Livingston and Penn in EOS: Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?

Leif Svalgaard writes to inform me that Livingston and Penn have published their article recently in EOS, TRANSACTIONS, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION.

EOS_LP_Capture

As WUWT readers may recall, we had a preview of that EOS article here.

L&P write in the EOS article:

For hundreds of years, humans have observed that the Sun has displayed activity where the number of sunspots increases and then decreases at approximately 11- year intervals. Sunspots are dark regions on the solar disk with magnetic field strengths greater than 1500 gauss (see Figure 1), and the 11- year sunspot cycle is actually a 22- year cycle in the solar magnetic field, with sunspots showing the same hemispheric magnetic polarity on alternate 11- year cycles.

The last solar maximum occurred in 2001, and the magnetically active sunspots at that time produced powerful flares causing large geomagnetic disturbances and disrupting some space- based technology. But something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle. The current solar minimum has been unusually long, and with more than 670 days without sunspots through June 2009, the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933 (see http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html).

The solar wind is reported to be in a uniquely low energy state since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago [Fisk and Zhao, 2009].

The full article as a PDF is available here

Leif also provides his version of their Figure 3 (showing umbral intensity -vs- total magnetic field which I’m sure he’ll want to discuss here.

http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png

Advertisements

194 thoughts on “Livingston and Penn in EOS: Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?

  1. Sounds OT to begin with, but see what you think of this extract from a reader’s letter from today’s motoring section of the Daily Telegraph –
    “I’m looking for a premium SUV, with diesel engine and automatic transmission, and can spend up to £40,000. I’m concerned that winters in this country are going to become more severe, due to decreased sunspot activity. The poor state of local roads makes cars like this all the more appealing.”
    Someone who’s prepared to put a lot of money where his mouth is.

  2. I wonder how the relatively impressive sunspot group we had in early July fits the trend of decreasing magnetic flux; the paper was written in June.
    Since the July sunspot group, we have reached 35 sunspot-free days and counting. If we can make it past 42, this will become a top-ten recorded streak! I for one hope the sun keeps this especially quiet solar minimum going. It’s a great experiment. The more unusual and longer the better. From it we may be able to discern unambiguously the extent to which solar activity influences climate.

  3. Slowly but surely, the AGW cows are coming home …
    .
    As the evidence builds (don’t we have enough already?), the AGW theory is revealing itself to be morally broke and mentally bankrupt.
    The ‘tipping point’ (gotta love that phrase!!) may soon be reached, but it won’t be the ‘tipping point’ the theorizers profess.
    .
    And about the only ‘tipping’ that will be taking place will be that of frozen cows in icy pastures. But not quite yet …

  4. Telboy (11:22:00) :
    “I’m looking for a premium SUV, with diesel engine and automatic transmission, and can spend up to £40,000. I’m concerned that winters in this country are going to become more severe, due to decreased sunspot activity. The poor state of local roads makes cars like this all the more appealing.”

    But the last time the Sun was equally quiet (in terms of spotless days) was 1933 when the global temperature was on a rise leading to a maximum in the early 1940s.

  5. peat (11:41:40) :
    I wonder how the relatively impressive sunspot group we had in early July fits the trend of decreasing magnetic flux; the paper was written in June.
    The July group fell on the predicted line and is indeed included in my Figure. The field strength was 2150 and the contrast 0.79.

  6. Kevin Kilty (11:47:33) :
    But the last time the Sun was equally quiet (in terms of spotless days) was 1933 when the global temperature was on a rise leading to a maximum in the early 1940s.
    Leading to the obvious conclusion, no?

  7. Kevin
    I am confused by the claims of cooling also, as 1933 heralded a period of extreme warmth as you say.
    It would be nice to have some of the sunspot experts and pundits make some definitive forecasts for the next five years. Will it get colder? Will it get warmer? Will it stay the same? Does anyone really know?
    tonyb

  8. Here is the obvious question, and I’m open to the fact there may be a logical answer. If we can’t find any coorelation between low and high periods of sun spots and earth climate, then how come there is a coorelation between the temperature minimums like Dalton and Maunder and low sun spot activity?

  9. “Kevin Kilty (11:47:33) :
    But the last time the Sun was equally quiet (in terms of spotless days) was 1933 when the global temperature was on a rise leading to a maximum in the early 1940s.”
    That may be so, but the last time a solar cycle was 12.6 years long was solar cycle 5, which began 211 years ago. (Dalton Minimum)
    Solar Cycle 16 began in August 1923 and ended in September 1933 making it 10.1 years long with 568 spotless days during minimum.
    SC 23 is currently at least 12.6 years long, and might become even longer if the next 15 days have zero spots.
    Remember too that the Layman’s spot count has over 211 spotless days for 2009 so far.
    Didn’t the original L&P paper’s extrapolated curve indicate that sunspots should become invisible by 2014?

  10. Kevin Kilty (11:47:33) : wrote
    quote But the last time the Sun was equally quiet (in terms of spotless days) was 1933 when the global temperature was on a rise leading to a maximum in the early 1940s. unquote
    Before looking for correlations, might I suggest you try to find unmanipulated data? The GISS and HADCRUT graphs have both been severely adjusted — my personal bete noir is the Folland and Parker bucket correction. Without that correction the global increase in temperature is delayed until 1939/40 and the bump associated with the rise peters out — or drops precipitously — in the late forties.
    JF

  11. TonyB (12:12:16) :
    Kevin
    I am confused by the claims of cooling also, as 1933 heralded a period of extreme warmth as you say.
    It would be nice to have some of the sunspot experts and pundits make some definitive forecasts for the next five years. Will it get colder? Will it get warmer? Will it stay the same? Does anyone really know?
    tonyb
    ——
    How early in the 1940s?
    From my memory of history weren’t the winters of the early 1940s particularly cold? Hitler’s Russian campaigns 1941-43 where the winters were as bad as that met by Napoleon in 1812, The Battle of the Bulge Ardennes 1943-1944.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge
    I am pretty sure the winter after the Battle of Britain was unexpectedly severe.
    But if someone knows better…

  12. Here is the obvious question, and I’m open to the fact there may be a logical answer. If we can’t find any coorelation between low and high periods of sun spots and earth climate, then how come there is a coorelation between the temperature minimums like Dalton and Maunder and low sun spot activity?

    Presumably if there is an effect it’s somewhat diminished by the enormous thermal intertia of the Oceans.

  13. peat writes “The July group fell on the predicted line and is indeed included in my Figure. The field strength was 2150 and the contrast 0.79”
    Do you have a reference for this? Something that has been pu blished somewhere? TIA.

  14. Actually if you look at the linked chart above, 1944 was at 36 days. Since we are now at 35 days, the article is at least slightly incorrect (unless we go another day).
    Leif
    Do we have a spectrogram of the sun across many wavelengths to look at to compare the sun’s radiant output across a wide spectrum so that we could compare the output during a solar max, to this solar minimum?
    You have convinced me that TSI variations may (though there is data from early space experiments that put the average insolation at 1358 per m2) not be enough to cause swings in climate. However, I am still intrigued with the idea of coupling factors between the radiant output of the sun and the absorption of this radiant output in the Earth’s atmosphere.
    We know from a USAF mission designed to measure this, that the Earth’s atmosphere has contracted more than at any time in the space age. This is interesting and possibly significant. It would be interesting to see what the average global lightning energy is at this time versus what it was during the last solar max. I think that there is a mission measuring this flying today.
    Lets start to look at these differences between the Earth during solar max and this extended solar minimum to see what influences may be apparent during this period that may not have been during previous short period minimums.

  15. Leif:
    The following seems to be the most interesting observation in the paper… do you have any comments?
    “The same data
    were later published [Penn and Livingston,
    2006], and the observations showed
    that the magnetic field strength in sunspots
    were decreasing with time, independent of
    the sunspot cycle. A simple linear extrapolation
    of those data suggested that sunspots
    might completely vanish by 2015.”

  16. The difference I see with this cycle vs the cycle in 1933 is this:
    Months with average ssn <=10
    1933: 20
    2007: official 18, including July 2009: 28
    Months with average ssn <=5
    1933: 4
    2007: official 10, including July 2009: 20
    (note) the official average ssn in belgium stops at Sept 2008 since todays numbers will effect the average. If the ssn starts increasing soon, then the average will pick up, otherwise……
    A better comparison might be 1911, since there were 30 months with ssn <5 and 40 months with ssn <10.
    Cycle 19 had 0 months with ssn < 5 & 2 months < 10 while cycles 20 & 21 had zero months with ssn < 10.
    This also correpsonds to the infamous warming period of AGW.
    Perhaps the issue of solar activity and temperature on earth is not so much the peak of the cycle, but how low it goes and how long it stays there, combined with the behavior of cycle minimums in consecutive cycles.

  17. TonyB (12:12:16) :
    Some seem to understand more. Piers Corbyn has been highly successful using the sun as the main ingredient for making his forecasts. And he says the cause of warming in earth has “Absolutely nothing to do with man”.
    He says that on October 28th he’s going to reveal ‘key aspects’ of his technique. How many of us will be sitting front and center on that day?

  18. SOHO was not in space in the 30’s. What can be seen by SOHO and telescopes of the 30’s is different. Also, SOHO is never affected by clouds, humidity, night, etc.

  19. The comment was:
    ——————-
    Kevin Kilty (11:47:33) :
    But the last time the Sun was equally quiet (in terms of spotless days) was 1933 when the global temperature was on a rise leading to a maximum in the early 1940s.
    ——————-
    Yeah, imagine that: Right smack dab in the middle of a worldwide economic depression when most people didn’t have the money for much more than a few scraps of food, manufacturing was darned near at a standstill, and people were dying from starvation as the —ahem— ‘carbon footprint’ of humanity was as about as low as it could get without more people AND ANIMALS dying off.
    .
    And while you’re at it, Kevin, why not talk about how it was that with all the people in the northern hemisphere in the year 1300, burning all that peat, coal, wood, and dung for cooking and heating, producing the massive amounts of carbon —far more than now due to the relatively archaic methods of combustion— the Earth got so miserably cold that people died from exposure and starvation?
    .
    Oh, and wait: What about when there were FEWER people around before the year 1000 AD, and the Earth got blazingly warm such as to facilitate longer growing periods in the northern latitudes, and allowed for the SUCCESSFUL settlement of the southern reaches of Greenland?
    .
    While the lack of Sun spots ~might not~ be ‘the cause’ in and of itself of either warmer or cooler Earth temperatures, there sure as heck is a completely undeniable connection between their paucity and lower Earth temperatures in the past.
    .
    Your remark then, is the essence of pointing to ~just one~ event on a multi-event graph and making an entirely invalid declaration whilst ignoring everything else surrounding it.
    .
    A person has a pimple on his face. Is the pimple a part of the person, or vice-versa?

  20. @ Sandy in Derby
    Battle of the Ardennes was 1944/5 ; (had to have D-Day first), but yes, your point is still valid. The “Band of Brothers” episode featuring it made me turn the heating up!

  21. The comments were:
    —————–
    SandyInDerby (13:07:30) :
    How early in the 1940s?
    From my memory of history weren’t the winters of the early 1940s particularly cold? Hitler’s Russian campaigns 1941-43 where the winters were as bad as that met by Napoleon in 1812, The Battle of the Bulge Ardennes 1943-1944.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge
    I am pretty sure the winter after the Battle of Britain was unexpectedly severe.
    But if someone knows better…
    ——————
    You simply ~MUST~ remember here that it’s NOT how cold it got, but how WARM it gets.
    .
    The warmists have no interest in the truth of the matter.
    .
    Oh, and one other thing: When it ~does~ get colder, why it’s because of the ‘climate change.’
    .
    See? it got colder because it got warmer … yeah.
    .
    Remember: Global cooling is the result of ‘global warming.’

  22. Dennis,
    People also argue that rather than sun spot number (solar activity) it is length of the cycle that holds the effect. Then there are those who argue for the effect of energy outside the visible spectrum, and so on. I’m not a solar physicist, so I haven’t any way to discuss what else may be associated with events like the Dalton and Maunder minima. My suspicion is that we are looking at only two solar events and two periods of abnormal cooling so there might easily be confounding factors in each case. Perhaps Leif can tell us briefly if there are other mechanisms afoot in these events that make them unlike a typical minimum, or the possibility of unknown mechanisms in solar behavior.

  23. “Do we have a spectrogram of the sun across many wavelengths to look at to compare the sun’s radiant output across a wide spectrum so that we could compare the output during a solar max, to this solar minimum?”
    This same thing occurred to me a few days ago. I wondered if the proportion of total solar radiation, while not varying much in the aggregate, might vary considerably in proportion to different wavelengths. Might there be less IR but more UV or more UV but less visible or with the IR, maybe less at a some range of wavelengths but more at another.
    If the radiation changes across different wavelengths, how the climate responds to a given amount of aggregate solar radiation might be different. I don’t have access to these data so I can’t hypothesize, but am simply expressing a curiosity as in “gee, I wonder how solar radiation is currently spread across the spectrum and if that is different than when the sun was behaving in a way we had become accustomed to”. The idea being maybe we could have cooling but that might not be related to TSI or sunspots per se so much as another change that happens at the same time sunspot counts drop such as a shift in the amount of energy at various wavelengths.
    The way I understand it, about 50% of the radiation is IR. If for some reason this was shifted somewhat with less IR radiation but more visible or UV, the TSI might remain the same but the impact on climate might be different.

  24. So, I am to take it that either one must believe in some solar variation as explanation of climatic variation, OR, one must believe that CO2 inspired greenhouse effect does it, but nothing in addition or in between?
    Highlander is right to point out that all sorts of climate variations occur when it is impossible for human beings to be the cause. But he is wrong to to label persons as being in one camp or the other, or any camp at all, because they point out discrepancies with favored theories.

