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)
lgl (12:33:01) :
Is this all about the solar system’s orbit around the center of the galaxy?
And why limit this to the Galaxy?. Our Galaxy is a member of the ‘local group’ of 19 gravitationally bound galaxies, including the might Andromeda Galaxy. Just imagine what kind of turbulence that could stir up… And there are indications that the local group belongs to an even larger cluster, this gets worse and worse. I better go and reinforce the roof of my house before it is too late. 🙂
Good idea Leif, then we will probably see an even better match with the Maunder and Dalton and all 🙂
Why isn’t the sun affected by the change of it’s motion?
It also seems to be affected by the Earth-Moon system’s 13-gon orbit.
With the quiet sun the last year I can even see it in the weather where I live.
http://virakkraft.com/TSI-temp.jpg
Moon at perigee (blue dots in diagram) > TSI low > high max temp
(I guess it’s more accurate to say temp peaks 14 days after TSI peaks)
lgl (14:41:30) :
Why isn’t the sun affected by the change of it’s motion?
Because all particles of the Sun move the same way. Consider two particles on opposite sides of the Sun. It is the barycenter of these two [the center of the Sun] that orbits whatever barycenters are out there. For every other particle of the Sun, you can find its partner on the opposite side of the Sun, their barycenter is also the center of the Sun.
lgl (14:57:51) :
It also seems to be affected by the Earth-Moon system’s 13-gon orbit.
Start your plot 2007/01/01
The orbit around the barycenter is not my point. The sun changes course on it’s travel through the universe, it’s accelerated, which should have some consequences.
It’s been a few hours since the last post here, so I may be joining in just after the thread has died, but here goes anyway :
John Finn (02:15:04) asked :
A question often asked of AGWers is this. How much longer would global temps need to remain flat in order for the GCM results to be falsified.
So, for all those who believe that recent ‘changes’ in the behaviour of the sun will result in plunging temperatures on earth, I’ll rephrase this question
How much longer would global temperatures need to remain at current relatively high levels for you to be convinced that the sun is not, in fact, a major factor in short-term climate shifts?
There have been some very good replies as well as some scathing ones and some that attack the wording of the question.
My strong feeling is that, regardless of how wedded to AGW John Finn may be, we all must be prepared to field awkward questions – JF included.
Returning to the question – how long must temperatures fail to decline before we skeptics have to concede that either the sun is not as big an influence as we thought or that some other influence (which obviously could be CO2) is stronger?
Note that I have removed “short term” from the question because it is irrelevant (the IPCC has already acknowledged short term solar influence and we are all concerned with the long term and agree that the short term doesn’t matter – don’t we?), though short term influences could clearly confuse the issue.
Looking at the graphs on the Danish Cosmoclimatology website, there can be a delay of up to about 2 years before cosmic ray changes show up in low clouds. There could then be a further timelag before ocean temperature get transported across the land and through the atmosphere. Perhaps 5 years would be reasonable???
So we are looking at a period of say 7 years + or – a few years as the answer to JF’s question.
But that period must start from when the sun started being less active which was probably somewhere in 2000-2005???
It’s all very imprecise, and others can no doubt give some better numbers, but I would say that if the sun remains relatively inactive and temperatures are higher than the 1999-2008 average in 2-3 years time, then solar-focused skeptics are in trouble.
Given that AGWers are expecting +0.2 deg/decade??? then they are equally in trouble if temperatures do not rise within the same timescale, 2-3 years, regardless of what the sun does.
Obviously if the sun picks up, then the argument can’t be settled this way, because both sides would be expecting a temperature increase.
No matter what precise words and numbers I have used, I believe the same way of judging must be applied to both sides. If one side wants the other to be judged on a particular period, then they must accept the same period for their side.
PS. Which temperature measure should be used. Since CO2 warming takes place in the troposphere, where the Urban Heat Effect is absent???, I suggest the best temperatures to use are the UAH and RSS average of global lower troposphere temperatures.
Leif, I tried that but the sun was quiet enough only half of 2007 so only 7 perigees line up with TSI dips, and it was so cloudy that max temp is a bad proxy. Instead I have included precipitation and you can see the cycle towards the end of the year, rain/no rain every 14 days.
http://virakkraft.com/TSI-temp-2007.jpg
lgl (16:25:53) :
Leif, I tried that but the sun was quiet enough only half of 2007 so only 7 perigees line up with TSI dips
I know I could find it online somewhere, but you may have it handy: a list of Moon perigee back to beginning of 2003?
I’m going to run a small experiment.
egrey (16:24:55) :
if the sun remains relatively inactive and temperatures are higher than the 1999-2008 average in 2-3 years time, then solar-focused skeptics are in trouble.
