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.
The only solution I can think of if the most dire predictions come true. Is to start tax solar use. Massive taxes on solar panels, sun bathing and such. Also I think we should get in place a solar offset trade. To me redusing my solar footprint is more of a moral issue than anything else…
What species is more adaptable than humans, and plenty of species survived the Ice Ages.
=======================
I interrupt your regularly scheduled blogging to direct your attention to this new post, please read and comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-52-another-ufa-sighted-in-arizona/
Since CO2 is a trailing indicator of global (ocean) temperatures, and may not drop right away with global cooling, agricultural productivity show stay up for a few years as the glaciers reverse direction.
But when Canadian winter wheat fails, the rice crop in India fails, and sundry other crops express their displeasure at gloomy, damp weather, surplus land will not help.
Please don’t be so insular in your outlook. China, to mention one big consumer, has very little extra crop land. Ditto Europe with out major land reform.
It has been estimated (source?) that much of the miraculous increase in corn productivity per acre in the 20th century was CO2-based, not totally genetics.
There is a (fiction) book called “The end of the world as we know it ( http://teotwawki.net/index.html ) that describes the carrying capacity of the earth. When peak oil at least plateaus, the coming negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will be enough to cause massive starvation.
Short of oil, crops unprepared for climate cooling, limited land resources, water shortages— the estimated carrying capacity of the earth has variously estimated as between 2 and 5 billion. The upper limit depends on good science, continued civilization, and international trade and cooperation. The lower figure is equated with breakdown in civilization, many small wars, not necessarily nuclear, and general failure of society.
I am inclined to think the best manual for understanding what to do during 20-30 years of Global Cooling is Jared Diamond’s “How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” See http://www.energybulletin.net/3782.html
Hey, maybe this is too simplistic of an approach to this whole discussion but I’d like to suggest a game modeled after, say downhill slalom. It’s a little more complex than a straight linear downhill competition because the competitors would have to traverse horizontally (or even vertically) on the hill but, the game goes like this.
We have multiple starting gates depending on the major model arguing for ascendancy. Currently, we have, at least, the ‘Greenhouse Gases’ and the ‘Cosmic Ray’ teams, more can be added as new full featured models enter the game. Like on the downhill slalom, we lay out the hill with gates representing the major, real, structural model components that must be accounted for by each model. All models must consist of sufficient time-spans to account for the historical period stretching back through, say, 100 million years.
Each model’s gates get added into the course and must be traversed by each team. A gate can be model-wise eliminated IF the component is eliminated by theory, e.g. the ‘Cosmic Ray’ team would not be required to navigate to, and go through, the CO2 gate since that structural component is not part of its structural equations as it’s an effect and not a cause. Reasons for elimination of a gate for a team would have to be accepted by a panel of competent, impartial judges; an example of the reasons for elimination is a claimed model component is a trailing indicator (i.e. an effect.)
The addition of a structural component to a model, i.e. gate, can be challenged by any participant in the game; referees, teams, etc. Reasons for permitting a challenge would include non-structural model relevancy, i.e. the ‘gate’ is not relevant to the integrity of the teams ‘model’, has trivial model impact and has been inserted only to force the opposing team(s) to traverse horizontally and pass through their opposing team’s gates. Let’s face it, this is a game of strategy and tactics so, this rule levels the playing field.
Major causal factors, our gates, like the Antarctic Temperature Anomaly, once posited and entered onto the course must be traversed by a team once the gate is placed onto the course. The vertical placement of the gates for each model is arranged on the hill based on their position in each team’s structural model, each team must agree on the positioning of their ‘gates.’ All gates must fit within the designated course length so, depending on the placement of the gates by each team, this would necessitate, possibly, a ‘run’ by one team having to work back uphill to traverse an active gate on the other active gates on the ‘course’.
Like downhill, teams are disqualified on that run if they miss a gate. Each run is scored with the scoring system focusing on ‘parsimony’, ‘elegance of model’, ‘style’, etc. The scoring system is mutually agreed to by all teams. Since we’re trying to get at ‘truth’ cost is only marginally important and it’s emotionally destabilizing and will not be allowed as a gate on the ‘course.’ Like-wise, immediate action based claims of immediate, impending doom are not allowed as a gate since, after all, this is only a game, right?
To ‘win’ a team must: 1) complete the course without disqualification, 2) have a passing score and, 3) ALL the competing teams are either disqualified or forced to withdraw by the judges due to model deficiencies. Multiple ‘races’ are scheduled and non-competition related bickering and attacking are prohibited and disqualification of a team can occur based on rules of sportsmanship (call this the ‘Tonya Harding’ rule.) ‘Races’ are scheduled to occur every 6 months or so and results pushed into the PR machines of the world.
After each ‘race’ if a winner can not be declared the next ‘race’ will be scheduled, each team goes back and licks its wounds (read, fix model/data insufficiencies) and they then get in shape and train for the next race. Each race will be automatically scheduled every six months after the completion of the preceding race unless the judges suggest, and teams concur, to postpone the next race, no more than one race can be skipped (we don’t want the public to lose track of the fact that a real competition is taking place.)
Simple this game might appear but, it has a serious decision tree and gaming components to it that might be fun to see battled out in the world of public opinion. If implemented in a, say, on-line game, it might have a viral component to it. I’d say it definitely needs to be an open source game so that new players can be added but, it’d be fun, and I think useful, to see this hit the world. As with Seabiscuit, the favorite will probably NOT agree to the competition immediately but, two factors are in the games favor. It can be created WITHOUT their participation and if PR’d probably force them to the competition and then games can begin.
Each team has a captain that decides on: the final team structural model, course negotiations including placement of gates on the course, gate challenges, etc. Each ‘team’ is allowed unlimited support off the course and only the captain and his 10 or 12 team members are allowed to be on the course during game day. I’d assume that Anthony would be on the ‘Cosmic Ray’ team since his sunspots, their presence or absence is part of those structural equations but, anyone can join or create any team they desire. Teams (i.e. models) that are deemed not full-featured enough may be disqualified and team members are then free to join another team. A supporting team member may work with multiple teams as they work out the compatibility of their contribution to each team’s model. Calving off of team members to form a new team is allowed after each competition and the new team can insert their own gate set based on the rules stated above.
So, I sketched this ‘game’ out in one sitting so it’s probably somewhat flawed but the general flow of it seems good and the re-framing of this ‘competition’ seems mandatory.
Joe in San Diego,
I presume you are being “tongue-in cheek”- or at least I hope so.
There is a problem with your gaming. First, Global ??? is not a game.
Secondly, depending on your reliance on the Diety, someone already knows which player will win. The game is “fixed.”
Thirdly, while you are playing the game, precious time is being lost.
As an aside, your comment “The scoring system is mutually agreed to by all teams” is an impossibility. Witness McIntyre and McKitrick vs Mann (Hockey stick debacle).
My concern is the 100s of billions of $ being spent on Kyoto, warm-weather genetics, and carbon-trading are needed NOW for irigation systems, African and Brazial infrastructure and transportation. Farmland in George or Alabama might be a good buy also. Crop failures could come as early as 2017, and some say last intermitantly until 2040 or 2050. Yikes!
Climate science is dynamic, continually marching on in the Skeptics camp, while the AGW camp is forever in stasis, stuck with a long-discredited hypothesis propped up only by hype and politics. How do you do battle with lies and ignorance? Simply by telling the truth continually, regardless of the consequences. The truth will win in the end, but it could get messy in the meantime.
Engineer,
Not really tongue-in-cheek…
Thing is, time is money (literally!) as we go down the GW path, billions or trillions of $$ will be spent, arguing with these guys will play into their hands as the public are already in their camp due to their emotional, apocalyptic tack.
Neither of these groups will listen to intellectual arguments at this time, their emotional positions will preclude this change. Joel Barker talks about the fact that to give up and old paradigm for a new one involves not just thinking that the new path is better but includes heavy weight on the discomfort/discomfort factor, they’ll continue in their given path (much like lemmings) because they’re scared to death to turn away and take a new one!
We can’t change that dynamic no matter how much we want to, it’ll take a few years to make that pivot operation take place and we’re kidding ourselves if we think it’ll happen overnight. Money will be spent… maybe a lot, but it’ll keep GETTING spent until we can affect a pivot in the current death march.