  25. Speaking of Napoleon and graphical depictions of information, I believe that people ( including scientists and statisticians ) could learn a great deal from Edward Tufte.
    Here’s one of the most famous graphical depictions of information ever created ( by Charles Joseph Minard ), which contains a wealth of information regarding Napoleons march to Moscow. It’s worth studying in detail, as there are many lessons to be absorbed. I have a framed copy of it in my den. http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters . It’s a shame that so many have forgotten that the goal of science and statistics is to inform, rather than obscure.

  26. Two years of extremely low sunspot activity and temperatures are, according to satellite measurements, still above the last 30 years average (which includes 1998). Surely some mistake? Clearly the sun-worshippers will now have to look for a new God.
    “the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933”. And this would also be around the time when the USA had temperatures higher than in 1998? Oh dear.

  27. “Robinson (13:11:43) :
    Here is the obvious question, and I’m open to the fact there may be a logical answer. If we can’t find any coorelation between low and high periods of sun spots and earth climate, then how come there is a coorelation between the temperature minimums like Dalton and Maunder and low sun spot activity?
    Presumably if there is an effect it’s somewhat diminished by the enormous thermal intertia of the Oceans.”
    And what supplies the oceans with heat energy? How long does the ocean store heat energy?

  28. Anthony,
    I understand that you were instrumental in installing the ‘weather station’ at the Forest Ranch School. I am coordinating the After School Program at the After School Program at the charter school and would love to get the program up and running again. Is there any way you would be able to help or put me in touch with someone who could help?
    Thank you.
    Beth Wattenberg (tel: 342-9552)
    P.S. I could not activiate the comment ‘section’ by clicking below the banner, thus I had to send it this circuitous way.
    [REPLY – I sent this along to Anthony, direct. ~ Evan]

  29. “dennis ward (14:30:48) :
    Two years of extremely low sunspot activity and temperatures are, according to satellite measurements, still above the last 30 years average (which includes 1998). Surely some mistake? Clearly the sun-worshippers will now have to look for a new God.”
    Folks have have repeatedly said this on other threads and it will be repeated once again: Have Patience!
    It’s not worship, its common sense.

  30. Getting back on topic, I know of the association of sun spot cycle length with earth temperature, but I wish someone could provide a mechanism, a theory, of why this should be so.
    Let’s assume for a moment that the global temperature data are not manipulated, but rather are pointing to a true tend–even if the trend is perhaps not exactly the correct magnitude.
    When I first read that the last such solar sunspot number minimum occurred in 1933 I immediately recalled that the 1930s in the U.S. were warm, and I was surprised to see the global temperature as simply on the rise to a peak in the early 1940s. On the other hand, despite the 1940s peak, many Europeans recall cold years, and we all know about the exceptionally awful weather around D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge. The old timers in the western U.S. still talk about the winter of 1948-1949, which on the global temperature chart is warmer than the 1930s and so forth.
    This emphasizes a point I often make to my students, and which I see Pielke, Sr. also talks about. Regional variations matter more than global ones because they are more extreme. In fact I would add that it is actually regional drought and regional cold temperature that are more worrisome than global warmth, because these have huge impact on food supplies. People will no doubt try to claim that global warming will lead to regional cooling and drought; but from where I sit right now, a little more CO2 (which makes plants somewhat more drought tolerant) and a bit more warmth seems desireable compared to alternatives.

  31. Hi Leif,
    I noticed in the paper it said the sun’s magnetic field had reversed. Is this normal, when did it happen, how long does it take to flip, and has this happened before?
    Sorry for the questions, to me (an average Joe) this sounds like a pretty amazing event.

  32. Kevin,
    you are right, of course. Too many cycles within cycles. Too many wheels within wheels. Too much “business” goin on. If you married the daughter of Rube Goldberg to the son of Archimedes they couldn’t produce a more complicated mess than is “Climate.”
    I remember reading at Climate Science (I think it was) of an area of China that went through a 400 year drought, while an area a few hundred miles away was going through “wet, and cold.” Then, the whole thing reversed, for another 400 years.
    We’ve come through 30 years of “short, sweet” solar cycles, a positive PDO, and accelerated CO2 accumulation. Now, the PDO is positive, we have, at least, one long solar cycle, and CO2 is still increasing (although, only 1.43 ppm in the last 12 months.)
    So, we shall see, eh?

  33. Speaking about winters in WW2. There is an argument, that the significant cooling experienced during WW2, was man made. It is hypothesized that human generated naval warfare on a global scale was the cause. Specifically it was aided by the effect of setting off thousands of depth charges, and underwater mines, there by mixing a large quantity of surface area with explosives. The effect of cycling or moving a large mass of primarily cold water to the surface in grid fashion is the action that is argued to have changed the near term global temps. It may or may not be the reason for the rapid cooling during the war, but it is interesting to consider the effect of mixing large quantity’s of ocean surface area with water temps significantly cooler just below.

  34. There were also volcanoes during the Dalton Minimum to raise the albedo and lower the temperature, and I believe there were some during the Maunder Minimum, too.
    However, I also suspect that this pending period of Cheshire Cat sunspots will lower the temperature, but as a disciple, heh, of Leif, I must remark that the mechanism is unknown.
    =====================================

  35. Kevin Kilty (14:48:37) :
    You may not have sen the video “The Cloud Mystery”. It shows the work of Henrik Svensmark and what he has found about the sun and clouds.
    5 part YouTube series starting with this :

  36. I think I’d, really, like to see an 11 yr moving average (monthly would be OK) of Sunspot Numbers.
    For instance, what has been the average SSN over the last 11 years? From July 98′ to July 09′?
    Then, for comparison, maybe July 94′ to July 05′?
    And, to top it off, from July 87′ to July 98′?

  37. Jack Barnes (14:55:08) :
    “Speaking about winters in WW2. There is an argument, that the significant cooling experienced during WW2,”
    As I recall during WW II, most people were burning coal in their furnaces and in the winter time the snow was covered with soot. These carbon emissions apparently were not significant enough to affect the temperature.

  38. Gene Nemetz (15:23:40) :
    Kevin Kilty (14:48:37) :
    You may not have sen the video “The Cloud Mystery”. It shows the work of Henrik Svensmark and what he has found about the sun and clouds.

    I got an introduction to this idea here on WUWT. Thanks for the link to the video. It is nicely done. The hypothesis is intriguing. It links solar magnetic field to clouds through cosmic rays. What I didn’t see explained immediately is whether the magnetic field varies according to length of cycle. I’ll look further.

  39. Dennis Wingo (13:17:20) :
    We know from a USAF mission designed to measure this, that the Earth’s atmosphere has contracted more than at any time in the space age. This is interesting and possibly significant. It would be interesting to see what the average global lightning energy is at this time versus what it was during the last solar max. I think that there is a mission measuring this flying today.

    This sounds quite interesting. I know that expansion of the upper atmosphere leads to abnormal decay of satellite orbits. Can you supply any link to a description of the mission or its results? Thanks.

  40. Dennis Wingo (13:17:20)
    TSI varies by only a little. I am not sure what range of the spectrum is measured in TSI. However, UV and IR vary differently, and I feel sure they have different impacts upon the atmosphere.

  41. Mark (14:48:40) :
    Leif can provide a more detailed answer, but yes, the solar magnetic field reverses every cycle In one mode, it causes cosmic rays to drift to the Poles, in the other, as we have now, it causes them to drift to the equatorial plane..
    Cloud formed at the equator will have more impact on temperature via albedo increase, than those form,ed at the poles.

  42. Dear me.
    I don’t know who advanced the idea that naval munitions in WW2 could have caused excess water mixing in the oceans but either he/she was woefully ill informed or was, as we say over here, extracting the Michael.
    Ocean mixing to great depths is caused by water wave action which is why the thermocline does not begin until depths of the order of several hundred metres.
    I know there is a popular idea that somehow there is a warm and very thin skin of water at the surface where it is irradiated which might be true in a glass of water but is not true in the open ocean where very fast wave driven mixing occurs at the surface. In open ocean wave mixing action also occurs both by day and night.
    The waves are of course driven by the winds which themselves are driven by the convection currents in the atmosphere and displaced by the Coriolis force due to the rotation of the earth
    These forces are enormous as anyone who has been in the way of a hurricane knows, and on a global sale a hurricane is just a tiny local disturbance, yet people grossly underestimate the sheer scale of them.
    I calculate, admittedly on the back of an envelope using some heroic assumptions , that if you exploded all the munitions navy, army and air, exploded in WW2, including the two atomic bombs, and detonated them underwater simultaneously, they might release in an instant about one thousandth of the work done in one hour by the wave mixing action around the open oceans of the globe.
    The precision of the calculation is very poor, probably by at least three magnitudes either way, and possibly considerably more, but hey what’s a few magnitudes between friends?
    It is however sufficient to say that the effect of the munitions would be negligible. So I do not propose to pursue it any further.
    But does that put the scale of natural forces compared to manmade ones in proportion for you?
    Kindest Regards

  43. Tonyb, Kevin.
    My simple (leisure activity) global temperature vs Sunspots model was based on physics and made few assumptions. It reproduced temperature anomalies from around 1850 to the present with a small error at the end of about -0.2C (too low).
    The 1930s and 40s fit OK. To understand, one could think of the sunspot net effect as a “gas flame” on a stove top heating a pot of water (note, I do not say sunspots give off energy). If one “pulses” the flame in say 11 year cycles — from a lower level to steadily increasing levels — and one has a lot of water (oceans for example) — it takes time for the water to heat enough to reach equilibrium. Many cycles pass.
    So, net heating can occur during decades that happen to have some low sunspot numbers at the low end of the 11 year cycles.
    Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that the Sun’s heat output varies enough to cause this. I do not assume a mechanism — though others have proposed some possible mechanisms.
    A “for what its worth” from an “armchair” perspective.

  44. And what supplies the oceans with heat energy? How long does the ocean store heat energy?

    That’s a good question and it’s one that I think is ok to answer with, “I don’t know”. I can only go on gut instinct here, because I’m not familiar enough with the science. Given the biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, sun, solar-system and extra solar influences all play a part (perhaps) in regulating Earth’s heat balance, I find it hard to see where any one particular effect dominates. Perhaps the fact of the matter will be found in a different century – probably the next.

  45. Didn’t I read, somewhere, that less cloud cover actually leads to “cooler” temps at the South Pole, due to the fact that Antactic Ice has a “Higher” albedo than the cloud cover?

  46. The influence of the sun can’t be dismissed, as warmists would have us believe. And other celestial bodies are implicated in long-term climatic history, but the proponents of AGW are assaulting real science on a grand scale if it may contradict AGW by any stretch of the imagination.
    Here we have a theory based on real evidence that explains the fragmentation of the Clovis culture and the mass extinction of large animals on the North American continent. If you have been watching Time Team America, the researchers have also located this layer of carbon rich soil, and have observed the sudden disappearance of Clovis artifacts about 13,000 years ago.
    Did A Comet Hit Great Lakes Region, Fragment Human Populations, 12,900 Years Ago?
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070523094009.htm
    The next year more scientific evidence is uncovered…
    Exploding Asteroid Theory Strengthened By New Evidence Located In Ohio, Indiana
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080702160950.htm
    And this year conclusive evidence is uncovered to add weight to the meteor impact theory…
    Six North American Sites Hold 12,900-year-old Nanodiamond-rich Soil
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090101172136.htm
    Note that none of these discoveries is in direct conflict with AGW. But along comes this study that attempts to cast aside all previous findings with a wave of the hand. And on top of it, it substitutes global warming theory, as if all other realities of science must be discredited in order for the religion of AGW to prevail…
    12,900 Years Ago: North American Comet Impact Theory Disproved
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126173729.htm

  47. “We know from a USAF mission designed to measure this, that the Earth’s atmosphere has contracted more than at any time in the space age.”
    Indeed. Just a few years ago, NASA (and others) were moaning about the expansion of the atmosphere (due to, and proving, AGW) causing satellites’ orbits to decay.
    Ya think there might be a cycle here?

  48. Kevin Kilty (11:47:33) :
    The 1933 record was after the spotless streak had ended.
    Right now, this is 2009 and it’s still nowhere near the end.
    We are as close to the bottom as any cycle has ever been.

  49. Global warmers are dissapearing from sight!! Their political patrons are beginning to end “tipping points”. No more financing for computer games. Their winters will be very cold indeed!…Time to work as the rest of us.

  50. SandyInDerby (13:07:30) :
    What you are seeking is a reference point. Climate always contains noise, and that noise is annual instances of Weather. If you start from a reference point higher or lower than today’s global temp, the annual instances of weather will take you much higher or much lower given the opportunity of contructve interference with regards to this current climate.

  51. “Right now, this is 2009 and it’s still nowhere near the end.”
    And you know that how?
    It could end tomorrow. Or next week. If you claim we are “nowhere near” the end, then it implies that you have some information on when it will end. Please, do tell.

  52. “Jack Barnes (14:55:08) :
    Speaking about winters in WW2. There is an argument, that the significant cooling experienced during WW2, was man made. It is hypothesized that human generated naval warfare on a global scale was the cause. Specifically it was aided by the effect of setting off thousands of depth charges, and underwater mines, there by mixing a large quantity of surface area with explosives. The effect of cycling or moving a large mass of primarily cold water to the surface in grid fashion is the action that is argued to have changed the near term global temps. ”
    ===
    No. No way. WWII was actively “blowing up things” between April 1941 until (in Europe) May 1945. (Fighting started in Poland in Sept 1939, but was over within the month, and never went further (through the Sitzkrieg) until April the next year.
    WWII buildup could not be industrially “globally significant” prior to that because – while some munitions were being made, ships, planes, tanks etc (heavy fabrication) was minor and very localized. Besides, the depression had previously lowered all industrial output – and global ROSE from 1929 through 1935-1940 even while all industrial activity declined. (Fewer Aerosals not reflecting IR radiation?)
    At sea, the salt spray and water vapor and cloud impact of just one storm covering a diameter of 200-400 miles for a total period of 6-10 days? Compared to a depth charge lifting a 100 foot diameter of water up a total of 100 feet for 10 seconds? There are storm waves 800-1200 feet long routinely topping out above 50-75 feet!
    The mid-century temperature decline from 1935 through 1970 CANNOT be explained by WWII (it was over), the post-war 50’s boom (too localized an area, even given the poor soot-restrictions of pre-1950’s smokestacks), nor CO2 (which was increasing at the time.)

