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.
Leif Svalgaard (20:55:58) :
Benjamin P. (07:18:34) :
Never a dull moment on WUWT! Excellent stuff!
Bill Yarber (05:19:09) :
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?
Good idea Bill. Now we just need David Hathaway to tell us what the next seven solar cycles are going to do…..
Oh, wait a minute.
Leif. I, like Anthony, appreciate your input, but please stop the personal attacks. Science will win in the end. I like the data since the 1960s, but wonder about proxy data from 1890. ” Proxy”, to me, brings to mind Mann, Steig, etc. IMHO, the observed data from the 1960s forward, indicate something a little unusual is happening. The general tenor of your remarks, ISTM, has been that the Sun never changes, in any meaningful way. Ever. That may not be accurate, but that is the impression i get. Is it possible the Sun changes in ways we are unaware of and/or can not measure? fm
What is enjoyable to see is rational people trying to explain real physical world events. David and Lief going at it. Tallbloke and Rbateman chiming in. Steven Goddard starting the party. Certainly the science is not settled. Certainly Obama and Lisa are acting out of ignorance or worse. Thank you Anthony for the forum for all to speak.
@ur momisugly Smokey (07:28:07) :
You can take my word for it 😛
Seriously though, the claim that the solar wind has an influence on plate tectonics is absolute crap. As far as I can tell, what the author of that article is saying is when there is low solar activity, there is more tectonic activity and that tectonic activity leads to volcanism and hence dust and ash in the atmosphere and causes the cooling.
As Leif pointed out, there is no data to support this claim. And not only is there no data, its not even plausible as a mechanism. Plate tectonics is driven by density. Density is controlled by temperature and composition of the materials involved, and its those differences that drive Plate Tectonics.
When continental crust and oceanic crust met, they don’t just hang out and wait for the solar wind to blow (or not blow). The oceanic crust subducts under the continental crust because the oceanic crust is more dense.
When older (colder) oceanic crust meets younger (warmer) oceanic crust, the older and colder crust subducts. It does not say hey there is no solar wind, time to subduct!
So not only does he make a claim that is absurd, the author does not even bother to try and offer any data or evidence to support that claim.
So yes Smokey, its a crappy article.
How much data do we have on solar neutrino flux?
I ask because solar neutrino flux ought to be proportional to the rate of energy generation from the nuclear reactions that make the sun shine. In a bit of googling I wasn’t able to find anything as simple as a chart of flux against time; is such a graphic available? If so, is it dense enough (enough measurements over the time period) to superimpose it on the solar-cycle graphs we see here?
Regards,
Ric
Benjamin P. (08:01:49) :
When older (colder) oceanic crust meets younger (warmer) oceanic crust, the older and colder crust subducts. It does not say hey there is no solar wind, time to subduct!
Note that this is not always the case. Occasionally oceanic crust ‘obducts’ over continental crust. The resulting geological units are termed ‘ophiolite complexes’. Examples are the Troodos Mountains in Cyprus and the Trucial Range in Oman.
But, like you, I’d take a heck of a lot of convincing that it was because of solar wind…
As a part of research into possibility of a heliospheric feedback I’ve looked into relationship between the solar wind ( ‘interplanetary solar current’) and the Sun’s polar magnetic fields. Polar fields act as a lens focusing SW towards solar equatorial plane. This can be clearly seen from this graph
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SWvsPF.gif
Number of other factors are involved, but relationship between the strength of polar fields and the Solar wind pressure appear to be a significant one.
To say that the solar wind pressure is trendless is at best misleading.
Dr. Svalgaard,
I really appreciate your objective stance with all of the data presented on this site and on solarcycle24 (the only two sun-and-space-weather-global-warming-blogs-with-comments that I reguarly visit). I can’t figure out why there is such a tendency to run to one corner or the other of the debate. I think it is the fear of the impending economy destroying cap-and-tax that we’re looking for anything to help with our battle against the federal behemoth.
I think the real question is: based upon the sun’s spot count, magnetic index, speed, and wind pressue are you investing in wheat futures?
speaking of wind, Seth Boringtheme has a new article out about wind slowing across the US….how’s that going to affect the rush to wind power?
New study in U.S. suggests wind is noticably slowing
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6468341.html
here was a real laugher in the article….
Even so, that information doesn’t provide the definitive proof that science requires to connect reduced wind speeds to global warming, the authors said. In climate change science, there is a rigorous and specific method — which looks at all possible causes and charts their specific effects — to attribute an effect to global warming. That should be done eventually with wind, scientists say.
@Jimmy Haigh (08:24:39) :
Yes. I gave a VERY simplified view of plate tectonics and crustal interactions.
Its funny you should mention ophiolites because I was hanging out on an ophiolite complex just the other day. I told my friends I was looking at sheeted dykes.
