UPDATE: Leif Svalgaard provides us a magnetic movie (SDO HMI) which I’ve also converted and added below. It’s a real treat too.
This is truly an impressive animation from the folks at the Solar Dynamics Observatory. I’ve converted it to YouTube so more people can watch it. It shows the 5 day time lapse formation of massive sunspot group 1158 from nothing. What’s neat is how the perspective is maintained. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. Less than a week ago, sunspot 1158 didn’t exist. Now it is wider than the planet Jupiter and unleashing the strongest solar flares since December 13th, 2006, including an X-class solar flare that we covered here first on WUWT. Video below.
Solar Magnetics Movie
The HMI (Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager) on the SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) caught massive sunspot group 1158 in the process of forming from nothing. It is quite an impressive animation. Animation courtesy of Dr. Phil Scherrer at Stanford via Dr. Leif Svalgaard who writes:
“What to note is how the magnetic field ‘bubbled’ up in a very mixed state [black=negative, white=positive polarity]. Then the two polarities separate and move to areas of like polarity: white to white and black to black, in the process assembling sunspots. Watch also how the incessant convection ‘eats’ away at the boundaries of large, mature spots [late in the clip].”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is Magnetosphere Activity for February, 21st 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fmf4Y3ZjfQ&w=480&h=390]
Here’s the link to the high res download avi file:
http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110221.avi
Just The Facts says:
February 21, 2011 at 8:23 pm
How has your paper been received, has it withstood scrutiny to date?
A shorter and more accessible version of the geomagnetic indices papers is here:
http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
Just The Facts says:
February 21, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Here is Magnetosphere Activity for February, 21st 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology:
and what is the point?
Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 9:38 pm
“Just reminding you of:”
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm
“What is your concern about success? Are you not confident in your ability to elucidate your thoughts”
Yes, that was in response to:
“Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 9:52 am
But I can try to explain [may not succeed].”
You initiated it, I just responded…
Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 9:52 pm
“and what is the point?”
I figured it worthwhile to have a few days before and few days after the event. When I have a chance I’ll combine them all into one video. As I said, first area of focus is extraterrestrial influences on geomagnetism.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 9:34 pm
I think so [some might disagree] having provided some of those myself, but it is a big job to put all that together. A reasonable overview [which I do not always agree with, but it is not too bad] is here http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009RG000282.pdf
Now that’s one way to shut me up, it will take a while for me to read through and research that. See, no need for nastiness, you’re better off tossing valuable references at me…
Just The Facts says:
February 21, 2011 at 10:08 pm
first area of focus is extraterrestrial influences on geomagnetism.
That is well-understood, as described in http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
“The confirmation by spacecraft measurements of what workers in solar-terrestrial relations had so long suspected namely that a solar wind connects the magnetic regimes of the Sun and the Earth has finally brought about an understanding of one half of the relationship [activity] while the discovery of the ionosphere and measurements of solar ultraviolet and X-ray emissions have brought understanding of the other half [regular diurnal variation]. Today we have a quantitative understanding of these phenomena [although the
microphysics is still debated] allowing us to model quantitatively the geomagnetic response to solar and interplanetary conditions.”
To wit the animations you are collecting.
Just The Facts says:
February 21, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Yes, that was in response to:
“Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 9:52 am
But I can try to explain [may not succeed].”
You initiated it, I just responded…
But I was right, I didn’t succeed. So your over the top response was not called for.
Just The Facts says:
February 21, 2011 at 10:18 pm
See, no need for nastiness
As you I just respond…
Is this food fight still going on guys?
I’m running out of popcorn.
Here’s a good Thesaurus for you:-
Break-up: separation
Breakdown: failure
Philip Mulholland says:
February 22, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Is this food fight still going on guys?
I’m running out of popcorn.
I think it has petered out, but you never know…
Leif Svalgaard says: February 22, 2011 at 5:08 pm
“I think it has petered out, but you never know…”
There’s no petering out, just doing my homework (and some of my real work).
