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
So Profarmer, do you actually think what you’ve posted is accurate and helpful to the discussion?
Well, what I posted is from a researcher working for Armagh observatory in Ireland and is about the current solar cycles and possible climatic effects, so, yes, I thought it was topical. As to it’s accuracy, that will be up to the future to see. I really don’t see how it would be unhelpful, unless you disagree with it. Not my work. You can google the guys name, go to Junkscience.com. Go to the Belfast Times website, or to Armagh observatories website for more information. I thought it was interesting, on topic, and current, so I posted it. I see Evan has already taken care of me on the topic of global temperatures. Thanks.
Interesting that Hathaway’s “you are here” lies well below the confidence interval given in his earlier projection (a near zero yearly sunspot rate in August 2008, vs Hathaway’s predicted minimim sunspot rate for this date of about 70 per year). Yet his new confidence interval bounces upward even more steeply than his earlier one.
Really? He is even more confident that the sun will quickly become active, now that it has demonstrated that it is in a persistent lull? Apparently he believes that the sun just does not go into persistent lulls, but then he cites the Maunder Minimum, so he KNOWS that it sometimes does. Just another stinking propagandist.
This is precisely what I don’t get: the link between rising CO2 and temperature is supposedly “very clear”, and yet links between solar activity and temperature are not? Neither is perfect to be sure, but solar (combined with natural oceanic/atmospheric cycles) has far greater correlation over the long run!
It is an absolute joke that billions of dollars are put into climate research that focuses on CO2/GHG/AGW, yet very little research or funding goes into possible solar climate influences.
Yes, Leif, ENSO events are not dependent on solar activity. They seem to function independently on their own cycles in some ways. And yet, weaker solar activity does seem to make Ninas more likely, and once cycles start upward again and get stronger, Ninos seem more likely.
In addition, I can find no better explanation out there for why temperatures have leveled off/cooled slightly the past ten years other than solar. Solar output decreased a bit in Cycle 23, and temperatures stopped rising. The PDO was still largely in its positive phase, so that is not a good explanation. And of course, CO2 continued to skyrocket. So if someone has a better explanation for me, I would be happy to hear it.
Something else anecdotal (for fun, but still noteworthy): here on the Front Range of Colorado, the temperature is currently 51 degrees at noon, with a light rain. The normal high temperature is 87 today. Denver is forecast to reach a high of 59. If that occurs, it will smash the record low high of 68 for the date. Tomorrow’s record low high of 63 is also in jeopardy.
Mary, pofarmer, and others:
Let’s not get personal. Stick to the topic and no ad-hom remarks or snide comments, please. Disagreement is in principle good.
Leif Said:
“…There is no need to disprove this because the neither the Sun, nor the Earth feel any forces associated with their orbits…”
Leif, I think it is more complicated. The planets are not in undisturbed free fall. There are mutual differential gravitational attractions. Moreover, there are accelerations (orbital perturbations) associated with changes in the center of mass of the Solar System due to the planetary orbits themselves — since planets are not infinitely rigid, these accelerations will cause deformations that will raise temperature — “how much” is the issue.
As background, tidal forces (that deform seas and land mass) in mutually orbiting bodies are well known – and they have very significant effects on the bodies. For example, the Earth/Moon revolve around their common barycenter. The effect on tides, speed of rotation of Earth and Moon, changes in orbital distance are well known – all those changes represent changes of energy states some of which could be resolved as “heat” and “temperature”. Google presented this easy to read explanation (out of many):
“…The ocean tides are an obvious effect of the Moon’s gravity but the Moon causes “land tides” to occur too. As the Moon passes overhead the Earth rises towards it by several centimeters and then drops down again as the Moon moves on. .. What I am talking about here is the actual distortion of the Earth’s solid “rock” due to the Moon’s gravity..
Land tides occur on every object in the Solar System (if it has “land”). They cause friction …”
Thus, the Sun and all the planets are “pulling” on each other thereby causing gravitationally induced waves in seas and landmasses. Changes in the “barycenter” of the solar system will perturb orbits (accelerate planets and Sun) thereby modifying the gravitationally induced waves – that does not seem open to question – the question is the significance on Earth GT, if any.
My hypothesis was/is that these gravitationally induced waves could cause some internal friction and an elevation in the temperature of the “ground” and “oceans” — seems the energy has to go somewhere.
Perhaps because of other temperature noise and the fact that no-one has looked for this specific effect, it has been missed. Or, maybe somebody has calculated the energy involved and determined that the temperature changes would be negligible – but, we don’t know that yet (in this thread).
So, I conclude we do not know yet (in this thread) if my hypothesis has been studied and rejected.
Anyhow, this is presented in a spirit of unemotional discussion, for what it may be worth.
Leif- “No, Mary, there are good indications that SC24 will be very weak.”
