The Sun’s magnetic funk continues

I’ve looked at the Ap Index on a regular basis, as it is an indicator of how active the solar dynamo is. When we had sunspot 1029 recently, the largest in months, it gave hope to many that Solar cycle 24 had finally started to ramp up.

From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) on November 2nd, you can see that October 2009 had little Ap magnetic activity. The value is now 3 for the month. Here’s my graph from October 2009 SWPC Ap data:

Ap_index_Oct09

Click to enlarge

Leif Svalgaard points out to me another indicator of low solar magnetic activity. Bill Livingston was able to observe sunspot group 1029, and measure its magnetic field and contrast. Leif’s graph with my annotation for group 1029 is below. By itself, this one sunspot group isn’t significant, but it does fit into a prediction made by Livingston and Penn.

L-P_Umbral_data

Click to enlarge

The  measurement of sunspot group 1029 falls just where there should be on the Livingston and Penn predicted path to invisibility.

WUWT readers may recall this NASA News article in September about L&P’s predictions:

NASA: Are Sunspots Disappearing?

And this article:

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

And finally this one, which talks about the progression of lower magnetic activity and increased contrast ratios of umbra’s in sunspots:

Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″

Since we only have sunspot magnetic and contrast data for about 20 years, one can’t be too certain of the outcome just yet. However, if cycle 24 was indeed ramping up with increased magnetic activity, seeing a spot that was well above the magnetic value of the last couple would certainly be reassuring.

We live in interesting times.

Advertisements

164 thoughts on “The Sun’s magnetic funk continues

  1. The SWPC truncates Ap. So even if Ap was 3.999, they would still report it as 3. For October, Ap was 3.52, so should have been reported as 4 in whole numbers. Monthly values this low were last reported in 1900-1901, so the Sun has returned to its state of 108 years ago.

  2. Interesting times indeed. And such an amazing opportunity to learn. For instance we have already learned the existing models to predict solar activity have little or no skill.

    That’s something.

  3. Bill Jamison (23:24:37) :
    For instance we have already learned the existing models to predict solar activity have little or no skill.
    We have learned that one class of models have no skill. Some other models do [or may have].

  4. Taking Leif’s response from the previous post about the Sun’s magnetic field guiding solar winds:
    “It is interesting that this might explain the observed ‘floor’ in the heliospheric magnetic field. If there is a solar wind at all, it must flow with a speed greater than ~250 km/sec [otherwise it could not escape the Sun’s gravity]. So, since there is a minimum speed, there must also be a minimum flux necessary to provide at least that speed”.

    The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory recorded a movie of the CME currently available at spaceweather.com:
    The billon-ton cloud was blown into space by departing sunspot 1029 on Oct. 31st. Normally, CMEs take only two or three days to reach Earth, but during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009, the clouds have slowed to a veritable crawl (~350 km/s, down from 700 to 1000 km/s).

    So, if the magnetic field further deteriorates and the sun stays blank again, we run the risk that the minimum escape speed of solar wind and CME’s is no reached, resulting in a further increase of intergalactic radiation penetrating our atmosphere?

    Questions for Leif,
    At what level will the gravity of the sun dominate the magnetic field?
    How much intergalactic radiation can we expect?

    Interesting times indeed!

  5. Ron de Haan (23:46:12) :
    So, if the magnetic field further deteriorates and the sun stays blank again, we run the risk…
    At what level will the gravity of the sun dominate the magnetic field?
    How much intergalactic radiation can we expect?

    The magnetic field should be on a rise from now on. Should the magnetic field fall by a significant factor [perhaps five – but the number is a guess] the solar wind would not escape. This would remove the 11-year variation we see of cosmic rays even through the Spoerer and Maunder minima, so it didn’t happen then. And my guess is that won’t happen. A nearby supernova might blow away the solar wind, but now we are on a flight of fancy.

  6. “so the Sun has returned to its state of 108 years ago.”

    And it might be about time that it did. The activity of the past 75 years or so has (as you know) been extremely high compared to the rest of the Holocene. It would seem to me from my reading that we are now possibly returning to a more “normal” level of solar activity. In particular:

    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
    Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 – 1087, 28 October 2004.

    S. K. Solanki et al

    Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

    Within the 95% confidence interval, the Sun spent in total between 780 and 1,060 years in a high-activity state (sunspot number.50), which corresponds to 6.9–9.3%of the total duration of our reconstruction. The most probable values are 950 years and 8.3%, respectively.

    So I would not be shocked to learn that we are returning to a more typical level of solar activity after a relatively long period of elevated activity.

  7. Sunspot 1029 had a much larger area total, but the umbra percentage was way down as compared to 1024 in early July. On the one hand, the flux is up and the Activity is up, but the strength or contrast of the spots is down.
    Which one is gaining? It looks like the spots are fighting a losing battle.

  8. So, what will be the consequence if the trend continues until 2015? Are we going to see a significant cooling phase? If so will it be before or after 2015?

  9. crosspatch (00:23:06) :
    The activity of the past 75 years or so has (as you know) been extremely high compared to the rest of the Holocene.
    No, I don’t know that, and I don’t think so. As you can see here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/06/new-svalgaard-paper-reconstructing-the-heliospheric-magnetic-field-since-1835-with-insight-into-the-peer-review-process/
    The heliospheric magnetic field in the 20th century has not been significantly higher than during the 19th [and also not during the latter half of the 18th]. The sunspot number is probably wrongly calibrated.

    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
    The Solanki model is very likely flawed in that it was calibrated to reproduce the more than doubling of the HMF in the last 100 years. A result we now know is incorrect. The cosmic ray proxies also do not characterize the 20th century as exceptionally high, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
    or http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf or http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
    [“A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.”]

  10. Solar intensity cycle…

    You have to remember that we are coming out of the last mini-iceage as of the 19th century. The higher magnetic levels convert energy to low wavelength that better penetrates the earths magnetosphere. This is what accounted for the 1990’s temperature increase in part. Now that magnetism is falling, less energy penetrates our magnetosphere and the earth is cooling.

    This just further disproves the idiotic Al Gores of the world. IT IS THE SUN STUPID!

  11. crosspatch (00:23:06) :
    “so the Sun has returned to its state of 108 years ago.”
    And it might be about time that it did.

    My calculation shows that certain solar anomalies may have such a cycle, also confirmed by FFT power spectrum (re. Dr. Svalgaard)

  12. Latest GONG image shows a sunspot is forming relatively high in the northern hemisphere… but the problem is…
    It’s a cycle 23: {black}{white}
    Unless…
    Notice there’s another magnetic region just above the equator, a SC 24 region, so is there a chance that this “SC 23” could be an early sign of SC25? Much like there were early indicators of SC 24 in 2006?


  13. Hathaway prediction updated for November 2009.
    SC 24 Max now predicted to be about 76 and occur just before mid 2013.

  14. Leif, going back to the solar wind drop out event May 10-12, 1999 for a moment, you previously pointed out there have been significant dips since but not another complete drop out. A few questions if I may:

    1. Did the magnetic field strength drop markedly at this time?
    2. Were there similar dips leading up to May 1999?
    3. Are these dips still occurring?
    4. What do you think may have caused this event?
    5. What data sources give the most frequent measurements (mag and wind)?

    We live in interesting times indeed. An excellent thread Anthony.

  15. Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.

    Speaking of which, despite their infrequency, do pole reversals affect and are they accounted for in the data that is used to record past solar activity?

  16. Here is my compilation of solar cycle 24 forecasts from NASA.

    When forecast, date of minimum, peak estimate, date of peak

    01/2004- minimum in 1/2007, peak = 160
    01/2005- minimum in 1/2007, peak = 145, in 2010
    01/2006- minimum in 1/2007, peak = 145, in 2010
    01/2007- minimum in 6/2007, peak = 145, in 2010
    03/2008- minimum in 6/2008, peak = 130, in 2011.5
    01/2009- minimum in 1/2009, peak = 105, in 2012
    04/2009- minimum in 4/2009, peak = 104, in 2013
    05/2009- minimum in 5/2009, peak = 90, in 2013.5
    11/2009- minimum in 5/2009, peak = <50, in ???

    Anthony has had a much more visual presentation of this trend, but I've tried to include estimates from much earlier and the most recent comments from Hathaway.

  17. I must admit that when I first saw the L&P graph and paper I was somewhat sketical. As a physicist one expects ‘natural’ systems to exponential and asymptotic not fading to zero. The fact that this current sunspot falls on the predictive graph makes me more interested in what happens next.

  18. PJB (07:53:00) :

    “Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.”

    Says who? New Age chiliastic disasturbationists aren’t scientists.

  19. vukcevic (01:52:26) :
    My calculation shows that certain solar anomalies may have such a cycle
    There are no ‘cycles’ at that period. Just as the Earth’s weather has a typical ‘period’ of about a week [between fronts] does not mean that the weather has a 7-day cycle.
    The last three hundred years, the solar weather ‘period’ has been around 100+ years. Looking further back one can find periods of 88 years and 150 and 220, but these come and go, and are not ‘cycles’.

    Mr. Alex (02:15:12) :
    “SC 23″ could be an early sign of SC25? Much like there were early indicators of SC 24 in 2006?
    The high latitude region is probably just a ‘reversed’ SC24 region [this happens for about 1 in 30 groups]. The equatorial one is Southern hemisphere spilling over. These anomalies occur from time to time, especially for small groups that re moved around by the roiling convection.

    Mr. Alex (04:10:59) :
    make that 78 ± 18 for max
    Hathaway has seen the light. http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

    Aligner (07:13:16) :
    1. Did the magnetic field strength drop markedly at this time?
    5. What data sources give the most frequent measurements (mag and wind)?
    These drop outs occur ‘all the time’ [does not mean ‘every day’]
    Data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html
    http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3

    PJB (07:53:00) :
    do pole reversals affect and are they accounted for in the data that is used to record past solar activity?
    No and yes.
    No, they are too infrequent.
    Yes, a lower Earth’s field means a higher sensitivity to the solar wind, so geomagnetic activity goes up when the Earth’s field goes down. Since measurements began ~170 years ago, the field has decreased 10% and that can be seen [weakly] in a slight increase of geomagnetic activity [the increase is thus not due to the sun]. Another way of seeing the influence is that in December and June, the Earth’s axis is tilted into the solar wind. Because the magnetic field around a dipole is twice as strong at the poles than at the equator, the solar wind will thus run into a stronger field at the solstices, resulting in lower geomagnetic activity. One could express the same by saying that at the equinoxes, activity will thus be larger. [warning: this is my opinion, not yet shared by everybody]. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20semiannual%20variation%20of%20great%20geomagnetic%20storms.pdf

  20. Anthony,

    Regarding the step down in Oct 2005.