To re-emphasize, we can not win these early battles, they’re lost and money WILL BE SPENT. The conceptual errors of the GWers will not be realized and corrected till they are either proved unequivocally wrong by a quick turn in temperature or, the world commits to their no-growth, ill-advised spending plans and… after the trillions of $$s get spent and, HEY, WADDAYA KNOW, NOTHING’S CHANGING!
I wouldn’t bet on either of these occurring without an untold squandering of the world’s wealth and the reduction of the future generation’s wealth creating ability. I’d have never had bet that the people at Jonestown would have done what they did but, they did it anyway! I’m as optimistic as anyone but I think we need to argue from what is, whether we agree with it or not, group delusions and their effect may be un-rational but, given that people DO THOSE THINGS we should be able to factor those human-factors into our thinking.
As Issac Asimov posited in “Foundation”, that at some point in an intellectual decline the question THAT one will occur becomes moot, the only issue then becomes what are the: depth, duration and cost of the ‘dark ages’ and how can WE control those factors. I’d argue that we are past that point of stopping this in its tracks and the only thing we CAN control is those three factors of how deep, how long and at what cost will the human race have to pay?
In the game, IF they won’t play right away then we basically are in control of both sides of the game creation, rules and gate locations and we get to set up the rules. If they agree to the game with the idea of undermining the hunt for the truth then we still have the on-line game approach and, again, we control the development of the game rules.
In either one of the scenarios where we can develop a true, rational set of rules and gates then, at some point in the future we get to push RATIONAL rules into the discussion, either through their acquiescing to a mature game or by running the games via OUR rules and using the same PR mechanisms THEY use to gradually turn the discussion in our favor. Seems like a no-lose proposition to me!
Well, like I said, the game was sketched in one sitting… I think our basic disagreement is whether we have time… I think we see the current state of the CURRENT game differently. You think we can arrest this path with little or no cost, I believe that we can ONLY control the depth of the damage that we will have to pay.
I think that the game approach is a path but, I think that we haven’t even agreed on the current game conditions, I believe that the game currently being played of arguing intellectual points is non-viable on our part and as we dither away playing THEIR game we will encounter defeat after defeat because we are arguing facts and the other players are playing to emotions.
Honestly, everyone needs to decide their own path but, going off to a noble defeat is just not in me… not everyone, maybe no one agrees with me but, this is out there so, do with it what you feel best.
Correction… not , rather the factor… my apologies.
uh… that didn’t enter well..
The — DISCOMFORT/DISCOMFORT factor — should rather read the — COMFORT/DISCOMFORT factor– … my apologies.
Engineer,
One last thing, whether it’s true or not, I believe that painting an apocalyptic picture of crop failures in 2017 or beyond (though this might be true) is playing the same (to me) unacceptable game as the GW crowd and I believe we need to stay above that level. Serious cooling may in fact hit at those times and serious impacts felt but, I think the style with which we win this battle will determine much about the promise of our future and the future of science, both of which I believe are being seriously endangered by the tone and tenor of current debate.
It may not be intuitively obvious WHY we need to avoid this but, I really think that once that future comes that we will see, with hindsight, that the avoidance of the wrong rules of engagement proved to be a wise decision. We DO need to win but not if a casualty of the battle strategy choice is destroys the very thing we’re fighting for!
We will fight them in the coffee shops, we will fight them in the op-eds, we will fight them in the blogs, we will never give up.
===============================
Joe in San Diego,
I totally agree. In the kind of debate ongoing, unproven speculation hurts one’s argument as much as clear error. It might be more to the point to show the kind of agricultural failures seen during the little ice age. However, there is no comparison between the genetically diverse, small-farm crops of 1710 an today’s mono-culture signle strain. I see too much speculation in that attempt to present “real fact.”
Better to hold off and let the climate speak for it’s self for a few years.
It’s true that arguing with a committed AGWer is pointless. For them anyway, the debate really IS over. The people who do need to hear the truth are the general public, many of whom are either agnostics on the issue, or who simply believe it because that is pretty much all they hear day in and day out. I was in that latter group myself up until a little over a year ago.