Thanks for the correction, nice to hear it from someone ‘in the know’!
Profarmer- I was very harsh and I apologise, though 18 months is a bit longer than 12, but I accept the point you made.
Allen,
Its all about magnetism and not so much gravity. The Sun, Earth and gas giants are all connected by magnetism and gravity but by far magnetism has more influence (magnetism is strong force and gravity is a weak force). If you look at a theory with any relevance they all contain magnetism as a main feature, even Leif uses it for his forecasts. I think that the magnetic planets when they pass the suns magnetic (7 degree tilt) poles do influence the suns activity, flares, CMEs or spots, I know Leif will disagree as he does with my CME stuff.
If you look at the rate and speed of CMEs and flare there is a good correlation to satellite temperatures, not perfect but good, oceans tend to dampen quick changes. See page for for the graphs, they are not pretty but give a good indication.
http://cosray.phys.uoa.gr/SEE2007/Presentations_files/Session%20C/see2007_cme_gopalswamy.pdf If you look at the 1989 event the temperature starts to rise but is cut short by Pinatubo. I think this is something that most over look. As Anthony has pointed out its like electronic circuits. Think LCDs and how very little energy is needed to change the amount of light that gets through the color filter, it does this by changing the shape of the liquid crystal by twisting it. Maybe similar to what is going on with clouds, small changes in energy may have big change in clouds, CME, flare or CRF. I may have not yet found the mechanism but it is there, maybe proton maybe not.
Allen (11:28:52) :
The planets are not in undisturbed free fall
What is holding them up then? They are in free fall following a geodesic in space; what this means is that space itself is curved [as Einstein saw] by the masses in the solar system [primarily the Sun, of course] and these masses are not being acted upon ‘at a distance’ by any forces but simply following geodesics in a curved space.
tidal forces (that deform seas and land mass) in mutually orbiting bodies are well known – and they have very significant effects on the bodies.
Tidal forces arise when the opposite sides of a body follow slightly different geodesics because the curvature of space is different on either side of the body. The tidal forces that Jupiter exerts on the sun does indeed give rise to a tidal bulge of height one half millimeter [1/50 of an inch]. If all the planets were lined up, the total bulge would be 1 millimeter high. This is to be compared to the constant overturning of the solar material where Texas-sized masses move up and down at 0.5 km per second.
This has been extensively discussed on this blog; in fact, every single post on the Sun has ended up with this issue, which seems to have strong legs and popular appeal, even if its scientific value is nil.
“For the record, I believe the climate undergoes swings: MWP, LIA, modern warming, possible cooling coming. I…”
Leif: What source(s) do you acknowledge as proof of the MWP?
“As the American Psychological Association has concluded, such negative messages can prevent people understanding the truth of global warming.” Lazlo (04:48:57) :
Wow, that tree limb is getting pretty crowded.
Jim Arndt (12:32:32) :
Its all about magnetism and not so much gravity. The Sun, Earth and gas giants are all connected by magnetism and gravity but by far magnetism has more influence (magnetism is strong force and gravity is a weak force). If you look at a theory with any relevance they all contain magnetism as a main feature, even Leif uses it for his forecasts. I think that the magnetic planets when they pass the suns magnetic (7 degree tilt) poles do influence the suns activity, flares, CMEs or spots
No, this is totally wrong. Gravity falls off with the square of the distance, but magnetism falls off with the cube of the distance. Consider a small toy magnetic and a big nail. You can find a nail that is so big that the magnet can just hold it up. Any heavier and the nail falls off. We have all played with that, so this should be clear. Now, hold the magnet with the nail. All the gravity of the entire Earth is not enough to pull the nail away, so, indeed, the magnetic force in that small toy magnet is very strong compared to gravity. We can quantify the force of gravity on the nail as one ‘g’. So the magnetic force is also one ‘g’. The distance between the center of mass of the Earth and the nail [which is what determines gravity] is 6400 km, and the distance between the magnetic poles and the center of mass of the nail is, perhaps [depending on the exactly we use] 1 cm = 0.00001 km. Now, move the nail away from the Earth one earth radius [6400 km]. That reduces the gravitational force by a factor of four to g/4 [twice as far, four times weaker; square of distance]. The magnetic force is reduced by a factor of (6400/0.00001)^3 = 2.5 x 10^26 = 250,000,000,000,000,000,000. Move the nail out to the Sun and the force is reduced by a further 10,000,000 times. Now, the little toy magnet is actually a lot stronger than the Earth’s magnetic field [otherwise the Earth’s magnetic field would tear away the nail – just think of bringing a BIG magnet close to the nail], so the ‘magnetic’ planets have absolutely no measurable effect upon the nail, not to speak about upon the entire Sun.
