The Beauty of a Near Spotless Sun

Amateur telescope photographer Thierry Legault has gained renown in recent years taking photographs of spacecraft in orbit… from the ground, with them either reflecting sunlight as they cross the terminator, or silhouetted by the moon, or in recent days, silhouetted by a near spotless sun.

ISS and Atlantis Transit the Sun's Face

ISS and Atlantis Transit the Sun's Face

His most recent accomplishment is this solar silhouette of the International Space Station docked with Space Shuttle Atlantis on its STS-132 mission. While many have marvelled at his accomplishment, we’ve heard less about the continuing near-spotless state of the sun in his photograph. This one sunspot region counted enough on May 22nd to make the daily sunspot count be 15!

It appears that the sunspot and 10.7 progression for Solar Cycle 24 have hit a bit of a roadblock in recent months, according to NOAA’s Solar Cycle Progression and Prediction Center.

May 2010 Solar Cycle 24 Progression. Note the slump in recent months.

May 2010 Solar Cycle 24 Progression. Note the slump in recent months.

Advertisements

336 thoughts on “The Beauty of a Near Spotless Sun

  1. I was rather shocked this morning when I noticed that the beautiful new spot in the southern hemisphere had not been numbered and that the spot count was zero!
    Upon closer inspection I noticed an important clue as to why NOAA has ignored this one…
    The polarity is reversed! SC 23/25 polarity!
    Well, we all know that NOAA rarely numbers reverse polarity spots no matter how impressive they may be 😉

  2. Mr. Alex says:
    June 27, 2010 at 4:52 am
    “…..Upon closer inspection I noticed an important clue as to why NOAA has ignored this one…
    The polarity is reversed! SC 23/25 polarity!….”

    ____________________________________________________________________
    I was right SC 24 has already peaked just as Dr. Hathaway predicted! OK, so he was off a little on the strength of cycle 24 but he is spot on about when the solar maximum would occur. /sarc
    Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.
    “Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco…..
    According to their analysis, the next Solar Maximum should peak around 2010 with a sunspot number of 160 plus or minus 25. This would make it one of the strongest solar cycles of the past fifty years—which is to say, one of the strongest in recorded history.
    . [More]
    Their forecast is based on historical records of geomagnetic storms”

  3. Joe Bastardi AccuWeather:
    ANYONE SEE A SUNSPOT?
    http://spaceweather.com/images2010/18jun10/midi512_blank.gif?PHPSESSID=1pq7lkth kmm2jgpge5siu2h1a3
    But look what space weather does with sunspot number…
    Sunspot number: 14
    Now let’s go to my other site…
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
    Scroll down and see what is a spotless sun.
    This is what I am talking about. NASA is beefing up numbers and not measuring in a way where we can use their method to compare to previous cycles. Rewrite and confuse the public. The old method, as they were using back in the last downtime, would never say there was a sunspot. They are picking out what they term a sunspot now.
    It’s like hurricane activity in 1933 and 2005… if we had the data sources we have now, chances are we would have seen many more storms in areas we didn’t. So one has to understand that while we are advancing the way we look at things, we have to take it in context as far as whether the increase/decrease of these things is only because of the fact we can actually see them.
    Ciao for now.
    From http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather

  4. That’s a mighty nice photo, that.
    I love all things extra terrestrial and spacey….
    If we went back in time and you’d told people like HG Wells or Edwin Hubble that we’d send men to the moon in 1969… They’d have said, “But of course!”… What they wouldn’t believe is…. That we never went back.
    Instead, we spend ridiculous amounts of money on pseudoscience that advances politics instead of understanding.
    Ah well. Maybe a new era dawns?

  5. The sun and it’s spots behaved erratically during the Maunder Minimum. Off-On-Off-On — Probably means nothing, but it is not unheard of.
    Going to be fun watching for next decades what really does happen. For once we have some instruments which may be able to unmask some secrets.

  6. @ Stephan:
    Hathaway, with the exception of his first prediction several years ago, is full of it. All his subsequent “predictions” are junk. He should simply admit he hasn’t the foggiest idea what is happening with the sun and admit he doesn’t know. The hubris of the man is beyond comprehension.

  7. This one sunspot region counted enough on May 22nd to make the daily sunspot count be 15!
    The sunspot number is not just a simple count – look up Rudolf Wolf or “Wolf number” for more info on how it’s calculated.

  8. “This one sunspot region counted enough on May 22nd to make the daily sunspot count be 15!”
    If they are able to alter the definition of a ‘single sunspot’ then they will be able to establish negative correlation between sunspots and global temperature.
    If a count of one each day for a year in the past correlated to a cooling and a count of 15 each day in the past correlated to a warming then why does a count of 15 today correlate to a cooling?
    The obvious answer will be that there is no correlation.
    Someone needs to be using the same technology today as was used to create the historical record or else there will be no way to use the current data as an extension of the past without, some ‘adjustments’.
    So who is using the historical method to measure sunspots?
    It is a trap.

  9. The reason why there can be a sunspot and a sunspot number of zero is that the sunspot number is calculated on the previous day while the image is from the present day. There is always a one day lag between the sunspot number and the image depicting it.

  10. That can’t be right. Didn’t the models predict over 150 by now? Seems like some sort of “adjustment” is in order.

  11. I wonder what this Sunspot Number Progression would look like if it were plotted as the sqrt(N/S areas) minus the sqrt(S/N areas) …

  12. Get the impression that the “Little Red Line” is going to move ‘again’, say to peak in ’14 and not ’13? Things could explode and stay on track, but it just doesn’t seem likely; not with SC24’s track record.

  13. If the polarity is reversed, is it SC23 or 25. Has this happened before?
    Does anyone konw?

  14. Mr. Alex says:
    June 27, 2010 at 4:52 am
    The polarity is reversed! SC 23/25 polarity!
    3% of all spots [that is one in about 30] are reversed. This does not mean a SC23 spot [too high latitude for that], and not a Sc25, because that is too far away in time. So, nothing shocking, and NOAA does not the polarity as a reason to not count a spot. They probably didn’t see it [hard so near the limb] or it was not seen by more than one observer, or didn’t meet some of their other criteria [like visible for at least 12 hours].

  15. kim says:
    June 27, 2010 at 9:51 am
    LeanGate, please.
    Judith Lean is a good friend of mine and a good scientist. That the IPCC didn’t involve more scientists on the solar issue is not a negative reflection on Judith. Perhaps it is more a reflection of how much [or how little] the IPCC believe the Sun is important. Lean’s analysis of this subject looks good to me: there is an influence, but it is small [barely detectable – otherwise we would not be discussing it]. The IPCC also did not compose a large team to evaluate the influence of Ceres or Pluto on the Earth…

  16. “David Thomson says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:04 am
    The reason why there can be a sunspot and a sunspot number of zero is that the sunspot number is calculated on the previous day while the image is from the present day. There is always a one day lag between the sunspot number and the image depicting it.”
    The sunspot was actually visible yesterday and acknowledged by SC24.com and from experience and observation since 2008 daily (I am located at GMT +2) if a SC 24 tiny tim is observed the evening before, then the next morning by 6AM it is numbered. This spot is clearly visible.
    This is my past experience, and it is not the first time that this hesitation has happened with a reverse polarity sunspot.
    “Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 10:04 am
    3% of all spots [that is on in about 30] are reversed. This does not mean a SC23 spot [too high latitude for that], and not a Sc25, because that is too far away in time. ”
    I did not state that this was SC 23/25 spot merely that polarity is reversed to appear like SC23/25. Yes, you have mentioned this many times on WUWT however some folks on other blogs (Italian) believe that the number of RP spots in this cycle have exceeded 3%…
    I agree (it is SC 24), I was just pointing out that from experience of daily observation I find that NOAA hesitates in numbering RPS, but tiny tims may be numbered very quickly. Even if they suddenly appear in the morning, they are numbered by midday.
    This morning the spot was clearly visible and the count was zero on SC24.com and as of 15:06 UTC June 27th the spot has STILL not been numbered.

  17. Andrew30 says:
    June 27, 2010 at 7:56 am
    Someone needs to be using the same technology today as was used to create the historical record
    Everybody is doing just that [except the Layman’s Count]
    So who is using the historical method to measure sunspots? It is a trap.
    Everybody is.
    Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:23 am
    For a real eye-opener about the present lack of solar activity
    This paper is cyclomanic junk, IMHO. For people that believe in cycles it may be of some comfort, but it is hardly hard science. Now, scientists are often speculating [out of the box] and there is nothing wrong with that, but we should not see such as more than it is.

  18. “tonyc says:
    June 27, 2010 at 6:14 am
    To Mr. Alex – Where do you find sunspot polarity data?”
    As a layman I refer to the reguarly updated Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) Magnetograms:
    http://gong2.nso.edu/dailyimages/
    Take note of the black/white orientation of the regions on the magnetogram
    27th June 04:55 UTC update of http://www.solen.info/solar/
    indicates that the sunspot was numbered by the solen STAR count on 26th June, whereas the SWPC count is zero.

  19. “…The IPCC also did not compose a large team to evaluate the influence of Ceres or Pluto on the Earth…”
    I didn’t know Pluto was a huge, seething ball of Helium and Hydrogen bubbling away nicely at 5000ºC, the effects of which can be felt by merely stepping out of the shadows. I’ll have to look at that NASA site again; must have missed something.

  20. Leif @ 10:33
    Thank you very much.
    Now, is the 10.7 hitting a ‘roadblock’ and does the IPCC underestimate the sun’s influence? In your opinion, of course.
    ===============

  21. Nevermind, Leif, I think you answered my second question at 10:33.
    One last thing before I risk overly imposing on your Sunday. What do you think of the allegations against Froehlich for data manipulation? See Bishop Hill for a good English translation of the Czech’s blogpost.
    ============

  22. Mr. Alex says:
    June 27, 2010 at 10:43 am
    This is my past experience, and it is not the first time that this hesitation has happened with a reverse polarity sunspot.
    I don’t think this is the case [I know the people at NOAA and how they count – reversed polarity does not create ‘hesitation’]. To bolster your claim, produce a list of cases.
    however some folks on other blogs (Italian) believe that the number of RP spots in this cycle have exceeded 3%…
    Again, the way to settle this is to produce a list. When SC23 ‘ended’ the NOAA region count was 11008. Now it is 11084, for a difference of 72. 3% of that is 2 spots, so statistically we should have had 2 reversed spots [and with so few spots that could easily be 1 or 3 as well]. Now, we need to be more precise: we should talk about the active ‘region’ rather than of individual spots. It is only with respect to the region of several spots [some leading and some trailing] that ‘reversed’ polarity makes sense. If what you got is a single spot, you can’t tell if it is reversed. You can tell whether the region is, and 1084 is.
    the spot has STILL not been numbered.
    1084

  23. Nevermind, Leif, you answered my second question in your 10:33 comment.
    One last thing before I risk imposing too much on your Sunday. What do you think of the allegations against Froehlich about data manipulation?
    ============

  24. Pops says:
    June 27, 2010 at 10:52 am
    I didn’t know Pluto was a huge, seething ball of Helium and Hydrogen bubbling away nicely at 5000ºC, the effects of which can be felt by merely stepping out of the shadows.
    Many people here seem to think that it doesn’t matter how big Pluto [or Ceres as was recently claimed] is to have effect…
    kim
    June 27, 2010 at 10:53 am
    Now, is the 10.7 hitting a ‘roadblock’ and does the IPCC underestimate the sun’s influence? In your opinion, of course.
    F10.7 is behaving as it should [on track]. Some undulation is normal and expected.
    To the extent that the IPCC seems to rely on Judith Lean’s assessment which is close to my own, I think that the IPCC is not far off on that.

  25. Leif, if the allegations about Froelich are correct, how can Lean’s analysis be ‘fair’?
    ============

  26. Pops says:June 27, 2010 at 10:52 am
    I didn’t know Pluto was a huge, seething ball of Helium and Hydrogen bubbling away nicely at 5000ºC, . . .

    It isn’t. That’s just GISS homogenization again. Still looks normal in the raw data, even in USHCN v2.

  27. kim says:
    June 27, 2010 at 11:17 am
    Leif, if the allegations about Froelich are correct, how can Lean’s analysis be ‘fair’?
    ‘allegations’ are misplaced. Every experimenter adjust the data. The problem is that the detectors degrade in the harsh environment of space being in vacuum exposed to X-rays, UV, solar wind, cosmic rays, etc. The degradation is much larger than the solar changes in TSI and must be measured [estimated is a better word – ‘guessed at’ some would say]. One way is to have several detectors exposed different lengths of time, then look at the degradation of a function of time ans extrapolate to zero time.
    There are disagreements about what the degradations are and how to employ them, but all that and the ‘JudithGate’ are just strawmen in the question about solar influence, because the final adjusted datasets do actually not disagree very much.

  28. kim says:
    June 27, 2010 at 11:17 am
    if the allegations about Froelich are correct
    This is totally overblown. Froelich does not ‘manipulate’ somebody else’s data. The ACRIM data is still there and has not been touched by Froehlich. What Claus does is to assign a different weight to the ACRIM data when he build his own private composite of all available data. Nothing wrong with that, just a reflection of Claus’ different [and likely correct, IMHO] opinion about what the degradation of ACRIM has been. And if one doesn’t like what he did, don’t use his composite.

  29. As for that undulation:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/SC24vs13_14.GIF
    This makes the progression of it more sharply defined. What will happen when it is completed is soon to be seen.
    Will it be a bigger and longer hump of activity (normally expected) or will it give way to a long run of spotlessness (paranormal)?
    With this cycle, WYSIWYG.
    Oh, and that butterfly closeup:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ButterflySC23_24.PNG
    A weak showing.

  30. #
    #
    Pops says:
    June 27, 2010 at 10:52 am
    I didn’t know Pluto was a huge, seething ball of Helium and Hydrogen bubbling away nicely at 5000ºC, the effects of which can be felt by merely stepping out of the shadows. I’ll have to look at that NASA site again; must have missed something.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    ROTFLMAO, Hopefully with SORCE now up and running, NASA will not miss anything in the coming decades, although I am not sure I trust them.
    This is an interesting new paper about some of the findings from SORCE. NASA had data for one half of cycle 23, peak to minimum. It seems the sun is not as “dull” as some would like us to think: http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/fulltext/Cahalan_Wen_etal.pdf

  31. As for that undulation:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/SC24vs13_14.GIF
    This makes the progression of it more sharply defined. What will happen when it is completed is soon to be seen
    Will it be a bigger and longer hump of activity (normally expected) or will it give way to a long run of spotlessness (paranormal)?
    With this cycle, WYSIWYG
    Oh, and that butterfly closeup:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ButterflySC23_24.PNG
    A weak showing

  32. Yes, rbateman, we are all awestruck in anticipation. May we live long enough to understand it.
    =========

  33. Regarding Frohlich’s “adjustments”, here’s what astrophysicist Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites) had to say: “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments… He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance…The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.” And astrophysicist & former head of Nimbus7 Douglas Hoyt’s letter regarding the paper by Lean and Frolich: “Thus, Frohlich’s PMOD TSI composite is not consistent with the internal data or physics of the Nimbus7 cavity radiometer.”
    So here we have the two people in the best position to assess relevant degradation of the satellite radiometers who have a damning assessment of Frohlich’s “adjustments” – that just so happen to match up with Lean’s statistical model of TSI.
    I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the IPCC chose Lean as the sole solar physicist to agree with her own paper and parrot the party line that the only thing that matters is CO2.

  34. kim says:
    June 27, 2010 at 12:18 pm
    Trying to understand it is less than useless.
    Attempting to do so is tantamount to wearing a sign that says “kick me”.
    So I make my graphs and go with the flow.

  35. Hockey Schtick says:
    June 27, 2010 at 12:42 pm
    Regarding Frohlich’s “adjustments”, here’s what astrophysicist Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites) had to say: “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments…
    Fröhlich made no adjustments to Willson’s data. And one should not be ‘authorised‘ to make adjustments to the copy of someone’s data.
    He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance…
    Fröhlich has been in this business some 40 years and know a lot about all the instruments. If some important knowledge about ACRIM is lacking, then Willson must be faulted for not including that in his publications about ACRIM.
    The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.
    This is a serious [and unfounded] accusation having to do with motives and agendas.
    The ACRIM data has severe problems; one is an annual wave [that persists after the varying distance to the Sun has been taken into account] that clearly is an artifact and shows that the ACRIM crew does not have everything under control.
    I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the IPCC chose Lean as the sole solar physicist to agree with her own paper and parrot the party line that the only thing that matters is CO2.
    This is also a severe and unfounded accusation showing your bias and agenda. Using the ACRIM data instead of Fröhlich’s make no difference to the analysis except increasing the noise and hence the statistical significance of any solar connection. BTW there is a third instrument that has measured TSI since 1996, namely the Belgian DIARAD experiment. Their result is halfway between Fröhlich and Willson, so splits the difference nicely. The main conclusion is that there is no demonstrated difference between TSI at the three solar minima we have now observed.
    But, the real point, is that the small differences claimed do not make any difference to Lean’s conclusion; expect for decreasing the solar influence due to more noise if you use ACRIM. Now, if you are against solar influence, my best advise is the use ACRIM.
    BTW, Fröhlich’s degradation is also incorrect [leading to too low TSI this minimum] compared to the best we have, SORCE: http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf

  36. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    Correction, of course:
    Using the ACRIM data instead of Fröhlich’s makes no difference to the analysis except increasing the noise and hence decreasing the statistical significance of any solar connection.

  37. “Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 11:01 am”
    True, I do not agree with that blog’s views on the 3% amount, just throwing it out there but I understand your point.
    “To bolster your claim, produce a list of cases.”
    Unfortunately I have not documented a complete list of cases however here are a 3 examples:
    ***March 22 2009, a reversed region in the northern hemisphere pops up
    http://gong2.nso.edu/dailyimages/img/jpg/bqa/200903/bbbqa090321/bbbqa090321t2254.jpg
    Numbered by STAR count (11), but not NOAA (0)
    http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/2009/march/20090322.html
    ***October 10 2009, a reversed region in the northern hemisphere pops up
    http://gong2.nso.edu/dailyimages/img/jpg/bqa/200910/bbbqa091010/bbbqa091010t2234.jpg
    Numbered by STAR count (13), but not NOAA (0)
    http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/2009/october/20091011.html
    ***November 13 2009, a reversed region in the southern hemisphere pops up
    http://gong2.nso.edu/dailyimages/img/jpg/bqa/200911/tdbqa091113/tdbqa091113t1004.jpg
    Numbered by STAR count (12), but not NOAA (0)
    http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/2009/november/20091114.html
    “the spot has STILL not been numbered.
    1084”
    Solen 27th June 04:55 update:
    “Spotted regions not numbered by NOAA/SWPC:
    [S784] This region rotated into view early in the day at the southeast limb. Location at midnight: S18E70”
    This spot may have been named 1084, but the spot count (SN) is still zero as of 18:06 UTC June 27.

  38. Mr. Alex says:
    June 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm
    however here are a 3 examples
    None of these qualify as ‘regions’ [too small and ephemeral] in the NOAA sense. When you go to smaller and smaller spots and magnetic areas, their orientation becomes more and more random, to the point, where ‘reversed’ does not make sense anymore.
    This spot may have been named 1084, but the spot count (SN) is still zero as of 18:06 UTC June 27.
    http://sidc.oma.be/products/meu/index.php
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/solar_indices.html
    both have it.
    Perhaps it is time to begin to pay attention and believe in what people report 🙂
    \

  39. Policyguy says:
    June 27, 2010 at 1:36 pm
    Forthcoming Grand Minima, but relies on an entirely different method to get there: C-14 dating of tree rings.
    Their conclusion:
    “However, our carbon-14 based observations do not indicate the imminent occurrence of the Maunder Minimum”
    They also invoke Livingston&Penn as a possible explanation for the lack of visible sunspots during the Maunder [and I tend to agree with that] while at the same time there was a solar modulation of cosmic rays.

  40. Dr. Svalgaard,
    My only “agenda” is to find the truth. Interesting that you feel I’m biased, Willson is biased, Hoyt is biased, D’Aleo is biased, Scafetta is biased… but you and your friend Judith Lean have no bias and the adjustments of the data you choose to favor are unquestionably correct.
    Also interesting that after you point out all the potential uncertainties and various interpretations of the TSI data, that it doesn’t seem to bother you that the IPCC makes no mention of these uncertainties & controversies and chooses the “consensus” of the only solar physicist, despite protests by the representative of the Norwegian government who argued for a more balanced presentation incorporating alternative views.
    Also interesting in light of the fact that multiple recent findings show the “solar constant” is not so constant and the sun is much more variable than previously thought.
    Also interesting that proxies of solar activity have found the sun to be more active in the 20th century than over the past 8000 years:
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15385

  41. Policyguy says:
    June 27, 2010 at 2:11 pm
    It relies on solar physics to reach the authors’ conclusions. […]
    http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html (Duhua and de Jager,

    It may look like solar physics [and deJager used to be a highly respected solar physicist], but is smacks too much of ‘cyclomania’ for my taste. People have been looking for cycle ever since Schwabe discovered his, but with little success [despite the may claims – pick any number at random and there will be someone claiming a solar periodicity close the that 🙂 ]. Careful analysis of solar proxies going back some 12,000 shows that grand minima do not a periodicity to them.
    Now, I won’t disagree with the next cycle being weak, but one has to be correct for the right reasons.

  42. too many typos, here is a better one:
    Policyguy says:
    June 27, 2010 at 2:11 pm
    It relies on solar physics to reach the authors’ conclusions. […]
    http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html (Duhua and de Jager

    It may look like solar physics [and de Jager used to be a highly respected solar physicist], but it smacks too much of ‘cyclomania’ for my taste. People have been looking for cycles ever since Schwabe discovered his, but with little success [despite the many claims – pick any number at random and there will be someone claiming a solar periodicity close the that 🙂 ]. Careful analysis of solar proxies going back some 12,000 years shows that grand minima do not have a periodicity to them.
    Now, I won’t disagree with the next cycle being weak, but one has to be correct for the right reasons.

  43. 2455374.322 2098.394 2010 06 26 2000 0074.5 0076.9 0069.2 2 OK
    2455375.322 2098.431 2010 06 27 2000 0072.9 0075.3 0067.8 2 OK
    I was expecting the 1084 spot to raise the flux.
    I have noted that the flux drops when the last spot rotates off the limb.
    Logic said the flux should rise as a spot rotates further into view.
    What was I thinking?

  44. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 10:33 am (Edit)
    That the IPCC didn’t involve more scientists on the solar issue is not a negative reflection on Judith. Perhaps it is more a reflection of how much [or how little] the IPCC believe the Sun is important. Lean’s analysis of this subject looks good to me: there is an influence, but it is small [barely detectable – otherwise we would not be discussing it].

    The Sun’s influence on climate variation is dominant. There are clear lines of evidence to support this assertion.
    The variation of the ‘TSI’ of the Sun cannot be considered on its own when it comes to the question of the Sun’s effect on climate. Irradiance at the top of the atmosphere does not equate to insolation at the Earth’s surface through a simple ‘divide by four’ rule. Insolation at the surface is also affected by clouds, which may or may not be affected by changes in TSI (Svensmark theory). Once clouds are also factored in, the link between the Sun and climate variation is pretty clear.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/willie-soon-brings-sunshine-to-the-debate-on-solar-climate-link/
    The ISCCP data indicates that cloud cover was reduced during the modern warming period in which solar activity was high. Since the sun’s activity started reducing, cloud has increased again, according to several metrics including the Earthshine project. This also fits with Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a calorimeter.
    The ocean absorbs and retains extra heat when solar activity is high, as shown by the increase in sea level due to thermal expansion. Since back radiation from greehouse gases can’t penetrate the ocean to heat it, the extra energy must be solar in origin. My calcs showed a 4w/m^2 excess during the 92-02 decade. Leif verified the calcs himself, but seems to disregard the implications.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/
    Far from the Sun’s influence being “small” or “barely detectable” it is the main driver of climate change. DO NOT be decieved.

  45. tallbloke says:
    June 27, 2010 at 3:02 pm
    The Sun’s influence on climate variation is dominant. There are clear lines of evidence to support this assertion.
    Actually not. See: http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf slide 20 says in all. The arguments that TSI is not the whole story are tired. TSI and all the other solar variables vary much in unison because of the same underlying cause: the solar magnetic field.
    ‘Dominant’ is a big word. Care to quantify that? Otherwise you can say it with real meaning other than hand waving [which seems to be enough for some people].
    Once clouds are also factored in, the link between the Sun and climate variation is pretty clear
    Gee, yes. When it is cloudy it is less hot [lemme see if I can find a handy reference to that… hmm, here is one http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/weekend-weather-cloudy-wet-windy-and-cool.html ]

  46. Hockey Schtick says:
    June 27, 2010 at 2:26 pm
    My only “agenda” is to find the truth. Interesting that you feel I’m biased
    Indeed.
    Willson is biased, Hoyt is biased, D’Aleo is biased, Scafetta is biased…
    I don’t think they are biased the same way as you are, just wrong.
    Also interesting that after you point out all the potential uncertainties and various interpretations of the TSI data, that it doesn’t seem to bother you
    These uncertainties are much smaller than the solar variations and therefore have little or no influence on Lean’s assessment.
    more balanced presentation incorporating alternative views.
    Science not ‘views’ than can be voted on, resolved by consensus, or be more or less ‘balanced’. In fact, science should be as start and unbalanced as possible.
    Also interesting in light of the fact that multiple recent findings show the “solar constant” is not so constant and the sun is much more variable than previously thought.
    No, less variable. When the ‘solar constant’ was first reasonably well measured [e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Abbot-Variation-Sun.pdf%5D in the first decade of the 20th century the variations were cited to be about 50 w/m2 or 10-25 times larger than what we find today.
    Also interesting that proxies of solar activity have found the sun to be more active in the 20th century than over the past 8000 years
    That is very likely not so, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
    “our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations.”
    or
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
    “Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.”
    There are many myths out there that masquerade as ‘truths’ or are labeled as such by people with agendas.

  47. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Science is not ‘views’ than can be voted on, resolved by consensus, or be more or less ‘balanced’. In fact, science should be as stark and unbalanced as possible.

  48. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    Yes, the faculae that rotated on after the spot (the spot led due to tilting of the region) are rather weak.
    So are the rest of the presently visible faculae.
    The spot is not visibly weak, albeit it is alone.
    My personal preference is to use the SOHO MDI Continuums at 1024×1024 resolution. You lose too much with binning.

  49. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 3:12 pm (Edit)
    The arguments that TSI is not the whole story are tired.

    On the contrary Leif, it your argument that TSI is the whole story that is tired. Some of your solar physics is good, but your approach to climatology is rubbish.
    Your use of a weather repost to dismiss Soon et al’s graph showing a correlation between sunshine hours and surface temperature at the centennial timescale is just laughable.

  50. tallbloke says:
    June 27, 2010 at 5:02 pm
    On the contrary Leif, it your argument that TSI is the whole story that is tired. Some of your solar physics is good, but your approach to climatology is rubbish.
    A good test of a theory is prediction, so calculate the temperature from your model for the past 10,000 years. This should be possible [indeed easy] as all input variables seem to depend only on planetary positions. BTW, one cannot have an ‘approach’ to science. It is either done right or not.
    Your use of a weather repost to dismiss Soon et al’s graph showing a correlation between sunshine hours and surface temperature at the centennial timescale is just laughable.
    fits with the general strength of your argument, which is indeed laughable. Soon’s argument is circular.

  51. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 11:39 am
    The problem is that the detectors degrade in the harsh environment of space being in vacuum exposed to X-rays, UV, solar wind, cosmic rays, etc. The degradation is much larger than the solar changes in TSI and must be measured [estimated is a better word – ‘guessed at’ some would say].
    Why then are satellite measurements of temperature, or of anything, taken seriously by anyone? Roy Spencer regularly points out that such sensors are calibrated to Pt thermometers. Could not some sort of correction such as flat field correction be done to normalise solar detectors?
    Tallbloke
    About Soon’s graph linking Japanese sun time with China temperature: is this not just a reflection of cloud cover? No need for any solar variation to explain this figure.
    Leif Svalgaard
    Also interesting that proxies of solar activity have found the sun to be more active in the 20th century than over the past 8000 years
    That is very likely not so, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
    “our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations.”
    Am I right in assuming this is your explanation for the medieval warm period?

  52. I looked at the plots on Leif’s website, such as
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
    and it looks to me as if the recent uptick in solar activity might be due to just a couple of active regions that survive more than one solar rotation.
    It ought to be possible, using the SOHO backside models and the Stereo images, to follow active regions all the way around. Has anybody done that for the recent spot groups?

  53. phlogiston says:
    June 27, 2010 at 5:30 pm
    “The problem is that the detectors degrade in the harsh environment of space being in vacuum exposed to X-rays, UV, solar wind, cosmic rays, etc.”
    Why then are satellite measurements of temperature, or of anything, taken seriously by anyone?

    Both measurements are taken seriously, but they are completely different in nature. For TSI which we measure MUCH more precisely than temperatures in the atmosphere we keep track of the degradation. Here is how it is done:
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/1.07_Dewitte_TSI.pdf
    We measure TSI with a precision of 0.0068 W/m2 which is 1,000,000*0.0068/1361 = 5 parts in a million, or comparable to 10 feet of the distance between L.A. and S.F.
    Tallbloke
    About Soon’s graph linking Japanese sun time with China temperature: is this not just a reflection of cloud cover? No need for any solar variation to explain this figure.
    Agree, as I said, when it is cloudy, it is cooler. Or in this particular case: cold weather over China means clouds, and those clouds move generally eastwards towards Japan.
    Leif Svalgaard
    “solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations.”
    Am I right in assuming this is your explanation for the medieval warm period?

    No, as first: there is little, if any influence by the sun on the climate, and second, 1600th and the 18th century were not part of the MWP, or any other warm period.
    Jeff says:
    June 27, 2010 at 5:36 pm
    recent uptick in solar activity might be due to just a couple of active regions that survive more than one solar rotation.
    Yes, not much to crow about.
    It ought to be possible, using the SOHO backside models and the Stereo images, to follow active regions all the way around. Has anybody done that for the recent spot groups?
    People do this kind of thing. Some try even to ‘see’ through the Sun. Not much have come of this.

  54. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 6:05 pm (Edit)
    phlogiston says:
    June 27, 2010 at 5:30 pm
    Tallbloke
    About Soon’s graph linking Japanese sun time with China temperature: is this not just a reflection of cloud cover? No need for any solar variation to explain this figure.
    Agree, as I said, when it is cloudy, it is cooler. Or in this particular case: cold weather over China means clouds, and those clouds move generally eastwards towards Japan.

    The ability to miss the point or desire to deliberately obscure it. Which is it I wonder.

  55. tallbloke says:
    June 27, 2010 at 6:14 pm
    The ability to miss the point or desire to deliberately obscure it. Which is it I wonder.
    How about the point being dubious to begin with?

  56. It ought to be possible, using the SOHO backside models and the Stereo images, to follow active regions all the way around. Has anybody done that for the recent spot groups?
    The STEREO satellites will soon be able to follow an AR all the way around the Sun. Getting really close now.

  57. 1084 (CL145)has finally been called by NOAA, this group looks to be a remnant of 1078(CL141) which was rather complex in its magnetic makeup at the time giving a hint of reversed polarity. The new region has now evolved into to a reversed polarity group for SC24 and is noted for is large size amongst previous reversed regions.
    Question: What effect do these reversed regions have on the migrating reversing poleward flux. If there is a diminishing effect they could be responsible for the south not reversing polarity this maximum? This along with Hathaway’s observation of the very slow conveyor belt (base) in the south make this hemisphere most interesting to watch.
    rbateman’s sunspot area graphs telling the true picture for SC24.

  58. Jeff says:
    June 27, 2010 at 5:36 pm
    I looked at the plots on Leif’s website, such as
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
    and it looks to me as if the recent uptick in solar activity might be due to just a couple of active regions that survive more than one solar rotation.
    It ought to be possible, using the SOHO backside models and the Stereo images, to follow active regions all the way around. Has anybody done that for the recent spot groups?

    The Layman’s count is keeping record of recurring regions. Today’s unusual group looks to be the first recurring region for some time, before that we had 3 others that repeated 3 times in the Dec-Mar period. These recurring regions were responsible for the uptick in activity that has now waned.
    The new recurring region 4 does not look to have the same strength as the previous.

  59. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 27, 2010 at 7:03 pm
    The new region has now evolved into to a reversed polarity group for SC24 and is noted for is large size amongst previous reversed regions.
    Regions rotate and for that reason if they live long enough might end up ‘reversed’. this is normal and is not a sign of SC24 ending, SC25 or SC27 or any such making an appearance. [I know you don’t make such claims, but others do]
    Question: What effect do these reversed regions have on the migrating reversing poleward flux.
    Not much as only 1/1000th of the flux makes it to the poles, so an occasional reversed spot won’t have much impact.
    If there is a diminishing effect they could be responsible for the south not reversing polarity this maximum?
    Hardly, as we can easily miss 30 out of a 1000 spots not making it to the poles.
    Now, if more than 50% of spots were reversed, that would be significant. But such is not the case.
    This along with Hathaway’s observation of the very slow conveyor belt (base) in the south make this hemisphere most interesting to watch.
    ‘very slow’ is relative. It normally takes about 1000,000,000[m]/15[m/s] ~ 2 years to reach the pole. should that be 4 years instead, just means that the cycle will be bit longer, which we expect anyway.
    rbateman’s sunspot area graphs telling the true picture for SC24.
    The true picture is given by the F10.7 flux.

  60. Leif Svalgaard says @ June 27, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    “…there is little, if any influence by the sun on the climate…”
    To a novice such as my self, that sounds crazy. Do you mean it literally, or something more like: “the very small variations in solar output that we measure have little or no influence on variations in climate” ?

  61. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 7:20 pm
    The true picture is given by the F10.7 flux.

    Have you tried using the sunspot umbral area for a flux proxy?

  62. Judith Lean changed three times her reconstructions of the TSI. The first one was made considering sunspots and other proxies, on the second one she considered only sunspots, but the baseline appeared far higher than in her first reconstruction. The third one shows an almost flat baseline. The question is: Which one of the three is the most accurate, non biased reconstruction?

  63. David44 says:
    June 27, 2010 at 7:28 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says @ June 27, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    “…there is little, if any influence by the sun on the climate…”
    To a novice such as my self, that sounds crazy. Do you mean it literally, or something more like: “the very small variations in solar output that we measure have little or no influence on variations in climate” ?

    Clearly the latter.

  64. rbateman says:
    June 27, 2010 at 7:41 pm
    Have you tried using the sunspot umbral area for a flux proxy?
    No, but enlighten me if you have. Measurements of the umbral area vary too much to be useful. Here is Hathaway’s take on that: “Careful inspection of the data indicates that quantities such as sunspot area are not uniform across datasets or even within a given dataset. For example, the ratio of the umbral areas (the darker part of the sunspot) to total spot area (including the lighter penumbra) changes abruptly in 1941/1942 and the ratio of the total sunspot area to the sunspot number changes dramatically with the start of the USAF/NOAA data. In an effort to correct for these variations I have compared this data with the more uniform data compiled by Howard, Gilman, and Gilman (ApJ 283, 373, 1984) for the Mount Wilson photographic plate collection from 1917 to 1982. This comparison shows three epochs for the reported sunspot areas: for 1917-1941 Mt. Wilson Umbral Area = 0.35 RGO Umbral Area and Mt. Wilson Spot Area = 0.067 RGO Spot Area; for 1942-1968 Mt. Wilson Umbral Area = 0.41 RGO Umbral Area and Mt. Wilson Spot Area = 0.067 RGO Spot Area; for 1969-1981 Mt. Wilson Umbral Area = 0.59 RGO/USAF/NOAA Umbral Area and Mt. Wilson Spot Area = 0.094 RGO/USAF/NOAA Spot Area.”
    From http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml

  65. Nasif Nahle says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:04 pm
    The question is: Which one of the three is the most accurate, non biased reconstruction?
    The latest one. And there is no bias here anymore. It was once thought that there was a long-term varying background approximately controlled by the 11-year running mean of the sunspot number. This ‘bias’ was partly motivated by the desire to account for the LIA [otherwise the variation in TSI would clearly be too small]. Lean’s and others [including yours truly] later research have undermined that idea, and nobody [except die-hard solar enthusiasts] believes anymore that there is such a background. Hence the almost flat curve.

  66. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:26 pm
    No, I have not pursued that… yet.
    I do know that umbral/penumbral ratio never stands still, not even in a consistent measuring system such as RGO.
    As for USAF/NOAA they did not arrive at a ratio by straight measurements, they inferred by a static formula. Too bad.
    I was not considering comparing umbral/penumbral ratios to flux. That would be like trying to use a plumb bob in a windstorm.

  67. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This being said, if the sun is asleep, so-to-speak, what is making it sleep? Gravity is not a one way equation or relationship. Something is perturbing the Sun. Whether it is our solar system’s location in relationship to the galactic equator (higher X-ray emission from there) or a binary companion, my guess it will not be long before we see or understand this relationship. Contrary to old school belief, the sun does not have a hydrogen core; it is high dense iron. It also has a high spin rate; these two reasons account for its half light-year gravitational influence. If it has a binary companion offsetting its solar effects; that companion also has a high density iron core.

  68. Dr. Svalgaard: “No, as first: there is little, if any influence by the sun on the climate…”
    In Dr. Svalgaard’s opinion.
    Others disagree.
    But considering the persistent low sunspot activity, and, if this present trend continues, next winter should be interesting.
    Another cold northern hemisphere winter and those with the “sun doesn’t matter” position will be harder pressed to maintain that same position.

  69. Teh JC says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:58 pm
    if the sun is asleep, so-to-speak, what is making it sleep?
    It goes to sleep every eleven years.
    Contrary to old school belief, the sun does not have a hydrogen core; it is high dense iron.
    No, the old school is still correct. The iron core is plain nonsense.
    James F. Evans says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:59 pm
    Another cold northern hemisphere winter and those with the “sun doesn’t matter” position will be harder pressed to maintain that same position.
    You mean when we approach solar maximum? And “harder pressed” by whom?
    I seem to recall that the last several months of very low solar activity all had record-high temperatures. Perhaps caused by the recent tiny uptick in solar activity?

  70. Wow, I go away to visit family after posting my first article on the blog, and it triggers all this. Thanks to Leif for being present to answer all the technical questions, though personally I find the past several months data on both sunspot and 10.7 to have remained significantly below (50% or more) predicted levels. At this point in time we should be seeing monthly escalating levels of both as SC24 explodes in activity. We haven’t seen anything near predicted levels since February. But, I’m willing to wait a few more months before seriously questioning things.

  71. mikelorrey says:
    June 27, 2010 at 9:12 pm
    I find the past several months data on both sunspot and 10.7 to have remained significantly below (50% or more) predicted levels.
    Remember that the ‘predicted’ levels were too high to begin with [a max around 70 seems more reasonable].
    At this point in time we should be seeing monthly escalating levels of both as SC24 explodes in activity.
    ‘explodes’ is perhaps a bit too much to hope for. Also, as you know I think the sunspot number is too low by about a factor of two [Livingston&Penn – http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf ]. The flux is on its way up, albeit in fists and starts: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
    Note that the blue curve touched the red [coming out of the 1954 minimum into one of the biggest cycles ever], so give it a bit a time.

  72. Dr. Svalgaard states “Science is not ‘views’ than can be voted on, resolved by consensus, or be more or less ‘balanced’. In fact, science should be as stark and unbalanced as possible.”
    Almost all scientific papers include a discussion of pertinent alternative views and reasons why the author agrees or disagrees in their opinion. The UN says the IPCC is also supposed to present a balanced assessment:
    UN Website: “The IPCC was founded in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme with a mandate to produce accurate, balanced assessments about human-induced climate change” (also note foregone conclusion of “human-induced”)
    It’s apparently ok with Dr. Svalgaard if the IPCC chooses one solar physicist to feature her own paper as an implied balanced consensus – without mentioning alternative views or any controversies regarding the way her data was adjusted – ok got it.
    Lubos Motl (The Reference Frame): “This is a typical story showing the character of the [IPCC] “consensus”. Whenever there are questions that really matter, the IPCC minimizes the number of people who have something to say about the subject. The goal is clear, the small number of authors (in this case, a single author) are expected to say that nothing aside from CO2 really matters – so that the important question isn’t even discussed. This task for Ms Lean was determined from the very beginning: after all, this task is what the IPCC is all about. She was selected for her ability to fulfill this task in a disciplined way which is what she has done, indeed.”
    For additional alternative viewpoints on solar variability see the recent New Scientist article “What’s wrong with the Sun?”, which includes these quotations from solar physicists:
    “The ultraviolet is varying much, much, much more than we expected”
    “The heat input into the stratosphere is much more variable than we thought”
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-wrong-with-sun.html

  73. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    “… Lean’s and others [including yours truly] later research have undermined that idea, and nobody [except die-hard solar enthusiasts] believes anymore that there is such a background. Hence the almost flat curve.”
    Is it your understanding then, Dr. Svalgaard, that because of the ACRIM controversy, Lean and colleagues have or would today today recant their 1997 JGR paper [vol. 102, No.C2, pp 3255-3266, Feb. 15, 1997] which found :
    “…anomalous heat associated with changing solar irradiance is stored in the upper 100 m or so of the ocean with heat balances maintained by anomalous heat loss to the atmosphere, not to the deep ocean as suggested by earlier model studies.”
    and concludes:
    “Therefore, if we apply the ocean’s climate sensitivity on these decadal and interdecadal signals to the apparent trend in solar irradiance over the past century, they yield an increase in global-average surface temperature of 0.2-0.3 K in response to the observed rise in solar irradiance ofapproximately 2.0 W m-2 at the top of the atmosphere . This increase is of the same order as that observed (i.e., 0.4 K) suggesting that global warming occurring over the past century was significantly influenced by the corresponding increase in solar irradiance.” ?

  74. Hockey Schtick says:
    June 27, 2010 at 11:38 pm
    The UN says the IPCC is also supposed to present a balanced assessment
    Assessment is not science, but balancing of risk. You do not shop around for other views in order to balance your research. You may point out where and why you think some other research is starkly wrong.
    It’s apparently ok with Dr. Svalgaard if the IPCC chooses one solar physicist to feature her own paper as an implied balanced consensus – without mentioning alternative views or any controversies regarding the way her data was adjusted – ok got it.
    No, you did not get it. the adjustments are so small that they have no effect on the result. Now, I have said this several times now, so you didn’t ‘get it’.
    “The ultraviolet is varying much, much, much more than we expected”
    “The heat input into the stratosphere is much more variable than we thought”

    None of these are expected to have a large influence on the climate. See e.g. the conclusion of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf :
    “Direct Responses to SIM-based Alternative Forcing Scenario:
    Surface radiative forcing very small, direct surface response < 0.1 K in 11-year cycle"

  75. David44 says:
    June 27, 2010 at 11:50 pm
    Is it your understanding then, Dr. Svalgaard, that because of the ACRIM controversy, Lean and colleagues have or would today today recant their 1997 JGR paper
    Not at all. The ACRIM controversy has nothing to do with this. First, it is very small [fractions of a Watt/m2, second]; second, her statement “the observed rise in solar irradiance of approximately 2.0 W m-2 at the top of the atmosphere” is not correct and conclusions based on that are therefore suspect.
    We have all learned something the past 13 years, and one thing we have learned is that there has very likely not been such a large increase. Lean today would agree with this.

  76. James F. Evans says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:59 pm
    Dr. Svalgaard: “No, as first: there is little, if any influence by the sun on the climate…”
    In Dr. Svalgaard’s opinion.
    Others disagree.
    But considering the persistent low sunspot activity, and, if this present trend continues, next winter should be interesting.
    Another cold northern hemisphere winter and those with the “sun doesn’t matter” position will be harder pressed to maintain that same position.

    What is the solar mechanism which results in a narrow latitude band in the NH having a cold winter but leaves the rest of the world withrecrd high temperature anomalies. I suppose you could argue that the sun might affect the AO but that effectively just means that cold/warm air is shifted around – it doesn’t mean there’s a reduction in incoming energy, i.e. the earth, as a whole, hasn’t cooled.

  77. Hockey Schtick says:
    June 27, 2010 at 11:38 pm
    It’s apparently ok with Dr. Svalgaard if the IPCC chooses one solar physicist to feature her own paper as an implied balanced consensus – without mentioning alternative views or any controversies regarding the way her data was adjusted – ok got it.
    Your bias shows in the way you uncritically parrot the JudithGate nonsense without actually knowing what IPCC said in their AR4.
    Here is a sample:
    2.7.1 Solar Variability
    “The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).
    2.7.1.1.1 Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance
    Four independent space-based instruments directly measure total solar irradiance at present, contributing to a database extant since November 1978 (Fröhlich and Lean, 2004). The Variability of Irradiance and Gravity Oscillations (VIRGO) experiment on the Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has been operating since 1996, the ACRIM III on the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor Satellite (ACRIMSAT) since 1999 and the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) (intermittently) since 1984. Most recent are the measurements made by the Total Solar Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) since 2003 (Rottman, 2005).
    2.7.1.1.2 Observed decadal trends and variability
    Different composite records of total solar irradiance have been constructed from different combinations of the direct radiometric measurements. The Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (PMOD) composite (Fröhlich and Lean, 2004), shown in Figure 2.16, combines the observations by the ACRIM I on the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM), the Hickey-Friedan radiometer on Nimbus 7, ACRIM II on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) and VIRGO on SOHO by analysing the sensitivity drifts in each radiometer prior to determining radiometric offsets. In contrast, the ACRIM composite (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003), also shown in Figure 2.16, utilises ACRIMSAT rather than VIRGO observations in recent times and cross calibrates the reported data assuming that radiometric sensitivity drifts have already been fully accounted for. A third composite, the Space Absolute Radiometric Reference (SARR) composite, uses individual absolute irradiance measurements from the shuttle to cross calibrate satellite records (Dewitte et al., 2005). The gross temporal features of the composite irradiance records are very similar, each showing day-to-week variations associated with the Sun’s rotation on its axis, and decadal fluctuations arising from the 11-year solar activity cycle. But the linear slopes differ among the three different composite records, as do levels at solar activity minima (1986 and 1996). These differences are the result of different cross calibrations and drift adjustments applied to individual radiometric sensitivities when constructing the composites (Fröhlich and Lean, 2004).
    Figure 2.16. Percentage change in monthly values of the total solar irradiance composites of Willson and Mordvinov (2003; WM2003, violet symbols and line) and Fröhlich and Lean (2004; FL2004, green solid line). 
    Solar irradiance levels are comparable in the two most recent cycle minima when absolute uncertainties and sensitivity drifts in the measurements are assessed (Fröhlich and Lean, 2004 and references therein). The increase in excess of 0.04% over the 27-year period of the ACRIM irradiance composite (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003), although incompletely understood, is thought to be more of instrumental rather than solar origin (Fröhlich and Lean, 2004). The irradiance increase in the ACRIM composite is indicative of an episodic increase between 1989 and 1992 that is present in the Nimbus 7 data (Lee et al., 1995; Chapman et al., 1996). Independent, overlapping ERBS observations do not show this increase; nor do they suggest a significant secular trend (Lee et al., 1995). Such a trend is not present in the PMOD composite, in which total irradiance between successive solar minima is nearly constant, to better than 0.01% (Fröhlich and Lean, 2004). Although a long-term trend of order 0.01% is present in the SARR composite between successive solar activity minima (in 1986 and 1996), it is not statistically significant because the estimated uncertainty is ±0.026% (Dewitte et al., 2005).
    Current understanding of solar activity and the known sources of irradiance variability suggests comparable irradiance levels during the past two solar minima. The primary known cause of contemporary irradiance variability is the presence on the Sun’s disk of sunspots (compact, dark features where radiation is locally depleted) and faculae (extended bright features where radiation is locally enhanced). Models that combine records of the global sunspot darkening calculated directly from white light images and the magnesium (Mg) irradiance index as a proxy for the facular signal do not exhibit a significant secular trend during activity minima (Fröhlich and Lean, 2004; Preminger and Walton, 2005). Nor do the modern instrumental measurements of galactic cosmic rays, 10.7 cm flux and the aa geomagnetic index since the 1950s (Benestad, 2005) indicate this feature. While changes in surface emissivity by magnetic sunspot and facular regions are, from a theoretical view, the most effective in altering irradiance (Spruit, 2000), other mechanisms have also been proposed that may cause additional, possibly secular, irradiance changes. Of these, changes in solar diameter have been considered a likely candidate (e.g., Sofia and Li, 2001). But recent analysis of solar imagery, primarily from the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) instrument on SOHO, indicates that solar diameter changes are no more than a few kilometres per year during the solar cycle (Dziembowski et al., 2001), for which associated irradiance changes are 0.001%, two orders of magnitude less than the measured solar irradiance cycle.
    2.7.1.2.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance
    Long-term solar irradiance changes over the past 400 years may be less by a factor of two to four than in the reconstructions employed by the TAR for climate change simulations. Irradiance reconstructions such as those of Hoyt and Schatten (1993), Lean et al. (1995), Lean (2000), Lockwood and Stamper (1999) and Solanki and Fligge (1999), used in the TAR, assumed the existence of a long-term variability component in addition to the known 11-year cycle, in which the 17th-century Maunder Minimum total irradiance was reduced in the range of 0.15% to 0.3% below contemporary solar minima. The temporal structure of this long-term component, typically associated with facular evolution, was assumed to track either the smoothed amplitude of the solar activity cycle or the cycle length. The motivation for adopting a long-term irradiance component was three-fold. Firstly, the range of variability in Sun-like stars (Baliunas and Jastrow, 1990), secondly, the long-term trend in geomagnetic activity, and thirdly, solar modulation of cosmogenic isotopes, all suggested that the Sun is capable of a broader range of activity than witnessed during recent solar cycles (i.e., the observational record in Figure 2.16). Various estimates of the increase in total solar irradiance from the 17th-century Maunder Minimum to the current activity minima from these irradiance reconstructions are compared with recent results in Table 2.10.
    Each of the above three assumptions for the existence of a significant long-term irradiance component is now questionable. A reassessment of the stellar data was unable to recover the original bimodal separation of lower calcium (Ca) emission in non-cycling stars (assumed to be in Maunder-Minimum type states) compared with higher emission in cycling stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004), which underpins the Lean et al. (1995) and Lean (2000) irradiance reconstructions. Rather, the current Sun is thought to have ‘typical’ (rather than high) activity relative to other stars. Plausible lowest brightness levels inferred from stellar observations are higher than the peak of the lower mode of the initial distribution of Baliunas and Jastrow (1990). Other studies raise the possibility of long-term instrumental drifts in historical indices of geomagnetic activity (Svalgaard et al., 2004), which would reduce somewhat the long-term trend in the Lockwood and Stamper (1999) irradiance reconstruction. Furthermore, the relationship between solar irradiance and geomagnetic and cosmogenic indices is complex, and not necessarily linear. Simulations of the transport of magnetic flux on the Sun and propagation of open flux into the heliosphere indicate that ‘open’ magnetic flux (which modulates geomagnetic activity and cosmogenic isotopes) can accumulate on inter-cycle time scales even when closed flux (such as in sunspots and faculae) does not (Lean et al., 2002; Y. Wang et al., 2005).
    A new reconstruction of solar irradiance based on a model of solar magnetic flux variations (Y. Wang et al., 2005), which does not invoke geomagnetic, cosmogenic or stellar proxies, suggests that the amplitude of the background component is significantly less than previously assumed, specifically 0.27 times that of Lean (2000). This estimate results from simulations of the eruption, transport and accumulation of magnetic flux during the past 300 years using a flux transport model with variable meridional flow. Variations in both the total flux and in just the flux that extends into the heliosphere (the open flux) are estimated, arising from the deposition of bipolar magnetic regions (active regions) and smaller-scale bright features (ephemeral regions) on the Sun’s surface in strengths and numbers proportional to the sunspot number. The open flux compares reasonably well with the cosmogenic isotopes for which variations arise, in part, from heliospheric modulation. This gives confidence that the approach is plausible. A small accumulation of total flux (and possibly ephemeral regions) produces a net increase in facular brightness, which, in combination with sunspot blocking, permits the reconstruction of total solar irradiance shown in Figure 2.17. There is a 0.04% increase from the Maunder Minimum to present-day cycle minima.
    Prior to direct telescopic measurements of sunspots, which commenced around 1610, knowledge of solar activity is inferred indirectly from the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotope records in tree rings and ice cores, respectively, which exhibit solar-related cycles near 90, 200 and 2,300 years. Some studies of cosmogenic isotopes (Jirikowic and Damon, 1994) and spectral analysis of the sunspot record (Rigozo et al., 2001) suggest that solar activity during the 12th-century Medieval Solar Maximum was comparable to the present Modern Solar Maximum. Recent work attempts to account for the chain of physical processes in which solar magnetic fields modulate the heliosphere, in turn altering the penetration of the galactic cosmic rays, the flux of which produces the cosmogenic isotopes that are subsequently deposited in the terrestrial system following additional transport and chemical processes. An initial effort reported exceptionally high levels of solar activity in the past 70 years, relative to the preceding 8,000 years (Solanki et al., 2004). In contrast, when differences among isotopes records are taken into account and the 14C record corrected for fossil fuel burning, current levels of solar activity are found to be historically high, but not exceptionally so (Muscheler et al., 2007).
    2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing
    In terms of plausible physical understanding, the most likely secular increase in total irradiance from the Maunder Minimum to current cycle minima is 0.04% (an irradiance increase of roughly 0.5 W m–2 in 1,365 W m–2), corresponding to an RF[11] of +0.1 W m–2. The larger RF estimates in Table 2.10, in the range of +0.38 to +0.68 W m–2, correspond to assumed changes in solar irradiance at cycle minima derived from brightness fluctuations in Sun-like stars that are no longer valid. Since the 11-year cycle amplitude has increased from the Maunder Minimum to the present, the total irradiance increase to the present-day cycle mean is 0.08%. From 1750 to the present there was a net 0.05% increase in total solar irradiance, according to the 11-year smoothed total solar irradiance time series of Y. Wang et al. (2005), shown in Figure 2.17. This corresponds to an RF of +0.12 W m–2, which is more than a factor of two less than the solar RF estimate in the TAR, also from 1750 to the present. Using the Lean (2000) reconstruction (the lower envelope in Figure 2.17) as an upper limit, there is a 0.12% irradiance increase since 1750, for which the RF is +0.3 W m–2. The lower limit of the irradiance increase from 1750 to the present is 0.026% due to the increase in the 11-year cycle only. The corresponding lower limit of the RF is +0.06 W m–2. As with solar cycle changes, long-term irradiance variations are expected to have significant spectral dependence. For example, the Y. Wang et al. (2005) flux transport estimates imply decreases during the Maunder Minimum relative to contemporary activity cycle minima of 0.43% at 200 to 300 nm, 0.1% at 315 to 400 nm, 0.05% at 400 to 700 nm, 0.03% at 700 to 1,000 nm and 0.02% at 1,000 to 1,600 nm (Lean et al., 2005), compared with 1.4%, 0.32%, 0.17%, 0.1% and 0.06%, respectively, in the earlier model of Lean (2000).
    Table 2.10. Comparison of the estimates of the increase in RF from the 17th-century Maunder Minimum (MM) to contemporary solar minima, documenting new understanding since the TAR.
    Reference Assumptions and Technique RF Increase from the Maunder Minimum to Contemporary Minima (W m–2)a Comment on Current Understanding
    Schatten and Orosz (1990) Extrapolation of the 11-year irradiance cycle to the MM, using the sunspot record. ~ 0 Irradiance levels at cycle minima remain approximately constant.
    Lean et al. (1992) No spots, plage or network in Ca images assumed during MM. 0.26 Maximum irradiance increase from a non-magnetic sun, due to changes in known bright features on contemporary solar disk.
    Lean et al. (1992) No spots, plage or network and reduced basal emission in cell centres in Ca images to match reduced brightness in non-cycling stars, assumed to be MM analogues. 0.45 New assessment of stellar data (Hall and Lockwood, 2004) does not support original stellar brightness distribution, or the use of the brightness reduction in the Baliunas and Jastrow (1990) ‘non-cycling’ stars as MM analogues.
    Hoyt and Schatten (1993)b Convective restructuring implied by changes in sunspot umbra/penumbra ratios from MM to present: amplitude of increase from MM to present based on brightness of non-cycling stars, from Lean et al. (1992). 0.65 As above
    Lean et al. (1995) Reduced brightness of non-cycling stars, relative to those with active cycles, assumed typical of MM. 0.45 As above
    Solanki and Fligge (1999)b Combinations of above. 0.68 As above
    Lean (2000) Reduced brightness of non-cycling stars (revised solar-stellar calibration) assumed typical of MM. 0.38 As above
    Foster (2004) Model Non-magnetic sun estimates by removing bright features from MDI images assumed for MM. 0.28 Similar approach to removal of spots, plage and network by Lean et al. (1992).
    Y. Wang et al. (2005)b Flux transport simulations of total magnetic flux evolution from MM to present. 0.1 Solar model suggests that modest accumulation of magnetic flux from one solar cycle to the next produces a modest increase in irradiance levels at solar cycle minima.
    Dziembowski et al. (2001) Helioseismic observations of solar interior oscillations suggest that the historical Sun could not have been any dimmer than current activity minima. ~ 0
    Notes:
    a The RF is the irradiance change divided by 4 (geometry) and multiplied by 0.7 (albedo). The solar activity cycle, which was negligible during the Maunder Minimum and is of order 1 W m–2 (minimum to maximum) during recent cycles, is superimposed on the irradiance changes at cycle minima. When smoothed over 20 years, this cycle increases the net RF in the table by an additional 0.09 W m–2.
    b These reconstructions extend only to 1713, the end of the Maunder Minimum.
    Figure 2.17. Reconstructions of the total solar irradiance time series starting as early as 1600. The upper envelope of the shaded regions shows irradiance variations arising from the 11-year activity cycle. The lower envelope is the total irradiance reconstructed by Lean (2000), in which the long-term trend was inferred from brightness changes in Sun-like stars. In comparison, the recent reconstruction of Y. Wang et al. (2005) is based on solar considerations alone, using a flux transport model to simulate the long-term evolution of the closed flux that generates bright faculae.
    —————–
    And so on and on…

  78. Hockey Schtick says:
    June 27, 2010 at 11:38 pm
    It’s apparently ok with Dr. Svalgaard if the IPCC chooses one solar physicist to feature her own paper
    Is even wrong on its face. Here are the authors. I have highlighted the ones I know are solar or space physicists [there are, of course, only one lead author for each subject.
    Coordinating Lead Authors:
    Piers Forster (UK), Venkatachalam Ramaswamy (USA)
    Lead Authors:
    Paulo Artaxo (Brazil), Terje Berntsen (Norway), Richard Betts (UK), David W. Fahey (USA), James Haywood (UK), Judith Lean (USA), David C. Lowe (New Zealand), Gunnar Myhre (Norway), John Nganga (Kenya), Ronald Prinn (USA, New Zealand), Graciela Raga (Mexico, Argentina), Michael Schulz (France, Germany), Robert Van Dorland (Netherlands)
    Contributing Authors:
    G. Bodeker (New Zealand), O. Boucher (UK, France), W.D. Collins (USA), T.J. Conway (USA), E. Dlugokencky (USA), J.W. Elkins (USA),
    D. Etheridge (Australia), P. Foukal (USA), P. Fraser (Australia), M. Geller (USA), F. Joos (Switzerland), C.D. Keeling (USA), R. Keeling (USA), S. Kinne (Germany), K. Lassey (New Zealand), U. Lohmann (Switzerland), A.C. Manning (UK, New Zealand), S. Montzka (USA),
    D. Oram (UK), K. O’Shaughnessy (New Zealand), S. Piper (USA), G.-K. Plattner (Switzerland), M. Ponater (Germany),
    N. Ramankutty (USA, India), G. Reid (USA), D. Rind (USA), K. Rosenlof (USA), R. Sausen (Germany), D. Schwarzkopf (USA),
    S.K. Solanki (Germany, Switzerland), G. Stenchikov (USA), N. Stuber (UK, Germany), T. Takemura (Japan), C. Textor (France, Germany),
    R. Wang (USA), R. Weiss (USA), T. Whorf (USA)
    —–
    I may have missed some [got tired], but you should get that there were many solar physicists as authors.

  79. “Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    Mr. Alex says:
    June 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm
    however here are a 3 examples
    None of these qualify as ‘regions’ [too small and ephemeral] in the NOAA sense. When you go to smaller and smaller spots and magnetic areas, their orientation becomes more and more random, to the point, where ‘reversed’ does not make sense anymore.”
    Yes, they may be tiny tims but considering that often NOAA produces counts for what appears to be a “blank sun” and tiny tims showing typical “SC 24 orientation” (despite being small and random), surely these should have been numbered. An example of this would be the sun of 4th May 2010 when similar tiny tims helped boost the SN to 70. http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/20100504/20100504_1912_mdiigr_1024.jpg
    Fair enough, however the region was not numbered on the 26th when it was first visible.
    “Geoff Sharp says:
    June 27, 2010 at 7:03 pm
    1084 (CL145)has finally been called by NOAA”
    Yes, finally… and with a grand count of 11 😉

  80. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 28, 2010 at 12:14 am
    For all the papers written on how the Sun cannot possibly influence Earth’s climate, there exists in Man a premonition of things experienced over tens of thousands of years that Science cannot put it’s finger on. Yet. In our modern, technologically sheltered world, there is insulation to a degree. What the last 100 years of Science has done is to stir it up, and did it ever.
    It’s like this: you can open up the can, but the lid won’t go back on. Human nature won’t let it.

  81. “Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 9:21 pm
    The flux is on its way up, albeit in fists and starts: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
    Note that the blue curve touched the red [coming out of the 1954 minimum into one of the biggest cycles ever], so give it a bit a time.”
    I check updates of this graph regularly, however it has always annoyed me that the comparison begins with the curves at completely different levels… (perhaps because they may have been aligned at a common point of flux month of minimum).
    If minimum point was to be ignored it is clear that shifting the current flux curve right would show an undercutting of the 1954 curve. Even without shift it is obvious that the flux has been at lower levels for far longer during this minimum. The 1954 minimum may have been deep but it was also brief.
    Current flux has returned to very near solar minimum levels.

  82. Hockey Schtick says:
    June 28, 2010 at 1:15 am
    how can you state that “the adjustments are so small…”?
    Because a third is only 1/4 of the usual solar cycle variation [which we can barely see in the temperature response] or about 0.02K. We cannot even measure a 0.02K change.

  83. Mr. Alex says:
    June 28, 2010 at 1:39 am
    Fair enough, however the region was not numbered on the 26th when it was first visible.
    NOAA has a set of strict rules that they try to live by, like a regions must be seen by at least two observers, that it must live at least 12 hours, etc. So, if a region first becomes visible at 12:01 pm, it will not be numbered, but the spots will be counted. And, finally, sunspot counting is not an exact science, there will always be some subjectivity and only on a longer time scale can one hope to get a reasonable measure.
    Mr. Alex says:
    June 28, 2010 at 2:09 am
    I check updates of this graph regularly, however it has always annoyed me that the comparison begins with the curves at completely different levels
    As they must do because the curves had different levels. At minimum the come together, but the curves have not been shifted up or down. The flux is an absolute measurement in units of 10^(-22) W/m2/Hz, so the curves must plotted where they are. We can shift them left of right, and this was done to line up the minima [where they had minimum variance]
    Current flux has returned to very near solar minimum levels.
    As it also almost did in 1955. As SC24 is forecast to be much weaker than SC19 one must expect the flux to rise a lot slower as it does. Tomorrow the flux will be up again 🙂

  84. >>About Soon’s graph linking Japanese sun time with China
    >>temperature: is this not just a reflection of cloud cover? No
    >>need for any solar variation to explain this figure.
    As an aviator, my subjective assessment is that we do not do so many IMC (in cloud) approaches compared to 30 years ago (less fogs, dust hazes and low cloud).
    Any data to back up this perception? If true, this would allow much greater insolation and surface heat.
    .

  85. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 28, 2010 at 1:05 am
    [long post]
    I cut and pasted Leif’s very long post into notepad and searched it for ‘cloud’ or ‘clouds’.
    Not a peep.
    He pronounces about the (supposed lack of) effect of the sun on the earth’s climate without considering the terrestrial end of the equation. TSI variation considered alone is a RED HERRING.
    EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE from the ISCCP cloud project and project Earthshine and Nir Shaviv’s study demonstrating a terrestrial amplification of the solar signal through cloud cover modulation show that the solar effect on Earth and ocean is considerably larger than he tries to tell us. An amplified solar signal means that the increase in TSI over the C20th actually is important. Along with the work done by myself and Dr Roy Spencer on the ocean depth that higher than average insolation energy is mixed down to (Roy is currently working with 500m), a multidecadal energy storage and release mechanism can account for global warming as a solar induced phenomenon.
    Leif verified my calcs, yet avoids the substantive issue of the steric increase in sea level proving the storage of solar energy in the ocean in the longer term. Instead, he obfuscates about weather, and TSI considered in vacuuo.
    He is a solar physicist who is wrong about terrestrial climate.
    DO NOT BE DECIEVED.

  86. Leif:
    No, the old school is still correct. The iron core is plain nonsense.

    The Sun was derived from the same source material as the rest of the Solar System, and as such it surely must have an iron and silicate core (did the heavier elements just propel themselves away from the Sun?). Now that heavy-element core may be minute in comparison to the great bulk of the lighter elements, but a small heavy-element core must be there somewhere, surely.
    And another thing that puzzles me. The center of the Sun has no gravity, or even a gravity gradient pulling away from the very center (for an atom at the center of the Sun, the center of mass and therefore center of gravity is actually outwards). If so, then surely the small outwards gravity gradient may even generate a small void at the center of the Sun.
    .

  87. John Finn says:
    June 28, 2010 at 1:05 am
    What is the solar mechanism which results in a narrow latitude band in the NH having a cold winter but leaves the rest of the world withrecrd high temperature anomalies. I suppose you could argue that the sun might affect the AO but that effectively just means that cold/warm air is shifted around – it doesn’t mean there’s a reduction in incoming energy, i.e. the earth, as a whole, hasn’t cooled.
    There is a solar mechanism that can do exactly as you describe, its called UV and has recently gained scientific attention. TSI might vary by small amounts, but UV can vary as much as 16% during high flare activity. Some say this heats the stratosphere which in turn influences jet streams and equatorial evaporation etc.
    More work to be done but the low UV count is now up for the test, let the effects of the last el Nino dissipate and watch what the outcome is in the next 12 months. The stage is set.

  88. I’ve done a month by month analysis of 300 year record of CET temperatures (1700-2000). My conclusion may be speculative, but probably makes more sense than some of IPCC nonsense.
    During summer months CET’s directly respond to solar irradiation, while for the rest of the year the Gulf Stream is predominant, with the amount of heat transported as a function of the solar irradiance, with much smaller annual variability in tropics, where the heat is absorbed.
    Flow intensity of saline warm waters of the Gulf Stream is modulated by long-term changes in the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field. These changes in the velocity of the transport system (by the GMF) introduce a variable time delay, directly affecting correlation of the CETs either to the solar irradiance or the Earth’s magnetic field.
    Effect of the GMF on saline currents is most clearly shown in correlation to the Arctic temperatures, where the GMF is strongest and consequently the most effective.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm

  89. @Leif Svalgaard:
    Leif can we agree on one thing between us, and that is that it is bad practice to make a scientist a lead author and then use their paper, and their paper only, to deal with the issue of TSI?

  90. tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
    I cut and pasted Leif’s very long post into notepad and searched it for ‘cloud’ or ‘clouds’.
    Not a peep.
    He pronounces about the (supposed lack of) effect of the sun on the earth’s climate without considering the terrestrial end of the equation. TSI variation considered alone is a RED HERRING….
    ______________________________________________________
    Dr. Svalgaard is a solar physicist so he, quite correctly, talks about what he does know.
    However the IPCC et al talk about an increase in temp of 0.6C per century. Recently NASA says cosmic ray levels have jumped 19% above the previous Space Age high. “There has been a sharp decline in the sun’s interplanetary magnetic field down to 4 nT (nanoTesla) from typical values of 6 to 8 nT,” he says. “This record-low interplanetary magnetic field undoubtedly contributes to the record-high cosmic ray fluxes.” The heliospheric current sheet is flattening. “”If the flattening continues, we could see cosmic ray fluxes jump all the way to 30% above previous Space Age highs,” predicts Mewaldt.”
    Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. “”Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.”
    The state of science knowledge about climate is in its infancy. We know the climate changes and we are now seeing the sun changes more than was first thought. We do not know how much more the sun will change inthe comming decades if we are in a deep solar minimum. I do not think anyone at this time actually knows exactly how the sun, the oceans, the biosphere and the atmosphere interact to cause our weather. Those who are trying to tell us they do are “blowing smoke”
    As you stated an increase in solar activity plus the UHI effect could certainly account for the 0.6C “found” by the IPPC scientists.

  91. vukcevic says:
    June 28, 2010 at 4:07 am
    I’ve done a month by month analysis of 300 year record of CET temperatures (1700-2000). My conclusion may be speculative, but probably makes more sense than some of IPCC nonsense….
    _______________________________________________________________
    Vukcevic, perhaps you could write this up at length and have the article posted here at WUWT. Please make the explanation such that non scientists can follow it (explain abbreviations and concepts, label graphs and such)
    Thanks

  92. Leif, see Bishop Hill for this, but it seems that Wang’s reconstruction is an outlier and it formed the basis for the most recent IPCC solar stuff. This is Ross McKitrick’s contention and it conflicts with what you’ve said here.
    =================

  93. tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
    I cut and pasted Leif’s very long post into notepad and searched it for ‘cloud’ or ‘clouds’. Not a peep.
    The clouds were in the ‘and so on and on and on’ part [the AR4]. If you care to look, it says:
    “Many empirical associations have been reported between globally averaged low-level cloud cover and cosmic ray fluxes (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b). Hypothesised to result from changing ionization of the atmosphere from solar-modulated cosmic ray fluxes, an empirical association of cloud cover variations during 1984 to 1990 and the solar cycle remains controversial because of uncertainties about the reality of the decadal signal itself, the phasing or anti-phasing with solar activity, and its separate dependence for low, middle and high clouds. In particular, the cosmic ray time series does not correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994 (Kristjánsson and Kristiansen, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002) without unproven de-trending (Usoskin et al., 2004). Furthermore, the correlation is significant with low-level cloud cover based only on infrared (not visible) detection. Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997) time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a relationship to cosmic ray flux. However, there appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001). Because the mechanisms are uncertain, the apparent relationship between solar variability and cloud cover has been interpreted to result not only from changing cosmic ray fluxes modulated by solar activity in the heliosphere (Usoskin et al., 2004) and solar-induced changes in ozone (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001), but also from sea surface temperatures altered directly by changing total solar irradiance (Kristjánsson et al., 2002) and by internal variability due to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (Kernthaler et al., 1999). In reality, different direct and indirect physical processes (such as those described in Section 9.2) may operate simultaneously.”
    Leif verified my calcs
    I have verified that you [and everybody else] can add up sunspot numbers, that is all.
    As I said:
    “A good test of a theory is prediction, so calculate the temperature from your model for the past 10,000 years. This should be possible [indeed easy] as all input variables seem to depend only on planetary positions.”
    Do this and come back and show us.
    Ralph says:
    June 28, 2010 at 3:16 am
    but a small heavy-element core must be there somewhere, surely.
    No, because the Sun is extremely hot so all element are vaporised and initially mixed throughout the Sun.
    And another thing that puzzles me. The center of the Sun has no gravity, or even a gravity gradient pulling away from the very center (for an atom at the center of the Sun, the center of mass and therefore center of gravity is actually outwards).
    No, even Newton knew that there is no gravity inside a spherical shell of matter [ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html ], so the atom does not feel any force from what is further away from the center of the Sun than it is, but only from matter that is closer to the center of the Sun than it is.
    vukcevic says:
    June 28, 2010 at 4:07 am
    Flow intensity of saline warm waters of the Gulf Stream is modulated by long-term changes in the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field.
    No, it is not. The forces involved are too minute to have any effect.

  94. geronimo says:
    June 28, 2010 at 4:42 am
    bad practice to make a scientist a lead author and then use their paper, and their paper only, to deal with the issue of TSI?
    I think I just showed that many papers were cited. Perhaps check out what was actually said.

  95. kim says:
    June 28, 2010 at 6:26 am
    Leif, see Bishop Hill for this, but it seems that Wang’s reconstruction is an outlier and it formed the basis for the most recent IPCC solar stuff. This is Ross McKitrick’s contention and it conflicts with what you’ve said here.
    I’m not sure what you are saying [who is conflicting with whom]. Wang’s [Lean was a co-author] reconstruction is already obsolete [but a step in the right direction]. The current realization is that that the change in TSI since the Maunder Minimum is negligible [0.1K] in its effect on climate.

  96. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 28, 2010 at 6:35 am (Edit)
    tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
    Leif verified my calcs
    I have verified that you [and everybody else] can add up sunspot numbers, that is all.

    You verified my calculations of the amount of energy required to heat the ocean up enough to cause the thermal expansion implied by the sea level rise observed by satellite altimetry less the melt runoff and other minor factors.
    Or do you now wish to deny that you did, in public?

  97. tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 8:11 am
    You verified my calculations of the amount of energy required to heat the ocean up […] Or do you now wish to deny that you did, in public?
    Again a trivial calculation [that anybody can do]. And I’m not a denier 🙂 although I don’t remember that trivial detail. But is is WRONG to assert that I have verified everything [“my calc”] you claim.
    As I said:
    “A good test of a theory is prediction, so calculate the temperature from your model for the past 10,000 years. This should be possible [indeed easy] as all input variables seem to depend only on planetary positions.”
    Do this and come back and show us.
    Instead of whining about my ‘verification’.

  98. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Vukcevic: Flow intensity of saline warm waters of the Gulf Stream is modulated by long-term changes in the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field.
    Svalgard: No, it is not. The forces involved are too minute to have any effect.

    Even an omni-logos can be erroneous.
    1895 -“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society.
    1903.- Orville Wright took the Flyer for a 12-second sustained flight.
    Forces acting on a molecule of water are minute, but not negligible, eventually creating powerful ocean current.
    Forces acting on a moving (by the above force) ion of saline water are also minute, but not negligible. Action along length of thousands of miles affects the velocity of the current.
    http://envisat.esa.int/live/lg_03.gif

  99. tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
    on discussing
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 28, 2010 at 1:05 am
    He is a solar physicist who is wrong about terrestrial climate.
    To be fair read his:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    David44 says:
    June 27, 2010 at 7:28 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says @ June 27, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    “…there is little, if any influence by the sun on the climate…”
    To a novice such as my self, that sounds crazy. Do you mean it literally, or something more like: “the very small variations in solar output that we measure have little or no influence on variations in climate” ?
    Clearly the latter.

    Leif is defending with integrity the current measurements of TSI. When I first got into this climate business and was reading everything available, I doubted the statements. It is so obvious that all the energy on earth comes from the sun that the next step is that variations of energy on the earth are directly connected to variations in energy of the sun. I no longer doubt that the TSI measurements he is consistently defending are right. Therefore the changes in the earth’s climate must be looked for in other mechanisms , not the direct changes in TSI.
    I think probably a combination of galactic cosmic rays and other chaotic mechanisms affecting albedo, including UV and magnetic fields, ( I cannot help but notice that the stronger rains are the ones coming with thunder and lightening, and rains means clouds).
    This intriguing effect of UV also http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
    When Sun’s Too Strong, Plankton Make Clouds

    entering the mix might be important in destroying direct correlations of albedo and GCR.
    The complicated story of measuring albedo is here:
    http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
    I do not think that Leif is trying to deceive anybody. He is stating the data on TSI, and he sure has more experience in calculating it than any of us.

  100. Here’s the opinion of the scientists who operate the ACRIM missions: (http://www.acrim.com/)
    “The Earth’s weather and climate regime is determined By The total solar irradiance (TSI) and its interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses. TSI proxies during the past 400 years and the records of surface temperature show that TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era.”
    and a post by a German physicist illustrating uncertainties far beyond statistical significance and certain IPCC conclusions to be unjustified or unqualified:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/more-on-solar-controversy.html

  101. Gail Combs says:
    Vukcevic, perhaps you could write this up at length and have the article posted here at WUWT. Please make the explanation such that non scientists can follow it (explain abbreviations and concepts, label graphs and such).
    I am contemplating it.
    About a year ago I wrote one part of it (1900-2000 North Atlantic correlation)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NATA.htm
    details of CET
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-GMF.htm
    and Arctic
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    are to follow (sometime in the near future).

  102. James F. Evans says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:59 pm
    Self indulging “flat earthers” won´t change their minds, and it´s Ok, after they become saturated with post normal science salts, they fossilize. (BTW this is an electrochemical process too)

  103. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 28, 2010 at 6:35 am
    tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
    Leif verified my calcs
    I have verified that you [and everybody else] can add up sunspot numbers, that is all.

    Here are the calcs you verified. You said: “Calcs are OK” Remember now?
    According to a world atlas on the web the area of the world’s open oceans is 335,258,000 sq km.
    According to the satellite altimetry, the worlds oceans rose around 32mm between 1993 and 2003.
    According to the IPCC around half this rise was due to melting ice and around half was due to thermal expansion of the oceans.
    335,258,000 sq km x 16mm = 5364.128km^3 expansion
    According to an approximate average of the studies of ocean heat content done by Levitus et al, Ishii and Kimoto, and Domingues, the ocean heat content rose by around 5.5×10^22J over the same period.
    Lets use Levitus et al’s 700 metre depth to obtain the volume of water containing this quantity of heat.
    335,258,000 sq km x 0.7km = 234,680,600 km^3
    The global ocean has an average temperature of around 17C and an average salinity of 35 psu. It’s average density is therefore around 1.025 kg/l
    If we convert the volume to cubic decimetres and multiply by the density we should get the mass in kg.
    234,680,600 km^3 = 2.3468×10^20 x 1.025kg/l
    So the mass of the upper 700m of the worlds ocean is around
    240547615000000000000kg or 2.405×10^20kg
    (please check orders of magnitude carefully for me)
    To raise water 1C requires 4.1855KJ/Kg so 5.5×10^22J is going to raise 2.405×10^20kg of water by
    (5.5×10^19KJ / 2.405×10^20kg) / 4.1855 C
    Which comes out at around 0.05C
    There is a gradient in temperature from the surface down to the thermocline, which stays at a pretty constant temperature so I think this figure is reasonably consistent with a rise in sea surface temperature measured at 0.3C over the 1993-2003 period.
    So the remaining question is how much the top 700m of ocean will expand if we warm it from 17C to 17.05C
    According to this table, 17C water will change in density from 0.998774g/cm^3 to0.998757g/cm^3 for a 0.1C rise in temperature. This is a factor of 1.000017.
    For a 0.05C rise we will get around half this factor so 1.0000085 will be our multiplicand.
    1.0000085 x 234,680,600 km^3 (the volume of the top 700m of ocean)
    =~1994km^3
    Spread this over the world’s oceans and we get a sea level rise due to thermal expansion of ~6mm
    But the satellite altimetry measure was ~32mm of which half was thermal expansion, so where’s the missing shilling?
    If the altimetry is right, there is much more extra heat hiding in the ocean than a survey of the top 700m reveals.
    Or if the Ocean heat content is right, the altimetry has overestimated sea level rise due to thermal expansion by a factor of about 2.7.
    The other possibility is that I did my sums wrong 🙂

  104. It’s kinda wild watching folks argue that the only thing that provides energy to the climate somehow doesn’t affect it.

  105. Pofarmer says:
    June 28, 2010 at 10:33 am
    It’s kinda wild watching folks argue that the only thing that provides energy to the climate somehow doesn’t affect it.

    I will give you a simple example of a change in provided energy that does not change the temperature at all, even large changes :
    Put a pot of water to boil. The water starts boiling and by definition the temperature stays at 100C. Reduce the wattage by half, the water still boils . Put it very low, still the water boils. You will affect the rate of evaporation, but not the temperature.
    An opposite example, of steady energy input (as the total solar irradiance is supposed to be steady by to 0.1%), is putting a pressure cooker with water on the hob. Keep the input energy fixed, the temperature, and pressure, goes up and up until it reaches the valve limit for escaping steam.
    So physical systems are not simple, is all I am illustrating. They follow physics laws that sometimes seem to contradict common sense. The planet is a very complicated physical system.

  106. tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 9:43 am
    Leif verified my calcs
    Of the trivial stuff. The important point is how you connect the things.
    As I said:
    “A good test of a theory is prediction, so calculate the temperature from your model for the past 10,000 years. This should be possible [indeed easy] as all input variables seem to depend only on planetary positions.”
    Do this and come back and show us.
    vukcevic says:
    June 28, 2010 at 8:32 am
    Forces acting on a moving (by the above force) ion of saline water are also minute, but not negligible. Action along length of thousands of miles affects the velocity of the current.
    You are an engineer. Calculate the force and convince yourself that it is negligible.

  107. tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    That is my point, there is more to the sun than TSI, but it’s all Leif ever discusses,
    This is because TSI is the only one that has enough energy to do the job. The UV variations are so small in terms of W/m2 that they don’t matter for the troposphere. Up in the stratosphere and thermosphere the air is so thin that the heating by non-TSI effects can be important. But these changes have a hard time to propagate downwards.
    People that study this find very small changes [less that 0.1K] in the troposphere, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL041898.pdf , e.g in discussing two different scenarios wrt to UV variation find: “The global average surface air temperature of solar max minus solar min is ∼0.004 K for scenario I; and is ∼0.05 K for scenario II. In the tropical region in 20°S–20°N, the zonal average surface air temperature of solar max minus solar min is ∼0.002 K for scenario I; and is about 0.02 K for scenario II.”
    impression that the IPCC is correct in it’s assessment that the sun has little to do with climate change.
    Not the IPCC, but Judith Lean.
    Look at the acres of IPCC verbiage he is ramming down our throats on this thread.
    You neglect to notice that those quotes were to show that people were wrong in saying that Lean was the only solar physicist and that she only used one of her own papers for the assessment.
    It’s standard Stanford global warming central bovine excrement.
    I think it is time for you to wash your mouth out with soap.

  108. Pofarmer: June 28, 2010 at 10:33 am
    It’s kinda wild watching folks argue that the only thing that provides energy to the climate somehow doesn’t affect it.

    Perhaps I can help with that, by making a comment on some of Leif’s comments. I’m quite sure that he’ll correct me if I’ve misinterpreted him. ☺ ☺ For someone who works daily in a given field, and who has done so for many years, certain things go without saying because they are so well understood by everyone else in the field, and I think that this is the crux of the matter, but I will elaborate a bit.
    In the case of the Sun’s radiative influence on the Earth, the major short-term effects are caused by the Earth revolving around the Sun once a year in an elliptical orbit. As it does this, the distance to the Sun changes, and thus the strength of the incoming radiation changes (the inverse square law). Because of the tilt of the Earth, the incoming radiation also hits different parts of the planet at different angles at different times of the year. All those different parts have different properties (forests, plains, deserts, water, ice, snow, etc.). That causes time-varying local conditions, otherwise known as the seasons.
    Summer, for example, occurs wherever/whenever some part of the Earth is tilted more directly towards the Sun. At the present time, this happens in the Northern Hemisphere when we are furthest from the Sun. In the South, it happens when we are closest, and thus the South will generally have warmer Summers than the North. In the same way, Winters tend to be colder in the Southern Hemisphere than in the North at a given latitude above or below the Equator. BTW: I almost forgot to add that last bit, because to me it seemed implicit in the statement. ☺
    At the end of a yearly cycle, however, things are more or less back to where they were a year earlier, and that’s what gives local climates. I use that term purposely, because there isn’t really “a single global climate”. There are many climates, and they tend to be much the same from year to year with lots of fluctuations that depend on local conditions and the interactions with adjacent regions.
    Here’s an experiment that you can ‘do at home’. Turn on your furnace, or better still, turn it off and plug in a giant space heater in the basement. That’s your source of energy, and if you leave the knob at the same place, the output won’t change. How it affects the house, however, depends on what else you do. You can open doors and windows, or not. You can fill rooms with various things that change the patterns of airflow. You can make one part of the house chilly and another part boiling hot, depending on where you put things and what you do with them, but that old space heater keeps on pumping out the same number of Joules every second (or BTU’s if you prefer). It’s the same thing with the Sun.
    So what does all of that have to do with Leif and his discussions? Well, as I see it, Leif takes all that for granted as background information, and I see no reason why he shouldn’t, at least if he’s communicating with people who have an adequate amount of exposure to such issues. What he leaves unsaid is that if you were to put an object, such as a satellite, in a circular orbit around the Sun, at exactly one average Earth-distance from the Sun, and pointed it at the Sun so as to measure the amount of energy received at that location (per m²/sec), you would get very little variation, not only from year to year, but also largely from day to day, very much like that space heater in the basement.
    I teach this stuff to undergraduates, and it is easily assimilated even by students who aren’t in a Science program, and who have little background in Mathematics, so it is not unreasonable to assume that it is also understood by those who have a stated interest in the technical details of climate issues, and who profess to have explanations for various things.
    /dr.bill

  109. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    David44 says:
    June 27, 2010 at 7:28 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says @ June 27, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    “…there is little, if any influence by the sun on the climate…”
    To a novice such as my self, that sounds crazy. Do you mean it literally, or something more like: “the very small variations in solar output that we measure have little or no influence on variations in climate” ?
    Clearly the latter.
    Clearly this view conflicts with other investigators who find a clear historical correlation between solar variation and climate changes, e.g., Kopp at SORCE (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm) who says:
    (Research and Applications section)
    “Measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) are known to be linked to Earth climate and temperature. Proxies of the TSI based on sunspot observations, tree ring records, ice cores, and cosmogenic isotopes have given estimates of the solar influence on the Earth that extend back thousands of years, and correlate with major climatic events on the Earth. These estimates extrapolate many recent detailed observations to long-term observations of fewer (or even one) measurement. For example, accurate TSI measurements from the last 25 years are correlated with solar measurements of sunspots and faculae; these correlations can then be used to extrapolate the TSI to time periods prior to accurate space-borne measurements, since the solar records extend back 100 years for faculae and 400 years for sunspots. Over this extended time range, the extrapolated TSI record can be compared with longer term records, such as tree rings or ice cores, and correlation with these allows extension of the estimated TSI to more distant times, albeit with decreasing certainty. This extrapolation is important for understanding the relationship between TSI and the Earth’s climate; yet the extrapolation begins with the comparison of solar surface features to accurate TSI measurements, a record which is currently only 25 years long.”
    So as a layman, whom am I to believe or what am I missing?
    Do you discount the supposed historical correlation or merely chalk this up to “Correlation does not necessarily imply causality”? If OTOH, you accept the correlation and some causal link, but TSI alone can’t account for the changes in heat balance required to cause the historical climate changes, then there must either be an unknown TSI multiplier (cosmic rays or whatever) or an unknown confounder linked to both TSI and climate. No?

  110. David44 says:
    June 28, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    Clearly this view conflicts with other investigators who find a clear historical correlation between solar variation and climate changes
    There is no doubt that solar activity influences the climate. Everybody I know agrees with that. The sole question is ‘how much’. There is observational evidence that the amount is of the order of a tenth of a degree. This is much less than the changes that most scientists would say we have observed the past few hundred years, so the variability of the Sun is not a dominant or even significant driver of climate. I wish it were as that would make field of study that more important and ensure funding for decades to come.
    Do you discount the supposed historical correlation
    The correlations are poor and not convincing.
    then there must either be an unknown TSI multiplier (cosmic rays or whatever) or an unknown confounder linked to both TSI and climate. No?
    Since the correlations are so poor, there does not seem to be good reasons to invoke unknown factors.

  111. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 28, 2010 at 12:35 pm (Edit)
    The UV variations are so small in terms of W/m2 that they don’t matter for the troposphere. Up in the stratosphere and thermosphere the air is so thin that the heating by non-TSI effects can be important. But these changes have a hard time to propagate downwards.

    The 15% or so variation in UV observed may be having other effects on the atmosphere than the raw number of watts associated with it’s power to heat molecules. The variation in solar wind speed may also be having effects we still don’t understand. The level of uncertainty about these things is high. Which is why categorical statements about the (lack of) effect of the sun’s variation on the Earth’s climate are so unscientific. They give the misleading impression, echoed and propagated by the IPCC, that solar variation can’t have been a big player in global warming.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    E.M. Smith and I have both explained at great length why it is that back radiation from greenhouse gases doesn’t heat the ocean. Only solar radiation does that. I have shown with my calcs above that you are so dismissive of, that variation in insolation is responsible for an extra ~4W/m^2 of heat-energy hitting the ocean surface in the ’93-’03 decade, far more than puny co2 is capable of. Bob Tisdale has demonstrated how it is the oceans which set the air temperature afterwards, you can see the lag in graphs between changes in SST and lower tropospheric temps.
    Yet you consistently avoid discussion of these self evident logical implications:
    1)Insolation (not TSI) is what determines the amount of energy entering the ocean.
    2)The ocean, not the air controls global temperature.
    3)The satellite altimetry on sea level, and metrics on melt and runoff show the amount the ocean thermally expanded, and back extrapolation shows this was going on since at least the 1950’s. My calcs demonstrate the forcing was in excess of 4W/m^2. I don’t think that’s a trivial insight backed by figures, even if you do.
    4)ISSCP data shows Albedo was reduced during the modern warming period while the sunspot number was well above the ocean equilibrium average of 40SSN. Ocean Heat Content increased.
    5)After the sun started going quiet and dropped below 40SSN cloud has increased again (Palle et al) and Ocean heat content (surprise surprise) has started falling since 2003 and is now falling steeply. My calculation that the equilibrium value is 40ssn was derived from TSI data and SST temperature change over the solar cycle. It also happens to be the average sunspot number over the entire period of record.
    6)Correlation is not causation so some of these things may be coincidental, but they just as well may not be coincidental. We don’t yet know and should be upfront about the uncertainty rather than being defensive and trying to bolster positions by making categorical assertions.
    7)The IPCC and it’s reports are a busted flush, shown to be biased, inaccurate, and full of self certified assertions about matters we cannot pronounce upon.
    It’s about time you started discussing the substantive issues, [snip]

  112. During the course of this thread, periodically, Dr. Svalgaard disparages others who point out various “cycles” and calls such conclusions “cyclemania” or words to that effect..
    There is something to this general criticism.
    Yet, at the same time, Dr. Svalgaard regularly refers to his “own” cycles as a means of prediction, interpretation & explanation.
    Thus, casting himself as the “lone authority”.
    Sorry, it can’t be both ways.
    Either, “cycles” are problematic for everyone and should be viewed with caution and on an equal basis — yet, still to be considered on the logical consistency of the evidence presented as the foundation for the conclusion.
    Or, “cycles” are not to be looked at, at all, for all scientists.
    Of course, observing & measuring, and, then identifying recurring patterns, is one method of analysis & interpretation.
    But, at this time, no one has a lock on the why’s and what for’s of helio cyclical patterns.
    Yet, recurrent rhythms are, seemingly, most apparent.
    Even if the why’s are not.

  113. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 27, 2010 at 9:21 pm
    http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
    Note that the blue curve touched the red [coming out of the 1954 minimum into one of the biggest cycles ever], so give it a bit a time.
    Please forgive my ignorance Lief, but in what way can you compare the 1954 Minima of 19/20 to the cycle 23/24? The downslope of 23 is nothing like the downslope of 19 and neither is the duration of the Minima.

  114. tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    The 15% or so variation in UV observed may be having other effects on the atmosphere than the raw number of watts associated with it’s power to heat
    Not the point, the UV has chemical consequences for example, but the energy involved is minute because the air is so thin [1/1000 in stratosphere, one trillionth in the thermosphere]..
    The variation in solar wind speed may also be having effects we still don’t understand. The level of uncertainty about these things is high.
    No, we have understood these things for decades [not to say that there are still details to fill in].
    Which is why categorical statements about the (lack of) effect of the sun’s variation on the Earth’s climate are so unscientific.
    What is unscientific is to ascribe this to unknown forces or mechanisms.
    E.M. Smith and I have both explained at great length why it is that back radiation from greenhouse gases doesn’t heat the ocean.
    Not relevant for solar forcing
    I have shown with my calcs above that you are so dismissive of, that variation in insolation is responsible for an extra ~4W/m^2 of heat-energy hitting the ocean surface in the ’93-’03 decade
    You have not shown that that is a variation of insolation [you may surmise so, but have not shown so]
    1)Insolation (not TSI) is what determines the amount of energy entering the ocean.
    Insolation depends on TSI. And on aerosols [volcanoes] and clouds [higher SST, more clouds – with nice negative feedback]
    2)The ocean, not the air controls global temperature.
    Not relevant for solar forcing
    3)The satellite altimetry on sea level, and metrics on melt and runoff show the amount the ocean thermally expanded, and back extrapolation shows this was going on since at least the 1950′s.
    You have not demonstrated that that was due to the Sun.
    4)ISSCP data shows Albedo was reduced during the modern warming period
    Reduced albedo means more absorption, thus higher temps. No surprise.
    5)cloud has increased again (Palle et al) and Ocean heat content (surprise surprise) has started falling since 2003 and is now falling steeply.
    More clouds, higher albedo, lower temps, no surprise surprise.
    6)Correlation is not causation so some of these things may be coincidental, but they just as well may not be coincidental. We don’t yet know and should be upfront about the uncertainty rather than being defensive and trying to bolster positions by making categorical assertions.
    Wrong way to do science. You seem to have no uncertainty.
    7)The IPCC and it’s reports are a busted flush, shown to be biased, inaccurate, and full of self certified assertions about matters we cannot pronounce upon.
    has no bearing on the issue.
    discussing the substantive issues, [snip]
    I don’t think you have any, so what is there to discuss?

  115. Leif Svalgaard @ June 28, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    Agreed, the question is how great is the effect, but this is true for CO2 as well. Historical correlation for TSI seems at least as good as for CO2. If the correlations between TSI and climate are poor and inconsistent, why does everyone you know agree that solar activity influences climate? Seems logically inconsistent, but you are entitled to your prejudices the same as everyone else. Thanks for all of your replies.
    David

  116. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 28, 2010 at 3:23 am
    For a UV variation of 15%, that might be sufficient to move the blackbody temp of the Sun.
    If it did move the peak of output, where is it now?
    I asked this same question in another thread, but can’t remember where and don’t know if someone answered. My fault.
    How the Earth would react to shifting spectral output is a whole ‘nother ball game.
    So, if someone already answered

  117. James F. Evans says:
    June 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm
    Yet, at the same time, Dr. Svalgaard regularly refers to his “own” cycles as a means of prediction, interpretation & explanation.
    Cycles are not used for anything. We make the prediction a few years ahead of time by observing the polar fields.
    Ryan Welch says:
    June 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm
    in what way can you compare the 1954 Minima of 19/20 to the cycle 23/24?
    You compare them by plotting them on the same graph, like you compare thing A with thing B by putting them next to one another and observing them carefully.
    The downslope of 23 is nothing like the downslope of 19 and neither is the duration of the Minima.
    What you see is that the downslope of 18 [not 19 – that is the upslope] was steeper than 23, because 18 was a much higher cycle [as simple as that]. The duration of the minima were pretty much the same: about 0.6 years on either side of the minimum point [near 2009.0]. The upslope of 24 is much weaker than the upslope of 19, which is one of the signs that our prediction of ‘the smallest cycle in 100 years’ is on track and may even come true.

  118. Hi Leif,
    Thank you, I’ve just found your reply from an earlier solar thread. The comments are now closed, so with the moderators permission I hope:
    Thanks for the news of and link to the new Webber and Higbie paper
    The authors, in coming to their conclusion that their data are inconsistent with the assumption of a mostly linear 10Be concentration/production relationship , appear to assume (in paragraphs 6,16 and 19) that the LIS for cosmic rays during the Maunder and Sporer minima did not exceed the levels measured by Voyager in its few decades of operation.
    I couldn’t find, in my admittedly quick reading of the paper, any reasoning presented to explain why the Voyager measurements should provide an upper bound for past CR LIS. Is there any evidence or argument in support of the assumption?

  119. Leif:
    Even Newton knew that there is no gravity inside a spherical shell of matter [ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html ], so the atom does not feel any force from what is further away from the center of the Sun than it is, but only from matter that is closer to the center of the Sun than it is.

    Sorry, Leif, the link you gave says that:
    “”The net gravitational force on a mass anywhere inside a uniform shell of mass is zero.””
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html
    Clearly this is wrong, as I have been 2000′ under the Earth (well inside a spherical shell of mass) and I can assure you that I was not weightless (I was in a deep mine, and walking on the floor in the normal manner). Likewise, drill bits down some 10km inside the Earth are not weightless. Also, as I understand it, convection currents (as present inside the Earth and Sun) can only occur in the presence of a gravity gradient, and not in a weightlessness environment. Thus the weight of a mass inside a sphere of mass HAS to be proportional in some sense to its distance from the center of that sphere.
    Anyway, I think we both concur that an atom at the very center of the Sun is weightless, with equal gravitational mass on all sides. But my suggestion is that if a small void develops at the very center of the Sun, then the presence of that void will cause an asymmetry to the gravity gradient that will sustain and perpetuate that void, so it becomes a permanent feature.
    .

  120. oneuniverse says:
    June 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm
    … the new Webber and Higbie paper
    The authors, in coming to their conclusion that their data are inconsistent with the assumption of a mostly linear 10Be concentration/production relationship , appear to assume (in paragraphs 6,16 and 19) that the LIS for cosmic rays during the Maunder and Sporer minima did not exceed the levels measured by Voyager in its few decades of operation.
    I couldn’t find, in my admittedly quick reading of the paper, any reasoning presented to explain why the Voyager measurements should provide an upper bound for past CR LIS. Is there any evidence or argument in support of the assumption?
    _________________________________________________________________
    For what it is worth NASA says this:
    Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High
    “”In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech….
    1. The sun’s magnetic field is weak. “There has been a sharp decline in the sun’s interplanetary magnetic field down to 4 nT (nanoTesla) from typical values of 6 to 8 nT,” …
    2. The solar wind is flagging. “Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft show that solar wind pressure is at a 50-year low,” …
    3. The current sheet is flattening….. The current sheet is important because cosmic rays are guided by its folds. Lately, the current sheet has been flattening itself out, allowing cosmic rays more direct access to the inner solar system…
    “If the flattening continues, we could see cosmic ray fluxes jump all the way to 30% above previous Space Age highs,” predicts Mewaldt…
    we’ve experienced much worse in the past. Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age. Researchers know this because when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, they produce an isotope of beryllium, 10Be, which is preserved in polar ice. By examining ice cores, it is possible to estimate cosmic ray fluxes more than a thousand years into the past. Even with the recent surge, cosmic rays today are much weaker than they have been at times in the past millennium….
    “The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity,” says Mewaldt. “We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries.””

  121. Ralph says:
    June 28, 2010 at 6:20 pm
    Clearly this is wrong, as I have been 2000′ under the Earth (well inside a spherical shell of mass)
    You were not weightless because there is still 20904000′ below you and you were feeling the force of the mass below you.
    oneuniverse says:
    June 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm
    any reasoning presented to explain why the Voyager measurements should provide an upper bound for past CR LIS. Is there any evidence or argument in support of the assumption?
    Voyager is outside the termination shock and has measured the Proton and Helium nuclii spectra. And from those the LIS can be estimated. The detailed reasoning is given in their paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014532.pdf to which I refer.
    Their conclusion is that the maximum possible 10Be production is only 1.5 times the production at recent solar minima. And that therefore the significantly higher concentrations measured during the Maunder Minimum are most likely not solely related to changes in the sun but that other effects such as local and regional climate near the deposition sites may play a significant role in 10Be concentrations.

  122. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 28, 2010 at 3:23 pm
    tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm
    Which is why categorical statements about the (lack of) effect of the sun’s variation on the Earth’s climate are so unscientific.
    What is unscientific is to ascribe this to unknown forces or mechanisms.

    You are quick to dismis the ideas of others who find good correlations which still need the mechanism explaining, yet when it comes to your own pet theories:
    Leif Svalgaard says
    Anna V says
    Data do not need a physics mechanism to be valid. The physics will come in time.
    There are three reasons I believe L&P is important and [as good science] is telling us something about the Sun:
    1) The L&P data themselves
    2) The increasing discrepancy between the sunspot number and the F10.7 flux since ~1990
    3) The existence of significant cosmic ray modulation during the Maunder [and other Grand Minima] even though few spots were seen.
    L&P provides an explanation for 2) and 3). If we discount L&P then we have three puzzles rather than one. For this reason, L&P is a good working hypothesis and commands attention. Time will tell if we can turn the hypothesis into a theory backed up with a mechanism, in which case we have learned something important about the Sun. Giving up the possibility of learning something is bad science.

    I like that last bit, you should take it to heart.
    But you say the above, while at the same time ignoring what Gail Combs points out above:
    NASA says: “Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age.”
    So while there may well have been “significant cosmic ray modulation during the Maunder [and other Grand Minima] even though few spots were seen.” it obviously wasn’t strong enough to keep out 200-300% more cosmic rays during the little ice age.
    So it’s pretty clear to those of us who actually read about and think about this stuff, that there is a strong possibility that solar variation (allowing in 250% more GCR’s when spots are few) does have a profound effect on Earth’s climate, despite your continued protestations that it does not.
    It’s time you heeded your own words and let “Time … tell if we can turn the hypothesis into a theory backed up with a mechanism”, rather than shooting others down in flames because their hypotheses are incompatible with your belief in an emasculated Sun which can’t affect Earth’s climate more than a trace gas comprising 0.039% of our atmosphere.

  123. Hi Leif, thanks, but the second paper you cited doesn’t provide the argument either, for why the LIS for cosmic rays in the past cannot have exceeded what has been measured in recent decades.
    “Their conclusion is that the maximum possible 10Be production is only 1.5 times the production at recent solar minima. ”
    If the local interstellar CR flux does vary, and it does, then their conclusion is wrong.

  124. Leif
    You were not weightless because there is still 20904000′ below you and you were feeling the force of the mass below you.

    !!@!!!*!!!
    Precisely, so the link you suggested we view is completely wrong. It said:
    “The net gravitational force on a mass m anywhere inside a uniform spherical shell of mass M is zero”
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html
    Clearly the net gravitational force is not zero if you are not at the very center of the sphere, as you have just stated.
    So now you have at last agreed with my original argument, that an atom only becomes weightlessness at the very center of the Sun, what about my primary postulation that started this discussion – that any central void that may be temporarily created in these weightless conditions at the center of the Sun will create a gravitational asymmetry that will allow that void to perpetuate and even grow. So the center of the Sun may actually be hollow.
    .

  125. Ralph says:
    June 29, 2010 at 3:49 am (Edit)
    any central void that may be temporarily created in these weightless conditions at the center of the Sun will create a gravitational asymmetry that will allow that void to perpetuate and even grow. So the center of the Sun may actually be hollow.

    What would stop the matter on one side of the void being gravitationally attracted to the matter on the other side of the void, causing it to close up?

  126. tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 11:56 pm
    You are quick to dismis the ideas of others who find good correlations
    Except that the correlations are not good or are spurious.
    As I said:
    “A good test of a theory is prediction, so calculate the temperature from your model for the past 10,000 years. This should be possible [indeed easy] as all input variables seem to depend only on planetary positions.”
    Do this and come back and show us.
    while at the same time ignoring what Gail Combs points out above:
    NASA says: “Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age.”

    ‘NASA’ does not say that. Mewaldt does. And he is not even correct.
    oneuniverse says:
    June 29, 2010 at 1:51 am
    but the second paper you cited doesn’t provide the argument either, for why the LIS for cosmic rays in the past cannot have exceeded what has been measured in recent decades.
    That whole paper is the detailed argument. One estimates the LIS by considering the diffusion of cosmic rays through the outer heliosphere. The diffusion coefficient depends on the element [Hydrogen, Helium, Iron, Carbon, etc] and on the energy of the particle. New estimates of the diffusion coefficient at low energies can be used to calculate the interstellar spectrum as the paper explains. By comparing with Voyager, the calculations can be checked. This was the topic of the other papers.
    If the local interstellar CR flux does vary, and it does, then their conclusion is wrong.
    The important point here is the time scale. Vary on what time scale? We have no good information that it has varied the last several thousand years. So when you say ‘if interstellar flux does vary, and it does’ what is that based on? The whole point is that it is very difficult to determine the LIS. Webber’s paper is probably the best estimate we have.
    Ralph says:
    June 29, 2010 at 3:49 am
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html shows [as already Newton showed us] that the gravitational field from any enclosing shells is exactly zero.
    So the center of the Sun may actually be hollow.
    Now you are way out there with some of the other esteemed pseudo-scientists that frequent this blog. For all this is a sad state of affairs.

  127. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 29, 2010 at 6:46 am
    tallbloke says:
    June 28, 2010 at 11:56 pm
    NASA says: “Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age.”
    ‘NASA’ does not say that. Mewaldt does. And he is not even correct.

    So what do you believe to be the correct max figure for the little ice age/Maunder minimum, and where can I download the 10Be data so I can look for myself?

  128. tallbloke says:
    “…while at the same time ignoring what Gail Combs points out above:
    NASA says: “Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age.”
    Leif Svalgaard response is:
    ‘NASA’ does not say that. Mewaldt does. And he is not even correct.
    This is the CONCLUSION of the NASA science article:
    “If the flattening continues, we could see cosmic ray fluxes jump all the way to 30% above previous Space Age highs,” predicts Mewaldt. [data]
    Earth is in no great peril. Our planet’s atmosphere and magnetic field provide some defense against the extra cosmic rays. Indeed, we’ve experienced much worse in the past. Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age. Researchers know this because when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, they produce an isotope of beryllium, 10Be, which is preserved in polar ice. By examining ice cores, it is possible to estimate cosmic ray fluxes more than a thousand years into the past. Even with the recent surge, cosmic rays today are much weaker than they have been at times in the past millennium. [data]
    “The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity,” says Mewaldt. “We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries.”
    NASA spacecraft will continue to monitor the situation as solar minimum unfolds. Stay tuned for updates.”

    Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA
    Dr Svalgaard, the quote “Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age. Researchers know this because when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, they produce an isotope of beryllium, 10Be, which is preserved in polar ice.” seems to be from Dr. Tony Phillips not from Dr Mewaldt given the lack of quotation marks.

  129. tallbloke says:
    June 29, 2010 at 7:13 am
    So what do you believe to be the correct max figure for the little ice age/Maunder minimum, and where can I download the 10Be data so I can look for myself?
    It is not that simple. There is no ’10Be data’ set that can be downloaded. There are several ice cores, each with the own time resolution, from different places, with different local climate, etc. I’ll quote from a recent paper by Webber and Higbie http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf [but also published in JGR]
    “When the first detailed 10Be measurements from polar ice cores were reported (e.g., Beer, et al., 1990) there was the hope that this ice core data could provide a “monitor” of past solar activity as it effects cosmic ray intensities incident on the Earth, in much the same way as neutron monitors are used to monitor this solar activity in the modern era (Beer, 2000). This “concept” with its 1:1 correspondence between 10Be production and 10Be in ice cores, has since been used extensively to interpret historical 10Be ice core data in terms of changes in heliospheric conditions and their effect on cosmic ray intensities incident on the Earth. Our results show that, given our current understanding (or lack of it) of the correspondence between 10Be production, sunspot numbers and the 10Be observed in ice cores, this is really not a reliable “concept” to use for historical extrapolation. The sunspot number itself remains the best indicator of cyclic (11 year) solar activity after ~1700 A.D. The level of 10Be production in the Earth’s atmosphere at the minimum of the 5 most recent solar activity cycles is the same to within 5%. If this production level has changed in the past, then the present uncertainties in the 10Be ice core data are such that the magnitude of these changes cannot be robustly determined. Calculations also show that if the LIS remains the same as it is now, the 10Be production should never increase by a factor of more than 1.3-1.5 over the average modern values at sunspot minimum at any time in the recent past, whereas increases by a factor ~2.0 have been observed in the 10Be ice core data. In order that ice core data may in the future be utilized to provide an accurate historical record of cosmic ray intensity incident on the Earth’s polar atmosphere, new measurements or analyses need to be made. The measurements would need to include comprehensive yearly measurements of 10Be covering the last 60 years (several 11 year cycles) up to and including 2009, in several nearby (within a few km) ice cores in order to isolate and understand the origin of the large fluctuations observed in the individual yearly ice core data.”

  130. Icecap.us has posted links to recent peer reviewed papers on the solar earth climate connection (see post at lower right on Judith Lean):
    Long-term solar activity as a controlling factor for global warming in the 20th century, (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 8, pp. 1271-1274, December 2009) – V. A. Dergachev, O. M. Raspopov
    A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 62-76, January 2010) – Jean-Louis Le Mouel, Vladimir Kossobokov, Vincent Courtillot
    Solar Minima, Earth’s rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future: The North Atlantic�European case (Global and Planetary Change, January 2010) – Nils-Axel Morner
    Solar activity and climatic variability in the time interval from 10 to 250 Ma ago (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 141-152, April 2010) – O. M. Raspopov et al.
    A statistically significant signature of multi-decadal solar activity changes in atmospheric temperatures at three European stations (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issues 7-8, pp. 595-606, May 2010) – Vladimir Kossobokov, Jean-Louis Le Mouel and Vincent Courtillot

  131. Gail Combs says:
    June 29, 2010 at 7:33 am
    seems to be from Dr. Tony Phillips not from Dr Mewaldt given the lack of quotation marks.
    Thus even second hand. The point is that there are large fluctuations in 10Be that are not well understood. Some of those are due to climate, other to volcanoes, and some to solar modulation. Maybe even to spikes from the Galaxy [e.g. a large spike in 1460 A.D. see http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf , except we don’t really know this last one for sure]. Webber and Higbie note: “This lower bound includes
    many other earlier time periods with 10Be flux values that exceed those possible from 10Be production alone from the full LIS spectrum. Indeed this implies that more than 50% the 10 Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases!” [their exclamation point]

  132. Leif, do all these uncertainties about 10Be call into question your belief that the isotope record supports a non-climatic response to the Maunder Minimum? I realize your answer is probably no, and that may be all I get, but I’d like to explore your uncertainty about it a little.
    A grand, simple, and unanswered question is whether Solar Grand Minima cool the earth. I believe you doubt it, but how much do you doubt it?
    ===================

  133. Hockey Schtick says:
    June 29, 2010 at 9:39 am
    Icecap.us has posted links to recent peer reviewed papers on the solar earth climate connection (see post at lower right on Judith Lean)
    there are at least 2000 of such papers, so these strengthen the case by a fraction of 2005/2000 = 1.0025.

  134. kim says:
    June 29, 2010 at 11:21 am
    Isotope record supports a non-climatic response to the Maunder Minimum?
    One swallow does not make a summer. You can’t deduce much from a singular occurrence.
    A grand, simple, and unanswered question is whether Solar Grand Minima cool the earth. I believe you doubt it, but how much do you doubt it?
    Since their is no good evidence for this, I doubt it very much [89.53%]. My arguments are summarized here: http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf page 20 tells the story in a single Figure. ‘TSI’ is just used here as a generic term for solar activity [in Fact, the TSI on the figure was derived from cosmic ray modulation].

  135. Thanks Leif,
    You say : “We have no good information that it [LIS] has varied the last several thousand years.”
    Similarly, we have no good information that it has been constant.
    Leif: “So when you say ‘if interstellar flux does vary, and it does’ what is that based on?”
    There’s good reason to think that it will vary. From Dr. Tony Philips of NASA again, reporting on the recent work of Opheler et al. :
    “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.”
    Changes to the heliosheath due to its environment, the movement of the solar system and interstellar clouds with respect to each other and the galaxy, affecting modulation (not necessarily magnetic) of the cosmic rays , and nova activity all would suggest that the flux will vary.

  136. Leif: “That whole paper is the detailed argument [for why present-day CR LSI is the same as during the Maunder and Sporer minima]. ”
    No it’s not, it’s a detailed argument for what the CR LSI is now.

  137. oneuniverse says:
    June 29, 2010 at 1:50 pm
    No it’s not, it’s a detailed argument for what the CR LSI is now.
    And what is the evidence that the LSI was any different during the Maunder Minimum, e.g. much lower than now? The LSI is an integral over a large part of the Galaxy and does not change on short time scales, except for short spikes probably due to a nearby supernova, e.g. in 1490.

  138. From Cosmic Ray Astrophysics ,1988, Chp. 11, “The Secular Variation of Cosmic Rays and the Interstellar Matter”, Hiriochi Hasegawa,
    “[..] it can be said that the variation of the cosmic ray intensity has been less than 20 per cent on the average for last several million years. This conclusion, however, is only applicable to some weighted-mean of the variation in the cosmic ray intensity for such a long period. Hence it should be remarked that this conclusion does not exclude that, for instance, the cosmic ray intensity may have been twice higher than at present during 10^5 years in the period 10^6 years before present.”

  139. oneuniverse says:
    June 29, 2010 at 1:50 pm
    No it’s not, it’s a detailed argument for what the CR LSI is now.
    If you assume (1) [contrary to basic diffusion theory that does not support this assumption] that the Galactic LSI varies such that its variation just explains the variation of temperature [further assuming (2) that the GCR flux is the dominant driver – through clouds or whatever], then, of course, you don’t need the Sun to vary [except for the tiny wiggles caused by the 11-year modulation], so solar activity is then not the climate driver. Perhaps that is what you are saying. Spiral arm related GCR variations on time scales of 100s of millions of years can then also be the driver, again we don’t need the Sun. So, I guess you are now converted to agreeing with me that solar activity is not the dominant driver. This would be a viable theory, especially since grand minima do not correlate with temperatures [slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf ].
    Personally, I would not subscribe to this because I think the assumptions [(1) and (2)] on which it is based are not viable. But that does not preclude that you would subscribe to those, which, of course, you could [with no complaints on my part]. A hybrid theory is not credible, i.e. that both the Sun and the Galaxy vary in unison, such that they always help each and never cancel out. There are people out there that would argue this silly hybrid, invoking ‘the soul’ of the universe or a holistic connectedness of all things, but I don’t think you are one of them.

  140. oneuniverse says:
    June 29, 2010 at 2:11 pm
    this conclusion does not exclude that, for instance, the cosmic ray intensity may have been twice higher than at present during 10^5 years in the period 10^6 years before present.
    but it also does not support that idea. But see my remarks just posted.

  141. Dr. Svalgaard, my comment at 2:11 pm wasn’t written in response to your question at 1:59, it was written before I’d read it. Also, we’ve both accidentally mis-spelt LIS in the last posts – I’ve taken the liberty of correcting this in the following quotations.
    And what is the evidence that the LIS was any different during the Maunder Minimum, e.g. much lower than now?
    There is no evidence that I’m aware of, since we’re not considering 10Be and I assume 14C proxies. What’s the evidence that the LIS was the same as it is now, that being the assumption in the Webber and Higby paper ?
    The LIS is an integral over a large part of the Galaxy and does not change on short time scales , except for short spikes probably due to a nearby supernova, e.g. in 1490.
    According to “Supernova Rates” by Bruno Leibundgut, the supernovae rate for our galaxy is 20.8 per millenium, just over one every 50 years.
    If we examine the list of historically recorded supernovae (necessarily only of large enough magnitude to be visible to the naked eye), we can see that some centuries have 2 supernovae (4th AD, 11th AD, 17th AD), and some have none. Given this uneven time distribution, one would expect their effect on local interstellar CR flux to vary.

  142. Leif (2:38 pm) , I’ve assumed neither [1] or [2] in our discussion of Webber and Higbie’s “constant LIS” assumption – your assumptions about my possible assumptions about terrestrial temperature and clouds etc. are not germane.

  143. oneuniverse says:
    June 29, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    There is no evidence that I’m aware of, since we’re not considering 10Be and I assume 14C proxies.
    As far as LIS and comic rays are concerned it makes no difference if it is 10Be or 14C.
    Given this uneven time distribution, one would expect their effect on local interstellar CR flux to vary.
    No, because the supernovae are so far away that the cosmic rays do not travel from the event to the Earth in a straight line, but by a random walk [the diffusion] through the Galaxy taking millions of years and hence averaging over many events, completely obliterating the where and when, leading to a very uniform time and space distribution. This is behind the assumption that the LIS rate does not vary.
    Your Philips quote has this: “These events [entering LIS clouds] would play out on time scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years”. For clarity he means 10,000s to 100,000s of years, so irrelevant for the Maunder Minimum and all the other minima we know of.
    My comment still stands:
    If you assume (1) [contrary to basic diffusion theory that does not support this assumption] that the Galactic LIS varies such that its variation just explains the variation of temperature [further assuming (2) that the GCR flux is the dominant driver – through clouds or whatever], then, of course, you don’t need the Sun to vary [except for the tiny wiggles caused by the 11-year modulation], so solar activity is then not the climate driver. Perhaps that is what you are saying. Spiral arm related GCR variations on time scales of 100s of millions of years can then also be the driver, again we don’t need the Sun. So, I guess you are now converted to agreeing with me that solar activity is not the dominant driver. This would be a viable theory, especially since grand minima do not correlate with temperatures [slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf ].
    Personally, I would not subscribe to this because I think the assumptions [(1) and (2)] on which it is based are not viable. But that does not preclude that you would subscribe to those, which, of course, you could [with no complaints on my part]. A hybrid theory is not credible, i.e. that both the Sun and the Galaxy vary in unison, such that they always help each and never cancel out. There are people out there that would argue this silly hybrid, invoking ‘the soul’ of the universe or a holistic connectedness of all things, but I don’t think you are one of them.

  144. oneuniverse says:
    June 29, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    There is no evidence that I’m aware of, since we’re not considering 10Be and I assume 14C proxies.
    Perhaps I misunderstood your statement. I took it to mean ‘we [you and I] are not considering 10Be and I [i.e. you alone] assume we are considering 14C proxie[s]’.
    But perhaps you were not considering proxies at all, which means that we have no knowledge [indirect or direct] of GCR flux before 1953, so the whole thing is moot.

  145. oneuniverse says:
    June 29, 2010 at 5:33 pm
    Leif (2:38 pm) , I’ve assumed neither [1] or [2] in our discussion of Webber and Higbie’s “constant LIS” assumption – your assumptions about my possible assumptions about terrestrial temperature and clouds etc. are not germane.
    Then I don’t know what you are claiming. You cannot have it both ways [with integrity intact].

  146. Leif, you write: “No, because the supernovae are so far away that the cosmic rays do not travel from the event to the Earth in a straight line, but by a random walk [the diffusion] through the Galaxy taking millions of years and hence averaging over many events, completely obliterating the where and when, leading to a very uniform time and space distribution.”
    Yet as you wrote earlier: “.. [the CR LIS] does not change on short time scales, except for short spikes probably due to a nearby supernova, e.g. in 1490.”
    More proximate supernovae will experience less diffusion, therefore variation in the rate of supernovae occurence in the proximate regions will produce LIS variability, while more distant regions will contribute a more constant background.

  147. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 29, 2010 at 5:49 pm
    Do we know the speed/range of speeds at which GCR’s travel?
    Who measures them?

  148. Leif (5:57 pm) : Your second interpretation was the one I meant.
    The 10Be records themselves would be evidence of large variations in the atmospheric, as opposed to interstellar, flux, if it turned out that the concentration of 10Be depostion is mainly determined by the production rate. Given that a significant portion of 10Be is deposited within days of atmospheric residence, and most within 1-2 years (iirc), this may turn out to be the case.
    Climatic effects are also only able to redistribute the final place and time of deposition, as far as I’m aware, so increasing the number of 10Be datasets should in theory allow us to some extent to account for the climatic signal, at the expense of spatial and temporal resolution.

  149. rbateman, according to Dr. Mewaldt :
    “Most galactic cosmic rays have energies between 100 MeV (corresponding to a velocity for protons of 43% of the speed of light) and 10 GeV (corresponding to 99.6% of the speed of light). “

  150. Leif @ 6:04pm: “Then I don’t know what you are claiming. You cannot have it both ways [with integrity intact].”
    Difficult to believe that you don’t know this:
    My claim concerned Webber and Higbie’s assumption that the interstellar CR flux was the same during the Maunder and Sporer minima as it is now. I think I’ve mentioned that several times, in fact it’s been the only thing I’ve discussed.

  151. Tallbloke:
    What would stop the matter on one side of the void being gravitationally attracted to the matter on the other side of the void, causing it to close up?

    Once a void had developed at the center of the Sun (or Earth), an atom on the edge of that void would no longer experience symmetrical gravitational forces.
    The amount of matter on either side of the atom would be the same, but on the side with the void the Sun’s matter/mass would be further away, and so the gravitational effect would be very slightly less. Thus the atom would experience a net gravitational pull away from the void, tending to make the void stable and potentially even increasing the size of the void. Thus creating a hollow Sun.
    Of course I am only envisaging a small void here, in relation to the size of the Sun. I am sure someone could calculate the maximum extent of such a void, until it comes into some kind of equilibrium and stops enlarging.
    .

  152. Leif:
    So the center of the Sun may actually be hollow.
    Now you are way out there with some of the other esteemed pseudo-scientists that frequent this blog. For all this is a sad state of affairs.

    Sorry Leif, I must protest. I am not a scientist (pseudo or otherwise), I am an intelligent layman with a difficulty understanding a particular point of solar-cosmic science. And I have to say, you are not helping me understand anything here.
    a. We have now agreed that matter is weightless at the center of the Sun (not anywhere within the Sun, as that website you linked said).
    b. With the many eddies and currents in the Sun’s matter, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a small vortex or void may be created within this weightless material, right at the center of the Sun (by small, say 100km or so across).
    c. Any matter on the edge of this void will experience a stronger gravity gradient on its side of this void (the matter there is closer). The difference would be small, but measurable.
    d. Such an asymmetric force would tend to perpetuate the void, so it becomes a stable feature.
    e. Nothing you have said prevents me from thinking that this is a perfectly reasonable thought experiment. In fact, you have made no reasonable comment at all.
    .

  153. @Ralph
    The net gravitational field might be zero, but if some void were to magically come into existence there, with the pressure gradient that would result, something would fill that void pretty darn quick, like before it could form.

  154. >>> d. Such an asymmetric force would tend to perpetuate the
    >>> void, so it becomes a stable feature.
    And as evidence m’lud, I present before the jury the recent case of the Coriolis Force (or effect). The said force is a mere trifle in climatic terms, barely enough to perturb the wings of a butterfly, and yet its constant presence creates and sustains a hurricane. I rest my case.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
    .

  155. Mike G:
    The net gravitational field might be zero, but if some void were to magically come into existence there, with the pressure gradient that would result, something would fill that void pretty darn quick, like before it could form.

    The whole point is that there is NO ‘gas’ or ‘matter’ pressure at the center of the Sun.
    If the matter at the center of the Sun is weightless, as we have established, then there is no ‘atmospheric’ pressure at the center of the Sun whatsoever (atmospheric pressure being created by gravity). The matter at the center of the Sun is free-floating, and able to form a void at the merest whim (especially when it gets whirled around by Jupiter’s long gravitational tresses). So the void may well be long-lasting, or even permanent, and its maximum size would be interesting to calculate.
    .

  156. @Ralph
    Something about arguing with idiots comes to mind…
    But, one more try…
    In the cyclone, the rotation is counteracting the tiny pressure gradient. What do you propose is going to counteract the unimagineably large pressure gradient in your sun-void? A tiny gravity gradient?

  157. @Ralph
    Maybe a better way to look at this would be to wonder how a void could suddenly form in the center of an anvil?

  158. Let me throw this thought out:
    If a star such as the Sun cannot vary, it cannot ascend the H-R diagram.
    Whatever spectral type they begin life under, they die under.
    If it can go up the H-R diagram, then there are two possible ways.
    1.) it ages in a completely smooth fashion.
    2.) it varies in a sinewave fashion.
    Which one fits the observations?

  159. Ralph: The Hyperphysics website that Leif originally directed you to was dealing with the case of a literally rigid shell, like a steel beach ball. If such an object is put out somewhere in space, far from large bodies, it will create a gravitational field around itself that varies as 1/r² just as if a point mass, of value equal to that of the shell, were located right at the center. But there would only be a non-zero field outside of the shell. Inside of it, the field would be exactly zero at all places, and another tiny ‘test mass’ placed inside of it would feel exactly zero force. This is what is demonstrated on that website, and you can also find it in any college textbook on Mechanics in the section on Newtonian gravity.
    If you get that, the rest is easy. A thick shell can be treated as a concentric series of thin shells. Now, since each one would contribute zero field inside of itself, then there would still be zero field in the central void (because it is inside of all of them, and each one has no effect). The field outside of the outermost shell, however, will again be a 1/r² field, but now stronger because there is more total mass involved. The main point, apart from the zero field in the cavity, is that the non-zero field is only due to the amount of material between the center and wherever you are located. Whether it is uniformly distributed, or in a thick shell with a central cavity, or just a very massive thin shell doesn’t matter. You can’t tell from the outside anyway (by gravitational methods), and that’s why we still have lots of uncertainty about the mass distribution inside of the Earth.
    Now let’s make the object solid, and put you down in a hole like your mineshaft. Some of the mass is now above you, or equivalently, your are inside of it, and it has no effect on you. When you are part way into a solid object like this, only the mass fraction that is situated between your location and the center will create the overall force on you (i.e. your weight). You will still feel weight, but it will be less than the value at the surface, and it will decrease linearly as you go deeper, becoming zero at the center. In practice, of course, it’s as hot as hell down there, and lots of it isn’t solid, and at very deep levels, the chances of a void lasting a millisecond are practically zero. You’d need a (damned!) rigid shell for that.
    That any better?
    /dr.bill

  160. Ralph: One last thing – a distribution of charges creates an electric field in much the same way that a distribution of mass creates an electric field, and inside of a shell of charge, the electric field will be zero. That’s why Faraday cages work. Zero electric field means no voltage gradient, so every place inside the shell is at the same potential, and thus you can’t get shocked.
    /dr.bill

  161. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 19, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    The sunspots are cooler because their magnetic field in the photosphere cools the plasma locally, so the cooler temperature is a consequence of the magnetic. The magnetic field in the corona and solar wind is not influence by any of this, and the reconnection with the planetary magnetospheres equally not, and there is no backward reaction.

    If the Corona is not affected, how are we able to see sunspots through the corona?

  162. Ok, Ok, It is a gravitational problem:
    One can think of a thick shell of mass, with an empty space in the middle ( hollow earth anyone?).
    If the mass is solid, the void could be stable . For the sun this is science fiction, there is no solidity.
    Suppose we magically create such a situation at time=0.
    Once we get into gasses and plasma, or even fluids, the void will be filled eventually by diffusion with molecules coming from the maxwellian distribution of momenta and energies of the molecules in the thick ring shell above, which for the sun, are at high temperatures. Photons of course will come immediately and will start creating a gravitational field. One could calculate how long it would take, but I would not think it would take much time to diffuse and finally bring the density to the density of the shell and of course the corresponding to its volume gravitational forces.

  163. oneuniverse says:
    June 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    More proximate supernovae will experience less diffusion, therefore variation in the rate of supernovae occurence in the proximate regions will produce LIS variability, while more distant regions will contribute a more constant background.
    The 1490 spike is controversial. It has to be a very near supernova if it is one, but none is known. The particles ejected by a supernova explosion are not GCRs [yet] because they move way to slowly.During millions of years some of these particles will encounter ‘magnetic mirrors’ [tangled magnetic fields] and some will be accelerated by that, each time a little bit more until the particles move almost at the speed of light. This takes time, so proximate supernovae does not add to the GCR flux that we can observe.
    The 1490 event is a mystery in any case.
    rbateman says:
    June 29, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    Do we know the speed/range of speeds at which GCR’s travel?
    from 50% to 99.999% of the speed of light or something like that
    Who measures them?
    We measure the energy the GCR [mostly a proton] has, and from that can calculate from special relativity at which speed it must be travelling.
    oneuniverse says:
    June 29, 2010 at 6:58 pm
    Leif (5:57 pm) : Your second interpretation was the one I meant.
    The 10Be records themselves would be evidence of large variations in the atmospheric, as opposed to interstellar, flux, if it turned out that the concentration of 10Be depostion is mainly determined by the production rate. Given that a significant portion of 10Be is deposited within days of atmospheric residence, and most within 1-2 years (iirc), this may turn out to be the case.
    Climatic effects are also only able to redistribute the final place and time of deposition, as far as I’m aware, so increasing the number of 10Be datasets should in theory allow us to some extent to account for the climatic signal, at the expense of spatial and temporal resolution.
    oneuniverse says:
    June 29, 2010 at 7:27 pm
    My claim concerned Webber and Higbie’s assumption that the interstellar CR flux was the same during the Maunder and Sporer minima as it is now. I think I’ve mentioned that several times, in fact it’s been the only thing I’ve discussed.
    Well, in that case the result is clear [I have already given you the reason for that] and you should feel comfortable now knowing that on time scales important to us, the GCR flux is constant. To reiterate: to produce a cosmic ray particles must wander around a lot in interstellar space, thus integrating over space and time producing a constant flux.
    But it is hard to believe that that was your only point. Somehow the constancy or lack thereof seems to be important to you for some other aspect, perhaps even the climate.
    Ralph says:
    June 29, 2010 at 8:03 pm
    Sorry Leif, I must protest. I am not a scientist (pseudo or otherwise), I am an intelligent layman with a difficulty understanding a particular point of solar-cosmic science. And I have to say, you are not helping me understand anything here.
    I gave you a link to a thorough and compelling explanation. If you have difficulty understanding the derivation [there is some elementary math in there], several people here can help you.
    rbateman says:
    June 29, 2010 at 9:21 pm
    If a star such as the Sun cannot vary
    It does on time scales of billions of years
    2.) it varies in a sinewave fashion.
    Not quite, but the evolution is not smooth and has several ‘flashes’ and jerks.
    tallbloke says:
    June 29, 2010 at 9:52 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 19, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    If the Corona is not affected, how are we able to see sunspots through the corona?
    Because the corona is so tenuous [optically thin] at visible wavelength. At radio wavelengths the corona is not transparent.

  164. Mike G:
    Maybe a better way to look at this would be to wonder how a void could suddenly form in the center of an anvil?

    An anvil is not fluid in the center, and neither does it have forces pulling outwards from the center, like the Sun has.
    .

  165. Dr Bill:
    Now let’s make the object solid, and put you down in a hole like your mineshaft. Some of the mass is now above you, or equivalently, your are inside of it, and it has no effect on you. When you are part way into a solid object like this, only the mass fraction that is situated between your location and the center will create the overall force on you (i.e. your weight). You will still feel weight, but it will be less than the value at the surface, and it will decrease linearly as you go deeper, becoming zero at the center. In practice, of course, it’s as hot as hell down there, and lots of it isn’t solid, and at very deep levels, the chances of a void lasting a millisecond are practically zero. You’d need a (damned!) rigid shell for that.
    That any better?

    No need to be patronising, Dr Bill, this is what I said in my very first post – that matter is weightless at the center of the Sun. We passed that problem days ago, but got no further.
    But you still did not answer my primary question – can that weightlessness at the center generate a void.
    You said:
    “Its hot as hell” – – sorry, irrelevant to the discussion.
    “It is not solid” – – never said it was, in fact voids will form more easily in a liquid.
    “A void will only last milliseconds” – – Why? Explanation?
    The point made by another contributor was that the pressure inside the Sun will prevent a void from forming. This is more logical than your ‘explanations’. The Sun is a containment vessel, with gravity providing the containment and increasing the pressure in the matter in proportion to the distance from the center of gravity.
    So it is pressure from the surrounding matter that will prevent a void from forming at the center, even though the central matter is weightless. Correct?
    .

  166. Italics error.
    Dr Bill:
    Now let’s make the object solid, and put you down in a hole like your mineshaft. Some of the mass is now above you, or equivalently, your are inside of it, and it has no effect on you. When you are part way into a solid object like this, only the mass fraction that is situated between your location and the center will create the overall force on you (i.e. your weight). You will still feel weight, but it will be less than the value at the surface, and it will decrease linearly as you go deeper, becoming zero at the center. In practice, of course, it’s as hot as hell down there, and lots of it isn’t solid, and at very deep levels, the chances of a void lasting a millisecond are practically zero. You’d need a (damned!) rigid shell for that.
    That any better?

    No need to be patronising, Dr Bill, this is what I said in my very first post – that matter is weightless at the center of the Sun. We passed that problem days ago, but got no further.
    But you still did not answer my primary question – can that weightlessness at the center generate a void.
    You said:
    “Its hot as hell” – – sorry, irrelevant to the discussion.
    “It is not solid” – – never said it was, in fact voids will form more easily in a liquid.
    “A void will only last milliseconds” – – Why? Explanation?
    The point made by another contributor was that the pressure inside the Sun will prevent a void from forming. This is more logical than your ‘explanations’. The Sun is a containment vessel, with gravity providing the containment and increasing the pressure in the matter in proportion to the distance from the center of gravity.
    So it is pressure from the surrounding matter that will prevent a void from forming at the center, even though the central matter is weightless. Correct?
    .

  167. Ralph, what about Anna V’s explanation :
    “Once we get into gasses and plasma, or even fluids, the void will be filled eventually by diffusion with molecules coming from the maxwellian distribution of momenta and energies of the molecules in the thick ring shell above, which for the sun, are at high temperatures. “
    If the net gravitational force at the center is close to null then the hot/kinetically energetic particles at the border of the void will cross that border without difficulty, and begin filling the void by diffusion, even though there’s no gravitation pull towards the center. (Just repeating part of what Anna said, I think).

  168. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 30, 2010 at 3:02 am (Edit)
    tallbloke says:
    June 29, 2010 at 9:52 pm
    If the Corona is not affected, how are we able to see sunspots through the corona?
    Because the corona is so tenuous [optically thin] at visible wavelength. At radio wavelengths the corona is not transparent.

    Are there any data on coronal holes coinciding with sunspot locations?

  169. tallbloke says:
    June 30, 2010 at 7:49 am
    Are there any data on coronal holes coinciding with sunspot locations?
    sunspots are often found at the boundaries of coronal holes [helping to provide the magnetic flux that causes the hole to open up]. Coronal holes occur in the middle of so-called solar magnetic sectors. Adjacent sectors have opposite magnetic polarities. The boundary between sectors can be seen in the interplanetary medium as the Heliospheric Current Sheet, which as a ‘sector boundary’ sweeps over the Earth every one to two weeks. The sector boundary can be observed on the Sun as a magnetic ‘neutral line’ separating areas of opposite polarities. Where the change in polarity matches that of the change of polarity between the leading and trailing polarities of spots in active regions is where active regions [and hence spots] most often occurs. This is explained in more detail here: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Hale%20Solar%20Sector%20Boundary.pdf

  170. Ralph: June 30, 2010 at 4:22 am
    That wasn’t condescension. You had asked a convoluted set of questions that indicated a lack of understanding at a fundamental level, and several people were kind enough to try and help with that. Nobody here has any obligation to do that. It is entirely voluntary. You clearly, however, have no appreciation of their efforts, and are rude and demanding to boot. Good luck with your next question. (!)
    /dr.bill

  171. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 30, 2010 at 8:05 am (Edit)
    tallbloke says:
    June 30, 2010 at 7:49 am
    Are there any data on coronal holes coinciding with sunspot locations?
    sunspots are often found at the boundaries of coronal holes [helping to provide the magnetic flux that causes the hole to open up].

    Aha! So, the sunspot’s do have an effect on the corona. Good stuff, and thanks for the link to your 1976 paper. I’m impressed, and I think it will repay a careful reading.
    More &^*^%^ homework!

  172. Leif,
    You say that a nearby supernova may have caused the 1490 (1460?) spike, yet when I raise the possibility that the irregular timing of galactic supernovae may cause variation in the local interstellear CR flux, you say that occurence of “proximate supernovae does not add to the GCR flux that we can observe”. This seems contradictory.
    ..you should feel comfortable now knowing that on time scales important to us, the GCR flux is constant.
    You haven’t addressed the possibility of changes in our local local interstellar environment affecting the CR flux. As noted earlier, on average it’s thought that there has been up to 20% variablility in the past several million years, and it’s not possible to rule out much larger variability on shorter timescales (eg, of 10^5 years).
    According to Florinski and Zank 2005 (“Galactic cosmic ray response to heliospheric environment changes and implications for cosmogenic isotope records”) : “There is evidence that the so-called G cloud, which could become the next solar environment in another 10^3-10^5 years, may be 15 times denser than the LIC.”. Our local interstellar environment may vary on timescales short enough to have an effect even from one millenium to the next.
    From the same paper (based on two different CR diffusion models) : “It is seen that the largest possible increase in the rate of cosmogenic isotope production due to galactic environment variability is in the range of 75–-300%. This is certainly enough to explain the variability measured in 10Be records.”
    We have incomplete knowledge of our local interstellar environment (otherwise we wouldn’t have been surprised by the recent magnetic cloud discovery), and know even less what it was like 1000 years ago, yet we know that the environment can affect the LIS. We don’t know what other events may have occured to influence LIS, such as possibly supernovae or changes in impinging interstellar magnetic fields. I don’t share your certainty that that the interstellar CR flux in the heliospheric vicinity has been constant.

  173. Leif: “But it is hard to believe that that was your only point. Somehow the constancy or lack thereof seems to be important to you for some other aspect, perhaps even the climate.”
    We did discuss cosmic rays and climate in another thread – it has no logical bearing on this discussion of Webber & Higbie and LIS.

  174. @Ralph
    What force is pulling mass out from the center of the sun?
    Just guessing about the anvil. I don’t think anybody knows what exactly the center of the sun is like. But, I suspect the forces acting between atoms there are much stronger than the forces acting between atoms in the anvil.
    Perhaps this rather timid illustration of the forces that would be acting to close your hypothetical void will help:

  175. Trailing along here: so sunspots through their coronal effect and on the solar wind might modify how many GCRs hit the earth. And if the local interstellar environment gets juiced periodically by non-galactic CRs then the assumption of steady LIC might be in question. Both these suggest that the data grounding Leif’s belief that the sun hasn’t much effect on climate might be misleading him.
    ====================

  176. Ralph (8:03 pm) :
    The amount of matter on either side of the atom would be the same, but on the side with the void the Sun’s matter/mass would be further away, and so the gravitational effect would be very slightly less. Thus the atom would experience a net gravitational pull away from the void [..]
    Actually, the net gravitational force is in fact towards the void/centre.
    Your mistake is that you’re only measuring the mass on either side of the atom along a one-dimnensional line. If you include the mass ‘off to the sides’ rather then just directly ahead and behind, you’ll find that the net gravitational force is towards the centre – in other words, measured from the centre, there’s less mass on the far side of the atom than there is on the near side, so the net force is towards the near side (the centre).

  177. re: my 4:29pm just above
    in other words, measured from the centre, there’s less mass on the far side of the atom than there is on the near side, so the net force is towards the near side (the centre)
    The above isn’t quite correct – the “so” doesn’t follow, since the inverse square of the distances is involved as well, but the calculations do yield a force that’s towards the centre.

  178. tallbloke says:
    June 30, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    >i>Aha! So, the sunspot’s do have an effect on the corona.
    No, you misread that. Sunspots and the corona are generated by the the same thing, the Sun’s magnetic field, but how cold a spot is [I think that was the original question] has no influence per so on the corona, i.e. there is not a signature in the corona saying “here is a cold sunspot”.
    oneuniverse says:
    June 30, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    nearby supernova may have caused the 1490 (1460?) spike, yet when I raise the possibility that the irregular timing of galactic supernovae may cause variation in the local interstellear CR flux, you say that occurence of “proximate supernovae does not add to the GCR flux that we can observe”. This seems contradictory.
    First, “I” don’t say so; some people speculate so. This would be a very short-lived effect if it is a nearby supernova [and none is known to match]. The GCR flux we see is the integrated effect of perhaps tens of thousands of supernova, most at vast distances and we see no spatial variation [the flux is the same in all directions, expect for the effect[s] that are due to the processes in the solar system. There is, for example, a diurnal effect due to the rotation of the Earth [same process that makes it seem that there is more traffic on a highway coming towards you than going away fro you]. Since there is no spatial variation it is most unlikely that there would be a temporal variation [as it would vary unevenly across the sky].
    ..you should feel comfortable now knowing that on time scales important to us, the GCR flux is constant.
    You haven’t addressed the possibility of changes in our local local interstellar environment affecting the CR flux. […] Our local interstellar environment may vary on timescales short enough to have an effect even from one millenium to the next.
    I did address that, but let me repeat: we are talking about tens of thousands of years, abnd BTW, we do know where the clouds are in our interstellar neighborhood.
    This is certainly enough to explain the variability measured in 10Be records.
    Not on the shorter time scale we are talking about.
    I don’t share your certainty that that the interstellar CR flux in the heliospheric vicinity has been constant.
    Fair enough. But if it is not, then argument that solar activity [through] variation of GCR modulation is the dominant driver of climate falls on its face, as the flux is determined outside of the solar system.
    oneuniverse says:
    June 30, 2010 at 3:07 pm
    it has no logical bearing on this discussion of Webber & Higbie and LIS.
    Perhaps not [except that it could color your view of things]. As far as W&H are concerned, I [and most people having studied this carefully over last half century] find their argument compelling. but, hey, there are people out there that think to sun is hollow, that the Universe is 6000 years old, etc, so I guess your opinion might deviate as well from that following from W&P’s careful study.
    kim says:
    June 30, 2010 at 3:27 pm
    Both these suggest that the data grounding Leif’s belief that the sun hasn’t much effect on climate might be misleading him.
    Actually no: if the GCR flux is an unknown mixture of galactic and solar causes, then people that claim [and there are such, believe it or not] that there is a perfect, compelling, obvious, clear, increasingly evident, robust, etc] correlation between solar activity and climate are in trouble, because that leaves no room for the galactic variation.

  179. oneuniverse says:
    June 30, 2010 at 2:53 pm (Edit)
    Leif,
    You say that a nearby supernova may have caused the 1490 (1460?) spike, yet when I raise the possibility that the irregular timing of galactic supernovae may cause variation in the local interstellear CR flux, you say that occurence of “proximate supernovae does not add to the GCR flux that we can observe”. This seems contradictory.
    According to Florinski and Zank 2005 (“Galactic cosmic ray response to heliospheric environment changes and implications for cosmogenic isotope records”)

    Excellent, thanks for the link to the paper.
    As a matter of interest, a pretty good curve fit to the 14C record (which seems to track 10Be pretty well) can be achieved with just two sine waves in combination. One on a frequency of 2245 years, a well known solar system angular momentum tradeoff cycle involving the gas giants, the other at a frequency of 6000 years, origin as yet unknown (to me anyway).
    Why small perturbations in the orbital elements of the planets might affect the levels of 10Be depostion on Earth I’m not sure, but I thought it worth noting in case someones light comes on about it.

  180. tallbloke says:
    June 30, 2010 at 10:20 pm
    As a matter of interest, a pretty good curve fit to the 14C record…
    Which record? corrected for the variation of the geomagnetic field?
    well known solar system angular momentum tradeoff cycle
    There isn’t any tradeoff of angular momentum as we have discussed so many times.

  181. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 30, 2010 at 10:26 pm (Edit)
    tallbloke says:
    June 30, 2010 at 10:20 pm
    As a matter of interest, a pretty good curve fit to the 14C record…
    Which record? corrected for the variation of the geomagnetic field?

    You have another 10,000 year proxy for changes in the geomagnetic field?
    There isn’t any tradeoff of angular momentum as we have discussed so many times.
    I’m not talking about the solar system as a whole, I’m talking about the tradeoffs between the gas giants which produce perturbances such as the 2245 year cycle in the length of N+U synodic periods.

  182. tallbloke says:
    July 1, 2010 at 4:02 am
    “corrected for the variation of the geomagnetic field?”
    You have another 10,000 year proxy for changes in the geomagnetic field?

    Yes, but you dodged the question…
    gas giants which produce perturbances such as the 2245 year cycle in the length of N+U synodic periods.
    Whatever the angular momenta of the gas giants are, they have no influence on the cosmic ray modulation.

  183. How about switching to the current spot?
    It’s EIT signatures (171, 195, 284), X-ray and just about everything else are extremely weak, but it has a magnetogram and continuum signature that is unmistakable.

  184. rbateman says:
    July 1, 2010 at 9:00 am
    How about switching to the current spot?
    Not quite sure what you mean. Perhaps a discussion of 1084?
    It’s EIT signatures (171, 195, 284), X-ray and just about everything else are extremely weak, but it has a magnetogram and continuum signature that is unmistakable.
    The layman’s count says it a record-maker so far for SC24.

  185. tallbloke says:
    June 30, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    Sunspots and the corona are generated by the the same thing, the Sun’s magnetic field, but how cold a spot is [I think that was the original question] has no influence per se on the corona, i.e. there is not a signature in the corona saying “here is a cold sunspot”.
    However, when new magnetic flux emerges [e.g. a new spot] it can have a dramatic influence. See this nice piece:
    http://msslxr.mssl.ucl.ac.uk:8080/SolarB/nuggets/nugget_jul01.jsp

  186. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 1, 2010 at 9:29 am
    rbateman says:
    July 1, 2010 at 9:00 am
    How about switching to the current spot?

    Not quite sure what you mean. Perhaps a discussion of 1084?
    ——————-
    Yes, please, we need to change the channel in here.
    Let’s dissect 1084 and see what makes it tick.
    I know this 1084 is a great looking spot, but the underlying EIT’s from SOHO are those of a plage region (and weak at that).
    I believe you mentioned something about unipolar spots some time ago.

  187. rbateman says:
    July 1, 2010 at 12:31 pm
    Yes, please, we need to change the channel in here.
    Let’s dissect 1084 and see what makes it tick.

    One thing that is clear is that it does not have a strongly twisted and irregular magnetic field, which is a pre-requisite for stronger activity [CME, flares, etc]. Also, there are no other spots nearby to disturb it, so it will sit there and slowly spread and eventually decay.

  188. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 1, 2010 at 12:51 pm
    Oh, thank you. This is much better.
    How often do these non-twisted and non-irregular field spots show up?
    If you know of a way to pinpoint other instances of them back to 1996, I would like to look them up and see if they too have very weak EIT signatures.

  189. rbateman says:
    July 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm
    How often do these non-twisted and non-irregular field spots show up?
    If you know of a way to pinpoint other instances of them back to 1996, I would like to look them up and see if they too have very weak EIT signatures.

    I guess one could devise an algorithm for this…
    But for now, the only way is eyeballing.

  190. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 1, 2010 at 6:14 am (Edit)
    Whatever the angular momenta of the gas giants are, they have no influence on the cosmic ray modulation.

    Maybe so. It could be that it’s just the visible symptom of some other phenomenon.
    Speculation on a postcard to the usual address.

  191. tallbloke says:
    July 1, 2010 at 1:52 pm
    Maybe so. It could be that it’s just the visible symptom of some other phenomenon.
    Speculation on a postcard to the usual address.

    Too many speculations there. But I asked you a specific question which you [just] might be gracious enough to answer:
    As a matter of interest, a pretty good curve fit to the 14C record…
    Which record? corrected for the variation of the geomagnetic field? “

  192. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 1, 2010 at 10:50 am (Edit)
    tallbloke says:
    June 30, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    Sunspots and the corona are generated by the the same thing, the Sun’s magnetic field, but how cold a spot is [I think that was the original question] has no influence per se on the corona, i.e. there is not a signature in the corona saying “here is a cold sunspot”.
    However, when new magnetic flux emerges [e.g. a new spot] it can have a dramatic influence. See this nice piece:
    http://msslxr.mssl.ucl.ac.uk:8080/SolarB/nuggets/nugget_jul01.jsp

    Really fascinating, thanks Leif. My original thought was that perhaps the reason why sunpots are colder than the surrounding area might be that energy is moving from their location, outwards through the corona and forming part of the solar wind which emanates from coronal holes.

  193. tallbloke says:
    July 1, 2010 at 2:20 pm
    Really fascinating, thanks Leif. My original thought was that perhaps the reason why sunpots are colder than the surrounding area might be that energy is moving from their location, outwards through the corona and forming part of the solar wind which emanates from coronal holes.
    Suppose a sunspot was as hot as the surrounding atmosphere [ignoring for the moment that we wouldn’t be able to see it – an extreme L&P effect 🙂 ]. Hot vapor has a pressure, Phot. A magnetic field also in itself exerts a pressure [try to press wo like poles of toy magnets together and you can feel it], Pmag. The total pressure inside a sunspot is now Pspot = Phot + Pmag. Since Pspot is larger than Phot [because Pmag is > 0], the pressure inside the spot is larger than in the surrounding photosphere [where it is Phot under our assumption that the sunspot was a hot as its surroundings. Becasue Pspot > Phot, the spot will expand. Expanding matter cools, therefore the spot is cooler. The magnetic field in the spot is closed [you can see the loops here http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/ssw/ssw_client/data/ssw_service_100626_055423_12124589/www/ssw_cutout_20100626_023002_aia_211_S20E88_20100626_023000_m.mpg ] and the matter normally doesn’t make it across the field lines to the solar wind [exception: a flare that may blow open the field briefly].

  194. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 1, 2010 at 1:55 pm
    Been searching through Mt. Wilson monthly Sunspot reports which stops in 2004. This would be a AF+(x) spot [or a AP+(x)] ??
    Haven’t found any yet. The ‘+’ is for reversed polarity.

  195. Leif Svalgaard: As far as W&H are concerned, I [and most people having studied this carefully over last half century] find their argument compelling. but, hey, there are people out there that think to sun is hollow, that the Universe is 6000 years old, etc, so I guess your opinion might deviate as well from that following from W&P’s careful study..
    Leif, unlike Creationists, my comments on W&H, and the possible variability of GCR flux in local interstallar space, are supported in the peer-reviewed literature, which I’ll demonstrate.
    Firstly though, please note that the only issue I’ve taken with W&H’s study is that in their calculation of an upper bound for 1000 years ago, they appear to tacitly assume that local GCR LIS hasn’t varied, either by secular variations apparent in time spans of 1000 years, or shorter term perturbations, such as “short spikes probably due to a nearby supernova”, as you said, which actually contradicts this following contention of yours that local supernova activity has no effect on the LIS.
    According to you :

    The particles ejected by a supernova explosion are not GCRs [yet] because they move way to slowly.During millions of years some of these particles will encounter ‘magnetic mirrors’ [tangled magnetic fields] and some will be accelerated by that, each time a little bit more until the particles move almost at the speed of light. This takes time, so proximate supernovae does not add to the GCR flux that we can observe.

    In fact, there seems to be evidence that supernovae can be sources of GCRs near or at the energy knee more or less by themselves. From Warren et al. 2005 (“Cosmic Ray Acceleration at the Forward Shock in Tycho’s Supernova Remnant: Evidence from Chandra X-ray Observations”) :

    With the clear detection of non-thermal X-ray synchrotron emission from the rims of the remnant of SN 1006 by Koyama et al. (1995), it was established that the shocks in supernova remnants (SNRs) can accelerate cosmic ray electrons to TeV energies [100 TeV from Koyama et al.]. These energies are close to, but do not quite reach, the “knee” in the cosmic ray spectrum around 300 TeV.

    So the top-end accelerated electron energies are below the knee by a factor of three or so. However, we’re really interested in the protons :

    For the pressure in relativistic particles to be 50% of the ram pressure [in order to be consistent with observations], the energy density in protons must be >= 50 times the energy density in electrons. This is the most conservative estimate, using our lowest magnetic field value (33 μG) [from an estimated range of 33 to 436 μG] [..]

    So the accelerated protons have at least 50 times the energy density of the electrons. Assuming a 1:1 ratio of protons and electrons (I don’t know the actual ratio), we can estimate top accelerated proton energies of 5 x 10^15 eV, which interestingly are more or less at the observed interstellar GCR knee, ~ 10^15 eV.
    On Earth, the measured proton-electron ratio of GCRs is ~10 for 10 GeV and ~10^2 for 1 TeV” (Borisov 2009). I’m not sure if a figure is known for the LIS . What is the proton-electron ration of the matter being accelerated at the supernova? I haven’t been able to find this either.
    Warren et al. conclude :

    For years, astronomers have been estimating explosion energies, ages, and ambient densities for young SNRs based on the observed properties of the forward shock under the assumption of adiabatic dynamics (e.g., Sedov-Taylor, Truelove & McKee 1999). As we have shown here, the dynamics of the forward shock in Tycho are dominated by efficient cosmic ray acceleration. If Tycho is a typical case, then all these previous estimates are based on incorrect assumptions.

    A prediction of this is an anisotropic signal from GCRs. You contend that the flux is completely isotropic (“we see no spatial variation [the flux is the same in all directions, expect for the effect[s] that are due to the processes in the solar system.”)
    In fact, the prediction is fulfulled. There’s an observed anisotropy, small (~5%) at 10 GeV but becoming more significant once approaching TeV energies (Erlykin & Wolfendale 2006), which suggests that proximate supernovae affect local GCR flux – the higher energy GCRs provide evidence that the’ve arrived directly(ish) from the supernova rather than after galactic round trips. Lower energy particles are more affected by the the heliosphere and lose the directional signal of their origin.
    There’s other research supporting the notion that local supernova have an effect on local GCR. From “Anisotropy and Corotation of Galactic Cosmic Rays”, (The Tibet AS Association, 2006) :

    The anisotropy of Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) may result from an uneven distribution of cosmic ray (CR) sources and the process of CR propagation in the Milky Way. CRs with energy below 10^15 eV are accelerated by diffusive magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) shocks (1–4) of supernova remnants (SNRs) and stellar winds.

    And Erlykin & Wolfendale 2006 ( “The anisotropy of galactic cosmic rays as a product of stochastic supernova explosions”) :

    We conclude that if the bulk of cosmic rays are produced in supernova explosions [which is the conservative hypothesis] the observed small and nearly energy independent amplitude of the anisotropy and its phase are to the large extent determined by the history of these explosions in the vicinity of the solar system, namely by the location and the age of the supernova remnants, within a few kpc, which give the highest contibution to the total intensity at the present epoch. [..] It is shown that the excessive cosmic ray flux from the Outer Galaxy can be due to the location of the Solar System at the inner edge of the Orion Arm which has the enhanced density and rate of supernova explosions.

    Another possibility is that our solar system’s movement may have affected the LIS in the past 1000 years (Priscilla C. Frisch 2006, “Short-Term Variations In The Galactic Environment of the Sun”):

    The galactic environment of the Sun varies over short timescales as the Sun and interstellar clouds travel through space. Small variations in the dynamics, ionization, density, and magnetic field strength in the interstellar medium (ISM) surrounding the Sun can lead to pronounced changes in the properties of the heliosphere.
    ..
    We test several possibilities for the three-dimensional (3D) shape of the LIC, and conclude that the Sun entered the surrounding cloud sometime within the past 40,000 years, and possibly very recently, in the past ~1000 years.

  196. oneuniverse says:
    July 1, 2010 at 7:31 pm
    Leif, unlike Creationists, my comments on W&H, and the possible variability of GCR flux in local interstallar space, are supported in the peer-reviewed literature, which I’ll demonstrate. […] etc
    You use examples of GCRs with energies thousands of times larger than the usual GCRs we observe and fluxes millions of times less. These have no influence on 10Be and 14C production, so are moot for the problem at hand. Without appealing to authority may I appeal to experience: W&H [especially W] are old hands at this and know and have evaluated the relative importance of the various asymmetries [of the order of 5% in contrast to the claimed 200-300% claimed] and are certainly aware of all the pertinent papers [as I am]. Now, I’m not married to the commonly held view [although I conditionally share it and I think W&H’s arguments are good] that the GCRs are constant on the relevant time scales. If we assume for the sake of the argument that the dominant cause of variation of GCRs at Earth and thus 10Be [if we discount the significant variation with climate] is the variation of the galactic flux, then we can discount solar activity as a significant driver. This is my main point. The idea that both galactic and solar modulation in about equal [or unknown] amounts are responsible, I’ll dismiss as special pleading. This makes the claimed ‘clear, perfect, significant, etc’ correlations between solar activity [as expressed as radionuclide production] and climate [through the GCR modulation of clouds] either spurious or cherry picked as needed.
    The galactic environment of the Sun varies over short timescales as the Sun and interstellar clouds travel through space. Small variations in the dynamics, ionization, density, and magnetic field strength in the interstellar medium (ISM) surrounding the Sun can lead to pronounced changes in the properties of the heliosphere.
    This is no more about the GCR flux in the LIS, but rather about the pressure balances that modulate the size of the heliosphere and has therefore no bearing on the LIS GCR intensity itself.

  197. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 1, 2010 at 9:29 am
    rbateman says:
    July 1, 2010 at 9:00 am
    How about switching to the current spot?
    Not quite sure what you mean. Perhaps a discussion of 1084?
    It’s EIT signatures (171, 195, 284), X-ray and just about everything else are extremely weak, but it has a magnetogram and continuum signature that is unmistakable.
    —————————————
    The layman’s count says it a record-maker so far for SC24.

    Visual observations suggest the same, do L&P have a measure or have they gone missing again?

  198. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 1, 2010 at 2:33 pm (Edit)
    The magnetic field in the spot is closed [you can see the loops here http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/ssw/ssw_client/data/ssw_service_100626_055423_12124589/www/ssw_cutout_20100626_023002_aia_211_S20E88_20100626_023000_m.mpg ] and the matter normally doesn’t make it across the field lines to the solar wind [exception: a flare that may blow open the field briefly].

    Ok, thanks Leif. Do you know if any work has been done relating the sunspot number to the number of big flares and/or CME’s? And the solar windspeed?

  199. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 2, 2010 at 3:39 am
    do L&P have a measure or have they gone missing again?
    Bad attitude. But, yes, they have data for June. Should be reduced next week.
    tallbloke says:
    July 2, 2010 at 5:09 am
    any work has been done relating the sunspot number to the number of big flares and/or CME’s? And the solar wind speed?
    Yes, a lot. That is basically what solar physicists are doing. A good general reference is http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/ which is constantly revised and added to. A more accessible link is http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sunopen.htm [or http://www.phy6.org/readfirst.htm ].

  200. I take it as a given that Solar Physics is not interested in the climate per se, any more than Astrophysics is interested in biology.
    The plates are full.
    Do I have that right?

  201. rbateman says:
    July 2, 2010 at 7:43 am
    I take it as a given that Solar Physics is not interested in the climate per se, any more than Astrophysics is interested in biology. The plates are full. Do I have that right?
    No. There is even such a thing as astrobiology, too. Part of the very reason we study the Sun is the subject that used to be called ‘Solar-Terrestrial Relations’ which includes the [possible?] influence on climate.

  202. Lol. So in what way is Willie Soons graph a “circular argument” Leif?
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/willie-soon-brings-sunshine-to-the-debate-on-solar-climate-link/
    Thanks for the link to solar physics 101 by the way, I had a good laugh at the deeply scientific dismissal of planetary influence. I didn’t find out much about correlations between sunspot numbers and other solar phenomena such as big flares and CME’s. I was wondering about coronal holes too, because I read somewhere that coronal hole numbers (or areas?) overlapped the solar cycles in anti correlation? Seems a bit counterintuitive.
    Clues welcome.

  203. tallbloke says:
    July 2, 2010 at 1:27 pm
    Lol. So in what way is Willie Soons graph a “circular argument” Leif?
    In the same way as the argument that the Moon is more important than the Sun, because the Moon shines at night when it is dark, while the Sun shines during the day, where it is light anyway…
    I had a good laugh at the deeply scientific dismissal of planetary influence.
    Indeed the dismissal was scientific.
    I didn’t find out much about correlations between sunspot numbers and other solar phenomena such as big flares and CME’s.
    I’m not sure what there is the find out, beside that Flares/CMEs have a very close association with sunspots.
    I was wondering about coronal holes too, because I read somewhere that coronal hole numbers (or areas?) overlapped the solar cycles in anti correlation? Seems a bit counterintuitive.
    The polar coronal holes are largest at solar minimum. Mid- and low-latitude coronal holes are fed with magnetic flux from sunspots, so are frequent as solar maximum, with one twist: too many sunspots disturb the formation of coronal holes, with the net result that those holes are most prevalent when the sunspots have abated a bit, i.e. during the decline of the cycle, often in the last few years just before solar minimum. The solar wind [that correlates with the coronal holes] thus blows strongest at that same time.

  204. What am I missing? That seems like a mechanism by which sunspots could modify climate. Or that whatever is modifying sunspots could modify earth’s climate.
    =================================

  205. “How many times can a man turn his head,
    and pretend that he just doesn’t see?
    The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind
    The answer is blowing in the wind”
    Play it again Bob, and again, and again.

  206. tallbloke says:
    July 3, 2010 at 5:42 am
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/venus-earth-jupiter-alignment-and-the-solar-cycle/
    Perhaps with Ceres alignments added in [as per Ulrich] you get even better correlation. there are many thousands of minor planets out there. Perhaps you could search for [and pick] some that improve the correlation even more. With enough planets and judicious picking one should be able to achieve almost perfect correlation.

  207. Leif Svalgaard: You use examples of GCRs with energies thousands of times larger than the usual GCRs we observe and fluxes millions of times less.
    It sounds like you’ve accepted that supernovae with remnants can accelerate particles to CR energies. They will create a spectrum of energies, including cosmic rays at the lower, more ‘normal’ ranges.
    This is no more about the GCR flux in the LIS [..]
    You’ve somewhat missed the point here. That quotation from “Short-Term Variations In The Galactic Environment of the Sun” was to illustrate that there can be changes taking place in our local neighborhood on time-scales relevant to the discussion.
    W&H [especially W] are old hands at this and know and have evaluated the relative importance of the various asymmetries [of the order of 5% in contrast to the claimed 200-300% claimed].
    You’ve walked back your earlier assertion that there’s no directional variation. (The 200-300% doesn’t refer to anisotropic asymetries, by the way, but to CR flux changes due to changes in the heliosphere and local environment). The significance of the anisotropy is that it means that cosmic rays don’t have to take round-trips around the galaxy before reaching us. This fits well with the evidence that supernovae and their after-effects can accelerate particles to GCR energies.
    If we assume for the sake of the argument that the dominant cause of variation of GCRs at Earth and thus 10Be [if we discount the significant variation with climate] is the variation of the galactic flux, then we can discount solar activity as a significant driver.
    The’re evidence that cosmic ray flux may be dominated on multi-million year time-scales by the Earth’s oscillation in and out of the galactic plane (Shaviv and Veizer). I’m not aware of anyone making such a claim for shorter time-scales.

  208. oneuniverse says:
    July 3, 2010 at 10:20 am
    They will create a spectrum of energies, including cosmic rays at the lower, more ‘normal’ ranges.
    But these normal ranges will be completely scattered and average out.
    was to illustrate that there can be changes taking place in our local neighborhood on time-scales relevant to the discussion.
    Changes in the size of the heliosphere, not of the GCR flux outside the heliosphere, so not relevant for LIS flux
    to CR flux changes due to changes in the heliosphere and local environment)
    again, changes of the heliosphere has nothing to do with the GCR flux outside of the heliosphere
    >i>”If we assume for the sake of the argument that the dominant cause of variation of GCRs at Earth and thus 10Be [if we discount the significant variation with climate] is the variation of the galactic flux, then we can discount solar activity as a significant driver”
    The’re evidence that cosmic ray flux may be dominated on multi-million year time-scales by the Earth’s oscillation in and out of the galactic plane (Shaviv and Veizer). I’m not aware of anyone making such a claim for shorter time-scales.
    Red herring. As we discussing the Maunder Minimum time scale.

  209. Well there is a music of the spheres with variations, about it. Whatever alters the sunspots could(Hi Leif) change the solar wind and hence the CR to the earth. That ‘whatever’ could(Heh) have fallen into an oscillation with the orbits of the other masses in the solar system, even from a trivial butterfly wing effect acting over immense time. Long term modulation from the plane of the galaxy and from alterations in intergalactic environment could(!) add further unpredictable alterations. There is short term alterations from local supernovae. There’s harmony and rhythm.
    ==================

  210. kim says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:03 am
    There’s harmony and rhythm.
    Sounds more like chaos to me. And too many ‘could’s for my taste. I ‘could’ win the lottery, but I never seem to do.

  211. Leif: But these normal ranges will be completely scattered and average out.

    Your argument that they’ll be fully scattered depends on the particles having to make round-trips around the galaxy, because of their too-low energies (according to you). Recent research shows that such long trips aren’t necessary, since supernovae can accelerate the particles to GCR energies without the need for long trips.
    Red herring. As we discussing the Maunder Minimum time scale.
    Yes but it’s your red herring, Leif. You’re the one that said “If we assume for the sake of the argument that the dominant cause of variation of GCRs at Earth and [..] is the variation of the galactic flux”. No-one else raised this point.

  212. Koutsoyiannic Kakaphone coulda been a contenduh. I maintain I get my money’s worth in the lottery tickets, but not because of the odds; because of the entertainment value. I can spend many happy hours trying to figure out how to keep all that wealth from corrupting me.
    ====================

  213. oneuniverse says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:44 am
    Recent research shows that such long trips aren’t necessary, since supernovae can accelerate the particles to GCR energies without the need for long trips.
    But the ‘normal’ energy particles cannot make it to us without being scattered and averaged out. An excellent review of the topic [ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0701/0701517v1.pdf ]states
    “3.5 Anisotropy
    High isotropy is a distinctive quality of Galactic CR observed at the Earth. The
    global leakage of CR from the Galaxy and the contribution of individual sources
    lead to anisotropy but the trajectories of energetic charged particles are highly
    tangled by regular and stochastic interstellar magnetic fields which isotropize
    the CR angular distribution. This makes difficult or even impossible the direct
    association of detected CR particles with their sources, except for the highest
    energy particles. Observations give the amplitude of the first angular harmonic
    of anisotropy at the level of δ ∼ 10−3 in the energy range 10^12 to 10^14 eV where
    the most reliable data are available, see (138; 139) and Fig. 12. The angular
    distribution of particles at lower energies is significantly modulated by the so-
    lar wind. The statistics at higher energies are not good enough yet but the
    measurements indicate the anisotropy amplitude at a level of a few percent at
    10^16 − 10^18 eV. The data of the Super-Kamiokande-I detector (140) allowed ac-
    curate two-dimensional mapping of CR anisotropy at 10^13 eV (see also the Tibet
    Air Shower Array results (138)). After correction for atmospheric effects, the
    deviation from the isotropic event rate is 0.1% with a statistical significance of
    >5σ and direction to maximum excess at roughly α = 75◦, δ = −5◦.”
    So, for the cosmic rays of interest [energy less than 10^11 eV], the isotropy is exquisite.
    Leif. You’re the one that said “If we assume for the sake of the argument that the dominant cause of variation of GCRs at Earth and [..] is the variation of the galactic flux”.
    For the recent past. As I emphasized repeatedly.

  214. kim says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:52 am
    entertainment value.
    There is also entertainment value in the pseudo-science, ‘could-be’ science, armchair conclusions, and wild speculations often seen on the ‘#1 science blog’, and that is fine as long as we know it ain’t true, but just entertainment, like ‘TV-wrestling’ and ‘reading the National Enquirer’.

  215. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:20 am
    I ‘could’ win the lottery, but I never seem to do

    Yes, you could, if you bought a ticket…the right ticket.
    Now, this sounds more like fate to me.
    My problem is that I have the luck of the Irish.
    I once asked my grandfather if he thought it would be better if we had been around in the 49’er days, so we could get lots of gold.
    His reply was “We’d be dead now, and we couldn’t get any gold”.
    So, all of us are here today, and up there is a Sun that is having quite the time of it.

  216. Thanks Leif. Nearby supernovae will affect the flux, even if their lower energy particles take more random walks in their journey to Earth. How random are these walks, though?
    From the paper: at low energies solar modulation is so large that the interstellar fluxes are really unknown
    How much of the directional scrambling is due to the solar magnetic field, compared to the effect of interstellar magnetic fields? What would be the anisotropy measured by an observer outside (but near) the heliopause, beyond the range of solar influence? I guess we’ll maybe know in 5-10 years when Voyager reaches the heliopause.

  217. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:12 am
    “Perhaps with Ceres alignments added in [as per Ulric] you get even better correlation………………………………………………………………………………………………”
    As it works historically with regularity, and I have already made very good forecasts based on this observation, the next sensible step is address the question it presents, as to its nature.

  218. oneuniverse says:
    July 4, 2010 at 5:28 am
    Thanks Leif. Nearby supernovae will affect the flux, even if their lower energy particles take more random walks in their journey to Earth. How random are these walks, though?
    There aren’t any ‘nearby’ supernovae. The Galaxy is big. We see the integrated effect of thousands of supernovae over millions of years. From the incredible isotropy, we can deduce that the scattering is very random, indeed.
    From the paper: at low energies solar modulation is so large that the interstellar fluxes are really unknown
    These low energy cosmic rays have no impact on Svensmark’s hypothesis. But in general, the interstellar flux is unknown. The best thing we can do is the model and calculate what it should be to match our observations, e.g. by Voyager. This is what Webber and Higbie did.
    How much of the directional scrambling is due to the solar magnetic field, compared to the effect of interstellar magnetic fields?
    At 10^12 eV the isotropy was perfect to within o.1%. At that high energy, there is no solar modulation,
    What would be the anisotropy measured by an observer outside (but near) the heliopause, beyond the range of solar influence?
    For high energy GCRs the anisotropy is very small [less than 1 in a 1000]. For lower energies it will be smaller yet.

  219. There aren’t any ‘nearby’ supernovae
    Elykin and Wolfendale 2006 use the phrase, as did you earlier in this thread, so I think I can use it too.
    Me: How much of the directional scrambling is due to the solar magnetic field, compared to the effect of interstellar magnetic fields?
    Leif: At 10^12 eV the isotropy was perfect to within o.1%. At that high energy, there is no solar modulation
    This is as measured near the Earth, and doesn’t answer the question. E&W, however, do provide a possible answer : “We have shown that if the bulk of the Cosmic Radiation is produced by shocks from SN explosions [which is the current understanding], the observed characteristics of their anisotropy are the product of local phenomena.”
    Me: What would be the anisotropy measured by an observer outside (but near) the heliopause, beyond the range of solar influence?
    Leif: For high energy GCRs the anisotropy is very small [less than 1 in a 1000]. For lower energies it will be smaller yet.
    That figure is as measured on the Earth (by the Super-Kamiokande-I detector, corrected for atmospheric effects), not outside the heliopause.
    In general, though, the deflection by magnetic fields may increase the path length of arriving CRs , but an increase in the production rate (supernova activity) will increase local CR density.

  220. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:12 am (Edit)
    tallbloke says:
    July 3, 2010 at 5:42 am
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/venus-earth-jupiter-alignment-and-the-solar-cycle/
    Perhaps with Ceres alignments added in [as per Ulrich] you get even better correlation. there are many thousands of minor planets out there. Perhaps you could search for [and pick] some that improve the correlation even more. With enough planets and judicious picking one should be able to achieve almost perfect correlation.

    Good idea Leif. Then with some diligent working out of relative magnitude of effects, and working out why some solar system bodies are ‘in tune with the sunspot vibes’ and some not, we might get better clues as to mechanism. Thanks for your sarcastic advice.

  221. oneuniverse says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:56 am
    That figure is as measured on the Earth (by the Super-Kamiokande-I detector, corrected for atmospheric effects), not outside the heliopause.
    The high-energy GCR are not influenced by the heliosphere.
    In general, though, the deflection by magnetic fields may increase the path length of arriving CRs , but an increase in the production rate (supernova activity) will increase local CR density.
    There is no evidence for an increase of supernovae production. In general with time [billions of years] there will be fewer and fewer supernovae.
    It is possible to put numbers on the path length etc. As a high energy particle traverses interstellar space it may hit other particles, e.g. an Iron nucleus and produce debris that continue as ‘new’ GCRs. This is the ‘spallation’ process and has as a result that the elemental composition of GCRs when observed is different from when produced. Careful analysis of this shows that a ‘normal’ GCR has traversed about 8 gram of matter per square centimeter between production and observation. Knowing the average density of the interstellar medium then gives you the path length. A different method relies on radioactive nuclei also produced by spallation [e.g. 14C, 26Al, 54Mn, and our old fried 10Be – by the same process by which is it generated in the Earth’s atmosphere]. Since these decay with time, the abundance of them in GCRs will depend on how long the GCR has traveled [e.g. half of 10Be decays in 1.6 million years]. Again careful studies of this gives you the average travel time as 15 million years [comparable with the one derived from the density]. Since GCRs travel almost at light speed, it means that their average path length is 15 million light years, enough to completely scramble their direction and density.

  222. tallbloke says:
    July 4, 2010 at 9:53 am
    why some solar system bodies are ‘in tune with the sunspot vibes’ and some not, we might get better clues as to mechanism. Thanks for your sarcastic advice.
    Ulrich didn’t think it was sarcastic, and it wasn’t. If you really believe in this, then there is a fertile hunting ground for you.

  223. @Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:09 am
    “Ulric didn’t think it was sarcastic, and it wasn’t”
    Pull the other one, its got bells on.

  224. Ulric Lyons says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:54 am (Edit)
    @Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:09 am
    “Ulric didn’t think it was sarcastic, and it wasn’t”
    Pull the other one, its got bells on.

    Ding Dong!

  225. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:09 am (Edit)
    If you really believe in this, then there is a fertile hunting ground for you.

    It’s not a question of belief, it’s a matter of following where the data leads.

  226. Vuk etc. says:
    July 4, 2010 at 6:09 am
    I would say it is a ‘perfect’ theoretical sunspot.

    That’s an interesting observation.
    To have survived in this state(Alpha reversed) for 8 days as the sole sunspot of the Southern Solar Hemisphere is also remarkable.

  227. tallbloke says:
    July 4, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    <i"If you really believe in this, then there is a fertile hunting ground for you."
    It’s not a question of belief, it’s a matter of following where the data leads.
    Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.

  228. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 5, 2010 at 12:05 am
    Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.

    And that goes for your ideas about Livingstone and Penn’s data too? Do you believe it is possible to try out lines of investigation without becoming attached to “pet theories”?
    On another thread Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:19 am
    The game is not to keep trying this and trying that, until by chance you get something you like [you know, people trying 20 things and finding one relation that is significant at the 95% level – which is what chance would give you with 20 things].

    I think you mischaracterise the methodology of investigation, but here you have descended to rhetoric again, so I won’t take it seriously. Most scientists would be reluctant to admit it, but when trying to make leaps in understanding, they hunt for data which supports their ideas and suggest refinements to them. It’s part of the creative process. Then afterwards, they make predictions to test against as yet unevaluated data, to see if they are onto something. This seems to me to be a reasonable dialectical approach to knowledge formation.

  229. tallbloke says:
    July 5, 2010 at 1:25 am
    And that goes for your ideas about Livingstone and Penn’s data too?
    Of course, it goes for any interpretation of data by everybody. You can only interpret data within the framework of a theory or hypothesis.
    On another thread Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:19 am
    but here you have descended to rhetoric again, so I won’t take it seriously.
    Yet you quote it…
    Most scientists would be reluctant to admit it, but when trying to make leaps in understanding, they hunt for data which supports their ideas …
    Wrong. All scientists will admit this. But also, and more importantly, they hunt even more for or try to produce data that disprove their theories.

  230. tallbloke says:
    July 5, 2010 at 1:25 am
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 5, 2010 at 12:05 am
    Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.
    —————————————————-
    And that goes for your ideas about Livingstone and Penn’s data too? Do you believe it is possible to try out lines of investigation without becoming attached to “pet theories”?

    In full agreement tallbloke…hypocrisy in the full extent. I think this blog is starting to wake up.

  231. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 5, 2010 at 12:05 am
    Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.

    Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder.
    The real danger today is data counterfeiters, and they do it for profit.
    Some, not being aware of the danger, rely on the forgeries of others.

  232. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 5, 2010 at 12:05 am
    Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.
    —————————————————-
    tallbloke says:
    July 5, 2010 at 1:25 am
    And that goes for your ideas about Livingstone and Penn’s data too? Do you believe it is possible to try out lines of investigation without becoming attached to “pet theories”?
    ___________________________________
    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 5, 2010 at 8:11 am
    In full agreement tallbloke…hypocrisy in the full extent. I think this blog is starting to wake up.
    __________________________________
    Dr. Svalgaard is defending his paper with a new interpretation of the TSI measurements. The battle over TSI measurements can be seen here. http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
    There is no way anyone is going to budge Dr. Svalgaard on TSI given the above.
    Only honest measurements from the coming grand minimum might do so…. that is if the data is not fudged and manipulated as most of the data has been.

  233. Leif: The high-energy GCR are not influenced by the heliosphere.
    What are the anisotropies outside the heliopause for particles with 100 MeV -10 GeV ?
    It is possible to put numbers on the path length .. their average path length is 15 million light years, enough to completely scramble their direction and density.
    The densities will not be affected in this way – the scrambling doesn’t create or destroy particles, although indirectly the longer path will ensure more collisions. The reduction of density occurs as the finite number of particles emitted by a source disperse across an increasing expanse – hence, observers more local to the source will experience a denser flux as contributed by that source.
    The average 15 million light year journey is the full distance travelled by a particle. The random walk that you mentioned, and the spiralling movements usual to a charged particle traversing a magnetic field, mean the direct distance could be much shorter than that taken by the particle. It would be interesting to know if this has been quantified – it sounds like our detailed knowledge of the interstellar fields is insufficient, though.

  234. oneuniverse says:
    July 5, 2010 at 11:22 am
    What are the anisotropies outside the heliopause for particles with 100 MeV -10 GeV ?
    The anisotropy increases with increasing energy so those low-energy particles will have even lower anisotropy as they are scattered even stronger. We can’t easily measure what the precise number is because of solar modulation, but likely much less than the 1 in a 1000 for the higher energies. Enough to justify the assumption of constancy.
    The densities will not be affected in this way
    Perhaps a poor choice of word. Flux might have been better, although ‘density’ describes the same thing. Think of a cubic meter in space. GCRs flow through this cube. The density of GCRs inside the cube is a measure of the flux: twice as many GCRs in the cube, twice the flux.
    The average 15 million light year journey is the full distance travelled by a particle. The random walk that you mentioned, and the spiralling movements usual to a charged particle traversing a magnetic field, mean the direct distance could be much shorter than that taken by the particle. It would be interesting to know if this has been quantified – it sounds like our detailed knowledge of the interstellar fields is insufficient, though.
    The direct distance [presuming you mean between a supernova and us] is irrelevant as the GCR does not travel along that. Instead they roam through the Galaxy for millions of years. E.g. from the nearby supernova to the end of the Galaxy and back many times, as the scattering in direction is severe.

  235. Leif Svalgaard (July 5, 2010 at 11:49 am):
    We can’t easily measure what the precise number is because of solar modulation, but likely much less than the 1 in a 1000 for the higher energies.
    This sounds mostly like a guess? Would you expect the anisotropy to be less outside the heliopause?
    (Leif, from 10:03 am)There is no evidence for an increase of supernovae production. In general with time [billions of years] there will be fewer and fewer supernovae.
    It’s not about increases in the galactic rate, but the uneven spatial and temporal distribution of particularly the more local supernovae, which will cause spikes in the flux, rather than being lost in the background.
    The direct distance [presuming you mean between a supernova and us] is irrelevant as the GCR does not travel along that.
    [Yes]. It’s relevant in the sense that a particle that’s travelled 15 million light years (measured along its traversed path) may not have travelled around the galaxy (with it’s span of ~100,000 light years), depending on the quantifications mentioned above.

  236. oneuniverse says:
    July 5, 2010 at 1:13 pm
    “We can’t easily measure what the precise number is because of solar modulation, but likely much less than the 1 in a 1000 for the higher energies.”
    This sounds mostly like a guess? Would you expect the anisotropy to be less outside the heliopause?

    It is a justified and considered guess, as we find experimentally and expect theoretically that for lower and lower energies the anisotropy would be smaller and smaller. And we are discussing condition outside the heliopause. Inside, solar modulation further acts to erase any remaining anisotropy.
    but the uneven spatial and temporal distribution of particularly the more local supernovae, which will cause spikes in the flux, rather than being lost in the background.
    No spikes are observed in the low-energy GCRs.
    The direct distance [presuming you mean between a supernova and us] is irrelevant as the GCR does not travel along that.
    [Yes]. It’s relevant in the sense that a particle that’s travelled 15 million light years (measured along its traversed path) may not have travelled around the galaxy (with it’s span of ~100,000 light years), depending on the quantifications mentioned above.
    In that case your quantification is wrong, because the 15 millions years come about because the particles are scattered through large angles [like 180 degrees] each time and actually traverse the Galaxy hundreds of times.

  237. It is a justified and considered guess, as we find experimentally and expect theoretically that for lower and lower energies the anisotropy would be smaller and smaller. And we are discussing condition outside the heliopause. Inside, solar modulation further acts to erase any remaining anisotropy.
    I’ve asked the variations of the question three times in a row – your replies have been conspicuously unresponsive.
    No spikes are observed in the low-energy GCRs.
    The period of instrumental observation has only been about half a century.
    The mean time between galactic supernovae is ~50 years, longer for local SN. (There are spikes in the geological cosmogenic isotope record, although we’re not considering those at the moment. )
    In that case your quantification is wrong, because the 15 millions years come about because the particles are scattered through large angles [like 180 degrees] each time and actually traverse the Galaxy hundreds of times.
    I didn’t do a quantification, so how can it be wrong? I said it’d be interesting to quantify the ratio of a particle’s traversed path to the direct distance from its origin to its terminus.
    The ratio will be > 1 . If the particles are frequently experiencing up to 180 degree deflections, then it’s possible that the ratio will be high. If it is of the order of 1000, then a particle that’s travelled 15 mly journey may have had its origin only 15 kly away, with no round trips being involved. For reference, the classical supernovae that have been observed by eye over the last couple of millenia are mostly ~ 5-10 kly away.

  238. oneuniverse says:
    July 6, 2010 at 8:15 am
    I’ve asked the variations of the question three times in a row – your replies have been conspicuously unresponsive.
    Then I give up too. What is the question?
    If the particles are frequently experiencing up to 180 degree deflections, then it’s possible that the ratio will be high. If it is of the order of 1000, then a particle that’s travelled 15 mly journey may have had its origin only 15 kly away, with no round trips being involved.
    The acceleration of the GCRs happens in space during their travel by encountering magnetic ‘mirrors’, so the deflections are always large [otherwise they don’t get accelerated much], so the GGRs scatter all over the galaxy. That is why the anisotropy is so small.

  239. Ralph,
    If it makes you feel better, your observation is logical and dismissed quite out of hand by many here. The scale of your mathematical null is probably quite small, however?

  240. Leif Svalgaard: July 6, 2010 at 9:19 am
    The acceleration of the GCRs happens in space during their travel by encountering magnetic ‘mirrors’, so the deflections are always large [otherwise they don’t get accelerated much], so the GGRs scatter all over the galaxy. That is why the anisotropy is so small.

    This statement makes sense regarding the isotropy issue, which would seem to be the result of many such changes in direction, but earlier in the conversation you mentioned that the GCR’s end up with very high energies as a result of their long journeys. Since GCR’s are, to my understanding, just individual charged particles, then when they interact with a magnetic field, the force on them should always be perpendicular to their direction of motion (qv x B), and thus can’t change their Kinetic Energy, so what mechanism is it that does so?
    /dr.bill

  241. dr.bill says:
    July 6, 2010 at 1:13 pm
    when they interact with a magnetic field, the force on them should always be perpendicular to their direction of motion (qv x B), and thus can’t change their Kinetic Energy, so what mechanism is it that does so?
    That is BTW why the idea that they travel 15 million light years by spiraling about the the field line that connect the Earth with the nearby supernova is wrong, because as you say, there is no change in energy. But this only holds for a uniform, nice, magnetic field. If the field is turbulent [as it is in the shock waves filling interstellar space], then there can be random kinks in the field. Kinks with a size smaller than the gyro-radius. In that case the gyration proceeds in a new [random] direction and that is when the kinetic energy changes.
    All of this has been known for half a century.

  242. Leif Svalgaard: July 6, 2010 at 1:27 pm
    If the field is turbulent [as it is in the shock waves filling interstellar space], then there can be random kinks in the field. Kinks with a size smaller than the gyro-radius. In that case the gyration proceeds in a new [random] direction and that is when the kinetic energy changes.
    All of this has been known for half a century.

    Must have happened while I was otherwise occupied. ☺ ☺ So I take it then, that it is the induced electric fields caused by these ‘nasty’ magnetic ones that actually do the longitudinal accelerating?
    /dr.bill

  243. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 5, 2010 at 12:05 am
    tallbloke says:
    July 4, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    If you really believe in this, then there is a fertile hunting ground for you.
    It’s not a question of belief, it’s a matter of following where the data leads.
    Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.

    ____________________________________________________
    Not data, rather rules or laws that lead to highly precise and deterministic short term temperature change forecasts. You could bet on that.

  244. Leif Svalgaard to Dr. Bill:
    That is BTW why the idea that they travel 15 million light years by spiraling about the the field line that connect the Earth with the nearby supernova is wrong, because as you say, there is no change in energy. But this only holds for a uniform, nice, magnetic field
    This is a strawman – what I wrote was : “The random walk that you mentioned, and the spiralling movements usual to a charged particle traversing a magnetic field, mean the direct distance could be much shorter than that taken by the particle
    That’s significantly different to your description of particles “spiraling about the the field line that connect the Earth with the nearby supernova” – that’s your imagination at work.
    Leif: Kinks with a size smaller than the gyro-radius. In that case the gyration proceeds in a new [random] direction and that is when the kinetic energy changes.
    As I understand it. a moving magnetic field will do work on a charged particle, a static (non-moving) one won’t.
    Magnetic interactions can in general accelerate or deccelerate charged particles. Given the tangled nature of the magnetic fields you describe, which implies a degree of randomness, what is it about them that causes a net acceleration of the particles ?

  245. dr.bill says:
    July 6, 2010 at 2:36 pm
    So I take it then, that it is the induced electric fields caused by these ‘nasty’ magnetic ones that actually do the longitudinal accelerating?
    That is one way of looking at it. Reading Fermi’s original paper on this is illuminating:
    http://fermi.lib.uchicago.edu/notebook_104_excerpt.pdf
    A more accessible treatment is here: http://www-ttp.particle.uni-karlsruhe.de/GK/Workshop/parizot_CRAP_2.pdf
    oneuniverse says:
    July 6, 2010 at 7:51 pm
    what I wrote was : “The random walk that you mentioned, and the spiralling movements usual to a charged particle traversing a magnetic field, mean the direct distance could be much shorter than that taken by the particle”
    since what you wrote is irrelevant [‘the direct distance’] as we were discussing the bouncing around in the Galaxy of a cosmic ray particle, I took the liberty of injecting some sense into your statement and interpret it in a way that made sense. Sorry, if that was unjustified.
    As I understand it. a moving magnetic field will do work on a charged particle, a static (non-moving) one won’t.
    Moving? the particle moves at high speed through a magnetic field…
    Magnetic interactions can in general accelerate or deccelerate charged particles. Given the tangled nature of the magnetic fields you describe, which implies a [‘high’ – my insert] degree of randomness, what is it about them that causes a net acceleration of the particles ?
    I think I have already answered that [the kinks], but here is a longer explanation: http://www-ttp.particle.uni-karlsruhe.de/GK/Workshop/parizot_CRAP_2.pdf It will be interesting to see if you consider this another strawman.

  246. Leif Svalgaard: July 6, 2010 at 11:34 pm
    Thanks very much Leif. I’m afraid that Fermi and Parizot will have to submit to a bit of time-sharing with Salmo salar and Salvelinus fontinalis for the next month or so, but I presume that they didn’t abuse Maxwell’s Equations too much, and I’m looking forward to getting an extension to my education. The workshop topics list for Parizot’s “Lectures on Cosmic Acceleration” seems to cover a lot of ground.
    /dr.bill

  247. since what you wrote is irrelevant [‘the direct distance’] as we were discussing the bouncing around in the Galaxy of a cosmic ray particle, I took the liberty of injecting some sense into your statement and interpret it in a way that made sense.
    The direct distance is relevant to the analysis I described, which was merely explaining how the path length of the particles journey may be much longer than the final (direct) distance travelled. Depending on the level of the path-folding that takes place, this may mean that the radius of the envelope described by the dispersing particles may be small as well compared to their travelled path length. This result would be highly relevant to the discussion.
    Also, I didn’t describe a scenario of particles spiralling along the field line of a uniform magnetic field connecting Earth to the supernova, yet you put forward this incorrect representation, and then pronounce that it’s wrong. That’s a classic ‘strawman’ manouevre, isn’t it?
    I think I have already answered that [the kinks], but here is a longer explanation:
    Thanks – the phenomenon appears to be referred to as second-order Fermi acceleration. According to Fermi, it’s the slightly higher probability of a particle colliding head-on with a moving cloud (both moving towards each other) compared to a read-end collision (with the cloud moving in same direction as the particle) that causes the net accelaration [second-order Fermi acceleration] – I’m not sure if kinks come into it. Do the kinks refer to magnetic inhomogenieties present for first-order Fermi acceleration ?

  248. oneuniverse says:
    July 7, 2010 at 4:39 am
    The direct distance is relevant to the analysis I described, which was merely explaining how the path length of the particles journey may be much longer than the final (direct) distance travelled. Depending on the level of the path-folding that takes place, this may mean that the radius of the envelope described by the dispersing particles may be small as well compared to their travelled path length. This result would be highly relevant to the discussion.
    I think that is what I have been trying to get across to you, that no matter how small the distance, the actual path is very much longer, so all information about the original location is lost [isotropy], and that therefore the distance does not matter.
    That’s a classic ‘strawman’ manouevre, isn’t it?
    A strawman implies deliberate attempt of deception, so that is what you accuse me of. ah well, discussions often end with something like that. Too bad.
    I’m not sure if kinks come into it. Do the kinks refer to magnetic inhomogenieties present for first-order Fermi acceleration ?
    The ‘kinks’ was a short hand for field lines changing direction on a scale comparable to the gyroradius, see the bottom panel in slide 16 of http://www-ttp.particle.uni-karlsruhe.de/GK/Workshop/parizot_CRAP_2.pdf
    The important result of all this is the resulting isotropy. The GCRs may themselves smooth out any anisotropies, see e.g. slide 40.

  249. A strawman implies deliberate attempt of deception, so that is what you accuse me of.
    Only you know whether you’d manufactured the strawman unwittingly or on purpose.
    I showed that you had misrepresented my argument, and that you’d argued against the easily-dismissed misrepresented version – that’s what a strawman argument is.
    I think that is what I have been trying to get across to you, that no matter how small the distance, the actual path is very much longer, so all information about the original location is lost [isotropy], and that therefore the distance does not matter.
    The flux density may be affected by the proximity (or lack of) of sources of GCR. The flux density is a more important metric in practice than the isotropy, and is far more relevant to the geological 10Be & 14C record than the isotropy of arriving cosmic rays. (Astronaut and equipment safety is determined more by the flux than the isotropy too).

  250. oneuniverse says:
    July 7, 2010 at 8:13 am
    I showed that you had misrepresented my argument
    Your argument was not clearly stated and didn’t make sense. I tried to make sense of it, but apparently failed.
    The flux density may be affected by the proximity (or lack of) of sources of GCR.
    May be? The distance to the sources [unless they are really close, in which case we’ll all die anyway] and what flux they produce do not matter as we don’t get anything directly from them, rather we get the averaged out effect from the whole Galaxy. Isotropy in space also means isotropy in time.

  251. The ‘kinks’ was a short hand for field lines changing direction on a scale comparable to the gyroradius, see the bottom panel in slide 16
    Thank you for pointing out this material again. For slide 16, is that actually the slide you mean (with the image of Boris Becker) ? It makes no mention of scales or gyroradii, just the analogy of the tennis racket & ball.
    By the way, please see the trajectory plots on slides 12-15 of the 3rd pdf of the set.
    Prima facie, these provide support for what I’d written concerning the long path lengths of CRs but a small radius of the envelope of exploration. The convoluted nature of the paths will increase for lower energies 10^9 – 10^12 eV than plotted. Also, the magnetic field strength for those plots is 10 nG (0.001 nT), which is smaller than estimates of (local) interstellar field strength of approx. 0.1-1 nT.
    [ I just realised that my earlier hyperlink to Opher et al.’s paper had a trailing ‘/’, which stopped it from working. The preceding link works, though ].

  252. oneuniverse says:
    July 7, 2010 at 9:19 am
    For slide 16, is that actually the slide you mean (with the image of Boris Becker)?
    Sorry, slide 6 of
    http://www-ttp.particle.uni-karlsruhe.de/GK/Workshop/parizot_CRAP_3.pdf
    By the way, please see the trajectory plots on slides 12-15 of the 3rd pdf of the set.
    Note that the scale there is in Megaparsec, because the energies depicted are enormous [10^18 eV and higher]
    Also, the magnetic field strength for those plots is 10 nG (0.001 nT), which is smaller than estimates of (local) interstellar field strength of approx. 0.1-1 nT.
    For a stronger magnetic field the scattering will be even larger. And the local field strength does not matter one whit, as we see the integrated effect of the whole Galaxy.

  253. The mainstream view as put forward by NASA, is that supernovae and their remnants are able to accelerate particles to GCR energies, if not to rare ultra-high energies (>= 10^20 eV):

    Most galactic cosmic rays are probably accelerated in the blast waves of supernova remnants. This doesn’t mean that the supernova explosion itself gets the particles up to these speeds. The remnants of the explosions, expanding clouds of gas and magnetic field, can last for thousands of years, and this is where cosmic rays are accelerated. Bouncing back and forth in the magnetic field of the remnant randomly lets some of the particles gain energy, and become cosmic rays. Eventually they build up enough speed that the remnant can no longer contain them, and they escape into the Galaxy.
    Because the cosmic rays eventually escape the supernova remnant, they can only be accelerated up to a certain maximum energy, which depends upon the size of the acceleration region and the magnetic field strength. However, cosmic rays have been observed at much higher energies than supernova remnants can generate, and where these ultra-high-energies come from is a big question. Perhaps they come from outside the Galaxy, from active galactic nuclei, quasars or gamma ray bursts.

    Since SN (SNR) are considered to be the main sources of GCRs for the relevant energies, their proximity will make a difference .

  254. oneuniverse says:
    July 7, 2010 at 10:03 am
    “Eventually they build up enough speed that the remnant can no longer contain them, and they escape into the Galaxy.”
    And once they have escaped [the very small SNR] they begin their tortured bounce [and some further acceleration] all over the Galaxy, which completely [as observed] obliterates the signature of their origin, near or far, to give us the isotropy in space [and hence in time] that we see for ‘normal’ energy GCRs. There are two accelerations that occur: one to escape the SNR and one thereafter that destroys information about the location, near or far, of the source.
    Since SN (SNR) are considered to be the main sources of GCRs for the relevant energies, their proximity will make a difference
    No, because the scattering occurs mainly after the GCRs have entered the Galaxy. We have no evidence [observational or theoretical] that there are any differences, no matter how many times you say that, or how badly you want it to be true. I suggest that this would be fitting point for you to accept that.
    The mainstream view …
    By the way, Webber and company are the formers of the mainstream view. They are the experts on this.

  255. The diffusion process will lead to isotropy for all but the high energy particles, true, but the GCR flux density experienced by our solar system will change in the presence of proximate GCR sources such as SNR.
    As an analogy, to show that isotropy doesn’t imply a homogenous density, consider a scenario where gas molecules of type A are released in a jet into an existing gas of molecules type B. The A molecules will rapidly lose any isotropy due to the random action of Brownian motion, so the isotropy will remain constant, yet the density of A molecules in the gas will increase . Volumes closer to the source will have a higher density of A than those further away. Similarlty, the density will change again when the source is stopped.
    By the way, Webber and company are the formers of the mainstream view. They are the experts on this.
    Why not address the discrepancy between the mainstream view, which I quoted at 10:03 am just above, and your description, which was :
    The particles ejected by a supernova explosion are not GCRs [yet] because they move way to slowly.During millions of years some of these particles will encounter ‘magnetic mirrors’ [tangled magnetic fields] and some will be accelerated by that, each time a little bit more until the particles move almost at the speed of light. This takes time, so proximate supernovae does not add to the GCR flux that we can observe.

  256. oneuniverse says:
    July 7, 2010 at 11:46 am
    The diffusion process will lead to isotropy for all but the high energy particles, true, but the GCR flux density experienced by our solar system will change in the presence of proximate GCR sources such as SNR.
    Just repeating this will not make it true, and it isn’t.
    As an analogy, to show that isotropy doesn’t imply a homogenous density […]
    Why is this so hard? Your analogy is false and muddled. Isotropy means that the flux is the same from any direction. And that is the issue. Because the speed is constant, density is proportional to density, but let us stick with the issue: flux.
    Why not address the discrepancy between the mainstream view, which I quoted at 10:03 am just above, and your description
    Why should I do that as there is no discrepancy, just a difference of emphasis? I concentrated on what happens after the particles have been accelerated enough that they can leave the SNR. This is the important point that determine their flux at Earth. I see no reason to dilute the discussion with irrelevant detail, as I strive to concentrate on the essential points to get the message across.
    My view and that of Webber et al is the mainstream view.

  257. Why should I do that as there is no discrepancy, just a difference of emphasis?
    There’s more than just a difference of emphasis :
    The NASA article says that particles leave the SNR possessing GCR level energies (but not ultra-high energies). You, however, say that after leaving the SNR, particles need to continue to travel for millions of years around the galaxy until they possess GCR level energies.
    Just repeating this will not make it true, and it isn’t.
    If particles leave the SNR as GCRs, then clearly having a proximate active CR source such as an SNR will increase the GCR flux.

  258. I’m still waiting for an answer as to why you said that a “nearby supernova” “probably” caused the 1490 spike, if, as you also said, “proximate supernovae does not add to the GCR flux that we can observe” ? Care to explain that discrepancy instead? Just an absent-minded mistake, perhaps, but please do clarify.
    Self: The diffusion process will lead to isotropy for all but the high energy particles, true, but the GCR flux density experienced by our solar system will change in the presence of proximate GCR sources such as SNR.
    Leif: Just repeating this will not make it true, and it isn’t.
    Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

  259. oneuniverse says:
    July 7, 2010 at 1:54 pm
    The NASA article says that particles leave the SNR possessing GCR level energies (but not ultra-high energies). You, however, say that after leaving the SNR, particles need to continue to travel for millions of years around the galaxy until they possess GCR level energies.
    The NASA article actually says:
    “Bouncing back and forth in the magnetic field of the remnant randomly lets some of the particles gain energy, and become cosmic rays. Eventually they build up enough speed that the remnant can no longer contain them, and they escape into the Galaxy.
    Because the cosmic rays eventually escape the supernova remnant, they can only be accelerated up to a certain maximum energy, which depends upon the size of the acceleration region and the magnetic field strength.”
    They become low-energy cosmic rays and still need further acceleration to become ‘normal’ GCRs.
    The NASA article also says [and that is the important part – one wonders why you didn’t quote that…]:
    “The magnetic fields of the Galaxy, the solar system, and the Earth have scrambled the flight paths of these particles so much that we can no longer point back to their sources in the Galaxy. If you made a map of the sky with cosmic ray intensities, it would be completely uniform.”
    If particles leave the SNR as GCRs, then clearly having a proximate active CR source such as an SNR will increase the GCR flux.
    But then the GCR flux from the direction of the source would be higher and we would not have isotropy.
    oneuniverse says:
    July 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm
    I’m still waiting for an answer as to why you said that a “nearby supernova” “probably” caused the 1490 spike,
    This is speculation by some people [not generally shared]. One way out for these people might be that it was a pulse [very sharp and short-lived] of ultrahigh energy CRs passing through the solar system. Such rare short pulses do not raise the general isotopic background. Bottom line: we don’t know what caused the spike, could even be some local phenomenon on the Sun, or new physics, or something other exotic.
    Perhaps we should just leave it at that.
    If you wish, but I deplore a missed opportunity to set a student right. I feel like teaching Evolution to a Creationist or a Young Earther. Same kind of hopeless effort.

  260. Leif: They [Cosmic rays escaping the supernova remnant] become low-energy cosmic rays and still need further acceleration to become ‘normal’ GCRs.
    As I mentioned above, according to NASA and the mainstream view, backed up by research in the peer-reviewed literature etc, it’s considered that SNRs can accelerate particles beyond ‘normal’ to much higher energies. Here’s another article from NASA, stating that SNR are understood to accelerate particles up to 10^14 eV. (10,000 GeV). This is a far higher energy than ‘normal’ GCRs (say 0.1 – 100 GeV) , and so the spectrum of CR energies produced by the supernova and remnant will include these ‘normal’ GCRs.

    Question:
    Supernovae occur periodically producing a burst of galactic cosmic rays. Many are very far away. Have scientists ever detected a spike in cosmic ray flux rates which they attribute to a nearby supernova? If so, how long was the pulse (minutes, days, weeks)? How much higher than background cosmic ray levels was the spike?
    Answer:
    One would think that we could measure such spikes in the cosmic ray intensity from a neighboring supernova. And it is certainly a good idea. But there are a few complications.
    First we must consider the typical energy of a cosmic ray, which is around 1 GeV (1 giga-electron volt is equivalent to the rest mass energy of a proton). At these energies, cosmic rays are affected by the ambient galactic magnetic fields, which are typically 10-6 Gauss. Remember, cosmic rays are charged and the trajectory of a charged particle will curve under the influence of a magnetic field.
    Consider a cosmic ray with energy of roughly 10,000 GeV. At this energy, cosmic rays will spiral with a radius of curvature of roughly ~10^16 m (which is much less than the distance to the Crab nebula, for instance). Considering the size of our galaxy (the radius of our galaxy is 1021 m), this means that by the time cosmic rays reach the Earth, they have been spiraling and diffusing through stray magnetic fields so that we see a distribution of cosmic rays arriving at Earth that is roughly equal from all directions (isotropic). Information concerning the original direction is lost at these energies. This is further exacerbated by the interaction of the Sun’s magnetic field with these in-coming cosmic rays. Finally, we should remember that the typical rate for supernovae is roughly 1 every 50 years in our galaxy!
    But there is a caveat to all of this. We do see cosmic rays at even higher energies, even up to 10^21 eV! These are called ultra-high energy cosmic rays (UHECR). A cosmic ray with energy of 1020 eV has a radius of curvature of 1 megaparsec (~10^22 m) — much greater than the diameter of our galaxy. These cosmic rays have the potential to point to a particular source, although the current number of these nuclei measured at Earth is extremely low. So far we haven’t observed any clear evidence that the quantities of these UHECRs vary depending upon the direction from which they arrive (anisotropy).
    In fact, theorists are still having difficulty explaining how a supernova can accelerate particles beyond 10,000 GeV, and it has been postulated that these very rare UHECRS are coming from more exotic sources, possibly including gamma-ray bursts, dark matter, or some brand new physics. You can learn more about UHECRs on the OWL website.
    Dr. Georgia de Nolfo
    (July 2004)

    By the way, Dr.de Nolfo wrote here (in 2004) that “So far we haven’t observed any clear evidence that the quantities of these UHECRs vary depending upon the direction from which they arrive (anisotropy)”. The two papers I cited earlier (Erlykin & Wolfendale 2006, and The Tibet AS Association 2006), show some progress in this regard eg. from the former paper: “It is shown that the excessive cosmic ray flux from the Outer Galaxy can be due to the location of the Solar System at the inner edge of the Orion Arm which has the enhanced density and rate of supernova explosions.”
    Another analogy, using air again : imagine that there’s a bottle of scent. If the bottle is opened, a nearby observer registers the scent on their olfactory receptors. If a second bottle is opened, the observer will register an increase in intensity, even though the isotropy of the scent molecules remains constant.
    A more direct analogy: consider solar cosmic rays, which are of lower energy than GCRs. According to Bryant et al. 1965’s analysis of Explorer II observations, solar protons have a path length of 10-15 AU before reaching Earth – not sure what the most up-to-date estimate is. Anyway, the solar proton population at the top of the atmosphere is considered to be isotropic, yet instruments observe that the population density changes over time. If the Sun increases its proton output by 10%, say, this will be recorded on Earth. Isotropy will still be nearly total, yet the number of particles impacting Earth will necessarily increase.
    So, contrary to your contention, a constant level of isotropy over time doesn’t imply a constant density of CR particles over time.
    Also contrary to your contention, supernovae and their remnants are understood to accelerate particles to energies well over the ‘normal’ ~ 1 GeV range, so SNR can be considered to be GCR sources in themselves.
    I feel like teaching Evolution to a Creationist or a Young Earther. Same kind of hopeless effort.
    I feel like I’m speaking with an unpleasant and possibly pathologicaly dishonest person.

  261. I should add that feelings are fickle and notoriosly unreliable indicators of reality.

  262. oneuniverse says:
    July 8, 2010 at 4:06 am
    “First we must consider the typical energy of a cosmic ray, which is around 1 GeV (1 giga-electron volt is equivalent to the rest mass energy of a proton). At these energies, cosmic rays are affected by the ambient galactic magnetic fields, which are typically 10-6 Gauss. Remember, cosmic rays are charged and the trajectory of a charged particle will curve under the influence of a magnetic field.
    SNs can [and do] accelerate particles. And SNRs provide shocks in the interstellar medium [which is full of overlapping shocks] that further accelerate particles. It is not a question of ‘all or nothing’. You assume that SNs produce all the acceleration within the expanding shell and that thereafter no further acceleration takes place. This is incorrect.
    If a second bottle is opened, the observer will register an increase in intensity, even though the isotropy of the scent molecules remains constant.
    Here you assume that the diffusion of the scent is instantaneous. It is not [and for CRs especially not, since they take a long time to get here]. With slow diffusion an observer near the bottle will smell the scent coming from a certain direction. Animals can use smell to find their food because of this directionality.
    If the Sun increases its proton output by 10%, say, this will be recorded on Earth. Isotropy will still be nearly total, yet the number of particles impacting Earth will necessarily increase.
    I think you are confusing this with the solar wind.
    So, contrary to your contention, a constant level of isotropy over time doesn’t imply a constant density of CR particles over time.
    Since your analogies didn’t work, the ‘so’ is inappropriate.
    Also contrary to your contention, supernovae and their remnants are understood to accelerate particles to energies well over the ‘normal’ ~ 1 GeV range, so SNR can be considered to be GCR sources in themselves.
    Certainly, but not the only way the GCRs get accelerated. And most of the low-energy CRs escaping from SNs keep being accelerated by shocks and waves and ‘bubble’ boundaries [overlapping SNRs] as the diffuse through the Galaxy.
    I feel like I’m speaking with an unpleasant and possibly pathologicaly dishonest person.
    It is always unpleasant to have one’s convictions/beliefs challenged, so I would not put much credence in your judgement of my personal traits, either.

  263. Leif Svalgaard : You assume that SNs produce all the acceleration within the expanding shell and that thereafter no further acceleration takes place. This is incorrect.
    I didn’t assume this. My contention was that SN/SNR’s are sources of GCRs at ‘normal’ energies, I never denied the existence of further acceleration, and queried you for details of the mechanism.
    Certainly, but not the only way the GCRs get accelerated.
    Ok, it seems that we now agree that supernovae and their remnants are sources of
    ‘normal’ energy GCR’s.
    Here you assume that the diffusion of the scent is instantaneous.
    No such assumption – the Brownian motion mentioned implies a diffusive, non-
    instantaneous action. The efficacy of the analogy doesn’t depend on instantaneous action. One can confirm this by observing that the experience described in the analogy is easily recreated in the real world.
    Animals can use smell to find their food because of this directionality
    The molecules have more or less 100% isotropy (~ 1 billion collisions/sec) . The
    direction is probably determined by the spatial density gradients due to the non-instantaneous nature of the diffusion process. Twin nostrils can aid spatial resolution . Macro-scale advection of air is another phenomenon that can be detected by most animals and could be included in their calculation of the location of the source.
    Leif: Since your analogies didn’t work, the ‘so’ is inappropriate.
    The ‘so’ is not dependent on an analogy.
    As evidence that CR density can vary while the isotropy remains nearly constan, one can consider the plentiful contemporary measurements of varying CR counts at the TOA, and nearly constant isotropy. A nearly constant isotropy over time therefore doesn’t imply that the coeval density over time won’t vary significantly.

  264. oneuniverse says:
    July 8, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    I never denied the existence of further acceleration, and queried you for details of the mechanism.
    And I have you several short explanations and referred you to several detailed papers.
    Ok, it seems that we now agree that supernovae and their remnants are sources of
    ‘normal’ energy GCR’s.

    But as those are further accelerated on their way us, they are not the ‘normal’ GCRs we observe, so the agreement is irrelevant.
    “Here you assume that the diffusion of the scent is instantaneous.”
    No such assumption

    You must be use the right time scale, e.g. one second is instantaneous compared to a day.
    The ‘so’ is not dependent on an analogy.
    You bring out some analogies, and then say ‘so’.
    As evidence that CR density can vary while the isotropy remains nearly constan, one can consider the plentiful contemporary measurements of varying CR counts at the TOA, and nearly constant isotropy.
    You must be confusing things. What CR counts?

  265. ‘Plotting the Butterly with Umbra as black and Penumbra as grey.’
    should read
    Plotting the Butterly with Umbra as black and Penumbra-only as grey.

  266. rbateman says:
    July 8, 2010 at 9:00 pm
    I’m always on the lookout for a better way to view what has happened so far with SC23/24. […]
    Is this of interest to anyone?

    Looks nice, keep it up.

  267. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 8, 2010 at 11:59 pm
    I’ll keep it current, then.
    You probably already know the answer, but I’m curious as to how this transition has compared to the previous records, as far as the prevalence of penumbra-only spots. I’ll be doing those too.

  268. rbateman says:
    July 9, 2010 at 3:22 am
    prevalence of penumbra-only spots. I’ll be doing those too.
    Check your definitions. Come to think about it, you can have spots without penumbra, but not without umbra, so something is backwards…

  269. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 9, 2010 at 6:28 am
    In both Greenwich and Debrecen systems, there are spots measured with an umbral area of zero.
    However that works out in the Solar Physics world, this is what my butterfly diagram is depicting.
    18761120. 97 229 0 2 16 122 8 63 0.233 168.5 219.9 -10.9 -2.7
    18761121. 21 229 0 2 8 129 4 67 0.274 217.5 220.2 -10.9 9.8
    187611 9.572 30801 0 0 0 27 0 28 0.870 98.5 301.1 -6.1 -60.3
    g 2010 06 30 14 23 32 11085n 0 3 0 2 37.32 172.75 3.55 355.04 0.5719 -257.0 -280.4
    g 2010 07 01 13 57 32 11084 48 294 26 160 -19.14 144.72 -11.48 153.27 0.4200 -1434.4 -546.0
    g 2010 07 02 14 23 32 11084 49 292 26 156 -19.05 144.42 1.69 184.25 0.3776 -1539.3 -555.6

  270. rbateman says:
    July 9, 2010 at 4:37 pm
    In both Greenwich and Debrecen systems, there are spots measured with an umbral area of zero.
    18761120. 97 229 0 2 16 122 8 63 0.233 168.5 219.9 -10.9 -2.7
    18761121. 21 229 0 2 8 129 4 67 0.274 217.5 220.2 -10.9 9.8
    The examples you give:

    123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-1234
    18761120.970     22900 2   16  122    8   63 0.225 168.1 219.9 -10.9  -2.7
    18761121.210     22900 2    8  129    4   67 0.274 217.5 220.2 -10.9   9.8
    yyyymmdd.tttgggggggg00tt uuuu aaaa uuuu aaaa ddddd ppppp lllll bbbbb ccccc
    

    have umbral areas of 16 and 8, respectively…

  271. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 9, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    The examples you give:
    have umbral areas of 16 and 8, respectively…
    Yes, I gave you both types. The ones you quoted I plot as having umbra.
    This one has zero * 10E6 umbra area, uncorrected and corrected:
    187611 9.572 30801 0 0 0 27 0 28 0.870 98.5 301.1 -6.1 -60.3
    I plot that one as not having an umbra.
    Whatever you want to call that “not having a measured umbra”.
    You will find both types in the pdfs of the Greenwich reports, the Final(.FIN) files, the group (.gp) files and the sum(sum.txt) files.

  272. rbateman says:
    July 9, 2010 at 10:35 pm
    This one has zero * 10E6 umbra area, uncorrected and corrected:
    187611 9.572 30801 0 0 0 27 0 28 0.870 98.5 301.1 -6.1 -60.3
    I plot that one as not having an umbra.

    When a spot is very small [e.g. a pore] there is no distinctive division into an umbra and a penumbra. So the ‘umbral’ area will be zero [as no distinct umbra is present], but that does not mean that the rest [all of it in this case] is a ‘penumbra’ with the characteristic horizontal rolls. This is semantics only, but it is not quite correct to label these weak pores as ‘penumbra’. Better would be ‘non-umbral’ spots.

  273. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 9, 2010 at 11:09 pm
    Non-umbral is fine by me, but pores of the size of 45 x 10E6?
    Sounds vaguely familiar with the problems associated with the Hubble Tuning Fork classification scheme.
    Are the Greenwich plates still behind a digitized paywall?
    25Lbs sterling per copy sight unseen is out of my ballpark.

  274. tallbloke says:
    July 10, 2010 at 9:09 am
    Nigel Calder’s blog has an update on GCR’s origins and timings
    Since GCRs takes millions of years to reach us [even from nearby sources] there will be variations on that time scale, but not on a time scale of centuries. This is the main point.

  275. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 10, 2010 at 9:55 am
    tallbloke says:
    July 10, 2010 at 9:09 am
    Nigel Calder’s blog has an update on GCR’s origins and timings
    Since GCRs takes millions of years to reach us [even from nearby sources] there will be variations on that time scale, but not on a time scale of centuries. This is the main point.
    —…—…—…
    True, the delay (from formation due to (quantity unknown) causes) between GCR birth and delivery here is on the order of millions of years. But the sudden rise need not be longer than days (if a supernova or black hole collapse or black hole “collision” with a second black hole. A “sudden” change – expansion of star into a red giant – may be on the order of years or centuries, and so we would see an equal time change.
    Or, reversing the matter, assume a more gradual rise or fall in GCR background levels that vary over the centuries. Then, the source is occluded by another star or galaxy or gravitational field focus point. “Suddenly” that gradual change in GCR would be changed by the intermediate object. Certainly, that would be a “local” effect – like an eclipse is a small local effect compared to the size of the sun. But in that local area under the eclipse shadow zones, there is a very drastic sudden effect that can vary in effect significantly (complete darkness, umbra, annulus, duration, and temperature effects) all changing based on where the observer happens to be.

  276. And then there is the theory of shock waves in the spiral arms causing star formation. Do the GCR’s pile up ahead of the theoretical shock wave?

  277. RACookPE1978 says:
    July 10, 2010 at 10:21 am
    Certainly, that would be a “local” effect – like an eclipse is a small local effect compared to the size of the sun. But in that local area under the eclipse shadow zones, there is a very drastic sudden effect that can vary in effect significantly (complete darkness, umbra, annulus, duration, and temperature effects) all changing based on where the observer happens to be.
    We seem to be going around in circles here.
    It there were those sudden effects, we would see that in the intensity of the GCRs having a spike in the direction of the source. But no such spikes are seen in todays map of the GCR intensity across the sky: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/science/galaxy_cr.gif
    If there century-scale variations in the production, e.g ten supernovae exploding within a short time of another, we would still expect an anisotropy [albeit broader than a spike] because centuries are short compared to the millions of years of travel time.

  278. rbateman says:
    July 10, 2010 at 10:28 am
    And then there is the theory of shock waves in the spiral arms causing star formation. Do the GCR’s pile up ahead of the theoretical shock wave?
    The GCRs are much too energetic for that [move too fast compared to the shock wave]. They are scattered by the shock waves, and generally gain energy by this. The Galaxy is ‘filled’ with old shock waves from long-ago supernovae.

  279. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 10, 2010 at 10:47 am
    How fast do we currently understand GCR’s to travel compared to the speed of light?
    A decimal based number would be great.

  280. rbateman says:
    July 10, 2010 at 11:04 am
    How fast do we currently understand GCR’s to travel compared to the speed of light?
    depends on their energy, but at 10 GeV, they travel at 99.6% of the speed of light.
    A decimal based number would be great. ?

  281. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 10, 2010 at 11:25 am
    99.6% is .996 of c.
    So if a SN goes off 1,000 ly distant, it takes 1004 years for the 10 GeV GCR’s to get here.
    And they get here with the inverse square quantity, assuming a spherical outburst.
    If it were aimed right, and looking at SN remnants, that spherical assumption of output would be a poor one.
    Then one has to figure what % of the output is 10 GeV.
    That’s a lot of unknowables already.
    We could get splashed with a load of GCR’s, or we could sit here for the next 10 million years and wonder.
    I’m going back to my measured data sets.

  282. rbateman says:
    July 10, 2010 at 4:27 pm
    So if a SN goes off 1,000 ly distant, it takes 1004 years for the 10 GeV GCR’s to get here.
    No, it takes some 15 million years, because the CR bounces all over the place, being scattered by the many shock waves [from many different supernovae] that fill the Galaxy.

  283. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 10, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    Is there empirical data on these 10 GeV CR’s, that we know their behavior well enough to say that a SN 1000 ly away will produce GCR’s that arrive in 15 million years? The numbers seem to be rather bizzare for something moving near the speed of light.

  284. rbateman says:
    July 10, 2010 at 7:49 pm
    The numbers seem to be rather bizarre for something moving near the speed of light.
    As a CR move along it collides with other atoms and splinter them into pieces [other atoms] that then move along also as CRs [called secondary CRs]. This means that the chemical composition of the CRs change as they move along: they get enriched in the pieces knocked out. For Beryllium, the enhancement is more than a factor of a hundred. Clearly, the overabundance depends on how many atoms there are to collide with in the first place. From the observed overabundance one can calculate the number of such atoms encountered, which in turn depends on two numbers: the path length and the density of interstellar material. Since the latter is known in other ways, the path length can be calculated to be 15 million light years. Moving at the speed of light, that takes 15 million years.
    Since 10Be is also produced in this way [same as in the Earth’s atmosphere], we would expect to see some of that. We do not see any, so whatever is produced must have decayed away [half life 1.6 million years], so they must have traveled far. Same goes for 14C and other radioactive nuclei with short half life.

  285. rbateman says:
    July 10, 2010 at 4:27 pm (Edit)
    That’s a lot of unknowables already.
    We could get splashed with a load of GCR’s, or we could sit here for the next 10 million years and wonder.

    It sounds like another of those things where the degree of smoothed-outness or spikiness will depend partly on how isotropic you want your universe to look.
    I’m going back to my measured data sets.
    Probably a smart move. I think I’ll leave it in my pending tray too.

  286. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 10, 2010 at 10:29 pm
    Looks more like the perfect flatfield on the perfect optical system with the perfect detector.
    If I were to take a picture like that, I’d be looking to see what went wrong.
    Even the cosmic microwave background has some variation.

Comments are closed.