From the UK Telegraph – source link
The protective bubble around the sun that helps to shield the Earth from harmful interstellar radiation is shrinking and getting weaker, NASA scientists have warned.
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 9:23AM BST 19 Oct 2008
New data has revealed that the heliosphere, the protective shield of energy that surrounds our solar system, has weakened by 25 per cent over the past decade and is now at it lowest level since the space race began 50 years ago.
Scientists are baffled at what could be causing the barrier to shrink in this way and are to launch mission to study the heliosphere.
The Interstellar Boundary Explorer, or IBEX, will be launched from an aircraft on Sunday on a Pegasus rocket into an orbit 150,000 miles above the Earth where it will “listen” for the shock wave that forms as our solar system meets the interstellar radiation.
Dr Nathan Schwadron, co-investigator on the IBEX mission at Boston University, said: “The interstellar medium, which is part of the galaxy as a whole, is actually quite a harsh environment. There is a very high energy galactic radiation that is dangerous to living things.
“Around 90 per cent of the galactic cosmic radiation is deflected by our heliosphere, so the boundary protects us from this harsh galactic environment.”
The heliosphere is created by the solar wind, a combination of electrically charged particles and magnetic fields that emanate a more than a million miles an hour from the sun, meet the intergalactic gas that fills the gaps in space between solar systems.
At the boundary where they meet a shock wave is formed that deflects interstellar radiation around the solar system as it travels through the galaxy.
The scientists hope the IBEX mission will allow them to gain a better understanding of what happens at this boundary and help them predict what protection it will offer in the future.
Without the heliosphere the harmful intergalactic cosmic radiation would make life on Earth almost impossible by destroying DNA and making the climate uninhabitable.
Measurements made by the Ulysses deep space probe, which was launched in 1990 to orbit the sun, have shown that the pressure created inside the heliosphere by the solar wind has been decreasing.
Dr David McComas, principal investigator on the IBEX mission, said: “It is a fascinating interaction that our sun has with the galaxy surrounding us. This million mile an hour wind inflates this protective bubble that keeps us safe from intergalactic cosmic rays.
“With less pressure on the inside, the interaction at the boundaries becomes weaker and the heliosphere as a whole gets smaller.”
If the heliosphere continues to weaken, scientists fear that the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the inner parts of our solar system, including Earth, will increase.
This could result in growing levels of disruption to electrical equipment, damage satellites and potentially even harm life on Earth.
But Dr McComas added that it was still unclear exactly what would happen if the heliosphere continued to weaken or what even what the timescale for changes in the heliosphere are.
He said: “There is no imminent danger, but it is hard to know what the future holds. Certainly if the solar wind pressure was to continue to go down and the heliosphere were to almost evaporate then we would be in this sea of galactic cosmic rays. That could have some large effects.
“It is likely that there are natural variations in solar wind pressure and over time it will either stabilise or start going back up.”
(hat tip to Dvid Gladstone)
Man, when the Sun hit that snooze button the last time, I think it is sleeping through the rest of the alarms. I do that sometimes. Even the magnetogram is nearly blank.
I love the picture of the orange bubbly Sun. I wish we could post a short video of the current Sun. It would be fun to watch it boil.
lgl (05:45:59) :
This is where I’m falling off the space station. This ever changing direction of the sun’s orbit means it will feel acceleration.
The space station is not moving in a straight line, so is changing direction, thus, accelerated, all the time, too.
lgl (05:45:59) :
“This is where I’m falling off the space station. This ever changing direction of the sun’s orbit means it will feel acceleration.”
The space station is not moving in a straight line, so is changing direction, thus, accelerated, all the time, too.
The poor guy and his dog in a free-falling elevator with a cut cable are also accelerating all the time [at least until they hit the bottom]. The point is that acceleration per se is not the important issue. To create ‘turbulence’ and other havoc inside the Sun [creating or modulating solar activity] you need to have differences in acceleration. Like if the guys feet would accelerate faster than his head. That would be a major problem for him as he would be stretched thin, literally, but as long as all parts of him are accelerated the same way, he fells nothing. Same thing with the Sun, thus no sunspots as the result of the Sun’s motion.
Leif
But that’s not the same thing. The Earth’s gravitation is the only force acting on the space station and it’s constant, always perpendicular to the motion. The sun is pulled by the galaxy in the same way but in addition there is a varying force from the planets dragging it all over the place (right, only a couple of sun diameters, you don’t have to say it 🙂 How can that be free fall? It’s orbit is not smooth like the space station’s orbit.
lgl (08:41:55) :
How can that be free fall? It’s orbit is not smooth like the space station’s orbit.
