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
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.
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 ?
Moscow station anomaly 15 may
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
==========================================
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
If one uses hysteresis to integrate sunspot data into a climate model, then the results are profound. See here, a leaky integrator is used to model hysteresis: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/51548-climate-modeling-using-a-leaky-integrator/page__view__findpost__p__1518301
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.
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.
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.
========================================
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.
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.
That should have read “aphelion” rather than “apogee”
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.
Svempa (05:59:18) :
The hypothesis has been discussed at length here and elsewhere.
See this for example http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/
I believe we need to look elsewhere for drivers of the solar activity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Same paper, more spectacular conclusions”
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2452/Astronomers-Suns-output-may-decline-significantly-inducing-another-little-ice-age-on-the-Earth
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.
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