I found a reference to this article while looking at Leif Svalgaard’s website, and since I missed it the first time around, and because the message is still valid, I thought I’d reprint it here. Also, the artwork they provided a hi-res link to makes a great desktop wallpaper. – Anthony
Published: 2008/05/19 06:00:00 CDT
Many solar scientists expected the new sunspot cycle to be a whopper, a prolonged solar tantrum that could fry satellites and raise hell with earthly communications, the power grid and modern electronics.
But there’s scant proof Sunspot Cycle 24 is even here, let alone the debut of big trouble.
So far there have been just a couple minor zits on the face of the sun to suggest the old cycle is over and the new one is coming.
The roughly 11-year cycle of sunspot activity should have bottomed out last year, the end of Cycle 23 and the beginning of Cycle 24. That would have put the peak in new sunspot activity around 2012.
But a dud sunspot cycle would not necessarily make it a boring period, especially for two solar scientists with the Tucson-based National Solar Observatory.
Two years ago, William Livingston and Matt Penn wrote a paper for the journal Science predicting that this could not only be a dud sunspot cycle, but the start of another extended down period in solar activity. It was based on their analysis of weakening sunspot intensity and said sunspots might vanish by 2015.
And here’s the punch line: That last long-term down period, 1645-1715, coincided with the Little Ice Age, a period of bitter cold winters.
That kind of talk could ruffle some feathers in this time of climate change and global warming, starring man-made carbon dioxide as the devil.
The paper, rejected in peer review, was never published by Science. Livingston said he’s OK with the rejection.
“I accept what the reviewers said,” Livingston said. “‘If you are going to make such statement, you had better have strong evidence.’ ”
Livingston said their projections were based on observations of a trend in decreasingly powerful sunspots but reviewers felt it was merely a statistical argument.
He is aware that some opponents of the prevailing position that climate change and global warming are the result of manmade activity — greenhouse gas, specifically carbon dioxide, buildup — are very much interested in the idea that changes might be related to solar activity.
“But it has not been proven yet,” cautioned Livingston, an astronomer emeritus who still works out of an office at the National Optical Astronomy Observatory headquarters building on the University of Arizona campus.
“We may have to wait. We may be wrong. (But) the sun is going to entertain us one way or another,” he said.
It’s not just a scientific curiosity. There’s a lot at stake in predicting whether sunspot cycles are going to be tame or wild, said Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory.
The powerful blasts of radiation that come from solar activity can fry electronic equipment on Earth; particularly vulnerable are satellites.
The high-energy radiation produced by solar flares travels at near the speed of light, getting to Earth in just minutes.
But the magnetic effects of a solar flare can take between two and three days to reach Earth, said Penn, a solar scientist.
In the 1800s, magnetic blasts from intense solar activity induced currents in telegraph lines in the U.S. and Italy, starting fires and damaging equipment. Later, it was learned that solar activity affected radio transmission.
It can also affect the electrical-power grid. A solar tantrum in 1989 blew transformers and caused a blackout in Canada. And a number of satellites are thought to have failed from exposure to high-energy blasts from solar activity.
Satellite operators can turn them away or shut down vulnerable equipment aboard, and astronauts can use shielding to avoid those blasts.
If Cycle 24 is the big cycle predicted, Penn said, “it’s likely we’ll have geomagnetic storms with a lot of sunspots, a lot of flares on the sun.”
Penn said even so-called “quiet sun” periods are far from boring because the sun’s “surface consists of Texas-sized hot gas bubbles, which rise upward at a speed of about a mile per second. The gas cools and falls downward in narrower channels at about the same speed. That’s what we call the ‘quiet sun.'”
“As we get more into the space environment with satellites, GPS and communication satellites, it means money. People who are about to launch new communication satellites really want to know how much shielding to put on their satellites.
“But shielding amounts to weight, which is money. If they want them to last through (an intense cycle), they’re going to want to protect them more, and that will cost them more.”
Penn is the telescope scientist on the McMath-Pierce solar telescope, the strange angular white thing amid all the white and silver-domed things atop Kitt Peak. Specifically, Penn works with an instrument that “sees” in the infrared range to provide information about magnetic activity.
Sometimes, sunspot activity is more than theory or data to him.
Several years ago, he was making an early-morning run from Tucson up to Kitt Peak to do some solar observing. He noticed his gas gauge was dangerously low and decided to stop for gas at the convenience store in Three Points.