  53. Using a spotless streak to in an attempt to align two similar solar cycles is fraught with danger. There are so many different ways of determining the parameters and if comparing annual totals timing of the cycle becomes the most important issue.
    If I compare the Layman’s count from June 2008 to June 2009 we get 349 spotless days, that’s 16 days with spots over 12 months, as Wolf might have counted it 200 years prior.
    We would most likely have to go back to the Maunder or Dalton days to get another minimum with so few spots.
    L&P are probably observing a grand minimum along with us for the first time. My guess for a more likely candidate to compare SC24 with is SC5, along with the temperature record of the two era’s.
    Layman’s July update here:
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

  54. Kum Dollison (17:52:44)
    Cloud cover affects albedo only slightly compared to glaciers. The major effect clouds have over poles is reducing the outgoing IR radiation. So the poles lose heat much faster when the sky is clear. Even at the solstice, the sun is only 23.5 degrees above the horizon and the sunlight goes through 3 times the atmosphere as a result. The light that gets through also reflects off of snow very well due to the low angle.
    Remember that the poles transfer heat away from the earth because heat always flows from hot to cold. The hysteria about ice free arctic is very misplaced, because this would create huge negative feedback if the ocean surface radiates at 273K instead of 253K or so if ice covered.

  55. Kum Dollison (14:52:59) :
    We’ve come through 30 years of “short, sweet” solar cycles, a positive PDO, and accelerated CO2 accumulation. Now, the PDO is positive, we have, at least, one long solar cycle, and CO2 is still increasing (although, only 1.43 ppm in the last 12 months.)
    So, we shall see, eh?

    If there were only these three factors involved, and no noise of any sort, then, yes, we’d have the entry in the table of contrasts needed to unravel the effect of solar cycle length. But I fear there are more factors, and noise galore. The weather/climate is so accursedly ornery.

  56. Dennis Wingo (13:17:20) :
    “We know from a USAF mission designed to measure this, that the Earth’s atmosphere has contracted more than at any time in the space age. This is interesting and possibly significant. It would be interesting to see what the average global lightning energy is at this time versus what it was during the last solar max. I think that there is a mission measuring this flying today.”
    Global lightning homepage here
    http://webflash.ess.washington.edu/
    The integrated research project (aeronomy) is AARDVARK very detailed site with publications here
    http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/space/AARDDVARK_homepage.htm
    Also cr is well established with thunderstorms and lightning (Zel’dovich)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Borisovich_Zel%27dovich

  57. crosspatch (18:39:28) :
    “Right now, this is 2009 and it’s still nowhere near the end.”
    And you know that how?

    Digging.
    1.) The flux is currently on a long roll back down. For previous minimums take a look here:
    http://www.solen.info/solar/history/
    2,) The flux ususally needs to roll on up to ~ 80 to get going on the ramp angle. It has not done that yet.
    3.) Compare 1901 and 1913 area measurements and umbral/penumbral sizes with 2008:
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_REGIONS/GREENWICH/DAILY/1901.sum
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_REGIONS/GREENWICH/DAILY/1913.sum
    ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD2008.txt
    4.) Dearth of large white-light faculae in this minimum.
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin3.htm
    compared to other minimums. Long valley to climb out of.
    5.) Mt. Wilson Magnetic Strength Index and Sunspot Index in a deep hole:
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plots
    Long valley to climb out of.
    6.) Penumbra only spots in relative abundance: 2008 vs 1996 and 1986:
    ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD1986.txt
    ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD1996.txt
    ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD2008.txt

  58. crosspatch (18:46:27) :
    What determines the temperature of the water on the abyssal plains?

    The source of bottom water. In the Atlantic basin the bottom water is quite cold (-2C ?) and its source is the Arctic Ocean with maybe some input from the Barents Sea and the Greenland Sea. Bottom water produced around Antarctica is somewhat warmer and supplies a large fraction of bottom water in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, but it becomes intermediate water in the Atlantic Basin. Atlantic bottom water rounds the corners to provide some input to the other two ocean basins. At least this is the pattern I learned a long time ago.

  59. Ive noticed the F10.7 has dropped below the pink curvy line again on Leif’s page.. so much for the start of activity. Seems like that one southern spot is going to be the biggest we see for a while to come to. Back to holes going round and round. So I guess we shall see if theres a lag time for cooler temps or if this summers weird jet stream was somehow influenced by lack of solar activity. .. so many possibilities.

  60. dennis ward (14:30:48) :
    “Two years of extremely low sunspot activity and temperatures are, according to satellite measurements, still above the last 30 years average (which includes 1998). Surely some mistake? Clearly the sun-worshippers will now have to look for a new God.”
    Most of the heat from the last 30 yrs. of (mild) warming is stored in the oceans, not the atmosphere. All those joules aren’t going to regress to the mean in two years.
    As Mr. Alex says, have patience.
    (Or, uhh, be cool)

  61. Jim Cripwell (13:14:30) :
    “The July group fell on the predicted line and is indeed included in my Figure. The field strength was 2150G and the contrast 0.79″
    Do you have a reference for this? Something that has been published somewhere? TIA.

    The best reference of all: Bill Livingston told me.
    As for the 2015: as more data accumulates the year can be determined better. It now stands at ~2018, but must be seen in context of what L&P said, namely: “If the trend continues, then …”. This is different from saying that it does continue.
    pkatt (20:25:24) :
    Ive noticed the F10.7 has dropped below the pink curvy line again on Leif’s page.. so much for the start of activity.
    The pink curve have had a few drop-belows before. The uncertainty of the F10.7 measurement is about +/- one unit, so this can easily happen. BTW, the flux is up to 69.8 today vs. ~65.5 back in December. You have to go back two years to find a higher background flux than ~70. So there is enough new emerging flux to make the difference, although the flux has not assembled enough to form active regions.

  62. Robert Wood (16:54:41) :
    Leif can provide a more detailed answer, but yes, the solar magnetic field reverses every cycle In one mode, it causes cosmic rays to drift to the Poles, in the other, as we have now, it causes them to drift to the equatorial plane..
    Except that is the solar pole and the solar equatorial plane, and the difference is very small anyway.

  63. Dennis Wingo (13:17:20) :
    Do we have a spectrogram of the sun across many wavelengths to look at to compare the sun’s radiant output across a wide spectrum so that we could compare the output during a solar max, to this solar minimum?
    Yes it is called SSI [Solar Spectral Irradiance]. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/ssi_data.htm
    Here is a good reference for solar cycle variations:
    http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/pdf/floyd_svecse.pdf
    We know from a USAF mission designed to measure this, that the Earth’s atmosphere has contracted more than at any time in the space age.
    This pertains to the upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, where it is important to the USAF, but no such effect has taken place in the lower atmosphere where we live.

  64. Robert Bateman (19:57:42) :
    5.) Mt. Wilson Magnetic Strength Index and Sunspot Index in a deep hole:
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plots
    Long valley to climb out of.

    Although as you can see in the first two graphs the climb has begun. If you look at the third graph you’ll notice something unsettling. now, don’t click until you have studied the graph carefully [it shows the plage index for the past several cycles].
    Now, go here: http://www.leif.org/research/MWO%20MPSI%20-%20F107.pdf

  65. The comment was:
    —————-
    Kevin Kilty (14:48:37) :
    Getting back on topic, I know of the association of sun spot cycle length with earth temperature, but I wish someone could provide a mechanism, a theory, of why this should be so.
    Let’s assume for a moment that the global temperature data are not manipulated, but rather are pointing to a true tend–even if the trend is perhaps not exactly the correct magnitude. […]
    —————-
    Where you —and many others— go ‘wrong’ is just this: You’re looking for a DIRECT affect, and ~not~ the cumulative one.
    .
    Here’s the deal, in a word: Hysteresis.
    .
    From the American Heritage English Dictionary:
    —————-
    hys·ter·e·sis
    n. pl. hys·ter·e·ses
    The lagging of an effect behind its cause, as when the change in magnetism of a body lags behind changes in the magnetic field.
    —————-
    .
    The Sun’s heat affects the Earth in a tangental sort of way by dint of the layers of ‘insulating’ atmosphere.
    .
    You must begin to think in terms of BOTH time AND temperature in order to factor in how both will affect what happens over time.
    .
    Only certain bands of radiant energy are allowed more transmission than others through the atmosphere which is why certain clear days appear warmer than others, depending upon the character of the intervening atmosphere.
    .
    If the effects are averaged out over the long term, then it may be said that the hysteresis effect affords a degree of buffering which prevents all of the layers of atmosphere from becoming warmed or cooled at the same rate at the same rate and at the time.
    .
    Since neither the atmosphere nor the oceans —or any other body of water— may ‘store energy,’ but merely absorb, and then release energy at the same rates, then it may be said that the =DEGREE= of absorption is =COMPLETELY= predicated upon the energy impinging upon them and their ability to absorb energy at their natural rate.
    .
    Ergo, the longer a body of whatever material is exposed to a certain temperature, the closer that body comes to equaling that temperature, presuming of course, that all of the impinging energy is absorbed and not reflected.
    .
    The hysteresis effect comes in here: It takes a certain amount of energy to overcome resistance to change, but once that resistance is overcome, change happens quickly — up to a point. Beyond that point more energy does not equal the same rate of change.
    .
    In fact, more energy equals less change, if only that beyond a certain point no more energy can be absorbed by the system. This is referred to as ‘saturation.’
    .
    In our case, saturation would be: Boiling oceans.
    .
    If the source of the energy is removed, then the release of the absorbed energy happens at the very same rate as when it was absorbed, only this time, the hysteresis effect takes place in reverse: The rate of release is slow at first, and then once it gets underway the release of energy happens as quickly as it did as when it was being absorbed.
    .
    All of that presumes there is no resistance to the release of energy, i.e., an insulative buffer between something and nothing. In our case we have relatively ‘thick’ atmosphere which interferes with the release, as well as with the absorption.
    If there is an intervening area of atmosphere which happens to be absorbing the released energy, but does not do so at the release rate of the source (body of water) then the ambient temperature will be higher than had the intervening atmosphere (clouds) not been there.
    .
    A very classic case of that is in winter with overcast skies in the night periods, with the Earth radiating released energy, and the clouds reflecting that amount which they cannot absorb and release readily causing the intervening atmosphere to be warmer than it would have been otherwise.
    .
    Thence we arrive at the Sun spots and the radiation associated with them.
    .
    It should have been obvious by this time that the spots are an indication of a physical character change in the Sun’s thermal/radiance signature across all bands of radiated energy.
    .
    And why wouldn’t they? Virtually ~every~ physical system has one or another ‘status’ indicator, indicative of something. Why would not the sun?
    .
    We would be foolish to ignore the signs …

  66. maksimovich (22:41:20) :
    Maybe Leif could offer some ideas on the recent step like behavior in the CR data at Moscow station.
    http://helios.izmiran.troitsk.ru/cosray/days.htm

    This is almost certainly some instrumental or calibration issue.
    None of the other neutron minitors I follow show any similar jump:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitors-Real-Time.htm
    Not even Oulu [that some people like so much], so I’ll write Moscow off as having a problem [which they might fix]. Remember that what everybody puts on the web is real-time, preliminary data with all kinds of warnings attached: “do not use for scientific research”, and the like.

  67. Highlander (22:43:58) :
    If the effects are averaged out over the long term, then it may be said that the hysteresis effect affords a degree of buffering
    In the ‘Ocean Heat’ thread it was argued that direct measurements “eliminated the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred”, thus no hysteresis effect is observed.

  68. Leif Svalgaard (23:23:26) :
    “This is almost certainly some instrumental or calibration issue.
    None of the other neutron minitors I follow show any similar jump:”
    Yes I thought that initially as it did not show on the standard nm arrays.Looking at the large spike 15th May on the Moscow station this was clearly a large anomaly.
    The larger (and rarer events) are better captured on the larger arrays eg Pierre Auger
    Event 3439200 15th May
    http://auger.colostate.edu/ED/index.php?evid=000003439200
    Explainable ?

  69. maksimovich (23:47:20) :
    Looking at the large spike 15th May on the Moscow station this was clearly a large anomaly.
    The larger (and rarer events) are better captured on the larger arrays eg Pierre Auger

    The Moscow spike begins a day or two before the PA-event, so is not related.

  70. The remarks were:
    ———————-
    Leif Svalgaard (23:27:34) :
    In the ‘Ocean Heat’ thread it was argued that direct measurements “eliminated the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred”, thus no hysteresis effect is observed.
    ———————-
    Correct me —should I be wrong— but direct measurement does not factor in the cumulative. Rather, all it reveals is a certain state at a certain moment in time.
    .
    For example: Merely measuring the electrical potential on a capacitor’s terminals does not reveal ~how much~ charge is there. To determine the quantity of charge requires one to know more than a few things about its construction and capacity.
    .
    And besides, do the ‘direct measurements’ also measure every other band of energy?
    .
    Or do they merely ‘look’ at a certain band?