    It appears obvious (to me, at least) that in addition to the dropping smoothed value there was a drop in the variance, the degree of noise in the signal, like a kettle simmering down from a hard boil to a state where just a few bubbles are forming on the bottom. In that case the temperature of the water would not have changed much, but the dynamics of the driver would have changed a lot.

    Do you know where this data can be found in a digital format so that I could play with it?

  21. PJB (07:53:00) :
    Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.

    I would not subscribe to that. Currently strongest magnetic field in the North Hemisphere is in the central Siberia (north of lake Baikal).
    This graph shows its intensity change since 1900.

  22. PJB (07:53:00) :

    “Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.”

    Yes – I’m with Mike Lorrey (08:32:33) at – who says that there is a reversal going on?

    Interestingly, but probably OT, magnetic reversals appear to coincide with increased tectonic activity in the geological record.

  23. Weakening solar magnetic fields, slower solar winds, slower ramp up for cycle 24, and the prospect for disappearing or ‘invisible’ sunspots — solar scientists must be positively giddy at the prospect of unusual solar activity (at least in terms of recent activity). It is also very refreshing to see disagreements from these same scientists — no consensus here – these are real scientists. It will indeed be interesting to see how this (Livingston & Penn’s ideas) all shakes out as we get closer to 2015.

  24. “No, I don’t know that, and I don’t think so.”

    Now I supposed I am confused. Forgive me, but I thought I remembered you saying something maybe a year or two ago along the lines of recent activity being above the typical level. Maybe it was someone else and I am mistaken. I read that letter to Nature and read it as validation of something I thought I had remembered you saying but apparently my recollection failed or I have the context wrong.

  25. stephen richards (08:29:32) :

    Just because the L&P graph is linear doesn’t really rule out an asymptote. The latter is just probably somewhere below the visible range, i.e. after sunspots disappear.

  26. Glenn (08:09:35) :
    Cycle 25?
    No, a small ‘reversed’ SC24. 1 in 30 regions are reversed by accident, especially the small ones.

    stephen richards (08:29:32) :
    I must admit that when I first saw the L&P graph and paper I was somewhat sketical. As a physicist one expects ‘natural’ systems to exponential and asymptotic not fading to zero. The fact that this current sunspot falls on the predictive graph makes me more interested in what happens next.

    To speculate: the field will probably bottom out at, say 1200 G [estimated from cosmic ray modulation during the Maunder minimum] and stay there for some time [perhaps several cycles???], then go back up again. It does not tend to zero. Just the visibility of the spots.

  27. Correction: re: 08:49:57

    The source on the graph only has monthly values. Do you know where I can get the actual observed values.

  28. To bring up a topic that comes up anytime Livingston and Penn’s work is discussed, they provide a very good mechanism for describing what may have been responsible for the Maunder minimum.

    If that is right, and if we are about to repeat that episode….. well, you know what that would mean.

  29. RE: modelers and their predictive skill

    Shouldn’t someone be popping the top on a bottle of bubbly for Livingston and Penn? Yes, this is just one data point but it falls just where their model predicts. Who out there isn’t envious?

    RE: truncating versus rounding

    Seems odd in context of most of what we see here where temperatures are carried out to 3 significant digits on the back of poorly sited and reported data. But many people do this everyday when stating the price they paid for a gallon of gasoline: say, reporting $2.89 when the pump price was $2.899.

  30. fred (08:49:57) :
    Regarding the step down in Oct 2005.
    Just a random occurrence. No significant change occurred in the Sun. The drop looks significant because there was a very large storm in September, made even bigger by geomagnetic activity generally being larger in September. Here is a pictorial of the September activity: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005,09,04
    This kind of storms is sporadic and occurs more or less at random.

  31. Hathaway prediction updated for November 2009.
    SC 24 Max now predicted to be about 76 and occur just before mid 2013.

    Looks like the Svalgaard effect.

  32. rbateman (00:34:55) : “On the one hand, the flux is up and the Activity is up, but the strength or contrast of the spots is down…”

    Not to get picky, but shouldn’t that be contrast ratio? Technically, it’s the ratio of umbral intensity to photospheric intensity. “Contrast” is defined as ‘The difference in brightness between the light and dark areas of a picture, such as a photograph or video image.’ [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language] Note that the contrast ratio is heading for 1.0, which would be very different from contrast, which is going towards zero.

  33. Leif Svalgaard (09:21:28) :

    Glenn (08:09:35) :
    Cycle 25?
    “No, a small ‘reversed’ SC24. 1 in 30 regions are reversed by accident, especially the small ones.”

    By accident?

    Has there been 30 C24 spots?

  34. Glenn (10:28:47) :
    Has there been 30 C24 spots?
    The chance of getting a six throwing a die is 1 in 6 for the first throw.

    jorgekafkazar (10:09:44) :
    Not to get picky, but shouldn’t that be contrast ratio?
    When everybody knows what is meant one can be sloppy [shorthand]. The precise quantity measured is the ratio between the intensity at the central [bottom] part of the line and that of the continuum. So if ‘contrast’ is 0.836 it means that at line center we only get 82.6% of the light we would get if there were no line at that wavelength.

  35. Adolfo Giurfa (09:20:58) :
    Two north magnetic poles.

    This graph shows 350 year evolution of the Earth’s magnetic field in the Northern hemisphere.

  36. Jimmy Haigh (08:59:57) :

    PJB (07:53:00) :

    “Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.”

    Yes – I’m with Mike Lorrey (08:32:33) at – who says that there is a reversal going on?

    Interestingly, but probably OT, magnetic reversals appear to coincide with increased tectonic activity in the geological record.
    Did you remember december 2004 tectonic activity?, was it too little for you?

    Forgetfullness is a psychological “buffer” which protects us from seeing harsh reality.

  37. ” Leif Svalgaard (01:00:05) : ”

    Looking at the conclusions in the muscheler07qsr paper I noticed this:

    The differences between the 10Be records from Greenland and Antarctica for the period after 1950 AD have led to strongly differing conclusions about solar activity in the past (Bard et al., 2000; Usoskin et al., 2003). While the records from Greenland indicate a relatively low 10Be production after 1950 AD this trend is rather opposite in the Antarctic records. The 11-yr averages of the neutron monitor and sunspot data show a relatively stable solar activity during the second part of the 20th century.

    Then I remembered having read this:

    In the current era, the center of the galaxy is visible from the Earth’s South Pole and not the North Pole. That will eventually reverse due to precession. But in either case, observers on most of the Earth’s surface experience periods of the day during which the galactic center is above the horizon.

    Which had me thinking that if we were seeing after 1950 a source of nuclides that originated generally from toward the Galactic center, the South Pole should see “more” of them than the North Pole. This is because of the ecliplic plane’s offset from the Galactic plane and the equatorial plane’s offset from the ecliptic. Basically, the North Pole is “shielded” from the Galactic center. If the majority of nuclides that are the source of Be10 are originating from someplace else, maybe both poles get an equal “dose” but if a source toward the Galactic center becomes the majority contributor, I might expect to see more in Antarctic cores than in Greenland cores.

    This leads me to wonder if an average of the two really means anything as they might be apples/oranges. Greenland might currently represent sources of particles originating from areas away from the Galactic center while Antarctic cores would more representative of particles originating from a more local source that is potentially more energetic, potentially greater in concentration, and possibly quite variable.

    Going farther down that line of thinking, I might consider Greenland cores to more accurately represent general solar magnetic properties and Antarctic cores to be an amalgamation of solar activity and Galactic core activity. The reason for that being that if you block rays for the Galactic center, I would expect the result to be more indicative of rays arriving generally from all directions whereas Antarctica could be “swamped” by Galactic core activity that could be highly variable even if solar magnetics were static. The amount of rays arriving generally from all directions except the local Galactic center would, to my mind, be more likely to be stable over time (local events notwithstanding) and their modulation more likely to indicate solar magnetics. While the Antarctic cores would indicate solar magnetics AND Galactic center activity.

  38. ShrNfr (11:18:12) :
    Such a shame that the data is so spotty so to speak.
    Main reason is that the spots were few and far between. Additionally, Bill doesn’t have the telescope to himself, but must share, and thirdly, sometimes the occasional cloudy weather gets in the way.

  39. crosspatch (11:30:07) :
    Which had me thinking that if we were seeing after 1950 a source of nuclides that originated generally from toward the Galactic center, the South Pole should see “more” of them than the North Pole.
    The direction from where the GCRs are coming is completely scrambled after having gone through the heliosphere. We have no idea where the GCRs are coming from, AFAIK.

  40. chris y (08:25:10) :
    Here is my compilation of solar cycle 24 forecasts from NASA.

    If you plot a linear trend of the forecasts, it hits zero about the same time as sunspots become invisible according to L&P. :-)

  41. Glenn (10:28:47) :

    We have had 29 SC24 spots. This one makes 30.
    There have been a lot of reveresed spots showing up.
    SC23 blinkers populating the equator in between the healthy SC24 spots.
    SC24 spots that lie at the limits of latitude spreads are the norm.
    What does it mean? It means this cycle is goofy.
    It’s had too much to drink and is weaving all over the place.
    In between binges, it ‘sleeps it off’.
    Shhh…. don’t wake it up too early, it’s likely hung over.

  42. Leif Svalgaard (10:48:14) :
    “No, a small ‘reversed’ SC24. 1 in 30 regions are reversed by accident, especially the small ones.”
    Glenn (10:28:47) :
    Has there been 30 C24 spots?
    “The chance of getting a six throwing a die is 1 in 6 for the first throw.”

    That’s nice. And the next throw, and the next and so on. Especially the small ones.
    So were there to be say 30 total spots to date since the first SC24 spot was called, and 15 of them were “reversed by accident”, would that be a 1 in 30 accident?