It was about 5 a.m., and no one was there to take cash, so he tried to use his credit card to gas up. But the pay-at-the-pump system was down.
Crossing his fingers and driving up the mountain, Penn said he hoped he’d have enough gas after work to make it back to the station on the way home.
When he got to work, he learned that “a communications satellite had been damaged by (a solar flare). Lots of communications were dropped that morning, and my credit-card pay-at-the-pump attempt was one of them.”
Though Aimee Norton appreciates the practical benefits of being able to predict the sun’s activity, solving some of the star’s mysteries that relate to the big picture are more compelling. Norton is a program scientist on the solar observatory’s SOLIS (Synoptic Optical Long-term Investigations of the Sun) facility at Kitt Peak.
“Part of what we’re trying to understand is how the magnetic field regulates or moderates the energy that is transported in the atmosphere,” Norton said. “Because one of the mysteries of the sun is, it’s hotter in the upper atmosphere than (at the surface). So there is energy being transported. Some people think the magnetic field is somehow magically getting that energy out there.”
Norton said she’s hoping for a powerful cycle, noting, “It would give us more things to do research with — either that or no cycle at all, which would be similar to the Maunder Minimum.”
She said she figures there’s little chance of a completely dead cycle but added, “Wouldn’t that be fascinating if the solar system managed to offset our contribution?”
Because you can’t go
–Visit Solar Cycle 24: www.solarcycle24.com/
–Mr. Sunspot’s Answer Book: http://eo.nso.edu/MrSunspot/answerbook/polarity.html
–NASA’s Solar Physics: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/whysolar.shtml
–Solar storms: www.solarstorms.org
–National Solar Observatory’s Solis solar telescope (Synoptic Optical Long-term Investigations of the Sun): http://solis.nso.edu
–For more information on sunspots: http://spaceweather.com or http://science.nasa.gov
–For a list of sometimes spectacular sunspot-induced problems: http://sw.astron.kharkov.ua/swimpacts.html
In the past 12 years, I have been involved, sometimes as a parent, more often as an educator, in 12 school districts located throughout Oregon. I hold credentials in Oregon that stipulate I am highly qualified to teach all subjects at grade level through the 9th grade in self-contained classrooms for students on IEP’s. Most of my time has been spent teaching middle school kids with behavior issues in self-contained classrooms. These kids were (and are) by and large bright and able to digest scientific subjects. I use a standard science curriculum designed for easily frustrated students that follows the mandated science scope and sequence. Not once was global warming mentioned in the text. I have also used standard science textbooks at the middle school level and again, not once was global warming mentioned.
I also am familiar with research that shows that when compared with matched subjects across programs for typical learners, private schools and home schooling is no better or worse than public schools. Except in one area. Public school students on IEP’s score higher on standard state benchmark tests than students on IEP’s who are schooled in these other environments.
So again, show me your data. Don’t just say what your philosophy is. I want hard data that says that man-made global warming mentality is the fault of public schools. Otherwise I might be lead to believe that people who say such things are easy targets for other poorly thought out statements, such as what we see and hear in the media these days.
Three of those years were spent developing a self-contained program that received middle school students (and two 5th graders) from 5 surrounding districts (from as far away as the coast and all the way to a suburb of Portland) that were unable to provide the specialized programming for these difficult to teach and reach students. Just a clarification as to why I have been involved in so many districts in 12 years.
Henrik Svensmark has a theory that cloud formation is caused by comic rays, and during periods of low solar wind clouds will cause the earth to cool. During times of high solar wind, lack of clouds will cause the earth to heat up.
<a href=”http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark”Discover Magazine
And what if the AGW came on top of Solar Forcing? It would mean that this minima (and I do believe it’s the real deal) is the biggest break handed to mankind since the retreat of the Ice Age.
Why it would have to be total AGW or zero AGW with so little data is beyond reason. We do not know this for a fact either way, but one day we surely shall.
Right now the noise of the background is stronger than dirt and we count sunzits in a pool of clearasil.
I can also hazard a reasonable guess as to why AGW is being taught: It’s profitable to program the children towards alteranate energy and its less than cheap energy throughput in light of finite and dwindling oil, and to do that ahead of time.
Human society can adapt to slow changes, but they fail miserably when cut off cold turkey.
Talking about disappointing … What about the (lack of) hurricanes?
