The sun on 08/12/2008 just before midnight UTC – spotless
As many of you know, the sun has been very quiet, especially in the last month. In a NASA news release article titled What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) solar physicist David Hathaway goes on record as saying:
“It does seem like it’s taking a long time,” allows Hathaway, “but I think we’re just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last.”
No argument there. But it does seem to me that the purpose of Hathaway’s July 11th article was to smooth over the missed solar forecasts he’s made. Here is a comparison of early and more recent forecasts from Hathway:
Click for a larger image
He also seems intent on making sure that when compared to a grand minima, such as the Maunder Minimum, this current spotless spell is a mere blip.
The quiet of 2008 is not the second coming of the Maunder Minimum, believes Hathaway. “We have already observed a few sunspots from the next solar cycle,” he says. (See Solar Cycle 24 Begins.) “This suggests the solar cycle is progressing normally.”
What’s next? Hathaway anticipates more spotless days1, maybe even hundreds, followed by a return to Solar Max conditions in the years around 2012.
I would hope that Hathaway’s newest prediction, that this is “not the
second coming of the Maunder Minimum” or even a Dalton Minimum for that matter, holds true.
1Another way to examine the length and depth of a solar minimum is by counting spotless days. A “spotless day” is a day with no sunspots. Spotless days never happen during Solar Max but they are the “meat and potatoes” of solar minima.
Adding up every daily blank sun for the past three years, we find that the current solar minimum has had 362 spotless days (as of June 30, 2008).Compare that value to the total spotless days of the previous ten solar minima: 309, 273, 272, 227, 446, 269, 568, 534, ~1019 and ~931. The current count of 362 spotless days is not even close to the longest.
Though, Livingston and Penn seem to think we are entering into a grand minima via their recent paper.
As mentioned in “What’s next?”, we are now adding to the total of spotless days in this minima, and since the last update in that article, June 30th, 2008 where they mention this, we have added very few days with sunspots, perhaps 3 or 4.
Adding up every daily blank sun for the past three years, we find that the current solar minimum has had 362 spotless days (as of June 30, 2008).
So it would seem, that as of August 12th, 2008, we would likely have reached a total of 400 spotless days. The next milestone for recent solar minimas is 446 spotless days, not far off. It will be interesting to see where this current minima ends up.
h/t to Werner Weber
typo on previous typo, i meant second “best”. My poetic license is about to be canceled.
Leif:
Let me rephrase the question.
The IPCC AR4 summary identifies solar radiative forcing as a small natural factor in warming. The scientific literature, this blog and many others abound with ideas on which you have commented.
Are there solar and/or cosmic factors potentially influencing earth’s climate for which the science is still immature and that are worth further scientific research?
If so who is doing research in those areas?
Keith
Glenn and StatePoet:
Solid science education is not about ‘viewpoints’ of ‘beliefs’. We shouldn’t teach our children that some say the Earth is flat and that others say it is round and that it is up to them to sort out for themselves which is correct. We shouldn’t teach our children that some say that the Universe is 6000 years old and that others say that it is 13.7 billion years old and that it is up to them to sort out for themselves which is correct. We should not teach our children that some say that natural selection provides a mechanism for evolution of higher life and that others say that an Alien Designer put everything in place at day one and that it is up to them to sort out for themselves which is correct. We should not teach our children that some say that there is but one god and XXX is his prophet and that others say there are thousands of gods and that people may be reincarnated as deserved forever and ever and that it is up to them to sort out for themselves which is correct. We should not teach our children that some say that our planet is going to fry and that some say that we are entering a new ice age and then that it is up to them to sort out for themselves which is correct, etc, etc.
We should teach them what the result of hundreds of years of experiments and thought have shown us to be the best explanations we have at the moment, how the scientific method works, and how new data and insights always can modify what we hold as current ‘knowledge’; that ‘science’ is never ‘settled’, but that science is based on a number [actually a rather small number] of ‘crucial’ experiments that form the basis for that interlocking set of wonderful explanations for the natural world, and that new knowledge often supersede what we thought we knew . We should also teach them about human follies and the propensity of humans for delusion and fraud, but also about our capacity for goodness and love.
And we should not make all those choices for them by having them conform to our own beliefs. If I think the Earth is flat, that XXX is His prophet, that blood transfusions are sinful, that the Earth was created last Tuesday, I should not inflict those follies upon my children. That is freedom taken too far. A child should have the right to the best, society can do for it. Granted that it often doesn’t work that way, but I see it as a desired goal.
