Back on December 12th 2009 I posted an article titled:
Solar geomagnetic activity is at an all time low – what does this mean for climate?
We then had a string of sunspots in December that marked what many saw as a rejuvenation of solar cycle 24 after a long period of inactivity. See December sunspots on the rise
It even prompted people like Joe Romm to claim:
But what Joe doesn’t understand is that sunspots are just one proxy, the simplest and most easily observed, for magnetic activity of the sun. It is the magnetic activity of the sun which is central to Svensmark’s theory of galactic cosmic ray modulation, which may affect cloud cover formation on earth, thus affecting global temperatures. As the theory goes, lower magnetic activity of the sun lets more GCR’s into our solar system, which produce microscopic cloud seed trails (like in a Wilson cloud chamber) in our atmosphere, resulting in more cloud cover, resulting in a cooler planet. Ric Werme has a nice pictorial here.
When I saw the SWPC Ap geomagnetic index for Dec 2009 posted yesterday, my heart sank. With the sunspot activity in December, I thought surely the Ap index would go up. Instead, it crashed.
Annotated version above – Source: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Ap.gif
Source data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
When you look at the Ap index on a larger scale, all the way back to 1844 when measurements first started, the significance of this value of “1” becomes evident. This graph from Dr. Leif Svalgaard shows where we are today in relation to the past 165 years.
Source: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now.png
With apologies to Dr. Svalgaard, I’ve added the “1” line and the most current SWPC value of “1” for Dec 2009.
As you can see, we’ve never had such a low value before, and the only place lower to go is “zero”.
But this is only part of the story. With the Ap index dwindling to a wisp of magnetism, it bolsters the argument made by Livingston and Penn that sunspots may disappear altogether by 2015. See Livingston and Penn – Sunspots may vanish by 2015
Above: Sunspot magnetic fields measured by Livingston and Penn from 1992 – Feb. 2009 using an infrared Zeeman splitting technique. [more] from the WUWT article: NASA: Are Sunspots Disappearing?
The theory goes that once the magnetic strength falls below 1500 gauss, sunspots will become invisible to us.
Note where we are on this curve that Dr. Svalgaard also keeps of LP’s measurements:
Source: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
It appears that we are on track, and that’s a chilling thought.
NOTE TO COMMENTERS AND MODERATORS: No off-topic discussions of Landscheidt, “electric universe”, or “iron sun” will be permitted on this thread. All will be snipped. Stay on topic. – Anthony
Sponsored IT training links:
Planning to take on BR0-001 certification? Then try out our 646-364 prep resources and earn best score in 642-165 exam.
Leif Svalgaard (19:39:56) :
Yeah, but…. uh… what? ;-P
I wondered what you think of the Livingston Penn theory (hypothesis?) described above about invisible sunspots?
“Vincent (12:13:27) :
First, the incoming solar radiation is overwhelmingly in the visible and only a tiny proportion in IR. Second, any IR radiated by CO2 would be in all directions, not only towards a cooler area.”
I seem to remember about 45% IR (including near IR over 760 nm), 45% visible (380-760 nm) and about 10% UV (under 380 nm).
The UV gets absorbed in the upper atmosphere. The visible light that is not reflected or scattered gets through to the ground, and much of the long wave
and near IR gets absorbed, mostly by H20. So the atmosphere is largely transparent to visible light and opaque to IR and UV (thus reducing the energy reaching the surface).
While radiation is emitted in all directions, the net flux is from the bottom (warmer and denser air) to the top (cooler and less dense-meaning fewer molecules to capture outgoing radiation). Increasing CO2 simply increases the residence time of IR photons in the atmosphere. As one CO2 molecule emits a photon it cools, as another absorbs that photon it warms, net heating effect from additional CO2 is 0, or close to it.
Dave F (22:03:50) :
Ok, given all of the things presented above, is it possible that the Maunder or Dalton minimums were previous occurrences of invisible sunspot events?
Possibly the Maunder, see: slide 14 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf
Dalton: ???
ujagoff (22:17:23) :
But it there a SC 23 spotlet forming?
Possible, although such small specks can form anywhere and with any polarity at any time, without signifying any solar cycle change.
Dave F (22:18:10) :
I wondered what you think of the Livingston Penn theory (hypothesis?) described above about invisible sunspots?
I hold it plausible.
Updated graph, to include the latest large group 1039:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Still looks good [within expected variation].
Leif Svalgaard:
“It is time to stop all the ‘theorizing’ and whining. I’ll try to explain what is behind the numbers. First, I’ll not be necessarily immodest: I happen to be a world authority on the subject of geomagnetic indices.”
As much as I am interested to hear what the specialists claim to understand about the Sun,
[inappropriate attack, please keep to yourself ~ ctm]
Leif Svalgaard (19:59:52) :
The spot was too far from the limb to get that big of a multiplier. Other sources had it at 10, I calculated it at 16.
