Guest post by David Archibald
Dr Svalgaard has an interesting annotation on his chart of solar parameters – “Welcome to solar max”:
Graphic source: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Could it be? It seems that Solar Cycle 24 had only just begun, with solar minimum only two and a half years ago in December 2008.
The first place to confirm that is the solar polar magnetic field strength, with data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory:
Source: http://wso.stanford.edu/
The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum. The northern field has reversed. There are only three prior reversals in the instrument record. Another parameter that would confirm solar maximum is the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle, also from the WSO site.
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.
If the Sun is anywhere near solar maximum, the significance of that is that it would be the first time in the record that a short cycle was also a weak cycle, though Usoskin et al in 2009 proposed a short, asymmetric cycle in the late 18th century at the beginning of the Dalton Minimum: http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/arlt2.pdf
Interestingly, Ed Fix (paper in press) generated a solar model (based on forces that dare not speak their name) which predicts two consecutive, weak solar cycles, each eight years long:
The green line is the solar cycle record with alternate cycles reversed. The red line is the model output. Solar Cycles 19 to 23 are annotated.
This model has the next solar maximum in 2013 and minimum only four years later in 2017. This outcome is possible based on the Sun’s behaviour to date.
Gama Rays =/= Cosmic rays Lief still may be right.
Carla says:
May 8, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2011 at 8:36 am
The issue is that tidal effects from Jupiter are about half a millimeter [proportional to the mass]. If Jupiter had the mass of the Sun [1000 times larger than it has], the tidal bulge would be 1000 times larger, i.e. half a meter. This is still insignificant. You have to move the perturbing body closer to the Sun. So let us move it ten times closer [to half an AU], now the effect is a thousand times larger [as it scales with the cube of the distance], or half a kilometer [which is still less than a millionth of the solar radius]. You have to move the body REALLY close to have any effect.
~
You say..let us move it ten times closer to half an AU, now the effect is a thousand times larger..
Perfect Leif, for an introduction to Ion Cyclotron Waves ICW. What if any is your opinion on the role of ICW in the heating and expansion of solar wind? I’m reading they’re ubiquitous in the INTERPLANETARY SYSTEM and the closer you get to the solar corona, the more there is..
Ion Cyclotron Waves ICW..
Ion Cyclotron Waves in the Solar Wind from 0.3 to 1 AU
Lan K. Jian1, C.T. Russell1, J.G. Luhmann2, A.B. Galvin3, B.J. Anderson4, S. Boardsen5,
T.L. Zhang6, A. Wennmacher7
Dublin, IrelandMarch 22‐26, 2010
~
Fairly recent presentation..They compared 1976 solar min to 2008 solar min and found that fewer ICWs (Ion Cyclotron Waves) are being produced this min..
Second paper finds that they are absent from the Very Local Instellar Medium VLISM and that the Interstellar neutral collisions are cited as the reason for destablization of the ICW production.
Ion-Neutral Collisions in the Interstellar Medium: Wave Damping and Elimination of Collisionless Processes
Steven R. Spangler∗, Allison H. Savage∗ and Seth Redfield†
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.4121v1.pdf
Third article suggests that the Geomagnetic field/Carbon 14 graph data is muddled due to increases of ACR (which are not taken into account when the graph was produced) , which they suggest increase when the density around the heliosphere bubble increases.
Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the
Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
rev. 3 Feb. 2011
I would think that fewer ICWs being produced at the Corona/extended corona during this minimum should send up flags. Less heat being produced in the corona during this min. Fewer ICWs being produced in interPlanetary space as well.
Why is the corona so much hotter than the solar surface? Scientists are still working on this aren’t they Leif? ICWs are very much a part of the heating and acceleration process from Corona to 1 AU where the majority of them are found and observed.
“If the Sun is anywhere near solar maximum, the significance of that is that it would be the first time in the record that a short cycle was also a weak cycle…”
SC7 and SC16 ?
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl7.html
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl16.html
Its just wishful thinking, looking at the graph we have at least 3yrs to go till solar maximum: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/sosoon1.png?w=640&h=480
tallbloke says:
May 9, 2011 at 1:10 am
The MSFC panel prediction for cycle 24 failed, spectacularly. Does this mean the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed?
I would say so.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2011 at 2:02 am
Electro-magnetic ideas I have been highlighting for some time now are ‘inconvenient truth’, since they conflict with the outdated 1950’s solar ideas.
I don’t know anybody who has outdated 1950’s solar ideas, except the pseudo-scientists from the Electric Universe cult, including you.
releasing 10^24 -10^30 Joules of energy.
You are off by some ten to twelve orders of magnitude. [perhaps you confuse Joule with erg]. The ‘zap’ you are talking about releases 10^14 Joules, equivalent to the sun’s output in a trillionth of a second.
