Many people that have have an interest in the interaction between the Sun and Earth have been keeping a watchful eye on several metrics of solar activity recently. The most popular of course has been sunspot watching.
The sun has been particularly quiet in the last several months, so quiet in fact that Australia’s space weather agency recently revised their solar cycle 24 forecast, pushing the expected date for a ramping up of cycle 24 sunspots into the future by six months.
On August 31st, at 23:59 UTC, just a little over 24 hours from now, we are very likely to make a bit of history. It looks like we will have gone an entire calendar month without a sunspot. According to data from NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center, the last time that happened was in June of 1913. May of 1913 was also spotless.
With the current space weather activity level of the Sun being near zero, and the SOHO holographic imaging of the far side of the sun showing no developing spots that would come around the edge in the next 24 hours, it seems a safe bet to conclude that August 2008 will be the first spotless month since June 1913.
Here is the sun today, at 09:14UTC August 30th:
Click for a very large image
Some people who watch the sun regularly might argue that August wasn’t really spotless, because on August 21st, a very tiny plage area looked like it was going to become a countable sunspot. Here is an amateur astronomer’s photo of the event:
August 21st, 2008 spots – Photo: Pavol Rapavy
But according to solar physicist Leif Svalgaard, who regularly frequents this blog:
According to NOAA it was not assigned a number on Aug.21st nor on Aug.22.
So without an official recognition or a number assigned, it should not be counted in August as actual sunspot.
It has also been over a month since a countable sunspot has been observed, the last one being on July 18th. Since then, activity has been flat. Below is a graph of several solar metrics from the amateur radio propagation website dxlc.com for the past two months:
Click image for original source
They have a table of metrics that include sunspots, and their data also points to a spotless August 2008. See it here: http://www.dxlc.com/solar/indices.html
So unless something dramatic happens on the sun in the next 24 hours, it seems a safe bet that August 2008 will be a spotless month.
Update: As commenter Jim Powell points out,
There was a stretch of 42 spotless days from 9/13/1996 to 10/24/1996. Today we have equaled this period. Check out Jan Janssens spotless days page http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
KlausB (12:04:13) :
If, TSI don’t works proportionally, but integrally? (I am thinking of earth’s climate as the behavior of an control system). As far as I – may – see, it behaves as most of the couplings behave integrally – slow start with it’s influences, but increase over time.
I don’t know, but I guess that the real problem is that TSI does not vary enough to begin with. I’m willing to accept that even a tiny, tiny TSI variation can have effect if [and only if] a clear physical mechanism can be found that can quantitatively explain what is going on without recourse to unknown maybes. If the energy problem wasn’t there [that is: TSI varied enough] then there would plenty of possible mechansims.
I’ll give an example: magnetic storms, aurorae, ionospheric disturbances, etc adds up to a certain amount of energy. About forty years ago we had learned enough about the solar wind that we could estimate the energy impinging on the Earth [and the magnetosphere] and it was found to be at least ten times that required to create all the disturbances in Geospace. In such a situation it is easy to accept that the solar wind was the cause. But suppose it had been the other way around, that the solar wind energy flux into the Earth’s environment was only a tenth of that required to create and maintain the disturbances. In that case we would have a much harder time claiming that the solar wind was the driving force of Geospace disturbances. An we would still be debating that, with claims and counterclaims, with venomous exchanges, etc [very much the same as the current debate].
In fact, such a debate raged a century ago, see: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/spa/papers/hyp/ I quote Lord Kelvin’s conclusion:
He concluded that during “eight hours of a not very severe magnetic storm, as much work must be done by the Sun in sending magnetic waves out in all directions through [the vacuum of] space as he actually does in four months of his regular heat and light. This result … is absolutely conclusive against the supposition that terrestrial magnetic storms are due to magnetic action of the Sun; or to any kind of dynamical action taking place within the Sun, or in connexion with hurricanes in his atmosphere, or anywhere near the Sun outside.” He made an even stronger inference: “The supposed connexion between magnetic storms and sun-spots is unreal, and the seeming agreement between the periods has been a mere coincidence.”
Sounds familiar? Replace ‘terrestrial magnetic storms’ with ‘climate’.
Leif this is not a very technical question. The difference in temperatures that we are talking about are not very large. Over the last century, I think we are talking about one degree fahrenheit or so. What would the temperature on earth be if there was no sun? Is it inconceivable that the active sun of the last decades could have zero effect on average earth temperature?
You can make it short if you like.
