruptly disappeared. The reverse polarity sunspot that signaled the start of cycle 24 on January 4th, dissolved within two days after that.
Of course we’ve known that the sunspot cycle has gone low, which is also to be expected for this period of the cycle. Note that NOAA still has two undecided scenarios for cycle 24 Lower that normal, or higher than normal, as indicated on the graph below:
But the real news is just how quiet the suns magnetic field has been in the past couple of years. From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve graphed it below:
click for a larger image
What is most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels.
This looks much like a “step function” that I see on GISS surface temperature graphs when a station has been relocated to a cooler measurement environment. In the case of the sun, it appears this indicates that something abruptly “switched off” in the inner workings of the solar dynamo. Note that in the prior months, the magnetic index was ramping up a bit with more activity, then it simply dropped and stayed mostly flat.
We saw a single reversed polarity high latitude sunspot on January 4th, 2008, which would signal the start of a new cycle 24, which was originally predicted to have started last March and expected to peak in 2012. So far the sun doesn’t seem to have restarted its normal upwards climb.
If you have ever studied how the magnetic dynamo of the sun is so incredibly full of entropy, yet has cycles, you’ll understand how it can change states. The sun’s magnetic field is a like a series of twisted and looped rubber bands, mostly because the sun is a fluid gas, which rotates at different rates between the poles and the equator. Since the suns magnetic field is pulled along with the gas, all these twists, bumps, and burps occur in the process as the magnetic field lines get twisted like taffy. You can see more about it in the Babcock model.
I’ve alway’s likened a sunspot to what happens with a rubber band on a toy balsa wood plane. You keep twisting the propeller beyond the normal tightness to get that extra second of thrust and you see the rubber band start to pop out knots. Those knots are like sunspots bursting out of twisted magnetic field lines.
The Babcock model says that the differential rotation of the Sun winds up the magnetic fields of it’s layers during a solar cycle. The magnetic fields will then eventually tangle up to such a degree that they will eventually cause a magnetic break down and the fields will have to struggle to reorganize themselves by bursting up from the surface layers of the Sun. This will cause magnetic North-South pair boundaries (spots) in the photosphere trapping gaseous material that will cool slightly. Thus, when we see sunspots, we are seeing these areas of magnetic field breakdown.
Sunspots are cross connected eruptions of the magnetic field lines, shown in red above. Sometimes they break, spewing tremendous amounts of gas and particles into space. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CME’s) are some examples of this process. Sometimes they snap back like rubber bands. The number of sunspots at solar max is a direct indicator of the activity level of the solar dynamo.
Given the current quietness of the sun and it’s magnetic field, combined with the late start to cycle 24 with even possibly a false start, it appears that the sun has slowed it’s internal dynamo to a similar level such as was seen during the Dalton Minimum. One of the things about the Dalton Minimum was that it started with a skipped solar cycle, which also coincided with a very long solar cycle 4 from 1784-1799. The longer our current cycle 23 lasts before we see a true ramp up of cycle 24, the greater chance it seems then that cycle 24 will be a low one.
No wonder there is so much talk recently about global cooling. I certainly hope that’s wrong, because a Dalton type solar minimum would be very bad for our world economy and agriculture. NASA GISS published a release back in 2003 that agrees with the commonly accepted idea that long period trends in solar activity do affect our climate by changing the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).
Some say it is no coincidence that 2008 has seen a drop in global temperature as indicated by several respected temperature indexes compared to 2007, and that our sun is also quiet and still not kick starting its internal magentic dynamo.
Let me get this straight. CO2 is a heat sink (traps heat) so that any radiant heat that reaches the earth surface is trapped and can’t escape the surface. Now if this is true the CO2 does not cause heat but just acts as an insulator to a point of saturation at which time it reaches it’s maximum amount of trapping. If I understand this correctly CO2 doesnt make any heat just acts as a trap. Now the Sun is the source of the radiation that causes the heat and the amount of radiation from the sun fluctuates from time to time called cycles. These cycles are not always equal. Now during a minimum the sun magnetic field collapses and allows more cosmic rays to penetrate to the surface of the earth causing more clouds. I have noticed by looking at clouds that the top where the sun contacts them looks white and I would assume reflects some portion of the radiation thus reducing the amount of radiation reaching the surface of the earth there by reducing the heating effect of the sun on the surface. I would also think that the higher the tops of the clouds are the more effective would be the cooling effect due to being above the majority of the heat trapping CO2.
I think if the above is correct that we very well might be going into a cooling time. I think I will start to preserve my own home grown food stocks to prepare.
I only hope that I haven’t confused myself trying to express my thoughts.
Bill
Crosspatch,
I got a chuckle from this comment following the article about the Chevy Volt that you linked to:
BTW, you might remember me as “Retired Spook” at AJ’s. I got lured to this blog by a comment you made last spring.
Kim/Aaron,
Get Svensmark and Calder’s book “The Chilling Stars” and they describe the Cloud experiment (and it’s predecessor experiment – SKY) and put both into the theoretical framework of cosmic rays, the suns magnetic field (include the ‘bubble’ created by the solar wind and solar flares) and their influence on cloud formation and its cooling effects. I really think it’s a must-read if you want to understand and not just assert that these global warming advocates are way off base. The research is on-going and CLOUD is scheduled to come on-line in (I think) 2010. It’s a good read and not just hype.
Joe in San Diego: A good advice!
AW: I think NASA and Hansen don’t admit the comic ray cloud connection, at least not it’s full implications on the climate. TSI I think is defined as the solar irradiance in space (satellite measured), and therefor the cloud effect isn’t included. IPCC also means that many sunspots (when the sun is in its active phase) lower the impact from solar radiation, which is also true, but the main cooling effect when the sun is inactiv (and have no magnentic sunstorms to shield the earth from cosmic rays) is the increased and large cover of cooling clouds (clouds at low altitude, increasing the aldebo).
IPCC and Hansen tries to avoid the comsic ray cloud theory. I guess it’s because it’s too powerful and “CO2-harming”. 😉
Btw a very good and nice-to-read descripton of the sun! Thx!!!
[…] Those are some pretty serious words from a pretty serious guy. Visit Anthony’s website to see all the graphs and charts and the technical stuff I won’t even pretend to understand. Watts Up With That? […]
Magnus, that’s the point of my recommendation of the book, in addition to some fairly obvious problems with the CO2 theory of global warming Svensmark points out that there is a strange inverse relationship between temperatures in the Antarctic and core samples in Greenland (a proxy for the rest of the earth), an anomaly that is not conducive to accepting CO2 as a driver of global warming due to the uniform mixing of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Though there are naysayers of the cosmic ray/cloud cover connections to global temperature swings, many of Svensmark’s data sources and quoted research supporting his claim appear to support THAT certain clouds are a big factor in reflecting solar radiation and, therefore reducing temperatures (anyone in Seattle will attest to this fact, sunny days are warm… cloudy are cooler… the sun keeps shining for both types of days. )
His research experiment in, first SKY and (to come) CLOUD, are designed to more completely understand the cloud creation mechanism of cosmic rays…
A starting point of his research was that we know that cloud CHAMBERS have been in use for decades and that high energy particles (a substitute for cosmic rays) have always been known to create clouds.
What we don’t know enough of (and hence the reason for the CLOUD experiments) is how do cosmic rays affect a large system like our atmosphere when the only data they’ve seen to date have to do with a small, non-representative cloud chambers.
IPCC and the global warming crowd, according to Svensmark, considers clouds as effects but, Svensmark’s research leads him to consider them the CAUSE of global temperature swings and, the cloud theory explains the Antarctic anomaly; some of those swings have been more severe than most of us can imagine! Occum’s razor would tend to cut in favor of Svensmark more so than the GW crowd.
All things being equal, solar minimums (due to a reduced magnetic umbrella) lead to increased penetration of cosmic rays to the cloud formation layer of the atmosphere and cloud cover increases. Solar normals or maximums lead to an increased solar magnetic umbrella and hence fewer clouds and global temperature increases.
Sunspots are part of the story but it’s more interesting than just sunspots so, the book, “The Chilling Stars” is worth reading… almost better than a mystery novel for those that read these postings. Sunspots, the sun’s magnetic field strength and SME’s, cosmic rays, traveling through the universe… quite literally, the only thing simple about the global warming discussion are the minds of most of the ‘scientists’ and other players that keep drowning out thoughtful discussion.
I once had a work associate who had the noisiest mind I’ve ever been around… every time he talked I felt like I was in a raging gale and I couldn’t think while he was talking! The only thing to do was to get out of the storm and find thoughtful people, contain the damage from the ‘storm’ and then get to the business of real understanding. Svensmark is trying to do that, he’s worth reading. We can’t stop the ‘storm’ but, when it blows over we might be able to pick up the things we were able to protect, the knowledge we’re able to acquire and get on to the business of living.
Sorry for the long diatribe!
Can anyone explain this?
“Could not agree more on Dr. Landscheidt. Even though he may have been a largely self-taught Heliophysicist he had phenomenal instincts unlike some academicians, e.g, Leif Svalgaard, who are his steadfast detractors.
Ran across a paper by Tsagas(2006) that might point to the second derivative zeroes in solar angular momentum due to barycentric orbit causing a relativistic perturbration by means of the Lorentz force. The transit through the gravitaional well would induce a repulsive force at right angles to the field, i.e., the polar axis, suffcient to stop the gravitational collapse of a black hole.
The field’s hystereisis would rigidly oppose the imposed deformation due to the transit. DeJager, Versteegh(2004) criticised Landscheidt’s proposal believing it to imply a tidal force as the cause (a change in direction of the angular momentum), but the Dr. did not specifiy the source. I believe the Dr. will be found correct and has more surprises in store.”
To Per Strandberg,
If Theodor Landscheidt’ s assertions in 1999, Extrema in Sunspot Cycle Linked to Sun’s Motion, are correct and the next “Sixteenth Part” (SP) of the 178.8 Year Solar Retrograde Motion (RSI) is to happen in 2012.5 then the minima of Cycle 23 should have already happened, however the delay means that the SP looks to be switching to the Solar Minima and that would mean that Cycle 23 should last until 2010.6 at the EARLIEST!. That makes for a 16 year Sunspot cycles. Nothing like that has happened since 1790! According to this paper of the deceased professor, GRHS, we are in for 4 to 5 very weak sunspot cycles. Not like the Dalton minima but like the Maunder Minima!
Excuse me that would be a 14 year SS Cycle, not 16 year.
[…] any rate, Mike W. sent me this link to a blog run by meteorologist Anthony Watts which gives a good overview of the coming cool period. […]
Edward: Carl Schmidt has a site, http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/, devoted to Landscheidt’s work.
Note to David A, Connolley has gone, but the melody of his effect on Wikipedia lingers on.
===================
Gary Gulrud
Thanks for the responses.
I have some questions related to understanding how the relativistic perturbration works within Landscheidt theories.
Theodor Landscheidt focused on the negitive extrema of dT/dt not the zero value. Does the relativistic perturbration by means of the Lorentz force at zero dT/dt result in a negitive extrema of dT/dt as the barycenter transits through the gravitaional well?
The field’s hystereisis would rigidly oppose the imposed deformation due to the transit?? Which field?
Historically, earth temperature is a product of solar output/sunspot cycles and CO2 is a trailing indicator. This is primarily due to offgassing from the warmer ocean. A tremendous amount of CO2 flows into and out of the oceans on a daily basis, far more than all the anthropomorphic CO2 production. When the oceans are cold, relatively speaking, they retain their CO2.
When the oceans warm due to greater solar output, CO2 is released. The global warming nonsense comes from confusing cause and effect. CO2 is now high due to the recent warm period, and not the other way around.
As the solar activity falls there will be increased cooling and increased retention of CO2 in the oceans. You may confidently await the fall of atmospheric CO2 as long as the cooling continues.
The global warming conspiracy is a socialist fraud, but we know that. All socialist schemes are criminal, and defy physical laws and common sense.
The energy equation desperately requires solution, but on economic grounds. Socialist fraud just confuses the issue and makes the solution more difficult.
Edward: I tried to improve my post with one at Carl’s site. Dr. Landscheidt’s interest in the torque I take to have been provisional, conjectural but you are correct the negative extrema where d2/dt = 0 is the point of departure, for whatever it might be worth.
[…] clipped from wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com […]
Aren’t we in danger of distracting ourselves from the principle causes of global weather dynamics by arguing about 2nd order effects like hystereisis when, in fact, the possible 1st order effects like cloud cover, its variability and causes can possibly explain 70-80% of the temperature swings seen over 1000’s and hundreds of 1000’s years.
It seems to me that winning this or any other conflict requires a judicious choice of battles that give us both strategic and tactical advantages. Heaven knows, I’m can be as nerdy and anyone but quibbling about the 20-30% of the drivers of GW, while fun, only diverts attention and action on those key drivers that will (possibly) win the GW battle sooner.
Here’s how I see it, clouds are clearly important to how much solar energy is received (nobody would disagree that there’s a 10-30 degree difference on sunny vs. cloudy days), it’s reasonable to expect that global cloud cover, of the temperature affecting kind, can vary some percentage (say 20-30%) AND we have a CAUSAL mechanism for cloud formation (like cosmic rays) AND we have a mediating mechanism (like the solar magnetic umbrella then, strategically, it’d make sense to fight THAT battle, win it and watch the opposition collapse.
These other battles, while we might win them, are, I believe, gives the GW people a chance to use the “bumping the enemy” technique of fighting (slightly similar arguments designed to forestall killing blows.) We run the risk of arguing in the margins and losing the battle.
It seems me, though we all like the intellectual battle but, we should pick our battles carefully or we run the risk of having strategy and tactics used against us such that we lose the battle. Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory can give us enough of a strategic advantage in this battle that we can quickly strike a killing blow to the GW crowd, quickly and decisively.
Intellectual battles are fun but I think arguing about 2nd order effects plays into GW crowd’s hand… not the best idea at this time.
That said, Anthony’s work is exemplary but, to win this battle it seems to me that we need to put it in context of a winnable battle plan, it’s a start but, I believe it needs to be integrated into a more robust battle plan.
Again, sorry for the really long response.
If its true that we are facing a drop in solar output, arent we going to be very grateful for our blanket of methane/ co2 etc -and could we not allow some extra heat into our planetary system by regulating the amount of reflective emissions from aircraft that are currently causing ‘global dimming’? I suppose that would require the human race to grow up, stop arguing and start cooperating- a long shot but not impossible…
After all, ‘we humans’ could be an attempt ‘Gaia’ style (by the planet) to manage the global climate and avoid another pesky ice-age to the benefit of the entire biosphere!
But I haven’t seen any comments on last year’s Lockwood & Frohlich paper:
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
which concludes: “…over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”
Is there something wrong with their analysis?
The Sun on Vacation: Rise of the Gore-Hansen Minimum
Hopefully NOT coming soon to a snow drift near you. –.^
I found out today the Energy Information Adminstration is projecting an increase in cooling days this summer which will decrease peak electricity demand, bucking previous demand forecasts.
Electricity
Consumption. Summer 2008 cooling degree-days are projected to be about 10 percent lower than they were last year. Less demand for power to run air conditioners is therefore projected, lowering growth in residential electricity sales. Total electricity consumption is expected to grow by only 0.4 percent in 2008, then return to a growth rate of 1.6 percent in 2009 (U.S. Total Electricity Consumption). [eia http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html#Electricity_Markets ]
David:
Google “Reply to Lockwood and Frolich” and a PDF will come up. Svensmark and Christensen rebut there. Essentially, the correlation does not follow surface temperature, but does correlate to troposphere and near surface ocean tempertures. Raises doubts about the surface temp. readings. The also follow further on and remove the effects from El Nino, North Atlantic Oscillation and volcanic aerosols. They also talk about how the using the running mean of 8 – 13 years essentially carries forward or rather delays the pictorial representations of temperature changes.
Svenmark’s lack of a correlation with surface temperatures “raises doubts about the surface temp. readings.” That’s not a very scientific conclusion. Sure, it raised doubts assuming his theory is correct. Except it’s this very theory he’s trying to verify, so it equally raised doubts about his theory.
When I read their reply, on top of their previous work, they seem to be going to more and more complications to keep their theory alive. Not impressive.
So, assuming CO2 lags temperature, and assuming we’ve entered a period of cooling here in the last… 8 years, how soon should we see a decline in atmospheric CO2 content? It keeps going up, if you’ve noticed.
Solar Flux, reached a minimum in October and November 2007 at about 67.
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/old_reports/2007/november/20071118.html
Since then, it appears the Sun is on the slow march upwards toward Cycle 24. Its not time to panic yet.
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/