I hear no one discussing how few the number of hurricanes, and of lower force, there were this year, dispite global warming,
To no one in particular
lean2000_irradiance.txt
The title gives us a clue Lean and 2000 relating to irradiance. The graph itself does not particularly identify authorship, date time, version, nor linkage to source or updates. It seems so easy to cite a source and then a whole elaborate thought process built on that particular ‘fact’ is built. The fact changes yet without the linkage to the source it makes it very difficult without ‘knowing’ that the facts have changed. Further even why the facts have changed. To me a minor outside viewer I cannot imagine how rational scientific progress is made. Temperature, sunspots, TSI, solar wind, ocean temperatures, ice extent or area all seem to be incredibly dynamic. The opinions of same are beyond dynamic. I understand how to button down data on a local scale, I have no idea how to gain control of data beyond that. I do not see even the local scale being handled with the Kindergarten requirements of name and date. Or the journalistic approach Who, What, Where, Why and When.
I typically throw in a version number on to of those simple requirements. It seems to be a free for all.
A warm planet is a happy planet 🙂
Come on. Someone organise the bumper stickers, please. I can’t do all the work :^)
Interesting that Livingston an astronomer gets it right 2 years before the event.
Plus… small growth in TSI is one thing, but how do cycle lengths compound or takeaway temp effects, compare lots of short active cycles compared with not so active longer cycles that dwell longer in the cool zone?
Paul Benkovitz (17:51:59) :
Henrik Svensmark has a theory that cloud formation is caused by comic rays, and during periods of low solar wind clouds will cause the earth to cool. During times of high solar wind, lack of clouds will cause the earth to heat up.
Irrespective of the solar wind, the cosmic ray flux now is not higher than it always is at every [second] solar minimum [there is a reason it is a bit higher in 2008, 1986, and 1965, than in 1996, 1976, and 1954]. Here is a plot of the GCR flux for two stations [Moscow and Oulu] http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRaysNow.pdf
Note that at any rate the GCR variations are only a few per cent.
OT here, but good posting by the Climate Skeptic as to why Kyoto Protocol drafters (1997) chose 1990 as a baseline. It was not by accident, nor for any scientific reason. It was done on purpose. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/10/why-kyoto-used.html and another posting has this fantastic graph http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/25/hansen_forecast_1988.jpg
hyonmin (18:17:50) :
lean2000_irradiance.txt
The title gives us a clue Lean and 2000 relating to irradiance. The graph itself does not particularly identify authorship, date time, version, nor linkage to source or updates.
Lean, J. 2000.
Evolution of the Sun’s Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum.
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp. 2425-2428,
Aug. 15, 2000.
The reconstruction has two components:
1) a part proportional to the Group Sunspot Number GSN
2) a long-term background which is assumed to follow the 15-year running mean of GSN.
The 1st part suffers from the very real possibility that the GSN was assessed too low in the past. This, of course, also feeds into the 2nd part, but. more importantly, the 2nd part was calibrated according to the range of variations of ‘sun-like’ stars. Later research has shown that these stars were not sun-like. but represent starts more evolved than the Sun. Recent research suggests that there is no or but little variation of the background.
As a fully qualified science teacher with a masters degree in biophysics, I can attest to the widespread global warming indoctrination in government funded schools. Al Gore’s film is shown in most science classes at least once a year in the region that I monitor. Other special materials are used liberally to propagate the unscientific and unsubstantiated climate models made famous by Mr. Gore and his hydraulic lift.
It is possible that what miss greys claims above is true of her experience, as she understands it, but it is not representative of the larger scheme of things in government schooling.
Leif
Thank you for the explanation. I was aware of your efforts to ‘standardize’ the sunspot numbers but it is easy to fall into the trap when looking at a nice pretty graph. I would have not guessed at the calibration issue. As always it takes much effort to make any progress.
hyonmin (20:33:26) :
but it is easy to fall into the trap when looking at a nice pretty graph.
I have a nice, pretty, and seductive graph too [even has Lean’s on it]:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf
Pamela Gray
I don’t know how it is in Oregon; but; here in Idaho it appears that AGW is being taught as fact in the schools. My son, who is a junior this year, came home after his ISAT (Idaho standardized tests) and said that he probably did not do well on the science portion because he refused to give the desired answers about AGW because it is only a poorly supported theory with many obvious flaws. It appears my wife and I at least taught him to be a critical thinker. I didn’t actually see the test; so, I’ll have to take his word for it.
‘but how do cycle lengths compound or takeaway temp effects, compare lots of short active cycles compared with not so active longer cycles that dwell longer in the cool zone?’