Oh the puns in geology can not be taken for granite.
[i]Basil (06:36:20) :
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? [/i]
—
So, then stop trying to make anything – any proxy or any solar wind or solar loop current or cosmic ray intensity or any other relationship – match any single (half-cycle) solar/sunspot 11 year cycle.
Simply stop looking at the sunspot count as anything but HALF the solar cycle. Choose a “positive” and “negative” solar cycle axis; odd cycle numbers are “positive” and even cycle numbers are “negative” for example. THEN plot all of the other relationships and proxies back on the time axis and look for corelations. Not causes neccesarily, but simple co-relationships at first.
Instead of sudden positive peaks of simple sunspot counts, this method allows you to compare the solar cycle to an IRREGULAR generator creating an IRREGULAR alternating current (AC) on an up and down cycle that is NOT purely symmetric NOR purely repetitive on a 22 year basis, but instead one that mimics real life.
Then see where the relationships lead you. Don’t try to MAKE the real universe match some arbitrary but pretty 22.6 year neatly periodic function just because it is easy to calculate. FORCE your theory of causes to match a real-world and down cycle that only “sort of” repeats itself.
Although the structure of the OMNI2 record is complicated, the sharp spike and exponential decline at the beginning of the 90’s really stand out . The spike coincides with the abrupt rise in surface temperatures above long-term means in much of the world.
The Sun really is blank of “Observable Sunpots” for the last 2 days.
1.) Only SOHO could image them.
2.) Only Catania could draw them.
Because:
1.) SOHO is unmanned and therefore cannot draw sunpots.
2.) Catania is not out beyond the Earth’s Atmosphere where it can image the sunspots @ur momisugly a FWHM of less than 1. Only Hubble and SOHO have diffraction limited images.
David Archibald (00:41:05) :
It is very likely that my introductory statement has an error in fact. It seems that the solar wind plasma flow (and I can rely upon Dr Svalgaard to correct me if I am wrong) doesn’t have much to do with the GCR flux, which is best anti-correlated with the IMF.
It was once [40 years ago] thought as obvious [“what else can it be” – rings a bell?] that the solar wind plasma flow controlled CGRs. In retrospect it is obvious that it does not, like a riffle bullet passing through a swarm of bees is not influenced much by the bees. The correct [AFAIK] explanation of the solar modulation of GCRs is that solar rotation causes solar wind parcels of different speed to be emitted in the same direction, with the result that fast wind slams into slow wind and the frozen-in magnetic field gets tangled and magnified by the turbulent ‘interaction region’ that develops as a result. Tangled magnetic fields scatter incoming GCRs so some of them will be scattered back out again. These are some very small additional effects that have to do with carged particles [CGRs] dricting in magnetic fields, but these are minor [but do f.ex. explain the curious alternations of peaked and flat variations at solar minima].
However, Dr Svalgaard states that it is strange that the solar wind flow pressure is declining into solar minimum instead of rising
The Voyager spacecrafts also measure the flow pressure, and here is a plot of all data since 1977 http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Dynamic-Pressure-Voyager.png
The drop at the right-hand edge is caused by the spacecraft passinf through the termination shock and should not enter the discussion. what you see is the same pattern as observed before [either directly or by proxy], namely a minimum at solar maximum and an upward bump between max and min. So the Voyager data does not show any anomaly [although not covering the last two years]. So, it is not clear what to conclude. Perhaps that it matters where we are in latitude and the decline is only an equatorial effect, rather than a global one, which would make it a lot less interesting. Ulysses also found a some [small] diference between equator and polar flows.
Alex (01:22:47) :
Very interesting graphs there… Has the Ap Index plot been updated for May 2009? Are the values still around 2-4?
It never was down to 2. These numbers were errors in what NOAA spews out. The lowest [monthly mean] Ap has ever been is 3.9 and that was for May 2009, but beware that Ap falls 25% going from March to June because of a geometric effect that has to do with the Earth and not the Sun.
ralph ellis (03:52:56) :
In layman’s terms (in comparison to luminosity), how much energy is the solar wind delivering to the Earth?
0.02 W/m2 impacts the magnetosphere, but of that only a small fraction ~0.1 is ‘extracted’ by the Earth, so we are talking about 0.002 W/m2 compared to 1361 W/m2 from luminosity, so of the order of 0.00001 parts of the luminosity [TSI].
tallbloke (04:18:38) :
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 would seem that way.
gary gulrud (04:31:45) :
“It consists mostly of electrons and protons with energies of about 1 keV.”
Kinetic energy.
Which is the only energy they have
“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.
They are ALL charged.
Basil (06:36:20) :
In looking at this chart, it would be hard to discern a repeatable pattern in FP per solar cycle.
It becomes clearer with many more cycles
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?