Free fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity [google ‘free fall’]. And the orbit is a lot smoother than the space station’s [seen from e.g. the barycenter or the Sun, just try to imagine what the orbit on the Simulator ‘window’ would look like]. But that is not the point. The point is that all particles of the Sun partake equally in whatever motion the Sun has, so there is no ‘turbulence’ or other havoc created. For that to happen you would have that different parts of the Sun would be pulled differently by the planets. [They are. They are raising ‘tides’ and the tide raised by Jupiter is 0.0005 meter high – hardly of significance when you consider that in the ‘boiling’ motions of the Sun’s atmosphere, plasma rises and falls at speeds of 1000 to 2000 meter per second for 10 minutes on average].
Leif
I simply can not believe that all particles of the Sun partake equally in whatever motion the Sun has when it is wiggeling around it’s ‘average orbit’
but it’s ok with me to end the barycenter nonsense for now, thanks for your time. (and if free fall does not mean you will feel no forces, then I don’t know what free fall is).
Dr. Svalgaard
Looking trough
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20070216_NSSTC.ppt#32
I came across your prediction (from 2005) for SC24 as 75+-8. Have you since made any updating?
Two months ago on SC24.com
DrS: “spare us the details, what is the predicted sunspot number and when is maximum for SC24?”
MV: “Maximum predicted in 2012 (possibly the second half), peak amplitude 135 to 140”
Today I was reminded that in Jan 2004 I wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
(pages 2 and 3): An approximation for the overall amplitude’s envelope, for the period 1800-2000,
can be obtained by using sub-harmonics with periods of: P1 = 118 (as above) and P2 = 3 x 96.5 = 289.5 years and again T0 = 1941. The equation is:
Y= A [B + Cos (3pi /2 + 2pi (t-T0)/P1 + 0.5Cos 2pi (t-T0)/P2]
A=60 and B=2 are the normalising coefficients.
The above equation gives:
For 2012 max = 85; 2013 max = 82.
Since the old SC24.com is not active any more I would like to take this opportunity to correct my numbers.
That GCR and high energy protons peturb the ozonsphere is well described in the literature through various photochemical process is well understood (EG Paul Crutzen). The coupling with the surface and other atmospheric observations os also interesting.
Sensitivity of Surface Temperature and Atmospheric Temperature to Perturbations in the Stratospheric Concentration of Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide
V. Ramanathan, L.B. Callis, and R.E. Boughner
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Article: pp. 1092–1112
ABSTRACT
The present paper examines, with the aid of a radiative-convective model, the sensitivity of the globally-averaged surface temperature and atmospheric temperature to perturbations in the concentration of O3 and NO2 within the stratosphere. The analysis considers reductions in stratospheric O3 with and without a simultaneous increase in the stratospheric concentration of NO2. Ozone is reduced uniformly in a region between 12 and 40 km within the stratosphere. The ratio of the percentage change in NO2 to the percentage change in O3 is denoted by δ; three values of δ (0, −6 and −10) are considered.
For all the cases considered, it is shown that reducing stratosphere O3 cools the atmosphere and the surface. If the reduction in O3 is accompanied by a simultaneous increase in NO2, the increase in solar absorption by NO2 partially compensates for the reduction in solar absorption due to a decrease in stratospheric O3. Consequently, the decrease in atmospheric and surface temperatures is smaller for larger values of −δ. The results for the surface temperature changes depend on the adopted cloud model. The change in the surface temperature for the constant cloud-top temperature model is 1.6 times larger than that for the constant cloud-top altitude model.
The model also indicates that the surface temperature is sensitive to the vertical distribution of O3 within the atmosphere. Increasing (or decreasing) the altitude at which O3 density is maximum has a cooling (or warming) effect an the surface temperature. The consequences of O3 reduction to the latitudinal energy distribution are also discussed.
The results should be considered as reflecting the sensitivity of the present model rather than the sensitivity of the actual earth-atmosphere system. However, the present results should be indicative of the potential environmental consequences due to perturbations in the stratospheric concentrations of O3 and NO2.
Leif : Yet most people here seems to think that solar activity is on a downslope and thus confidently predict a cooling. So, what do they know [or blatantly just assume] that you don’t.
The sun has become a lot less active recently, and there is a time-lag. Looks like the temperature drop has started, and is likely to continue for a while regardless of what the sun does tomorrow, because of what the sun has done already. There is reasonable evidence of solar cycles which does suggest that the cooling could last for at least a couple of decades, but that would be more open to question.
