I initially wrote this article using data only from David Archibald, but within a couple of minutes I was given some broader data from Leif Svalgaard, so I have rewritten this to include both resources in the interest of seeing the broader perspective. – Anthony
Last September WUWT covered NASA’s press conference on the state of the sun. One of the announcements was this:
Sept. 23, 2008: In a briefing today at NASA headquarters, solar physicists announced that the solar wind is losing power.
“The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s,” says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. “This is the weakest it’s been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago.”
From Wiki:
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles—a plasma—ejected from the upper atmosphere of the sun. It consists mostly of electrons and protons with energies of about 1 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed with the passage of time. These particles are able to escape the sun’s gravity, in part because of the high temperature of the corona, but also because of high kinetic energy that particles gain through a process that is not well-understood.
The solar wind creates the Heliosphere, a vast bubble in the interstellar medium surrounding the solar system. Other phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurorae such as the Northern Lights, and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the sun.The solar wind is a stream of charged particles—a plasma—ejected from the upper atmosphere of the sun. It consists mostly of electrons and protons with energies of about 1 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed with the passage of time. These particles are able to escape the sun’s gravity, in part because of the high temperature of the corona, but also because of high kinetic energy that particles gain through a process that is not well-understood.
The solar wind creates the Heliosphere, a vast bubble in the interstellar medium surrounding the solar system. Other phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurorae such as the Northern Lights, and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the sun.
Solar Wind Flow Pressure is something that is tracked daily by the Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) For example they display a nifty solar wind dashboard gauge on Space Weather Now that shows “dynamic pressure”:
Dynamic Pressure Dial:
Ranges from 0.1 to 100 nPa. The scale is log10 over the full range. If the density or speed data are missing, the arrow will not appear. The arrow will move to the location on the scale corresponding to the actual value of the latest 15 minute average of the Dynamic Pressure P of the solar wind. Dynamic Pressure is a function of speed and density.
David Archibald writes:
Robert Bateman’s graphic of the solar wind sent me in search of a longer time series. I found a longer one, and one that is a more accurate indication of the force that is pushing the galactic cosmic rays out from the inner planets of the solar system. It is the three month smoothed, 27 day average of the solar wind flow pressure. The data is from the Omniweb site.
The narrow downtrend channel that started in 2005 is quite evident. Before that it was trendless, and didn’t change with solar cycle amplitude. The volatility within the downtrend is much less than it was prior to 2005. Also evident is a big oscillation in 2004, which may be an artefact of a switch that changed the mode.
From this chart, solar activity is still falling until the downtrend channel is broken. As the solar wind takes a year to reach the heliopause, the Oulu neutron count will continue to rise for the next year. But just as the Earth’s atmosphere has shrunk, the heliopause will also be shrinking.
However this Archibald graph only shows a narrow slice of the entire data picture, Leif Svalgaard has an OMNI2 dataset that tracks back to 1963:
While we can indeed see the current downtrend since 1997, we have had periods before where the solar wind has been almost as low . Though NASA said last year “This is the weakest it’s been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago.”.
There is an overall down trend since 1992, with a short plateau at the last solar max around year 2000-2004, followed by another downtrend starting about 2005.
In terms on the sun’s history (if it were compared to a day) we have about a microsecond worth of data out of that day on display above. So what conclusion, if any, can we draw from it? The only one I can see is it showing reduced solar activity, but nothing profound (in terms of the solar wind data we have) except that. We see a low period of similar amplitude around 1970, but it is noisier. The trend we’ve seen since 2005 is less noisy, which is inline with the quiet sun we have observed recently.
Let’s hope sol gets the magneto revved up again.
UPDATE: I had written to David Archibald, saying that “the broader data set to 1963 didn’t agree with your conclusions”, and he wrote back within about 15 minutes and provided a new graph:
Anthony, Agreed, and thankyou.
I went back to find the larger data set, as follows:
It is evident that the longer picture is more complicated. The correlation with solar minima and maxima is quite poor. Activity did not recover into Solar Cycle 23.
Yours sincerely,
David Archibald
So now we have all the makings of a good debate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I never understood why some people could never acknowledge this realtionship:http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm
so now NASA has decide that yes after all…. the sun may have something to do with temperatures on earth….
Perhaps we could try to see high velocity protons only? I wonder if slow solar winds (less than say 600 km/sec ) can penetrate the atmosphere deep enough to alter the climate?
Solar Wind Declines – Electrical Shortages Predicted
The sunspot number is 12 and yet the sun is blank? I can’t stand the bias!
Their predictions are failing to the point where they have to number imaginary sunspots to keep the June number up. As far as I am concerned this is ludicrous.
Dennis Wingo (20:33:36) :
The number of things pointing to a longer period of diminished solar activity keeps mounting.
What is the data from Voyager 1 and 2 on this? They are both out near the heliopause and so should be getting some confirmation data on any dimunition on the extent.
Of greater concern might be the data coming in frm the IBEX (Interstellar Boundry EXplorer) which I guess is due to release i’ts first data sometime late summer to early fall.
http://www.ibex.swri.edu/
Another point.
In layman’s terms (in comparison to luminosity), how much energy is the solar wind delivering to the Earth? In direct energy terms, is this reduction in solar flux reducing the net energy effect of the Sun?
.
Anyone laying any big bets for another spike around 2011 – 2013?
Leif Svalgaard (00:28:32) :
The HCS is VERY thin and sweeps past the Earth in minutes every week or so, but presumably you mean the size of the ‘warps’ in the HCS. Here is a measure of that since 1976: http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif
The size is in degrees, meaning the latitude a spacecraft would have to have to be totally ‘above’ or ‘below’ the HCS. You can see that that latitude is larger for the current cycle, thus meaning a ‘thicker’ region wherein the HCS sweeps.
Thanks Leif,
I guess my question is whether this correlates with your hypothesis that the reduction in pressure of the solar wind being due to it emanating over a broader angle and the relationship between that and polar field strength.
“It consists mostly of electrons and protons with energies of about 1 keV.”
Kinetic energy.
“the force that is pushing the galactic cosmic rays out from the inner planets of the solar system”
Cosmic rays are only partially charged particles.
“So now we have all the makings of a good debate.”
Plainly the Schwabe cycle, the secular oscillation of those damned spots, is not a great proxy of solar activity. Activity cycles over multiple solar cycles.
Anthony
Has anyone suggested or tried to take existing climate computer models, double the coefficient(s) on the solar factor(s) and halve the coefficient on the CO2 factor in one of those models, and see if they get better results and a more reasonable forecast for future climate in the 21st century? Since most of us here think that the effects of solar variances are far more significant than CO2 and the weighting the AGW camp accepts, this might be an interesting exercise. Maybe a little tweaking of the coefficients will produce closer fits to past data and new insights into how much the solar inputs and fluctuations affect our climate.
Bill
Wonder if these clouds have any effect on temperature?
“Sky watchers in the northern hemisphere have snapped the first images of this year’s noctilucent clouds – silvery blue structures that are the highest clouds to form in Earth’s atmosphere. This season’s crop of clouds could be the biggest in years due to the lull in the sun’s activity.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17234-mysterious-nightshining-clouds-may-peak-this-year.html
It’s all too late
Scientists: Global warming has already changed oceans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090609/sc_mcclatchy/3249010
The hearing before the oceans subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee was expected to focus on how the degradation of the oceans was affecting marine businesses and coastal communities. Instead, much of the testimony focused on how the waters that cover 70 percent of the planet are already changing because of global warming.
We are all doomed, the tipping point has been reached and the oceans are all dying and man is doomed. As soon as man dies out, the world can return to normal and the AGW people can be happy. Just one problem, they will gone as well…
I think God is laughing about all of this……
Bruckner8 (22:05:12) :
“Obama has to push his GW policies through NOW, so that when the cooling is OFFICIALLY recognized, it will be attributed to his policies.”
I can see it now; Headlines across the nation:
LOOK AT US; WE SAVED THE PLANET! YES WE CAN!
Hey, slightly OT, There is a question that has been nagging at me for a while. Everyone says that 1998 was such a warm year because of a Super El Nino, (and please forgive my ignorance) but how the heck does a change in ocean currents and distribution of heat (which is what I understand that an El Nino is) equate to a warming of the ENTIRE planet?
So, changes in Solar activity presage changes in the average temperature by about 8 years. The oceans serve as a giant sink for heat. Does that 8 year lag relate to the time it takes for the oceans to either cool or heat. We often speak as if the Solar activity and various ocean phenomena (PDO, AMO, etc.) are not connected, but it seems like they have to be and if you are looking for a mechanism to explain a lag in response …
It is not only the solar wind that is reduced. Wind in the USA is declining.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_sc/us_sci_diminishing_winds
The culprit of course? Global Warming. We are doomed.
Let me see who is mentioned in the wind report:
The new study “demonstrates, rather conclusively in my mind, that average and peak wind speeds have decreased over the U.S. in recent decades,” said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.
A naysayer is Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist in New York who said the results conflict with climate models that show no effect from global warming. He also doubts that any decline in the winds that might be occurring has much of an effect on wind power.
But another expert, Jonathan Miles, of James Madison University, said a 10 percent reduction in wind speeds over a decade “would have an enormous effect on power production.”
Pryor said a 10 percent change in peak winds would translate into a 30 percent change in how much energy is reaped. But because the research is in such early stages, she said, “at this point it would be premature to modify wind energy development plans.”
Evidently the AGW folks are of differing opinions. BTW a 10% reduction of wind speed does translate into about a 30% loss of power.
Well Anthony …
If we figure in the 2-8 year lag that is postulated to exists between solar effects and temperature, I’d say that we have quite a nice picture.
Solare wind peaked in 1992 …. six years later, we had the super el nino. The solar wind has been decreasing since 1992 .. temp has been decreasing as well. throw in some hypothetical threshold points, and you have a nice hypothetical argument.
😀
rbateman (22:06:53) :
What did happen prior to 1990:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/ret_14618.gif
In looking at this chart, it would be hard to discern a repeatable pattern in FP per solar cycle. But if I can go out on a limb here — knowing that Leif might well have a saw to cut it off with — what jumps out at me is the strong FP every other solar cycle, i.e. SC20 and SC22, as compared to SC21 and SC23. Could this be evidence — and I know inference is weak with just four cycles to look at, but maybe Leif could posit a physical explanation — for the bidecadal signal we see so often in climate variables?
Leif has repeatedly scoffed at the notion of a peculiarly “Hale cycle” influence on climate, because nothing varies on a double sunspot cycle that does not vary the same on a single sunspot basis (according to Leif). Well, I can certainly see something different in the FP on a double sunspot basis, that I don’t see on a single sunspot basis. It reminds me, a bit, of the difference in the shapes of cosmic ray flux, between alternating cycles. Is it coincidence, or is there a physical connection, between the even numbered cycles — 20 and 22 — being “flat” peaked CR flux cycles, and 21 and 23 (the latter presumably, if we ever see CR flux begin to fall) being “sharply” peaked CR flux cycles, one the one hand, and the strong(er) FP in the even numbered cycles and weak(er) FP in the odd numbered cycles?
Incidentally (before I get back to speculating on the sun-climate connection), I’m still waiting for CR flux to begin to show a definite downward trend. Leif says this usually happens about six months after the minimum. Well, Leif’s current candidate for the minimum is last November, so we should be seeing a downtrend by now, or at least soon. But the two sites I monitor, almost daily –Moscow and Oulu — show no sign of the downward trend having started yet. That may prove nothing more than how unusual, or weak, is this particular minimum. But even that would be worth noting.
Back to the sun-climate connection, and a possible connection to bidecadal/double sunspot mechanism. When Anthony and I posted our paper on the bidecadal signal in temperature, Leif said it was just one more to add to about 2000 papers already showing such. Actually, that wasn’t quite so. There are only a handful of papers dealing with a bidecadal signal in global temperature data. The rest of the “2000” papers chronicle evidence of bidecadal climate variation in other metrics, such as rainfall, sea or lake levels, proxies such as tree rings and varves, etc. But instead of dismissing all this evidence because we do not — supposedly — have a physical explanation for a double sunspot influence on climate, I would say that all this evidence suggests that we just haven’t found it, and should be looking for it.
Which is why anything I see in solar metrics that appears to vary every other solar cycle, like the shape of the CR flux, or now the spiking of FP, stands out to me.
As for the evidence of a sun-solar link in global temperatures, when Leif was discussing what Anthony and I posted on this, he suggested a “Chree Analysis.” So I did one. It looks like this:
http://i43.tinypic.com/qoxhkm.jpg
There is a noticeable difference between even and odd solar cycles and the rate of change in temperature, especially since solar cycle 17. The warming rate increases noticeably in conjunction with the peak of odd numbered cycles, and falls off sharply after the peak. This pattern is not evident with the even numbered cycles. Is there a “Hale cycle” pattern to FP that might go along with this?
I’ll end by repeating what rbateman said: “I do my best to describe what I see, but I can’t do the detailed analysis that others can. Paint me curious.” I see evidence of a bidecadal (every other solar cycle) influence of the sun on climate in the temperate data. Will a “detailed analysis” of variations in FP eventually prove to be part of the explanation for this phenomenon?
I read the entire NASA article http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
One thing that stood out was the statement in response to the question “How unusual is this event?”.
The NASA scientist Arik Posner responded:
“It’s hard to say. We’ve only been monitoring solar wind since the early years of the Space Age—from the early 60s to the present,” says Posner. “Over that period of time, it’s unique. How the event stands out over centuries or millennia, however, is anybody’s guess. We don’t have data going back that far.”
Juxtapose this with the politics of the arctic sea ice. We’ve only been measuring the sea ice extent since the 70’s (shorter amount of time than the solar wind). But, people are so ready and eager to make grand proclamations about how the recent sea ice minimums are not only unique based on 30 years of measurements out of earth’s 4.5 billion year history, but that the minimums are 100% without question due to human activity. As if somehow, the initial ice-extent measurements were the longstanding nominal from the beginning of time.
Leif Svalgaard (20:55:58) :
6) It is a pity that the best science blog carries this worthless piece. The host or moderators should vet stuff from Archibald before stepping in it.
Consider:
1. The volume of your input to this blog is highly positively correlated with the absurdity of the postings. You rarely, if ever, post “Good Piece”.
2. The more you post, the more we learn.
3. Often, these threads stretch forever and WUWT gets exposure.
Perhaps this is Anthony’s strategy.
Thanks Leif for your input. My initial post to this blog was stated in the null. A very good thing to do in these times of straw grasping. Question: Is there also interstellar wind? Does this mix with solar wind? Or are the two (if indeed the other exists) separate issues?
Leif has said that it is strange that the Solar Wind Force is low at this time of Solar
Minimum, when it should normaly be high. As we are now starting SC24, and it
could go even lower ?
What is the theoretical lowest it could go ? Even if it stays round about the same it
looks as if we are in for an extended period of low Solar Wind.
What are the implications of that ? anyone know ?
Should I invest in a good overcoat ?
@ur momisugly Ron de Haan (01:02:48) :
“I did not write the article but thanks for the comments.
I have copied the article directly from the link and published the link with it.
I think the remarks come from Piers Corbijn.”
Well be careful what you copy and paste, because that article is crap.
Bruckner8 (22:05:12) :
,,<<Obama has to push his GW policies through NOW, so that when the cooling is OFFICIALLY recognized, it will be attributed to his policies.<<<
His policies of unemployment and closing factories reduce carbon consumption. More taxes will cause more layoffs and less driving. We could preemptively strike out forests, take out the logs and prevent forest fires.
Benjamin P.:
Care to explain exactly why? Or are we, like, supposed to take your word for it?