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.
vukcevic (10:48:18) :
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
Interesting Vuk.
Geoff Sharp (16:09:09) :
Good job Geoff, may be more than just some GCR flux hanging around our ever shrinking heliosphere and if I recall “lowered atmosphere.” Whole lot of “shrinking” goin on, hee hee.
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 quite cemented in myself yet. Sooooo many factors. Recently asked by my eldest brother whether or not he should cut more wood now than ever before in his life, I said, “Yes, I thinks so.”
Good to see you “around,” Leif.
*******
22 12 2009
John Finn (03:47:38) :
If you check out the world climate widget you might notice that the November global (UAH) temperature anomaly is +0.50, i.e. the warmest November in the record.
*******
The warmest Nov since when, 1979? That was a noted cold period. And a whole half of a degree. OK….
Sat temps are certainly much more reliable than surface temps, but they measure the whole atmosphere. They can’t detect the cold, shallow temp inversions at the surface right where we live (and neither can UHI-contaminated & screwy-method homogenized surface stations).
Sat temps are OK, but even the whole atmosphere has little heat capacity. Ocean-heat content is the only way to go for measuring real heat changes that can affect climate.
Very interesting comment in the article “temporary, statistical uptick”?
Hey step outside and see a temperature fall of perhaps 25 degrees centigrade,
or what about the temperature difference between Miami FL. and Newark NJ., right now, what is that. Or how about Mumbai India, and Murmansk Russia.
What is the meaning of this so called “average World temperature” ?
What is the CO2 concentration in your house, or office, compared with the local public park, or how about the difference between CO2 at the official IPCC monitoring site, at the worlds most active volcano, Mauna Loa, and the middle of a tropical rainforest. That could vary from 250ppmv to 1200ppmv.
Right here on Earth, right now.
What is the meaning of this so called “average World CO2 concentration” ?
Angels dancing on the point of a needle, or is it fleas on an elephant’s back ?
Much ado about nothing, or the clamour of the times.
Quote Mark (12:27:27):
“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
That’s quite an admission for NASA!
Solar cycles are cycles of magnetic fields that exit the visible solar “surface” – the photosphere – as sunspots. Most changes in Earth’s climate are caused by these natural changes in the Sun – a variable star [See: “Earth’s heat source – The Sun”, Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144]. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704v1
Totally independent groups of research scientists who study the Sun and the Earth’s variable climate have arrived at a similar conclusion [P.D. Jose, “Sun’s motion and sunspots”, Astron. J. 70 (1965) 193-200; R.W. Fairbridge, and J.H. Shirley, “Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion”, Solar Physics 110 (1987) 191-220; Theodor Landscheidt, “New Little Ice Age instead of global warming?”, Energy & Environment 114 (2003) 327-350; J.H. Shirley “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin-orbit coupling”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 368 (2006) 280-282; Richard Mackey, “The Sun’s role in regulating Earth’s climate dynamics,” Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 123-130].
Sunspots are produced when deep-seated magnetic fields – from the Sun’s neutron core or from the superconducting iron-rich material that surrounds its compact energetic core – protrude through the photosphere [See: “Superfluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate,” Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441 ].
The Real Question: What causes solar variability?
The Answer: Gravitational interactions of the Sun with planets jerk the Sun about the ever changing centre-of-mass of the Solar System. The depth of the Sun’s dense, energetic and magnetic neutron core shifts.
Despite the evidence that Earth’s climate is linked with solar cycles, the mechanism for sunspot production remained a mystery for many years because this empirical fact could not be explained by the Standard Solar Model of a homogeneous, H-filled Sun.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
All the above is basically conjecture. The sun’s coronal mass ejections stimulate fusion and fission among the rocks of Earths layers. The most reactive of Earths materials do respond to sunspots and produce magnetism and radiation. This can be measured with a simple gauss-meter. The problem with such magnetism and radiation is that positive ions are released…much like the DU ammunition rounds in Gaza. Positive ions create sickness, cancers and death. They also build the evil within us…called satan or who-ever. Global cooling periods are ones of spiritual growth and happiness.
Just to let you know that this is the truth. I knew the sun-spot minimums of the 60’s and 70’s. I hope the sun is destroyed so it can no longer give evil power on Earth!
Leif says:
“The UPPER atmosphere [100 miles up and more] is VERY much affected by solar activity, but has no impact on our climate.”
That is where we will have to agree to disagree. I say that the radiative processes in the upper atmosphere do have a profound effect on climate by being a variable part of the radiative balancing process for the Earth as a whole. The rate of energy loss to space seems not to be a simple function of temperature differential but instead is significantly affected by solar activity.
In my opinion the SABER observations show that there is a climate impact because the solar effect on that upper atmosphere affects the rate of radiative energy loss from the Earth system, as a whole, to space.
That has an effect on the rate of radiative energy loss from each of the stratified layers of the atmosphere below it down to the stratosphere which forms a region of ‘buffering’ between the convection processes that dominate in the troposphere and the radiative processes that dominate from stratosphere upwards.
Hence my most recent article at climaterealists.com
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/The%20Missing%20Climate%20Link.pdf
My main concern here was whether you (Leif) could administer a simple devastating blow to my proposals. Thus far, it seems not.
To achieve that it needs to be shown that contrary to the SABER observations the effect of solar activity on the upper atmosphere truly has no effect on the net outward radiative flow. Can that be shown ?
rhodeymark (07:46:54) :
“With the chaos of the last week can you imagine if the Thames froze over again?”
It’s my understanding that for that to happen, London would need to reclaim their original bridge from Lake Havasu AZ. The new bridge offers substantially less back pressure.
I can’t imagine the old bridge provided more back pressure than the Thames Barrier does.
John Finn (14:58:55) :
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.
According to my model, the oceans will on average (notwithstanding cloud cover changes) lose energy when the SSN is below ~40 and gain energy when SSN is above ~40.
The ’98 el nino and the current heat release are two different beasts. The ’98 el nino followed the previous solar minimum and rode on the back of a strong upswing in cycle 23 which was putting large amounts of energy into the extra tropical oceans at the same time the ’98 el nino was releasing heat from the Pacific Warm Pool and the high tropical humidity was keeping much of that released heat in the atmosphere.
The current el nino is a modoki el nino where heat is being released more generally from the oceans worldwide into less humid air. Compare the temperature maps from the last few months with ’98 and you’ll see what I mean. And the sun hasn’t been putting the energy back into the oceans at the same time the el nino releases it.
That’s why the ocean heat content is falling, and will take the global average temperature down with it after the current el nino subsides.
John Finn (09:30:46) :
how many more times is someone going to make this completely false claim about UAH calibration to the surface record.
Have you seen the divergence between satellite and surface readings for land areas?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Klotzbah_etal.jpg
Prof. Manuel,
Thank you very much for explaining things. Your explanation made so much sense that I’ve printed it out to review and to discuss, in simpler terms of course, with my child. I am particularly interested in knowing if there is a known relationship between the cycles of planetary motion and solar activity. If you can point me towards anything on the subject I would appreciate it.
Dan Hampton (23:56:57) :
You may also see my take on the matter
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/graph1.gif
(not accepted science, but equations have not been faulted up to date)
more on: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk see links solar current, graphs & formulae
Quote: Dan Hampton (23:56:57) :
1. “Thank you very much for explaining things. Your explanation made so much sense that I’ve printed it out to review and to discuss, in simpler terms of course, with my child.”
2. “I am particularly interested in knowing if there is a known relationship between the cycles of planetary motion and solar activity. If you can point me towards anything on the subject I would appreciate it.”
Thank you, Dan, for your kindness.
1. Please show your child the discussion on Physics World of the magnetic connection between the Earth’s iron core and the Sun’s neutron core:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/38822
and the ESA news report showing the interaction of Earth’s magnetic field with solar eruptions:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMF75BNJTF_index_0.html
2. I will prepare and post additional references showing the relationship between the cycles of planetary motion and solar activity.
Such observations are routinely dismissed or ignored by NASA and its army of solar “scientists.”
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
First i would like to say how much I appreciate the time spent with us uninformed by Leif, his patience, in replying to our questions goes beyond the norm.
Now having put butter on Leif’s bread, i would like to ask him a question;
What is the effect on the sun as we travel through space? as all is not equal.
Stephen Wilde (14:11:12) :
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.
1) We haven’t been observing the sun long enough to know how stable it’s output is on glacial time scales.
2) The 1C variation in earth’s temperature that we have observed and that all the global warming fuss is about is only ~0.3% of the earths temperature in Kelvin, which is what we should be using as a measurement.
3) It appears from Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a calorimeter that there are terrestrial amplifiers of solar variability, so the sun’s 0.1% variation might easily account for the earth’s 0.3% temperature variation at the centennial timescale if there are long term trends in albedo.
vukcevic,
That’s what I was wondering so thank you for the reference. If a relationship can be drawn between the planetary cycles and solar activity, as I would expect from Prof. Manuel’s explanation, it should be demonstrable as your graph shows.
The references to heresy, wacko and so forth indicate that it is not just global warming science that is infected with political correctness. Not that I would expect it to be limited to one area of science. Science reflects the flawed nature of those who conduct it and “consensus” is the constipation of progress.
Quote: Dan Hampton (08:39:51) :
“Consensus is the constipation of progress.”
An excellent analogy!
I may steal it and share with my haughty “consensus” colleagues who:
1. Know the solar interior is 91% H (element #1) and 9% He (element #2).
2. Learned absolutely nothing from all the space age measurements.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
tallbloke (08:21:34)
Agreed on those points but the climate swings during glacial periods are pretty big, far bigger than anything we have observed directly.
My proposed suite of interacting variables can accommodate what we have observed directly and those larger climate swings.
I have previously pointed out the amplification potential of oceanic variability but my concern is to create an overarching concept which includes as many observed phenomena as possible hence the need to follow the energy flow through the entire Earth system.
Dan Hampton (23:56:57) :
I am particularly interested in knowing if there is a known relationship between the cycles of planetary motion and solar activity. If you can point me towards anything on the subject I would appreciate it.
Well since Vuk has responded I will too. Dan, you might be interested in a couple of my own blog posts too, just click on my name. There are a couple of links to other sites which are run by people looking into this stuff as well as my own musings. I’ll add Vuk’s blog too.
As Vuk said, it’s not establishment science, so take your critical judgement along with you.
Stephen Wilde (09:31:21) :
my concern is to create an overarching concept which includes as many observed phenomena as possible hence the need to follow the energy flow through the entire Earth system.
A project befitting an encompassing mind such as your own Stephen. All the best to you for Christmas and the New Year.
A butterfly diagram from Debrecen:
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/DPD/butterfly.jpg
depicting a rather squeezed to lower latitudes early-on SC24.
The claims that we experienced one of the warmest years on record in 2009 has opened the eyes of a lot of people, including myself. I trusted the numbers for years, but this arrogant leap is so vexing that I think it will be the final undoing of this sham.
Growing seasons around the world were cut short in 2009 due to drops in temperature; especially in Canada and the US. Yield per acre of corn was abismal. The running joke this year in MN was that we did not have a summer, and now we are still getting nailed with low temps and snow. Obviously, the anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything, except when heard over and over and over around the world, it gets a person questioning things. I think the climate nuts have finally “jumped the shark” so to speak.
A rational person pulling a scam would know when to back away when things are starting to unravel. Instead these zealots go for broke and stretch the realm of believability. I live in the US and have friends in Canada, Europe, Bulgaria, and Japan. Every one of them have complained about how cold 2009 was. Where was all the warming at? Siberia?
What really pisses me off is that I was duped for years, trusting in “pure” science. At the end of the day these are just people with agendas. I should have known better. I am rambling, but I am just shocked at the gaul of these people. If I played with number at my job the way these folks have I would be fired and probably put in jail.
Oliver K. Manuel (07:04:06) :
1. Please show your child the discussion on Physics World of the magnetic connection between the Earth’s iron core and the Sun’s neutron core:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/38822
Hi Oliver, nice to hear from you here. I came across a couple of papers by a Russian scientist (lost the link unfortunately) who proposed a similar dipole-quadrupole interaction in the sun. Does this fit with mainstream solar theory?
rbateman (10:30:55) :
A butterfly diagram from Debrecen:
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/DPD/butterfly.jpg
depicting a rather squeezed to lower latitudes early-on SC24.
The diagram doesn’t differentiate between C23 and C24 spots. Is it possible the low latitude concentration is the tail end of C23?
Prof. Manuel,
Thank you for the two links. I’ll print these out as well. Any others would be much appreciated.