Leif Svalgaard writes to inform me that Livingston and Penn have published their article recently in EOS, TRANSACTIONS, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION.
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
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?
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
“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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
What determines the temperature of the water on the abyssal plains?
“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.)
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Nope.
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
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
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 …
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.