Thanks,
Mike Bryant
That is right, and I will take it further. Even if there are still unexplained “coincidences” in the climate history, and the models have proven unable to predict the climate at any scale, we still should assume that we know every thing there is to know about the subject, and should never, ever aver that we may possess less than perfect understanding of the climate.. EVER! To do so will give the Yahoos talking points, and it is far more important to win the rhetorical debate than it is to honestly admit that there are holes in our knowledge, and to engage our critics in open debate. Honest debate is a TRAP! It just creates DOUBT! Better we should shut up and shout down these so called “scientists” like Svensmark, and start moving the populations into the collective yurts where we true scientist think they should live.
This has been an announcement from “Movement to enslave the west through environmentalism.” That is all.
OK Yorick… That was pretty funny…
FYI, if I may cite the Ri report of SIDC at Belgium:
Predictions of the monthly smoothed Sunspot Number using the last
provisional value, calculated for January 2008 : 4.2 (+-5%)
SM CM SM CM SM CM
2008 Feb 4 3 2008 Aug 2 9 2009 Feb 4 19
Mar 4 4 Sep 2 10 Mar 4 22
Apr 4 5 Oct 2 11 Apr 5 24
May 3 6 Nov 3 12 May 6 27
Jun 3 7 Dec 3 14 Jun 6 30
Jul 2 8 2009 Jan 4 17 Jul 7 32
SM : SIDC classical method : based on an interpolation of Waldmeier’s
standard curves; the estimated error ranges from 7% (first month) to
35% (last month)
CM : Combined method : the combined method is a regression technique
coupling a dynamo-based estimator with Waldmeier’s idea of standard
curves, due to K. Denkmayr.
ref. : K. Denkmayr, P. Cugnon, 1997 : “About Sunspot Number Medium-Term
Predictions”, in “Solar-Terrestrial Prediction Workshop V”, eds.
G. Heckman et al., Hiraiso Solar Terrestrial Research Center, Japan, 103
So I guess, the sunspotless time period will probably continue until mid 2009. I think this will become one of the longest cycles ever.
Mike Bryant (12:59:57) :
Over the last century, I think we are talking about one degree fahrenheit or so. What would the temperature on earth be if there was no sun?
I reckon about 3 Kelvin.
Is it inconceivable that the active sun of the last decades could have zero effect on average earth temperature?
No, it is very conceivable, even calculable: about +0.01 Kelvin
Yorick (13:13:26) :
Speaks for itself. But I guess you missed my point: Lord Kelvin was wrong as we now know, but based on what was known at the time he was quite correct, as befits the greatest physicist of his time.
If the energy is there lots of explanations can be found [and one or combinations of some will be right]. If the energy is not there, new physics or new, unknown processes are needed. Should one base policy on the unknown?
Leif:
My guess was just that, a guess. Some of us are thinking outside the box due to the failure of the current models to predict. I’m not trying to force a new theory down anybody’s throat there, or jump to conclusion or cycomania.
What I am doing is looking for things that have been missed along the way, like a harmonious relationship of cycle lengths that seems to have blindsided the current theories.
David:
When I look at the data, I see precious little to get far back enough in time to be able to handle more than the current last 4 minimums. The paper I referenced is the only one I have found so far that even addresses periodicities and cycle lengths. Sorry, I am but a layman here. If cycle length and periodicities are the correlations, it is with deep regret that the telescope was not invented 100 yrs or better before the Maunder came on the scene. And the detailed records of sunspot observations don’t go back far enough.
Science is going to have to get really ingenious or darned lucky to nail this one.
Robert Bateman (13:39:07) :
My guess was just that, a guess. Some of us are thinking outside the box due to the failure of the current models to predict.
No need for out of the box thinking. Schatten and my Babcock-Leighton dynamo-based model, and the flux-transport dynamo model by Choudhuri and his students are right on track and are not failing. That other people’s models aren’t doing too well is normal science. They will learn from SC24 and perhaps tweak the model or figure out what they did wrong and improve the model. Interestingly enough, they are not worried at this point. They also think they are right on track. What we all agree on is that sharp harmonics from well-tuned cycles [high Q in Electronic terms] are not likely in that seething, throbbing, roiling blob of gas that we orbit.
Well that’s interesting, Leif, because the 183 yr and 243 yr periodicities are rather on the mushy side of things, with 243 yr bordering on the rolling side of nebulous.
You’re the scientist here.
Robert Bateman (14:11:33) :
You’re the scientist here.
A characteristics of science is that it is falsifiable. And a hallmark of a scientist is that he can be wrong.
The recent interview of Hathaway:
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1465&category=Science
was most impressive, despite the interviewer’s attempts to stick to an AGW agenda. He was most candid on his concerns of how SC24 is (or isn’t) developing. And he was quite circumspect in tying terrestrial events to solar events. He is in quite an unenviable position. He’s both a scientist and a leader of a team of scientists attempting to come to an understanding of what’s happening with the sun — quite a juggling act.
