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
Leif (06:36:07) Why do you and Pete get different results when you integrate?
=============================================
Leif
Thanks for the pretty graph. I cannot quite make out what is happening on the far right, but I guess time will tell. How is the TSI calculated for the period of ~1640 to ~1720.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (07:20:28) :
I have a hard time convincing myself that you are right, but I am trying. As far as I can tell, the logical conclusion from this is that it is theoretically impossible to detect extrasolar planets by observing their host star wobbling?
Of course not. Take the case of the double star again. We can observe both stars move against the background of distant stars because we have a reference point outside the system [the distant stars]. Viewed from one of the stars the barycenter will move, always following the other star around [being just in front of it, halfway out]. If you shrunk the other star to planet size, things will stay the same, except the barycenter would move closer to the first star; it will still move around just in front of the planet. Since both bodies are in free fall, they feel no forces resulting from their motion, no matter where the barycenter is.
Now, let’s return to the solar system. You said:
“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.”
This is key to your misunderstanding of this. Both the Sun and the Earth wobble in the same way and therefore their mutual distance is unaffected by their wobbling. Note that this is an observed fact, irrespective of anybody’s perception of what it should be. Similarly, every particle of the sun wobbles in concert with all the other ones, so no great plasma flows or disruptions occur.
And it should be clear that if the wobble were of the same magnitude as the orbital eccentricity it would greatly have interfered with Kepler’s work.
I think I have explained this [in several different ways] a dozen times at least, and yet, I still have to see anybody say: “aha, I see!”. It seems that the barycenter rot is just too deep to eradicate.
All the constituent bodies of the Solar System create a complex gravitational field around the Sun, or expressed in terms of General Relativity, create a complex system of curvature of space. They all move on geodesics guided by the curvature, feeling no forces [as a man in a falling elevator or an astronaut in orbit does not]. At any given time you can calculate where the barycenter is [as the sum of the distances weighted by the masses, divided by the sum of the masses]. The barycenter will move around as the bodies do, and a distant body approaching the Solar System would calculate the combined gravitational force of the System to be the same as that of a point mass placed at the barycenter. So, the barycenter is a very useful computational device.
kim (07:46:32) :
Why do you and Pete get different results when you integrate?
I have forgotten what Pete did. He did several different things. It is easy for anybody to integrate yourself using
http://www.leif.org/research/Corrected%20%SSN%and%TSI.xls
Select a solar cycle;s worth from the TSI column and look at the bottom of the Excel worksheet. It will show you the sum, then select the next cycle, etc.
I just did it this morning, took 10 minutes.
Steve Keohane (07:43:38) :
temperature plots of the NH and SH between equinoxes should show the effects of that much energy by the SH getting its summer closest to the sun and winter farthest vs. NH having less seasonal shift between those seasons (summer farthest/winter closest). I can’t find such plots at NASA or UAH. Can anyone show this?
This effect is easily seen if you do it right. However, all the climate people work with anomalies only where there subtract the average monthly values from the data. This, of courses, removes any seasonal differences.
hyonmin (08:22:20) :
Thanks for the pretty graph. I cannot quite make out what is happening on the far right, but I guess time will tell. How is the TSI calculated for the period of ~1640 to ~1720.
We know from the past three solar cycles how many W/m2 one sunspot gives. You can make a rough calculation like this: variation of TSI over a [large] cycle 1.0 W/m2, size of a [large] sunspot cycle 150 ‘spots’, thus 0.007 W/m2/spot. Or you can do it by fancy cross-correlation with all the trimmings. You get the same result. Now, people that do TSI-reconstruction basically end up with a rather simple formula: TSI = TSI(no field) + TSI(background) + TSI(‘spots’). The latter is really the sum of ‘facular brightening’ and ‘sunspot darkening’ and you can model that in gory details, but the end result is very close to something that simply scales with the sunspot number, so TSI = TSI(no field) + TSI(background) + 0.01 SSN. Now, a decade ago it was thought that the ‘background’ was significant. For example Lean [2000] estimated it from a 15-year running mean of the SSN. Current thinking is that the ‘background’ is close to zero, so: TSI = TSI(no field) + 0.01 SSN. The TSI(no field) is the TSI you would have if there were no magnetic fields on the Sun. As far as we know that is constant and I set it to 1365.6 to match TSI at solar minimum when there are no spots. So, TSI = 1365.6 + 0.007 SSN. Now, SSN for 1630-1740 are very uncertain, so TSI is also.
the 0.01 SSN should be 0.007 SSN
Plans for indoctrination of children in public schools are in place and well described on the websites of Obama and his chief educational adviser, William Ayers. Check them out and Google Wiliam Ayers for links to his “research”.