Just have a look at the data we do have: The longer cycles have a marked tendency (note I say tendency) to put a huge wallop on the intensity of the next cycle. And once that happens, by no rhyme or reason I can see in the data, this can go on for a long as it darned well pleases and then we are back to the familar bunches of shortened cycles.
I found an online course for the AGW, and I spruced it up for my own purposes, just to get a feel for what was going on.
Of course, now that the Sun has begun acting up the last 2 years, now I can observe the effects firsthand in my own neck of the woods, and prise experiences and observations out of people without their knowing what I am fishing for. People have noticed strange things, especially those who grow crops or raise animals.
The AGW is just as prone to misprediction as is the graphs we see being re-worked everytime the data goes haywire and refuses to agree with predictions.
Oh well, who said Nature was designed to agree with us?
As long as the liberal media push the AGW propaganda on the public, many people will go along with it. Every time a chunk of ice breaks loose somewhere in the world, it is shown as absolute proof that the Arctic or Antarctic is melting. Most people don’t have any contrary sources for news, so they tend to believe the morons on CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/etc. If you want to have a laugh, look up the science requirement for a journalism degree. There is none, generally. All it takes to be a reporter nowadays is an agenda.
Leif Svalgaard (14:34:29) :
Stephen Wilde (14:18:32) :
This is a good time at which to draw attention to my update about TSI and other solar changes since the points I make are relevant to this thread.
The graph of TSI you show is the old obsolete Lean reconstruction which she has long since abandoned. Judith Lean has not been ‘pressured’ to revise her graph. Most researchers [including Judith and me BTW – whom nobody can pressure] now agree that the total variation has not been anywhere near the 4 W/m2 you mention, but only of the order of 1 W/m2. So, any inferences drawn from the old Lean graph are simply not valid. If you want to combat AGW, doing it with invalid data just strengthens the AGW case. I believe we have been down that road before…
So we have, but whether the TSI variation is 4 W/m2 or 1 W/m2 the shape of the graph remains the same as per the selection of overlayed graphs you have also supplied.
Thus it is merely a matter of sensitivity as my article points out.
There are a lot of square metres comprising the surface of the Earth and a great deal more comprising the outer boundary of the atmosphere which is where the TSI measurement is taken. That translates into a substantial potential variation in total heat budget especially as now when the TSI level has dropped in a few years from 1367.5 W/m2 to 1365 W/m2 as at present. In the face of a change of that amount in a few years I have doubts about a suggestion that it has been stable to within 1 Wm2 for 400 years.
Solar cycle length is also relevant because more time at 1365 and less time at 1367.5 has an effect on total energy delivered in the cycle.
There are also aspects of solar influence other than raw TSI which might have climate effects out of proportion to variations in TSI and I have already put forward oceanic cycles as substantial influences suplementing or offsetting solar variations over time.
Note also that recent cooling is approximately coincident with a less active sun and earlier warming was approximately coincident with a more active sun.
I do not accept that solar variation can be ignored as a climate driver in the way it has been.
Leif,
I have a question on TSI adjustments. As I understand it, TSI measurments are calibrated to 1AU due to the elliptical orbit of earth. But since the Sun wobbles around, it will affect the true distance to the earth also, and this effect appears to be of the same order of magnitude as the variation due to the elliptical earth orbit. Is this effect handled in the TSI calibrations to 1AU ? I have been unable to figure that out from the SORCE reference you provided some time ago.
Solar cycle length is also relevant because more time at 1365 and less time at 1367.5 has an effect on total energy delivered in the cycle.
Whoops, that didn’t come out right.
I meant that cycle length would have an effect on total energy delivered during a cycle if the time spent at a low level of TSI outweighs the time spent at a higher level after taking into account the additional time over which the cycle’s energy was delivered
Leif just wants the mechanism specified. We may be getting close with the solar wind, the clouds, and the cosmic rays.
=============================================
What is the variation in albedo? Is anyone studying this?
Pamela Gray — I can only attest to these facts, that the recent high school graduates I have met are versed in the ways of ‘paper or plastic’, not real science and know very little physics, chemistry and mathematics.
Well, OK, maybe I would say reading omprehension may also be a little light, since few understand or have a working knowledge of even basic history.But texting, not spelling, seems fine, if you can understand the gibberish. Time wasting at the compute seems to take up a huge percentage of learning these days.
I only examine the end product, and I find it severely lacking.