(14 raw, 2.5 x multiplier = 14/2 * 2.5 = 16)
Somebody goofed. It should be corrected.
I find Dr. Svalgaard’s attitude toward readers and commentators to be most inappropriate.
David Shukman BBC – more bias.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8447262.stm
Alexander Feht (23:09:07) :
I find Dr. Svalgaard’s attitude toward readers and commentators to be most inappropriate.
we are very lucky to have someone of Dr. Svalgaard’s capabilities to explain to us what a lot of this means. His attitude comes from YEARS of studying the sun and is deserved. What your qualifications are we don’t know so I for one will let Dr. Svalgaard say what he wants to say how he wants to say it and thank him for helping us understand a little bit better what the sun might or might not be up to.
Re: Alexander Feht (23:09:07) :
I find Dr. Svalgaard’s attitude toward readers and commentators to be most inappropriate.
—
I don’t. As he’s a leading authority on the Sun, I for one much appreciate the time and effort he puts in to sharing his knowledge here. It’s encouraged me to learn more about my namesake, and learn it’s not as simple & constant as I’d first assumed.
Leif Svalgaard (19:39:56) :
Thanks for clearing that up.
—
Looking at today’s solar images, this pore is so tiny that it is clear it would not have been seen 100 years ago.
A count of “15” is ludicrous. The tiny SC 23 region on the equator will probably not be counted, as with all the other micro 23 regions that appeared in 2009.
It appears that the goal for January 2010 is to reach monthly mean of at least 15.7 and do everything possible to achieve this,
so that claims can be made in February that “spots” such as 1040 have heralded a “surge in sunspot activity in the new year”.
So 2009 must have been one of the coldest years in over a century, and 2010 will have us forget the LIA?
Jan 8th, 10.am GMT
Nasty looking blotch has appeared on the sun (top left).
It’d be good if the cycle 24 graph were added to the little pics down the right hand side: just below to daily sun update for instance.
And get rid of the widget until it is working properly……
Baa Humbug (19:14:11) :
“…Regards our climate, I think it’s obvious to all and sundry that it’s not just one thing (force) but many that affect our climate. The trick is to sort out the positive (warming) from the negative (cooling) and start worrying only if we get negative on top of negative etc or positive on top of positive…
All this extended snow cover reflecting sun light….negative
The suns activity….negative
El Nino about to peter out…negative
The PDO….negative
Enhanced cloud cover….negative
hang on to your woolly coats everyone.
This is my view too. No one big change kicking out planet into cool-mode, rather many small negative changes. Thanks for reminding me about the enhanced cloud cover, and increased albedo, I left left them off my original list. Here’s the new list:-
Triggers for cool-mode climate – happening now.
Low Ap index.
Weak NH polar vortex.
Less UV hitting Earth’s atmosphere.
Low density/speed solar wind.
Reduced depth of Earth atmosphere.
Increase in cosmic rays.
Enhanced cloud cover.
PDO turning negative.
El Nino conditions weak.
Weak Gulf Stream.
Additional potential triggers – yet to happen.
Big volcanic eruptions.
La Nina.
Increased albedo from extra snow.
Ideas for more factors to go on the list are welcome please.
L-P update:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
I think Dr Svalgaard’s often pithy style and his undoubted authority is one of the joys of visiting this site.
If and when you start piecing together certain factors, several things start to become clear.
Two glaring similarities are the suns and earths weather anomalies of 1923-1924 and that of 2009-2010.
The ap index and solar minimum for both periods coincide relatively similar. Not exact, just similar. Both the Ap and SSN numbers were somewhat parallel in relativistic trends.
Just compare the timing of both the Ap and SSN data for both time periods. Both are very similar.
The other similarity is the earths global temperatures for that same period. Specifically, the southern hemisphere was experiencing warmer than usual heat and drought for most of the period between 1923 and 1924( think Marble Bar heat wave), and the exceedingly cold period in the northern hemisphere during that same time period.
Another similar anomaly was the Arctics Sea ice melt. WUWT just recently posted about an article published in 1922 and the extreme arctic withdrawal of sea ice, only to rebound soon there after. Similar to the recent decline and rebound of the arctic sea ice 2007-2009.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to notice a very similar pattern. The timing between these apparent patterns are roughly 88 years. I don’t know if thats significant, but it dears bear scrutiny.
If we went back another 88 some odd years and find a similar solar-terrestrial pattern?
Would it be possible to find any supporting data for other periodic similarities?
Could we go back and find more similarities for 1834-1835, with similar trends.
Can it be that the sun has recurring oscillations in its convection to wreak havoc with its magnetic field strength and the resultant affect it has our own planet?
I think it’s at least a worthy scientific endeavor, because while each similarity anomaly may have no bearing whatsoever while separate, the data when looked at, as a whole, really starts to paint a picture.
David Archibald (15:43:00) :
“The Ap Index bottoms out up to a year after the month of solar minimum, so we may have a few more months of low numbers before it trends up again.