“I consider that my accomplishment, not something She allowed me to do.” Lief
No matter how hard one tries, one must have TALENT. And you have it with regard to science. But also, I’ve read that the solar system is currently above the galactic plane which is too dusty for much astronomy. “Who ordered that?” We would only be able to see a few thousand stars if we were in the galactic plane. There are many coincidences in science that line up to make science “do able”. I think this is called “discoverability”.
It seems to me the universe has been set up to encourage learning but also to instill some humility too.
Leif, it IS “up to them to sort out for themselves which is correct, etc, etc.”
Eventually. If you deny the realities of their lives and beliefs of their families, you ignore the opportunity for them to be taught and employ objective decisions when they are in school. I think you should think about this some more.
As to not teach that some say the Earth is flat, I say that would be an excellent lesson, to find out how we know it isn’t. We learn by taking part, not by being stuffed full of what is always claimed to be “fact”. You are right that science is never “settled”, but to listen to most scientists, and in textbooks, it appears so. Till the next lesson.
Lief,
I might consider a school run by you but you would have to assure me that you would stick to what is known by science. I would not have you destroying “the earth is 6000 years old” straw men, for instance.
Keith Wooster (17:45:01) :
The IPCC AR4 summary identifies solar radiative forcing as a small natural factor in warming. The scientific literature, this blog and many others abound with ideas on which you have commented.
Yes, maybe it is good to get back on topic. If solar forcing [not just radiative but of any kind] is but small and insignificant as claimed by IPCC then there are questions as to what have caused climatic swings in the past, like the MWP or the LIA. One ‘solution’ to that problem is to deny that these swings exist. Since we are forced to work with proxies for those earlier times, research into proxies seems to be a must. when dealing with proxies there are always the danger of selection effects. Which proxy? Which time series to use? What corrections and adjustments to apply? Access to and archiving of proxies. And even access to the scientific literature. Most papers are ‘pay-walled’ and cost a fair amount of money [~$30] to access. The public is not going to shell out money to read a paper that it may not even fully understand. Most of the ideas that the public come across are seen through the distorting view of the Internet (if I do a search on Google on ‘climate change’ I get 60,200,000 hits – just did it), put there by ‘advocates’ and interest groups rather than by scientists. Many of these ideas are simple-minded and not scientific accurate or viable.
Are there solar and/or cosmic factors potentially influencing earth’s climate for which the science is still immature and that are worth further scientific research?
I think there the fundamental science is mature enough. What is lacking is data series that are long enough and good enough. An example is the question about Earth’s albedo, supposedly influenced by clouds, in turn supposedly influenced by cosmic rays. Cosmic rays have been monitored accurately for a long time, but the albedo has not. I have commented on the measurements of the albedo using Earthshine reflected off the Moon by Palle and colleagues, but their measurements only go back a decade or so, not long enough to provide compelling answers [climate is a 30-year ‘thing’]
Another example is the disagreements about the calibration of TSI. Good measurements with reliable calibration only go back to 2003 by the TIM instrument on SORCE. Can we find the funding to continue these measurements indefinitely. Yet another example is the measurements of the Sun’s magnetic field by the Wilcox Solar Observatory since 1976. The WSO has difficulties finding [the very modest, less than $100K/year] funding needed to continue. Same thing with other solar measures, F10.7, flare-patrols, etc. The argument is always: “but you have measured this for decades, what more do you need?”
There are novel proxies, like leaf size and shape, see Dana Royer’s work athttps://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/droyer/web/publications.htm and I have already mentioned ‘off Earth’ proxies of the future. In my own field, there is a wealth of 19th century data that has not been digitized and therefore cannot be processed with modern methods, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf
“I believe there are schools that teach young students to hate certain people and to even develop goals to kill these people. ” Pam
Oh, well. No one consulted me about immigration laws. But be that as it may, it is still the PARENT’S right to decide how their children will be educated. In the end, the truth will win given a fair chance. The government is too blunt and bloody an instrument to be used for every problem.
statePoet1775 (18:07:59) :
It seems to me the universe has been set up to encourage learning but also to instill some humility too.
I personally agree with Steven Weinberg [google him] that “the more we learn about the universe, the more it seems to be pointless”. I would add that we can give it the meaning and the point that it seems to lack.
