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
‘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.”
Leland Palmer (10:55:20) :
Ed Scott (11:34:11) :
Interesting contrast between these two comments…
http://iceagenow.com/Has_the_USGS_sold_out.htm
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
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.
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”.
vukcevic (13:21:50) :
You can find more here:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarcurrent.pdf
Needless to say you description of the Heliospheric Current Sheet is grossly incorrect.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 …
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’.
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.
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.
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.
Would you consider this to be a CME?
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2009/08/12/behind/cor2/1024/20090812_005115_d4c2B.jpg
Inquiring minds want to know.
I reccomend it for picture of the month. From our beloved Sun. Another week or so and Earth would be in it’s crosshairs.
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.
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.