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.
“The honorable Gentleman is speaking nonsense”.
The mass of protons is 1000 times that of electrons. Thus at a given velocity the kinetic energy of the former is 1000 times that of the latter.
GCRs are not uniformly charged particles and the gamma rays comprising therefore are unaffected by magnetic interactions.
The reduced depth of the atmosphere enhances the effect of both, even with the reduced velocity of solar wind.
We have multiple effects of solar minimum working together to increase albedo.
As has been pointed out numerous times, there seem to be both cooler temperatures and more earthquakes at times of solar minimums. And low-sunspot periods tend to be cooler. Right now, it’s a co-incidence. The big challenge is coming up with a physical theory that connects cause and effect, “without invoking phlogiston or aether”.
Here goes. Although it may seem to tread perilously close to “the electric universe”, it’s actually 100% classical electricity and magnetism. However, it’ll probably still be labelled “a crank theory” for other reasons .
We’ll start with the analogy of a hand-cranked electrical generator, with the usual magnetic field and armatures, etc. Turning the crank generates electricity, and over time the electricity ends up as heat (2nd law thermodynamics). Increasing the magnetic field in the generator means that you generate more electricity with each rotation… or the same cranking force will result in slower turning of the generator.
A theory is pointless without making any verifiable predictions, so here goes…
Theory… the earth can be considered as a magnet, with its own magnetic field, rotating in the sun’s magnetic field. As the sun’s magnetic field increases the electrical energy (which eventually “decays” to the form of heat) generated by earth’s rotation increases. The sun’s magnetic field is generally higher when sunspot numbers are higher. This would explain the observed temperature cycle…
Prediction 1)
stronger solar magnetic field (usually associated with more sunspots) => more electricity generated by earth’s rotation => more heat => higher temperatures
weaker solar magnetic field (usually associated with fewer sunspots) => less electricity generated by earth’s rotation => less heat => lower temperatures
Prediction 2)
stronger solar magnetic field (usually associated with more sunspots) => stronger resistance to cranking (earth’s rotation) => earth’s rotation is slowed down more
weaker solar magnetic field (usually associated with fewer sunspots) => weaker resistance to cranking (earth’s rotation) => earth is slowed down less => this release of braking of earth’s rotation results in small release of tensions along faultlines, resulting in more earth quakes.
Note that I am *NOT* saying that sunspots cause anything. I’m saying that it’s magnetic fields. Sunspots are a co-dependant variable to magnetic fields. A major test of prediction 2 is to check the slowdown of earth’s rotation versus observed solar magnetic field (*NOT* sunspot numbers). I’m not talking about the macro-level of leap-seconds, but more like milliseconds.
Leif; are such detailed observations of earth’s rotation kept anywhere?
Walter Dnes (04:56:14) :
Leif; are such detailed observations of earth’s rotation kept anywhere?</i?
The link provided does not give the data, but does give the authors who apparently track this variation (one states there is a six year variation). Good luck.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm05-sessions/fm05_G41C.html
From what I have learned, the major ice ages are a completely different story from what is being discussed here, and are a function of changes in the orbit of the earth from more circular to more eliptical. I have the impression that these changes are in turn caused by gravitational influences of the other planets.
Also entering into this are regular changes in the tilt of the earth’s axis, and the whole thing is aggravated by the earth’s continental imbalance north to south and the question of which pole is closer to the sun as the distance from the sun varies.
It gets to the point where snow does not melt as much in the summer, reflects the heat, and there is a feedback effect all around bringing on the ice age.
Now certainly it is possible for the effects of a solar minimum to trigger an ice age, but this would not be the same as causing one, only a question of the timing.
Walter Dnes (04:56:14) I have been searching my files for an article regarding earth’s rotation rate. All the Google stuff seems to be focusing on the the rate slowing in geologic terms. The article I filed says that it is increasing in the past couple of decades, by virtue of fewer seconds added to the atomic clock. NIST may have this data, but I can’t find it quickly. One implication of the rotation rate increase is more mass being stored at the poles, ie. ice.
gary gulrud (04:30:05) :
The mass of protons is 1000 times that of electrons. Thus at a given velocity the kinetic energy of the former is 1000 times that of the latter.
1836 times. And the cosmic ray particles do not have the same energy or the same given velocity. There is a ‘spectrum’ of energies ranging up to 10^20th eV. The electron spectrum peaks at 10^10th eV.
GCRs are not uniformly charged particles and the gamma rays comprising therefore are unaffected by magnetic interactions.
All GCRs are charged particles. I don’t know what a non-uniform charge is. And gamma rays are not GCRs. GCRs are particles, not photons. There are photons too in the Universe, but they are distinct from and are not considered cosmic rays.
The reduced depth of the atmosphere enhances the effect of both, even with the reduced velocity of solar wind.
The ‘stopping power’ depends on the number of air molecules in a column from the surface to ‘infinity’ and that number is constant for the Earth as a whole. Cosmic ray counts at any given location depends on the atmospheric pressure [=number of molecules overhead] and are routinely corrected for the varying pressure. In fact, the pressure variation can be as large than the solar cycle modulation. A cosmic ray counter is, in fact, a very good barometer.
We have multiple effects of solar minimum working together to increase albedo.
There is no evidence that cosmic rays changes the albedo. Whatever measurements we have of the Albedo do not show any solar cycle dependence.
CJ (23:38:40) :
Could a decline in solar wind pressure by a cyclical event of roughly 100,000 years, and be the trigger for ice ages?
A common misconception is that the solar wind has a large influence on the cosmic rays. It does not. The solar modulation of cosmic rays is only a few percent. Take away the solar wind and the cosmic count would change only of the order of 5%, and even less for the higher energy ones that supposedly should have the biggest effect.
vukcevic (01:41:27) :
Since proton count (at various energy levels) varies on any time scale, are these values a reasonable long term representation (electron excess of approx 7.5% ) ?
The solar wind is neutral [sigh]. Since ~4% of the solar wind is helium [with two electrons per nucleus], and thus not protons, the electron density would be 8% higher [as observed]. These numbers vary a bit with the solar cycle, but strict neutrality is conserved. There are not [and cannot be] electric currents in space other than those generated by particles drifting in magnetic fields [where the field changes sign and/or strength].
The OMNI database is a good source for data. http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
rbateman (01:43:40) :
After reading the 2007 bieber pdf, the only thing I would consider is that both the detector temp and the increased hit rate in concert led to a higher rate of decline….
Bieber does a good job of discussing all known issues. I don’t know about the logistics of tubes etc, but I trust that Bieber has considered everything. Other people have reported a similar trend: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1999JA900385.pdf albeit smaller [as the trend is energy dependent and south Pole sees more of its share of low-energy GCRs].
Walter Dnes (04:56:14) :
As the sun’s magnetic field increases the electrical energy (which eventually “decays” to the form of heat) generated by earth’s rotation increases.
This process does not occur. The Sun’s magnetic field does not interact like this with the Earth. Long story….
are such detailed observations of earth’s rotation kept anywhere?
http://geology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=geology&cdn=education&tm=13&f=00&su=p897.4.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http://www.iers.org/
If that doesn’t work because of WordPress mutilation then the data is here: http://www.astro.oma.be/SBC/data.dat
The table gives time, length of day and its time derivative after removal of atmospheric signal.
More here: http://geology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=geology&cdn=education&tm=13&f=00&su=p897.4.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http://www.iers.org/
Walter Dnes (04:56:14) I think what you are looking for may be found through: The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS). The IERS calculates leap seconds. The IERS determines the rotation of the Earth. Data only exists from 1972 to the present. From 1972 thru 1998 (26 years) 21 leap seconds were added. From 1999 to the present (9 years) only 1 leap second has been added. This means since 1999 to the present the Earth’s rate of rotation has increased.
“The ’stopping power’ depends on the number of air molecules in a column from the surface to ‘infinity’ and that number is constant for the Earth as a whole.”
Beer’s again. Sorry Leif, re: Thermal or Particle Physics, your opinion is a matter of indifference to me.
Walter Dnes (04:56:14) :
As the sun’s magnetic field increases the electrical energy (which eventually “decays” to the form of heat) generated by earth’s rotation increases.
This process does not occur. The Sun’s magnetic field does not interact like this with the Earth. Long story….
Walter Dnes (04:56:14) :
are such detailed observations of earth’s rotation kept anywhere?
These long URL’s don’t work [also generated dynamically], so here is my copy of the EOS article describing the issues around the Length-of-Day:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/EOS-LOD.pdf
gary gulrud (07:34:16) :
“The ’stopping power’ depends on the number of air molecules in a column from the surface to ‘infinity’ and that number is constant for the Earth as a whole.”
Beer’s again. Sorry Leif, re: Thermal or Particle Physics, your opinion is a matter of indifference to me.
Luckily for science, the people measuring cosmic rays do know the applicable physical laws and can thus provide us with reliable data, independently of your indifference.
Leif,
The voyager website says:
Voyager 1 crossed the termination shock in 2004 at about 94 AU. Voyager 2 crossed it in 2007 at about 84 AU. Both are expected to reach intersetellar space in 5 to 8 years (2014 – 2017).
What is the difference between what they are referring to and what you are referring to that is going to take 50 years?
Leif Svalgaard (07:16:14) :
The solar wind is neutral [sigh].
I do not give up easily.
http://ulysses-ops.jpl.esa.int/ulysses/ftp/CDROMS/ULS_01_A/Docs/SWOOPS/SWOOPS.HTM
6.6. COMPARISON OF ELECTRON AND ION RESULTS. (Figure 21)
If overall number of electrons and ions is nearly equal (Ne/Ni ~ =1), but there is difference in velocities (8% occurrence Ve/Vi = 1.1) this would constitute an extra electric current flow (electron flux > proton flux), or at least I think so.
vukcevic (13:27:28) :
“The solar wind is neutral [sigh].”
I do not give up easily.
6.6. COMPARISON OF ELECTRON AND ION RESULTS. (Figure 21)
You would not give up no matter what data/theory/reason/whatever was presented to you.
The small difference is probably instrumental. The experimenters themselves marvel at how close the agreement between electrons and ions is, and ascribe the difference to instrumental issues, and I quote:
“Inspection of the figure shows that on average the electron and ion densities and flow speeds agree to within about 5%, which is surprisingly good agreement for independent experiments of this nature. The data show that significant deviations of 15% or more can occur; such deviations are probably due principally to inaccuracies in the determination of spacecraft potential.”
You really should not just go dumpster diving on the Internet, but try to learn and understand some of the physics. I think I have given you enough pointers to get started.
Leif Svalgaard (14:26:52) :
What’s your opinion of this paper (Which I can’t get from GRL, since I don’t subscribe))
Jerald W. Harder
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA
The Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) on‐board the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite provides the first multi‐year continuous measurements of solar spectral irradiance (SSI) variability from 200–2400 nm, accounting for about 97% of the total solar irradiance (TSI). In addition to irradiance modulation from active region passage, the SSI values for wavelengths with a brightness temperature greater than 5770 K show a brightening with decreasing solar activity, whereas those with lower brightness temperatures show a dimming. These results demonstrate that different parts of the solar atmosphere contribute differently to the TSI with the behavior in the deep photospheric layers giving an opposing and nearly compensating trend to that in the upper photospheric and lower chromospheric layers. These findings need to be incorporated into Earth‐climate assessments since the solar forcing induced by these differential trends are inherently different from the relatively flat spectral contributions employed in the IPCC assessments.
In the works of Theodor Landscheidt, Dr. Landscheidt makes a good case for a 180/360 year cycle that reflects on a “line-up” of positions of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune and the effect of this line-up on the sun eg. ‘low’ sunspot numbers and ‘longer’ solar minimums. His conclusions were that a solar minimum would occur during Cycle 24 and, or, Cycle 25 lasting until around 2030. When the data is extrapolated backwards, it lays neatly on the Dalton, Maunder and Spoor minimums. It seems the unusual gravitational forces exerted on the inner solar system distort the internal magnetic fields of the sun and inner planets. With the sun you get long, deep, solar minimums and with the earth, an increase in volcanic activity.
JB
Leif Svalgaard (14:26:52) :
You would not give up no matter what data/theory/reason/whatever was presented to you.
……… I think I have given you enough pointers to get started.
I do appreciate your help and guidance, but fascination is for unknown.
I have seen the quote, but they also say:
“The level of charging is determined from the shapes of the photoelectron and core/halo electron distributions and used to correct for the distortion.”
If spacecraft is charged negatively (as suggested), would not that indicate the same thing: the excess of electron flux, if the medium is electrostaticly neutral, one would not expect a charge to build up. If craft attracts only one polarity and is not discharged by same density flow of the oposite (“in excess of 5 V with respect to the ambient plasma medium”), wouldn’t that mean that the potential difference would quickly build up to thousands of Volts (e.g. Van de Graaff generator).
Logic says: there is 33% probability that instruments are accurate, 33% they are inaccurate in one direction, or 33% in the opposite direction, i.e. + – velocity difference is even greater, especially since deviation could be as large as 15%. Hence, probability of the excess electron flux is 66%.
Concluding that there is an extra current flow, would go against accepted science, and that would not do.
Thanks.
JB (15:09:07) :
In the works of Theodor Landscheidt, Dr. Landscheidt makes a good case for a 180/360 year cycle that reflects on a “line-up” of positions of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune and the effect of this line-up on the sun eg. ‘low’ sunspot numbers and ‘longer’ solar minimums. His conclusions were that a solar minimum would occur during Cycle 24 and, or, Cycle 25 lasting until around 2030.
Here is Landscheidt’s ‘prediction’:
“SWINGING SUN, 79-YEAR CYCLE AND CLIMATIC CHANGE [PDF 309K] J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19.
ABSTRACT. The secular cycle of solar activity is related to the sun’s oscillatory motion about the center of mass of the solar system. Comparatively short periods of revolution with relatively high rates of curvature constitute a potential for crucial values of the time integral of torque AL = J t0 r (t) dt which seem to give rise to a weak but long lasting flow of solar plasma that modulates short-term flow due to the dynamo effect. Relatively strong impulses of the torque A L occur at mean intervals of 19.86 years. Four consecutive impulses respectively define a permanent wave with a quasiperiod of 79.46 years which determines the distribution of positive and negative extrema in activity. Phases of 0° or 90° indicate a potential for peaks and phases of 180° or 270° can lead to troughs. Such potentials are actually released if A L transgresses a definite threshold value. The ensuing interval variations in the secular cycle are verified by records of sunspots and aurorae dating back to the 4th century AD. Rare activity-deficient periods like the Maunder Minimum, which according to Eddy et al. are related to changes in the Earth’s climate, solely occur when AL reaches exceptional values meeting a special criterion. This is confirmed by radiocarbon data going back to the 6th millenimum BC. The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990. It will be more pronounced than the minimum in 1811.”
—–
1990 was one of the most active years ever…
Now, since that didn’t pan out he has, as everybody does when things don’t work – rather than admitting that the theory has been refuted by its prediction being wrong – ‘adjusted’ the theory to fit the facts. Basically, there was no predictive power, and it is easy to go where the wind blows when you turn out to be wrong, and simply say that the previous prediction ‘was early work’, but this time for sure…
vukcevic (15:37:03) :
As I said, no amount of sound science and meaningful arguments would have any effect on a true ‘believer’.
If spacecraft is charged negatively (as suggested), would not that indicate the same thing: the excess of electron flux, if the medium is electrostaticly neutral, one would not expect a charge to build up.
Here is how spacecraft charging occurs: http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee460/spacecharge.html
Logic says: there is 33% probability that instruments are accurate, […]
By that ‘logic’, there is a 50% chance that I win the lottery tomorrow.
Tim Clark (14:37:24) :
What’s your opinion of this paper (Which I can’t get from GRL, since I don’t subscribe))
Jerald W. Harder…
this is an excellent paper [although it is hard to find the real beef among all the technical mumbo-jumbo]. You can get the paper here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008GL036797.pdf
The bottom line is that the solar cycle variation in one wavelength regions can be different [even opposite] to that in another region, and that that is not taken into account by the IPCC models.
Actually, the solar wind flow pressure
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/ret_14618.gif
looks to rise since the 1950’s up to 1991/2, then falls, marking out a rather long cycle. Toss the 2 outliers in 1969 out of your mind for a minute.
Maybe in a hundred more years we will be getting a better reading on what it’s doing.
In the meantime…..
Is ANYONE interested in the solar wind flow pressure?
rbateman (18:06:55) :
the solar wind flow pressure
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/ret_14618.gif
looks to rise since the 1950’s up to 1991/2, then falls, marking out a rather long cycle.
From the 1963 on… The long cycle is just following the general rise/fall of solar activity as shown by your bottom graph. Superposed on the long cycle are the dips at solar max and humps just before solar min. This is all as it should be and as observed since the 1890s.
Now that I’m fairly thoroughly disenchanted with solar theories of climate change, I’ve begun to wonder about this:
The question then is: “just what is that immensely powerful driver that overwrites (hammers) stable-latching-states and causes hugely abrupt major climatic transitions?” I theorize that the answer is very likely the second most profound source of Earthly energy…the central-core nuclear reactor.
Rather than looking up into the sky, and all that CO2 in the atmosphere, or to the Sun’s radiation, maybe we should think a bit more about what’s under our feet?
The earth originated in a molten ball, entirely molten, through and through. We strongly believe that heavy elements like iron and nickel gravitationally precipitated to the center. But what about even heavier elements like thorium and uranium. They would have precipitated to the center of the center. And we also we know that sufficient quantity of these radioactive elements, with sufficient proximity-density, will spontaneously chain react. So it seems likely that such a reactor exists. But here is the real leap-of-faith (I think not really): we now know that the Sun has complicated internal weather patterns; that account for many phenomena we observe; we also know that the Earth has complicated internal weather patterns that account for magnetic-flipping; so how hard can it be to imagine that the center of the core of the Earth has internal weather patterns?
It strikes me as entirely plausible that the underfloor heating of planet Earth might have just as much effect as the sunlight coming through the atmospheric window. At the surface of this planet we’re being toasted by two power sources – one above, and one below.
Maybe we just focus on one power source – the Sun – because it’s easy to see, while the other one is obscured by thousands of kilometres of opaque basalt. Maybe we hold the Sun to be more important because it superficially looks more important. It’s very bright, after all. And we can put satellites into orbit around it, and measure all sorts of fancy things. But we’ve yet to take Jules Verne’s Journey to the Centre of the Earth.
Then would there be any previous upturn on the way back to 1890?
rbateman (19:35:26) :
Then would there be any previous upturn on the way back to 1890?
On page 22 of
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Solar%20Wind%20During%20Grand%20Minima.pdf we show our best estimate of density n and solar wind speed V. In your mind’s eye multiply n and V and V and convince your self that in mid-century the flow pressure was high as well and that before, say, 1920 it was low.
idlex (19:34:35) :
Now that I’m fairly thoroughly disenchanted with solar theories of climate change, I’ve begun to wonder about this:
[…] the central-core nuclear reactor.
Natural reactors have been found [near the surface]. U and Th, although heavy, fit into the crystal structure of minerals that are found in the crust and are therefore not found in the core. So, not much to expect from that corner.