Glenn (18:15:05) :
I think you misunderstood me [I was not clear enough]. We should teach the children how to think, but not by burdening them with outmoded and false ideas.
As to not teach that some say the Earth is flat, I say that would be an excellent lesson, to find out how we know it isn’t
I disagree, we don’t need to tell them why it isn’t flat, we simply show them the picture of the Earth rising over the Moon’s horizon, or from a stationary weather satellite. This is not ‘stuffing them with fact’, it is showing them the wonderful world they live in.
Leif,
I have long since forgotten the math to solve the equations, and rely on understandings I developed while I could still solve them. Most times I can figure out what you are talking about, but in this case I am at a loss.
That is true, the magnetic field of the Sun and the Earth are indeed connected, but the influence is one-way from the Sun to the Earth. The reason is that the magnetic field is ‘frozen’ into the solar wind and moves with it. In a plasma, like the solar wind, the effect of a change of the magnetic field travels as a wave [much like a sound wave] called an Alfven wave [after the Swedish physicist Hannes Alfven who in the 1940s discovered this]. The speed of these waves is called the Alfven speed and serves much the same role as the speed of sound, to ‘communicate’ changes of physical characteristics of the medium. Much as we have a ‘Mach’ number for sound waves, there is also an ‘Alfvenic Mach’ number for a plasma. For the solar wind that number is typically around 11, meaning that the solar wind moves away from the Sun 11 times faster than magnetic changes can move towards the Sun. It is like you trying to swim upriver at 1 mile an hour in a stream that runs downriver at 11 miles an hour; you just won’t get upstream.
Is this the propagation of EM though a moving medium? I had always considered the magnetopause to be a cool point where forces are balanced (rather like the center of gravity) but never considered there was a real effect there. I would have thought the low density of the medium prevented a measurable effect?
Glenn,
I would send my child to a school where something close to my viewpoint was taught. I worked very hard to get it. Let OTHER parents decide on competing viewpoints.
Raphael (19:22:43) :
Most times I can figure out what you are talking about, but in this case I am at a loss.
The Wikipedia article here is actually quite good;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
Please don’t hesitate if you have specific questions.
At the magnetosphere boundary there is a balance between the kinetic energy [“the dynamic pressure”] of the solar wind and the magnetic energy [“the magnetic pressure”] in the geomagnetic field. This balance results in a “standoff” between the two media. The ‘standoff-distance’ is about 10 Earth radii, but varies [up to an order of magnitude] with the varying solar wind.
Lief,
I’ve just read Steven Weinberg’s “A Designer Universe?” at http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
It is very good but I think I see weakness in some of his arguments.
I need to read it again (and again and again). And I am not quite sure how definite he is in his conclusions.
Thanks for the tip.
The length of the current cycle appears to be approaching 12 years.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
If true, this makes it the longest on record since ca. 1800.
So, it looks like this is cooler stuff, and if it goes on another year, we are looking at really cold stuff.
However you want to look at it.
Is there any conscensus on just how long SC23 has been going on?
Robert Bateman (01:52:53)
“The length of the current cycle appears to be approaching 12 years.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
If true, this makes it the longest on record since ca. 1800.
So, it looks like this is cooler stuff, and if it goes on another year, we are looking at really cold stuff.”
Possibly – but cycle 20 was 11 years and 7 months and this was followed by the late 20th century warming, so it’s perhaps a bit premature to declare certain cooling.
LEIF
I have noted that whenever the standoff postion drops below 10Re [say 7-9], usually as the result of a significant solar dynamic pressure pulse of say over 5-10 nPA [ but 10 nPa and if this lasts for many hours and if the magnetic field is ‘south’ , the AMSU satellite temperatures show a spike in our atmosphere staring at 56000 feet and all the way down to 3300 feet. The temperature spike starts at the 56000 foot level and works its way all the way to 3300 feet , often for 1-2 days and more . You can observe this during the current month on AUGUST 8 & 9 , and again August 12 &13 and possibly August 16.
Is there any conscensus on just how long SC23 has been going on?
It officially began in May, 1996, making it now about 12 yrs, 3 mos. and counting. Funny, since two years ago “scientist” Hathaway said SC24 should begin “any time now”.
Bundle up. Eddy Minimum, here we come.
Bruce Cobb (07:40:59) :
two years ago “scientist” Hathaway said SC24 should begin “any time now”.
