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.
and that lasted for a very brief period of time
photon without a Higgs (07:40:11) :
Discussion has its place. But i’d rather see if anyone has disproven his math. So far no one has.
I may be wrong, but I think someone did find that one of his equations assumed the atmosphere was orbiting the Earth. Not entirely sure though, I read that a while ago.
What I am suggesting is that, as an analogy, you’re saying the flare from SGR 1806-20 is like a small electrical surge that causes a brownout and that I am saying it is like a massive surge that caused a blackout; the difference in the Earth’s atmosphere and EM field VS the Sun’s atmosphere and EM field is massive; ours is far smaller, but its like a giant hollow glass sphere VS a small solid glass sphere: the giant sphere is more easily penetrated than the solid sphere is, so we’d be more protected than the sun would be even though it’s EM field is much more powerful.
I’m not a physicist, I just think logically and use metaphors; please correct me if I can’t possibly be right.
Since little is known still about the mechanics in stars (after all, they are STARS!), I may be wrong. But it seems very plausible to me.
Leif Svalgaard (21:04:26) :
Not even over time. It was hard enough to detect the small effect on the Earth, and that lasted for a very period of time. Now, if the magnetar was a lot closer, that would be another story entirely.
Ok that make’s sense; I did read about the distance being a factor, what with the integrity of energy being affected by various cosmic forces like gravity, time decay and disintegration by wave interruption through matter.
My theory still seems plausible; a perfect system is not perfect if any change is made, and SGR 1806-20’s energy was quite large; true, without space technology we would have never detected it, but in space itself it was probably powerful: I would like to know what happened to the neighboring star systems (within 1 parsec, for example)
((Chris Schoneveld (04:58:55) :
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.))
Chris.
so-called ‘renewables’ will never be able to replace our now traditional power sources until something else, radical, is implemented. As we have seen, solar & wind in cold climates are next to useless. Only under optimum conditions are they useful. Even then you need to have & maintain traditional power plants, including nuclear.
I’m worried about the coming Aussies winter. We had a very early, profitable start to 2009 snow season. Since we produce a lot of the worlds grains we cannot afford, in the Southern states, a very cold winter. The main reason being the ingrained ‘Green’ lunacy in our State Govs which has seen no real upgrading of our power sources for decades. This is proven by power blackouts in heatwaves. Big freezes will be worse. Rug up, stock the larder and buy a gennie & fuel to power the heater. Then pay your carbon indulgences for the privilege.
regards
Toby (21:39:25) :
the Sun’s atmosphere and EM field is massive; ours is far smaller
If a bicycle runs over an ant or runs into a cow, which of the two animals will get squashed?
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/about/
Please prove my theory wrong. Go to the above link to view, The End Game, the calm before the solar storm.
“Sean Houlihane (11:44:59) : Are you denying that the sun is more active than it was 6 months ago? I haven’t yet checked where the monthly average F10.7 for December fits on my plot, but the blue line here does seem to be edging ever upward.”
Oh no! Not the denier card! Ok ok, I am a denier of AGW not solar activity ;).
I never stated a word about F10.7 solar flux on this thread, but since you have brought it up: It is no doubt higher so far than it was in 2008 or early 2009, but values are still low.
As Leif has said, flux is on the rise. I have never denied this.
Here’s my problem: This minimum of 2006-? has been a crucial time, a minimum not seen by modern technology, and thus it is vital to keep records of an excellent quality in order to compare with previous grand minima, (Dalton and Damon, which all occurred before we had 24/7 surveillance of the sun) to understand more about the sun’s current state.
In 2006, predictions were for a sunspot maximum of 140 in 2010.
3 years later, in 2009, predictions have shifted to a maximum of 70 – 90 in 2013.
Predictions have been cut by half; predicted record high cycle is now predicted lowest in 90 years.
Many of the experts are no longer confident about what will occur.
The flurry of tiny pores struggling to grow since SC 24 began, [indicative of weakening sunspot structure (L&P)] are given counts which many feel have been exaggerated to the extent that separate counts are created (Layman’s count and NIA count) to try restore fairness, showing that many believe that we are no longer able to compare official data with the past (100+ years ago) given that such pores were not counted before.
Take a look at sunspot 1039 and compare it with tiny tim 1040. At one stage in their lifetimes both received counts of 15, yet there is an obvious difference in structure and area:
1039: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2009/mdiigr/20091230/20091230_0000_mdiigr_512.jpg
1040:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/20100108/20100108_0000_mdiigr_512.jpg
Clearly there is no uniformity.