See above
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
Yes, this is no coincidence.l There is a good physical explanation for this, which has nothing per se to do with the sun, but with how cosmic rays drift in the heliospheric magnetic field [that reverses polarity every solar maimum].
Leif says this usually happens about six months after the minimum.
6-12 months. It takes 12 month for the solar wind to reach the termination shock, but we would expect some effect a bit before that [hence the 6 months]
he suggested a “Chree Analysis.” So I did one. It looks like this: http://i43.tinypic.com/qoxhkm.jpg
A Chree analysis should not be done on heavily smoothed data [as this seems to be]. Have a data point for each month and calculate the standard error on the data points for each month from the standard deviation divided by the square root of number of cases [minus 1]. Then show again. And keep looking. Although, I get uneasy when you claim effects of a thousandth of a degree.
Tim Clark (06:46:29) :
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.
There are so many bad pieces… 🙂
I feel compelled to post if something is stated that is either not correct [ASAIK] or seems to be aimed at misleading because of agenda pushing.
Pamela Gray (07:05:41) :
Is there also interstellar wind? Does this mix with solar wind? Or are the two (if indeed the other exists) separate issues?
There is a stellar wind, or rather an iterstellar medium through which the solar system moves creating a wind like you would feel if sticking your hand out the open window of a fast-moving car.
The two winds do not mix as the solar wind is the dominant within the solar system and pushes the interstellar wind away. A small exception is interstellar neutral atoms, molecules, or dust grains. Those can and do penetrate into the solar system, but can then become charged by collisons with solar wind ion. Once they are charged, they are again swept out.
Ken Sharples (07:13:42) :
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.
Yes, but see the Voyager data I referred to.
As we are now starting SC24, and it could go even lower ?
What is the theoretical lowest it could go ?
The solar wind speed cannot [and does not] go below ~254 km/sec as otherwise it could not escape the Sun. The escape velocty of 625 km/sec you may see elsewhere is at the surface of the Sun, but the solar wind escapes from high in the corona and the escape velocity [and gravity] falls off with distance.
Benjamin P. (07:18:34) :
Well be careful what you copy and paste, because that article is crap.
I agree
Frank Mosher (07:48:51) :
Leif. I, like Anthony, appreciate your input, but please stop the personal attacks.
I think I attack the posting and not the person. Hereby a personal apology to anybody if they feel they have been attacked because I have said their posting are substandard or wrong. That still does not make their postings any better and I’ll not stop pointing out such.
I like the data since the 1960s, but wonder about proxy data from 1890. ” Proxy”, to me, brings to mind Mann, Steig, etc.
Many proxies are good. They are just measurements by other means. We can measure the solar wind by sending out a spacecraft, but we can also use the big spacecraft we are riding on as a measuring device. That was what ‘proxies’ meant in my posting. And we are learning that these proxies are good, because we have figured out how the interaction works and can accurately calibrate that big measuring device: the Earth.
Is it possible the Sun changes in ways we are unaware of and/or can not measure?
The sun does change, and I do not disagree with that [in fact, that is the whole subject of my research]. My statement is that these changes are often smaller than previously thought and that they are much too small to have any significant climate effect.
Ric Locke (08:07:19) :
How much data do we have on solar neutrino flux?
If so, is it dense enough (enough measurements over the time period) to superimpose it on the solar-cycle graphs we see here?
There are some data on that, and no lack of strange claims, but nothing that has been convincing enough to be taken seriously. The latter is, of course, not an obstacle for being discussed in these pages…
Jack Ketch (08:37:48) :
I think the real question is: based upon the sun’s spot count, magnetic index, speed, and wind pressue are you investing in wheat futures?
No, I wouldn’t waste my money on that.
RACookPE1978 (09:30:35) :
Simply stop looking at the sunspot count as anything but HALF the solar cycle. Choose a “positive” and “negative” solar cycle axis; odd cycle numbers are “positive” and even cycle numbers are “negative” for example.
This is an old idea and must be rejected simply on the fact that solar cycles overlap significantly. So giving counts from one cycle a sign different from that of the overlapping cycle would simply cancel out both counts and we would think there was no activity at all.
Leif. Many, many thanks for your response. I think i speak for everyone when i say we truly appreciate your input. fm
Sometime ago I read that the earth’s magnetic field was also slowly weakening.
Anyone know if this weakening has continued, and hve any ideas of the effects of a weakening of the earth/sun magnetic coupling could have on climate?
Anthony, I have done a bit of a background search on David Archibald after his recent prediction which was merely 4.5 degrees off, and now the well-respected Leif Svalgaard’s comments on this article.
My question to you: Is being anti-AGW theory the sole criterium of having your articles placed here? Are there any AGW sceptics out there whose articles you wouldn’t place on this blog? If so, who are they?