  43. Adolfo Giurfa (09:20:58) :
    Two north magnetic poles.

    This graph shows 400 year evolution of the Earth’s magnetic field in the Northern hemisphere.

  44. “Leif Svalgaard (08:49:55) :
    The high latitude region is probably just a ‘reversed’ SC24 region [this happens for about 1 in 30 groups]. The equatorial one is Southern hemisphere spilling over. These anomalies occur from time to time, especially for small groups that re moved around by the roiling convection.”

    This is likely true, however what is also interesting is that the largest SC24 spot so far (1029) was so near to the equator. It seems as though many SC 24 spots have been unusual so far.

    “Dennis Wingo (10:03:42) :
    Hathaway prediction updated for November 2009.
    SC 24 Max now predicted to be about 76 and occur just before mid 2013.
    Looks like the Svalgaard effect.”

    Predictions may change if ramp-up doesn’t kick up a gear.
    Leif, I’m sure this has been asked before, but what are your thoughts for SC 25? Weaker or more or less the same as SC 24?

  45. Jimmy Haigh (08:59:57) :
    Interestingly, but probably OT, magnetic reversals appear to coincide with increased tectonic activity in the geological record.

    References please !

  46. Carsten Arnholm, Norway (11:45:27) :

    chris y (08:25:10) :
    Here is my compilation of solar cycle 24 forecasts from NASA.

    If you plot a linear trend of the forecasts, it hits zero about the same time as sunspots become invisible according to L&P. :-)

    Heh.

    :-)

  47. Is there any relationship between the observation & measurement of the two magnetic North poles and the current solar minimum in conjuction with the depressed magnetic field?

  48. James F. Evans (13:38:00) :
    Is there any relationship between the observation & measurement of the two magnetic North poles and the current solar minimum in conjuction with the depressed magnetic field?

    No, the Earth’s internal magnetic field has nothing to do with solar activity.

  49. Mike Lorrey (08:32:33) :

    PJB (07:53:00) :

    “Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.”

    Says who? New Age chiliastic disasturbationists aren’t scientists.

    I won’t say we are going through a reversal, but we are “overdue” for one. I haven’t heard anyone predict a reversal at this point either.

  50. Leif Svalgaard (13:39:59) :

    James F. Evans (13:38:00) :
    Is there any relationship between the observation & measurement of the two magnetic North poles and the current solar minimum in conjuction with the depressed magnetic field?

    No, the Earth’s internal magnetic field has nothing to do with solar activity.

    _______________________________

    Okay.

    Do you know what is causing the two magentic North poles?

  51. Leif Svalgaard (13:39:59) : .. the Earth’s internal magnetic field has nothing to do with solar activity.

    By that you mean it is not caused by solar activity but presumably the two interact.

  52. re: crosspatch (11:30:07)

    In the current era, the center of the galaxy is visible from the Earth’s South Pole and not the North Pole. That will eventually reverse due to precession. But in either case, observers on most of the Earth’s surface experience periods of the day during which the galactic center is above the horizon.

    I have read and understand Leif’s statement that GCR’s are directionally scrambled.

    However…

    *IF* Svensmark is correct, and *given* the differential heating of the globe due to disproportionate landmass distribution N Hemisphere vs S Hemisphere, would (could?) this explain ice ages, which are tied to the precession of the equinox?

    Equinox precesses, more GCR hit the N half increasing cloudiness, which due to higher landmass cools the globe past the…ahh…uhm…”tipping point?”

    Jus’ thinkin’ out loud here…

  53. Leif Svalgaard (10:49:35) :

    jorgekafkazar (10:09:44) :
    “So if ‘contrast’ is 0.836 it means that at line center we only get 83.6% of the light we …
    One can be too sloppy :-)

    Close enough, Leif. As my astronomy professor used to say (~1959): “To a celestial mechanics specialist, astrophysical accuracy means getting the decimal point in the right place.” : )

  54. I vote for “New Age chiliastic disasturbationists” as quote of the week. Also, that could be the name we select for our new rock band.

  55. Adolfo Giurfa (11:15:55) :

    “Did you remember december 2004 tectonic activity?, was it too little for you?

    Forgetfullness is a psychological “buffer” which protects us from seeing harsh reality.”

    True – there was one earthquake in December 2004 greater than mag. 9 (In fact I know people who lost relatives in that event so, no, I haven’t forgotten it. ) There were several earthquakes in the 60’s greater than mag. 9. Is overall earthquake activity increasing? I don’t know.

    Jeff L (13:16:13) :

    I worked on a number of proprietary studies on the Upper Jurassic of the North Sea during the 90’s by making detailed geological interpretations of over 1000 wells. I noticed that magnetic reversals coincuded with a number of tectonic events in the North Sea during the Upper Jurassic. I also noticed that the Lower Cretaceous appeared to be a pretty crazy time tectonically in the North Sea. If you look at the magnetic reversal pattern in the Lower Cretaceous, it too is pretty crazy. In contrast, the Upper Cretaceous was a very quiet period both tectonically and as regards magnetic reversals. The work was never published – but it was sold to a number of oil companies working in the North Sea so I guess it did pass ‘peer review’!

    As I said these were a couple of things I had noticed but which were not of great import to the studies I was working on at the time. I don’t know if there is anything published about this and I am not involved in this kind of work these days – I spend half my life on oil rigs and the other half lounging on a tropical beach. (You may find somethings of interest in, for example, “Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the ‘n’th Conferences (Geological society publications). )

    Meanwhile, here’s a link to the Wikipdia page on magnetic reversals.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

  56. James F. Evans (14:18:22) :
    Do you know what is causing the two magnetic North poles?
    Yes. The Earth’s magnetic field is generated by a dynamo in the core of the Earth, where the conducting liquid iron is moving across the magnetic field lines, creating electric currents magnifying and modifying the field, very much the same process that takes place in the Sun. As with the Sun, the circulation is not perfectly regular, but messy, so the dynamo generate not only a dipole field, but higher multipoles as well. These show up at ‘bumps’ in the Earth’s field observed at the surface. And have nothing whatsoever to do with solar activity.

    Richard (14:29:28) :
    By that you mean it is not caused by solar activity but presumably the two interact.
    ‘Interact’ is not the right word. The Earth’s field basically stops the solar wind at the ‘front door’. Because the Earth’s field is 10,000 times stronger than solar wind field there are always plenty of magnetic field lines that reconnect with the solar wind field and generate electric currents causing aurorae and magnetic storms. The solar wind does not modify the Earth’s internal field or control its development and evolution.

    Mark Wagner (14:38:50) :
    Equinox precesses, more GCR hit the N half increasing cloudiness, which due to higher landmass cools the globe past the…ahh…uhm…”tipping point?”
    The main regulator of GCRs is the Earth’s dipole field [which also scrambles the directions]. Svensmark has a special pleading that ‘his’ GCRs just manages not to be modulated by the Earth but only by the Sun.

  57. James F. Evans (14:18:22) :
    Do you know what is causing the two magnetic North poles?

    Earth magnetic field can be broken into 3 components. Strongest is the vertical or Z component which indicates existence of two N poles. Overall field is not that clear. Some months ago I started investigation into this problem.
    Here is an extract from article which is in the process of writing:
    “The South magnetic pole’s maximum strength is concentrated in a single area and its decline has been relatively even, while the North magnetic pole’s magnetic distribution is more complex, its maximum strength is split in two prongs, thousands of miles apart, one located in the general area of Hudson Bay and the other in the central Siberia, north of Baikal Lake. If Earth magnetic field is modeled by an imaginary bar magnet than, rather than customary I shaped, it would be a Y shaped bar.
    While the South pole’s area of maximum intensity is moving its location, two areas associated with the North pole’s two positions of maximum intensity have stayed fixed during last 300 years, but the balance of intensities of the maximum field has changed; and the apparent location of North magnetic pole is between two.”
    Both extremities are result of the geological movements, most likely related to postglacial uplift. It should be noted that both areas are located at relatively low latitude of only 65-6 degrees north which is barely 2/3 of equator- north pole distance.
    Similarly the S pole is currently at 65 degrees south and 140 E. If you assume that the Earth’s magnet is a bar running trough its centre than the Hudson Bay should be natural N pole, while Siberian is an anomaly. It should be noted that Siberia is an iron rich area, a possible explanation for this anomaly. Hudson Bay area is not without a mystery either.

  58. Anthony,

    Back in mid-June, Frank Hill said that sunspots would be with us within three to six months based on something or other with the convection zone. We are now in the middle of that period of forecast heightened activity. It may be beneficial to get an update from Mr Hill, who at the time shouted (his words) that there is no correlation between solar activit and the Earth’s climate.

  59. Leif Svalgaard (15:17:03) :

    “Richard (14:29:28) :
    By that you mean it is not caused by solar activity but presumably the two interact.
    ‘Interact’ is not the right word. The Earth’s field basically stops the solar wind at the ‘front door’. Because the Earth’s field is 10,000 times stronger than solar wind field there are always plenty of magnetic field lines that reconnect with the solar wind field and generate electric currents causing aurorae and magnetic storms. The solar wind does not modify the Earth’s internal field or control its development and evolution.”

    Dr. Svalgaard, does the solar wind have additional effects in addition to generating electric currents causing aurorae and magnetic storms? Do the electrical currents reach the land or ocean surface? How powerful are these currents? As you mentioned earlier, an electrical current will generate heat in the material it is running through….

    Dan Murphy

  60. Leif Svalgaard (23:23:43) :

    The SWPC truncates Ap. So even if Ap was 3.999, they would still report it as 3.

    Leif, if you could get that formula to work at our gas pumps, they’d carve your image on Mt. Rushmore.

  61. I have my own version of L&P that is not restricted by telescope time.

    Its called the Layman’s Sunspot Darkness Ratio. I use a simple method, measure the amount of pixels 0-70 in the green channel, then measure how many pixels between 0-34 then calculate the darkness percentage. I do this at the peak of the spot/group. Below is a chart for all SC24 spots above 23 pixels.