So, we’ve had a full month with no spots. What this means is that we’ve had a full month with no spots. Now, show me a string of three or four months with no spots and things’ll start to get interesting. {Personally, I think that the quieter the sun remains for longer stretches of time, the cooler Earth’s climate will become.} I will not be surprised to see Hathaway scrap the predictions and head on back to the drawing board; I get the impression that his quest for knowledge, learning, and understanding the sun far outweigh his ego — the next couple of cycles should be most instructive.
lotsa really interesting material to ponder here… yet I have a hunch, just a senior moment no doubt, that although people say there is no evidence for the Sun being the primary climate driver (in history, leave Milankovitch out), that the evidence does exist, and that I’ve brushed against it several times.
Svensmark?? Solanki/Usoskin?? I need to go back to check.
Anthony – it would be nice to see graphs of cloud cover, albedo, and solar magnetic flux for August, or rather, back to the most recent proper sunspots for comparison, if they’re available. Here in UK it feels like the cloudiest, coldest August on record.
Leif: If the TSI has not varied much, what of the wavelength composition? More or less UV (that covers a lot of ground) or IR (even more)? Gasses and other things on Earth respond differently to different wavelengths. What does the solar spectra look like over time? Do we have any way of measuring or determining it before satellites? A shift of a dozen nanometers can have a dramatic effect on absorbtion, without much change in total output.
Leif Svalgaard (09:50:43) :
“…To maintain that variations in TSI are the direct cause of LIA…”
Most people do not even reference TSI in talking about relationships between solar activity and climate, though it is used as a straw-man argument by those trying to dismiss such relationships.
The straw-man argument goes like this:
“TSI variance is too small to explain temperature variations, therefore there is no relationship between sun and climate change. End of discussion.”
I know you are aware that increased solar activity results in significant heating of the upper atmosphere. By definition then, an inactive sun results in a cooler upper atmosphere.
The thermosphere-ionosphere system is not static, passive, inactive. It is quite dynamic.
You may argue that expansion and contraction of millions of cubic kilometers of the atmosphere is too remote to affect terrestrial climate.
I would just state the obvious – too little is known to make such an argument.
For example, the daily weather balloons don’t make it even to the mesosphere; levels in the upper stratosphere and above are not routinely sampled, and there has been precious little work done to relate middle and upper atmospheric changes to tropospheric weather and climate.
In the stratosphere however, a definite solar-climate signal has been found. Karin Labitzke has been working on this for 20 years. The QBO (Quasi Biennial Oscillation of stratospheric and mesospheric winds), when ordered according to phase (east or west) and solar cycle, shows a definite relationship with northern hemisphere winter.
http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke/
I know you are also aware that the variance of solar ultraviolet is much greater than that of TSI, and that this must variance must affect the production of stratospheric ozone.
Ozone production is a heating process; less ozone production means a cooler stratosphere. Once again, we are talking about millions of cubic kilometers of air heating and cooling in response to the solar cycle.
The stratosphere, mesosphere, and the thermosphere-ionosphere system are not conveniently isolated from weather which occurs in the troposphere.
Changes in the upper and middle atmosphere cause changes in global climate.
What per cent of the physical mechanisms are known and understood? Rough guess – less than 1 per cent.
It’s going to take work. Frau Dr. Labitzke didn’t look out the window one morning and notice the QBO and the solar cycle combining to change climate.
“…The other popular culprit is cosmic rays. 10Be and 14C radionuclides show that the magnetic cycle was still operating during the Maunder Minimum [and earlier Grand Minima as well], so the Sun’s ‘magnetic shield’ against cosmic rays was still in place, so this mechanism does not seem to be viable either.”
Wow, I don’t understand this at all.
Of course the sun didn’t “die” during the Maunder Minimum. That was a question for a long time that now seems resolved: the Schwabe and Hale cycles didn’t stop entirely, they were just very weak.
Cosmogenic isotope production was much higher during the Maunder Minimum than at anytime in the last 2000 years!
The sun was giving us hardly any protection at all from GCR (galactic cosmic radiation)!
If the increased-nucleation-of-low-cloud-by-GCR hypothesis is correct, global low cloud cover and hence albedo must also have been higher than at any time in the last 2000 years.
So changes in the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere-ionosphere system drives changes in tropospheric weather and climate in ways which are presently >99% unknown.
Increased GCR reaching the lower atmosphere during low solar activity MAY increase atmospheric aerosol production AND provide those aerosols with electric charge, making them doubly effective as CCN (cloud condensation nuclei).
What about the oceans?
Solar activity is now known to drive ocean cooling on a ~1500-year cycle (“Bond events”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle
Does it also drive the shorter term (decadal and multi-decadal scale) oscillations, and/or influence ENSO (El Nino/Southern Oscillation)?
These are questions of HUGE importance, and simplistically or dismissively saying, “TSI variation is too small to account for that” is just absurd.
The thought I keep having about TSI variance is that with typical 11 year cycles the variance is not enough to drastically increase or decrease global temperatures. But what if you _don’t_ have typical 11 year cycles?
In other words, global temperatures may indeed be highly sensitive to TSI variances but only if such variances last for significant lengths of time so that feedback mechanisms either negative or positive come into play.
For example, we know that increases in albedo will definitely result in global cooling. If we have 60 years of consistently low TSI, will that cause a gradually increasing albedo (for whatever reason — clouds, snow) so that the result is significantly lower global temperatures?
Solar cycles 24 and 25 should really help us pin down the solar-terrestrial links and feedback mechanisms and the delay times in the system.
Leif, thank you for your response. I’ve read much of what you have posted on ClimateAudit.org. I accept what you have to say about TSI and appreciate your willingness to participate on these Blogs.
If the sun is what drives climate from one century to another, then I think cosmic ray theory has a good chance of being the reason why. One of the aspects of CR theory that I like is that it explains the extensive ice ages farther back in the geological record. Do you have an explanation for the earth almost totally freezing over 700 million year ago?
Retired Engineer (15:40:31) :
John-X (16:27:19) :
I know you are aware that increased solar activity results in significant heating of the upper atmosphere. By definition then, an inactive sun results in a cooler upper atmosphere.
The thermosphere-ionosphere system is not static, passive, inactive. It is quite dynamic.
The density decreases by a factor of 1000 for each 50 km increase in altitude. So at the ionosphere the density is down by a factor of a million, and at the thermosphere [the strong heating up to 1000K is more mostly above the ionosphere by another 50 km and more] the density is down by a factor of a billion or more. So we have a very small tail wagging a very large dog.
You may argue that expansion and contraction of millions of cubic kilometers of the atmosphere is too remote to affect terrestrial climate.
It is not the volume that matters but the mass and as I just showed that mass is very small compared to the mass of the air where climate happens.
I would just state the obvious – too little is known to make such an argument.
Then the same would go making the argument that the effect is great. If too little is known to say the effect is tiny, then too little is also known to say that the effect is not tiny.
I know you are also aware that the variance of solar ultraviolet is much greater than that of TSI, and that this must variance must affect the production of stratospheric ozone.
It undoubtedly does.
Ozone production is a heating process; less ozone production means a cooler stratosphere. Once again, we are talking about millions of cubic kilometers of air heating and cooling in response to the solar cycle.
Once again, the mass involved and thus the heat content is minuscule compared to the troposphere
The stratosphere, mesosphere, and the thermosphere-ionosphere system are not conveniently isolated from weather which occurs in the troposphere.
The influence usually goes the other way. It is the dog wagging the tail. Upwards traveling planetary waves are responsible for most of the dynamics.
Changes in the upper and middle atmosphere cause changes in global climate.
I think, in view of the above, that this is an untenable supposition.
What per cent of the physical mechanisms are known and understood? Rough guess – less than 1 per cent.
I would say a lot less. Rough guess – much less than 1 in a billion. But that is not the issue at hand. To ascribe what we surmise to unknown forces is the ultimate defeat.
“[,,,]the Sun’s ‘magnetic shield’ against cosmic rays was still in place, so this mechanism does not seem to be viable either.”
Wow, I don’t understand this at all.
It shows 🙂
Of course the sun didn’t “die” during the Maunder Minimum. That was a question for a long time that now seems resolved: the Schwabe and Hale cycles didn’t stop entirely, they were just very weak.
10Be/14C shows that the solar cycle modulation of cosmic rays during the Maunder Minimum was just as large as it is today, so the magnetic cycle was just as vigorous even though sunspots were less visible.
Cosmogenic isotope production was much higher during the Maunder Minimum than at anytime in the last 2000 years!
The Spoerer minimum (1415–1534) was deeper than the Maunder Minimum so presumably cosmic ray production was even higher then. And, as with the Maunder Minimum, the cosmic ray modulation revealed by 14C was still showing the familiar 11-year cycle modulation.
If you study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png you will see this:
1) the 10Be concentration 1645-1695 was the same as from 1820-1950 in spite of the gross difference in average sunspot numbers [0 vs. 60]
2) the strong maxima [shown as dip because of the inverted scale] in 1695-1705 and in 1883-1900 were short-lived and much evidence suggest that these are related to strong volcanic activity [Hekla ~1700] and Krakatoa 1883.
