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.
With all due respect to Svensmark’s cloud theory, the current cold spell was not caused by increased cloud cover.
Instead we are witnessing a lowering of the jetstreams (in latitude). Could lowered magnetic activity affect the path of the jestreams in any fashion.
.
>>How is it going with those windfarms in England?,
>>are they working providing green energy to the rather
>>phlegmatic englishmen or in these interesting times they
>>are becoming choleric instead?
Not working at all, actually. Complete waste of space.
http://coastobs.pol.ac.uk/cobs/met/hilbre/getimage.php?from=20091223&span=6&code=5
.
>>>Please add to this ‘top of the head’ list.
Ok, you forgot the jetstreams. This makes:
Low latitude jetstreams in the northern hemisphere.
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.
PDO turning negative.
El Nino conditions weak.
Weak Gulf Stream.
.
>>David Shukman BBC – more bias.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8447262.stm
Yes. What Shukman failed to mention is that the BBC has hailed every single warm day/week/month/year as proof positive of Global Warming, but when we get a cold snap this is just weather.
The Biased Broadcasting Corporation is a joke.
.
Ralph (20:21:30) :
“Could lowered magnetic activity affect the path of the jestreams in any fashion?”
If only we could identify a mechanism. 🙁
rbateman (18:19:02) :
How’s L&P doing with the last month’s batch of spots?
The graph is up-to-date through Jan 3rd: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Still looks on track, in spite of how dark 1039 was.
Leif Svalgaard (21:03:41) :
And the Active Regions have grown quite large compared to the spots they produce.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin9.htm
L&P effect, I presume, is eating away at the contrast, size and number of spots visiible.
rbateman (22:22:01) :
L&P effect, I presume, is eating away at the contrast, size and number of spots visible.
Astronomers are patient people. Their observations stretch back 1000s of years. We shall see what comes of L&Ps. I personally think they are correct.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/LivingstonPenn.PNG
Looking at the damage of lowered contrast from projecting the upper and lower ranges, it looks to me like 1/3 of the spots are now .95 contrast and higher. Somewhere between .95 and 1 a small spot become indistinguishable from a pore. That will surely slice the top off the maximum if it keeps going.
And we haven’t even talked about what it will make the deramp look like.
In Reply to
{
Ralph (20:21:30) :
With all due respect to Svensmark’s cloud theory, the current cold spell was not caused by increased cloud cover.
Instead we are witnessing a lowering of the jetstreams (in latitude). Could lowered magnetic activity affect the path of the jestreams in any fashion.
}
But watch the snow accumulation amounts. Last summer the western Pacific typhoons tended to dump all time record amounts of rain onto Taiwan, the Philippines, eastern coastal China, and Vietnam. I thought that, if this record moisture starts coming down as snow, then the northern hemisphere could be in for a very white winter.
I do not understand the atmospheric circulation of the evaporative tropical moisture. But it does seem reasonable to me to assume that the record rainfalls were due to increased tropical evaporation and not just more cloud formation from GCRs. But either way, it seems reasonable to assume that the same causative factors could lead to more snowfalls this winter, probably record snowfalls.
So the story on the current winter may not be just the cold, arctic air coming farther south, but also the amounts of the snowfalls. Record rains and record snowfalls mean more water is coming out of the atmosphere, but how long could this go on before there was less water vapor in the atmosphere for clouds to condense from regardless of the GCRs? Less clouds would let more radiant energy reach the ocean surfaces, unless there is less radiant energy coming from a magnetically quieter sun, in which case we might have less clouds and still a cooler planet, but with less rain and snowfall due to less evaporation? There are a lot of iffies. I try to develop a simple line of thought and it branches out into all kinds of possibilities. 🙁
Ralph (20:21:30) :
With all due respect to Svensmark’s cloud theory, the current cold spell was not caused by increased cloud cover.
Instead we are witnessing a lowering of the jetstreams (in latitude). Could lowered magnetic activity affect the path of the jestreams in any fashion.
REPLY: This is partly why I raised Bucha and Bucha earlier (see 07:06:40 on 09 January) as the literature presents an auroral oval mechanism impacting on global atmospheric circulation patterns that few if any groups seem to be pursuing.
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
I agree – “Their observations stretch back 1000s of years”.
I wonder if anyone has made “corrections” for the advance in technology in the last 1000 years.
Today’s Telescopes etc I hope are a bit better than “pin hole” scopes from the past.
How much information is available now that would not have appeared 200 years ago.
What effect will a 1000m of Ice have on New York.