Bruce, it is not correct to put quotation marks around scientist. Hathaway is a good scientist, he just happens to be wrong on this particular prediction. It is a hallmark of science that it can be wrong, otherwise it would just be dogma.
REPLY: I agree with Leif, the man has the credentials. While such credentials offer a probability that the bearer will like be correct about science more often than one without, it doesn’t offer a guarantee. And being wrong and learning from those mistakes is often just as useful but by no means reason to minimize the person. Hathaway may come around yet. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
Apparently Hathaway’s solar theory needs more work. I don’t fault him for his revisions but for a solar theory to be proven correct it will probably require at least two or more solar cycles. You can approach being 100 percent correct if you keep modifying your prediction with current data. Even if a theory predicts accurately the duration and peak of a solar cycle that is a great accomplishment the curvature or number of monthly sunspots may be much more difficult to predict.
John Finn (07:17:15) :
Robert Bateman (01:52:53)
“The length of the current cycle appears to be approaching 12 years.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
If true, this makes it the longest on record since ca. 1800.
So, it looks like this is cooler stuff, and if it goes on another year, we are looking at really cold stuff.”
Possibly – but cycle 20 was 11 years and 7 months and this was followed by the late 20th century warming, so it’s perhaps a bit premature to declare certain cooling.
If it goes on another year, it will be 13 yrs. That was my point, this cycle is already longer than 20, and we seem to be dealing with thresholds when it comes to solar cycles. There is little point in trying to predict now, all the models have problems. Perhpaps that is because they are built around shorter cycles trends, I don’t know.
What’s left is to relate, and as long as this sc23 continues, the # of cycles and patterns that follow get increasingly restricted.
Reaching past 12 yrs and on into 13 years puts us backat least to 1800 and the Dalton.
It hasn’t happened yet, but it also hasn’t stopped lengthening.
Where do YOU put the start of SC23? Oct, 1996? Some say May, 1996 with smoothed monthly at 8.5.
For the former, SC23 is at 11yrs 10 mos., for the latter, SC23 is at 12 yrs 3 mos.
Leif,
My atrophied math skills are definately going to get in the way of my understanding easily.
At the magnetosphere boundary there is a balance between the kinetic energy [“the dynamic pressure”] of the solar wind and the magnetic energy [“the magnetic pressure”] in the geomagnetic field.
While I admire models which allow understanding, I do not see this prohibitting the propagation of the earth’s magnetic field.
If we look at the problem from the rest frame of the solar wind, this pressure problem disappears, leaving only the propagation of the wave form of a virtual photon through a medium. This leads back to the density of the medium to prevent propagation.
I really don’t want to read an internet’s worth of MHD, so my specific question is: Does MHD have a “problem” with a frozen in state and a low density plasma?
Raphael (13:45:05) :
my specific question is: Does MHD have a “problem” with a frozen in state and a low density plasma?
No, it does not. In fact the Sun’s magnetic field is frozen into the solar wind and is transported to where the solar wind goes, i.e. away from the Sun. Recall, that the original problem was to what extent the Earth’s magnetic field could act upon the Sun, and the answer is that it cannot, because the solar wind moves away from the Sun much faster than an Alfven wave can move towards to Sun. If you turned off the solar wind, then the Earth’s dipolar magnetic field would engulf the Sun [but be very, very, …, very weak]. Now, turn on the solar wind. When the solar wind plasma meets the Earth’s magnetic field [extending to the Sun] the field freezes into the plasma and moves with it away from the Sun. I have, by now, forgotten what your problem with all this was.
Raphael (13:45:05) :
my specific question is: Does MHD have a “problem” with a frozen in state and a low density plasma?
Perhaps I should try to treat the problem the same way as it was originally approached by Chapman and Ferrarro in ~1930. As the solar wind nears the Earth, it will see a varying dipole field where dB/dt gets larger and larger as the wind nears the Earth. This induces an electric current that produces a magnetic field ‘mirroring’ the Earth’s dipole, thereby confining the Earth’s magnetic field to a small ‘cavity’ that we today call the ‘magnetosphere’ [coined by Thomas Gold]. Here is a brief explanation of this process:
http://arc.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/Education/bh1-3.html
Leif,
Thanks for trying to help me understand. I realize now there should have never been a misunderstanding on my part. I had a temporary case of stupid. I was a bit too distracted by what you were saying and failed to apply the terms to my existing imagery and follow it though.