    The data range is smaller but the trend looks different to L&P

  62. vukcevic (15:35:51) :
    Strongest is the vertical or Z component which indicates existence of two N poles. Overall field is not that clear.
    The overall field is a strong and clear dipole. And just to get the science right, the two ‘N poles’ you keep mentioning are actually south poles. The north pole is near Antarctica.

    Dan Murphy (16:33:28) :
    Do the electrical currents reach the land or ocean surface? How powerful are these currents? As you mentioned earlier, an electrical current will generate heat in the material it is running through….
    The currents are in the ionosphere 100 km up and run up to a million amperes, but do not reach the ground. On the other hand they induce similar currents in the oceans and deep underground. The heat generated is minuscule and not a factor in anything.

  63. Geoff Sharp (17:24:10) :
    I have my own version of L&P that is not restricted by telescope time.
    The data is hard to compare. L&P measure every spot [telescope/weather permitting]. For SC24 they have ~60 measurements. Also, they measure in the deep infrared. Finally they measure the single darkest ‘pixel’ in each spot, not the average over the spot. Almost any method would work as long as it is being applied consistently.

  64. Dr.Svalgaard (15:17:03) responds:

    Richard’s statement (14:29:28) :
    “By that you mean it is not caused by solar activity but presumably the two interact.”

    Dr. Svalgaard answers: “‘Interact’ is not the right word. The Earth’s field basically stops the solar wind at the ‘front door’. Because the Earth’s field is 10,000 times stronger than solar wind field there are always plenty of magnetic field lines that reconnect with the solar wind field and generate electric currents causing aurorae and magnetic storms. The solar wind does not modify the Earth’s internal field or control its development and evolution.”

    Dr. Svalgaard is making reference to the Chapman-Ferraro model.

    Per NASA:

    “In the 1930’s Chapman and Ferraro predicted that the plasma and magnetic fields from the Sun and the plasma and magnetic fields of the Earth would not mix. They thought that the magnetic field of the Earth could create a complete barrier to the solar wind. The boundary between the interplanetary magnetic field and the region dominated by the Earth’s magnetic field is called the Magnetopause. In the Chapman-Ferraro model, the plasma of the solar wind and the magnetic fields of the Sun slide over and around the Earth’s magnetosphere without any mixing.”

    http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/earth_magnetosphere.htm

    Today, we know the Chapmam-Ferraro model is wrong. The solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere do mix, at points called “magnetic reconnection” most directly where the solar wind comes into conact with the Earth’s magnetosphere, most evidently when coronal mass ejections (CME) contact the Earth’s magnetosphere.

    See, Science @ NASA: A Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm

    “Dec. 16, 2008: NASA’s five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a breach in Earth’s magnetic field ten times larger than anything previously thought to exist. Solar wind can flow in through the opening to “load up” the magnetosphere for powerful geomagnetic storms. But the breach itself is not the biggest surprise. Researchers are even more amazed at the strange and unexpected way it forms, overturning long-held ideas of space physics.”

    To highlight:

    NASA has “discovered a breach in Earth’s magnetic field ten times larger than anything previously thought to exist. Solar wind can flow in through the opening to “load up” the magnetosphere for powerful geomagnetic storms.”

    The NASA release goes on:

    “At first I didn’t believe it,” says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.”

    NASA follows:

    “Onboard sensors recorded a torrent of solar wind particles streaming into the magnetosphere, signaling an event of unexpected size and importance.”

    Dr. Svalgaard’s opinion doesn’t take into account the latest observations & measurements by NASA.

  65. Does anyone know where or how to get up-to-date “east-to-west motion speed versus latitude” diagrams produced by GONG helioseismology observations as show at: http://gong.nso.edu/news/solarmystery/ ? The images/diagrams from the 17 June 2009 press release only go to mid 2008. It would be nice if those were updated on a regular basis to have a different point-of-view as to what is happening with the Sun.

    Jeff

  66. Leif Svalgaard (17:55:58) :

    Almost any method would work as long as it is being applied consistently

    Not sure I like the one pixel method, perhaps there are better ways.

  67. NASA recounts the most powerful geomagnetic storm: “A Super Solar Flare” known as the Carrington flare.

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/06may_carringtonflare.htm

    September 1, 1859:

    “Just before dawn the next day, skies all over planet Earth erupted in red, green, and purple auroras so brilliant that newspapers could be read as easily as in daylight. Indeed, stunning auroras pulsated even at near tropical latitudes over Cuba, the Bahamas, Jamaica, El Salvador, and Hawaii.”

    “Even more disconcerting, telegraph systems worldwide went haywire. Spark discharges shocked telegraph operators and set the telegraph paper on fire. Even when telegraphers disconnected the batteries powering the lines, aurora-induced electric currents in the wires still allowed messages to be transmitted.”

    This “mixing” of the solar wind (coronal mass ejection) and the Earth’s magnetosphere and the resultant damage it can do to electrical equipment is one reason among many why NASA does study the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere.

    On the good side with a lower magnetic strength, as is the present case, it is less likely a gigantic sized coronal mass ejection will hit the Earth wreaking havoc to Man’s sophisticated equipment.

    An equivalent sized CME to the 1859 Carrington flare would likely disable all satellites in orbit and a lot of ground based equipment, too.

    Likely a tremendous sized breach opened up in the Earth’s magnetosphere, larger than the one observed & measured recently by NASA.

  68. James F. Evans (18:08:30) :
    Don’t forget all of the measured GLE’s caused by flares and earth-directed CME’s that have been directly measured over the last several decades (and don’t forget Sep. 1859). If they can directly affect the surface, vertical, and horizontal electrical currents, they are also affecting (albeit possibly only temporarily) the geomagnetic field(s).

  69. James F. Evans (18:08:30) :
    Today, we know the Chapman-Ferraro model is wrong.
    This is the kind of nonsense that eventually will give WUWT and bad name and reputation.
    The Chapman-Ferraro model is no more wrong than Newtonian gravity is. Both are not 100% correct, but close. You pick a sentence from a PR without knowing the facts. Try to go to http://www.sotere.uni-osnabrueck.de/spacebook/spacebook_files/lecture_e/space-kap8-eng.pdf to see what role the Chapman-Ferraro picture still plays.
    Have you studied the Yamada link?

  70. Geoff Sharp (18:23:58) :
    Not sure I like the one pixel method, perhaps there are better ways.
    Trust Bill to know what he is doing. What you are saying is that when it comes to measuring the height of Mt Everest that perhaps it is better to measure it somewhere else than at the peak of the mountain.

    James F. Evans (18:50:57) :
    NASA recounts the most powerful geomagnetic storm: “A Super Solar Flare” known as the Carrington flare.
    I happen to somewhat of an expert on the Carrington Flare. The link you provided even has a reference to a paper of mine. The “tremendous sized breach” is PR-hype and not science.
    This “mixing” of the solar wind (coronal mass ejection) and the Earth’s magnetosphere
    is called magnetic reconnection.
    Have you studied the Yamada link?

  71. I have a really stupid question to ask. Which one is the dot for sunspot 1029? I am not sure I understand the plot at all. I apologize for the redhead moment. But you know.

  72. LAShaffer (19:17:22) :
    If they can directly affect the surface, vertical, and horizontal electrical currents
    They do not ‘affect’ the currents, but create them, locally where the CMEs hit the Earth’s magnetic field. GLEs have nothing to do with this.

  73. James F. Evans (11:29:49) :

    “Adolfo Giurfa (09:20:58) :

    PJB (07:53:00) :
    Look at this:
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/Z_map_mf_1990.pdf
    Two north magnetic poles.

    ———————–

    What causes that? And what significance could it have if any?

    Does it suggest any trends?

    How long has there been two magnetic North poles?

    How long might there be two magnetic North poles?”

    Okay, heres another rule to add into your list of easy to remember rules of science along with “correlation is not causation”:

    Intensity does not equal polarity.

  74. Don’t know about the 1029 dot, but hopefully Livingston can get a measurement on the latest spot, now measuring 23 x 10E6 on GONG Udaipur image 2009/11/06 03:24UT.
    Would like to see how this reversed polarity SC24?/SC23? wannabe shapes up.

  75. crosspatch (11:30:07) :

    ” Leif Svalgaard (01:00:05) : ”

    Looking at the conclusions in the muscheler07qsr paper I noticed this:

    “The differences between the 10Be records from Greenland and Antarctica for the period after 1950 AD have led to strongly differing conclusions about solar activity in the past (Bard et al., 2000; Usoskin et al., 2003). While the records from Greenland indicate a relatively low 10Be production after 1950 AD this trend is rather opposite in the Antarctic records. The 11-yr averages of the neutron monitor and sunspot data show a relatively stable solar activity during the second part of the 20th century. ”

    That correlates with a comparison between GISP2 and Vostok as well. It seems there are almost always opposing trends (outside of the eccentricity forcing). There is a roughly 5000-6000yr cycle riding on top of the obliquity signal. The positive peak for NH occurs at 3000 and 8500, SH at LIA, 5500 and 11000. I always wondered if it were something orbital as the time periods are rather long and of opposing trends.

    You can see it during the glacial period too, where the Obliquity comb (as I call it) shows up around 45000yrs. You’ll see the peaks are of opposite sign for the two hemispheres. Positive peaks occur @ 38000 and 45000 for the NH, and the positive peaks are out of phase in the SH at 35000 and 41800. Roughly a 6000yr or so cycle. It’s the same cycle seen during the interglacial (when the obliquity signal pops up) but not severely dampened as the climate system is not saturated as it is currently (IMO).

    It seems to me that the obliquity signal might have a modulation to it. When the obliquity hits max we get a warming forcing, and when it is in phase with eccentricity we get a longer more stable interglacial (rather than 225kyrs ago when they were out of phase, quite nasty). Hence the Milankovitch split peak issue some refer to.

    One things you’d have to say though, the SH has much lower temperature variation than the NH and when compared have significant opposing trends (same as the solar proxies referred to above). I don’t know why the NH would be more sensitive to orbital forcing than the SH…perhaps the isolation of antarctica, or maybe some other orbital parameter we haven’t determined?

    Either way, the SH is not a good proxy for global temps (judging by the higher sensitivity of the NH), and no SH proxy should be compared to a NH record or visa versa.

  76. Evans wrote: “Today, we know the Chapman-Ferraro model is wrong.”

    Dr. Svalgaard responds: “This is the kind of nonsense that eventually will give WUWT and bad name and reputation.”

    In your opinion Dr. Svalgaard.

    But why would it give WUWT a bad reputation? It’s not Mr. Watts opinion.

    Besides the NASA release speaks for itself and supports my opinion:

    See, Science @ NASA: A Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field:

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm

    Are you implying I should be banned because I express opinions consistent with NASA?

    Or does it just bug you that I provide links to scientific evidence that contradicts your opinion?

    I don’t know Dr. Svalgaard, is that consistent with the circles you travel in: If an opinion differs from yours and that person won’t knuckle under to your bullying or won’t shut up (and has supporting evidence as backup), well, then his opinion should be suppressed?

    You sound as bad as some of the AGWers.

  77. Leif Svalgaard (20:08:46) :
    LAShaffer (19:17:22) :
    If they can directly affect the surface, vertical, and horizontal electrical currents
    They do not ‘affect’ the currents, but create them, locally where the CMEs hit the Earth’s magnetic field. GLEs have nothing to do with this.

    The poster may mean to convey the “create” meaning of ‘affect’.
    You must ‘affect to have an effect’ and all that. Those educated
    in UK primary schools up to about 1970 often use this bit of wording.

    Regardless, where there is a varying magnetic field, there is voltage.
    When the space is conductive, there is current too. As the solar
    magnetic field varies, for a static earth field there would be voltages
    and currents. But the earth’s magnetic field is never static with
    respect to the sun. The earth’s field is not uniform and is not aligned
    with the earth’s spin axis. Neither is the sun’s field static, as
    the sun rotates and roils.

    So the varying field from the rotating, roiling sun interacts with the
    field from the rotating, orbiting earth. Like the sound from a 2-tone
    horn or the light in the emission spectrum of hydrogen, the result is
    an infinite number of harmonics and beat patterns. Neat stuff.

  78. “The direction from where the GCRs are coming is completely scrambled after having gone through the heliosphere.”

    Generally true but the amount of “scrambling” depends on the energy of the particle. From NMDB:

    Cosmic rays penetrating into the Heliosphere interact with the solar wind. Very energetic charged particles will remain unaffected – they traverse the solar wind as if it were not there. But cosmic rays at moderate energies, say up to some tens of GeV, do feel its influence. Not through collisions, since the gas is far too dilute for direct collisions between a cosmic ray particle with a solar wind particle. But the varying magnetic field makes the trajectory of cosmic rays with moderate energies deviate strongly from a straight line.

    We can understand this by using the elementary description of charged particle propagation in a uniform magnetic field. When the magnetic field varies in time, the particle encounters rapidly changing magnetic field line directions along its trajectory, and therefore has directions of propagation that change all the time. One says that the particle is scattered by the magnetic field irregularities.

    Now if one were to see more Be10 at the South Pole than at the North Pole, one would have only a limited number of possible reasons. Either there is some mechanism that makes the depositing of Be10 more efficient in Antarctica since 1950, or there are more particles arriving on that area. Lower energy particles should arrive from all directions as they are scattered by the magnetic fields from the solar wind, CMEs, etc.

    What I thought was that if there were more particles arriving at one place than another place, then maybe they are higher energy particles that are not (as) affected by the heliosphere. Now if I were asked to pick the most likely source of high energy particles, I would pick the Galactic center. It is (relatively) close and does at times become quite active. Various point sources such as novae do happen but are unpredictable. The Galactic center should be over the long term a more consistent source of high energy particles.

    So, given that for some reason after 1950 the cores in Antarctica show higher levels of Be10 than Greenland cores do and given that particles should arrive from all directions except for high energy particles, and given that there is a likely source of high energy particles that is visible from Antarctica but not Greenland, I wondered if that might be the reason.

  79. Pamela Gray (19:56:21) :
    I have a really stupid question to ask. Which one is the dot for sunspot 1029? I am not sure I understand the plot at all. I apologize for the redhead moment. But you know.
    Group 1029 consisted of several spots [on the 26th there were 16] and was observed on several days. Altogether there were 35 measurements. All of these are plotted as little crosses spanning a range in B near the 2010 tick mark.

    James F. Evans (21:58:40) :
    Are you implying I should be banned because I express opinions consistent with NASA?
    If they only were… [ah, shouldn’t feed him]. Your opinions are not consistent with NASA or any other scientists. What you cite are out of context, misleading, PR-hype, anything that support your ‘opinion’ [opinion is not science]. If you would bring some science to the table, rather than ‘opinion’, you might redeem some of the damage.

    Frank Perdicaro (22:41:57) :
    Regardless, where there is a varying magnetic field, there is voltage. When the space is conductive, there is current too. As the solar magnetic field varies, for a static earth field there would be voltages and currents. But the earth’s magnetic field is never static with respect to the sun. The earth’s field is not uniform and is not aligned with the earth’s spin axis. Neither is the sun’s field static, as the sun rotates and roils.
    Correct

    So the varying field from the rotating, roiling sun interacts with the field from the rotating, orbiting earth. Like the sound from a 2-tone horn or the light in the emission spectrum of hydrogen, the result is an infinite number of harmonics and beat patterns. Neat stuff.
    Here you lost me a little bit, but neat it certainly is.

    crosspatch (23:28:59) :
    there is a likely source of high energy particles that is visible from Antarctica but not Greenland, I wondered if that might be the reason.
    I’m not aware of any preferred direction of the high-energy GCRs. And would not expect any. The reason is that GCRs do not travel in straight lines but spiral around the galactic field which reverses direction many times, e.g. between spiral arms. So we cannot say if the GCR came from the galactic center or wherever.

  80. “I don’t know why the NH would be more sensitive to orbital forcing than the SH”

    The North Pole is surrounded by land. The South Pole is on land which is surrounded by water. Now imagine you begin to freeze the Arctic Ocean. The channel that provides Pacific Ocean water to the Arctic is shallow. Once the ocean level drops to a certain point, that flow of water is cut off. The ice spreads (relatively) quickly across the continental land masses and the temperatures become very cold. The Arctic freezes all the way to the bottom over a considerable area and water circulation is greatly reduced.

    In Antarctica the ice extent can increase somewhat but probably not much more than it already is. It won’t extend much past where you still have a good deal of sunlight in Winter. There is still ocean circulation around the continent. Water circulates a lot of heat. Once the Arctic remains frozen over for the entire summer, temperatures plummet across the land masses. Cold winds blow from Siberia to Alberta to Nebraska with nothing warming them in between.

    The Southern system is harder to change. You have to get it a whole lot colder to make a small difference than you do with the Northern system.

    Once the Bering Strait is cut off and the Newfoundland Banks emerge, Florida becomes huge, more land is exposed in the Caribbean, the East Coast of the US extends out to the continental shelf, the Gulf of Mexico shrinks and is connected to the Atlantic by a narrow strait, the North Sea, Irish Sea, and English channel disappear and become dry land … you get huge changes in water circulation and weather patterns in the Northern system. Not much changes in the Southern polar system. It just gets colder but overall doesn’t change much.

    Drop sea levels 100 meters and see how much the Northern Hemisphere changes, in particular the far Northern Hemisphere. Places that were coastal are now a hundred miles inland. The Baltic Sea is gone. Iceland is nearly twice as large. The Arctic Ocean is much smaller and 100-120 meters shallower.

    In other words, changes are amplified at the polar areas of the Northern Hemisphere with changes in sea level and ice pack. The major changes in the Southern Hemisphere are in the tropics with Indonesia becoming huge (3x larger than India)? and connecting with the Philippines, Australia connects with New Guinea.

    So you end up with a huge continental land mass at the North Pole that extends for a great distance.

    So for a given amount of temperature change, the impact is different at the different poles. A 2C drop in temperature drop makes a much larger difference in the Arctic than the Antarctic.

  81. James F. Evans (21:58:40) :
    “Are you implying I should be banned because I express opinions consistent with NASA?

    Or does it just bug you that I provide links to scientific evidence that contradicts your opinion?

    I don’t know Dr. Svalgaard, is that consistent with the circles you travel in: If an opinion differs from yours and that person won’t knuckle under to your bullying or won’t shut up (and has supporting evidence as backup), well, then his opinion should be suppressed?”

    Well by now, even Hathaway has admitted NASA doesn’t know what its doing wrt predicting solar behavior, so why are you appealing to their authority when they have none?

    This is a forum for scientific debate. As a scientist, Dr. Svalgaard is right to expect arguments to be made on a scientific basis using *current* science facts. Not New Age Millenialist flim flammery. Not old PR flak, even if it is put out by a government agency, and certainly not obstriperous schoolyard challenges.

    Scientific debate is about attacking ideas, not people. He did not attack a person, he attacked what he felt was bogus ideas being posted. You, however, are attacking his person. Stop it.

  82. Leif Svalgaard (17:28:45) :
    “And just to get the science right, the two ‘N poles’ you keep mentioning are actually south poles. The north pole is near Antarctica.”

    I just followed convention but agree with you there.
    As you often say: “we can afford to be sloppy as long as everyone understood what is meant.”

    Leif Svalgaard (17:28:45) :
    “The overall field is a strong and clear dipole. “

    It is not my intention to correct your views just to point the fact.
    Magnetic map from NOAA of Main Field Total Intensity (F) shows two clear peaks in north latitudes. It should be noted that the South Atlantic anomaly is a plunge in the intensity and therefore cannot constitute a pole (otherwise it would be quadropole).
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/F_map_mf_2005.pdf

    Mike Lorrey (21:28:37) :
    “What causes that? And what significance could it have if any?
    Does it suggest any trends?
    How long has there been two magnetic North poles?”

    As far as I know (stand to be corrected) I was first to introduce the idea of two ‘North’ (South) poles in my article (dealing with climate matters)
    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf

    This chart should answer some of your questions.