Philip Mulholland says: February 22, 2011 at 1:53 pm
“Is this food fight still going on guys?”
I’d did go to the food store today, but I think we’ll try to keep that all in the fridge for now…
Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 10:22 pm
“But I was right, I didn’t succeed. So your over the top response was not called for.”
It wasn’t “over the top”, it was funny, and turned out to be reasonably accurate, i.e. what you originally were trying to explain was that, “The energy involved in the upwards travelling waves are many, many orders of magnitude larger than the energy in anything coming down from above.” and I said that a reason you might not succeed was if you could “not provide sufficient references to support your assertions?” This may in fact turn out to be the case, because it is difficult to prove or disprove your statement, given that there is significant disagreement on the amount of incoming extraterrestrial energy, its variability and its impact. With that said, I will still do my best to prove you wrong, for the good science of course…
For geomagnetism, let’s start with some of the weaker references. What are your thoughts on Landscheidt’s paper “SOLAR WIND NEAR EARTH: INDICATOR OF VARIATIONS IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” and his findings that:
“Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature ( r = 0.96; P < 10-7). Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years."?
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/SolarWind.html
And this paper by El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib relies on (Landscheidt, 2000) and Lockwood et al. (1999) called “Can we use the aa geomagnetic activity index to predict partially the variability in global mean temperatures?” found that;
“Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the aa geomagnetic activity index, have displayed good correlations with global temperature (Landscheidt, 2000). Lockwood et al. (1999) found that the total magnetic flux, leaving the Sun and driven by the solar wind, has risen by a factor 2.3 since 1901, leading to the global temperature increased of 0.5º C. In addition, the solar energetic eruptions, which dragged out or/and organized by the observed variations in the solar wind, are closely correlated with the near-Earth environment (El-Borie, 2003a;b). Comparison of the aa geomagnetic with the solar wind, post-1965, showed a fairly good match, indicating that the aa variations were mostly due to similar variations in the solar wind, which must have their origin in solar physical processes (Feynman, 1982; Kane, 1997; El-Borie, 2003a;b).”
http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPS/PDF/Pdf2006/Oct/El-Borie%20and%20Al-Thoyaib.pdf
Just The Facts says:
February 22, 2011 at 6:43 pm
It wasn’t “over the top”, it was funny
The food fight goes on. It was not funny at all. It was uncalled for. And I did not succeed, so was right.
given that there is significant disagreement on the amount of incoming extraterrestrial energy, its variability and its impact.
There is no significant disagreements about amount or variability in W/m2. “Impact” is in the eye of the beholder and some are not seeing very well.
Just The Facts says:
February 22, 2011 at 6:48 pm
his findings that: “Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature”
Is simply not correct. Geomagnetic activity recently has been on par with what it was in the 19th century, e.g. slide 25 and 33 of http://www.leif.org/research/Physics-based%20Long-term%20Geomagnetic%20Indices.pdf
While temperatures are not.
Just The Facts says:
February 22, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Lockwood et al. (1999) found that the total magnetic flux, leaving the Sun and driven by the solar wind, has risen by a factor 2.3 since 1901, leading to the global temperature increased of 0.5º C.
Is not correct either. The magnetic flux now is back to where it was in 1901. e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2010.pdf
Why don’t you do some analysis yourself to get a feeling for this.
The following vein of thought is quite interesting, this non-peer-reviewed 2009 article by Václav Bucha: “Geomagnetic Activity and the Global Temperature” states that;
“We are able to establish the key fact that there exist statistically significant relations between the increasing global temperature and geomagnetic activity in the month of October and December”
“As a consequence of geomagnetic storms, indicating the enhancement of the solar wind, energetic particles penetrate from the magnetosphere into the region of the polar vortex. There they take part in perturbing the processes in the polar region and in changing the direction of the flow of the polar air to the lower latitudes.” And “At the time of La Nina and under low values of the AA index, the wind blows from the polar region over North America and from the Atlantic towards the pole via Greenland. Surface temperatures in Eurasia are below normal. Under El Nino and increased values of the AA index, the vortex shifts towards Europe and rotates couterclockwise.”
“This leads to the increase of surface temperatures in Eurasia and increases the global temperature.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c071v0t195182757/
And this 2010 paper, “Geomagnetic activity related NOx enhancements and polar surface air temperature variability in a chemistry climate model: modulation of the NAM index” by A. J. G. Baumgaertner1, A. Seppälä2,*, P. Jöckel1,3, and M. A. Clilverd2 states that;
“Statistically significant temperature effects that were observed in previous reanalysis and model results are also obtained from this set of simulations, suggesting that such patterns are indeed related to geomagnetic activity. In the model, strong geomagnetic activity and the associated NOx enhancements lead to polar stratospheric ozone loss. Compared with the simulation with weak geomagnetic activity, the ozone loss causes a decrease in ozone radiative cooling and thus a temperature increase in the polar winter mesosphere. Similar to previous studies, a cooling is found below the stratopause, which other authors have attributed to a decrease in the mean meridional circulation. In the polar stratosphere this leads to a more stable vortex. A strong (weak) Northern Hemisphere vortex is known to be associated with a positive (negative) Northern Annular Mode (NAM) index;
our simulations exhibit a positive NAM index for strong geomagnetic activity, and a negative NAM for weak geomagnetic activity. Such NAM anomalies have been shown to propagate to the surface, and this is also seen in the model simulations. NAM anomalies are known to lead to specific surface temperature anomalies: a positive NAM is associated with warmer than average northern Eurasia and colder than average eastern North Atlantic. This is also the case in our simulation. Our simulations suggest a link between geomagnetic activity, ozone loss, stratospheric cooling, the NAM, and surface temperature variability.”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/30171/2010/acpd-10-30171-2010.pdf
Just The Facts says:
February 22, 2011 at 7:56 pm
The following vein of thought is quite interesting
There must be hundreds of such non-convincing papers that claim such relationships. Good for funding to claim that one’s work is important for climate.
The stark fact is that geomagnetic activity in the 20/21th century is not significantly larger than in the 19th. Same with the solar wind magnetic flux. Temperatures are very different between the two periods. Now, the usual way this is ‘explained’ is that the higher recent temperatures are just the expected effect of AGW.
If we want to be very technical about it we have to take the weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field into account. This makes the Earth more ‘sensitive’ to the solar wind and thus results in an artificial [small] increase in geomagnetic activity [for a given solar wind].
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 22, 2011 at 7:42 pm
“There is no significant disagreements about amount or variability in W/m2.
What? This chart say that TSI is 1368 W/M2 with a variance of +- 1.3:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/Solarpaper/flowc.gif
The figure on page 2 of this deck shows TSI satellite measurements differences from 1355 – 1375 and the variances that vary, though in a relatively narrow band:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/posters/Poster%20Presentations/Poster_Scafetta_TSI%20Composites.pdf
Slide 18 of this deck shows a comparison of the different TSI composites and slide 19 shows the differences between them:
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/EDDY2010/Presentations/Wigley.pdf
The Kopp and Lean paper I pointed out above found that;
“The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045777.shtml
Slide 13 this deck shows how SORCE/TIM TSI compares with other TSI measurements:
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/pdf/woods_svecse.pdf
I am not arguing that these differences are important from a climatic perspective, rather I am saying that the fact that we are still figuring how to accurately measure TSI is indicative that the study of solar influences on Earth’s climate system is still in its nascent stage.
Just The Facts says:
February 22, 2011 at 8:50 pm
“There is no significant disagreements about amount or variability in W/m2.”
What?