We know that Solar Cycle 24 year of maximum will be 2015, and since the downramp of the cycle won’t be any shorter than the upramp, Solar Cycle 24 will be at least 12 years long.
We are still on track for a Dalton Minimum repeat. The Earth’s climate started cooling from 2003 when solar activity (not sunspot number which was 2000) peaked. It looks like the standard 210 year de Vries cycle.”
Thank you, Dr Archibald.
I notice that the graphs of aa index Vs global temperatures at
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/SolarWind.html imply a correlation. I also found a close correlation between the position of the Earth’s magnetic field and global temperatures, see the paper on my website http://www.akk.me.uk/Climate_Change.htm
So is if there is a cause and effect is it the position of Earth’ magnetic field that causes the changes in the aa index? Or contrary to some ideas, as the Sunspot cycles show changes in the Sun’s magnetic field do these affect the position of the Earth’s magnetic poles. There are clear close correlations between the Sunspot cycles, the aa index, the position of the Earth’s magnetic field, the strength of the geomagnetic field and the NAO, . Again see my paper even if it is just for the list of references to associations between climate and magnetism.
Does anyone know of a connection between the interaction of the solar wind with the Earth’s magnetic field and climate?
Vincent, DirkH, Gary Hladik, pochas et al.
re. Mike O’Kelly (11:32:46) :
The Sun is emitting more infrared heat (long wave) energy than it is light (short wave) energy. The light we receive from the sun is a byproduct of the heat generated by thermo-nuclear reaction and not the other way round. Therefore the majority of energy we receive is in the infrared.
All gases are gases by virtue of the fact that they have absorbed heat (infrared). If they had not they would not be gas, they would instead be solid ice. By the same token any substance which absorbs heat will re-emit that heat equally. For those who need physics laws as evidence see Stefan-Boltzman, and for those who prefer to use their own physical senses please observe that nothing traps heat thus producing a net energy increase causing substances to become infinitely hotter.
Now back to atmospheric gases.
Oxygen and Nitrogen are solid ice up to a temperature of 54.36 K and 63.15 K respectively while CO2 remains as ice right up to 194.65 K and water 273 K.
So the question then becomes, which of these substances is more sensitive to absoption of infrared energy? Which of these substances will absorb heat first?
The answer has to be the substance with the lowest melting point of course.
So the only conclusion is that, either all gases are greenhouse gases, if not, then none at all.
All of this nonsense about heat and radiation not being the same thing is called sophistry and it is a disgrace that it is allowed on this forum. If we are now talking about a kind of radiation which is not heat then why should be concerned? Radiation which is not heat is not going to cause global warming is it?
Re: Leif, 19:39:56+
Thank you
Even though the recent monthly Ap may be “inaccurate,” isn’t it true that smoothed values are at a 100 year low? Couldn’t that be meaningful.
I should have pointed out that the last point is in reference to incoming radiation only, re- Mikes original query, and is not concerned with OLR.
It’s still the Sun in the end. You may want to separate out the technical elements and aspects, but it is still the Sun that drives our climate. The complexity of the above discussion is breathtaking and it humbles me – it’s also extremely interesting.
However, if you remove the Sun from our solar system, you would no longer have any debate on what drives warming and cooling cycles on Earth – it would be very apparent.
DirkH (14:15:07) : “I’m paying 20 eurocent for a kWh and the renewable-energy makers get 50 eurocent.”
Dirk, we in France go nuclear and I pay for a KWh between 5 and 8 Eurocent (depending on the time of day). Renewables have a long way to go before they can compete with nuclear.
Don B (04:37:17) :
Even though the recent monthly Ap may be “inaccurate,” isn’t it true that smoothed values are at a 100 year low? Couldn’t that be meaningful.
Yes, solar activity, the heliospheric magnetic field, and geomagnetic activity are now at the level of 108 years ago. This is very meaningful. If one believes in a strong sun-climate connection one might expect the climate to be likewise. I’m not so sure that is what is observed, though, the present cold months notwithstanding.
Don B (04:37:17) :
Re: Leif, 19:39:56+
Thank you
Even though the recent monthly Ap may be “inaccurate,” isn’t it true that smoothed values are at a 100 year low? Couldn’t that be meaningful.
8
01
2010
Sophistry in politics (04:43:58) :
I should have pointed out that the last point is in reference to incoming radiation only, re- Mikes original query, and is not concerned with OLR.
mkurbo (04:51:09) :
However, if you remove the Sun from our solar system, you would no longer have any debate on what drives warming and cooling cycles on Earth – it would be very apparent.
If you removed the oceans and the atmosphere it would also be very apparent what drives climate. So, the logic is limbing a bit.
Vuk etc. (13:25:58) :
Mr. Alex (11:28:40) :
“1. Solar Polar Field Strength in a funk:”
Not a time to be troubled much about polar fields. See you around 2020-25, then we’ll have something to talk about. See Polar fields links on:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm
MIght be a rush on snowmobile purchases ya think?