The biggest weakness in the whole AGW hypothesis is in C02. They need C02 (which they cleverly call “carbon”) to be considered pollution, rising at an “alarming” rate, and creating a runaway greenhouse effect, melting the ice caps, killing polar bears, and creating all sorts of climate disasters. C02 is their achilles heel, and that is where they must be hit hard, and continually.
Now, the audience has departed and the theater has quieted so I think the time has come for me to exit this stage and move on…
Anthony, I hope I have not distracted from your purpose with this page and I appreciate whoever has been doing the moderation, thanks to you both or, if Anthony IS both, thanks for a well moderated page.
I’ll check this spot again but I will probably say goodbye.
REPLY: one and the same, but no need to say goodbye. Stick around, plenty of other interesting things here.
Bruce C.:
“It’s true that arguing with a committed AGWer is pointless. For them anyway, the debate really IS over.”
Tell me it has not come to that. Any scientific theory (on either side) must be falsifiable.
kim: Never say die, unless and until the science says so.
Engineer: What you say is what I fear. We in the developed countries will have it (relatively) easy. But I shudder to think of the cost in human life to the poor of this world. I can match emotions with anyone on the AGW side of the debate. For I know so well how when wealth is wasted or destroyed (or never created), the poor suffer and die needlessly. (My field of study will not permit me the convenient comfort of escape from that terrible knowledge.)
Oh, yes, EJ, I’ll follow the science. Right now it says the earth is cooling and the effect of carbon dioxide to warm the earth has been exaggerated.
=======================================
“Tell me it has not come to that. Any scientific theory (on either side) must be falsifiable.” Unfortunately, it has. Because AGW isn’t about science. It’s more like a religion. The people who argue for AGW are completely irrational, and yes, hysterical. You can’t prove anything to them because they aren’t even thinking clearly. However, you can certainly combat what they say to a wider audience.
Bruce Cobb,
OK, I lied a little… I couldn’t resist responding
You said “…However, you can certainly combat what they say to a wider audience.”
I’d say the secret is (and my point above is)
WHICH data channel would that be?
All things being equal it may work using the ‘facts and evidence’ data channel, maybe but, whilst you urgently send communications over THAT channel the GWers use the ‘hysteria and fear’ data channel to drown out your message.
They have a much bigger data conduit with MUCH bigger carrying capacity with wider distribution and as we trickle ‘TRUTH’ out of our channel they position their minions on each distribution point and undermine both the delivery person and message at each entry point into the the world’s stage.
they position their minions on each distribution point and undermine both the delivery person and message at each entry point into the the world’s stage.
Joe, as Anthony notes in his most recent post, “nature will be the final arbiter”. When the temperature starts going down, as, in fact, it may already have, no amount of spin is going to drown that out.
Anyone want to place bets as to what Feb 2008 global temperatures will end up being?
I would say another cold month on planet Earth maybe 0.05degrees warmer then Jan 2008
Stan, one can only hope that the temperature would go down… it’d make this battle simpler!
I believe though there are two issues that might lead to disappointment on our side.
First, is that nature won’t necessarily cooperate with us and conveniently give us that cold snap we’d like. As I asked in an earlier posting, even though the sun appears to be entering a quiet phase right now and it appears (based on Anthony’s magnetic field strength graph from above) his data goes back to 1991 yet we know that since 1900 the sun’s magnetic field has doubled in strength. Low solar activity + Unusually strong base field strength produces… WHAT result? Nobody’s answered that question yet so, I think the jury’s out on that one and, though it might happen, I wouldn’t bet my whole game plan on it! Our best case scenario is to we get an IMMEDIATE temperature reversal and (given our luck to date) my betting is that (if it happens soon) it’ll happen somewhere out in the next few years NOT this year! Would that it would be so but, I wouldn’t put too many eggs in THAT basket!
As Svensmark and Calder said in their book, it’s too early in our stage of understanding for ANY prediction to be offered, (even one that we desperately want and need!)
Second, even IF temperatures show a pronounced cooling, I’d wager that this group hysteria and fear will prove to be a game condition that will persist for 5-15 years depending on how effectively the GW can mount defensive actions. To date, they’ve proved to be resourceful beyond belief, using techniques that shows a certain level of desperation but, they are arguably holding their own quite effectively.
During that 5-15 years a tremendous amount of the world’s wealth will be squandered because you just can NOT turn a ship of this size on a dime and avoid the costs associated with the current path.
Put reasons 1) and 2) together and, if I were making probabilistic estimates, I’d put the chances of 1) mother nature cooperating and 2) GWers playing a out-of-character game role a pretty low (<20%)
Thing is, we control NEITHER of these factors so we’re only guessing here but, good strategist/tacticians have uncanny abilities to be way more right than wrong based on effective use of their own use of forcing and attractor functions. I’m not sure we have the strategic/tactical abilities to obtain the lower probability outcomes right now, hence my expectations for a prolonged battle.
So, me being a belts and suspenders kind of person, I’d say that it’s still ‘game on’ until this full dynamic plays out. We have to play this out on THEIR chosen field of battle, with THEIR rules and with THEIR referees UNTIL we affect a change in the game!
I am on the fence. If the climate begins warming again in a convincing fashion, not just the GISSTEMP, but satellite too, and Sol goes into some kind of Dalton or Maunder Minimum, I will have to re-assess my skepticism. Right now a lot of chips are being put on the table on red or black, and I can appreciate wanting to cover 0 and 00, but if the UK Met has it right, and warming begins again in ’09, the skeptical side will have taken a possibly fatal hit, and deservedly so, but if cooling persists, I can’t imagine that their discipline can hold. The ‘0’/’00’ case? (Roulette analogy) is that we get a cooling and a corker of a volcano.
The best part of sitting on the fence should be the ability to see both ways. This them-vs-us breaks down into argumentun ad hominum (“you’re wrong because I don’t like you!”) which accomplishes nothing. This thread mostly avoids that error–I hope.
To anticpate the arguments pro and con global warming, it may help us to rehash some of the facts. Antarctica has had more ice surface area lately than any time since satelite surveillance started around 1979 – http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg (There’s a lot of data on this site. Edit out the folders after /IMAGES/ and browse around.
As it starts to cool, AGW-proponents tend to say that it’s caused by Global Warming and CO2. If we have some severe cooling, one argument will be melting of Greenland (which may NOT be melting…) is diluting the thermohaline deep water formation areas, slowing the ocean thermal conveyor. While this might cool the heck out of Denmark and Scotland, it should stor MORE heat nearer the equator. So you can see how this scenario could be blamed for droughts and high temperatures in Africa.
The problem with slowing the thermohaline circulation is it takes a whole big lake of water – like Lake Missoula, which formed the Columbian River Basis and likely caused the cooling of the Younger Dryas period 13,200 years ago. Glacial melt water comfined for years, and released over a short period.
On the side of Global Cooling is the fact (as someone mentioned) that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is overdue for the cold phase and may be doing it’s thing now see- http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
I could go on and on, but many of you know these things. I think a good drive in the countryside might cool us off. Browse this site provided by the friendly Association of British Drivers – http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm
“(which may NOT be melting…) ”
From what I can dope out, Greenland is melting faster than normal–and at the same time accumulating faster than normal. Shedding a bit around the edges from a mild warming, but accumulating in the middle because of increased precip.
(And then there’s the issue of that newly discovered hot spot under the eastern side.)
“As it starts to cool, AGW-proponents tend to say that it’s caused by Global Warming and CO2.”
Hypsotasized proof. [Everything = X] Pseudo-proof. [X (i.e., Everything) Proves X]. Prevalent proof [50 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong].
It’s nice to have all your bases covered. Avoids all that twaddle about falsification.
“Pacific Decadal Oscillation is overdue for the cold phase”
Well, it’s a 20-30 year half-phase. And it went on the razzle 28 years ago . . .
It’s also suggested that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation may be winding down, but it’s a biggish cycle and they don’t seem to have a handle on its schedule from what I could dig up.
If some or all of that is so, we’ll find out soon enough (and we may be in the market for bedwarmers).
(BTW, Rev, good explanation.)