Could you elaborate on this? What does it mean? Are the people that are skeptical about if the Sun is a major driver in trouble?
Well, well, well. A cycle 23 sunspot could strike again. There is a clear cycle 23 area near the equator on the magnetogram. Must have energizer batteries in the damn thing.
By “solar-focused skeptics” I meant skeptics of AGW who believe instead that the sun is the major driver.
Given that the sun has been a bit inactive recently, if the sun is indeed the major driver then at some time the temperature should drop. This, I believe, was the essence of JF’s challenge : if we think the sun is the main driver of climate then with an inactive sun how long do we have to wait for cooler temperatures before we change our minds.
Now I know that we have cooler temperatures already, but the AGWers are still in denial about them [they don’t even contemplate the possibility that the 1998 El Nino was a natural phenomenon driven by the long period of active sun that preceded it]. But JF’s challenge opened up the possibility that AGWers (well, JF) might change their minds if temperatures declined further. If, on the other hand, the sun remains inactive yet temperatures are higher in 2-3 years, then the idea that climate is still driven by the sun maybe starts to look a bit shaky – provided that, for even-handedness, AGWers are prepared to state now that their theory starts to look a bit shaky if temperatures have NOT started to go higher within 2-3 years. Same time period for both sides.
Not very well explained, but it will have to do.
Incidentally, I suggested lower troposphere temperatures for the challenge. These are obviously relevant for AGW, but if solar inactivity results in low clouds then for the solar side of the challenge maybe the LT is too high an altitude???
And another ‘incidentally’ – my comments about El Nino look pretty reasonable in light of Roy Spencer’s latest paper linking cloud changes and PDO.
egrey (21:07:39) :
By “solar-focused skeptics” I meant skeptics of AGW who believe instead that the sun is the major driver.
You can be a skeptic of AGW and believe in other causes than the Sun, PDO, for instance. A complicated system as the climate does not need a driver to account for small fluctuations as it would be very hard to maintain perfect equilibrium. It does for large ones, like glaciations, but there we do have a credible mechanism, so no problem there.
Maybe it is just psychology that is at play here. Say you want to debunk AGW, then if you come up with ‘the climate changes are just random internal fluctuations’, you might be laughed at or dismissed out of hand. If, however, you say ‘it’s the Sun’, the opponents will have to argument against a seemingly serious cause [that was at a time in the past a very acceptable idea] and that is a lot harder to do. So, simply for the desire of having something better than unspecified random fluctuations, the AGW opponent will migrate to the sun-climate connection. Not because of good science, but because it is easier to argue against AGW. This, in my book, is not valid.
Leif Svalgaard (21:35:00) :
You can be a skeptic of AGW and believe in other causes than the Sun, PDO, for instance.
If Leif thinks the the Sun and Cosmic Rays/Clouds is not the driver but perhaps the PDO is responsible for our variation in temperatures ….i wonder where the heat is coming from to drive a warm PDO phase?…CO2 perhaps?
Leif, I have used this calculator: http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
nobwainer (22:11:22) :
If Leif thinks the the Sun and Cosmic Rays/Clouds is not the driver but perhaps the PDO is responsible for our variation in temperatures ….i wonder where the heat is coming from to drive a warm PDO phase?…CO2 perhaps?
The oceans hold many hundreds times as much heat as the atmosphere. Lots of heat to go around.
lgl (22:13:13) :
Leif, I have used this calculator: http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
thanks
‘Well, well, well. A cycle 23 sunspot could strike again. There is a clear cycle 23 area near the equator on the magnetogram. Must have energizer batteries in the damn thing.’
It’s stuck in Lodi, Pam. And over half of the last SC24 spot (1005) recorded activity is under scrutiny by some for being a “CCD imaging enhancement”. Eager Beavers anxious to help the counts along, Catania leading the charge all the while it’s Continuum2 image was showing blanks. The very last day of supposed 1005 activity saw Mt. Wilson’s drawing indication zero spots (it last recorded it Oct 12) with a seeing of 4 out of 5 on the Bortle Scale.
I saw an 11 with seeing of 3 out of 5 right in my own backyard with a wimpy 70mm Refractor
, but Catania apparently can see spots nobody else can.
If you want you can look here and see the seeing of Mt. Wilson:
‘http://cleardarksky.com/c/MtWilsonOBCAkey.html?1’
and my place:
‘http://cleardarksky.com/c/MssrHlObCAkey.html?1’
As you can see, I have it pretty good for No. Ca.
Maybe Catania has seeing off the Bortle Scale.