There are so many zeroes in play here that I even got the second number wrong. The force is not just reduced a further 10,000,000 times, it is reduced by a further 13,000,000,000,000 times = (149600000/6400)^3 where the 149600000 km is the distance to the Sun. So, the magnetic planets have no magnetic influence on the sun.
Bill P (12:56:20) :
Leif: What source(s) do you acknowledge as proof of the MWP?
The Vikings could colonize Greenland [which was green where they lived] and a namesake could discover America.
More modern sources may be found here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3266
and I’m sure in many other places. Was the MWP global? Well, if it was not, the Sun is hardly to ‘blame’ for the MWP, The Vikings thrived in Greenland for a longer time than I would image if the MWP was just a small regional blip. What I really meant was that even if MWP was real and global I don’t think it was caused by the Sun. So, I’m willing to accept internal oscillations of that magnitude, should they occur.
Bill P (12:56:20) :
Leif: What source(s) do you acknowledge as proof of the MWP?
This one is also convincing, to me, at least:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3395
Leif,
Well, as an emoticon, I find #B^1 to be more expressive than a plain old 🙂
Since it is of my own device I am prejudiced towards it. (So far as I know, no one else is using it: I googled it and found no match.)
1 = mouth with cigarette
Just a wry grin. The eyes have glasses.
Modifications include: #p^j and #B^U
Keep it up…and I’ll turn the smileys back on – Anthony
Nooooooo!
At least wait until the year (2008) is over!
There is a site called “Ask a Physicist”. The internet is wonderful.
LEIF
Six months of results does not conclusively prove that major solar wind ram pressures and global temperatures are related but it should spark some more interest. Makarova also did field tests before presenting her results.
I only posted a limited part of my work here to show that currently the relationship exists. It would be inappropriate to flood this blog with more detail.
I see little value in going back to 1965 to further verify Makarovas or my own studies. I have already looked at many of the years of the current solar cycle [#23] plus spot years prior where there were no EL Ninos or El Ninas. Sometime regression analysis of past data can be a hindrance too if one fails to recognize new or changed conditions which can make much of the past data obsolete or of historical value only. One can observe some of the limits of regression data in the failed attempts to predict the start of the next solar cycle, or the hurricane forecast for the last 3-4 years or some of the climate change models that don’t seem to work. Meanwhile I will continue my study to look at the current daily correlation between major solar wind ram pressures, magnetic field directions, the magnetopause position, and global temperatures. If anyone is interested in this they can e-mail me. I posted my e-mail previously for those who are interested.
Thank heavens. I thought you were swearing.
Leif,
I think Allen shows strong evidence supporting my hypothesis from the last thread. Notice his admittance to a lower level of physics? Notice how you had to explain why the forces do not exist even after you said they don’t?
I think it would be beneficial to simply come out and “call foul” on the underlying understanding.
Allen,
I hope if you are still reading the thread, you are willing to respond and let me know if what I am saying makes sense to you.
The models you learned in Physics 101 were “good enough” to help you understand the material at a “physics 101” level. However, not everything taught will carry over to more advanced problems– those models are no longer “good enough”.
The point in case here is the center of gravity from Newtonian physics. It is “good enough” to understand a one or two body problem. But when you look at a many body problem you’ll notice that there would need to be extra forces to explain some strange behavior. These forces are only an artifact of the model being used.
Newton’s theory of gravitation was replaced with General Relativity. In GR, these forces do not exist as Leif briefly explains. It is a case of the model you understand not being “good enough” for the purpose you want to use it.
Thanks Leif,
Next time I go into space I’ll bring the little magnetic toy to protect me from the CRF. Sarc / off. Sorry Leif I couldn’t help it, a little magnetic humor.
I realize that the magnetic field drops off quite fast, my point to Allen was it is a stronger force than gravity and that you do use it for your forecasts for the sun activity, correct. You don’t measure gravity to forecasts solar activity. I’m not saying that magnetism is heating things up but I am saying that it maybe switching things on and off like an IC does. But there are magnetic “ropes” (lack of a better term) that connect the Earth to the sun. I think NASA included this in one of their missions around 2003 I think. Sun Spots are magnetic, same with CMEs Flares, and CRF is modulated by magnetism. This is also how most of our power is generated.
Jim Arndt (17:22:13) :
you do use it for your forecasts for the sun activity, correct. You don’t measure gravity to forecasts solar activity.
I use the Sun’s magnetic field, close to where the action is 🙂
Some of the other good folks here try to use gravity [SIM, barycenter, tides, etc] to forecast solar activity.
But there are magnetic “ropes” (lack of a better term) that connect the Earth to the sun
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.
I said: Much as we have a ‘Mach’ number for sound waves, there is also an ‘Alfvenic Mach’ number for a plasma. This is not the correct way of saying it. I should have said: “Much as we have a Mach number for objects moving through the air, we have an Alfvenic Mach number for a plasma”. Sound waves, of course, always move at Mach 1.0 🙂