Malaga View says:
May 9, 2011 at 3:12 am
the hindcasts (at the least) seem to be major advances for solar science…
Except that they don’t match reality and that one can always hindcast to any required degree of accuracy. Forecast is the yardstick.
So I wonder how the dynamo amplifies the tidal effects. Seems to keep the current about the same, but modulates the frequencies.
===========
The image sosoon2.png gives the timing of cycle 22 as 8.9 years
The actual figure is 9.7
http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/2
Carla says:
May 9, 2011 at 5:34 am
Why is the corona so much hotter than the solar surface? Scientists are still working on this aren’t they Leif? ICWs are very much a part of the heating and acceleration process from Corona to 1 AU where the majority of them are found and observed.
ICWs are irrelevant for the problem at hand. all that is needed is that corona is heated, by whatever mechanism. And it is not that we don’t know how the corona is heated. The problem is that there are too many mechanisms that heat the corona. It is no problem getting it hot. The problem is to figure out the relative importance of the many proposed mechanism. So, when you hear “scientists do not know what heats the corona” it does not mean that we are in dark about why it is hot, but just that we would like to know which of the many ways is the dominant one. There could be several in combination. Probably are.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 9, 2011 at 6:51 am
I don’t know anybody who has outdated 1950′s solar ideas, except the pseudo-scientists from the Electric Universe cult, including you.
I do not subscribe to Electric Universe ideas, so you are wrong to include me there.
What you know or don’t know isn’t really concern of mine.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2011 at 8:30 am
I do not subscribe to Electric Universe ideas, so you are wrong to include me there.
What you know or don’t know isn’t really concern of mine.
But you do in fact [even if you deny it].
Instead of telling us about your lack of concern you might respond to your being off in your energy estimate by a factor of a trillion.
Always interesting, but the maximum for solar cycle 24 is at least a year, and more likely about 20-22 months or so away.
I still wonder about the alternating shape of the peak of solar cosmic rays, from pointed to flatter, from one cycle to the next. There are about six solar cycles in each cycle of the PDO and when split by phase two of each type of shape and one of the other are in each phase. If it’s causal, it might explain the alternating cooling and warming phases of that particular oceanic oscillation.
But, as we’ve hashed out before, where’s the energy from that particular signal. Might it not be from the tidal effects, since the energy required isn’t so terribly much. Compared to TSI, I mean.
How to get from here to there is not yet seen, like the slips twixt cups and lips.
========
kim says:
May 9, 2011 at 9:02 am
I still wonder about the alternating shape of the peak of solar cosmic rays, from pointed to flatter, from one cycle to the next.
That is but a small second order effect. One should wonder about the first order effect and if that is not even there, then second order doesn’t matter much.
Lawrie Ayres says:
May 8, 2011 at 2:47 am
He wants the bottom line, which is what the CAGW dispute comes to: does the Earth warm or cool?
This discussion goes off into the technical details as so much of AGW discussions do, without addressing clearly that we all started arguing about. As I understand things, if Ed Fix and other correlations are correct, a very short and therefore very low sunspot number for Cycle 24 will be associated with a -0.2 – -0.4C global temperature drop over the next 15 years. From my own work, a -0.3C global drop as per GISTemp equates to about 1.8X or -0.54C drop in the land-only data, and -0.63C drop in the continental US record. Over 15 years the CO2 content of the atmosphere is supposed to rise another 30 ppmv at least (the IPCC has an accelerated CO2 rise). The 3.75 W/m2 forcing/3C of CO2 doubling from 283 ppmv means that the additional 30 ppmv should give a 0.32C rise during this same time.
Bottom line: weak cycle and low sunspot number gives -0.30C drop while CO2 modelling gives a 0.32 rise. Disconnect between theories: 0.62C, over 15 years, or 0.04C/year between model (3C middle case) and observation.
By 2015 the disconnect is 0.17C compared to 2011, already not rising steadily (since 2003). 0.2C is about equal to the up-and-down variation we see in world temperatures. Should be pretty close to a CAGW killer, at least for the current models.
Comments? Corrections?
Doug Proctor says:
May 9, 2011 at 9:24 am
This discussion goes off into the technical details as so much of AGW discussions do, without addressing clearly that we all started arguing about. As I understand things, if Ed Fix and other correlations are correct, a very short and therefore very low sunspot number for Cycle 24 will be associated with a -0.2 – -0.4C global temperature drop over the next 15 years.
Where do you get that understanding from? Archibald thinks and states that the cooling will be about ten times as much. That is, of course, what places him among the worst of the alarmists [albeit with opposite sign].
