I’ve mentioned this solar data on WUWT several times, it bears repeating again. Yesterday, NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center released their latest data and graph of the interplanetary geomagnetic index (Ap) which is a proxy for the activity of the solar dynamo. Here is the data provided by SWPC. Note the graph, which I’ve annotated below.
At a time when many predicted a ramp up in solar activity, the sun remains in a funk, spotless and quiet. The Ap value, for the second straight month, is “3”. The blue line showing the smoothed value, suggests the trend continues downward. To get an idea of how significant this is in our history, take a look at this data (graph produced by me) from Dr. Leif Svalgaard back to the 1930’s.
The step change in October 2005 is still visible and the value of 3.9 that occurred in April of this year is the lowest for the entire dataset at that time. I’m hoping Dr. Svalgaard will have updated data for us soon.
Click for a larger image
Why is this important? Well, if Svensmark is right, and Galactic Cosmic Rays modulated by the sun’s magnetic field make a change in cloud cover on Earth, increasing it during low solar magnetic activity, we are in for some colder times.
There’s a presentation by Jasper Kirkby, CLOUD Spokesperson, CERN, which shows what we currently know about the correlations between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR’s) and variations in the climate.
The CLOUD experiment uses a cloud chamber to study the theorized link between GCR’s and cloud formation in Earth’s atmosphere. Kirkby talks about the results from the first CLOUD experiment and the new CLOUD experiment and what it will deliver on the intrinsic connection between GCR’s and cloud formation. This is from the Cern, one of Europe’s most highly respected centers for scientific research.
Kirkby’s one hour video presentation is hosted here. It is well worth your time to view it.
h/t to Russ Steele
Sponsored IT training links:
Guaranteed success in SY0-201 exam with help of N10-004 practice test and up to date 70-640 exam dumps.
A year or so after 9/11, I watched a presentation by a researcher on this very topic. He asserted that contrails contributed to a significant amount of cooling, claiming much more than expected. It was interesting that he stated he was able to use the time during “no fly” over the US to gain a lot of data on the subject. Perhaps the most interesting part of his talk, was that this meant AGW was ever more dangerous and much greater than ever before (same old clap-trap). But, this researcher at least claims that contrails do provide some sort of cooling effect anyway.
Thanks for the update Leif. I always appreciate your comments.
Barry L. (12:24:41) :
Ray (12:33:49) :
Adam Smith (14:09:18) :
Thanks for the links; Interesting hypothesis; A correlation anyway, for now.
More research needed to to get beyond correlation to causation though.
Leif Svalgaard (19:51:59) :
Something that has always perplexed me is why the solar wind does not contribute to wind on Earth. Am I confusing the term wind in solar wind with wind as it is used to describe what blew my neighbors’ trees over last year or is there an actual explanation for how the force of the solar wind does not translate into wind on Earth’s surface?
Is their a graph of total earth cloud cover over the last few years that can be matched up against that graph?
It’s fine talking about theory and cloud chambers, but lets take a look at the global values. From reports I have seen there seem to be no correlation actually from Earth observations between amount of cloud an changing number of cosmic rays….
Andy
David (21:19:48) :
is there an actual explanation for how the force of the solar wind does not translate into wind on Earth’s surface?
First of all, the solar wind is exceedingly tenuous. Second, the solar wind does not reach the surface because it is held at bay by the Earth’s magnetic field at an altitude about 45,000 miles.
Pardon my spelling, their and there, I hope my mother doesn’t read this WUWT thread !
Andy
Squidley and Supercritical,
I can recall a discussion about cooling after 9/11 due to the grounding of commercial aircraft and the absence of jet contrails causing daytime heating in continental USA. As suggested, daytime temps may be up (this can be verified,I guess) and night time temps down and the averages might be the same!
The Horizon programme on the BBC made this comment….
If the 9/11 contrail evidence suggests warmer nights due to the air travel, isn’t that global warming rather than dimming?
The 9/11 study showed that removing contrails resulted in a large increase in the daily temperature range – in other words warmer days and cooler nights. The study does not really provide a clear-cut answer to the question of whether the overall effect of the contrails is a net warming or a net cooling averaged over the whole 24 hours. This question is controversial. But what seems clear is that contrails contribute to a reduction in the amount of daytime solar radiation reaching the surface, and that this has significant effects on temperature.
It is good to see Dr Svalgaard here again. Perhaps the last
time he was here we exchanged a few friendly words over
solar wind. The science is still the same, but it bears
repeating.
The most basic physics goes like this: When there is a
conductor moving through a magnetic field you get
a current — given there is something to conduct the current.
The spinning, orbiting earth has a magnetic field that is not
aligned with the spin axis of the earth. The solar wind, being
in part an electric current, interacts with the earth’s magnetic
field. Potentials must be induced, and since the atmosphere
of the earth and the core of the earth are conductors, there
are currents.
How much of this heats the earth’s core? I have not done
any calculations, but there must be some heating. Either
eddy current heating (like you get in magnetic braking
systems) or atomic spin-axis alignment heating (like in
MRI imaging systems).
Lots of things heat the earth. Incoming cosmic rays heat
the earth, as do incoming space rocks.
So, given the formula, it looks like Ap can decrease toward, but never reaching, zero (unless, of course, SW dropped to zero or the B dropped to zereo, but I think that’s not possible?… I can’t imagine a zero solar wind… well, I can, but not without suspension of disbelief…
This looks to me like a drop from 4 to 3 is a ‘bigger deal’ than a drop from 10 to 9. So if we drop from 3 to 2, or 1, is that a Really Big Deal or the Same Old Same Old?
Leif Svalgaard (22:01:47) :
I thought that might be it. Do the magnetic reconnection events allow any wind to seep through? Or does the actual reconnection event buffer the wind out of the way? Or is this not at all well studied to make any kind of assertion? I am not peddling any theories, I am just curious. Huge magnetic connections with the sun are fascinating and intimidating at the same time.
Btw, I hope you enjoyed some extra time with grandchildren while you were gone. Days with my grandparents are some of my best childhood memories. 🙂
Frank Perdicaro (22:29:28) :
Lots of things heat the earth. Incoming cosmic rays heat
the earth, as do incoming space rocks.
The heating produced by induced currents is absolutely negligible.
E.M.Smith (22:33:57) :
So, given the formula, it looks like Ap can decrease toward, but never reaching, zero (unless, of course, SW dropped to zero or the B dropped to zero, but I think that’s not possible?
Vo cannot drop below 2.5 and B seems to have a floor about 4 nT [both should be taken over a solar rotation] so Aa cannot go below ~4, corresponding to Ap = 1.6. In practice, Vo would not go as low as 2.5 for a whole rotation, so Ap won’t drop below ~3. I think the important point is that we are now down to where we were in 1901 and 1879. BTW, at so low numbers, Aa and Ap are very difficult to even measure and the uncertainty of the numbers is large, so it may not make much sense to distinguish between Ap = 2 and 3 or even 4. Ap is defined as the deviation from the ‘regular’ variation that occurs every day, but which varies slightly from day to day and is really impossible to pin down to an accuracy of a few nanoTesla as would be required to determine an Ap of, say, 3.
David (22:52:34) :
Or does the actual reconnection event buffer the wind out of the way?
The reconnected field is swept back into the magnetic tail where a second reconnection can accelerate particles onto the nightside of the Earth. The particles do not reach the surface, but the currents induced means that scores of Gigawatt are dumped into the high-altitude atmosphere. But even that is negligible compared to the amount of energy we get from ordinary sunlight on the dayside. Try to multiply 500 W/m2 by the area of the Earth’s dayside.
David (22:52:34) :
Or does the actual reconnection event buffer the wind out of the way?
Many years ago I made a calculation of the energies involved. The numbers are still good. You can find it here [in the Appendix]: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (23:04:06) :
That would certainly explain why small changes in TSI do not cause much in the way of direct forcing changes. I guess what I am actually thinking about is the total of ways that the Sun can affect the Earth. If small changes in TSI + giving Svensmark the benefit of the doubt (solely to bounce around in my head) + energy from reconnecting + GHG forcing + ocean damping + Milankovic cycles et cetera, it seems like it would all be relatively stable, so why would the climate seem to be relatively stable, geologically speaking, as frozen instead of where we are now? I am surely in over my head, but being a glutton for learning stuff, I simply do not stop thinking and asking questions as they arise even if they are silly. I just have a hard time believing that only one factor (GHGs) can produce the catastrophic effects that are assigned to it by all the latest science and models. That is where I have a hard time grasping how a seemingly minor part of the Earth has such a grandiose effect.
Leif Svalgaard (23:09:11) :
You, sir, have so many answers I almost want to ask you for tomorrow’s lotto numbers. I have bookmarked that for reading at a later (well, earlier) time. Thanks.
Frank Perdicaro (22:29:28) :
Potentials must be induced, and since the atmosphere
of the earth and the core of the earth are conductors, there
are currents.
I would expect the energy exchange to be more kinetic than heat, maybe adding some amount to the Earth’s wobble.
So… looking at the graph, the Ap index has been decreasing since the 50ies, which corresponded to the largest increase of temperature. So why does Svensmark state it has the opposite effect? He might be right concerning short-scale fluctuations but the long-term trend doesn’t fit…
By the way, there’s a new sunspot rightnow – should update the widget!
“Brian (13:24:21) :
Hey all, Ive notices its been pretty gray in the sky these last couple of months. Lots of rain not as much blue sky here in the tropics. We’ve been sleeping with the ac off most evenings also.
It would be interesting to see the cloud density figures.”
This has most definitely been the case in the subtropical region of South Africa too. Something is changing, there is near constant cloud and rain.
>>The warmers are out in force
And the BBC is in overdrive – singing the praises of Warmism without a single shred of balance or real science.
We had a whole series of dubious-looking tidal and wave electrical projects on last night. But not a single mention of the facts that really matter.
How much electricity do they produce?
What will the maintenance bill be?
What is the environmental cost of stopping deep-water tidal flows?
How often can these machines operate.
. . . (Note, tidal systems stop four times a day, while
. . . wave systems stop during anti-cyclonic conditions.)
Is the BBC dumb, or just full of religious fervour?
.
>>We understand that solar effects are not directly
>>noticeable, but lag. Perhaps 30-60 years?
The last quote I saw said 6 – 7 years.
.
David 23:24:10
Don’t ask Dr. Svalgaard for tomorrow’s lottery numbers; consult a good astrologer instead (who would also tell you that Dr. Svalgaard’s moon is obviously in feces).
Patrick Davis (17:10:30:)
I suspect energy security has a lot to do with it, too, but until recently it wasn’t politically correct to mention that most of the world’s oil is in countries run by bandits. Still, if they can get the peasants to pay even more tax and feel guilty as well, then that’s all to the good in their eyes. Especially if, as you say, they can claim the credit for future cooling as well. A contrite, grateful populace willing to pay up. Ideal.
It’s dang cold. Could someone throw another Warmer on the fire?
(That felt good to write.)
This is an amazing website! Have been coming to WUWT for a few weeks and the wealth of knowledge and the patient explanations are really something special!
I love the humor also 🙂
Thanks to All. Good Morning.
Dr. Leif could write a book for laypeople? so we could ask less stupid.