David Archibald writes in an email to WUWT:
The AGU Fall meeting has a session entitled “Aspects and consequences of an unusually deep and long solar minimum”. Two hours of video of this session can be accessed: http://eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.html
Two of the papers presented had interesting observations with implications for climate. First of all Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. He had said previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years. This is his last slide:
McCracken gave a paper with its title as per this slide:
While he states that it is his opinion alone and not necessarily held by his co-authors, he comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is most likely:
Solar Cycle 24 is now just over a year old and the next event on the solar calendar is the year of maximum, which the green corona brightness tells us will be in 2015.
Leif Svalgaard (22:01:22) :
davidmhoffer (21:41:57) :
But don’t for a second believe that “only 1 watt” variance from TSI is insignificant in the long term.
A 1 Watt difference in TSI would indeed raise the temperature a very significant 0.05K.>
My point being Leif, that if 1 watt from TSI is pretty much insignificant than 1.4 watts from CO2 is pretty much insignificant. I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong, I’m saying that they are in the same order of magnitude. If one attributes major effects to one, then so to the other. If the effects of one are minor, so too are the other. The only way this isnt true is if the measurements and estimates are wrong and in reality they are different orders of magnitude.
By far the best (interesting, educational, entertaining) thread I’ve read in a great while. Thank you all (even Robert 😉 ).
View from the Solent (05:06:07) : So it is not surprising that knowledge has never been hidden but rejected. Men of old, perhaps from thousand of years ago, knew the universal laws and this knowledge is open to everyone, but we stubbornly prefer to complicate things up. Remember Pitagoras ask for a slave prisoner to be release so to demonstrate he also could demonstrate his theorem, and he did it?
The precondition to learning is NOT knowing. If one already “knows” everything then one is filled to the rim. The eternal play of forces:Remembering is only possible after one forgets, in order to get a result forces should be separated by a gap, call it a lever, a potential difference or love, it´s the same.
>>>Leif Svalgaard (12:23:52) :
>>>Whether we’ll have a Dalton Minimum remains to be
>>seen. And any cooling may depend [as it did back then]
>>on suitable volcanic eruptions: 2009GL040882.pdf 🙂
So Solar minimums and their low temperatures are always coincident with volcanic eruptions – eh. Leif?
Convenient…
.
Pascvaks 5:28:52. Well, Maurice Strong is now in China. Beyond that small fact, I’ve difficulty following the Great Game. But for sure it is being played without the interests of the mass of humanity at the fore.
=====================================
>>>rbateman (13:28:55) :
>>“This is what the Mayans were so worried about
>>for 2012: The world isn’t coming to an end, reason
>>is coming to an end.”
.
The Mayans and Egyptians were all believers in astrological epochs, driven by the precession of the equinox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession
In the classical 12-month zodiac, the constellations change every 2,160 years or so, which is known as the Great Month. Twelve of these months made a full 25,700 revolution of the precessional equinox, and was known as the Great Year.
Momentous events were always supposed to happen on the change of the Great Month. The last change happened in about AD10, when Aries changed into Pisces (when viewed at the dawn Vernal Equinox). That is why the great king of this era was born as a Lamb of God but became a Fisher of Men.
This is also why Alexander the Great always wore the horns of the ram, because he was a King of Aries.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l4cIVPitpyo/ShnQxMwFFZI/AAAAAAAAA2c/_6RM5zQqxFY/s400/alexander+the+great.jpg
Most of these traditions are astrological, as are the Mayan Prophesies.
.
Leif Svalgaard (04:11:42) :
Thank you for the link. How is the earth’s Earth’s main dipole strgenth determined over the time period in the link you kindly provided, As to the background cosmic ray strgenth and how it varies relatve to our position in the galaxy, how is this history quantified, and can the future of it be predicted?
Thanks in advance.
JonesII (05:14:00) :
However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly. […]
So, we are approaching an unexpected explanation of solar activity.
If it fits perfectly, you shouldn’t have a problem.
Pascvaks (06:04:39) :
The Sun has such minor variation that it appears to be something else driving the glacial/interglacial cycles.