Well, yes… but then they would not be in the same orbits, would they? Nor would the Earth…
Leif Svalgaard says: May 9, 2011 at 8:45 am
But you do in fact [even if you deny it].
in reply to:
vukcevic: I do not subscribe to Electric Universe ideas
Once I lived in a political system where I was classified by those who knew better than I do ‘what my thoughts were’.
If you bothered to look at my article than you would see there are no errors.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm
You would also see in the quoted reference:
NASA: MAGNETIC CLOUD BOUNDARY TIMES AS DETERMINED BY MFI DATA
http://wind.nasa.gov/mfi/mag_cloud_pub1.html
[Lepping et al., 1990] that the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume.
That is not Electric Universe, that is a quote in a direct conflict with the outdated 1950’s solar idea that ‘nothing moves against solar wind’, apparently lot of electrons do, as shown in fig.2 in: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm).
I read some where several years ago that there is a 110 year solar cycle. I’ve tried finding more info on it but without success. If you look at the 20th century you can see that the sunspot cycle was very minimal at the beginning of it and topped out during Cycle 19 around 1955. If some one could provide more info about the 110 year cycle that would be great!
What I find fascinating is how weak the sun’s magnetic field remains, compared to the previous solar cycles.
Back in the middle ages, the amount of surplus food was never great, so even small drops in supply meant people started going hungry.
Today we live in a world where we are paying farmers not to farm. If there were a sizeable drop in agricultural productivity, we have plenty of options.
Quickest would be to put back into production, all the land that has gone out of production in the last 100 years.
Next we could start allowing GM foods.
Next we could eat less meat and more grain. (Wouldn’t want to, but if starvation were the alternative …)
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2011 at 9:55 am
Once I lived in a political system where I was classified by those who knew better than I do ‘what my thoughts were’.
Your thoughts are revealed by your statements [if you are honest].
in a direct conflict with the outdated 1950’s solar idea that ‘nothing moves against solar wind’, apparently lot of electrons do, as shown in fig.2 in:
in the 1950s there were no solar wind ideas.
Very energetic particles [e.g. cosmic rays] can always move against the solar wind. The effects [electric or magnetic] of electric currents cannot move faster than the Alfven speed. In the inner corona the Alfven speed is a third of the speed of light, as you move out in the solar system the speed decreases linearly with distance. At the Earth it is about 40 km/s. As Jupiter it is 5 times smaller, ~8 km/s, at Saturn ~4 km/s. The solar wind tsunami simply sweeps such influences away.
You are still silent on your trillion times exaggeration of the energy released…
P. Solar: I do not believe that we “know” that sun spots affect climate.
We know that during periods in which there are fewer sun spots, the climate gets colder. But that does not prove that it is the sun spots that are the driver. It is more likely that sun spots are a symptom of whatever else is causing the climatic change.
For example, fewer sunspots is evidence that the sun’s magnetic field has gotten weaker. It is also the magnetic field that protects the earth from galactic cosmic rays, which are believed to play a roll in cloud formation.
Gee Willikers says: May 9, 2011 at 10:01 am
I read some where several years ago that there is a 110 year solar cycle.
More like ~105 years, as you can in Dr. S.’s spectrum graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSA.htm
as it is also show here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
to unexpectedly fall to ~52 years at the time of the Maunder minimum, the next such event forward-extrapolates from ~2182 to ~2234
Sarge says:
May 9, 2011 at 9:51 am
Well, yes… but then they would not be in the same orbits, would they? Nor would the Earth…
Yes, they would, as the orbit does not depend on the physical characteristics of the orbiting body [nor of the central body].
Leif Svalgaard says: May 9, 2011 at 10:16 am
……………
1.Your first comment is inappropriate and at least deserves a ‘snip’. Perhaps you care to apologise.
2. As you should know CME pushes solar wind out of the way, so it can’t be swept away by the solar wind.
3. My article is clear:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm
Feedback: It may be as simple as this: if magnetic cloud hits large magnetosphere energy is taken out of it ( one billion Amps, 10^24 -10^30 Joules, the Earth’s take (Fig 1.a) is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules . Anything else is a misquote.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2011 at 11:20 am
1.Your first comment is inappropriate and at least deserves a ‘snip’. Perhaps you care to apologise.
Can’t see why? you have in the past been economical with the truth [even now, see below].
2. As you should know CME pushes solar wind out of the way, so it can’t be swept away by the solar wind.
The CME is part of the solar wind and sure enough pushes away anything in front of it as the solar wind [plus CMRs] would push away any influences from the planets.
3. the Earth’s take (Fig 1.a) is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules . Anything else is a misquote.
Here is the quote:
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2011 at 2:02 am
“the Earth’s magnetosphere interactions, when as much as one billion Amps is short-circuited in Arctic in single ‘zap’, releasing 10^24 -10^30 Joules of energy.”
10^24-10^30 Joules of energy in the Arctic…
Misquote?