    Data prior 1700 was scarce, but it can be concluded that Hudson Bay decline was followed by rise in Siberia from 1700 onwards.
    See my post:
    vukcevic (15:35:51) :

  83. “The Chapman-Ferraro model is no more wrong than Newtonian gravity is. Both are not 100% correct, but close. ”

    I do not know enough of the Chapman-Ferraro model to comment .
    But if it is like the Newtonian gravity then it must be horribly wrong .
    Newtonian gravity predicts f.ex an infinite speed for interaction propagation and violates Lorentz symetry . Difficult to find wronger than that .
    The fact that it gives similar results as the asymptotic behaviour of the right theory at very weak fields and spherical symmetry doesn’t make it more correct .
    A wrong theory that makes correct predictions in some domain is like epicycles – it is wrong but can be used as long as one stays carefully in the domain where it gives the right numbers .

  84. Adolfo Giurfa (09:20:58) :
    “Look at this:
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/Z_map_mf_1990.pdf
    Two north magnetic poles.”

    Ed (21:53:16) :
    “…One things you’d have to say though, the SH has much lower temperature variation than the NH and when compared have significant opposing trends (same as the solar proxies referred to above). I don’t know why the NH would be more sensitive to orbital forcing than the SH…perhaps the isolation of antarctica, or maybe some other orbital parameter we haven’t determined?…”

    Makes me wonder if the changes to the magnetic North Pole have an effect on the Arctic Polar Vortex, in terms of position and strength?

    Should this be the case it could effect the ability of the vortex to trap the cold air inside, letting it spill out and causing colder NH winters. The Antarctic Polar Vortex is much more stable in comparison and shows less variability in strength and position over time than the north.

    Anyone know a good source of information about the Polar Vortices please, so I can have a closer look?

    Also Is there any link between the Polar Vortices and the differences in the amount of ion influx from the Solar Wind?

  85. TomVonk (01:57:53) :
    Difficult to find wronger than that .

    Apart from it being an amazingly good approximation on all practical scales. Should we stop teaching Classical Mechanics?

  86. Tenuc (02:07:47) :
    Ed (21:53:16) :
    “…One things you’d have to say though, the SH has much lower temperature variation than the NH and when compared have significant opposing trends (same as the solar proxies referred to above). I don’t know why the NH would be more sensitive to orbital forcing than the SH…perhaps the isolation of antarctica, or maybe some other orbital parameter we haven’t determined?…”

    One possibility is discussed here:
    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf

  87. Thanks Vukcevic, I’ll have a read tonight.

    Any links/thoughts on if the solar wind has an effect on polar vortices?

  88. vukcevic (01:35:28) :
    Leif Svalgaard (17:28:45) :
    I just followed convention
    No, convention is that the magnetic pole in ‘Canada’ is a south pole. Conventionally, polarities are defined with respect to a compass needle. It has two poles: a north pile [the end pointing to geographic North] and a south pole [the other end, pointing South]. With me, so far? now, why does a compass point North? Because it is attracted to a south pole up in ‘Canada’.

    therefore cannot constitute a pole (otherwise it would be quadropole).
    The Earth’s fields is a superposition of a strong dipole and numerous weaker quadrupoles, octupoles, …, Ntu-poles

    May I respectfully point out that on page 7, coordinates of
    “Magnetic south pole at geographical 78.3N and 69W”
    are grossly out. Various maps of Canada, and Google Earth give that particular location as 60N, 95W.

    When you see something that looks ‘wrong’ or inconsistent, you should take that as a sign that there is something you do not understand, rather than a sign that the author is sloppy. [A good example of what not to do is my recent post [‘spot the science error’]. Because of local magnetic anomalies and of the various Ntu-poles I mentioned, the point on the Earth’s surface where the pole seems to be is not where it actually is. If you approach the Earth from space those local anomalies become insignificant and the ‘real’ pole shows itself. It is indeed, way up there above 78 degrees, but moving rapidly Northwards [50 km per year], NOT at 60N 95W. The poles move around a lot, which is why no specific significant can be attached to their present positions [as in your NATA link]. In a few decades, the Earth’s magnetic south pole will be on the Russian side of the North Pole. It is a good idea to learn a bit about stuff, before spinning tales.

  89. Crosspatch,

    Do you have/know of a tool whereby one could play with sea level and observe the land/sea coverage changes. Very interesting…

    Can’t wait until we have a google earth complete with atmospheric composition, interplanetary magnetics, solar wind, etc… :)

    Thanks for the link V.

    Ed

  90. Leif Svalgaard (07:01:16) :
    “No, convention is that the magnetic pole in ‘Canada’ is a south pole. Conventionally, polarities are defined with respect to a compass needle. It has two poles: a north pile [the end pointing to geographic North] and a south pole [the other end, pointing South]. With me, so far? now, why does a compass point North? Because it is attracted to a south pole up in ‘Canada’.”

    Thanks for that worthwhile study, without it I would be really lost. BTW I have already repainted my compass needle!

    Leif Svalgaard (07:01:16) :
    “When you see something that looks ‘wrong’ or inconsistent, you should take that as a sign that there is something you do not understand”

    Re: http://www.sotere.uni-osnabrueck.de/spacebook/spacebook_files/lecture_e/space-kap8-eng.pdf

    Perhaps if you look at the chart on page 7, and pay attention to the red arrow and red coordinates associated with it, you may see errors of your wasted comment. You may even consider checking coordinates yourself (btw, he located it at Hudson Bay edge).
    It just shows even experts are fallible.

    Leif Svalgaard (07:01:16) :
    “In a few decades, the Earth’s magnetic south pole will be on the Russian side of the North Pole. It is a good idea to learn a bit about stuff, before spinning tales.”

    You already out of date with that one. This map
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/F_map_mf_2005.pdf
    shows the Main Field (F) at Canadian side at 59000nT and Siberian side at 61000nT or nearly 4% stronger. That is a matter of fact; the pole should be where field is strongest, or at least that is case with my newly repainted compass needle. I am sorry to say it, but Russkiy got it already.

    Leif Svalgaard (07:01:16) :
    “The poles move around a lot, which is why no specific significant can be attached to their present positions”

    Data used for this chart you described once as a ‘gold standard’ and ‘the best there is’.

    According to it, two extremities have hardly moved for the last 300 years (since 1700). So poles do not drift, it is that the intensity of the Hudson Bay’s was going down and the Siberia’s going up, but of course you know that, but reluctant to acknowledge.

  91. vukcevic (01:35:28) :
    May I respectfully point out that on page 7, coordinates of
    “Magnetic south pole at geographical 78.3N and 69W”
    are grossly out. Various maps of Canada, and Google Earth give that particular location as 60N, 95W.

    Your idea of what makes a pole is also wrong. The magnetic poles on the Earth is NOT where the vertical components is strongest [that depends on local anomalies] but are the points where the horizontal component vanishes. And those points are very far from where the vertical components are largest. So your Two North Pole story is an aberration.

  92. vukcevic (08:01:51) :
    That is a matter of fact; the pole should be where field is strongest,
    You just won’t learn. It doesn’t matter where you think the pole should be. The total strength depends on local anomalies and do not give a correct picture of the large scale field. If memory serves, the total field at the Kursk Anomaly in Russia is 200,000 nT. Even Wikipedia has the correct description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field
    “The pole position is usually not that which is indicated on many charts. The Geomagnetic Pole positions are usually not close to the position that commercial cartographers place “Magnetic Poles.”
    The real magnetic pole is 2200 km away from where you said it is. This is, of course, somewhat of a blow to your Hudson Bay story, which may explain your reluctance to learn.

  93. vukcevic (08:01:51) :
    According to it, two extremities have hardly moved for the last 300 years (since 1700). So poles do not drift
    (Sigh). What you call the poles are due to local magnetic features tied to the crustal features of the Earth. These do not move, but the magnetic poles of the Earth do [and a lot]. The Declination in London has varied almost 30 degrees the past 400 years, because the magnetic pole has drifted, not because Hudson Bay or London have moved much.

  94. vukcevic (08:01:51) :
    It just shows even experts are fallible.
    As I said: “if things look wrong to you, it is because [99.99% of the time] you don’t understand what is going on”.

  95. “Do you have/know of a tool whereby one could play with sea level and observe the land/sea coverage changes. Very interesting…”

    Yes. There is a thing from NASA called World Wind there is a sea level plugin available for it.

    The free version of the plugin (it acts as a “layer” on the map) only gives you a couple of “canned” choices. You can take sea level down to where it was during the last ice age or you can take it up to where Al Gore says it will get to. There is a version for sale that allows you to set the level where ever you want it.

  96. Leif Svalgaard (08:12:02) :
    “The magnetic poles on the Earth is NOT where the vertical components is strongest [that depends on local anomalies] but are the points where the horizontal component vanishes. And those points are very far from where the vertical components are largest. So your Two North Pole story is an aberration.”

    That may be an accepted oldfasioned convention, but I wonder if it is misleading. If there is only one extremity in the NH (as is in the SH) than that is a simple matter.
    If there are two extremities than I suggest that a reassessment is required?
    In any other branch of science, two data peaks would be considered as more critical than the trough in between. It is obvious that, if I position my ‘repainted compass needle’ at a point where horizontal forces of two peaks of main field equalise,
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/F_map_mf_2005.pdf
    I should be able to spin it in any direction (declination undeterminable), but what value is that to the science? Take for example cosmic rays, they would be homing for two peaks rather than the trough in between.
    I call on you, as one of the world’s recognised experts on geomagnetism, to put your influence in rectifying this gross injustice imposed on our dear Earth’s magnetic field.
    If in any doubt just consider these two images and tell us which one is more useful to the science

    Anyone else has a view?

  97. vukcevic (10:05:33) :
    Take for example cosmic rays, they would be homing for two peaks rather than the trough in between.
    No, they do not. They know where the real pole is.
    e.g. http://www.cosmicrays.org/img/global-cutoff-rigidity-large.gif

    If in any doubt just consider these two images and tell us which one is more useful to the science
    The right-hand one is the correct one.
    Please, you are doing everybody a disservice with your nonsense. I have pointed this pole business out to you before. And you are right that I am ‘one of the world’s recognised experts on geomagnetism’, so take it from me.

  98. Leif Svalgaard (09:19:56) :

    vukcevic (08:01:51) :
    It just shows even experts are fallible.

    “As I said: “if things look wrong to you, it is because [99.99% of the time] you don’t understand what is going on”.”