3) and note again that the 11-year modulation is equally strong throughout.
4) although not shown, the 10Be concentration is sensitive to climate [as it depends on rain/showfall that washes 10Be out of the stratosphere
If the increased-nucleation-of-low-cloud-by-GCR hypothesis is correct, global low cloud cover and hence albedo must also have been higher than at any time in the last 2000 years.
Direct measurements of the albedo shows that it is not correlated with the solar cycle while it is claimed that low-clouds [via the purported control by GCRs] are, so it has not been demonstrated that the albedo is the highest in the last 2000 years.
So changes in the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere-ionosphere system drives changes in tropospheric weather and climate in ways which are presently > 99% unknown.
and yet you believe so much in this.
Solar activity is now known to drive ocean cooling on a ~1500-year cycle (”Bond events”) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle
The late Gerald Bond was a good friend of mine and we have discussed this on several occasions. Bond did not show that the Bond Events are caused by the Sun. He suggested that as a possible cause. The very Wiki article you cite also has this to say: “Causes and determining factors of the cycle are under study; researchers have focused attention on patterns of tides, variations in solar output, and “reorganizations of atmospheric circulation.” So, it is not known that the Bond Events have solar causes. Gerald’s answer to me was always “but, what else can it be?”. That, in my book, does not constitute knowledge.
These are questions of HUGE importance, and simplistically or dismissively saying, “TSI variation is too small to account for that” is just absurd.
First, this is not simplistically nor dismissively. There are good reasons for this. and precisely because the issue is of huge importance, we should not simplistically and enthusiastically embrace solar influences that arise from causes that are more that 99% unkown.
Anyway, all this is well-trodden ground [in this blog and others] and it, sadly, but predictably, seems to make little difference to true believers.
John-X (16:27:19) :
So changes in the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere-ionosphere system drives changes in tropospheric weather and climate in ways which are presently > 99% unknown.
I would put much confidence [and base policy on] something that have causes that are > 99% unknown.
John, all this is well-trodden ground both on this and other blogs and I’ll not wade over that again, unless somebody else ‘seconds the motion’.
Jim Powell (18:03:57) :
Do you have an explanation for the earth almost totally freezing over 700 million year ago?
Possibly on John’s 99% unknown causes 🙂
No, I don’t ordinarily speculate that far back.
Leif Svalgaard (19:57:38) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
Since I’m never sarcastic, I better correct myself:
John-X (16:27:19) :
So changes in the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere-ionosphere system drives changes in tropospheric weather and climate in ways which are presently > 99% unknown.
I would not put much confidence [and base policy on] something that have causes that are > 99% unknown.
Leif,
How does the earth avoid getting a net positive charge if cosmic rays are mostly protons? If I was rich, I would put you on a retainer for answering ignorant questions.
TIF(thanks in advance)
I meant TIA
statePoet1775 (20:35:58) :
How does the earth avoid getting a net positive charge if cosmic rays are mostly protons? TIA(thanks in advance)
First of all, almost all the cosmic rays we observe are ‘secondary’ cosmic rays [debris from the original proton smashing into the air]. One ‘primary’ cosmic ray may generate a ‘cosmic ray shower’ with millions of secondaries and tertiaries, etc. So the actual positive charge picked up is very small. If this charge was not shorted out [or neutralized], the Earth would charge up indefinitely. But, the universe is full of electrons and any small positive charge would soon be shorted out by electrons sucked in from space. There are such extra electrons out there because the electron that once belonged to the proton is out there somewhere. Some of these are also ‘cosmic rays’, but we don’t see most of them because they are about 2000 times lighter than their proton. But there is a very, very small residual positive charge as the ‘sucking in’ is not instantaneous. That very small charge is completely swamped by the charge separation caused by the global circuit [ http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006988.shtml ].
Speaking of the low-lying cloud cover, no matter how it works, it was in full charge during 90% of the fires we had here in No. CA this summer. The smoke hung on the ground day in day out, lifting only by the direct force of a 1 day wind/week that clocked with the co-rotating coronal hole. Direct observation of a 2 month long stubborn air inversion. Never seen anything like it.
Robert Bateman (22:55:41) :
Speaking of the low-lying cloud cover, no matter how it works, it was in full charge during 90% of the fires we had here in No. CA this summer. The smoke hung on the ground day in day out, lifting only by the direct force of a 1 day wind/week that clocked with the co-rotating coronal hole.
Did the wind also clean out the corona?