“Which is the only energy they have”
Actually the distinction between mc^2 and 1/2mv^2 is pertinent in light of current weak magnetic fields(HCS and geomagnetic) and compact Ionosphere(paucity of UV).
SCR electrons, despite lower velocity, reach further to lower latitudes. By the same token, higher mass SCR protons and alpha particles potentially nucleate minima-correlated noctilucent clouds now visible in Ireland.
GCRs entering as gamma rays also nucleate clouds at lower levels via their charged interaction products.
Granted increases in Mesospheric H20 may play a part.
Tenuc (10:56:22) :
the earth’s magnetic field was also slowly weakening.
Anyone know if this weakening has continued, and hve any ideas of the effects of a weakening of the earth/sun magnetic coupling could have on climate?
The Earth’s field has indeed decrease some 20% the last 3 centuries and is decreasing faster now. It may reverse in a few hundred years. A weakening of the Earth’s field increases the coupling to the solar wind and increases the conductivity of the ionosphere, none of which is likely to have much climate effects [unless you are a cosmic ray fan, as a weaker Earth magnetic field should increase the cosmic ray flux – although observations of radioactive nuclei produced by cosmic rays and deposited in ice cores show a slight decline of cosmic ray intensity over recent centuries, possibly because of a genuine decrease of the galactic flux in the solar neighborhood].
Neven (12:18:43) :
Archibald after his recent prediction which was merely 4.5 degrees off
Being wrong is honorable unless you have an agenda. My problem with Archibald [which some people think translates into personal attacks] is that he presents his ideas as if they were gospel truths and extrapolates and characteristically and uncritically goes WAY beyond what the data justifies. Perhaps I should take a phrase from Margaret Thatcher’s phrasebook to avoid having my comments labeled as an attack: “The honorable Gentleman is speaking nonsense”. 🙂
As I have mentioned before, humans [and I think almost any animal] have a tendency to believe false negatives because this has strong survival benefits [‘better be safe than sorry’]. The problem comes when crowd psychology takes over and we follow the doom sayers over the edge.
Leif Svalgaard (12:53:27) :
Neven (12:18:43) :
“Archibald after his recent prediction which was merely 4.5 degrees off”
Being wrong is honorable unless you have an agenda.
I forgot to add that there is something ‘fishy’ or ‘strange’ about the flow pressure [or rather the density as the solar wind speed has not been extraordinarily low – in fact it was very high during the first half of 2008] being so low. This does not seem to be observed by Voyager, so may only be an effect near the solar equator, and as such deserves special attention. Archibald should be given credit for pointing this out here, but without all the other assertions and conjectures, although this is not a surprise as many scientists are well-aware of this. even the OMNI website cautions that there may be a problem with the data, but does not try to suggest a solution. the problem is that densities from 1971-1998 are based on [or calibrated to] the IMP-8 spacecraft which seems to have a different density calibration than other spacecraft. This whole thing may in the end just be a calibration problem, which, if so, would be disappointing as we all love strange an unusual stuff that doesn’t fit. Some discussion of the various problems can bve found here [warning: mucho mumbo-jumbo]:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/omni2_doc.html#source
gary gulrud (12:29:34) :
“Which is the only energy they have”
Actually the distinction between mc^2 and 1/2mv^2 is pertinent in light of current weak magnetic fields(HCS and geomagnetic) and compact Ionosphere(paucity of UV).
“The honorable Gentleman is speaking nonsense”. The kinetic energy of the CRs is given by the fully relativistic formula
Ek = mc^2((1-(v/c)^2)^(-1/2)-1) which approaches infinity as v approaches c and has nothing to do with HCS or the ionosphere.
“Leif Svalgaard (10:12:10) :
This is an old idea and must be rejected simply on the fact that solar cycles overlap significantly. So giving counts from one cycle a sign different from that of the overlapping cycle would simply cancel out both counts and we would think there was no activity at all.”
—-
Am I allowed to disagree? 8<)
If the sunspots (from an odd or even cycle) overlap on a time axis, so much the BETTER.
If and when they overlap – and it is an unknown "if" (at least right now (hint, hint)) – knowing which "direction" each sunspot was sourced from "might" (or might not) tell us something about the 22-some-odd year changing sunspot cycle that we don't know now. Including skipped cycles (where opposing cycles cancel each other somehow), overlapping cycles (high intensities?) and the differences between the intervals between cycles.
Now, unraveling past sunspot cycles that overlapped with another earlier or later cycle might be difficult, might be easy – depends on what written (sketched) observations we have. But one can try.
On the other hand, if you don't look, you won't find anything other than what you already know you want to see. Or don't want to see. 8<)
Slightly OT
I notice the SSN has been sitting at 12 for the last 2 days. I’ve viewed every Soho image (MDI) and I can’t see one anywhere. Except the dead pixel, have I missed something?