From Spaceweather.com
The sun is showing signs of life. There are no fewer than five active regions on the sun’s surface, shown here in an extreme ultraviolet photo taken this morning by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO):
Each circle contains a sunspot or proto-sunspot belonging to new Solar Cycle 24. After two years of record-low sunspot numbers and many month-long stretches of utter quiet, this is a notable outbreak. Whether it heralds a genuine trend or merely marks a temporary, statistical uptick in activity remains to be seen.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Philip T. Downman (09:32:48) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:14:01) :
Stephen Wilde (09:09:01) :
Yes, please settle this issue. What do you mean by “turbulent”? Are there whirles and eddies?
We get two kinds of energy flowing from the Sun:
1: radiation
2: particles
For 1 we can break it down to
a: TSI 1361 W/m2
b: and within that UV (200-300 nm) 15 W/m2
and UV (0-200 nm) 0.1 W/m2
I don’t know how we can talk about ‘turbulence’ in the electromagnetic radiation
For 2 we have [rare] solar proton events 0.002 W/m2
and solar wind 0.0003 W/m2
For these there can be turbulence [and is], but the energy is down to less than a millionth of the EM flux, so don’t amount to ‘turbulence in the energy flow’.
Basically, I have no idea what he is referring to. Perhaps some garbled NASA press release.
K (09:33:39) :
Too bad. I had hoped for several years of little solar activity.
And you’ll get it.
Unfortunately, it will not settle anything, as people’s opinions are already set in cement.
John Finn (09:30:46) :
The body of the temperature record has been drug around tied to the bumper of the data manglers so long we’re not sure which planet it’s supposed to represent.
The October anomaly reported must have resulted from record cold in the US offset by fish-boiling oceans and withering heat that burned whole continents.
At some point, it starts resembling “2012” computerized apocalyptic scenes.
But really, isn’t this topic about sunspots, and the long dry spell apparently ending?
Leif Svalgaard (10:08:09) :
K (09:33:39) :
Too bad. I had hoped for several years of little solar activity.
And you’ll get it.
Unfortunately, it will not settle anything, as people’s opinions are already set in cement.
Not necessarily! I was convinced it was the Sun, then your energy numbers some time ago raised serious doubt. Recently I came across data showing temperature rise in the middle of the Maunder min, did some further research, there may be some kind of a common link, but it appears that one is not direct cause of the other (solar activity-climate).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gif
This will be much ado about nothing. The sun will continue to stay quiet.
David (09:27:34) :
Hey, Anthony, Moderators, and readers, I have a question. Our knowledge of sunspot cycles depends a lot on the centuries of data gathered on the subject. However, there are many sunspots that we can see today that we could not see with the technology with which we started. Since we still have that old technology and could compare observations with it with observations with SOHO, could we make an algorithm that accounts for the percentage of sunspots too small to see and adjust the old sunspot records accordingly?
Perhaps the reason the old equipment is not used alongside the modern equipment for comparison is the same reason urban sites and rural sites are not seperated and compared . If you want to show there is no link to cold periods and the lack of sunspots, debunk the old data, or use equipment that can now see a pimple on a nats ass. If you want to show warming use mainly urban sites.
I hope to see the sun heat up. As much as I would like to see the AGW Crew get their due, I don’t want to see that at the expense of so many lives lost if, in fact, the sun actually has some say in the climate of the world.
Truth will win out in any case. Time is always on the side of truth.
Merry Christmas to all.
This sun activity, sorry if I contradict some, is due to Anthony´s meddling in the sun affairs again…evrey time he does it the sun awakens. 🙂
David (09:27:34) :
… Since we still have that old technology and could compare observations with it with observations with SOHO, could we make an algorithm that accounts for the percentage of sunspots too small to see and adjust the old sunspot records accordingly?
It was answered toward the beginning of the discussion by Geoff Sharp. Here is the Layman’s Sunspot Count web page: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
NASA has admitted that the sun warms the earth 🙂
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html
NASA Shows Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere
Download image
HAMPTON, Va., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere
NASA has stated that the sun warms the earth and when not active, cools the earth 🙂
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html
The sunspot number for today is 42. On this date in 2001 it was 215. I’m not getting excited about the sun “perking up” until it really does. For now I’m just going to keep reading and learning because there sure isn’t going to be any swimming in the near future.
Amazing!
How does funding for solar research compare to other areas of climate science?