It really upsets me to see an Observatory bending the rules.
Bend the light, not the rules.
‘Well, well, well. A cycle 23 sunspot could strike again. There is a clear cycle 23 area near the equator on the magnetogram. Must have energizer batteries in the damn thing.’
It’s stuck in Lodi, Pam. And over half of the last SC24 spot (1005) recorded activity is under scrutiny by some for being a “CCD imaging enhancement”. Eager Beavers anxious to help the counts along, Catania leading the charge all the while it’s Continuum2 image was showing blanks. The very last day of supposed 1005 activity saw Mt. Wilson’s drawing indication zero spots (it last recorded it Oct 12) with a seeing of 4 out of 5 on the Bortle Scale.
I saw an 11 with seeing of 3 out of 5 right in my own backyard with a wimpy 70mm Refractor
, but Catania apparently can see spots nobody else can.
If you want you can look here and see the seeing of Mt. Wilson:
cleardarksky.com/c/MtWilsonOBCAkey.html?1
and my place:
cleardarksky.com/c/MssrHlObCAkey.html?1
As you can see, I have it pretty good for No. Ca.
Maybe Catania has seeing off the Bortle Scale.
It really upsets me to see an Observatory bending the rules.
Bend the light, not the rules.
Robert Bateman (23:17:27) :
Maybe Catania has seeing off the Bortle Scale.
It really upsets me to see an Observatory bending the rules.
Bend the light, not the rules.
It is OK for Catania to see the tiny Tims. The faults lies with SIDC. They should accord Catania a very low k-value to compensate. Another problem is that k may not be constant, but varies with the size of the spot. Put that blame on Wolf.
One solution would be to put 60-odd duplicates of Wolf’s telescope [which still exists and is being used by Thomas Friedli to count spots] out at the observatories. That is a money [and staffing] problem and cannot easily be solved. So we have to do with what we have. BTW, Mt. Wilson is also WAY too big a ‘telescope’ for this.
Leif Svalgaard (21:35:00) : You can be a skeptic of AGW and believe in other causes than the Sun, PDO, for instance.
nobwainer got it in one – PDO is probably driven by the sun.
Leif : A complicated system as the climate does not need a driver to account for small fluctuations as it would be very hard to maintain perfect equilibrium. It does for large ones, like glaciations, but there we do have a credible mechanism, so no problem there.
Not sure I follow you. My understanding is that glaciations are solar driven. There have been theories re earth axis changes and a few other things, but all the research I have read indicates that insolation is the key factor. You seemed to be saying there was a different driver.
egrey (23:36:05) :
Not sure I follow you. My understanding is that glaciations are solar driven. There have been theories re earth axis changes and a few other things, but all the research I have read indicates that insolation is the key factor. You seemed to be saying there was a different driver.
No, but changes in the the orbit and axis changes the solar insolation. Take an extreme case: shrink the orbit to half its size, solar insolation would go up four-fold without any change of the Sun itself. More realistically, image that you change the tilt of the axis, then you change the seasons. If there were no tilt, for instance, there would be no seasons, no winter, no summer.
The orbit is not circular, and we are now closest to the Sun in January and get 7% more heat then than in July. Make the orbit more circular and that changes.
For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Leif Svalgaard (23:15:06) :
The oceans hold many hundreds times as much heat as the atmosphere. Lots of heat to go around.
Nicely sidestepped…..so when the next warm PDO comes around…where will the heat come from?….has to come from somewhere.
egrey
Thanks for your reply to my question. You are the only one to attempt to provide a timescale for the supposed cooling to come. Just to clarify my position. I don’t support the view that CO2 increases will result in ‘catastrophic’ or even problematic warming. By the same token I haven’t seen anything which shows that the climate is overly sensitive to solar activity. After following Leif Svalgaard’s arguments both here and on CA I’m even less convinced that a predictable solar/climate link exists. Put it this way if solar activity has a direct influence I don’t expect it to become evident for several decades.
The PDO is certainly a factor in climate change. Whether the sun is a factor in driving the PDO – possibly – but my main point concerns the fact that AGW sceptics (skeptics in the US) are less than sceptical about theories which claim to counter AGW.
‘BTW, Mt. Wilson is also WAY too big a ‘telescope’ for this.’
I can still see most of what Mt. Wilson can see, with pretty much the same seeing as they have.
The reason for that is that the Sun is a high signal to noise ratio target. What I lack is the resolution for fine detail that Mt. Wilson’s large scope has.
Catania is getting these spots and extending them by use of H-Alpha and CCD /image histogram stretching. That’s cheating. Pure & simple.