While the sun still struggles to form cycle 24 spots like seen in this weak plage area (upper right) in today’s SOHO MDI and Magnetograms (shown below) Paul Stanko of NOAA writes to tell me of an interesting development in his tracking of the International Sunspot Number (ISN).
Paul writes:
My running mean of the International Sunspot Number for 2009 just dipped below 1.00. For anything comparable you now need to go back before 1913 (which scored a 1.43) which could mean we’re now competing directly with the Dalton Minimum.
Just in case you’d like another tidbit, here is something that puts our 20 to 30 day spotless runs in perspective… the mother of all spotless runs (in the heart of the Maunder Minimum, of course!) was from October 15, 1661 to August 2, 1671. It totaled 3579 consecutive spotless days, all of which had obs.
Errant counting of sunspecks from Catainia aside, it appears that we haven’t seen anything like this in modern history.
We live in interesting times.
David Ball (07:24:49) :
we today are not getting all the data as well. It would be ultimate arrogance to assume otherwise. Simple as that.
True, but we have to go by the data we are getting.
Leif Svalgaard (07:33:10) :
Like I thought….hide behind Anthony’s excuse. You have no data.
Leif 07:33:10
Touche, again. But then, just the fact that cosmic ray proxy data is being used to support the idea that the dynamo was unchanged during the Maunder Minimum implies that the dynamo has an effect on the cosmic ray data. So far, I guess I’m just stating the obvious. Now, is the cosmic ray data of such precision that we can assert that it did not have an effect strong enough to supply the admittedly small periodic nudge that would be needed to effect the oceanic oscillations? Perhaps just enough to nudge them into and out of their coupled pendulum effect?
I still can’t help but think that the alternating pointed and broadened peak of cosmic rays in the solar cycles might have an effect. It wouldn’t have to be a big effect to modulate the oceanic pendulums.
==============================================
Dr. Svalgaard.
I regret to say, you may be a bit confused.
You should be looking at: FIGURE 15.3.2.
Simple model of a filamentary current structure in a low-density plasma.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/p251a.jpg
and its associated explanation:
FlGURE 15.6.1 refers to something totally different.
It refers to the obsolete Fred Hoyle’s hypothesis of the primeval Sun and (one of his many odd ones) planet formation ( ! ), and it has nothing to do with Alvens MHD theory, and even less with NASA’s photograph of polar mass ejection or its description.
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/item.php?gid=1&id=66
Regretfully your comment was more likely to confuse than to make ‘clear to the general readership’.
links:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm#250
FIGURE 15.3.2.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/p251a.jpg
vukcevic (09:48:40) :
FlGURE 15.6.1 refers to something totally different.
It refers to the obsolete Fred Hoyle’s hypothesis of the primeval Sun and (one of his many odd ones) planet formation ( ! ), and it has nothing to do with Alvens MHD theory
It refers to the central point of Hoyle’s theory: a spiral interplanetary magnetic field and posits that such a field cannot exist.
You may have noticed that the NASA paper on the helical structure does not even once mention the word ‘current’. In the MHD theory there are no currents as conductivity is assumed to be infinite. Currents require an electromotive force, a voltage difference, and such cannot exist with infinite conductivity. Currents can arise locally by plasma motions and associated break down of the MHD conditions [what Alfven called ‘double layers’ and can thus dissipate and heat the corona. The magnetic field and the kinematics of the plasma are governing all of this and the currents are dissipative consequences, not primary large-scale driving forces.
I honestly don’t see a pattern either, visually speaking.
kim (09:38:52) :
dynamo was unchanged during the Maunder Minimum implies that the dynamo has an effect on the cosmic ray data.
The dynamo generates the magnetic field which in turn has an effect on cosmic rays.
Speaking of fat people:
“As he is a greater density than the surrounding atmosphere he is having the effect of delaying the IR longer in the lower troposphere leading global warming.
He needs to change his albedo. Wearing white clothing will reflect some of the UV back into space but ideally he should wear a polished tin foil hat.
This will also protect him from lightning.”
Also since fat people actually take up more volume, they force some of our atmosphere to escape into space leaving less for the rest of us to breathe. Of course, some of that lost atmosphere is CO2… hmmm maybe I should reconsider this.
Mike
An abstract of one of Usoskin / Solanki’s papers on this can be read here:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A%26A…471..301U
From a several-thousand-year C14 sample, Usoskin concludes that the cycles of Grand Minimas are “stochastic” and “chaotic”; duration of Maximas are “deterministic”… whatever that means.
Still, in that many of these cycles overlap each other (whether at regular intervals or not), it’s nearly-impossible (or all-too-possible) to see a pattern.
Dr. Svalgaard
The argument you present is irrelevant (and partially wrong) in relation to what I am talking about, and you know it. It is designed to deny a fact that is undeniable and to confuse a casual reader. Here it is again with photographic evidence:
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/item.php?gid=1&id=66
and a theoretical explanation for helical magnetic field in plasma:
FIGURE 15.3.2. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/p251a.jpg
Simple model of a filamentary current structure in a low-density plasma. Currents flow parallel to the magnetic field. The lines in the figure represent both current paths and magnetic field lines. The magnetic field derives partly from an external axial field and partly from the toroidal field produced by the current itself (see Alfvén and Fälthammar, 1963). The current is strongest at the axis and becomes weaker further away from the axis as depicted by the decreasing thickness of the lines.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm#250
You may come up with some other ‘irrelevance’, which as you say ‘has no value other than for entertainment’, and I am looking forward to it.
Bill P 10:21:59
Well, I may be betraying vast ignorance here, but what determines the C14 levels that are used to mark the Minima? Were the C14 levels effected by cosmic rays? If so, that is some evidence that cosmic rays are different during the minima, no? So why not global cooling during minima. Somehow, this seems too easy.
=====================================
Fat people usually sit around, not taking any exercise, so realise little heat into the atmosphere. It is the people who do lot of exercises, running and engaging in various sport activities that do all the damage, by releasing large amount of heat; contributing more than their fair share to the global warming.
vukcevic (10:48:13) :
Simple model of a filamentary current structure in a low-density plasma.
For the last time: There are lots and lots of electrical current on the surface and in the lower atmosphere of the Sun. There are millions of local current sheets and explosions and brightenings all the time, just like there is lots of lightning in a terrestrial hurricane. These currents come about when the conditions that support MHD break down because of movements of plasma that make the gradients too steep. None of this is the least controversial, but all this activity is local, and the current is not a driver but a consequence. There are no large-scale organized currents driving the plasma, and no currents leaping out into interplanetary space [or coming in from afar], in particular no polar currents surging through the heliosphere. Whatever local lightning there is has nothing to do with the solar dynamo or in driving the solar cycle, and THAT was the topic.
Heliospheric current ‘leaps out into interplanetary space’, we can detect it since we happen to be in its path. No space probe has visited directly over the poles, so there is no absolute certainty about your statement. From the Earth’s magnetosphere, it is known that most charged particles that make up ionosphere eventually end up at magnetic poles. Heliosphere is an enclosed space as far as charged particles (making HCS) are concerned
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/gallery/heliosphere.jpg
Over last 10+ billion years heliosphere would hugely expand and saturate, so 11 year cycle would not affect much its contraction and expansion (strength), if the particles did not eventually return to the sun, and that can be only its polar regions.
vukcevic (13:32:52) :
Heliospheric current ‘leaps out into interplanetary space’, we can detect it since we happen to be in its path.
I am one of the discoverers of the HCS. The current does not come from the Sun, but is generated locally at the boundary between oppositely directed magnetic fields. Near the Sun these fields are radial and the Heliospheric Current encircles the Sun.
The rest of your post is just nonsense, so no need to comment any further on that, except to stress that there is no return flow of the solar wind because it is supersonic. Furthermore the solar wind is electrically neutral [as we have known since Lindemann in 1919].
Sun loses thousands of tons (or perhaps much more) of mass in charged particles every second, in 10+ billions of years that is rather a lot of mass (it should have shrunk a bit by now). Where all these particles go if they are contained within heliosphere by the galactic magnetic field?
I suggest they are pulled by the solar magnetic field back to the poles, after bouncing back at the edge of heliosphere.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/gallery/heliosphere.jpg
vukcevic (14:21:03) :
Where all these particles go if they are contained within heliosphere by the galactic magnetic field?
They are not contained, they are slowed down from 400 km/s to about 20 km/s at the termination shock, and eventually merge with the interstellar medium [where do you think that comes from?]
I suggest they are pulled by the solar magnetic field back to the poles, after bouncing back at the edge of heliosphere.
They are not pulled back, and don’t bounce back, boing, boing.
They are lost.
Kim,
I’m not a scientist. On a rudimentary level I can follow the line of reasoning by which the experts derive their record of solar cycles. It shows eleven-year cycles.
Bill P (10:21:59) :
An abstract of one of Usoskin / Solanki’s papers on this can be read here:
One of the problems is everyone expects grand minimia to look the same. What history shows us is the grand minima can vary greatly There are golden periods like after the medieval warm period but the majority of grand minima are more Dalton like. Have a good look how Usoskin has completely missed the Dalton on his graph, drawing the blue line very low. If we raise the bar and include the Dalton and others like it (all the green area’s, which I could have drawn much higher) it becomes clear. The green area’s are all grand minima and they fall on a regular pattern as shown by the vertical lines. You can magnify the image to see it more clearly.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/c14nujs1.jpg
kim (12:28:56) :
Well, I may be betraying vast ignorance here, but what determines the C14 levels that are used to mark the Minima? Were the C14 levels effected by cosmic rays? If so, that is some evidence that cosmic rays are different during the minima, no? So why not global cooling during minima. Somehow, this seems too easy.
The comic rays are what produce the C14 in the atmosphere which settle to earth and are recorded in trees and coral. A more active Sun shields the cosmic rays which produces less C14. The actual records are inverted to replicate solar activity. The graph is produced from the INTCAL98 records which is considered accurate and has been calibrated to incl fluctuations in the natural cycle and also to reflect the Earths changing magnetic field strength.
Geoff Sharp (16:29:39) :
The green area’s are all grand minima and they fall on a regular pattern as shown by the vertical lines.
Except that the designated year for the Dalton minimum, 1831, was not during the Dalton Minimum at all [centered on 1811], so with 20 years slop either way one can fit anything.
Leif Svalgaard (17:14:47) :
Except that the designated year for the Dalton minimum, 1831, was not during the Dalton Minimum at all [centered on 1811], so with 20 years slop either way one can fit anything.
I dont think so, the elephant in the room is that there are no high points between 172 yr pattern centres in 6000 years (except for one at 185AD which is completely explainable….on another forum). High points are nearly always grouped with grand minima. We dont need to talk about the causes here, but I think discussing the shape of this graph has lots of merit on both sides of the debate. To me it clearly shows the Sun spends a great deal of its time in a grand minimum state.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/solanki_sharp_detail.jpg
Geoff Sharp (19:34:00) :
” so with 20 years slop either way one can fit anything.”
I dont think so, the elephant in the room is that there are no high points between […]. High points are nearly always grouped with grand minima. We don’t need to talk about the causes here,
If you do not invoke the AM cause how would you define ‘high points’? The ‘nearly always’ sounds like some crap-shooting going on…
This lack of sunspot activity and the cooling effect it is having is way scarier than global warming! I find it ironic that every time human beings think we’ve figured out everything, monther nature and the rest of the universe puts us back in our place.
Leif Svalgaard (20:26:58) :
When I say high points I mean high sunspot activity, and I have to say nearly because there is one occurrence in 6000 years that goes against the trend. But there is a definite trend in the sunspot record and 14C record that defies any crap shoot type theory…its basically a slow ramp up of activity from a lowish base for around 60 years, followed by some kind of grand minimium (except for the MWP) which then slowly declines for another 60 or so years back down to the lowish base. The strength of the grand minima involved is really the only variable. This trend has probably been happening for 4 billion years.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jensm1.jpg