——– WordPress screwed up again ———–
The are no disagreements. The various [older] measurements are discordant with SORCE. But there is growing agreement that SORCE is correct. In any event the differences are very small, MUCH smaller than the uncertainty in the albedo [which actually determines how much TSI gets to the surface.
But what is it you are trying to do? Are you interested in learning about these things or are you just peddling your personal views. You can ask for my opinion and I’ll give it freely, but I don’t want to argue about it. Take it or leave it.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 22, 2011 at 8:38 pm
There must be hundreds of such non-convincing papers that claim such relationships. Good for funding to claim that one’s work is important for climate.
I agree, but this is not a refutation of references I’ve cited. Do you see any basis to question the validity of their findings?
“The stark fact is that geomagnetic activity in the 20/21th century is not significantly larger than in the 19th. Same with the solar wind magnetic flux. Temperatures are very different between the two periods.
That’s relevant if I were trying to link geomagnetic activity with significant temperature changes from prior centuries, however that is not my goal here. For arguments sake, let’s say that the Little Ice Age was caused primarily by an increase in volcanic activity, elongated by an increase in albedo due to snow and ice accumulation, and slight decrease in TSI due to the Maunder and Dalton minimums. . Furthermore, looking at the 20th and 21st centuries, once we account for Oceanic Oscillations (PDO, AMO, El Nino, etc.), Atmospheric Oscillations (AO, AAO, NAO, NPO, MJO, EQUINOO, SO, etc.), urban heat islands, land use changes, aerosols/particulates, poor measurement practices and a number of other know variables, there probably isn’t very much temperature change that needs to be explained. With that said, I’d be willing to bet my left arm that the sun influences Earth’s climate in ways that we have yet to discover and understand. My goal here is to better understand extraterrestrial influences on Earth’s climate so that I can incorporate them into the list of climatic variables that I am compiling.
If we want to be very technical about it we have to take the weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field into account. This makes the Earth more ‘sensitive’ to the solar wind and thus results in an artificial [small] increase in geomagnetic activity [for a given solar wind].
Interesting, I need to get some sleep, but I will do some research into that tomorrow.
Just The Facts says:
February 22, 2011 at 8:50 pm
rather I am saying that the fact that we are still figuring how to accurately measure TSI is indicative that the study of solar influences on Earth’s climate system is still in its nascent stage.
This is silly, TSI is measured well enough for this purpose. Show me how knowing TSI accurately to twenty decimal places is going to make any difference. What is more important is to measure the SSI [Solar Spectral Irradiance, how the output vary with wave length], but even here this is just a question of data, and not indicative of any nascence. We have asked these questions for 400 years now. That we still don’t know is perhaps more indicative of there not being anything there.
Just The Facts says:
February 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
I agree, but this is not a refutation of references I’ve cited. Do you see any basis to question the validity of their findings?
I have already. The correlations are simply not there, let alone the mechanisms.
That’s relevant if I were trying to link geomagnetic activity with significant temperature changes from prior centuries, however that is not my goal here […] there probably isn’t very much temperature change that needs to be explained.
So, no reason to desperately look for an explanation of something that may not need be explained.
With that said, I’d be willing to bet my left arm that the sun influences Earth’s climate in ways that we have yet to discover and understand.
you might end up like the Black Knight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
Unknown unknowns don’t do much for me.
Just The Facts says:
February 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
I agree, but this is not a refutation of references I’ve cited. Do you see any basis to question the validity of their findings?
First, the analysis is shoddy [e.g. computing correlation coefficients between heavily smoothed data] and the data does not support their ‘findings’.
A simple plot shows this clearly simply by inspection: http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-and-Temps.png
The green curve is aa shifted 7 years.
Recent papers have looked at this in a rigorous manner: e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yiou-565-2010.pdf From their conclusion:
“we applied those procedures to temperature and geomagnetic activity time series. […] a rigorous test between both variables shows that no significant correlation exists between them”
So, perhaps we can put this to bed now and not waste any more time on this.