I agree sunspot activity has passed its lowest point, but activity is not ramping up as sharply as they would like us to believe.
NASA says the solar system is passing through a highly magnetized interstellar cloud.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
“The fact that the Fluff is strongly magnetized means that other clouds in the galactic neighborhood could be, too. Eventually, the solar system will run into some of them, and their strong magnetic fields could compress the heliosphere even more than it is compressed now. Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system, possibly affecting terrestrial climate and the ability of astronauts to travel safely through space. On the other hand, astronauts wouldn’t have to travel so far because interstellar space would be closer than ever. These events would play out on time scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, which is how long it takes for the solar system to move from one cloud to the next.”
The more compressed the heliosphere is the more cosmic rays can reach earth? That’s surprizes me as I thought the fluff might shield the GCR’s from earth.
Also, less sunspots probably means less radiant energy from the sun, which is cooling not warming.
Also, my impression is that the earth is becoming more geologically active, if so volcanic emissions would tend to be cooling I think.
Also, the earth’s magnetic field seems to be weakening, if so that also may let more charged particles penetrate into the atmosphere and that might contribute to cloud formation.
Re: Mr. Alex (Jan 9 01:07), I am not too worried about the records we keep of sunspots today – there are detailed digital images being recorded in addition to the ground based counts coming from a multitude of observatories. It might be a problem for the short-term cycle predictions – but J. Janssens lists 45 different predictions so that field is just guesswork today – the experts should really be no less confident now than they were before, regardless of their claims for their own prediction methods.
L & P have identified an effect not monitored before. Leif has identified a divergence in the F10.7 to SSN correspondence. With no accepted causality between Maunder and LIA, it would seem reasonable to wait and see how the cycle starts to evolve along the projected curve to 75 in 3 years time. If L&P is true, we might see a the sunspot count remaining in the 5-15 range each month regardless of what gets counted – but increasing magnetic activity, so the interpretation of the count would then need to be re-assessed. In my view, small counts are not something to regard with any precision. Even if we gain confidence in the 75 @ur momisugly 2013 prediction we wouldn’t yet expect to have any further knowledge of cycle 25 till after then – by which time many more detailed theories about the detail of the current extended minimum will be circulating. Above all, don’t panic. Sunspot counts have been re-calibrated by many ‘after the fact’ analyses, and it is bound to happen again.
Re: rbateman (16:56:50) :
The observation: Solar Activity at low to very low levels for an extended period.
: Climate cooling off rather strongly for the same period.
The Science: How this stuff works. Not in by any means. Too many links unknown or in a low state of knowledge.
This how-stuff-works doesn’t seem to have much follow-up. Is there any?
1)
In order to prove that meridional flow changes into zonal flow as a result of auroral electrons and bremsstrahlung leading to an increase in temperature and pressure even in the troposphere, the relations between corpuscular (geomagnetic) activity and atmospheric pressure were statistically investigated in the northern hemisphere at the 500 hPa level. Correlation coefficients for daily, monthly and yearly values have confirmed that fluctuations in climate and weather including zonal and meridional circulations, blocking, invasions of arctic air and southern oscillation can be accounted for by the processes in the auroral oval.
2)
In the hypothesis proposed here for explaining Sun-weather relations, downward winds following the geomagnetic storm onset are generated in the polar cap of the thermosphere and penetrate to the stratosphere and troposphere, where the atmospheric response can be observed as a sudden increase of pressure and temperature. . . It is shown that at a time of low geomagnetic activity, planetary waves with large amplitudes prevail in the northern hemisphere due to the orographic effect of the Rocky Mountains and Greenland. On the other hand, at a time of high geomagnetic activity, an intensification of the winds can be observed not only in the thermosphere but also in the troposphere. . . These relations are clearly detectable not only in monthly averages of the pressure and temperature distribution but also in the daily variations of atmospheric circulation. The results obtained contribute also to the study of the occurrence of long-term cyclic changes which were observed both in solar and geomagnetic activity and temperature.
Bucha Sr., and Bucha Sr. & Bucha Jr. e.g.
Advances in Space Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, 1986, Pages 77-82
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 60, Issue 2, January 1998, Pages 145-169
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
This is the link that is working for the talk by Jasper Kirkby at CERN website.
Roland Lucas (07:06:40) :
Re: rbateman (16:56:50) :
The observation: Solar Activity at low to very low levels for an extended period.
: Climate cooling off rather strongly for the same period.
The Science: How this stuff works. Not in by any means. Too many links unknown or in a low state of knowledge.
