By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
The sun remains in a deep slumber.
Today we are 15 days into April without a sunspot and with 603 sunspotless day this cycle minimum, 92 already this year. 2009 at this rate, is likely to enter the top 10 years the last century along with 2007 (9th) and 2008 (2nd) this summer.
If it stays quiet the rest of this month, the minimum can be no earlier than November 2008, at least a 12.5 year cycle length. I believe January 2009 is a better shot to be the solar minimum as sunspot number would have to be below 0.5 in June 2008 to prevent the running mean (13 month) from blipping up then. April needs only to stay below 3.2 and May 3.4 to get us to January. This would be very like cycles 1 to 4 in the late 1700s and early 1800s, preceding the Dalton Minimum. That was a cold era, the age of Dickens and the children playing in the snow in London, much like this past winter.
THE ARCTIC AND ANTARCTIC ICE STORY
As for the ice, we hear in the media the hype about the arctic and Antarctic ice. The arctic ice we are told is more first and second year ice and very vulnerable to a summer melt.
Actually the arctic ice is very 3rd highest level since 2002, very close to 2003, in a virtual tie to last winter and the highest year according to IARC-JAXA. The anomaly is a relatively small 300,000 square km according to The Cryosphere Today.
There was much attention paid in the media to the crack in the Wilkins Ice sheet bridge. It was not even reflected as a blip on the Southern Hemisphere ice extent, which has grown rapidly as the southern hemisphere winter set in to 1,150,000 square kms above the normal for this date and rising rapidly.
The net GLOBAL sea ice anomaly is also positive, 850,000 square km above the normal. See full PDF here.
Leif Svalgaard (23:27:00) :
to
savethesharks (23:07:22) :
The thing that accounts for 99% of the mass in the solar system gets the same status as CO2???
Explain that to the Venusians…
I think the issue was comparing 99% of the mass in the solar system with 0.03% of the earths tiny atmosphere…
Btw.., the high temperatures in Venus’ atmosphere are not explained mainly by the high CO2 content there, or is it?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:58:55) :
Btw.., the high temperatures in Venus’ atmosphere are not explained mainly by the high CO2 content there, or is it?
Being closer to the Sun also helps [TSI twice as high] although the albedo is very high [twice that of the Earth] so the amount of energy that enters the heat budget is about the same as for the Earth. True deniers will, of course, maintain that CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it anyway.
“Btw.., the high temperatures in Venus’ atmosphere are not explained mainly by the high CO2 content there, or is it?”
Emissivities of gases(in stark contrast to solids and, less so, liquids,where they are treated as constants, empirically derived by calorimeter) are dependent on Pressure and Temperature.
The emissivity of CO2 at STP is 9*10^-4, at 1Atm and 600 degrees C it rises to 0.07. This where emissivity is a fraction of the emissivity of an ideal black body, emitting energy more efficiently than real materials.
Venus’ atmospheric pressure at the surface is 96 Atm, its temperature something above 400 degrees C and CO2 a dominant component of the atmosphere.
This is very different than on Earth. Rather midway re: the Sun’s case, whose photosphere we treat as a black body owing to the extreme pressure and temperature.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:58:55) :
Btw.., the high temperatures in Venus’ atmosphere are not explained mainly by the high CO2 content there, or is it?
P*V = n*R*T, where R is adjusted for mostly CO2 (since it is not an ideal gas), with a radiative balance, explains the current situation (but does not explain how it got there, of course).
Mark
Mark T (11:48:15) :
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:58:55) :
Btw.., the high temperatures in Venus’ atmosphere are not explained mainly by the high CO2 content there, or is it?
There is also the need to explain the ‘faint Sun paradox’. Or are the deniers also denying that problem?
“Whatever you are talking about does not seem to have a justified place in a science blog.”
But Leif, I’m not impersonating a scientist.
REPLY: Careful Gary. I hope that you are not making an implication about Dr. Svalgaard. – Anthony
But the high temperature on Venus IS mainly due to CO2, not like that on the earth. On Venus, the atmospheric pressure only can explain most of the temperture anomaly. The atmosphere of Venus is almost twice as high as that on Earth, so much higher pressure and density at ground level.
The atmosphere of Venus is so think that space probes don’t need a parachute to land. They only need one to slow down at first in the upper atmosphere and then let it go and just, like in water, just slowly fall to the ground.
“I hope that you are not making an implication about Dr. Svalgaard.”
Oh, certainly not. I mean that since I make no representation of myself as a scientist I would hope not to be held to that standard. I only intend to be an honest broker of the information at my disposal, acknowledging the limits of my preparation, of course. And yes, I express my opinions on the way.
There seems to be a feature on the very edge of the sun’s magnetogram at 10 o’clock… but is looks very large.
“eric (12:02:25) :
” The years 2007 and 2008 were low sunspot number year, ranking ninth and second in number of sunspotless days. Yet both were among the top 10 years in global temperature average in the last century.”
