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)
kim (07:21:14) :
Yes, and their net movement is zero, which is less than the net movement of the tidal mass.
The net movement of tidal mass is also zero because the Sun’s mass is constant [on the time scale of interest]. But this is barking up the wrong tree. The tidal movements are minute, slow and large-scale and the movement from one area is very nearly the the same as that for another area far away, so will not create ‘turbulence’ or disruptions that lead to solar activity. What create effects are differences. What create violent weather are differences in temperature or in pressure. The whole issue is like the effect of an ant crawling across the oval track of a Stock Car Demolition Derby.
=======================================
25
10
2008
kim (07:39:19) :
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.
kim (07:39:19) :
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.
Is disingenuous, because ocean waves are a surface phenomenon while the solar convection zone extends 200,000,000 meters into the Sun. Had the ocean waves persisted to the equivalent depth of 1000 meters, they certainly move more mass than the one foot [not one inch] tides, so I guess I just told you.
Leif Svalgaard : You puzzle me a bit. I have re-read every post of yours on this thread, to try to work out just where you do stand on the issue of sun-climate link (or lack of). I ought to read some of your papers too, and will try to do so (time!). In going through some of your statements here, I would like to assure you that I am trying to be constructive, and not doing it for nit-picking.
On this board, perhaps your post 23/10 16:23:52 says most. no great temp changes is to be expected from a 0.1% change of TSI
I am sure that your thoughts can’t possibly have stopped at that level, so I find it a curious statement. The sun-climate link just isn’t going to be that simple or someone would have put it to bed years ago.
On 25/10 00:48:30 you said : 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
He didn’t. He was just researching the link between cloud changes and PDO.
Many things are intertwined. One researcher connects solar activity and GCRs, another connects GCRs and clouds, another connects clouds and PDO, and so on.
And these lines of research are non-trivial. For example, it certainly is the case that relatively small changes in global cloud cover can have a large effect on climate (IPCC Report 1.5.2 says An albedo decrease of only 1%, bringing the Earth’s albedo from 30% to 29%, would cause an increase in the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature of about 1°C, a highly significant value, roughly equivalent to the direct radiative effect of a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.)
23/10 16:23:52 you also said 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.
That seems a bit disingenuous to me. OK, if you are speaking as a pure scientist maybe it’s a reasonable statement. In pure science it would be enough to simply demonstrate that the IPCC got it (the effect of greenhouse gases) wrong, but unfortunately the debate long ago left the domain of pure science. Inevitably it has ranged into the consideration of alternatives, of which the sun-climate link appears to be the major one.
There are a couple of points of yours that I haven’t replied to yet but should deal with in time.
Finally, on 25/10 00:48:30 you said : 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.
I agree. Unfortunately the world’s news media and policy-makers do not.
According to two scientists from Russian Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FIAU%2FIAU2004_IAUS223%2FS1743921304007197a.pdf&code=dfadf43d763586d014e1b68b258da7cd
over the last 500 years TSI has been increasing at rate of 0.058W per decade. Are these figures verifiable?
Radun (06:02:57) :
According to two scientists from Russian Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics:
File not available. [S1743921304007197a.pdf].
over the last 500 years TSI has been increasing at rate of 0.058W per decade. Are these figures verifiable?
Would like to see the paper [not available], but the last 30 years of spacecraft measurements do not support such a systematic change [0.2 W/m2].
Sorry, the above link for TSI article should be:
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FIAU%2FIAU2004_IAUS223%2FS1743921304007197a.pdf&code=71b800b797677eaa9ea5e022a6df2e32
Leif, (11:45:03) You’ve only dealt with the flaw in my analogy, which I almost accounted for to begin with, but I finally decided you’d not deign to address it. What about the fact that the net movement of all your Texases is zero, and the net tidal movement on the sun is huge?
============================================
Leif (11:39:13) Ah, I see you’ve addressed the tidal movement. Does the ant on the speedway have butterfly wings to flap?
================================
egrey (23:43:19) :
Leif Svalgaard : You puzzle me a bit. I have re-read every post of yours on this thread, to try to work out just where you do stand on the issue of sun-climate link (or lack of).
Thank you for taking the trouble.
On this board, perhaps your post 23/10 16:23:52 says most. no great temp changes is to be expected from a 0.1% change of TSI
I am sure that your thoughts can’t possibly have stopped at that level, so I find it a curious statement. The sun-climate link just isn’t going to be that simple or someone would have put it to bed years ago.
Well, my thoughts did stop at that level. I have mentioned this several times: When Jack Eddy drew attention to the Maunder Minimum in the 1970s it was thought [Abbot’s measurements of ‘solar constant’] that the solar cycle variation of TSI was ten times as large [actually two schools of thought back then: 1-2% or 0%]. With such a large variation the connection with the LIA was reasonable. When it turns out that TSI varied ten times less, the TSI-LIA connection was observationally refuted. As simple as that: your theory predicts X, X does not happen, out goes your theory.
An albedo decrease of only 1%, bringing the Earth’s albedo from 30% to 29%, would cause an increase in the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature of about 1°C, a highly significant value
Don’t disagree, except that the albedo is not observed to vary as solar activity, so again an observational refutation.
23/10 16:23:52 you also said 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.
That seems a bit disingenuous to me. OK, if you are speaking as a pure scientist maybe it’s a reasonable statement. In pure science it would be enough to simply demonstrate that the IPCC got it (the effect of greenhouse gases) wrong, but unfortunately the debate long ago left the domain of pure science. Inevitably it has ranged into the consideration of alternatives, of which the sun-climate link appears to be the major one.
Since the link is already observationally refuted, the main reason for opponents of AGW to cling to it anyway is to have a major alternative to AGW, regardless, so they ignore the refutation, often excusing their stance with “but it so complex and intertwined that anything can happen”.
Finally, on 25/10 00:48:30 you said : 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.
I agree. Unfortunately the world’s news media and policy-makers do not.
This is partly because in opposing AGW, people use the observationally refuted solar-climate connection as a major argument, and when your main argument is flawed, no wonder you don’t make much headway. The AGW-crowd even use the solar connection against you: “the main natural cause is the Sun, but solar activity has been decreasing the last 20 years, while temps have not, ergo AGW”. You are giving them the ammo they need for this kind of nonsense.
kim (06:50:43) :
What about the fact that the net movement of all your Texases is zero, and the net tidal movement on the sun is huge?
The average [over some interval] of the Texases is not ZERO, but some number much smaller than 200,000,000, but still much larger than 0.0005. To calculate a measure of ‘movement’ maybe you should consider the Root-Mean-Square value of the two cases.
kim (06:58:20) :
Does the ant on the speedway have butterfly wings to flap?
There were, unfortunately ripped off in a close encounter with a 1948 Studebaker.
Leif Svalgaard (08:34:45) :
kim (06:50:43) :
What about the fact that the net movement of all your Texases is zero, and the net tidal movement on the sun is huge?
What is important are the energies involved. The tidal movements have a certain kinetic energy, and the convection has a certain kinetic energy. The ratio [T/C] between these is minuscule. The text line is almost not long enough to hold all the zeroes after the decimal point 🙂
Sorry about the link; it is a bit too long so it does not copy properly into the ‘comments’ box. If you enter in ‘Google’ :
Changes in solar irradiance in an 11-yr cycle and on a secular timescale
hopefully it will turn up; authors are: A.V. Mordvinov and N.G. Makarenko
However I think their graph is somewhat misleading, their TSI trend line should start from 1663W/m2.
Must clean the keyboard. That should be 1363W/m2
Radun (09:22:44) :
However I think their graph is somewhat misleading, their TSI trend line should start from 1363W/m2.
Yeah, one does not calculate trends based on single-point outliers. But, in any case, the trend is much too large because the TSI reconstructions are obsolete. Modern reconstructions [Lean, Krivova, Preminger, Svalgaard] show an insignificant trend [or none].
Leif
Since the link is already observationally refuted
How come nobody believe the ISCCP data? http://virakkraft.com/lowclouds.htm
(unfortunately they switched to a new dataset or something in oct 2002 so I have taken the liberty to adjust post-2002)
Leif (08:27:34) We are gathered here today, not to praise Studebakers, but to bury barycentrism.
I once remarked to a fella with a Studebaker T-shirt on that I understood that parts for old Studebakers were relatively easy to come by, and he laughed and told me that he had a whole hillside of old Studebakers.
===================================
lgl (11:35:09) :
“Since the link is already observationally refuted…”
How come nobody believe the ISCCP data?
But we do. As you can verify for yourself there is no solar cycle signal [as there is none in the albedo either]
kim (11:59:12) :
Leif (08:27:34) We are gathered here today, not to praise Studebakers, but to bury barycentrism.
It is like a zombie, burying it doesn’t help.
BTW, that ratio I talked about comes to about 1 in 400,000,000,000
Leif : OK, I think I understand you now – your whole thinking is driven by the idea that the solar-climate connection has been observationally refuted. Therefore you can dismiss any individual piece of evidence quite easily, until the whole case gets put together (which won’t happen if you are right).
My position is that the IPCC cherry-picked and were biased in their reports, that AGW is a significant multiple less significant than their estimates, and that the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers is a disgraceful document with a highly inadequate scientific basis, which risks science itself being brought into disrepute.
Cherry-picking example. TS.2.4 : the cosmic ray time series does not appear to correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994. Together with the lack of a proven physical mechanism and the plausibility of other causal factors affecting changes in cloud cover, this makes the association between galactic cosmic ray-induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation controversial. Dismissed, based on a short time period, and IMHO not the same standard as applied elsewhere when it suits them. I have questioned two “AGW” scientists on this issue, and the replies were the same “we didn’t understand the mechanism so we left it out“.
In the meantime, the evidence of a solar-climate link is already at least as strong as for AGW and – although I agree with you that the science still has a long way to go – should be brought into the open and investigated properly. As should all aspects of climate science.
egrey (17:48:21) :
Leif : OK, I think I understand you now – your whole thinking is driven by the idea that the solar-climate connection has been observationally refuted. Therefore you can dismiss any individual piece of evidence quite easily, until the whole case gets put together (which won’t happen if you are right).
I don’t think the refutation is an ‘idea’. And each new purported piece of ‘evidence’ should not be just dismissed, but evaluated on the spot to see it it passes. If not, then dismiss, or put on back-burner for now.
My position is that the IPCC cherry-picked and were biased in their reports[…]
Could very well be, but has no bearing on purported Sun-Climate relationships.
In the meantime, the evidence of a solar-climate link is already at least as strong as for AGW
Both are weakening as we speak. With small sample sizes and older technology one could formulate various hypotheses. As more, and better, data accumulates, it becomes harder and harder to defend ideas that are not right.
should be brought into the open and investigated properly.
Sun-Climate connection has been under scrutiny in the open for 400 years. To be investigated properly the link to AGW and dependence on AGW must be severed completely.
Leif 18:52:36 : Sun-Climate connection has been under scrutiny in the open for 400 years. To be investigated properly the link to AGW and dependence on AGW must be severed completely.
There is no link or dependence between them in my mind (or, as we have established, in the Roy Spencer paper (eg.)). I explained why IMHO the debate keeps mentioning both.
Scientists need to examine all climate hypotheses properly. That includes AGW, and sun/GCRs/clouds/etc.
The latter has not been eliminated. In an earlier post, you said “When Jack Eddy drew attention to the Maunder Minimum in the 1970s it was thought .. that the solar cycle variation of TSI was ten times as large … With such a large variation the connection with the LIA was reasonable. When it turns out that TSI varied ten times less, the TSI-LIA connection was observationally refuted. As simple as that: your theory predicts X, X does not happen, out goes your theory.”. Well, I would say that only that particular TSI-LIA theory was observationally refuted. To extend it to be a refutation of all solar-climate connection is plain wrong.
egrey (22:06:15) :
There is no link or dependence between them in my mind (or, as we have established, in the Roy Spencer paper (eg.)). I explained why IMHO the debate keeps mentioning both.
I expressed that badly. The ‘link’ is that AGW’ers need the Sun to explain variations at times before CO2. To wit: every time I mention the Sun, they complain how bad IPCC’s reports are.
Scientists need to examine all climate hypotheses properly. That includes AGW, and sun/GCRs/clouds/etc.
They do. It is the lay persons that don’t.
The latter has not been eliminated. […] Well, I would say that only that particular TSI-LIA theory was observationally refuted. To extend it to be a refutation of all solar-climate connection is plain wrong.
I don’t extend that. The refutation of the cosmic ray theory is that cosmic rays were assumed to influence clouds which in turn would change the albedo. Hence the albedo should vary as the sunspot cycle. Observations show it doesn’t, thus observational refutation.
I don’t know of any other viable sun-climate connections. It is true that there could be some we don’t know about and therefore cannot have refuted, but it would be a stretch to claim that we have strong evidence that ‘it’s the Sun’ in some way we don’t know about.
This is, of course, only my considered opinion. I wish that there were a solar connection and once thought that there was. With time, as more data and knowledge has accumulated, I have realized that I was wrong in that belief. Others will still have to follow their own way to enlightenment.
egrey (22:06:15) :
Scientists need to examine all climate hypotheses properly. That includes AGW, and sun/GCRs/clouds/etc.
The latter has not been eliminated.
Another observational refutation of the GCR hypothesis is that the Earth’s magnetic field has decreased 10% in the last 150 years. That means that GCRs should have increased over that time with a steady cooling as the result. Such cooling over the last 150 years has not been observed, most people would claim instead a significant warming.
egrey (22:06:15) :
GCRs/clouds/[…] The latter has not been eliminated.
GCRs were supposed to control the low clouds. Here is observational refutation of that idea:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif
The variation does not follow the [inverse] solar cycle/GCR flux.