2015
Kiss your loved ones goodby
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/sunspots/trend3_strip.jpg
Here is a fun task!!
In a report for the Mid-West, USA, there is a smoothed temperature graph for the State of Illinois (Slide 10). Compare the Ap-Monthly-Averages dips to the temperature in Ill. Specifically 1870-1880, 1900-1910, etc. Also note that the 1930’s had a high average Ap as did the 1960’s. Ap dip in the 1970’s, temperature dip.
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/iswsdocs/wsp/ppt/Exchange_Club_Nov07.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now.png
Note: There appears to be about a 3-5 year lag before the Earth responds.
Also, El Nino, La Nina, AO, and PO, are the “noise” in the system.
Maybe if we used “all of the data”, Ap, Flux, Solar Irradiation, we could see how the Sun actually affects the Earth’s “Climate”.
Cloud cover does not only lower temperature. It moderates temperature extremes. On the warm side, it lowers them, but in wintertime it “raises” temperatures, in a sense, because the blanket of clouds holds warmth in, however little there is to hold in. Clear skies in winter allow more heat to radiate from the surface out into space, dropping temperatures several degrees. Clouds prevent this for the most part, so severe cold tends to happen on clear days or nights.
Re: Dr. Lurtz (08:31:48)
You’ve got something there (not necessarily univariate causation), but I would suggest “3-5 year lag before the Earth responds” is on the wrong track. I suggest conditioning the analysis on the phases of the year, QBO, & AO for starters. (Also, Piers Corbyn suggests eclipses as a factor worthy of consideration, but I haven’t investigated on that front yet.) A comment about one specific feature: You probably noticed the sharp drop followed by a sharp rise ~1930 — that is an “interesting” feature which I’ve found in many time series – (no further comment on that at this time). Perhaps conditional analyses will enable us to ask better questions…
In reply to
{
SteveGinIL (10:37:22) :
… so severe cold tends to happen on clear days or nights.
}
I agree. Weather has so many iffies affecting it that it’s mind numbing. Like you could design a computer model and try to put all different kinds of conditions that you can think of in, and see how the pins line up when you run some simulations. Some influences are stronger than others, but a lot of little weak influences, if working together, might cause a big result. Clear skies are just one factor of many factors.
One might wonder why the current cold air mass is (or has) come so far south out of the arctic bringing freezes to the mid-west and Florida and maybe Cuba etc? That’s not just clear evening skies, that’s the arctic express weather system. Is there more cold air in the arctic than usual now? I don’t know. All I’m saying is that this weather stuff is not simple. Maybe there are some simple rules of thumb, but I haven’t found them yet.
When I looked at the Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now chart posted at
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now.png
it dawned on me as to the possible meaning of this kind of very “spiky” chart. I’ve seen similar spiky charts for entirely different things, like for interest rates for bonds for instance.
For example this chart of 30 year bonds from 1960 to 2000
http://www.sharelynx.com/chartsfixed/BondYield.gif
The only observation I am suggesting is that both charts are really spiky, spiking up, reversing direction and spiking down over and over again, to such an extent that we have to resort to moving averages to try to make sense of them.
It has occurred to me that perhaps the reason these kinds of charts are so spiky is because they measure the resultant of a process that is composed of many, many different elements that tend to flip their direction somewhat uniformly, like electron spins in a magnetic field to try to use an analogy. To put the idea another way, all the various elements are not necessarily firmly wedded together so that they always act as a whole, but they can tend to be linked together in flipping their positions.
Trying to be brief, perhaps such spiky charts are characteristic of certain kinds of complex systems composed of many different contributing elements? Is that a “duh” observation? I guess it sort of is, but I never realized it before.
Gail Combs & others:
There are, perhaps, people who like to be insulted. I am not one of them.
I never commented of Dr. Svalgaard’s scientific notes before, which automatically makes all references to “theorizing” and “Lysenkoism” moot.
To Dr. Svalgaard and his uncritical admirers here I can only repeat what has been already said by the other reader: “You would think that you owned the Sun the way you dismiss anything not on your field of view.”
Hope and change (11:46:53) :
When I looked at the Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now chart […] it dawned on me as to the possible meaning of this kind of very “spiky” chart.
It is spiky because now and huge explosions happen on the Sun and when their debris hits the Earth, the Earth’s magnetic field reacts and a spike results.
Reply to
{
Leif Svalgaard (15:12:19) :
It is spiky because now and huge explosions happen on the Sun and when their debris hits the Earth, the Earth’s magnetic field reacts and a spike results.