First there is a time lag, the Earth has an enormous thermal inertia. Second the entire idea of the top 10 warmest in the last century or 130 years or whatever other claim of this type is based on a temperature record that is known to have a bias.
It is likely the bias is significantly larger than the amount by which current temperatures are the “highest”. In other words if we remove the bias these years are not even the warmest in the last century mererly the top of a slight bumb associated with the end of 50+ years of relatively high solar activity.
Ray (12:54:48) :
On Venus, the atmospheric pressure only can explain most of the temperture anomaly.
and
The atmosphere of Venus is so think that space probes don’t need a parachute to land.
Um, look at the equation PV = nRT. Density (D) is mass / volume, or n/V, so P = DRT after converting moles to kg. It’s a fundamental law of gases that their temperature is directly proportional to PV (which is joules, i.e., energy), and inversely proportional to the mass. And likewise, density is directly proportional to pressure in a gas.
Mark
Leif Svalgaard (12:12:12) :
There is also the need to explain the ‘faint Sun paradox’. Or are the deniers also denying that problem?
Attempt #2.
What exactly does my statement about the ideal gas law have to do with the faint sun paradox?
Also, Dr. Svalgaard, I’d appreciate it if you would not lump me in a category of “deniers” as you have with this comment. My PhD was hard to get, too, and I approach science in as serious a manner as you do.
Mark
Leif Svalgaard (12:12:12) :
Mark T (11:48:15) :
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:58:55) :
There is also the need to explain the ‘faint Sun paradox’. Or are the deniers also denying that problem?
DId you include my name simply because you cut the text from my statement, or are you trying to insinuate that I”m some kind of “denier?”
Mark
gary gulrud (12:13:24) :
REPLY: Careful Gary. I hope that you are not making an implication about Dr. Svalgaard. – Anthony
Wouldn’t the same apply to Dr. Svalgaard in the immediately previous post? If he simply included my name because that’s where he got the other poster’s quote, fine, but the implication that I’m some sort of “denier,” is insulting and unjustified.
Mark
Mark T (13:54:43) :
P (surface) = P (h) + dgh
where; d = density, g is gravity, h is height of atmosphere, P (surface) is the surface pressure, P(h) is the pressure at the height h above the surface.
The height of Venus’s atmosphere is about twice of that of the earth but also, the atmosphere of Venus is compressible since it is a gas and so the density changes all the time as you go down the to the ground.
PV=nRT is good for a very small volume of gas, homegenous and free of gravitational effect but also where the temperature is also homegenous.
Ray (14:32:43) :
The height of Venus’s atmosphere is about twice of that of the earth but also, the atmosphere of Venus is compressible since it is a gas and so the density changes all the time as you go down the to the ground.
And so does the temperature. The temperature of the Venus atmosphere at the height in which the pressure is similar to that of the earth’s surface is also similar to the temperature of the earth.
PV=nRT is good for a very small volume of gas, homegenous and free of gravitational effect but also where the temperature is also homegenous.
Yes, which is not contrary to anything I’ve said. You can’t just apply one pressure to the whole of the surface of the planet, nor did I indicate you can.
Mark
Mark T (14:46:55) :
I am just adding some more relationships. Here is another one for the temperature increase when compressing a gas.
Wiki – “Adiabatic – This model assumes that no energy (heat) is transferred to or from the gas during the compression, and all supplied work is added to the internal energy of the gas, resulting in increases of temperature and pressure. Theoretical temperature rise is T2 = T1·Rc(k-1)/k, with T1 and T2 in degrees Rankine or kelvin, and k = ratio of specific heats (approximately 1.4 for air). R is the compression ratio; being the absolute outlet pressure divided by the absolute inlet pressure. The rise in air and temperature ratio means compression does not follow a simple pressure to volume ratio. This is less efficient, but quick. Adiabatic compression or expansion more closely model real life when a compressor has good insulation, a large gas volume, or a short time scale (i.e., a high power level). In practice there will always be a certain amount of heat flow out of the compressed gas. Thus, making a perfect adiabatic compressor would require perfect heat insulation of all parts of the machine. For example, even a bicycle tire pump’s metal tube becomes hot as you compress the air to fill a tire.”
The temperature of the Venus atmosphere at the height in which the pressure is similar to that of the earth’s surface is also similar to the temperature of the earth.
That’s not something you hear mentioned too often – well, that’s my excuse for not knowing it, anyway! Thank you.
Mark T (14:20:18) :
Sorry Mark, I just used your post as a convenient ‘linking element’ to put the issue in context, not to imply anything about your personal stance on this.
and about the ‘faint Sun paradox’: we need a way of accounting for the Earth having liquid water at a time when the Sun’s output was 30-35% lower than today. The ‘traditional’ explanation is a high CO2 concentration. I think the pressure back then was not so much higher that the PV=nRT explanation would do the trick. In any case if one wants to claim that CO2 had nothing to do with it, that someone would have to come up with a plausible mechanism, and don’t know if that has been done [I don’t think so, but …]
Ray (13:38:18) :
There seems to be a feature on the very edge of the sun’s magnetogram at 10 o’clock… but is looks very large.
