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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David:
Here’s a good rebuttal of Lockwood & Frolich: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=131
“PMOD…assumes that the published TSI satellite data are wrong and that they need several additional corrections.”
So basically, the olny way they can make the solar activity fit their hypothesis is to invent an adjustment to make it not correlate.
MattN,
So basically, the only way they can make the solar activity fit their hypothesis is to invent an adjustment to make it not correlate.
I doubt that L & F are the first (or last) to resort to such intellectual dishonesty. Unfortunately, it appears to happen on both sides of the discussion, which is sad for the many curious but unscientifically-minded people who simply want the truth. That’s what I love about this blog and people like you who post in a civil and informing way — no name calling, just simply pointing out “here’s a good rebuttal…..”. Thanks.
The thing so many involved in this debate/discussion tend to overlook is that it’s not a debate like how best to cook a turkey or which photo- editing software is the best; it’s about whether or not there’s a global problem that is of such a catastrophic nature that it requires immediate, drastic and incredibly expensive measures by humanity. Decisions like that need to be made based on something a little more concrete than a so-called “consensus” of scientists or an IPCC assessment that contains the words “might” and “maybe” in disproportionate numbers.
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.
David, if that really bothers you, here is a potential solution.
From what I’ve read about Svensmark and Christiansen, I think they would agree with you; it is an unproven theory. They are confident in it, but they understand theory needs to match empirical evidence. Hence they are beginning to study it in depth. The studies will be steps in determining the level of contribution it makes. Note: I’m not ready to jump on the cosmic ray is everything theory, just like I don’t believe CO2 is either. I’m confident it will turn out to be a significant contributing factor but to the level some people espouse, I’m not there. If I were to guess at a primary factor, the mass and specific heat of the oceans suggest they are the largest contributor to short relatively short term variances. Layman’s take though. I don’t profess to be on the cutting edge of studies. I just want to learn and Anthony does an excellent job of providing that opportunity. I was just pointing out their response.
The points you raise help confirm my sentiments. The study of our complex climate system is in its infancy. CO2 does continue to go up. Why? Excellent question. Are humans contributing to it? I would suspect so. Are humans contributing to it to the level espoused by the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore? I don’t think so. It’s too steady a climb for me to accept that. Joe D’Aleo did an excellent post here asking that very question. Raised a lot of issues. I can confidently say it isn’t settled.
In addition, CO2 seems to be going up and from a heat retention stand point, who cares? We’re adding more plant food. As Richard Lindzen says, we already achieved roughly 60 – 70% of the heat gains caused by a doubling of CO2. Again, my personal take on what we are seeing with this step down in the earth’s heat storage is the positive feedback, runaway temp. scenarios confidence level is becoming lower and lower. Would you not agree, if CO2 doubles and the runaway temp. scenarios are not realized, the chances of actually realizing it become extremely low? After all, if we add more beyond the 550 ppm, we don’t retain much additional heat. Where’s the spark to ignite the fire? There may be other reasons to argue for reducing the amount of plant food into the air, but I’m not considering those in this post.
Anyway, food for thought. If you want to ask me questions, I’m more than happy to respond. Just be prepared for the “I don’t know” response because I’m not afraid to admit my ignorance. If you take a negative, defensive stance, I’ll just ignore it.
THe above comment was addressed to David. The name didn’t make the copy and paste. Sorry about that.
Surface waters have only cooled lately, where the CO2 ingasses. I don’t think it is inconceivable we’ll see the CO2curve flatten or turn downward. Remember, human activity probably has warped the natural curve.
Minimum already? Not everyone agrees.
====================
John, why do you say slow march upward when it isn’t. And the panic won’t be in the skeptical crowd.
================
Truth be known, Old Sol is marching sideways, and snoring.
==============================
Mike wrote:
> CO2 does continue to go up. Why? Excellent
> question. Are humans contributing to it?
> I would suspect so. Are humans contributing
> to it to the level espoused by the IPCC and
> the likes of Al Gore? I don’t think so. It’s
> too steady a climb for me
> to accept that.
Too steady a climb? That’s the whole point. Look at the consumption of almost any fossil fuel resource on the planet — wood, oil, gas, coal, electricity production — they have all been going steadily up for decades. They are all known to produce CO2. So why do you doubt that the CO2 emission increase is primarily manmade?
> Would you not agree, if CO2 doubles and the runaway
> temp. scenarios are not realized, the chances of
> actually realizing it become extremely low?
*Runaway* temperatures? No. No one really knows at what point runaway temperatures — ie nonlinearity — enters the climate system. In any case, temperature lags CO2 in greenhouse scenarios, so it would be quite some time — second half of 21 century, perhaps — until we could conclude that. By then it will be far too late.
Stan Needham wrote:
> David, if that really bothers you, here is a potential solution.
Individual actions will not save the planet, because too few people will make them. We need a comprehensive cutback.
REPLY: And there’s no proof that a ‘comprehensive cutback” will have any effect either. It’s Pascals wager.
kim wrote:
> I don’t think it is inconceivable we’ll see the
> CO2curve flatten or turn downward.
Do you (or anyone) have a calculation or theory telling us about *when* this should happen?
so it would be quite some time — second half of 21 century, perhaps — until we could conclude that. By then it will be far too late.
Too late for what, David? Do you honestly think that the way we produce energy will not have evolved substantially well before the mid-point of this century? There is a lot of really cool stuff coming down the alternative energy pike right now.
And there’s no proof that a ‘comprehensive cutback” will have any effect either.
It will have an effect alright, Anthony. The effect will be a mass redistribution of wealth.
Kim, Leif Svalgaard posted on CA that he believes the rate of change of CO2 has decreased.
I suspect as the Oceans cool this to be true
Thanks, Bob. I was wracking my brains. geology.geosciencesworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/33 has a paper showing CO2 rising and falling with temperature over the last 1200 years. Since there wasn’t a variable source of CO2 then, presumably, the temp change was more likely causal to the CO2 change, and the sun causal to the temp change by an as yet to be determined mechanism. I am speculating.
==========================
“I suspect as the Oceans cool this to be true”
The current skinny on this as I unsderstand it (Thanks to Fredinand) is that the ocean releases only 10 ppmv per 1 degree K of warming (the reverse effect also being true). Not a heck of a lot. Enough to make it 100 ppmv since the last mondo ice age. (Of course there is variance, diminishing returns, etc., but it’s mionr and I leave that up to the non-linear types.)
The Amateur postcard-version of Atmospheric Carbon accumulation:
The bottom line is that Industry is kicking out 6.3 Bil. Metric Tons Carbon intothe atmosphere, which spits out 3.2 BMTC of that (part of a much larger CO2 exchange crowd) into the other sinks (Land, Ocean) and c. 3.1BMTC gets added to the Atmosphere each year.
For perspective, there’s c. 730 to 760 BMTC in the Atmospheric sink, depending on whose figures you buy.)
“It will have an effect alright, Anthony. The effect will be a mass redistribution of wealth.”
Yes. And worse than that, it will result in an even greater mass destructon of both wealth and wealth creation.
If there is a problem (which I doubt, but will concede the possibility) we are going to need a heck of a lot of tech and a heck of a lot of wealth we don’t yet have in order to deal effectively. This is not a time to slam on the brakes. it is a time to drive through, with especial caution, yes, but WITHOUT slowing down.
It would be a crime against reason, humanity, and liberalism to curtail production.
Joe in San Diego: I agree totally with you, and my little comment there was for Antohny Watts (“AW:”).
The sunspot connection (which should be a magnetic sun wind connection, or?) is hugely important for not at least climate shifts in the interglacier periods, but it’s not the only and single cause.
I don’t consider CO2 to have more effect then a background effect of more than one or a few tenth of a degree, but pattern in the oceans and other things is also affecting at least short term (remember El Nino), and we must also believe that the Milankovitch cycles makes the world icy and put it in a state of higher aldebo (something like a positive feedback into another state/”state of balance”). The way into the coming ise age will be about en 0.5 degree C decline per millenium, and with some descent warmth periods and some little ice ages, both triggered by planetarian orbit cycles and the sun activity, where the latter is a strong and important factor!
–
But a big thing in the AGW hypothesis I think is at least wwo things. First how much antropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere that we humans has caused, and how much that is caused by warmer seas due to a warmer climate the last few hundred years? Second how much CO2 the oceans without harm can swallow.
I think/hope this AGW hype dies withot too much harm from political enforcements on the economics. I think there is plenty of oil left for us. Maybe three times as much than we’ve have burned until now. But now we have burned 1000 Gt CO2 (the atmosphere cnsists of 3000 GT CO2), so can the sea without problem swallow some extra 2000 Gt CO2? We shall never without any proof be alarmistic about an environment issue, but it would be fine to research this I think. The problem may be that immediately scintist will be alarmistic about “threats” to get more money… Again.
Correction: “the atmosphere holds 3000 Gt CO2”. (And of course we havn’t burned CO2.)
“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.”
I’ve been hearing that one can tell the amount of fossil fuel burn CO2 based on the relationship of two isotopes in CO2, # 12 and #13. Does anyone here have graph or data that shows this in *any* way? Can’t seem to locate this.
I’m asking because we’re talking about ocean sinks and so on. These must function like “last in first out.” Depending on how long CO2 is claimed to last — assume the oceans are warming, wouldn’t they release the CO2 they took up during the industrial revolution, the 40’s, and so on?