}
Thank-you for an interesting site.
The image in my mind is like a boiling pot of plasma and magnetic bubbles rising to the surface and bursting with the number of sunspot explosions depending on how high the burner is turned up 😉
I read somewhere a long time ago, that it might take a million years for a photon of light, created in the interior of the sun, to make its’ way out to the sun’s surface (due to intense collisions on the way out). If so, then might not also the magnetic bubbles that are rising to the surface take a very long time to make the journey from where they initiated to popping on the surface? And if that might be true then that would mean that the surface conditions on the sun that are supposedly influencing the earth today are really the results of the sun’s interior state millions of years ago?
This makes me wonder how can I understand the flipping of the sun’s magnetic field? Do these magnetic flips propagate through the sun’s interior like magnetic waves and then manifest as the exterior solar magnetic field that we observe? That would mean that there were a whole series of magnetic flips in transit through the sun… Another implication is that if scientists are clever enough to figure out what is going on in the interior of the sun by means of sunquakes vibrating through the sun or something, then they might actually be able to predict how & when sunspots will be bursting on the surface. {I know that is a far out idea}
Hope and change (00:53:50) :
then might not also the magnetic bubbles that are rising to the surface take a very long time to make the journey from where they initiated to popping on the surface?
The Sun has a ‘radiative’ core surrounded by a ‘convective’ shell. Energy takes about a quartet million years to work its way out of the core but only a few weeks to traverse the outer shell [because convection is much more efficient than diffusion]. The magnetic field we observe at the surface is thought to be generated in the shell and thus also will rise rapidly in the matter of weeks. In addition plasma threaded by a magnetic field is less dense than without the field [as the field exerts a pressure of its own] and is thus buoyant in itself.
Do these magnetic flips propagate through the sun’s interior like magnetic waves and then manifest as the exterior solar magnetic field that we observe? That would mean that there were a whole series of magnetic flips in transit through the sun
There is some merit to that idea. A problem with the scenario I outlined above is that magnetic field rises too quickly and the solar cycle would thus be very short. For this reason, people put the location for the generation of the field just under the convective shell where matter is convectively stable. And some models do, indeed, assume that two or three cycles worth of field are present at the same time. These models have predicted a very large cycle 24 and are thus a bit in disfavor at the moment [where it looks like SC24 will be small]. See http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf for more on this.
The cooling being experienced now is pretty much global. December 2009 was one of the coldest Decembers on record as also reported here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/coal-creek-redux/#more-14815
Note that in the graphs shown above the tipping point for warming/cooling is apparently in 2003.
Interestingly enough:
1) It is exactly from about this time that the scientists from the university of East Anglia tried to “bend’ the graphs upwards whereas it is clearly going downwards.
2) It is exactly from about this time that ozone started going up and the ozone hole in Antarctica is closing
3) it is exactly from about this time that earth’s albedo (albedo=earth shine) as measured on the moon, increased significantly/
4) I have seen several reports on You tube that revealed that the measurements of temperatures in rural areas in the USA have pretty much stayed constant in the last 9 years, which can also be associated with ‘tipping” (balance) – taking into account a lag time of 3-5 years
coincidence?
I would think not.
As shown previously in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data
ice ages have a better claim on being the natural state of earth’s climate than interglacials. According to the records, we are in fact pretty lucky to be here in this rare, warmer period. The broader lesson is: Climate does not stand still. And global cooling could be on its way.
IT SEEMS TO ME FROM THE FIRST GRAPH IN THIS PRESENTATION THAT THERE IS AGAIN A TIPPING POINT AT 2003 (IF I LOOK AT THE LIGHT BLUE LINE WHICH REPRESENTS THE SMOOTHED MONTHLY VALUES).
What does this mean? Are we going to fall into a small ice age? How will this affect the various continents?
Leif gives us this link to prove that Solar activity isnt very well matched to global Temperatures, and thereby in effect says goodbye to this theory;
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
-I assume the blue curve for the blue axis, Cycle Length Yrs
-I assume the red curve is for the read axis,dTemp degrees;
But where does this data come from? CRU?
If its CRU data, then I choose not to put much weight in it.
-(Whats the green curve?)
But this exist;
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L14703, doi:10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007
And here it is;
http://www.amath.washington.edu/~cdcamp/Pub/Camp_Tung_GRL_2007b.pdf
And it tells a totally different story. Looking very interesting to me.
Not to mention this here; I know correlation does no imply causation, but good grief, these guys has really done their homework;
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf
Lots of indications that Svensmark must push on.