    That’s nuts.

  99. Leif Svalgaard (09:08:55)
    …………………..
    Thanks for your help. Ok. I will decamp now.
    See you when I complete the Siberian branch tale.

  100. Speaking of funks, just get a load of what the DMI arctic temperature has gone and done in the last couple of days.

    Anybody got any ideas about what causes these sudden up and down 5 deg C steps.

  101. Leif,

    When you say the poles are where the horizontal component is zero; I take it that by horizontal you basically mean essentially tangential to the earth’s (or a sphere’s) surface.

    So a “dip”needle would stand vertically there ? Certainly makes sense to me; and is about what I’ve always been taught.

    I assume the distribution of magnetic ores in the crust will affect local filed patterns.

  102. Glenn (10:43:20) :
    “As I said: “if things look wrong to you, it is because [99.99% of the time] you don’t understand what is going on”.”
    That’s nuts.

    works for me. I would always assume that I’m at fault first. People with a different disposition apparently do otherwise.

  103. George E. Smith (10:55:18) :
    Speaking of funks, just get a load of what the DMI arctic temperature has gone and done in the last couple of days.
    Anybody got any ideas about what causes these sudden up and down 5 deg C steps.

    See this:
    http://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=446&Itemid=249
    For the first time, scientists have shown how this relationship can be used to identify weather events that occur very suddenly in the stratosphere during the Northern Hemisphere winter. These events can have a significant effect on the severity of winters we experience, and also on the amount of ozone over the poles – being able to identify them and understand their frequency is crucial for informing our current climate and weather-forecasting models to improve predictions.

  104. George E. Smith (11:08:43) :
    So a “dip”needle would stand vertically there ? Certainly makes sense to me; and is about what I’ve always been taught.
    And that is correct.
    A complication is that due to local ores etc near the surface the magnetic field can locally look confusing. As you ascend in altitude to where the particles from space approach the Earth, these local anomalies disappears. The cosmic rays don’t see the ‘double hump’ and there are not two auroral ovals, http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html

    A hallmark of the pseudo-scientist is the stubborn disability to learn the facts.

  105. Leif Svalgaard (11:15:42) :

    Glenn (10:43:20) :
    “As I said: “if things look wrong to you, it is because [99.99% of the time] you don’t understand what is going on”.”
    That’s nuts.

    “works for me.”

    Sure doesn’t look that way. With any subject you participate.

    “I would always assume that I’m at fault first. People with a different disposition apparently do otherwise.”

    Sure doesn’t look that way. With any subject you participate.

  106. Glenn (11:28:44) :
    “I would always assume that I’m at fault first. People with a different disposition apparently do otherwise.”
    Sure doesn’t look that way. With any subject you participate.

    You just put yourself in that ‘otherwise’ category.

  107. LEIF

    The current science asumes that most of the solar heating is due incoming SW radiation of which about 30% are reflected by the clouds and from the earth’s surface back to space , 20% is absorbed by the clouds and re-emitted back to space as LW. The other 50% reaches the earth’s surface and provides the regular warming and which eventually makes its way back to space via .
    My question ,is it possible that during significant solar wind ram pressure spikes , that UVB rays are also sent to the earth and absorbed by the Oceans and which create extra heat .These high solar wind pressure spike periods of warming have a different pattern to the regular solar wind which has been diminishing since 1990.Is there no extra heating being generated by these high velocity solar wind pressure spikes .

    These UVB RADIATION are in addition to the regular SW radiation currently being monitored .Over a period of say the last 100 years , could they account for the 0.75C degree rise .

  108. There is much talk over at the Italian NIA blog about 1030, many dismiss the explanation that it is merely a reversed SC 24 spot. ( see 2 posts from 6 Nov)
    http://translate.google.co.za/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://daltonsminima.wordpress.com/&ei=AHWVSrv_K5zLjAfom5zbDQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://daltonsminima.wordpress.com/%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

    http://www.spaceweather.com/

    “A coronal mass ejection (CME) expected to deliver a glancing blow to Earth’s magnetic field yesterday … did not. The cloud either missed Earth or its impact was too feeble to notice. Geomagnetic activity remains low.”

    Spaceweather.com avoids mentioning which cycle 1030 belongs to.
    The number assigned to it (15) is a joke, 1030 is barely breathing and completely opposite to 1029.

  109. matt v. (11:55:12) :
    My question ,is it possible that during significant solar wind ram pressure spikes , that UVB rays are also sent to the earth and absorbed by the Oceans and which create extra heat</i?
    The pressure spikes and UVB are created by different processes and have nothing to do with each other. They even follow different solar cycle behavior: spikes peak just before solar minimum, while UVB peaks at solar maximum, so I would say: 'no'.

  110. Leif Svalgaard (13:17:43) :
    matt v. (11:55:12) :
    My question ,is it possible that during significant solar wind ram pressure spikes , that UVB rays are also sent to the earth and absorbed by the Oceans and which create extra heat

    The pressure spikes and UVB are created by different processes and have nothing to do with each other. They even follow different solar cycle behavior: spikes peak just before solar minimum, while UVB peaks at solar maximum, so I would say: ‘no’.

  111. Science progress does not come from endlessly ‘parroting’ what we know, but from challenging of that what we think we know.

  112. radun (13:53:53) :
    Science progress does not come from endlessly ‘parroting’ what we know, but from challenging of that what we think we know.
    No, progress comes from presenting new evidence and new ideas. Education comes from explaining what we think we know.

  113. Mr. Alex (12:39:34) :
    There is much talk over at the Italian NIA blog about 1030, many dismiss the explanation that it is merely a reversed SC 24 spot.
    some 3% of all spot groups are reversed.
    Here is a graph of normal (crosses) and reversed (circles) polarity spots from 1975 to 1988. You can see for yourself that reversed spots can occur anywhere and at any time:

    The ones near the equator are probably not really reversed, but more a reflection of the equator being an ill-defined boundary between polarities.

    The Figure is from Karen Harvey’s fined discussion of solar cycles:
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/1992ASPC-Harvey.pdf

  114. Various sources cite 290-320 nm for UVB dwon to 280-315 nm.

    A table of standard solar spectrum bvalues (for a TSI of 1353 at AM0) says only 2.2188% of the solar spectrum energy remains below 320, and only 0.8109 remains below 290. That gives 1.4079 % of UVB for the longer numbers.
    For 315 we have 1.9243% remaining, and 0.5644 belkow 280 so the lower range carries 1.3599% of the solar energy at air mass zero.

    The atmospheric absorption including ozone whacks into that quite severely so very little solar energy in the UVB range survives to reach the ocean surface. The water absorption coefficient exceeds 0.01-0.03cm^-1 for all of that range, so most of that energy is absorbed in perhaps three metres of ocean water (95% of it).

  115. leif
    On checking the Omniweb I found that the distribution of solar wind ram pressure spikes 10nPa and greater was quite wide and peaked at solar Max and valleyed at solar min

    # OF RAM
    PRESS.
    SPIKES
    10nPa&>
    YEAR
    1989 32 max
    90 19
    91 26
    92 23
    93 14
    94 13
    95 18
    96 5 min
    97 18
    98 22
    99 17
    2000 32 MAX
    1 28
    2 17
    3 14
    4 13
    5 33
    6 8
    7 10
    8 5[part only] min?

  116. matt v. (16:32:48) :
    On checking the Omniweb I found that the distribution of solar wind ram pressure spikes 10nPa and greater was quite wide and peaked at solar Max and valleyed at solar min

    # OF RAM
    PRESS.
    SPIKES
    10nPa&>
    YEAR
    1989 32 max
    90 19
    91 26
    92 23
    93 14
    94 13
    95 18
    96 5 min
    97 18
    98 22
    99 17
    2000 32 MAX
    1 28
    2 17
    3 14
    4 13
    5 33
    6 8
    7 10
    8 5[part only] min?

    During some of the years up to 70% of the data is missing. Did you divide each yearly count by the number of hours with data then multiplying the result by the total number of hours in a year, in order to normalize to full data coverage?

    Even so, you’ll see the peak I mentioned just before the minimum. Now, if you go to higher and higher spikes, the distribution shifts towards more at maximum, so we really have two peaks. But going to very high spikes reduces their number and their eventual impact. Even so there are only a couple of spikes per moths, so their climatic effect cannot be great. When I said that UV peaked at solar maximum, I interpreted your UVB as you meaning UV in general. this may be an incorrect assumption of my part. Perhaps you very specifically meant UVB and only UVB. If so, the situation is a bit different. It is generally believed that UVB follows the solar cycle [as total UV does], but it actually does not. As you can see here http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png UV in 242-310nm [about UVB] is smallest nearer solar maximum [left-hand side] and rises towards solar minimum. I have not brought this particular plot up to date, but the data so far just follows the rise. At any rate, the number of spikes per month is small and each spike short-lived so I would not expect much if any effect.

  117. Leif
    The average monthly temperature spike would also be very small.[ assuming a 0.75C /century.] This works out to 0.0075/year which translates to 0.000625 C /month. Could 1-3 very large solar wind spikesof 10 nPA & > per month have sauch a small warming effect on the Oceans which over a century adds up.?

  118. matt v. (17:22:52) :
    Could 1-3 very large solar wind spikesof 10 nPA & > per month have such a small warming effect on the Oceans which over a century adds up.?
    What would that add up over a million years?
    When you heat something up, it radiates away the heat again. The density spikes confer very little energy to the Earth in themselves. If you want to investigate this, make a ‘superposed epoch’ analysis using the spikes at key time: For each spike, take two weeks on either side and get the temperature for each of those 28 days. Then arrange the data in a large table where the rows are those 28 values and all the rows are lined up on the columns where the spike is. Add all the columns and see if there is increased temperature in the columns to the right of the middle columns where the spikes are. Makes sense?

  119. George E. SMITH

    What I was wondering about is the UVB rays that are primarly generated during significant solar wind storms and then carried to the earth by the strong ram pressure spikes often passing through the earth shield [ something like a major proton event which destroys the ozone and causes heating in the mesopsphere] . Could these UVB rays get right down to the oceans and slightly warm the ocean surfaces . This is not considered by IPCC to be part of their radiative forcing components . IPCC uses 0.12 W/Msquared for solar Irradiance only[ fig 2.4 under CAUSES OF CHANGE ]. I am not an expert in this field and only speculating why UBV is not considered more of a factor, small perhaps but which over a decade can become somewhat significant.

  120. matt v. (17:59:14) :
    What I was wondering about is the UVB rays that are primarly generated during significant solar wind storms and then carried to the earth by the strong ram pressure spikes often passing through the earth shield
    They are not considered, because the UVB is not carried along with the density spikes. The UVB rays reach Earth 8 minutes after they are generated and have nothing to do with the spikes [those take 4 days to get here]. This is the disconnect you have here. Now, if we forget about the spikes, and only talk UVB, very little of those make it to the ground and their effect is minuscule.

  121. Leif

    As an individual i neither have the data nor the instruments to detect these small temperature changes not to talk about the UVB data. In addition there are so many other simultaneous natural variables which can distort the data. I was merely asking whether such an hypothesis made any sense at all. Thanks for your input.

  122. Leif Svalgaard (11:35:50) :

    Glenn (11:28:44) :
    “I would always assume that I’m at fault first. People with a different disposition apparently do otherwise.”
    Sure doesn’t look that way. With any subject you participate.

    “You just put yourself in that ‘otherwise’ category.”

    As did you. And this could go on and on, except I’m not the one that said you always assume that you’re at fault first. You didn’t.

  123. matt v. (18:20:33) :
    I was merely asking whether such an hypothesis made any sense at all.
    I understand and appreciate the question. As I explained, the hypothesis does not seem very plausible, so there is at least my answer.

  124. Glenn (18:23:26) :
    except I’m not the one that said you always assume that you’re at fault first. You didn’t.
    I did, and I do. What’s your problem, and why is that such a problem to you that you are mindful of it?

  125. Leif

    Are you saying that the UVB rays that get through after an ozone depletion[ after a solar storm or/and proton event] have a miscule effect on the planet? All i am asking is could UvB rays do some heating when they get to the surface of the earth?

  126. matt v. (18:32:58) :
    All i am asking is could UVB rays do some heating when they get to the surface of the earth?
    If enough rays did, yes, but there simply isn’t much heat to be had there. Now, ozone is a strong greenhouse gas, so if you destroy ozone you would actually cool down the planet. In any event, the analysis I describe would answer these questions. I have not seen a study of this [obvious] test, so make the [perhaps unwarranted] assumption that people have do this and not found anything, as I assume that they would publish a positive result. Personally, I don’t think there is much going for the hypothesis.

  127. Leif Svalgaard (18:30:10) :

    Glenn (18:23:26) :
    except I’m not the one that said you always assume that you’re at fault first. You didn’t.

    “I did, and I do. What’s your problem, and why is that such a problem to you that you are mindful of it?”

    Doesn’t sound like you assume you are wrong about my being mindful of a “problem”.
    I don’t have a problem, Leif. But I could ask you the same thing about what you regularly throw at others without a blink, but apparently can’t take. A parting thought, “always” is a long time.

  128. Leif Svalgaard (14:28:57) :
    radun (13:53:53) :
    “Science progress does not come from endlessly ‘parroting’ what we know, but from challenging of that what we think we know.”
    Leif Svalgaard (14:28:57
    “No, progress comes from presenting new evidence and new ideas. Education comes from explaining what we think we know.”

    If you work for a university, government or private research institution, with financial and other backing, than you are certainly expected to bring new evidence.
    If you are an amateur, deprived of all the above, than only hope is to challenge areas where there are uncertainties.
    Here, in particular I have in mind mr. vuckevic, whose contributions here and elsewhere, I have followed during several months. He has come up with number of interesting ideas, e.g. sunspot cycles and polar fields formulae, and now a new view of the Earth’s magnetism. He may be totally wrong, but that is not a point, he persists with ideas, despite with all the flak and occasional insult, which appears that he takes in his stride and good humor. Science needs amateurs who put their time and effort in exposing gaps, and on a rare occasions may or may not come up with goods. People like that should be applauded.

  129. 16 today? Does anyone have an image of 1030 on the 7th of November?
    Continuum has not been updated and it is not visible on the GONG Images, flux has not budged, solar wind has dropped and yet today we see 16?

    Why are they so adamant to skew the sunspot number so much? Why has 1030 recieved 16 today? This is getting ridiculous.

  130. Mr. Alex (07:06:42) :

    16 today? Does anyone have an image of 1030 on the 7th of November?
    Continuum has not been updated and it is not visible on the GONG Images, flux has not budged, solar wind has dropped and yet today we see 16?

    Why are they so adamant to skew the sunspot number so much? Why has 1030 recieved 16 today? This is getting ridiculous.

    Hopefully we will get some continuum images to cover 1030, if not the Layman’s Count might have to fall back onto the grey scale images from GONG etc. NOAA’s daily sunspot count and Sunspot numbering system is meaningless really. SIDC who is taken as the world authority are much more conservative in their assessments and wait to the end of the month to put out their report. The Layman’s Count further processes the SIDC count to bring it back to something we can compare with the past.

    matt v. (18:32:58) :
    Are you saying that the UVB rays that get through after an ozone depletion[ after a solar storm or/and proton event] have a minuscule effect on the planet? All i am asking is could UvB rays do some heating when they get to the surface of the earth?

    Perhaps they dont need to get to the surface. Other atmosphere effects and cloud formation as a result of UV could be all we need to regulate TSI.

  131. Dr. Svalgaard: “…progress comes from presenting new evidence and new ideas.”

    “The size of the breach took researchers by surprise. ‘We’ve seen things like this before,’ says Raeder, ‘but never on such a large scale. The entire day-side of the magnetosphere was open to the solar wind.'”

    “To the lay person, this may sound like a quibble, but to a space physicist, it is almost seismic,” says Sibeck. “When I tell my colleagues, most react with skepticism, as if I’m trying to convince them that the sun rises in the west.”

    “So, you can imagine our surprise when a northern IMF came along and shields went down instead,” says Sibeck. “This completely overturns our understanding of things.”

    “The opening was huge—four times wider than Earth itself,” says Wenhui Li, a space physicist at the University of New Hampshire who has been analyzing the data. Li’s colleague Jimmy Raeder, also of New Hampshire, says “1027 particles per second were flowing into the magnetosphere—that’s a 1 followed by 27 zeros. This kind of influx is an order of magnitude greater than what we thought was possible.”

    “Like an octopus wrapping its tentacles around a big clam, solar magnetic fields draped themselves around the magnetosphere and cracked it open. The cracking was accomplished by means of a process called “magnetic reconnection.” High above Earth’s poles, solar and terrestrial magnetic fields linked up (reconnected) to form conduits for solar wind. Conduits over the Arctic and Antarctic quickly expanded; within minutes they overlapped over Earth’s equator to create the biggest magnetic breach ever recorded by Earth-orbiting spacecraft.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm

    These statements are all based on observation & measurement on a high order of resolution.

    And they are “new evidence and new ideas”.

    This evidence was recorded June 3, 2007, new in science terms.

    It is not NASA hype or exaggeration.

    A breach in the Earth’s magnetic field “four times wider than Earth itself”.

    And some, here, claim models from the 1930’s, before the space age, are still correct…go figure?

  132. Leif,
    NASA, Are Sunspots Disappearing? (3 September 2009):
    The “firmament” of a sunspot is not matter but rather a strong magnetic field that appears dark because it blocks the upflow of heat from the sun’s
    interior. If Earth lost its magnetic field, the solid planet would remain intact, but if a sunspot loses its magnetism, it ceases to exist.
    “According to our measurements, sunspots seem to form only if the magnetic field is stronger than about 1500 gauss,” says Livingston. “If the current trend continues, we’ll hit that threshold in the near future, and solar
    magnetic fields would become too weak to form sunspots.”

    Your interpretation:
    The spots will still be there except they will be invisible. The reason for this is that as the magnetic field decreases, the plasma heats up [rather it is the strong field that inhibits convection and cools the spot]. As the spot heats up, the temperature difference between the spot and the surrounding photosphere becomes smaller and the contrast decreases with the result that it becomes more difficult to see the spot. So, the spot is still there, the magnetic region is still there, …”

    I find it rather difficult to describe precisely the L&P effect. The NASA interpretation seems to state that the sunspots cannot form if the magnetic field is lower than 1500 gauss.
    Your interpretation is that the sunspots will still be there, but they will be less visible. And they will be very clear on the magnetograms.

    The sunspot 1029 has surprised me. I thought that this was a very clear
    sunspot with a dark umbra. Livingston has proved that this sunspot has much less contrast than other sunspots several years ago.
    – Can we see with our eyes the decrease of contrast in the sunspot 1029 (in comparison with others)?
    – What is the gain of saying: “the sunspot is still there but we cannot see it”? Why not say: “There are no sunspots anymore”?
    – How can you say that we see on the sun the same activity if the magnetic field if the umbra has decreased from 3000 gauss to 1500 gauss? Is the only explanation that one visible sunspot with an umbra of 3000 gauss has now changed in one or two sunspots with the same area with an umbra of 1500 gauss (not visible to our eyes)?
    – I think that even on the magnetograms, we should see a difference. Because the magetogram is sensitive to magnetism, it wil show a clear difference between an umbra of 3500 gauss and an other of 1500 gauss. Will it be possible to say e.g. : We see here [on the magnetogram] a large sunspot but due to the low magnetism of 1500 gauss, we cannot see it in the visible light?

    Suggestion: If the L&P trend will become true, it should be very interesting you write a short article for journalists with a clear and instructive explanation of the L&P effect. Otherwise, very unscientific enunciations will be launched and nobody will understand what is happening exactly on the sun.

  133. Geoff Sharp (17:45:47) :
    “…Perhaps they don’t need to get to the surface. Other atmosphere effects and cloud formation as a result of UV could be all we need to regulate TSI…”

    A small amount of UV does get to the surface and this can be a hazard to both animal and plant life.

    The majority of UV effect atmospheric chemistry and, for example, different wavelengths of UV are involved with the production or destruction of ozone. There is still much to be learned about what happens in the upper atmosphere.

Comments are closed.