Leif
Thank you for the education. I further understand your position. Yet it seems that there is a strong connection, but very elusive when it seems to be happening before ones eyes but such weak measured differences. Not simple by any measure.
Leif,
If I had known about Leif 2007 at the time I would have used it.
It shows much the same pattern of changes as Lean 2000 but restricts the variation to 1 W/m2 instead of 4.
That is irrelevant to my point except in that it requires a greater degree of climate sensitivity. The essential point of my article and the update remain true subject to climate sensitivity to solar changes.
Since it is obvious to me (if not certain others) that there is a degree of temperature correlation it follows that sufficient sensitivity is likely to exist and my article remains valid.
My update article deals with the issues you have raised perfectly openly and adequately.
Leif Svalgaard (08:29:03) :
Observe that in this context I am concerned with the distance to the Sun as a function of time only, relating to understanding of TSI calibration.
Now, let’s return to the solar system. You said:
“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.”
This is key to your misunderstanding of this. Both the Sun and the Earth wobble in the same way and therefore their mutual distance is unaffected by their wobbling.
Ok, I hear you say this. I also hear the argument that the TSI measurment varies in a way that is said to be consistent with this explanation. That is obviously a strong argument. But I do have difficulty accepting “Both the Sun and the Earth wobble in the same way”, because it implies a shift in the resulting solar system centre of mass that somehow must be compensated for. As seen from far above, the barycenter will stay fixed against the background stars.
Note that this is an observed fact, irrespective of anybody’s perception of what it should be. Similarly, every particle of the sun wobbles in concert with all the other ones, so no great plasma flows or disruptions occur.
As noted above, I am not talking about plasma flows or other disruptions here.
And it should be clear that if the wobble were of the same magnitude as the orbital eccentricity it would greatly have interfered with Kepler’s work.
I computed this graph earlier. You will probably call it incorrect, but it was my basis for saying the order of magnitudes were the same.
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/true_earth_sun_distance_1975_2020.gif
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:11:33(:
I can’t figure out what our point is. The ‘barycenter’ crowd claims that great forces result with plasma flows causing solar activity. So, it seems that you are not on that wagon.
The Earth’s contribution to the barycenter motion is minuscule hence the same wobble.
The distance to the Sun can be measured in many ways: the diameter of the Sun, radar ranging to the planets [check on Earth’s orbit], interplanetary probes, and TSI. No matter which measure, the result is always the same, namely that controlled by eccentricity only [ignoring the very small secular changes]. So, even, if you refuse to accept the theory, the observations are clear. You calculate the red curve by adding the Sun’s orbit around the barycenter. Can you add the Earth’s orbit around the barycenter too?
Leif,
As regards those named scientists including yourself who do not recognise a solar/temperature correlation I suspect that is because they have so far been unable to reproduce it from any known combination of factors.
Nevertheless it stares out from the charts and the historical records, even Leif 2007.
I recommend that they all start investigating the issue again but this time using my idea of a netted out effect from all the oceanic oscillations at any given time in combination with solar cycles.
That has never been tried because only recently have we discovered the existence of such oscillations in oceans other than the Pacific. At this point we cannot even measure or quantify the effects adequately so any investigation can be in general terms only.
That is a useful area ripe for investigation and should not be dismissed in a cavalier fashion.
Stephen Wilde (10:09:05) :
It shows much the same pattern of changes as Lean 2000
It seems that I can’t get you off the idea that the patterns are the same. Even though TSI for 1614, 1788, and 1958 are the same in Leif2007, but shows a significant increasing trend in Lean2000. If that is what you call the ‘same’, well, then you better tell your readers about your definition of ‘same’.
Let me run this thought by you:
TSI has several components. The one that varies with the solar cycle is actually the sum of two components: facular brightening and sunspot darkening. The facular brightening is caused by the broad magnetic fields surrounding the compact, and dark, spots. The brightening is about twice the darkening by spots, say +2 W/m2 with a darkening of -1 W/m2 for a total of +1 W/m2. Assume that Livingston and Penn are correct that the sunspot contrast is decreasing, possibly to the point of making the spots invisible, then the -1 W/m2 darkening would disappear. We know from cosmic rays that the magnetic field of the solar activity did not go away during the Maunder Minimum, so the facular brightening would still be there, maybe a bit weaker [the magnetic field field would be about half according to L&P], say half of the +2 w/m2, that is +1 W/m2 so TSI even during the Maunder Minimum would still show the familiar 1 W/m2 solar cycle variation, but now throughout the 400 year span. What would that do to your argument?
Stephen Wilde (10:31:04) :
At this point we cannot even measure or quantify the effects adequately so any investigation can be in general terms only.