  71. The problem with Moscow is that it shows the very same thing as the 10.7 Flux did, lagging about a month.
    It goes along level then jumps, when the overall movement is mildly inclined.
    Not every station shows it.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=2008/01/01&starttime=00:00&enddate=2009/08/15&endtime=11:34&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on
    http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm (set to Jan12008 to today).
    Some rise:
    http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//realtime/fortsmith.html
    Some ride the fence:
    http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//realtime/newark.html
    http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//realtime/thule.html
    And long-terms: http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
    they just sit up there like ravens on a rooftop, scolding us defiantly.
    Nothing is dropping over the face of the cliff or lifting off with a bang.
    Which is par for the course for this 36 days and counting latest chapter.
    Nothing is doing a whole lot of anything but making us all crazy over snail-paced movements.

  72. Highlander (00:16:29) :
    Correct me —should I be wrong— but direct measurement does not factor in the cumulative. Rather, all it reveals is a certain state at a certain moment in time.
    If you measure the temperature of what is being heated, that shows the cumulative: I put a kettle of water on the stove, it accumulates heat and boils, and i can make tea due to the accumulated heat.
    This is what the Ocean Heat Content is computed from.

  73. Leif Svalgaard 21:43:02 and
    Robert Wood 16:54:41
    This very small difference in the distribution of cosmic rays over the solar poles may still cause an effect on earth but it would seem to require a magnifying mechanism, so far only of speculative nature. I continue to be intrigued by the idea that the alternating cooling and warming phases of the PDO each contain two of one type of cosmic ray peak and one of the other. Are these alternating cosmic ray peaks, sharp and flattened, caused by the alternating polarity of the sun?
    ==========================================

  74. I would be wary of describing such an action as hysteresis, that suggests a conversion of energy into heat over a cyclical reversal, such as the loss of energy in your electrical transformer each time the electrical current and thus magnetic field reverses: which loss appears as warming of the iron core of the transformer.
    It is however fair to say that the mechanism by which the oceans adsorb and store incident radiant energy falling on their surface, and so warm, is probably not the same as that by which they give up their stored energy in the form of heat to the atmosphere.
    Contrary to the blithe assumptions made by students and modellers of climate I suggest it is a highly non linear process. The oceans are not some kind of electric night storage heater.
    True in the short term, night and day, this non linearity is probably unimportant, as it might be over the seasons too. But over longer time scales, decades or even centuries, it may produce significant effects. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently good instrumentation to measure whether this is so nor can I yet estimate to any useful degree of precision how great the effect might be.
    However I surmise that major changes of the energy stored over very long periods in the oceans would not necessarily appear as increases and decreases in temperature in the well mixed surface layer but rather in its depth above the thermocline.
    The amount of energy stored as heat in this way is enormous so even a change of depth of a few meters in this depth of the surface layer around the world represents, on a global scale, a huge amount of energy.
    But at the moment we cannot for all practical purposes measure or even reliably estimate this variation: although it unquestionably exists, we know that from submarine data, perhaps the Argo floats may tell us more in time.
    I further propose that it is the combination of the circular mixing action produced by wave action and the circular mixing processes produced by convection that creates a non linearity.
    From which I deduce that if energy is being lost from the surface of the ocean, by whatever means, these two processes combine releasing energy to the surface from the depths of the well mixed surface layer rapidly whereas if the water is being warmed by incident radiation at the surface the convective process opposes the mixing process produced by the waves.
    The ratio between the two is quite large, at the moment based on wholly inadequate experimental and virtually non existent observed data, I estimate it to be slightly less than a magnitude but somewhat more than two.
    Which is a large range of error to be sure.
    Close to the surface wave mixing is predominant whereas at the onset of the thermocline the convective process becomes so powerful that it effectively blocks further heat transfer by mixing downwards. So for all practical purposes any warming of the water at greater depths either comes from conduction, and water is a poor conductor, or from heat released from the earth’s core.
    Effectually, if I am correct, this means the oceans are very good at releasing stored heat into a cooling atmosphere and do so very rapidly, but they are very poor at adsorbing it from the incident radiation falling on their surface so it takes a great deal of time for them to store energy in the well mixed surface layer compared to the speed with which they can release it.
    What this means for the climate I really do not know other than that I am sure it is very important. Again I must stress that temperature is not everything, changes in the depth of the well mixed surface layer may be as or even more important.
    It has taken me a long time to get some kind of grip on the problem, the data both observed and experimental is so scanty and imprecise, that until recently it has been impossible to produce any kind of useful figures. And even those are pretty dodgy.
    However I progress, however slowly.
    Kindest Regards

  75. Jeff Alberts (22:00:03) : Will it get colder? Will it get warmer? Will it stay the same? Does anyone really know?
    Fascinating discussion at Jeff Id’s Air Vent on Scafetta’s work, showing a far greater solar influence (35% to 65%) on global climate than IPCC allows. The 30-year warming, 30-year cooling cycle is the most obvious evidence from the basic IPCC global temperature chart. Scafetta’s work is well grounded in evidence and discussion of satellite measurement problems. With this, Scafetta’s ability to hindcast is considerable, and likewise, I have to respect the possibility of good forecast.
    Also, here’s ****another cracking article*** by Dr Richard Mackey, just out, drawing on Livingston and Penn.

  76. Re: A Jones …
    The Leaky Integrator, the method of introducing hysteresis, derived, in my part, from studies of how neural networks work; using the same metaphor, one can easily introduce partial non-linearity by passing the results through the sigmoidal functions, which, is how simple neurons are modelled.
    There are, of course, much much more complicated ways of doing things, particularly with neural networks (the dynamics are particular complicated) but really, I just wanted to keep it simple- even though, I know it is not.

  77. Village Plank 3:19:36
    That’s excellent, but one might suspect that the involvement of sea ice after 1970 had an inordinate effect on the curve. Or not. On Donder, on Dalton, on Eddy, Go Flo.
    ========================================

  78. Leif writes “The best reference of all: Bill Livingston told me.’
    I agree. However, this does not help the rest of us keeping up with what is happening. I happen to think that the L&P readings on every new sunspot which appears, are the most important data points that there are. It would be nice if Bill Livingston could use the internet to promulgate the latest data. Like Roy Christy does with the latest reading of the UAH average temperature for the most recent complete month. We get that within the first week of the next month.

  79. Slightly OT?
    My guess for a layman’s explanation of events needed for a Dalton or Maunder type minimum is for all of the following to occur more or less at the same time: Earth to Sun apogee, solar minimum such as we are experiencing now (or worse), negative PDO, La Nina. (any more events needed here?)
    Question; Can a combination of 2 or more of these events act as a trigger for the rest causing a “cascading” decline?
    Can I be fairly confident in saying that the only “tipping point” we are likely experience is into an ice age? In other words; there is no warm tipping point; Only cold.
    Thanks.

  80. Lots of interesting reading in this thread! The extended solar minimum continues, and could end in a Dalton-like minimum according to dr C de Jager in this paper: http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-forecasting-jastp-71-239.pdf . He writes: “This transition started in 2000 and it is expected to end around the maximum of cycle 24, foreseen for 2014, with a maximum sunspot number Rmax = 68+-17. At that time a period of lower solar activity will start. That period will be one of regular oscillations, as occured between 1730 and 1923. The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810, in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton might develop. This moderate-to-low-activity episode is expected to last for at least one Gleissberg cycle (60-100 years).”
    Hmm, I’m feeling cold already. Another interesting paper is one by Wilson, Carter and Waite called “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” and can be found here: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf . They write : “Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (∼22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.”
    The idea that the sunspot cycle is governed by the large planets in the system is of course not new, but this paper seems to me have more weight than others I have read derived from Dr. Landscheidt’s work. A rather new article on the subject can be found here: http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/11/06/are-neptune-and-uranus-the-major-players-in-solar-grand-minima/ . The author finds that certain planetary configurations occur in the Grand Minima periods, and writes: “Every 179 yrs Neptune & Uranus gather behind Jupiter (the largest gravity source besides the Sun) giving it extra momentum force and IF Saturn is on the other side of the Sun, the “down” cycle is shortened and not as weak because of the reduced momentum to Saturn….this coincides every time with less sunspot activity for the last 1000 yrs at least.”
    However, approximately the same configuration occured in 1970 (a good way to show planetary configurations at various dates is using this site: http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html “) and nothing in particular happened. Anyway, looking at this year and going forward this approximate planetary configuration will last a few years so this might also indicate a period of quiet sun.
    Dr Svalgaard is no fan of Landscheidt as I understand it, but I would be grateful for a comment on the other papers I have cited.

  81. Svempa (05:59:18) :
    However, approximately the same configuration occured in 1970 (a good way to show planetary configurations at various dates is using this site: http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html “) and nothing in particular happened.
    Thanks for referencing my work, but I think you might be missing what actually happened in 1970. The previous cycle was the highest recorded in 400 years, but soon after the next cycle took a severe dive. Most of the IPCC crew at the time were predicting a return to an ice age, the solar pole strength also took a severe dive and hovered around zero. The world temperature trends went into decline.
    Every 172 years on average the sun is presented with at least 3 chances of a solar grand minimum. Those chances can be quantified and SC20 was quite weak when compared to the last 400 years. The timing is the issue and SC20 was way too late, SC24 is not late and the strength is considered moderate, so this 2nd attempt should prove fruitful. This time around the 3rd opportunity will probably fade to nothing, so lets enjoy it now as the next grand minimum is not likely until 2190 and it will be weaker than what we will observe over the next 30 years.

  82. Jim Cripwell (04:17:03) :
    Leif writes “The best reference of all: Bill Livingston told me.’
    I agree. However, this does not help the rest of us keeping up with what is happening. I happen to think that the L&P readings on every new sunspot which appears, are the most important data points that there are. It would be nice if Bill Livingston could use the internet to promulgate the latest data.

    He does. He tells me and I update my Figure and make a posting. It is just that there have been so few spots of late that there ain’t much to post. And, BTW, Bill does not have exclusive access to the telescope, so all in all, there have not been much to report. But rest assured that this is being addressed and every measurement made will be reported here. The Figure of mine in the article updates in real time, so you can go look any time.
    Svempa (05:59:18) :
    “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?”
    Straightforward direct calculations of the quantities involved [even discussed in the blog a few months ago] show that there is no such coupling, as would be expected because there is physical couple between the bodies except gravitational tides which are minute [0.46 millimeter from Jupiter]. The tides from Neptune and Uranus are a thousand times smaller.
    kim (01:19:48) :
    Are these alternating cosmic ray peaks, sharp and flattened, caused by the alternating polarity of the sun?
    Yes, but the flux over a cycle of GCRs does not vary because of this, only the shape. The peaked cycles are narrower, but extends higher.

  83. Brandon Dobson (18:02:03) :
    LaViolette and Firestone – West papers both proposed this theory years ago, but both had added trigger events due to the vast discrepancies in the dates obtained using isotopic ratios, even at the same sight. This was seen as evidence of neutron bombardment causing artificial enrichment of the isotopic ratios, an effect that is the basis of the neutron activation analysis method. LaViolette proposed that the neutron event was caused by a massive CME actually entering the atmosphere over the Great Lakes. Firestone-West proposed gamma rays, as the result of a nearby supernova, caused the isotopic ratio discrepancies. Both suggested an event outside of the solar system was the cause of the meteor impacts AND changes in solar activity, leading to the Younger-Dryas. It should be obvious why AGW will never touch those two theories – they both cast doubt on the use of isotopic ratios, they both have solar and extra-solar connections as causes of climate change, and neither one mentions CO2.

  84. Svempa (05:59:18) :
    Dont be fooled by Leif and Carsten’s rebuff…their amateur project has been completely debunked….this also has nothing to do with tides. Neptune & Uranus generate extra momentum via angular momentum that changes the path of the Sun and cant be denied by any science, this modulates solar activity as well as creating grand minima opportunities.

  85. Tomorrow I am trading my 6 year old Renault Clio diesel. (£35.00 per year road tax due to low emmisions) I shall be replacing this car with a Range Rover. I get to feeling that I shall need an off-roading capability in the coming harsh and icy winters.

  86. Hi All-
    1 Assuming a sun/climate connection exists, doesn’t an extended sunspot minimum just mask the effects of increasing greenhouse gases, and “set us up for the big one” when solar activity increases again, as it has every eleven years or so for the past several hundred years?
    2 Helioseismology predicts that the next sunspot cycle will be a whopper, but just start a little late. The National Science Foundation has released their first ever prediction of sunspot activity. They claim to be able to “see” the jet streams inside the sun, using helioseismology:
    http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=105844&org=olpa&from=news

    March 6, 2006
    The next sunspot cycle will be 30 to 50 percent stronger than the last one, and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. The research results, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA, were published on-line on March 3 in the American Geophysical Union journal Geophysical Research Letters.
    Scientists now predict that the next cycle, known as Cycle 24, will produce sunspots across an area slightly larger than 2.5 percent of the visible surface of the Sun. The cycle is projected to reach its peak about 2012, one year later than indicated by alternative forecasting methods that rely on statistics.
    By analyzing recent solar cycles, the scientists also hope to forecast sunspot activity two solar cycles, or 22 years, into the future. The team is planning in the next year to issue a forecast of Cycle 25, which will peak in the early 2020s.
    The researchers expect that predicting the Sun’s cycles years in advance will lead to more accurate plans for solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems.
    The team has verified the information by using the relatively new technique of helioseismology, based in part on observations from NASA instruments. This technique tracks sound waves reverberating inside the Sun to reveal details about the interior, much as a doctor might use ultrasound to see inside a patient.
    “Forecasting the solar cycle will help society anticipate solar storms,” says Paul Bellaire, program director in NSF’s division of atmospheric sciences, which funded the research. “Important discoveries are being made using helioseismology. Through this technique, we can image even the far side of the Sun.”
    The scientists gained additional confidence in the forecast by showing that the newly developed model could simulate the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98 percent accuracy.
    “The model has demonstrated the necessary skill to be used as a forecasting tool,” says NCAR scientist Mausumi Dikpati, the leader of the forecast team at NCAR’s High Altitude Observatory. The team also includes NCAR scientists Peter Gilman and Guiliana de Toma.
    “This is a significant breakthrough with important applications, especially for satellite-dependent societies,” says Gilman.

  87. ‘Sun’s output may decline significantly inducing another little ice age on the Earth’
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13768
    By Marc Morano Saturday, August 15, 2009
    [Below is a guest post by Statistician Dr. Richard Mackey, who authored a 2007 peer-reviewed study which found that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate. The paper was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research – Excerpt: “According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex.” Mackey is featured on page 228 of U.S. Senate Report of 700 Dissenting Scientists.]
    American Geophysical Union article argues another Maunder Minimum (low Solar activity) likely – Climate Depot Guest Article By Statistician Dr. Richard Mackey
    Key Excerpts: Astronomers Dr. William Livingston and Dr. Matthew Penn and a large number of solar physicists (see, for example, the home page of the grandfather of modern solar physics, Professor Emeritus Cornelius de Jager,) would say that now the likelihood of the Earth being seized by Maunder Minimum is now greater than the Earth being seized by a period of global warming. […] Their central finding is that regardless of the relation to the sunspot cycles, magnetic intensity in sunspots is decreasing and if this continues in the same way as it has for the last 15 years, the Sun will be devoid of sunspots in five years time: overall the Sun’s energetic output will decline significantly inducing another little ice age on the Earth. […] They would answer Sir John’s question by saying: “Yes, the Maunder Minimum will arrive in time to save the planet from the utterly foolish global carbon tax.”

  88. Svempa (05:59:18) :
    Planetary influence on the solar activity is readily rejected by current science, not for lack of correlation, but for lack of convincing mechanism, although early pioneers of solar science were firmly convinced of the link. No research in the subject would be considered seriously if a word planet is included, especially a reference to Jupiter.
    Some 6 years ago, I managed to publish a short article, by excluding all offending words but all numbers are there.
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
    During last year or so, I attempted to make some progress, but alas not much. However I have come up with an alternative view, which comes to a similar conclusion as the Livingston-Penn observations, but be warned it is considered ‘worthless numerology’ by the expert on the blog.
    Here are some graphs you may amuse yourself if you have time to waste, but be warned it is not considered to be science:
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1.gif
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-strength.gif
    You can find more here:
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarcurrent.pdf
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarsubcycle.pdf

  89. Ron de Haan (12:57:38) :
    The reason why they don’t pick on Mt. Shasta, and allow it’s data to be unaltered, is that way too many people can see it. It is right out there in the open, all by itself.

  90. Leland Palmer (10:55:20) :
    That 2006 article is now somewhat of a joke, as the minimum has gone on and on. A lot of iron-clad, sure-fire, this-one-will-never-miss solar predictions have gone the way of all flesh.
    As far as a runaway greenhouse effect resuming and Venus-like conditions ensuing, well, those predictions or projections (whatever you wish to call them) fared no better. 30 years ago, Hansen, AGW’s chief proponent issued projections that failed to be within the ballpark. Ditto for 20 years ago. And 10 years ago? Well, no AGW activist predicted the global temperatures going flat or cooling.
    No one credible contests that increasing carbon from 350 ppm to 400 ppm causes some warming, the question is degree. If there’s a negative feedback loop with water vapor (or just none), than that degree will be so small as to be undetectable amid random fluctuations.
    So with each alarmist prediction farther off and more strident than the last, I wouldn’t worry too much about the “big one”.

  91. The remarks were:
    —————-
    x> Leif Svalgaard (00:53:22) :
    y>Highlander (00:16:29) :
    Correct me —should I be wrong— but direct measurement does not factor in the cumulative. Rather, all it reveals is a certain state at a certain moment in time.
    -> If you measure the temperature of what is being heated, that shows the cumulative: I put a kettle of water on the stove, it accumulates heat and boils, and i can make tea due to the accumulated heat.
    This is what the Ocean Heat Content is computed from.
    —————-
    Not to put too fine a point on this matter …
    Yes, but: You’re not using the ocean to make your tea, and the ocean isn’t on the top of a stove.
    .
    In the finite sense, the pot of water is uniquely measurable by dint of the fact that the ~entire~ contents are almost all the same temperature everywhere because it is being heated from below, and almost uniformly at that.
    .
    However, since that ~isn’t~ the case with the oceans —if we neglect geothermal sources— then =any= thermal measurement of the oceans will of necessity be unique to the spot at which it was measured and =NOT= the oceans in their entirety.
    .
    So, once again: Any direct measurement of temperature of whatever ocean is largely nought but a spot measurement, i.e., one cannot remark with any degree of certainty precisely what the cumulative heat load (quantity of charge) is, not even at the location of the measurement.
    .
    And finally, your pot of water is —for all intents and purposes— an upside down ocean where the Sun/heat source is concerned.

  92. Lucy Skywalker (03:35:04) :
    Jeff Alberts (22:00:03) : Will it get colder? Will it get warmer? Will it stay the same? Does anyone really know?
    Fascinating discussion at Jeff Id’s Air Vent on Scafetta’s work, showing a far greater solar influence (35% to 65%) on global climate than IPCC allows. The 30-year warming, 30-year cooling cycle is the most obvious evidence from the basic IPCC global temperature chart. Scafetta’s work is well grounded in evidence and discussion of satellite measurement problems. With this, Scafetta’s ability to hindcast is considerable, and likewise, I have to respect the possibility of good forecast.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Yes, and Scafetta noticed something very interesting:
    “…close to the third higher harmonic of the 178.7 [year] solar cycle periodicity.”
    The start of the Maunder Minimum was exactly twice this periodicity before the start of the current minimum. But I don’t think the author noticed that! http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/century-to-decade-climate-change-created-by-planetary-motion/
    It only looks like astrology if you don’t understand the angular momentum connection.
    -Gerry

  93. This pertains to the upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, where it is important to the USAF, but no such effect has taken place in the lower atmosphere where we live.
    Leif
    You are being slightly disengenous here. We currently do not understand how changes in the thermosphere effect lower levels of the atmosphere. There is a large swath between the thermosphere and the stratosphere that has the joking name of the “ignorosphere” as it is too low to be sampled by satellites and too high to be sampled by balloons. Sounding rockets have been the normal means of sampling this region, but the rockets themselves have an effect on the environment so the readings have never been all that good.
    This is why I made the comment about lightning. We know, due to research on the Sprites and other vertical lighting phenomenon that there is a connection between the ionosphere and the troposphere in regards to electrical energy transfer. It would be interesting to see if the magnitude of lightning has decreased as a result of a lower level of electrical activity in the ionosphere, due to the lower sunspot cycle.
    The bottom line is that we don’t know what the effects are as we have not even known of (more correctly stated is that we had not measured) some of the major phenomenon such as vertical lightning for that long (less than 20 years), that we know is connected with strong storm activity. This is certainly a connection between the higher levels of the atmosphere and the lower ones, so to make a blanket statement that there is no effect is putting something definitive on something that most certainly is not.

  94. Highlander (14:20:19) :
    So, once again: Any direct measurement of temperature of whatever ocean is largely nought but a spot measurement,
    Except that the ARGO measurements measure the temperature at many depths at each location and builds up a ‘profile’ of the run of the temperature, and THAT can be used to estimate the heat content.
    Dennis Wingo (14:54:10) :
    This is certainly a connection between the higher levels of the atmosphere and the lower ones, so to make a blanket statement that there is no effect is putting something definitive on something that most certainly is not.
    The influence mostly goes upwards. Upwards travelling waves and charges from tropospheric thunderstorms modify the upper layers more more than the other way around. The original question was about the ‘shrinking’ of the ‘atmosphere’. The lower atmosphere where we live has not shrunk, at least I know of no measurements that show that. As always, I’m willing to be educated, so please do.

  95. Livingston and Penn in EOS: Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?
    Why is this happening?
    What could possibly be going on inside or outside of the Sun to cause spots to fade over the course of many years?

  96. The remarks were:
    —————-
    Leif Svalgaard (15:41:45) :
    Except that the ARGO measurements measure the temperature at many depths at each location and builds up a ‘profile’ of the run of the temperature, and THAT can be used to estimate the heat content.
    —————-
    But again, you miss my point: The water moves.
    .
    You’re referring to spot measurements.
    .
    Isn’t it possible to be measuring the very same water, should it happen to be moving in a loop?
    .
    Just as with the last fabled ice thickness expedition conducted on foot, the ice moves.
    .
    How many times did they measure the same ice?

  97. Highlander (17:42:27) :
    But again, you miss my point: The water moves.
    From the ARGO website: http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
    “Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.”
    thus move with the water.
    this is not a spot measurement.

  98. In response to Leland’s (10:55) NSF quote, am I the only one who things that batting 98% over 88yrs on an object that is 4.5 billion yrs old isn’t exactly something to brag about?

  99. The influence mostly goes upwards. Upwards travelling waves and charges from tropospheric thunderstorms modify the upper layers more more than the other way around. The original question was about the ’shrinking’ of the ‘atmosphere’.
    It is the same thing. If the atmosphere shrinks significantly, then there is a change in the dielectric constant between the stratosphere and the ionosphere. Tesla proved over 100 years ago that at altitudes above 30,000 feet that the atmosphere is substantially conductive.
    Again, I would just like to see the data from a lightning sensor to see if there have been any changes due to a reduction in the charge on the ionosphere (principally the E1 and D layer) driven by the reduction in solar activity. I doubt seriously that anyone has done that.
    Is it of more than academic interest? Who knows, until we look at the data. In my free time between 3 and 6 am that is.

  100. The comments were:
    ———-
    Leif Svalgaard (18:00:39) :
    From the ARGO website: http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
    “Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.”
    thus move with the water.
    this is not a spot measurement.
    ———-
    Leif,
    .
    Have you ever been caught in an undertow?
    .
    I have, and I am here to tell you —first hand— that the surface water =IN NO WAY= moves with the undertow! In fact it appears to be quite what it would be otherwise.
    .
    In fact, the only way I was able to save myself was to quickly lie face down in the water and =then= swim back to shore. It was a rather harrowing —but educational— experience.
    .
    Ergo, not ~all~ ocean currents move at the same rate nor in the same direction.

  101. The remarks were:
    ———-
    Dennis Wingo (19:31:31) :
    The influence mostly goes upwards. Upwards travelling waves and charges from tropospheric thunderstorms modify the upper layers more more than the other way around. The original question was about the ’shrinking’ of the ‘atmosphere’.
    It is the same thing. If the atmosphere shrinks significantly, then there is a change in the dielectric constant between the stratosphere and the ionosphere. Tesla proved over 100 years ago that at altitudes above 30,000 feet that the atmosphere is substantially conductive.
    Again, I would just like to see the data from a lightning sensor to see if there have been any changes due to a reduction in the charge on the ionosphere (principally the E1 and D layer) driven by the reduction in solar activity. I doubt seriously that anyone has done that.
    Is it of more than academic interest? Who knows, until we look at the data. In my free time between 3 and 6 am that is.
    ———-
    I’m going to think that there’s some research which has been done.
    .
    When I was still serving in the USN, I viewed a film clip —back around 1969 or so— which discussed using radar to determine the various ionospheric layers, their thicknesses and heights for the purposes of communications.
    .
    I’d be willing to hazard a guess on or another radar is still in operation and data is being collected somewhere …

  102. Dennis Wingo (19:31:31) :
    Again, I would just like to see the data from a lightning sensor to see if there have been any changes due to a reduction in the charge on the ionosphere (principally the E1 and D layer) driven by the reduction in solar activity. I doubt seriously that anyone has done that.
    One has to be a bit precise about these things. Some concepts to keep apart [or at least clear] revolve around the voltage difference between the ground and the ionosphere [the fair-weather electric field] and the ion or electron concentration [presumably what you call the charge]. The concentration determines the strength of the currents induced by the thermal winds blowing the charges across the Earth’s magnetic field. These currents produce a magnetic signature on the ground discovered in 1723 and essentially monitored ever since. The magnetic effect is a very good proxy for the sunspot number and can, in fact, be used to calibrated the sunspot number, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf
    So there are such effects. Whether they have any significant effect on our immediate environment [e.g. weather and climate] has not been established [although the claims are legion].
    Highlander (19:38:38) :
    Have you ever been caught in an undertow?
    The ARGO floats are so many and are spread over such a large area of the oceans that the people that run the project are confident that they can derive the heat content of the ocean from them. I see no reason to doubt that, although one can always quibble about the ‘error bar’.

  103. I’m going to take it as gospel that the underlying cause of so much talk about how the Sun affects/cannot possibly affect Earth, is proven/cannot be proven, assumed/claimed and a dozen other tussles is that nobody is challenging the Sun presently on the hazy edge of slipping into some sort of Grand Minimum.
    So, it’s a done deal. The Sun’s course is locked in.
    Next stop, The Grand Minimum Eddy.
    Step aside, boys, she’s bearing down on us like a freight train with no brakes on a steep grade.

  104. Robert Bateman (20:45:33) :
    <i.nobody is challenging the Sun presently on the hazy edge of slipping into some sort of Grand Minimum.
    If the active region count at maximum is about the 6, I predict, then I would not call it a Grand Minimum. That would be a misappropriation of the word ‘Grand’. But just like condoms only come in Normal, Large, and Jumbo [who would step up and ask for a Small?], perhaps the word has been inflated.

  105. Right. A Baby Grand Minimum. If it gets only to 4.5 active regions max.
    Grand Daddy Minimum doesn’t do size small. Dalton is 50/12 or less.
    Only the package we are getting doesn’t have size lables on it just yet.
    Now, back to the original query.
    Why is this happening?
    Internal or External, and what do we see that might us so.

  106. Robert Bateman (21:57:11) :
    Would you consider this to be a CME?
    Yes, classic.
    I recommend it for picture of the month. From our beloved Sun. Another week or so and Earth would be in it’s crosshairs.
    Except it has already left the Sun, it will not bother us.

  107. Well, Leif proposes that sunspot levels (even including groups) should be adjusted 40% higher for the 19th century and earlier. (One heck of a “k” in the Wolf equation, but there it is.)
    So, in light of that, maybe this IS shaping up to be a genuine Grand Minimum.

  108. Leif Svalgaard (22:16:53)
    Yes, it missed us, otherwise we wouldn’t have seen it in profile so well. Did you have a good look at the mpegs for Aug 11 & 12 ?

  109. evanmjones (22:35:58) :
    All the Sun has to do is continue to drag it’s feet the way it has been doing the last 2.5+ years. Yes, it is certainly well within the possible.
    Without the knowledge of why it’s being a stubborn mule about it, we are not able to say how long it will continue to do so.
    So, maybe some of you out there have ideas you’d like to discuss.

  110. The remarks were:
    ———-
    Robert Bateman (23:00:41) :
    evanmjones (22:35:58) :
    All the Sun has to do is continue to drag it’s feet the way it has been doing the last 2.5+ years. Yes, it is certainly well within the possible.
    Without the knowledge of why it’s being a stubborn mule about it, we are not able to say how long it will continue to do so.
    So, maybe some of you out there have ideas you’d like to discuss.
    ———-
    Has there been anyone taking pictures of the Sun on an hourly basis, not unlike the NOAA sats which take pictures of the weather (visible, jet stream, temp, etc.)?
    .
    I’m curious as to whether there has been anyone doing such observations continually, and whether they’ve noted any peculiarities, irregularities, or other anomalies.
    .
    After all this time, surely someone would have noted ~something~ …
    .
    But I will guess that if all one is looking for is pimples on someone’s face, that one might miss the forest for the trees.
    .

  111. This may be slightly OT. I was reading that the earth’s magnetic field has decreased by 10% since measurements began in 1840. Given speculation of the interactions of cosmic rays with the magnetosphere, are there any studies focused on how, if at all, the decrease in the earth’s magnetic flux may affect climate?

  112. The comment was:
    ———-
    Hank Hancock (00:22:48) :
    This may be slightly OT.
    ———-
    Probably no more than any other post … 🙂
    .
    Otherwise, I would remark just this: If you are given a basket full of possibilities, and someone asks that you toss out those which you ~feel~ aren’t considered worthwhile, do you:
    .
    [A] Resort to personal bias and dump the least thought of, based upon ‘feelings’?
    .
    OR
    .
    [B] Keep the whole and tell the charlatan to get lost?

  113. From the pdf A Century of Solar Ca II Measurements and Their
    Implication for Solar UV Driving of Climate
    Peter Foukal · Luca Bertello ·William C. Livingston ·
    Alexei A. Pevtsov · Jagdev Singh · Andrey G. Tlatov ·
    Roger K. Ulrich
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/m95w93084l347746/fulltext.pdf
    the Kodaikanal and NSO time series should provide a better
    approximation to the bright component contribution to (a) UV variability at wavelengths that
    originate in the upper photosphere (including the important range between about 170 and
    240 nm mainly responsible for ozone concentration) and to (b) the total solar irradiance.
    For the two Kodaikanal- and SP-based
    indices the agreement with sunspot number is less satisfactory. Again, as before, cycles 18
    and 19 are weaker, and cycle 21 is stronger, than in the sunspot number.

    So, the UV was stronger in the eighties than the fifites/sixties, and TSI should reflect this too, if the series which relate to chromospheric processes are used in preference to those which show stronger photospheric effects.
    This makes sense to me, but as always, I’d like Leif’s comment. Particularly in view of the fact his TSI reconstruction shows cycles 18/19 as stronger in terms of TSI than cycle 21. The outcome is quite important for the interpretation of C20th trends in solar activity.

  114. tallbloke (05:03:49) :
    From the pdf A Century of Solar Ca II Measurements and Their
    Implication for Solar UV Driving of Climate
    Peter Foukal · Luca Bertello …

    See page 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf by myself and Luca Bertello. “We suggest that the reason for this is not that the UV level has changed, but that the sunspot
    number calibration underwent a discontinuity when Waldmeier took over the production of the Zurich sunspot number.”

  115. Leif Svalgaard (06:57:24) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
    Leif Svalgaard (06:49:16) :
    See also page 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf by myself and Luca Bertello.
    There is another problem with the SIDC sunspot number [it is probably a bit too high] from 1980 on. And other evidence points to the SIDC numbers being too low from about 2002 on.
    Again: the sunspot number calibration is shaky. Not just the past few decades but all the way back.

  116. Dr Svalgaard, thank you for your comment. But I must say I am not completely convinced. Of course we all know that the influence the planets have on the Sun is infinitesimal. But it is not zero, and is enough to force the Sun into a complex (but small) orbit around the barycenter. As previously mentioned in this thread a correlation has been found between climate and the speed of the Sun in this orbit. But I am more interested in proof (or disproof) of how the sunspot cycle is governed by the planets.
    Diligently searching for more information I have come across two recent papers on the subject. One by Hung (2007): http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Apparent%20Relations%20between%20Solar%20Activity%20and%20Solar%20Tides%20Ching-Cheh%20Hung.pdf and one by Wilson (2008): http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/wilson/Syzygy.pdf . Wilson refers to the paper by Hung, and both are trying to find a correlation between the sunspot cycles and the conjunctions of Earth, Venus and Jupiter.
    I must say I am fascinated by the impressive results presented in both papers. And Hung has a few ideas about how such small tidal forces can affect the Sun (page 19) that sound reasonable to me. Also he writes something interesting at the end : “Looking into the future, it is nearing the solar minimum now (summer 2007), but the planet alignment will not reach minimum until 2012 (fig. 4). The apparent mismatch between these two minima would indicate these two cycles are out of step, and therefore a low sunspot number would be forecasted in the coming solar cycle 24, unless the current solar minimum would last for a few more years to reduce this mismatch.”
    Wilson gives credit to Hung for his work and his findings support Hung’s conclusions, but he ends up with a prognosis of an “Oort-like minimum in solar activity which will last from 2005-2045”.
    So evidently the basic idea of the planets influencing and perhaps controlling the sunspot cycle is not dead, despite being rejected by most serious solar scientists, but alive and kicking more than ever.

  117. I would also like to thank Carsten Arnholm, Geoff Sharp and vukcevic for their comments. Carsten, vukevic, the material presented in your links was interesting to read but not entirely convincing. Geoff, naturally I have read all your material at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com as well as other papers written by Dr Landscheidt.

  118. Svempa (07:36:28) :
    for your comment. But I must say I am not completely convinced. Of course we all know that the influence the planets have on the Sun is infinitesimal. But it is not zero, and is enough to force the Sun into a complex (but small) orbit around the barycenter.
    As the Sun is in free fall [as are the planets] it does not feel any forces upon it by followed that path. But the main difficulty with the planetary theory is the lack of a credible mechanism. The current crop of supporters have different ideas. Some say it is angular momentum transfer, some say it is tides, some say it is magnetic fields from Jupiter, or electromagnetic effects [“Jupiter shining on the Sun”], and yet others. None of these ideas can account for the polarity reversals between solar cycles. This failure is also the main reason the planetary theory was abandoned in the early 20th Century [it was held credible in the 19th]. Charbonneau has a good historical overview: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf

  119. Leif Svalgaard (07:58:40) :
    You can do better…the freefall argument is getting tired. The data is building solidly against you and the approaching grand minimum will leave the babcock believers stunned.
    No one has a credible hypothesis for the pole reversal or 11 year cycle, although there is some clues, the decision is still to come.
    Of course on our side of the fence the current trend of solar activity is completely expected and explained.

  120. tallbloke (05:03:49) :
    From the conclusion of the paper you cited:
    “The relatively low correlation between the dominant features seen in reconstructions of global temperature and UV irradiance seems to argue against strong solar UV driving of the global warming reported to have occurred since the 17th century.”
    Also note that they clearly show [Figure 1 c and e] that cycle 18 was stronger than 21 as in my TSI reconstruction. So this paper is very much in line with my research, as it should be because Luca Bertello and I [in our joint paper] were working on the same data as referred to in the Foukal paper.

  121. Geoff Sharp (08:25:12) :
    Of course on our side of the fence the current trend of solar activity is completely expected and explained.
    It is comforting that the know-it-alls have everything figured out and under control.

  122. Leif Svalgaard (07:33:00) :
    tallbloke (05:03:49) :
    Particularly in view of the fact his TSI reconstruction shows cycles 18/19 as stronger in terms of TSI than cycle 21.
    Luca Bertello and I show [page 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf ] that the Mount Wilson CaII index for cycle 21 is smaller than that for 18/19.

    Thanks Leif, I’ll take a look at that later, but I’m not sure it addresses my issue:
    “So, the UV was stronger in the eighties than the fifites/sixties, and TSI should reflect this too, if the series which relate to chromospheric processes are used in preference to those which show stronger photospheric effects.”
    Mount Wilson being one of the latter, Kodaikanal Observatory being one of the former, if I understand correctly. Fortunately, the plates are being/have been digitised.
    Right, off to work.

  123. tallbloke (08:39:14) :
    but I’m not sure it addresses my issue:
    “So, the UV was stronger in the eighties than the fifites/sixties, and TSI should reflect this too, if the series which relate to chromospheric processes are used in preference to those which show stronger photospheric effects.”

    You are much too vague, here it is ‘fifties/sixties’ in another place it was cycle 18/19 [which would be forties/fifties].
    The facts are that the CaII index and my reconstruction show that cycle 18 was higher than cycle 21. These calibrations are difficult [as they stress in the paper] and one index [UV CaII] is not enough to base much on. My research of the sunspot calibration compares SSN, SSA, CaII, foF2, and geomagnetic variation and they all agree that the SSN is the odd man out and should be corrected. The collective weight of several indices is what makes it credible. One could come up with an ad-hoc explanation for each index individually, but collectively they speak with one voice.

  124. Re: Geoff Sharp
    Do a fourier analysis on HadCrut – I think you’ll find the biggest cycle is around 11 years. I wonder what it is, then?
    Bovine flatulence, perhaps?

  125. vukcevic (01:38:48) :
    Thanks for your reply and link. The figures on page 15 and 17 were rather remarkable. Have you given any consideration to how the 10% decrease in magnetic flux might also affect the correlation you’re making? What is your degree of confidence that the correlation is direct as opposed to coincidental?
    My original curiosity came from this article wherein the comment is made: “The weakening — if coupled with a subsequently large influx of radiation in the form of protons streaming from the sun — can also affect the chemistry of the atmosphere, said Charles Jackman of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.”
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html
    In my non-climatologist mind, I’m thinking that if a large influx of solar radiation can affect the atmosphere then the decreased solar radiation of the current solar minumum might play in the opposite (if I am to understand the term “large influx” to apply to solar cycles). While the article mentions ozone holes it makes no attempt to discuss how climate might be affected. Henrik Svensmark’s work came to mind but I admit it may be nothing more than a loose tie-in.

  126. Just because the planetary motion *might* be related to sunspots does not mean sunspots have any influence on Earth’s climate. It could be true that the planetary motion affects Earth directly and as a side effect we end up with a sunspot correlation.

  127. Sunspots do result in electromagnetic discharges, however, and are known to affect satellites and even electronics at the surface. There is also something of a correlation between sunspots and surface temperatures.
    So they certainly *might* affect climate.

  128. Leif Svalgaard (07:58:40) :
    None of these ideas can account for the polarity reversals between solar cycles. This failure is also the main reason the planetary theory was abandoned in the early 20th
    Not entirely correct, Sir.
    My polar fields formula as shown here:
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
    has no problems with polarity reversals, as it is believed that polar fields are seeds of a new cycle, than SS polarity reversals will follow (conveyor belt circulation). It is true I do not valid mechanism, but meridional flow shows a promising start:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MPI.gif
    in an excellent agreement with work emanating from
    Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
    and
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-NRWmv2.jpg
    in agreement (with a appropriate phase adjustment) with research from:
    Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html#tb1
    Furthermore, I do have best correlation of any previous work, planetary, Babcock-Layton or any you whish to quote!
    I am also well aware of your views on numerology, degrees of freedom etc, but non have succeeded to invalidated the formula.

  129. Leif Svalgaard (07:58:40) :
    As the Sun is in free fall [as are the planets] it does not feel any forces upon it by followed that path. But the main difficulty with the planetary theory is the lack of a credible mechanism. The current crop of supporters have different ideas. Some say it is angular momentum transfer, some say it is tides, some say it is magnetic fields from Jupiter, or electromagnetic effects [“Jupiter shining on the Sun”], and yet others. None of these ideas can account for the polarity reversals between solar cycles. This failure is also the main reason the planetary theory was abandoned in the early 20th Century [it was held credible in the 19th]. Charbonneau has a good historical overview: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Thank you, Leif for providing this link to Charbonneau’s excellent paper. It clearly shows, in my opinion, that these early researchers saw the strong correlations between sunspot cycles and planetary conjunctions. Conjunctions of the outer giant planets have the most influence on the Sun’s barycentric angular momentum, and resonant conjunctions of the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Jupiter have the most significant solar tide influence, which is separate from freefall motion. Spin-orbit coupling is also a well established gravitational effect, known to account for small changes in Earth’s rotation rate caused by the orbit of the Moon. It is clearly a small non-freefall consequence of the largest changes seen in solar barycentric angular momentum, hard to quantify for the Sun because it is not a rigid body. Yet we are able to observe the differences in motion between sunspots and the also-variable rotation period of the Sun as a body.
    True, those early scientists could not explain the periodic reversals of solar magnetic polarity, but we do know that the ~11 year sunspot cycle is very much linked to the magnetic reversal cycle of ~22 years. To this day, nobody has a complete theory to explain the magnetic polarity reversal, but at least there is clear observational evidence that grand sunspot minima are linked to observed cyclical planetary conjunctions. And don’t forget that many planets, including Mercury, have their own magnetic fields. I’m not suggesting that the solar system is a giant alternator, just that there is much to be discovered yet by studying the Sun and planets as an interactive system rather than as independent entities.
    We need to have your strong skepticism for hypotheses that do not yet meet the stringent tests of complete theories, but it is important to remember that the occasional genius like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein can turn a seemingly absurd hypothesis into a brilliantly complete theory. The acclaimed astronomer Simon Newcomb was mentioned in Charbonneau’s paper. Newcomb made some outstanding contributions in the field of celestial mechanics, but went off on an unfortunate tangent at one point, writing an article in which he claimed to prove it impossible for heavier-than-air craft to fly! What he really proved was that skepticism can be overdone, and that this can damage one’s reputation in the process.
    -Gerry

  130. Hank Hancock (10:51:28) :
    “Thanks for your reply and link. The figures on page 15 and 17 were rather remarkable. Have you given any consideration to how the 10% decrease in magnetic flux might also affect the correlation you’re making? What is your degree of confidence that the correlation is direct as opposed to coincidental?”
    On climate matters I am totally neutral. This was work I produced during last Christmas/ New Year festivities, after discovering that if you draw a line across MagNrthPole drift curve, one side temperature anomaly is positive on the other negative. I believe ‘tallbloke’ did some sampling as well but to geographic NP.
    It is summarised elsewhere, that total field has declined, but from electrical currents point of view, of interest is only vertical component.
    As you can see here:
    http://geomag.usgs.gov/movies/movies/index.php?type=vertical&format=gif
    Bz has an area above +60 and – 60 microTesla, but never falls below it. It is only the area that changes size.
    Dr. Svalgaard rejected hypothesis, as usual, to be meaningless.

  131. Whether they have any significant effect on our immediate environment [e.g. weather and climate] has not been established [although the claims are legion].
    Not making any claims, but looking at the data might be interesting.

  132. vukcevic (11:42:12) :
    “None of these ideas can account for the polarity reversals between solar cycles. This failure is also the main reason the planetary theory was abandoned in the early 20th”
    Not entirely correct, Sir.
    My polar fields formula as shown here:
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
    has no problems with polarity reversals,

    It does not explain why the polar fields change polarity so explains nothing. For that you need the Babcock mechanism or some other dynamo mechanism.
    And you have no mechanism by which Jupiter shining on the Sun can change the meridional circulation.
    The correlation is just pure coincidence, many other formulae can be constructed with the same or better fit. And btw, the correlation coefficient you quote is bogus because of the high autocorrelation of the data. To show your mastery of the statistics, calculate and tell us how many independent data points [degrees of freedom] the polar fields have.
    It is summarised elsewhere, that total field has declined, but from electrical currents point of view, of interest is only vertical component.
    As an engineer it should be easy for you to actually calculate that current and the heat we get from it. Do this and report back with a comparison to the heat we get from the Sun.

  133. Leif Svalgaard (13:00:01) :
    “-It does not explain why the polar fields change polarity so explains nothing. For that you need the Babcock mechanism or some other dynamo mechanism.”
    “-As an engineer it should be easy for you to actually calculate that current and the heat we get from it. Do this and report back with a comparison to the heat we get from the Sun.”
    Actually it was not heat I was proposing. I have no interest or inclination of writing something, and than trying to disprove it.
    If I can prove either of two of the above, not to mention both, I would be reserving my air ticket for Stockholm. However, you with your knowledge, experience and data manipulating skills, if you put your mind to it, you probably could do it in no time at all. Therefore, search goes on for an alternative extraordinary mind, that might be able to do it, and it ain’t me.

  134. Regarding polarity reversal I rather like this explanation:
    “”Meridional flows on the Sun’s surface carry magnetic fields from mid-latitude sunspots to the Sun’s poles,” explains Hathaway. “The poles end up flipping because these flows transport south-pointing magnetic flux to the north magnetic pole, and north-pointing flux to the south magnetic pole.” The dipole field steadily weakens as oppositely-directed flux accumulates at the Sun’s poles until, at the height of solar maximum, the magnetic poles change polarity and begin to grow in a new direction.”
    Link: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm
    If this is true there is no need to find an explanation for the polarity reversal among the planets – it is a quite separate phenomenon.

  135. Svempa (13:33:13) :
    If this is true there is no need to find an explanation for the polarity reversal among the planets – it is a quite separate phenomenon.
    Exactly….there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Elements of the Babcock observations may still be viable and can work in tune with external forces.

  136. Highlander (23:20:29) :
    ———-
    Has there been anyone taking pictures of the Sun on an hourly basis, not unlike the NOAA sats which take pictures of the weather (visible, jet stream, temp, etc.)?
    .
    I’m curious as to whether there has been anyone doing such observations continually, and whether they’ve noted any peculiarities, irregularities, or other anomalies.

    A careful examination of the EIT series from SOHO and Stereo Websites is in order.
    I would suggest you start with EIT 171, 195 and 284 at 1996-05-15 and go forward using the daily SSN from SIDC
    http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/dailyssn.php
    as your guide to find the quiet times in 1996/7 then keep going a year at a time to present.
    You should see the changes that have taken place.
    I won’t pre-color your own perception with what I see, so discover away.

  137. Even trying to show the validity of a sun-weather effect I have long abandoned, but he is still bravely soldiering on.
    As we all are fond of saying, the new extended solar minimum is providing a unique opportunity to test different theories regarding the solar-terrestrial interface.

  138. vukcevic (13:28:32) :
    I have no interest or inclination of writing something, and than trying to disprove it.
    Nor ability to either prove or disprove it. I have elsewhere shown you that your mechanisms do not work energetically, so must be dismissed on those grounds.
    Svempa (13:33:13) :
    Of course, what Hathaway explains is the way we think it happens, which means that the basic mechanism is the Babcock-dynamo theory. So, solar activity is not generated by the planets as you observe, At most, the planets might be assumed to modulate ongoing activity, and then it comes down to comparing the energy in the planetary influence with that of the motions that go into the dynamo, and that has been shown by many people, e.g DeJager, to be woefully inadequate. It is for this reason that the planetary theory is regarded as a fringe theory or even pseudo-science.

  139. Gerry (12:03:09) :
    It clearly shows, in my opinion, that these early researchers saw the strong correlations between sunspot cycles and planetary conjunctions.
    The paper also explains that when these early researchers set out to prove the correlations, they found that they didn’t hold up or in one case was even fraudulent [“not candid with the figures…”]
    To this day, nobody has a complete theory to explain the magnetic polarity reversal
    ‘complete theory’ is a big word. We don’t have a ‘complete’ theory of anything. But we have pretty good theories of the polarity reversals.
    the occasional genius like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein can turn a seemingly absurd hypothesis into a brilliantly complete theory.
    It seems that several of the current practitioners consider themselves to be in that exalted company, but I respectfully submit that they are not.

  140. Leif Svalgaard (18:53:13) :
    The paper also explains that when these early researchers set out to prove the correlations, they found that they didn’t hold up or in one case was even fraudulent [“not candid with the figures…”]
    But the story is very different today, what we know today is a world away from the early research. The correlations are remarkable AND understood, and will continue to be as the Landscheidt/Jose minimum rolls out.
    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/jensm1.jpg
    Buts it good to see you slightly leaving the door open.

  141. Leif,
    I don’t actually consider planetary gravitational perturbations to be hypothetical, except for how they might relate specifically to sunspots and solar activity. Those specific hypothetical effects only seem absurd to those who see them as a form of astrology, which they are not.
    Likewise, I am hopeful that the problem of formulating a viable mathematical theory of planetary influences on solar activity, difficult as that may be to do, will not actually require a genius.
    I am curious to know what you think of Scarletta’s phenomological solar model in http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688/$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf
    He does not propose a theory, but do you think his model has any validity? If you believe it to be fraudulent, I’m sure you would want to expose it as such.

  142. My fingers apparently typed “Scarletta” but the author of the Duke University presentation is Nicola Scafetta.

  143. Geoff Sharp (21:14:03) :
    The correlations are remarkable AND understood
    They are neither. A remarkable correlation is one that is convincing and compelling. This means that everyone would agree that the correlation is significant. This is not the case. I, for one, do not think so and I do have some training in analyzing data and judging what is likely real and what is not.
    Buts it good to see you slightly leaving the door open.
    Nobody here is of a closed mind, with the possible exception of people ‘in the know’.
    Gerry (21:27:10) :
    I don’t actually consider planetary gravitational perturbations to be hypothetical
    They are accurately calculated from physical laws so are not hypothetical at all. The only question is whether they have any coupling to solar activity that is energetically viable, and the answer is no with the mechanisms proposed so far.
    I am curious to know what you think of Scarletta’s phenomological solar model
    His data is cherry-picked and presented in misleading ways, e.g. in slide 32: “Where are we now: 1) Total solar irradiance likely rose between 1970s and 2000”
    2000 was a solar maximum year and the ‘1970s’ spanned a solar minimum. This is like saying: “the temperature likely rose between the winter and the summer solstice”.
    The TSI forcing used in slide 41 [read curves] is the obsolete Hoyt&Schatten TSI which nobody else considers valid. This may only be for illustrative purposes, but certainly gives the non-specialist reader the wrong impression. On the other hand in slide 55 the same obsolete TSI re-appears, and in slide 57 a TSI-reconstruction again is used that is based on a secular increase of TSI from 1900 to 1950. Such an increase is usually assumed to be due to a steady increase of TSI due to the Sun’s background magnetic field at solar minima. There has been no such increase. On slide 61 he acknowledges that several old, obsolete TSI-reconstructions exist and asks which one to use. Clearly if one choses one with a large change the solar contribution to the 20th century GW is maximized. On the whole, his conclusion from his model is too dependent on the assumed TSI. Assume that there was absolutely no long-term change in TSI, then clearly his model would predict no solar contribution to the GW, so it all comes down to: is there a long-term background increase in TSI [at minima – and here one could accept a slight random variation from minimum to minimum so his discussion about the PMOD-ACRIM difference is a red herring]. Various lines of evidence that I have discussed before in the blog and elsewhere point to no such secular increase and hence Scafetta’s model would predict no solar influence, beyond that which is related to the different sizes of the solar cycle variation of TSI, which with a long time constant can spill over the minima and give a very slight second order effect. So, his model might be OK, just his adoption of input data [and hence calibration of parameters of the model] is suspect.
    In slide 72 he again uses an obsolete TSI proxy.

  144. Gerry (22:17:44) :
    My fingers apparently typed “Scarletta” but the author of the Duke University presentation is Nicola Scafetta.
    No prob. I know Nicola. By chance we both made a poster presentation at the Fall 2007 meeting of the American Geophysical Union [AGU] and the posters were side by side. His promoting his model and mine advocating no long-term change of TSI http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf

  145. Leif Svalgaard (22:23:16) :
    They are neither. A remarkable correlation is one that is convincing and compelling. This means that everyone would agree that the correlation is significant. This is not the case. I, for one, do not think so and I do have some training in analyzing data and judging what is likely real and what is not.
    The problem is you have to have an understanding of the theory before you can easily see the correlations. You have still not shown that understanding. This unfortunately is the biggest barrier to promoting the science, but times are changing and better methods of conveying the information are in the pipeline.
    I noticed in Scafetta’s presentation he agrees with me and shows how solar Angular Momentum/Solar distance to SSB is the driver of the modulation of the solar cycle.
    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/scafetta.jpg

  146. Leif Svalgaard (18:29:53) :
    “I have elsewhere shown you that your mechanisms do not work energetically, so must be dismissed on those grounds.”
    In the model currently proposed there is also just as strange mechanism. Polar fields, supposedly generated by sunspots, which split and stretch over million of miles to reach poles as uni-polar plasma, a contradiction in itself since they are supposedly locked up in magnetic ropes, even Parker dismisses uni-polar plasma as an unrealistic proposition. They eventually end up in polar fields currently with strength of about 2Gauss pole to pole. These are then about to enter a magic process of ‘amplification’ of anything up to 2000 (two thousand) times, in order to produce next crop of sunspots for SC4, of up to 4000Gauss. You may quote many papers ‘explaining’ this magic process of amplification by a nebulous dynamo (no agreement of what it is, where it is, is there one, or two, or many dynamos), I have red some of those articles, but they are all just fudge.
    I could also claim that a ‘wink and a nudge’ by J-S magnetospheres on the heliospheric current is magnified 2000 or whatever is needed, and then does the required job.
    It is just curios that numbers in my formula (2xJupiter period and JS synodic period), should produce what is required to accurately track measured polar fields.
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1.gif
    You think it is just a coincidence, I claim it is too much of coincidence to be dismissed, if alternative mechanism is also suspect.

  147. Dr Svalgaard, did you actually read the paper by Hung I referred to? I would not be discussing this subject if I did not find the new correlations observed and computed by him convincing and compelling.
    I can understand that when researching a vast celestial object like our Sun there must be found a concrete mechanism for planetary influence before it is believed. The planets are puny and small in comparision. But on the other hand the magnetic field of the Sun in incredibly weak, I have seen 50 gauss as a normal figure – I have stronger magnets than that on my refrigerator door.
    I do not find it possible that any planetary influence (gravitational, by tides or magnetic) could create any processes in the Sun. But even a very small influence can sometimes govern great things – this is true not only in physics but in politics as well :-).

  148. One more comment on Sun-planet interaction. I have come across a recent paper studying a remote star that has a gas giant orbiting it in close proximity. The planet is many times the mass of Jupiter and it orbits the star much closer than Mercury orbits the sun. So there are BIG differences to our solar system. But an interesting fact is that this star is the first, except for the Sun, to show magnetic field reversals. In this case with only a 2 year periodicity.
    An excerpt from their conclusion: “The presence of the HJ at small orbital
    distance may be responsible for the accelerated cycle of  Boo, by synchronizing the outer convective envelope of the star (due to tidal interactions) and enhancing the shear at the tachocline. Such a scenario should however be studied in details.”
    So critical gravitational or/and magnetic interaction between star and planet may be possible at short distances, if proved then it remains to discuss if a similar interaction between the Sun and the gas giants of the Solar system is possible considering the much vaster distances involved.
    Link to the paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.4515v1.pdf .

  149. Svempa (02:12:57) :
    “I do not find it possible that any planetary influence (gravitational, by tides or magnetic) could create any processes in the Sun. But even a very small influence can sometimes govern great things – this is true not only in physics but in politics as well :-).”
    You are correct. My 2003 article (pub. Jan 2004) has a title:
    “Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity”
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
    This should give a clue to the energetic processes. Any system which possesses large amount of internal energy (and the Sun has plenty of it) which may be susceptible to oscillations can be induced or synchronised to oscillate by a minute external excitation. Repeatable injections of small amounts of energy may control internal oscillation, with energies greater by many orders of magnitude. This is a regular occurrence (and frequently a nuisance) in electric, electronic and magnetic circuits. However, it has its uses as any broadcasting system engineer will tell you.
    Meridional flow (according to Dr, Svalgaard ) would need to be driven by huge energies inputed from the planetary system. This is wrong! Meridional flow is a part of a solar conveyor belt, its energy is supplied by the solar thermal energy.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/stormwarning/conveyorbelt.jpg
    There is one in each hemisphere and they run more or less independently. Thermal energy is a driver of meridional flows, but circulating of highly ionised plasma is especially sensitive to any electric or magnetic input, could be synchronised by it through resonance.
    Dr. Svalgaard argues that external forces are negligible to count. Well let’s consider this: Jupiter is roughly same distance to Sun as to Saturn, and still two planets are in synchronism (5J=59.31 2S=59.314) within 0.01%, this synchronisation would be perfect if their orbits were circular rather than elliptic. Dr. S. this is achieved by RESONANCE!

  150. Geoff Sharp (00:06:29) :
    I noticed in Scafetta’s presentation he agrees with me and shows how solar Angular Momentum/Solar distance to SSB is the driver of the modulation of the solar cycle.
    He does not agree with you at all. He refers to Jose. There is no mention of your notion of Neptune/Uranus running the show. Scafetta muses about a 60-year cycle, no 172-year cycle. He draws attention [and mars his presentation] to a 60-yr quasi-period in CMSS and possibly in the LOD. No Grand Minimum.
    vukcevic (02:09:48) :
    They eventually end up in polar fields currently with strength of about 2Gauss pole to pole. These are then about to enter a magic process of ‘amplification’ of anything up to 2000 (two thousand) times, in order to produce next crop of sunspots for SC4, of up to 4000Gauss.
    There are no 2G fields. Your ignorance is deep. The 2G is not the magnetic field strength. The solar magnetographs do not measure field strength. And there is no magic involved. The conversion of the poloidal field to the toroidal fields of sunspots is a natural consequence of the motions and the governing equations [the Induction equation] and is not a mystery, even though the details are still under debate.
    Svempa (02:12:57) :
    Dr Svalgaard, did you actually read the paper by Hung I referred to?
    Of course, I’m well versed in all the literature on these subjects. Hung’s analysis may be compelling to you, but it is not generally accepted by solar researchers [for a variety of reasons]
    But on the other hand the magnetic field of the Sun is incredibly weak, I have seen 50 gauss as a normal figure
    The important quantity is not the field strength, but the magnetic moment, which is the pole strength multiplied by the distance between the poles, and that distance is enormous.
    But even a very small influence can sometimes govern great things
    Provided there is a coupling and a mechanism to mediate the influence, and that is the problem here.

  151. Svempa (05:51:27) :
    So critical gravitational or/and magnetic interaction between star and planet may be possible at short distances, if proved then it remains to discuss if a similar interaction between the Sun and the gas giants of the Solar system is possible considering the much vaster distances involved.
    These effects are well understood and pose no problem. The critical issue is the distance, ans both magnetic and tidal influences decreases by the cube of the distance. The planet in question is a hundred times closer to its star than Jupiter is to the Sun, so its influence is 100*100*100 = 1,000,000 times larger and that makes the difference.
    vukcevic (07:21:24) :
    circulating of highly ionised plasma is especially sensitive to any electric or magnetic input, could be synchronised by it through resonance
    Because of the solar wind that excludes any external electric and magnetic fields from the inner solar system there is no such input. And solar activity is not an oscillation in the first place [requires a restoring force], so the analog with resonance does not apply.

  152. Leif Svalgaard (07:39:29) & Leif Svalgaard (07:57:09)
    Ok, magnetic flux of 1 or 2 Gauss over the 3′ aperture of the measuring instrument. Any one of many of NASA’s photos shows that many individual sunspots cover areas of order of 3′ spatial angle.
    Amplification process is a ‘mystery’ since there is no clear explanation of it, just fudge. Even bigger mystery is how the unipolar remnant magnetic area (which should not exist anyway, since the other half ‘cancels’ over the equator, again contradiction with meridional flow, two plasma flows are not mixing) which mysteriously acquires the missing half of double polarity, to become a fully fledged sunspot.
    Hathaway supports the theory of sunspot generation by meridional flow,
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20040428_UTA_Seminar.ppt
    but this is in a contradiction with classical view of stretching, twisting and breaking of magnetic field as shown here
    http://www.windows.ucar.edu/spaceweather/images/sunspot_form.jpg
    Hathaway: “Flows within the convection zone were previously thought to be the source of the solar cycle (for both α- and Ω-effects). Both dynamo types had a problem with too much α-effect in the convection zone. Now, important aspects of convection zone rotation and flux tube dynamics indicate that the interface layer or “tachocline” is the seat of the solar cycle and both of the EARLY MODELS WERE FATALLY FLAWED.”
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20040428_UTA_Seminar.ppt#14
    What possibly he could have in mind, Babcock-Leighton, Parker ?
    It is worth noting that every solar scientist has his own personal solar dynamo: Hathaway, Dicpati, Charbonneau, Svalgaard- Schatten, Priest etc.
    That is fine than, anything goes except resonant synchronisation, which you neatly avoided to comment on.
    Solar wind is no obstacle for electromagnetic waves, whatever frequency, even if measured in nanoHz. Magnetic field strength is a vector, and if not of exact amplitude and opposite spatial direction, cannot be cancelled out by another one. If to are oscillating vectors (phasors) of different frequency than a continuous cancellation has a negligible probability.

  153. vukcevic (09:34:05) :
    Amplification process is a ‘mystery’ since there is no clear explanation of it, just fudge
    The creation of magnetic field is described by the induction equation dB/dt = e Laplacian(B) + grad x v x B of plasma movements with velocity v in magnetic field B, and e is the diffusion coefficient. The problem is to specify e, v, and B and those are poorly constrained by observations, hence the many different versions. The process itself is not mysterious.
    That is fine than, anything goes except resonant synchronisation, which you neatly avoided to comment on.
    I cannot comment on unspecified mechanism. Give some details of how it specifically works and I can comment.
    Solar wind is no obstacle for electromagnetic waves
    You moved very quickly from electric and magnetic fields to EM waves. And indeed EM from Jupiter can reach the Sun, the problem is how much energy there is in those EM. Calculate that and tell us so we can comment. If you cannot then, may I propose that it is less than the amount of sunlight Jupiter receives and reflects. So, you are proposing that Jupiter shining on the Sun is controlling solar activity. Seen from the Sun Jupiter shines less than many stars shine on the Earth. Perhaps the stars also influence things on [the much smaller] Earth, and perhaps the Chaldeans were right, after all.

  154. vukcevic (09:34:05) :
    Ok, magnetic flux of 1 or 2 Gauss over the 3′ aperture of the measuring instrument.
    No, it has nothing to do with the 3′ aperture. And it is not a magnetic flux, but a flux density, so the size of the aperture cancels out. The polar fields consist of a large number of very small highly concentrated field elements that are too small to observe individually [up to now]. The magnetic field strength in these elements is of the order of 1500 Gauss. The reason we only measure a flux density of 2 Gauss is that some 99.9% of the photosphere is not magnetic at all [or rather has no organized magnetic field related to solar activity].

  155. Hi all,
    Is the work (whilst not peer reviewed and validated) not of interest? Here, we take the sunspot cycle, and integrate with a few other parameters such as sea-ice, ENSO, and volanic activity. Add a bit of hysteresis, and hey presto, not a bad fit to Hadley.
    Indeed we had major problems with matching some anomalies during the mid part of the last century. It took a while, but fortuntately, another poster found an article that showed the period in question was down to Hadley errors. What’s the chances of finding that?
    What’s the chances of using four publicly peer reviewed sets of data and getting a Pearson score of over 90%. I haven’t done the maths yet for the Chi2 analysis, but it’s on it’s way.
    You can find it here:http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/51548-climate-modeling-using-a-leaky-integrator/page__view__findpost__p__1518279

  156. Leif Svalgaard (10:36:39)
    With a limited knowledge (and unlimited entusiasm to probe into unknown) I am looking into any possibility that might oppen the door. Your comments are not ignored, just probed for a possible gaps in the current understanding. Resonant synchronisation, is a phisical reality in many cyclical systems, and has ability to overcome required energy input. Do I have an answer? No I do not, but that should not be reason not to continue search.

  157. vukcevic (12:00:10) :
    No I do not, but that should not be reason not to continue search.
    A person has only so much energy to spare. Better to spend at least some of it actually learning something, rather than searching. Many people have searched and their combined findings have something to teach you, if you would only learn [which seems to be your main problem].
    You can have a mind so open that the brain falls out.

  158. Leif Svalgaard (07:39:29) :
    Geoff Sharp (00:06:29) :
    I noticed in Scafetta’s presentation he agrees with me and shows how solar Angular Momentum/Solar distance to SSB is the driver of the modulation of the solar cycle.
    ————————————————–
    He does not agree with you at all. He refers to Jose. There is no mention of your notion of Neptune/Uranus running the show. Scafetta muses about a 60-year cycle, no 172-year cycle. He draws attention [and mars his presentation] to a 60-yr quasi-period in CMSS and possibly in the LOD. No Grand Minimum.

    Leif, your totally missing the point, in another universe in fact. The 1st graph I referred to shows a modulation in the distance of the Sun from the SSB which goes through a sixty year cycle. The amplitude changes when Neptune & Uranus are together every 172 years (2 sep cycles), Scaffetta is not aware of the N/U factor yet but he has shown the result in his graph. I have emailed him and sent some links so hopefully one day he will catch on. Jose’s graph of Sun/SSB distance is almost the same as the AM graph which is also the same as the torque graph, they are all interelated. The AM graph produced by Carl shows extra detail that Jose and Landscheidt could only dream about….that extra detail is the discovery of how N/U control the modulation cycle.
    If you understand the theory none of this is hard.

  159. Leif Svalgaard (23:38:34) :
    Geoff Sharp (17:31:30) :
    Scaffetta is not aware of the N/U factor
    ————
    So cannot be agreeing with you. Tell us what his answer to your email is when [if] it arrives.

    He agrees and shows the solar modulation caused by the solar distance…that is the crux. The N/U factor will come.
    his email reply as follows:
    Geoff
    I gave a look at your web-site.
    I do believe that your web site looks interesting. However, you should organize your work and try to write some paper and publish it.
    There are scientific journals that do not ask any fee.
    So you may try to prepare a manuscript and submit it.
    nicola

  160. vukcevic (15:23:30) :
    Hathaway: “EARLIER MODELS WERE FATALLY FLAWED.”
    Leif Svalgaard (22:26:44) :
    So? Our new ones are better.
    I will treasure this one !
    ( p.s. but are they any good ? )

  161. Geoff Sharp (01:06:30) :
    However, you should organize your work and try to write some paper and publish it.
    Should be easy for you with such a remarkable result.

  162. In the future, if SC24 turns out to look like the beginning of sunspot sputterings similar to those of the Maunder Minimum, will NOAA’s Solar Cycle Prediction Panel solicit predictions on those sputterings from planetary theorists?

  163. noaaprogrammer (14:25:18) :
    In the future, if SC24 turns out to look like the beginning of sunspot sputterings similar to those of the Maunder Minimum, will NOAA’s Solar Cycle Prediction Panel solicit predictions on those sputterings from planetary theorists?
    Once the old guard is removed there is no doubt…..

  164. Leif Svalgaard (06:31:58) :
    Geoff Sharp (01:06:30) :
    However, you should organize your work and try to write some paper and publish it.
    ————————-
    Should be easy for you with such a remarkable result.

    There is a possibility of co-authorship in the wind, and perhaps a conference appearance so perhaps you are right, the remarkable result might pave its own way.

  165. noaaprogrammer (14:25:18) :
    In the future, if SC24 turns out to look like the beginning of sunspot sputterings similar to those of the Maunder Minimum, will NOAA’s Solar Cycle Prediction Panel solicit predictions on those sputterings from planetary theorists?
    There were some this time around too.
    Geoff Sharp (01:06:30) :
    There is a possibility of co-authorship in the wind, and perhaps a conference appearance so perhaps you are right, the remarkable result might pave its own way.
    The editor might even ask me to review the paper….

Comments are closed.