This how-stuff-works doesn’t seem to have much follow-up. Is there any?….
REPLY:
Thank you for answering this Mr Lucas. There is so much information out there and much of it is never made “public” in the MSM.
Thank you Carsten Arnholm, that was the video I was looking for.
Mr. Alex (01:07:15) :
In 2006, predictions were for a sunspot maximum of 140
In 2004, the prediction was for a maximum of 75:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (08:42:47) :
Mr. Alex (01:07:15) :
In 2006, predictions were for a sunspot maximum of 140
In 2004, the prediction was for a maximum of 75:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Your prediction was for a low SC24, but Hathaway and Dikpathi predicted a high SC24. You were in the minority on the NASA prediction panel.
I suppose if you each put out different predictions, it increases the chances of one of you being right. Then any member of the NASA panel can point to the paper with the correct prediction later. 😉
“Leif Svalgaard (08:42:47) :
Mr. Alex (01:07:15) :
In 2006, predictions were for a sunspot maximum of 140
In 2004, the prediction was for a maximum of 75:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf”
Yes I am well aware of your prediction. Clilverd et al (2006) predicted 42 ± 34 for SC 24 maximum.
And he who shall not be named predicted a weak SC 24 in 2003.
The 2006 prediction of 140 was with reference to NASA’s Hathaway prediction.
I referred to this as Hathaway’s prediction was released by an organisation which many view as the world’s leading authority on the matter, although yes, many other predictions span the entire spectrum.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
Mr. Alex (09:42:38) :
I referred to this as Hathaway’s prediction was released by an organisation which many view as the world’s leading authority on the matter
I think many would not agree with you and you yourself do not believe this, so reference to NASA’s prediction was disingenuous at best. BTW, NASA themselves relies on Schatten and my predictions for the satellite planning.
tallbloke (09:20:14) :
Then any member of the NASA panel can point to the paper with the correct prediction later. 😉
The trick is to be correct for the right reason…
The sun is quieter because its the calm before the storm similar to why the water receeds just before a Tsunami hits. The sun’s energy is like the water in a Tsunami. The enery is pulling back just before a huge energy way hits that is caused by the galactic alignment. As we approach the dark rift in the Milkyway, our solar system is moving into an area of space where there are no stars between the blackhole in the center of the Milkyway and the Earth. Hence, there is no stellar mass to absord and deter the radiation from the blackhole. When this undeterred radiation hits the sun, it is going to excite the molecules of the sun causing extreme solar activity. It happens every 13,000 years and caused the end of the ice age, the mass extinction of large mammals, the end of the Clovis people, and a huge reduction in humans in 11,000BC. See my website that explains it all and how the current US administration and the NWO plan to handle the situation.
Here is the link.
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/about/
“I think this is probably what the Mayans were predicting for 2012, we just botched up correlating their calendar to ours.
But really I need to get into this more, I am a geophysicist, but an honest one I don’t work for the government, I also don’t work for an oil company.”
Western religion may have failed humanity in an as of yet unimagined bigger way since the Spanish monks destroyed 99% of the Mayan texts. Towards the end of each of their calendar cycles they were said to have embraced their calendar destiny as participators. If there really is something bigger in store at the end of this calendar we will have simply shown up to the big feature expecting show tunes. =)
A simple visual inspection of the charted Ap Index starting in 1840 indicates the current Ap minimum is beginning to appear very similar in depth to two others that occurred during the intervening 170 years. The long smoothly-stretched-out decline of the sunspot minimum that occurred about 1879 matches very closely the long, smoothly-stretched-out decline (recently ended?) of Cycle 23. The 1879 sunspot minimum was followed by a maximum peak that was abnormally low, and a period of global cooling occurred after 1879. I have previously predicted a maximum peak for Cycle 24 of less than 70, maybe even less than 50. The Ap minimum of around 1901 was also low, but was not preceded by a long smoothly-stretched-out decline such as the one that ended in 1879. The exceptionally low current Ap value highlighted by the “1” drawn on the chart may be a wild point, but it will be interesting to see if the chart’s smoothed value over the next few months also resembles that of 1879.
Leif Svalgaard (09:48:34) :
I just updated the EUVI color composites last night into the folder on your site. Looks like your prediction based on Active Regions is coming along nicely.
How’s L&P doing with the last month’s batch of spots?
Leif Svalgaard (20:21:25) “Solar eclipses have the opposite effect and are also excluded. Ap is meant to measure only effects we with reasonable certainty can ascribe to the solar wind [possibly modulated by the tilt of the Earth’s magnetic axis].”
Valuable notes.