If it cannot be quantified it cannot be studied seriously.
That is a useful area ripe for investigation and should not be dismissed in a cavalier fashion.
And nobody is being cavalier about anything. Hard-nosed, perhaps, because the public deserves a critical analysis. There are enough vague and unsubstantiated and ‘maybe’ claims out there, and no need to add another. I have spent a good part of my life studying claims of sun-weather-climate relations and even made some myself [back in the 1970s – I think Brian Tinsley is still keeping one of my claims alive].
Judging from the comments on this blog I’m even a minority. Most commenters here are Sun-Climate adherents, a good fraction even barycenter adherents, thus linking climate to planetary movements eminently predictable millions of year forward and backward in time [certainly beats the AGW crowd’s crummy models – just crank up your orrery 🙂 ]
I try [mostly in vain] to inject a bit of sanity and reason [as I see it – of course].
Leif Svalgaard (18:44:56) :
“Irrespective of the solar wind, the cosmic ray flux now is not higher than it always is at every [second] solar minimum…”
It seems to be a bit higher at the moment than I’ve seen it so far this minimum…
the Moscow neutron monitor showing peaks of +2% from about 28 Sept through 1 Oct
http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/COSRAY/MAIN.htm
and Oulu with an intraday spike up to +4% today.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi
Since I’ve been looking at it (albeit infrequently) this minimum, these are the highest numbers I’ve seen.
Leif Svalgaard (10:29:25) :
The distance to the Sun can be measured in many ways: the diameter of the Sun, radar ranging to the planets [check on Earth’s orbit], interplanetary probes, and TSI. No matter which measure, the result is always the same, namely that controlled by eccentricity only [ignoring the very small secular changes]. So, even, if you refuse to accept the theory, the observations are clear. You calculate the red curve by adding the Sun’s orbit around the barycenter. Can you add the Earth’s orbit around the barycenter too?
I accept that alternative measurements of the Sun-Earth distance should settle the issue. I don’t know of any good way to directly measure the distance to the Sun that would be accurate to significantly less than a solar diameter, but maybe such a method exists? Radar ranging to the other planets seems unconvincing.
About your question: The Earths orbit around the barycenter is included, because that is what the Earth is orbiting, just like the other objects of our N-body solar system.
Here is how I did the calculation. All the planetary positions (Mercury to Pluto) were computed according to the theories of Jean Meeus http://www.willbell.com/MATH/mc1.htm
Using the obtained positions of the planets and the known masses of the Sun and planets, the position of the Sun is easily computed. It creates the rather involved orbit we have seen.
Assuming my interpretation and calculation of the Sun-Earth distance would be correct, the TSI adjustments performed would have to follow the red curve in the graph I posted earlier, not just the blue one (from the elliptic orbit) as it is apparently done today.
Ok, we can end it here. I accept your statement that measurements show that TSI varies with extreme accuracy according to the elliptic orbit of Earth. But theoretically it does not make sense to me…
John-X (14:29:08) :
“Irrespective of the solar wind, the cosmic ray flux now is not higher than it always is at every [second] solar minimum…”
The individual numbers from day to day have little meaning as the cosmic rays traverse a very turbulent interplanetary medium. It only makes sense to compare averages over many days. Here are Moscow and Oulu for the last five minima:
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRaysNow.pdf
These data have been corrected for atmospheric pressure. The more air there is over the station, the fewer cosmic rays do you observe, but have not been corrected for the changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, so there can be small differences between stations. Within these small fluctuations there are no differences. It just like with climate: just because it was very warm today, does not mean that there is sudden run-away GW.
One little note of warning about Oulu: the percentages shown are always set such that zero percent is at the left edge of the graph, so if you look at a different time interval, the percentages change.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (15:32:52) :
TSI adjustments performed would have to follow the red curve in the graph I posted earlier, not just the blue one (from the elliptic orbit) as it is apparently done today.
There is a subtlety here. It is not about how to adjust. The observed values of TSI follow the blue curve, so we have no choice.
We can measure interplanetary distances very accurately, the
precise value of the AU is currently accepted as 149,597,870,691 ± 30 meter.
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
allows you to calculate the ephemeris for solar system bodies.
For the Sun, I select Jan 4 and Jul 4 as perihelion and aphelion dates [close enough for this], then for years 1996 and 2002 [when your graph shows maximal barycenter ‘effect’] we get the two distances:
1996: 0.9832231… 1.01671101… many more decimals given
2002: 0.9832958… 1.01667561…
These are the same to about 0.00005 AU or ~7500 km about 1% of a solar radius.
I don’t know what more to say.