Leif : I think here is where we part ways.
Maybe, but give it another shot. I have downloaded Landsheidt’s paper and will read it. Have you read Kirkby’s paper?
Leif : The ‘feedback’ [and I shall also use quotes – a sign that none of us know what they are] expected from a warmer world would be negative – more evaporation -> more clouds -> cooling, possibly countered by a positive feedback in that water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. In any event, no great temp changes is to be expected from a 0.1% change of TSI. And sure enough, it has been very hard to establish a solar cycle effect exceeding 0.1-0.2 degrees [and even that small effect is marginal].
1. The IPCC report has a very large positive feedback for clouds. See 8.6.3.2 where they up the ECS from 1.2 to 1.9 for water vapour and then to 3.2 for clouds. I think they are up the creek and so it seems do you.
2. The IPCC report in 1.4.3 states that the 11-year solar cycle can change global temperature by “several tenths of a degree centigrade”. That sounds like a bit more than your estimate.
[I am short on time today and haven’t double-checked the IPCC para #s]
correction : Landscheidt
The sun has become a lot less active recently, and there is a time-lag. Looks like the temperature drop has started
Global temperatures dropped in response to the recent La Nina. Unless La Nina makes a comeback global temperatures will gradually return to the background levels of the past decade or so. We’re currently in a “deep” solar minimum, so temperatures should be ~0.1 deg cooler than they might be otherwise.
There’s nothing, in any of the temperature observations (MSU or surface), to suggest that this particular solar cycle is having any more effect on global temperatures than previous cycles.
Keep watching John…..its just starting, this cycle could still go for a couple more years yet, followed by 2 much lower cycles. PDO and AMO cool and no el nino’s in sight.
On earth, when the tide rises 0.0005 meters, a heck of a lot of water has moved to do that. Why can’t that seemingly small tide on the surface of the sun represent a huge movement of mass, and hence, more effect than you may have imagined?
============================================
Leif – I misread your post – I thought you were recommending Landscheidt’s paper but it seems it was actually an example of what you disagree with. Please can you recommend a peer-reviewed paper that I should read.
I would still like you and JF to read Jasper Kirkby’s paper and see what you think.
JF said : Global temperatures dropped in response to the recent La Nina.
El Ninos and La Ninas are part of the natural cycle. No-one knows yet exactly how it all hangs together, but it’s probably no coincidence that the 20th century’s largest El Nino came at the end of the period of higher solar activity, and the recent La Nina came after solar activity had started dropping. It’s not 1:1 of course, but these things do go in phases/cycles.
What I am saying is that El Ninos and La Ninas – overall – are probably part of the ‘feedback’ that demonstrably makes the sun have more effect on climate than just its raw TSI. Cosmic rays and clouds are looking very likely to be part of the overall pattern. The Kirkby paper explores some of this, and a recent paper by Roy Spencer looked at the cloud-PDO connection. I’ll have to do more work on the PDO-ENSO connection (if any).
Leif, you said earlier : What bothers [the hell out of] me is that invariably the belief/denial of AGW is woven in with the totally separately and unconnected problem of sun-climate relations.
This I find hard to accept. The AGWers have to deny that the sun has much effect on climate, because their case collapses if it does (the sun was increasingly active through the 20thC). ANYONE interested in climate should surely be interested in the link with the sun, because it has been the major influence for so long. The idea that suddenly it has no effect is absurd.
kim (18:27:36) :
Why can’t that seemingly small tide on the surface of the sun represent a huge movement of mass, and hence, more effect than you may have imagined?
Because it also has to operate or work on an even larger [hugher?] mass, namely the Sun itself. At it will drown in the much much larger completely random boiling granulation where millions of Texas sized chunks of mass move vertically and horizontally something like at least 10,000,000 meter all the time. The 0.0005 meter does not seem to have much impact on such huge overturning movements. But if you can suggest a specific mechanism that nevertheless overcomes this huge difference in scale i’m all ears [as Ross Perot once said].
egrey (19:40:36) :
Please can you recommend a peer-reviewed paper that I should read.
paper on what? planetary influences? astrology?
I would still like you and JF to read Jasper Kirkby’s paper and see what you think.
I have read all of Henrik’s and Jasper’s papers [that I could lay my hand on – there might be some difficult to access internal reports that I couldn’t get to and don’t know about] from the very beginning. I do not find them convincing. Now, I might spend the several weeks it would take to do justice to that corpus and produce a paper on it, and I might do that if there were even the smallest chance that I could convince even ONE enthusiast to agree with me. My experience with human nature tells me, though, that it would be completely futile, so I won’t bother. [I might do it anyway, if I can find the time, but it not on my ever-growing list of things to do]
but it’s probably no coincidence that the 20th century’s largest El Nino came at the end of the period of higher solar activity, and the recent La Nina came after solar activity had started dropping.
Unless you can somehow quantify the probabilities you cannot say that it is ‘probably no coincidence that …’. You can say that you believe that it is no coincidence, but that is quite a different story. There was an even bigger cycle in the 1950s and an even bigger drop in the 1960s. Where were the even bigger Nino/Nina then? Or do you invoke a 40-year lag?
Roy Spencer looked at the cloud-PDO connection. I’ll have to do more work on the PDO-ENSO connection (if any).
But that does not seem to have anything to do with the Sun per se. I have read Spencer’s papers [and book] and I failed to see where he invoked the Sun as the causative link between PDO and clouds [I could have missed it, so tell me where].
The AGWers have to deny that the sun has much effect on climate, because their case collapses if it does (the sun was increasingly active through the 20thC).
But such denial is not science because the reason for the denial is fear of collapse rather than the result of observations/calculations/models/etc/
ANYONE interested in climate should surely be interested in the link with the sun, because it has been the major influence for so long. The idea that suddenly it has no effect is absurd.
ANYONE interested in climate should surely be interested in if there is a link with the sun. But it has not been shown that solar has been the major influence for so long. Rather, the evidence [such as there is] is very weak. There are good reasons [and I have referred to this repeatedly] that recent solar activity has been overestimated [e.g. the counting of ‘Tiny Tims’ that has been discussed elsewhere in the blog]. There is good evidence that the sunspot number in the 1850-1870s was not different than in 1980-present, yet the temperatures during those periods are markedly different [unless you argue that the temperature curves are just garbage, but if you do that you cannot claim any meaningful correlation anyway].
Indeed, ‘the idea that suddenly the effects from like solar activity would be so different is absurd’, if the Sun were the primary driver. If you claim the effect of the ‘primary driver’ depends on other things, then the primary driver(s) must be sought among those other things.
My point is that we should not move from ‘the science is settled, it’s CO2, stupid!’ to ‘the science is settled, it’s the Sun, stupid!’ Both are equally dogmatic and unsuitable for policy making.
The duality of the behavior of light might have some effect if both the Sun and AGW acted in concert. Something has to cause long-term changes or we are left to conclude that they simply do not exist. (i.e. – as the Earth cools the Sun continues up the Main Sequence and it’s all in equilibrium).
If satellites were actively measuring the amount of reflection (albedo) at all wavelengths by day for the next several solar cycles as well as a few previous cycles in addition to measuring the escape of heat at night we might have something else to look at.
My point being:
If we are looking for explanations as to long term climate changes and are not finding what we want it is more probable that either we are looking in the wrong places than the right ones or that we aren’t yet looking at things in the right manner.
How many times has science come so close yet missed it by that much only to find out that someone almost got it 50 years ago but just yesterday it all made sense?
Good luck with the search.
Leif (00:01:55) The amount of mass moved by a tide of 0.0005 meters on the sun dwarfs anything the size of Texas. But a specific mechanism, I lack, though if acting, it may well be magnetic. Something modulates the sunspot activity during the minimums. What might that mechanism be?
=================================================
nobwainer (17:16:32) :
Thanks so much for providing the Solar Sim2, beautiful piece of software, I will use it often.
Thanks for that, glad it could be of some use. Use it with wisdom! 🙂
kim (04:21:04) :
The amount of mass moved by a tide of 0.0005 meters on the sun dwarfs anything the size of Texas.
Except that there are millions of these at any given time all heaving at 1000-2000 meter per second.
kim (04:21:04) :
The amount of mass moved by a tide of 0.0005 meters on the sun dwarfs anything the size of Texas.
“Except that there are millions of these at any given time all heaving at 1000-2000 meter per second”
And these cells penetrate to a depth of 200,000,000 meters…
Leif (05:02:04) Yes, and their net movement is zero, which is less than the net movement of the tidal mass.
=======================================
Analogously, you might tell me that ocean waves have a height of several feet, but the tide is an inch. You cannnot tell me that the ocean wave has moved more mass than the tide.
=========================================
Mr. Bateman
I noticed that dip in the global temperature around 1860,1915 and 1969 coincided with changeover in the North-South sunspot number excess (for the relevant cycles 10, 14 and 20 the monthly peak was at least 20% lower than in the neighbouring cycles on either side).
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/MaunderN-S-excess.gif