Yes, there is something there and on the continuum too. It looks like a cycle 24 region forming and it will be interesting to see if it will succeed.
Thanks for clarifying the Stanford vs. OULU context Leif (07:44:08).
Also, thanks for the links.
For those following along (& judging the literature independently), here are the links – which I apologize for not including in my (00:59:44) post:
Active latitude N-S asymmetry:
1) http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1999A%26A…341L..43P&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
2) http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=bibcode&bibcode=2004A%2526A…424..311FPDF
~3.2 year HMF pattern:
3) http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/TakaloAndMursula2002.pdf
4) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0411/0411466v1.pdf
Differentially rotating active longitudes:
5) http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=bibcode&bibcode=2003A%2526A…405.1121BPDF
6) http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/papers/berdyugina/solalon_ASR.pdf
Suggestion:
If you’re in a hurry &/or only have time to glean the most salient points, stick to the odd-numbered ones (1,3,5).
Now:
I’m curious to know if Leif has any issues with the following:
M. Neugebauer, E. J. Smith, A. Ruzmaikin, J. Feynman, & A. H. Vaughan (2000). The solar magnetic field and the solar wind: Existence of preferred longitudes. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(A2), 2315-2324.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/18001/1/99-1455.pdf
It seems to me that IF Leif’s projection is correct at 10.7 and implies 72 for SSN, and IF Livingston & Penn are also right and no sunspots appear -> then the L&P theory would seem to jump right to the top as the explanation for the Maunder minimum. Or is there reason to think that both sunspots and 10.7 flux were down in Maunder minimum? It seems to me were are making the assumption that 10.7 flux and sunspots go together nearly lockstep. Now Dr. Svalgaard is saying that no sunspots are not the real definer of a minimum.
So what is the non-sunspot definition of a grand minimum? in case we don’t have any sunspots as a guidepost.
Looking at the very nice picture:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
it seems that TSI could have a similar trend drawn tthrough its maxima showing a convergence at around 1360.9. Does that have anything to do with the 10.7 flux whoose maxima also do not show quite as nice an upswing as its minima? At any rate continuing Leif’s trend on 10.7 suggests, to me anyway, that it ought to be at least at 80 by years end. If it is at 80 and sunspots are still missing (invisible or hiding) at around 0 then L&P will be looking really good. If 10.7 flux is still around 72 or 73 it might be time for a little model tweaking.
It does seem fairly unlikely that models based on recent cycles are going to successfully predict something either non-cyclical or at least on a different longer cycle like a grand minimum. One is just going to happen sometime.
Paul Vaughan (15:28:04) :
I’m curious to know if Leif has any issues with the following:
M. Neugebauer, E. J. Smith, A. Ruzmaikin, J. Feynman, & A. H. Vaughan (2000)…
Not really, active longitudes are a fact, and the 27.03 day period is in the middle of my own two periods 26.84 and 27.16 [or whatever the last decimal is], so is not inconsistent with that finding. Whether or not the phase is maintained so well is a different [unresolved question]. The question of a recurrence period of the IMF goes back to Johannes Olsen, Terrest. Magnet. Atmos. Elec., vol 53, p 123 (1948) as reported in J. M. Wilcox and W. Gonzalez, Science, vol 174, no. 4011, p 820 (1971) where they identified the 26 7/8 day period that is present half of the time.
Leif Svalgaard (15:22:05) :
Leif, could that feature be responsible for the big explosion of plasma we have seen?
Also, a similar major magnetic anomaly formed a few week ago showing a”white” spot on the sun. That white spot never became a dark spot. Maybe this one will do this too.
Lee (15:46:03) :
It seems to me that IF Leif’s projection is correct at 10.7 and implies 72 for SSN, and IF Livingston & Penn are also right and no sunspots appear -> then the L&P theory would seem to jump right to the top as the explanation for the Maunder minimum.
This has, of course, not escaped anybody’s attention…
It seems to me were are making the assumption that 10.7 flux and sunspots go together nearly lockstep.
At the upcoming Space Weather Workshop at the end of April, there will be a presentation by Ken Tapping [who maintains the F10.7 radio flux measurements]:
Title: The Changing Relationship Between Sunspot Number and F10.7
Abstract: Sunspot Number and the 10.7cm solar radio flux are the most widely-used indices of solar activity. Despite their differing nature and origins at different places in the Sun, these two indices are highly-correlated to the point where one can be used as a proxy for the other. However, during Solar Activity Cycle 23 we started to see a
small but definite change in this relationship….
————–
So, there is the possibility that the SSN no longer will be a true reflection of solar activity [for some time at least]. Our prediction is, of course, of the ‘effective’ sunspot number, i.e. that sunspot number that would give the F10.7 flux observed in 2014 [or when the maximum is] using the old relationship between F10.7 and SSN.