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.
If Tallbloke’s theory about the link between Oceanic energy release and low solar activity is correct then no wonder we are seeing such high levels of energy release (and thus energy-loss) from the oceans worldwide right now.
I shudder to think what would happen as a result of that in coming years as we might see our first single digit high since 1990 tomorrow, I’d really not want to see how much colder it could get because of how his theory is being proven and the Sun being so quiet magnetically.
“Data from the Ulysses spacecraft, a joint NASA-European Space Agency mission, show the sun has reduced its output of solar wind to the lowest levels since accurate readings became available.”
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-178
“In 2007, Ulysses made its third rapid scan of the solar wind and magnetic field from the sun’s south to north pole. When the results were compared with observations from the previous solar cycle, the strength of the solar wind pressure and the magnetic field embedded in the solar wind were found to have decreased by 20 percent. The field strength near the spacecraft has decreased by 36 percent. ”
The Ulysses mission is now over. Don’t know if any other organisation is measuring the power of the Solar Wind, but it Svensmark’s theory proves to be correct I think it’ll be very important to know.
So the AGW theory is that CO2 acts like an insulating blanket in the troposphere absorbing infrared radiation that the earth is trying to radiate out to space … But doesn’t that same CO2 material also absorb incoming solar irradiance in the exact same infrared spectrum and then radiate it when possible towards a cooler area, (usually outerspace), long before that heat/energy can reach the surface of the earth? And for the Tropospheric CO2 to ever be able to radiate that extra heat/energy towards the earth, the earth or its lower atmospheres MUST be cooler than the troposphere, (2nd law of thermodynamics – Heat/energy can only radiate/migrate towards a cooler mass) … Does anyone know how often the earth’s surface or at least the lower levels of the atmosphere/troposphere are cooler than the higher levels of the atmosphere/troposphere to allow this “downward” transfer of heat/energy? … (Being a pilot and observing altitude – temperature differences, my guess is not very damned often!) … Anyway … the greater the CO2 loading, the less direct infrared heat/energy that reaches the earth from the sun in the first place. Seems logical to think that this absorption of energy is just as likely to occur as the absorption of the reflected energy from the earth’s surface … and just as unlikely to radiate that heat/energy downward. I’ve read a lot about AGW in the past decade, but I do not recall seeing this issue addressed to any significant, (to my satisfaction anyway), level.
Ap index measurement and data:
http://www.nwra.com/spawx/ap.html
http://www-app3.gfz-potsdam.de/kp_index/quicklook.html
“Variation of Geomagnetic Activity Since 1844”
http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/3/1/4
Graph shows yearly-average aa index 1844 to 1997.
Note the decline during the 60’s. Just coincidence but not long after that I believe a few people were talking about the next iceage.
The video of the major briefing by Jasper Kirkby on the Cloud experiment is at:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073
There is a more recent short update also available. Just go the the CERN Website and access the video library.
How do constantly improving equipment and observations effect the Solar geomagnetic index measurements?
How can we say with confidence that it hasn’t been this low before?
I’m very confused by this story.
According to SPIDR, AP is a planetary index, not a solar index. It’s not clear to me how that would affect sunspots.
Looking forward to some informed clarification.
http://spidr.ngdc.noaa.gov/spidr/help.do?group=geomInd
There have been a couple of threads on the SolarCycle24.com boards discussing the extremely lower measurements of the aa index and the solar wind:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=895
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=956
In this second thread, started by yours truly, Dr. Svalgaard downplayed the prospects for doom and gloom: “In 1901 the solar wind was equally low for an extended period, so we are returning to conditions of 108 years ago. So, been there, done that… “.
So, I quit worrying. ; )
Is there any data on how this measure would correlate with any of the historical temperature records?
The energy in the magnetic field of the solar wind is 10 million times less that of the constant sunlight (1366 ± 0.5 W/m²). Thus is seems reasonable that our sun is not the origin of climate change. Note however that a perfectly constant sun can initiate substantial oscillations here on earth, just like reaction diffusion systems can oscillate without a varying driving force:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_diffusion
This system displays a wide range of oscillatory behaviours, including the formation of travelling waves and wave-like phenomena as well as other self-organized patterns like stripes, hexagons or more intricate structure like dissipative solitons.
Our climate with its known negative feedback mechanisms may thus be random walk between an infinite number of unstable and unpredictable limit cycles…
OT
EPA proposes stronger smog standards
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-epa-smog-rules8-2010jan08,0,7163115.story
“JonesII (11:37:40) :
[…]
http://www-app3.gfz-potsdam.de/kp_index/quicklook.html
”
Great link, thanks. It’s zero right now!!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/6947865/Snow-sculptures-Daily-Telegraph-readers-get-creative.html?image=7
Snow roll(ers) in the UK. Looks like a South of France climate to me for sure!
Quick! hide the decline
I do not think that anyone is sure of what implications this has for the future of our climate.
Well, I guess that means we’ll have another year of no openings on the HF bands… I hope I can get a top-band dipole up…
When previous events of low Solar Ap Index occur, did global temperatures also decrease? If so, was there a time delay?
Since the atmosphere is currently less ‘inflated’ due to lower Solar UV output as compared to what a more active sun would do, does the atmosphere shed heat at a different rate?
My assumption is that the mean free path for radiative cooling is shorter when the solar UV output is lower and that should cause heat to remain trapped longer before radiating into space. And, with a more swollen UV heated atmosphere, the mean free path is longer allowing faster cooling.
Please help my brain gap and thanks in advance! GV
Britain today. Snow, snow and more snow!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6947586/Snow-covers-Britain-from-head-to-toe.html
This might be the video. Watch all six parts of the Cloud Mystery
[quote]The energy in the magnetic field of the solar wind is 10 million times less that of the constant sunlight (1366 ± 0.5 W/m²). Thus is seems reasonable that our sun is not the origin of climate change. [/quote]
Surely you must realize by now that no one is claiming it’s the W/m² of the magnetic field that’s affecting the climate.
It’s the magnetism of the magnetic field that affects the climate. It repels charged particles (cosmic rays) that affect cloud cover. Changes in the magnetic field change the number of charged particles that hit the Earth, and therefore change the rate of cloud formation.
It’s the clouds that change the Earth’s climate, as you can dee in this graph: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1NlR71q69vA/Sz2wiWo5zRI/AAAAAAAAAI0/cRqnskrkX9Y/s1600-h/chart.png
Mike O’Kelly,
” But doesn’t that same CO2 material also absorb incoming solar irradiance in the exact same infrared spectrum and then radiate it when possible towards a cooler area.”
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.
“And for the Tropospheric CO2 to ever be able to radiate that extra heat/energy towards the earth, the earth or its lower atmospheres MUST be cooler than the troposphere, (2nd law of thermodynamics – Heat/energy can only radiate/migrate towards a cooler mass)”
No. The 2nd law of thermodynamics refers only to heat, not energy. Radiation is absolutely not heat and is agnostic as to where it is goes. Although is may seem counter intuitive, radiation from a cooler area will be transmitted to a warmer area. However, this does not lead to the cooler area becoming still cooler. If that were to happen, then heat would effectively have transferred from a cooler to a warmer area, and that WOULD be against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The reason this cannot happen is because the warm area is also radiating into the cooler area, and because it has higher energy, it is radiating more than the cooler body. Therefore, the net flow is from the warmer to the cooler body such that the cooler gets warmer, which is in accordance with the 2nd law. The presence however, of the downward radiation from the cooler area, being opposite to the upward radiation, means that the net flux going out, is at a slightly low rate than it would otherwise be without the presence of the radiating cooler area. That is what is meant by the greenhouse effect and its effect is tiny compared with incoming solar radiation.
“Mike O’Kelly (11:32:46) :
So the AGW theory is that CO2 acts like an insulating blanket in the troposphere absorbing infrared radiation that the earth is trying to radiate out to space … But doesn’t that same CO2 material also absorb incoming solar irradiance in the exact same infrared spectrum and then radiate it when possible towards a cooler area, (usually outerspace), long before that heat/energy can reach the surface of the earth?”
No. IR from the sun is shortwave. It goes downward right through.
The backradiated IR is longwave – longer than a micron i think.
” And for the Tropospheric CO2 to ever be able to radiate that extra heat/energy towards the earth, the earth or its lower atmospheres MUST be cooler than the troposphere, (2nd law of thermodynamics – Heat/energy can only radiate/migrate towards a cooler mass)”
Take care. Thermodynamics were invented before Quantum dynamics. In general you are right but it is about the balance: Imagine two blocks of iron, one red hot and one white hot next to each other. The red hot block will receive more energy from the white hot than vice versa, so the law of thermodynamics is fulfilled. Yet each one still radiates to the other, its only that the white hot block sends out higher energy radiation.
A highlevel thermodynamical discussion is Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory. There’s a discussion thread on WUWT about him:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/26/debate-thread-miskolczi-semi-transparent-atmosphere-model/
Mike O’Kelly (11:32:46), that’s a misapplication of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A photon emitted from a molecule of CO2 doesn’t know and doesn’t care if it’s headed toward a warm or cool body. If it’s absorbed by the target, it transfers its energy whether the target is white hot or icy cold. Of course net transfer will be from warmer to cooler bodies.
Atmospheric water also absorbs incoming IR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The incoming solar energy not absorbed by the atmosphere and not reflected by the surface warms the earth and its oceans. The warm earth radiates IR energy, some of which is absorbed by various gasses (mostly water and CO2) on the way out.
I strongly recommend Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse” post as a simple model of radiative warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/