Also o/t, but been plowing through the texts Leif and others recommended. Last night I got a strange look from my better half for chuckling while reading an astrophysics book. I was reading about helioseismology and got a mental image of a doctor with a stethoscope asking the sun to cough. Cut to a CME, and a slightly frazzled doctor saying ‘not that hard’. Wish I could turn that into a cartoon.
John Finn (09:18:29) :
tallbloke (06:23:53) :
John Finn (03:47:38) :
I ‘m a bit fearful about what might happen if it actually starts to become more active. The solar/climate link is becoming increasingly less believable.
It’s the surface temperature record which is becoming increasingly less believable IMO.
I wasn’t referring to the surface record. I was referring to the UAH satellite record. It is it the UAH record which has the November anomaly of +0.50. A record for November.
In an el nino year. I think we’ll find the ocean has been losing plenty of heat in response to the lack of solar input. After the current convulsion of heat release from the ocean is when you’ll see the effect of the quiet sun kick in.
” There is ALWAYS THE SUN ” here …….
http://www.vidoosh.tv/videos/5298/'always-the-sun'-by-the-stranglers
Don’t beat yourselves into a frenzy guys & gals.
I’m an imagery analyst by profession, having done that for the US Air Force for 20+ years. I’m not a solar scientist, but I can interpret information from imagery – ANY kind of imagery. It’s easy to pick out the two sets of sunspots on the right side of the image P Gosselin provided the link to. The SOHO dead pixel on the upper left of the image is also easily identified. There are other areas that show the sun’s surface is reacting to something with greater granularity, such as the spot to the right of the dead pixel. I think what we’re seeing are “protospots” – areas where there is greater than average magnetic activity, but not enough to develop fully into sunspots.
Thankfully to better and better scientific tools, we’re able to detect smaller and smaller changes to the sun’s surface. Hopefully this information will also aid us in predicting both short-term and long-term weather phenomena on Earth.
HAMPTON, Va., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere.
“The Sun is in a very unusual period,” said Marty Mlynczak, SABER associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA Langley. “The Earth’s thermosphere is responding remarkably — up to an order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by some molecules.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html
The effect is more dramatic in the near surface layer. See:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
We do have some sunspots for Christmas, but the possibility remains that the Sun will soon revert to stretches of spotlessness.
Philip T. Downman (09:32:48)
Mark (12:27:27)
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-SABER.html
“SABER has revealed solar flare-ups — and a rapid Earth cooling response — on a nearly regular nine-day schedule. The cause appears to be coronal holes, which project strong solar winds, positioned 120 degrees apart on the sun’s surface. As the sun rotates every 27 days, these solar winds typically hit Earth every nine days. The high-speed winds sometimes appear with a seven-day periodicity, indicating that a fourth hole opens up.
Sunspots unleash solar flares that create a ripple effect well beyond Earth. But when that energy flow does reach Earth, the atmosphere reciprocates by ejecting radiation as a cooling effect to maintain the planet’s energy balance. That cooling response creates the expansion and contraction of the upper atmosphere.”
It seems that however ‘smooth’ the energy delivery from the sun is in the overall scheme of things it is nevertheless capable of disturbing the Earth’s upper atmosphere. Leif’s comment may be accurate but not sufficient to account for those observations.
From the above link it seems that energy loss from the upper atmosphere to space is greater when the sun is more active and therefore presumably less when the sun is inactive.
At first the link from Mark seems to contradict that:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html
However I think the observation is being misreported. Less energy may be reaching the satellite which suggests cooling of the upper atmosphere but the reason for that would be that energy is coming through the Earth system more slowly as a result of the quieter sun. Thus a warming stratosphere ‘starving’ the higher levels of energy.
Since the mid 90s as the level of solar activity fell after the peak of cycle 23 the stratosphere started warming:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
On the other hand the stratosphere cooled during the earlier period of high solar activity and I would suggest that the reason was that the high level of solar activity accelerated the loss of energy from upper atmosphere to space.
What we have to consider is the variable rates of energy transmission throughout the different sections of the Earth system.
1) Solar input is variable but only a little as Leif correctly says.
2) Energy release from the oceans to the air is far more variable than generally appreciated and may well be sufficient to account for all observed climate shifts to date.
3) The speed of the hydrological cycle is very variable and depends on an interaction between energy release from the oceans and the temperature of the stratosphere. The temperature of the troposphere is along for the ride.
4) The temperature of the stratosphere is variable and depends on an interaction between the energy flow from the surface (assisted by the variable speed of the hydrological cycle) and the rate at which energy can be radiated out to space.
5) The rate of energy loss from upper atmosphere to space now seems to be variable as per the SABER findings.
There are enough internal system variables to account for all observed climate changes throughout recorded history and as I have described elswhere the interplay of all those variables can account for the relatively stable climates of inter glacial periods, the highly unstable glacial epochs and the large size of observed climate swings in comparison to the tiny solar power variability depending entirely on the timing of the various variables as they supplement or offset one another over long periods.
Unless Leif can show that the upper atmosphere is not affected by solar activity in the way that SABER observations suggest.
Hey Tallbloke: If the current ocean heat release event is in response to the long minimum, then what happens when the Sun pops back to life like it is doing now and stays that way?
BTW: I didn’t know you had a solar model that accurately predicted this, it looks as if your model(s) is among the best ones out there as of now.
tallbloke (13:11:43) :
……
In an el nino year. I think we’ll find the ocean has been losing plenty of heat in response to the lack of solar input. After the current convulsion of heat release from the ocean is when you’ll see the effect of the quiet sun kick in.
Presumably the oceans lost a lot of heat in 1997/98 and again in 2002/03 and to a lesser extent in 2006/07. Since 1998 solar heat input has been from a fairly moderate solar cycle (SC23). Where does all this heat keep coming from. You seem to be saying this El Nino is the last hurrah and long-term cooling will kick in when it’s ended. I think you’re wrong.
“Mark (12:26:38) :
NASA has admitted that the sun warms the earth :)”
Well, thats progress. Now we just need them to admit that there is no such thing as radiative equilibrium between the earth and space. The sun powers the earths heat engine (s), which extracts work and heat from the radiant energy in the form of weather, ocean currents and biological growth. Excess heat is radiated to space in accordance with radiation laws which are not perfectly understood, but this outgoing radiation must be less than the radiation received, otherwise the laws of thermodynamics are being violated.
The rate of gain or loss in the energy of a system is determined by the rates of heating (from incoming solar radiation less outgoing radiation) and work done. There is no significant flow of matter between earth and space. Work requires energy, thus outgoing radiation can not equal incoming radiation without cooling or zero work being done (imagine earth as a snowball without atmosphere).
The sun of course is our sole energy source, and thus heat source (excluding geothermal energy), and chemical reactions produce the heat which it radiates to us. it is not in radiative equilibrium, so why should earth in radiative equilibrium.
CO2 is simply a tool to trap heat near the surface, and release it at the top of the atmosphere. It’s increase may actually be a negative feedback in response to warming to release more energy to space.
Obviously, the Sun is as important to Earth as electricity is to my refrigerator.
The solar wind is a good example of a solar output that can vary by more than the .1% TSI variance that keeps getting bandied about. During 1035 the solar wind barely managed to rise about 400 km/s, and if we look at the longer overview the wind strength is still on the decline.
I plotted the data from the ACE satellite from 2006, there is no way to hide the decline.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/104
The solar wind continues its decline which locks us in for at least another 12 months of reduced Heliosphere.
Does anyone have any data on the solar UV output over the same period?
As an update: There now are only two solar sunspot groups, each numbered 3, which ought to result in a new SWPC sunspot number 26 (if I’ve learned the equation properly).
I, too, would be interested in knowing what the recent and present values are with respect to EUV, UV and IR, which may be the true climate drivers. I’m unconvinced that our atmosphere is entirely opaque to the broad UV spectrum, if only because my feet invariably get badly sunburned every time I go to the beach. And if UV varies by a matter of two magnitudes from solar max to min, I’d say there is a potential for significant heating or not heating.
Robuk (12:08:00) :
Our knowledge of sunspot cycles depends a lot on the centuries of data gathered on the subject. However, there are many sunspots that we can see today that we could not see with the technology with which we started.
There is actually a way of checking and comparing the old data with modern one:
Here is a talk on that I gave at the SOHO-23 science meeting in Maine a few months back: http://www.leif.org/research/Updating%20the%20Historical%20Sunspot%20Record.pdf and a text to go with it: http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO-23,%20Updating%20the%20Historical%20Sunspot%20Record.pdf
Stephen Wilde (14:11:12) :
Unless Leif can show that the upper atmosphere is not affected by solar activity in the way that SABER observations
The UPPER atmosphere [100 miles up and more] i VERY much affected by solar activity, but has no impact on our climate,