Variations of the orbital elements of the Earth explains those cycles even with a constant Sun.
tallbloke (06:33:25) :
I think this accounts for the extra energy which went into the oceans to cause ocean heat content to rise from the ’40’s onwards to the ’90’s. Shorter minima, higher amplitudes.
Except does not account for the increase from 1900 to 1950 which was equally strong, or the cold 18th century when solar activity was as great as it has been recently.
davidmhoffer (06:59:08) :
If the effects of one are minor, so too are the other.
and so they both are.
JonesII (07:09:13) :
Men of old, perhaps from thousand of years ago, knew the universal laws
So your knowledge is on the level of science reached thousands of years ago…
Ralph (07:55:47) :
So Solar minimums and their low temperatures are always coincident with volcanic eruptions – eh. Leif?
Convenient…
There is a but of circular reasoning in this. The record that we use to gauge solar activity in the past is contaminated by volcanic eruptions, so some of the coincidence has a natural explanation.
David (08:27:04) :
Thank you for the link. How is the earth’s Earth’s main dipole strgenth determined over the time period in the link you kindly provided, As to the background cosmic ray strgenth and how it varies relatve to our position in the galaxy, how is this history quantified, and can the future of it be predicted?
We can measure the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field by measuring the magnetism of pottery shards and lava streams. You have probably heard about the proof of plate tectonics being the magnetized strips of lava found on either sides of mid-ocean ridges.
We cannot predict the change of the Earth’s field. It is now decreasing [15% the past 200 years] and there are some speculation that it may decline to near zero and reverse in about a thousand years, but that is still speculation at this point.
Stephen Wilde (05:39:22) :The interaction mechanism seems to be the one presented by Earl Happ:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/solar-warming-solar-cooling/
Manifestly, the engine of climate change is in the tropics. Here, energy gain from solar radiation exceeds emission via radiation. The energy gain, more at some times than others, is transferred to high latitudes by the ocean and the atmosphere. To understand climate change we have to understand the Southern Oscillation that governs the warming and cooling of the tropics and also how that oscillation changes over time. The suns total irradiance varies by 0.1% over the solar cycle and is out of step with the observed change in surface temperature. At the height of the sunspot cycle a La Nina cooling event is frequently experienced. Plainly, the temperature of the Earth is unrelated to the sunspot cycle. However, there is a second mode of variation in solar activity that is deterministic. This is the Quasi Biennial Oscillation.
Leif Svalgaard (08:38:06) :
Pascvaks (06:04:39) :
Q=The Sun has such minor variation that it appears to be something else driving the glacial/interglacial cycles.(?)
A=Variations of the orbital elements of the Earth explains those cycles even with a constant Sun.
_________________________
Follow up please: Where are we vis-a-vis the cycles? All the talk of sunspots and AGW has thrown me off (if I ever really knew). Are we yet on our bumpy way down the mountain to the deep cold of the next glacial period? Or is there still time (say another millenium) for humanity to get in a little more fun and games in the far north and far south of the planet before we head back to the caves around the Equator?
Pascvaks (09:01:25) :
Are we yet on our bumpy way down the mountain to the deep cold of the next glacial period?
Yes we are, but it will take 100,000 years to hit the bottom, so lots of time for fun and games.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png
E.M.Smith (02:58:36) : “Ok, so while the TSI in W/M^2 is dropping, the radiative “W/M^2″ is somehow increasing?! WoW! Please elaborate! WHERE do these added W/M^2 come from?”
This is not what I said…I said changes (up or down) in radiative forcing can be amplified given the Svensmark theory, i.e. small changes in solar activity up or down can amplify cosmic ray flux up or down [solar geomagnetic activity up -> cosmic ray flux down & vice-versa], via the mechanism of cloud cover nucleation [cosmic rays up -> cloud cover up -> temperature down & vice versa].
Coincident with the current longest & quietest solar magnetic minimum over the past 8 solar cycles, cosmic ray counts at Oulu Finland are 4-5% higher than ever recorded since the station began monitoring April 1964:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S3pELn4kTqI/AAAAAAAAAyU/Tn4vbpRgpYY/s1600-h/Fullscreen+capture+2152010+110423+PM.jpg
Also meant to mention that during a typical solar cycle, cosmic ray counts increase by ~25% at solar magnetic minimums, cosmic ray counts are ~linearly related to cloud cover, and global cloud cover is inversely ~linearly related to global temperature. Thus, although TSI only changes 0.1% during a solar cycle, solar magnetic activity changes produce an amplified effect on cosmic ray counts.
Ninderthana (02:44:43) :
I agree, the term “sophist” is apropos:
Sophist: Any of a class of later Greek teachers of rhetoric and philosophy known for their over subtle and often misleading arguments.
Leif Svalgaard (04:11:42) presents a TSI value, “1361 W/m2”, Evans (23:06:34) quoted from a NASA press release for increased TSI between solar minimum and solar maximum.
Let’s put the TSI value given by NASA in its proper context by supplying the full NASA quote:
“At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.”
“Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
“Add it all up and you get a lot of energy,”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm
Dr. Svalgaard, after presenting the NASA TSI value, then juxtaposed Evans’ statement: “And, the Sun is electrical in nature.”
Then Dr. Svalgaard responded: “I see, the light bulb in my office lamb says ‘120 Watt’ on it and must be ‘electrical’ in nature. The Sun also radiates ‘Watts’, so is clearly also electrical in nature.”
This is an example of sophism:
Of course, the TSI value given by NASA is a reference to increased energy as expressed in Watts per square meter. This is not “electrical in nature” and I never claimed it as such, I presented the NASA quote for the information it contained therein:
“Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
What I did present to demonstrate the electrical nature of the Sun was two Scientific papers:
Partial abstract:
“This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
Partial abstract:
“We present a method for measuring electrical currents enclosed by flux rope structures that are ejected within solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs).”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4210
And two NASA press releases:
One on twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the Sun:
“The long-sought clue to prediction lies in changes in twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the sun in the days leading up to a flare, according to the authors. The findings will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters next month.”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100119_solarflare.html
And, one on twisting magnetic fields that give shape to CME’s:
“Vourlidas says he is not surprised that CMEs resemble French pastries. ‘I have suspected this all along. The croissant shape is a natural result of twisted magnetic fields on the sun…’”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/14apr_3dcme.htm
So, it’s misleading to imply I relied the NASA value for increased TSI to justify my statement that the “Sun is electrical in nature.”
Dr. Svalgaard then responds: “Material flowing across solar magnetic field lines generates electrical currents that quickly dissipates in various explosive ways. Same thing happens near the Earth. The presence of such events does not make anything ‘electrical in nature’ as they are just short-lived consequences, rather than fundamental constituents. You something mentioned that 99.9% of the Universe is electrically neutral plasma. This is incorrect, only 4.4% of the Universe is baryonic and capable of even being a plasma.”
The above quote has several misleading statements:
“Material flowing across solar magnetic field lines generates electrical currents that quickly dissipates in various explosive ways.”
Yes, I agree that “electrical currents” are generated at the Sun (and so do the two papers I cited) and, indeed, electrical discharges do dissipate, but not without significant effect: Coronal mass ejections have a significant impact on Earth and Man’s technologies — that’s why CME’s are being studied — and CME’s are a significant aspect and physical phenomenon of the Sun’s dynamics.
And, as the both papers suggest, CME’s are an electromagnetic phenomenon.
“Same thing happens near the Earth.”
Yes, electric currents called Birkeland currents flow down to the Earth’s magnetic poles and cause the auoras at regular intervals which, again, can impact Man’s technologies — it’s why NASA is studying the process, beyond the purely scientific desire to understand the physical process for its own sake.
“The presence of such events does not make anything ‘electrical in nature’ as they are just short-lived consequences, rather than fundamental constituents.”
The electrical currents are consequences of fundamental physical processes of the Sun and it’s interaction with the Earth. Electromagnetism is a fundamental component of the Sun’s plasma physical relationships.
“You something mentioned that 99.9% of the Universe is electrically neutral plasma. This is incorrect, only 4.4% of the Universe is baryonic and capable of even being a plasma.”
Actually, this is what Evans (20:15:44) stated: “…the Universe is dominated by plasma (99.9% of the observable Universe is plasma) and accordingly the observable Universe is dominated by plasma’s electromagnetic phyiscal relationships.”
And, Indeed, the observable Universe is 99.9% plasma.
Dr. Svalgaard’s statement, “only 4.4% of the Universe is baryonic and capable of even being a plasma,” assumes the presence of “dark matter” and “dark energy” which neither have been observed & measured. In Dr. Svalgaard’s Universe 95.6% of the Universe has never been observed & measured.
But that isn’t the real Universe: It only exists in Dr. Svalgaard’s imagnination.
Richard M: “The internet has become the table.”
Colour me sceptical on that one. The internet has certainly changed the discourse, and is a wonderful source of information at our fingertips.
Unfortunately, it is also a woeful source of misinformation, and often, sheer noise. The MSM has its faults, but its gatekeeping structures and accountability to the wider community serve to keep it honest in a way that is not possible on the internet.
Interestingly, the MSM is also morphing, both reflecting and critically examining what happens on the internet. So I don’t think the future is either internet or MSM, but rather a combination of the two.
Mark Sawusch (09:20:17) :
Coincident with the current longest & quietest solar magnetic minimum over the past 8 solar cycles, cosmic ray counts at Oulu Finland are 4-5% higher than ever recorded since the station began monitoring April 1964
It is very hard to maintain a constant calibration of a neutron monitor over such a long time. And Oulu is not doing such a good job at it. Cosmic rays are measured at many other stations and they don’t see any such high counts. E.g. http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
or Thule: http://www.leif.org/research/Thule-Neutron-Monitor.png
or Moscow: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux-Moscow.png
The following will be an astounding “Litmus paper test” for the current minimum:
A salt lake in Argentina will fill again with water if in a solar minimum. There are historical records and geological/palentological records that it happened so before:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m11m129238u61484/
Here you can see this lake:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=salinas+del+bebedero&hl=es&ei=b9N6S6WNHYTmiAO48b3_BA&ie=UTF8&view=map&cid=10411604023318932519&iwloc=A&ved=0CBQQpQY&sa=X
Any time soon: A lake confirming a Dalton Minimum.
James F. Evans (10:11:37) :
The electrical currents are consequences of fundamental physical processes of the Sun
Indeed, as I have said repeatedly. Just like the electrical current from a wall outlet is a consequence of a fundamental physical process [at your local power station], namely moving a conductor in a magnetic field.
And, Indeed, the observable Universe is 99.9% plasma.
[…] assumes the presence of “dark matter” and “dark energy” which neither have been observed & measured.
Dark Matter is very much observed by its gravitational effect. Here http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011007.html you can observe it yourself.
James F. Evans 10:11:37
Hyperbole does not become you. Surely that universe exists in other minds besides Leif’s.
=========================================
James F. Evans (10:11:37) :
Add to all you said the connection to earth’s climate:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/solar-warming-solar-cooling/
James F. Evans (10:11:37) :
When kids we were told Comets were made of Icecream and the Moon made of Cheese. As time passed and we grew up we discovered that it was not like that…
Those were the days, when following an old italian tradition we pledged to the moon, raising a silver coin before our eyes and saying: “Luna, Luna, porta fortuna” (Moon, Moon, bring us fortune)
Dr S offers proof of dark matter by showing gravitational lensing in Abell 2218:
”
However, when we look at the APOD for Abell 1689, we find this statement:
You see the visible matter is hardly sufficient and only accounts for 1% of the mass needed to give a lensing effect. The gravitational mass is introduced in the form of dark matter. “Still mysterious dark matter.” Dr S offers as evidence lensing, which requires dark matter as proof that the lensing has occured.
Mark wrote:
“cosmic ray counts are ~linearly related to cloud cover,”
Most scientists don’t think so. The papers that purported to show such a connection are characterized by “dubious manipulation of data in order to suit [the author’s] hypothesis.” See an extensive discussion of the issue here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11651-climate-myths-its-all-down-to-cosmic-rays.html
David (08:27:04) :
“As to the background cosmic ray strength and how it varies relatve to our position in the galaxy, how is this history quantified, and can the future of it be predicted?”
I have a link here; Shaviv and Veizer;
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf