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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
oneuniverse says:
June 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Sorry, wrong paper. Here is the pertinent one:
ttp://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JA013689.pdf
to which I refer.
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.
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.
Leif
You were not weightless because there is still 20904000′ below you and you were feeling the force of the mass below you.
!!@ur momisugly!!!*!!!
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.
.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.”
Has anyone else noted that we get a heat wave when the solar wind velocity is up?
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/latest_events/
It`s ok to look, you will not turn into a pillar of salt, I promise!
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
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]
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?
===================
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
oneuniverse also see:
http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
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.
Hockey Stick, thank you. There’s also a video of his lecture “Cosmic Rays and Climate” , also very interesting.
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.