If so then the 12/13 ratio isn’t telling us the *current* rate of human contribution, but the SUM of human contribution for whatever the claimed half life of CO2 is supposed to be. Seems this could be important depending on what the ratios are and what the claim is.
Obviously I’m not the first to notice/ask, so does anyone here know where the relevant info is found? There’s probably a FAQ that answers silly queries like this one.
Thanks…
Mr Watts:
I am so impressed and proud of you for creating this great website.
All I want is intellectual honesty in this issue, and you are providing a great service. I rate you up there with Brian Lamb.
Now, “one” of my theories of GW and an increase in surface temp is what I would call the “WalMart” effect.
Ever been on a black, asphalt WalMart” parking lot, ANY time of the year?
Thanks
REPLY: Thank you. Scientists at the University of Arizona are doing an unintentional experiment on measuring the WalMart effect, see it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-24/
David:
Why do I doubt . . . ?
I say too steady because the growth in human CO2 output has been exponential. The number I recall off the top of my head, I read about 4-6 months ago, a tad over 1300% since 2003. With the rampant increase in output, I would think the increase would have accelerated beyond the 1.1 ppm per year recorded. Suggests to me there is a steady state, medium to long term influence which does not follow humans activity. When looking at the Mauna Loa charts, there seems to be a slight movement from linear to exponential, but that’s a visual on my part so take that for what it is. Ultimately, what humans put up is so small as compared to ol’ mother nature, you are probably correct in that it would be very hard to detect the exponential growth effect of human output.
Regarding the runaway scenarios, obviously I don’t believe it will happen. However, there is always the chance I’m wrong. What I am saying is since we are roughly 50% of the way to pretty much the maximum heat retention atmopheric CO2 can achieve, the chances of that hypothesis coming true are dropping. It is, afterall, a hypothesis, not supported anywhere in the earth’s climate history. Whether it was 60 billion years ago, or 800 years ago, (I believe the MWP was a world wide event, but it is inconsequential as to whether it was or not), or whenever, the earth has been warmer, has had more atmospheric CO2, life managed and it cooled down enough to get glaciers over where my house is today.
Anyway, it’s late and with 3 girls under 6, they don’t care if I was up until midnight. The allowed out of bed at 7 a.m. rule is strictly followed and I’m going to pay for this. I often have to beat them back to their room at 6:30. They’re sneaky ones and their mom is not exactly a morning person. Pretty much useless in fact. Have a good one. Probably won’t be back on until Monday.
Cheers
I’m afraid that there is insufficient time left to prevent global catastrophe. Svensmark ( http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/ ) points out a leverage factor that explains how minor chnages in solar irradiance can be related to major changes in insolation.
If Landscheidt is correct, and I think he is, mass starvation is only a decade away.
With solar input driving climate the news that sunspot activity and magnetic activity are decreasing is a worry for food production. It is lucky that crops for fual can be converted to food, if they actually grow. Increased atmospheric CO2 would help, 700ppmv giving, on average, a 40% increas in growth and cropping with reduced water use.
CO2 is not the pollutant that the enviro alarmists shout about. To my mind. as a geologist, it is the most inportant gas in the atmosphere in that without it life as we know it would be impossible. No CO2, no photosynthesizing plants. Since water vapour is the most active so called greenhouse gas, up to 95% of all activity in that area, then CO2 has no real greenhouse action.
The Medieval warm Period had CO2 levels of 250 ppmv or so but temperatures warm enough to grow grape vines in northern England. Impossible today. All other data shows that CO2 has no climate driving action. It is a pity that the truth is not accepted by all.
“If Landscheidt is correct, and I think he is, mass starvation is only a decade away.”
I think that man can rise to almost any occasion. Warming or cooling. As it is, we pay out farmer scads of money NOT to grow food. That means there is a considerable bounce.
But if a cooling sets in, there will be hardship, and the poor will suffer. Whenever wealth is destroyed or not created, people die.
But consider that man not only weathered the Little Ice Age, but he progressed at a rate slow compared with today but faster than at any time previously. We are much more powerful and much more in control of the forces of nature than we were five hundred years ago, and wonderful progress is occurring at an amazing and still accelerating pace. It is quite possible (if not inevitable) that we will transcend these mere blips which seem today to be insurmountable obstacles.
REPLY: Evan, there’s only one thing we can’t overcome: massive grinding ice sheets.
“Evan, there’s only one thing we can’t overcome: massive grinding ice sheets.”
True. Those we have to sidestep.
“Through the strength and up to the weakness.”
If we havew a LIA-type situation, we can deal. If it’s a major ice age, that might be a different kettle of fish.