I have yet to see any peer reviewed research to substantiate that the current policies that are being pushed by political advocates of AGW (such as cap and trade) was and is caused by a public education, or that a public education is “horrific”. And please, don’t tell me about interviews with some teens, or a question on a test. Besides, I can come right back at ya with this: There are states that allow test questions related to creationism but that doesn’t make it true or cause the children who read such test items to then go on and become raging creationists who would force creationism on the rest of us.
When I took the Oregon test that gives you that “highly qualified” status for self-contained k-9th, the science portion did not include any questions on CO2 related global warming. There was only one question related to the environment and that was in the essay section. Mine was about hill-side erosion due to logging on steep, wet terrain. Someone else may have gotten a different question. This statement means that there are as many anecdotal stories about the lack of evidence for CO2 indoctrination as there are stories for it.
Maybe we need a specific question to help us narrow down the correlation and possible cause and effect here: What percentage, on a year to year basis, of instructional science time is devoted to talking about, reading about, or doing things directly related to the supposed CO2 cause of global warming, and how has that percentage changed since CO2 global warming first entered into any discussion? If we can time-line the answer, we might be able to determine whether or not this theory, that public schools have been the direct cause of AGW, is scientifically valid or is just an argument over philosophical beliefs with little basis in fact.
Hi Leif
I thinks this is aha about the barycenter.
Like the dance of the timewarp in Rocky Horror.
It’s just a jump to the left, and then a step to the right.
The cast (Solar System) can’t see the dance because they are part it.
The audience (from another star) can see it because they are not performing the dance.
Slightly OT:
Pamela Gray,
As it happens, Just today I happened upon a printed copy of the below linked web page for distribution in a science class at the #3 or #4 high school in California (by testing). I don’t know if this material is part of the officially tested curriculum, but it certainly is being taught. I’m sure it’s only a coincidence that this school is 1/2 a mile from JPL. 🙂
Anyone want to refute or clarify the points made (with references)? I might be able to get the rebuttal distributed as well?
The source (right from the Goracle himself, of course):
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
Here’s the copy if you don’t want to follow the link:
WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING?
Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence.1 The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.2
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.3
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.4
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.5
If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years — to 300,000 people a year.6
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.7
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.8
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.9
There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big differences in helping to stop global warming. The time to come together to solve this problem is now – TAKE ACTION
1 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming “is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin” and “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate.”
2 Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.
3 World Health Organization
4 Krabill, W., E. Hanna, P. Huybrechts, W. Abdalati, J. Cappelen, B. Csatho, E. Frefick, S. Manizade, C. Martin, J, Sonntag, R. Swift, R. Thomas and J. Yungel. 2004. Greenland Ice Sheet: Increased coastal thinning. Geophysical Research Letters 31.
5 Nature.
6 World Health Organization
7 Washington Post, “Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change,” Juliet Eilperin, January 29, 2006, Page A1.
8 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Also quoted in Time Magazine, Vicious Cycles, Missy Adams, March 26, 2006.
9 Time Magazine, Feeling the Heat, David Bjerklie, March 26, 2006.
Fabulous stuff Leif, Stephen and Carsten….
Some interesting outcomes…Leif and others with their research showing TSI a small factor in any global temperature forcing (but the jury out on the cosmic ray/cloud theory). Wobbles agreed on but no evidence on the impact on Sol.
I have been researching the accuracy of the sunspot records pre 1920 and came across a paper by Usoskin & Mursula 2003 where they discuss a possible missing sunspot cycle around 1790. They talk about the possibility of solar phase catastrophes before the Dalton minimum and during the Maunder minimum that shuts down sunspot activity. I wonder if we will see that occurrence in the next cycle as we seem to be in the same relative position….if so expect a very low SC25.
If we do it will prove without doubt that Neptune/Uranus truly do rule the grand minima
nobwainer (03:40:53) :
Wobbles agreed on
No, see my answers to Carsten:
Leif Svalgaard (18:21:43) :
For the Sun, I select Jan 4 and Jul 4 as perihelion and aphelion dates [close enough for this], then for years 1996 and 2002 [when your graph shows maximal barycenter ‘effect’] we get the two distances:
1996: 0.9832231… 1.01671101… many more decimals given
2002: 0.9832958… 1.01667561…
These are the same to about 0.00005 AU or ~7500 km about 1% of a solar radius.
So, no wobble.
Leif….yeah but you said commenting on Carsten “Now, let’s return to the solar system. You said:(being Carsten)
“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.”
Leif says
“This is key to your misunderstanding of this. Both the Sun and the Earth wobble in the same way and therefore their mutual distance is unaffected by their wobbling. Note that this is an observed fact,”
So we all doing the wobbling thing….what matters is the next couple of years, all will be revealed i suspect