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.
Ralph (20:34:06) :
“>>>Please add to this ‘top of the head’ list.
Ok, you forgot the jetstreams…”
Reply: Many thanks for providing another item. Now on the list 🙂
Triggers for cool-mode climate – happening now.
Low latitude jet stream 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.
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.
kwik (10:51:59) :
Leif gives us this link to prove that Solar activity isnt very well matched to global Temperatures,
-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?)
The graphs shows that solar cycle LENGTH [blue] is not matched with temperature [pink] averaged over each cycle. CRU data is good enough for this. Other series don’t make any difference, and CRU data was claimed to be matched to length. The green curve is the detrended temperature curve.
And it tells a totally different story. Looking very interesting to me.
It tells a different story because it shows a different thing, namely solar ACTIVITY or rather TSI. We would EXPECT about a 0.1 degree dependence so the story is qualitatively what we expect. I can live with a factor two amplification.
My graph was intended to show that the much quoted dependence on solar length is not supported by the data.
As an apple grower..in my industry…usually we may expect 10 to 15 % damage every 5 years. We have had 140 % (total loss) over an eight state area 2007-2009. I had suspected, since the early 90’sthat this cold snap was coming (solar minimum!)……but what I really want to know….and I just got off Romm’s site…..is how come Leif gets to have the tech both ways……go read his statements…..ban me from this site perhaps…..but I have trouble with his science. Dr Jack Bailey……I’m a doc too and not easily badgered into submission!!
As an apple grower..in my industry…usually we may expect 10 to 15 % damage every 5 years. We have had 140 % (total loss) over an eight state area 2007-2009. I had suspected, since the early 90’sthat this cold snap was coming (solar minimum!)……but what I really want to know….and I just got off Romm’s site…..is how come Leif gets to have the tech both ways……go read his statements…..ban me from this site perhaps…..but I have trouble with his science. Dr Jack Bailey……I’m a doc too and not easily badgered into submission!!
Reading all the posts here one has to come to a single conclusion.
There are so many factors affecting climate that the science can not possibly be settled.
Leif, I have an analysis that may contradict your result of no connection between temps and solar activity. Like you, I used CRU temps; I also used SSN data, and I did a delta-T (cross-correlogram) analysis. The results are… interesting, although the correlation is fairly weak. The time lag appears to be about 2 years, or maybe 2-6 years, depending on which of two plots you trust most. If the recent flurry of sunspots (and the uptick in Ap – it’s now recovered to 8) turns out to be the much-awaited onset of SC24 proper, then it’ll be interesting to see what the weather’s like in 2012 and ’13.
Anyway, the link: http://dev-null.chu.cam.ac.uk/htm/soundandfury/110110-more_climate.htm
Reactions?
CO2 is a marker…..sunspots are markers…..not THE event!
Sound and Fury (19:16:58) :
Leif, I have an analysis that may contradict your result of no connection between temps and solar activity.
One of problems here is the loose use of words and concepts. There is no doubt that solar output [TSI] has a solar cycle effect upon temperature. There is also no doubt that it is small [of the order of 0.05-0.2 degree – I have admitted rather wide limits here to give everybody the benefits of the doubt – which is near the limit of what we can measure – remember all the people whining about how meaningless a global temperature is. What my graph showed was that there is no correlation between solar cycle length and temperature, in spite of so many claims [e.g. Friis-Christensen & Lassen].
Jack the apple grower (18:47:26) :
I’m a doc too and not easily badgered into submission!!
Jack, people should believe what they are comfortable with, even if it is believing that storks deliver babies. Submission is for politics.
Here’s my latest effort which attempts to link effects on the tropospheric temperature via the oceanic PDO and variations in solar activity on the Arctic Oscillation which may well respond to solar induced variations in the rate of energy loss from atmosphere to space:
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Winter20092010.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (22:17:49) : “One of problems here is the loose use of words and concepts. There is no doubt that solar output [TSI] has a solar cycle effect upon temperature. There is also no doubt that it is small [of the order of 0.05-0.2 degree”
Who’s talking about TSI? Sure, TSI has an effect – a small one – but that’s not the only way the solar cycle could effect temperature changes. Changes in induced geomagnetism, that sort of thing, perhaps affecting clouds and thence albedo… you can’t dismiss the possibility just because you don’t like it; and the correlation peaks between SSN and CRUtem in my delta-T plots are fairly significant. If, as you claim, the effect of TSI is minimal – and you’re probably right – then something else has to be at work to produce these correlations, or do you claim that they’re spurious?
Leif, two questions: 1. Do you accept my findings that there exists an effect stronger than simple TSI changes could explain? 2. If so, what explanation (if any) do you offer?
If the answer to (1) is No, then I’d very much like to hear why – I’m always willing to learn!
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (22:17:49) :
“Jack, people should believe what they are comfortable with, even if it is believing that storks deliver babies. Submission is for politics.”
Arrogance, personal insults, and claims of widespread “consensus” opinions may not succeed in manipulating the instinctive herd instinct of a society that is now shivering in cold and remembering the climate predictions of Nobel Laureates who quite obviously didn’t know their _______ from their elbow.
Sound and Fury (04:15:56) :
Changes in induced geomagnetism, that sort of thing, perhaps affecting clouds and thence albedo… you can’t dismiss the possibility just because you don’t like it
No good scientist ever does that. Dismissals are based on science, not personal dislikes. When looking for causes, the energy involved with any purported causative agent is one of the most important considerations, and the energy in induced geomagnetism is not sufficient. The energy in ‘that sort of thing’ can only be estimated when the ‘thing’ has been specified more precisely.
do you claim that they’re spurious?
Yes. And that makes your questions moot. But my claim could be overthrown if a lot more data backs up your correlation. Data we may have several centuries down the road.
Sound and Fury, what would you say if you found an even better plot fit between temp and something else other than Sun sources? Have you compared your findings with Joe D’Aleo’s work on SST?
Ultraviolet radiation from the Sun varies with a much greater amplitude than the TSI and has a significant effect on the atmosphere. The effect is sufficient to expand the atmosphere during periods of increased solar activity to the point where it dramatically brings down low orbit satellites (Sky Lab and many others) prematurely. An expansion of the atmosphere during times of increased solar activity would essentially ‘thin’ the atmosphere, whereby incident solar radiation does not have to pass through as much atmospheric mass. This should allow greater transmission of the TSI.
Could such a mechanism appease the Solar Terrestrial Influence Society as well as the Flat TSI Society?
David Reese (09:32:06) :
whereby incident solar radiation does not have to pass through as much atmospheric mass. This should allow greater transmission of the TSI.
I think the mass of the atmosphere remains constant and the total number of absorbing or scattering molecules would remain the same, or from which reservoir would you assume the atmospheric mass is replenished from?
Leif, I also think that the mass of the atmosphere remains constant; however, that is not the point. Expanding a constant mass atmosphere in a three dimensions reduces the mass that a cross section of sunlight passes through in two dimensions.
David Reese (09:49:40) :
Expanding a constant mass atmosphere in a three dimensions reduces the mass that a cross section of sunlight passes through in two dimensions.
Because the extent of the atmosphere is so much smaller than the Earth combined with the fact that the density decreases by a factor of a thousand for each 50 km you go up, makes the difference infinitesimal. Try to put some numbers to your proposal and calculate the decrease in TSI and you’ll see.
Leif Svalgaard (08:12:46) : “When looking for causes, the energy involved with any purported causative agent is one of the most important considerations, and the energy in induced geomagnetism is not sufficient.”
It took me a while to spot it, but I see the flaw in your argument. The point is, we’re not talking about energy /in a closed system/, we’ve got that massive stream of energy coming from the Sun, and anything that modulates that is going to have an effect seemingly disproportionate to the energy of the original oscillations.
It’s sort of like a transistor – you only need a few mV on the base to get a big swing on the collector. (Assuming you’re using a common-emitter configuration, of course)
However, I agree with you that more data would be nice; the point is, of course, that given our current paucity of data we can’t really come to any firm conclusions, and hence the last thing we want to be doing is throwing money at one hypothesised driver, because frankly the odds of it being the right one are rather too slim for that to be justified.
Sound and Fury (12:13:28) :
we’ve got that massive stream of energy coming from the Sun, and anything that modulates that is going to have an effect seemingly disproportionate to the energy of the original oscillations.
The flaw in that is that it takes a lot of energy to modulate that massive stream. The better argument would be that you can modulate the reception and thereby the effect, like if you are standing in front of a great fire and modulating its effect by drinking ice water, but then the modulation comes from the receiving system, and you have to account for its cause. The glaciations are a great example: even with a constant Sun, changing the orbital parameters of the Earth brings about large swings.
Sound and Fury (12:13:28) :
the last thing we want to be doing is throwing money at one hypothesised driver, because frankly the odds of it being the right one are rather too slim for that to be justified.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but an argument can be made along the following lines: ‘I don’t want to throw money on car insurance, because, frankly, the odds of my having an accident [I have not had one in 50 years of driving] are rather too slim for that to be justified”. Unfortunately, the State of California takes a dim view of my argument and forces me to take out insurance anyway…
Sound and Fury (12:13:28) : It’s sort of like a transistor
Good point. At the moment I do not think solar activity variations control our climate, seems that Dr. Svalgaard has managed to convince me that the solar-cloud connection is not so likely. Still what if a nonlinear transistor like threshold plays an important role? Is that unlikely too Dr. Svalgaard?
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
What is erroneous with the argument that global temperature may be phase shifted 2.78 years relative to the solar cycle?
m∙cp∙dT/dt = Qin – Qout = A∙sin(ω∙t) – σT^4
This could partly explain why cold periods sometimes appear after week solar cycles.
(This is an argument only, not exactly what I think, it’s obviously a speculation because I do not know any better…:-)
Best Regards,
Invariant
Invariant (12:52:24) :
Still what if a nonlinear transistor like threshold plays an important role? Is that unlikely too Dr. Svalgaard?
Like the ‘tipping points’ the AGW crowd is yapping about?
I don’t know.
This gets us into the precautionary principle again. If you point a revolver with one bullet [at some unknown random location] to your head, would you pull the trigger even knowing that you have a 83% chance that nothing happens?
In general, if a system has many interdependent and complicated parts all interacting and the system has been running for some billions of years without a runaway catastrophe, I would deem it unlikely that there a significant threshold effects, but general statements generally [ 🙂 ] don’t carry much weight; the scientist in me says “show me the specific mechanism, and I’ll evaluate that one and base my opinion on that”.
Invariant (13:01:16) :
What is erroneous with the argument that global temperature may be phase shifted 2.78 years relative to the solar cycle?
m∙cp∙dT/dt = Qin – Qout = A∙sin(ω∙t) – σT^4
Perhaps it is because the equation should have been:
m∙cp∙dT/dt = Qin – Qout = A∙sin(ω∙t) – σT(t)^4
and the dependence of T on t is not specified.
Leif Svalgaard (13:05:01) : “show me the specific mechanism, and I’ll evaluate that one and base my opinion on that”.
Excellent! Yes, I too prefer to work with concrete non-nonsense problems, that way it’s easy to compare experiments and theory and test various possibilities. Judging when little or nothing is known is surely more astrology than science. I like this quote forwarded by James Randi,
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
Watson: “This is indeed a mystery,” I remarked. “What do you imagine that it means?”
Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts…