From the National Astronomical Observatory Of Japan (via Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF)
World May Be Entering Period Of Global Cooling:
The sun may be entering a period of reduced activity that could result in lower temperatures on Earth, according to Japanese researchers.
Officials of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and the Riken research foundation said on April 19 that the activity of sunspots appeared to resemble a 70-year period in the 17th century in which London’s Thames froze over and cherry blossoms bloomed later than usual in Kyoto.
In that era, known as the Maunder Minimum, temperatures are estimated to have been about 2.5 degrees lower than in the second half of the 20th century. The Japanese study found that the trend of current sunspot activity is similar to records from that period.
The researchers also found signs of unusual magnetic changes in the sun. Normally, the sun’s magnetic field flips about once every 11 years. In 2001, the sun’s magnetic north pole, which was in the northern hemisphere, flipped to the south.
While scientists had predicted that the next flip would begin from May 2013, the solar observation satellite Hinode found that the north pole of the sun had started flipping about a year earlier than expected. There was no noticeable change in the south pole.
If that trend continues, the north pole could complete its flip in May 2012 but create a four-pole magnetic structure in the sun, with two new poles created in the vicinity of the equator of our closest star.
Source:The Asahi Shimbun, 20 April 2012
==============================================================
While there’s some hype in the article, there is this graph from Dr. Leif Svalgaard that shows the current solar polar fields rather weak in comparison to the previous cycles, and not quite flipped yet:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 14, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Do you still predict SC25 to be considerably higher than SC24, and if so on what basis?
If the polar fields reverse now or shortly [rather than in 2014] it means that further surges of flux to the poles can directly help build up the polar fields, instead of as usual first having to neutralize the existing fields. This could mean that strong polar fields are a possibility and hence a strong SC25. But that is just speculation [in contrast to my prediction once polar fields have been established].
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/#comment-680744
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 21, 2012 at 9:48 pm
…low cycles come in bunches so the next couple of cycles may be low [but no guarantee]. L&P may presage that cycle 25 may be the start of a grand minimum, if by grand minimum we understand solar cycles with hard to see sunspots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-de_Haas_effect
Given the fact that an external magnetic field, here generated by driving electric current through the coil, leads to magnetisation of electron spins in the material (or to reversal of electron spins in an already magnetised ferromagnet — provided that the direction of the applied electric current is appropriately chosen), the Einstein–de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics. This is remarkable, since electron spin, being quantized, cannot be described within the framework of classical mechanics.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 21, 2012 at 12:15 pm
“What clues do you have as to how clueless other people are?”
Leif, don’t be taking offence to any of my remarks, their not intended as such, But for some of us who read a lot and who follow the science become subjected to all sorts of clues as to the state of the science and the reporting of it.
here’s one example;
Dr Solanki says, “…looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years. Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer. ”
(However the BBC reporter adds his own expertise).
“Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.
This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3869753.stm
It is a shame the Thames won’t freeze over in time for the olympics – it would be a boon to tackle congestion across the few bridges 😛
Anyway, I never go on holidays anywhere where it’s hot, but you can’t suit ’em all, as they say 🙂
Thanks Leif! Looks like we don’t know everything about the sun either. I hope your wine and honey supplies improve soon.
Global Cooling!
Haha I am LMAO.
Solar activity is low for a couple of years now and it is still not cooling. Where are the temperatures of the eighties? Or the nineties?
We had two pathetic weak La Niñas in 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 according to UAH.
It will get warmer and warmer. That’s the effect of CO2 increase. Get used to it!
Sparks says:
April 22, 2012 at 2:02 am
Dr Solanki says, “…looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.
There are good reasons that Solanki [and others saying this] are wrong about this. I summarize those reasons here http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
What to do about this: see slide 49 and http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 21, 2012 at 4:58 pm
If the Sun were the primary driver of climate, that would make my livelyhood and research field of utmost societal interest and funding would be flowing like wine and honey in paradise.
I actually only posited the idea of the sun having a big influence on Earth’s climate. I did not say “the primary driver”. When you misrepresent what others say, it gives the appearance of someone motivated not by science, but by personal interests.
Bruce Cobb says:
April 22, 2012 at 5:02 am
I actually only posited the idea of the sun having a big influence on Earth’s climate. I did not say “the primary driver”. When you misrepresent what others say, it gives the appearance of someone motivated not by science, but by personal interests.
Either way: ‘big influence’ – ‘primary driver’ the argument still holds. But if the Sun is not the primary driver, what in your opinion is? And how much is ‘big influence’? 70%, 50%, 30%, 10%?
Leif Svalgard writes: “The sun is entering a prolonged minimum as predicted almost a decade ago on solid physical grounds [not your or other’s cyclomania] by Schatten, Myself, and colleagues.”
And it was predicted over two decades ago by Theodor Landscheidt and Carl Smith. While they do not present a mechanism whereby changes in net solar angular momentum can induce grand solar minima, their prediction seems to be doing better than those of the IPCC and climate modelers (for example).
****
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 21, 2012 at 3:49 pm
****
Thanks, that explanation of magnetic fields is very interesting. Copied & saved.
vukcevic says:
April 22, 2012 at 1:05 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 14, 2011 at 4:21 pm
“If the polar fields reverse now or shortly [rather than in 2014] it means that further surges of flux to the poles can directly help build up the polar fields, instead of as usual first having to neutralize the existing fields. This could mean that strong polar fields are a possibility and hence a strong SC25. But that is just speculation”
But since the polar fields did not reverse a year ago, that speculation is now moot. It is important to label speculation as such. The North pole will reverse in a few months. The South pole is taking its time: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-S-Polar-Field.png [since 2003] but is steadily declining on its way to reversal, perhaps in a year or two.
GlynnMhor says:
April 22, 2012 at 5:33 am
And it was predicted over two decades ago by Theodor Landscheidt and Carl Smith.
and calculated by Vukcevic in 2003
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Leif Svalgaard says: April 22, 2012 at 5:42 am
……..
Cycle SC24 started tail end 2008, SC24 max and PF reversal in 2011 ?
Not likely.
I’d say spurious predictions.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PFp.gif
vukcevic says:
April 22, 2012 at 6:02 am
Cycle SC24 started tail end 2008, SC24 max and PF reversal in 2011 ?
Not likely. I’d say spurious predictions.
As I said: speculation, which is always allowed if labeled as such.
So the sun’s usual dipole field turns into a quadrupole during the flip, which is very interesting indeed. This suggests that the intermediate state is two opposing dipoles, which in turn suggests a northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere charge circulation either opposite sign and the same direction or the same sign but opposite direction.
In either event, a quadrupole field dies down much faster than a dipole field with distance, which means that one would expect — all things being equal in terms of the strengths — that the Sun’s magnetic field should be extremely weak in the vicinity of the Earth just now and be predominantly oriented radially out or radially in. This field, weak or not, should be exerting a torque on the Earth’s magnetic moment which, since the Earth is at least approximately aligned with angular momentum axis along the magnetic moment axis, is probably exerting a torque on the Earth itself.
A very small torque, I imagine, compared to the angular momentum, but I do wonder how it compares to the other torques that contribute to the Earth’s polar precession. Does it perturb it as “noise” — does it cancel over a solar cycle almost exactly, does it add (because of variation) as a random walk and become a significant perturbation over geological time? I could look up the numbers and do some estimates, but I would guess that this sort of thing has long ago been worked out and modelled. Perhaps Google knows the answer.
Non of which is directly related to climate, of course, but it is interesting. Or rather, it may be related to climate, but we don’t know how yet, not with any degree of certainty.
rgb
There are many mysteries more simple of this , and we didn’t resolve them.
For example. causes the spin of celestial bodies including the Sun.
Why has the dual rotation of the sun?
What is causing the planets spin?
Why are the magnetic poles of the celestial bodies near its own axis of rotation?
Why the sunspot cycle lasts about 11 years?
Why is the science dealing with predictions based on the past, when it rarely repeats itself?
The grandmothers who tell fortune, they hit something, so can scientists.
I think we little know of what all the sun can cause.
This applies to the planet.!
How can there be four pole-magnetic sphere, if there aren’t two separate masses that are rotated around different axes rotation?
Nothing happens by chance, not even the reconnection of magnetic fields.
At the Sun it is much faster than at the Earth. Why?
The answer is not complicated.
It is a mutual “agreement” of celestial bodies in our solar system.
There are so many cycles and sub-cycles.
To organize this scientifically, need is a powerful “machinery” of the powerful institution or organization.
The solar system is not subject to our actions, but allows us to completely different methods, find out more about him.
Perhaps it is hot when we are ” looking and surveying” it only by the instruments ,because they do not give a true picture of him.
Sun is main “offender” for all phenomena in our solar system.INDEED !
When prediction are ranging from a strong SC25 to start of a grand minimum, all within 10 months of the near static polar fields, when compared to 400 years of the sunspot records, is the best the science can offer, as Steve from Rockwood says: Now that was funny.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PFp.gif
rgbatduke says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:02 am
In either event, a quadrupole field dies down much faster than a dipole field with distance, which means that one would expect — all things being equal in terms of the strengths — that the Sun’s magnetic field should be extremely weak in the vicinity of the Earth just now and be predominantly oriented radially out or radially in.
That is not how it works. The magnetic field structure in interplanetary space is determined by the plasma flow close to the sun [a couple of solar radii] and it from there carried out by the solar wind. At the Earth the magnetic field varies by about a factor of two only and the field right now is about average. The various torques have been calculated decades ago and are extremely weak and ineffectual.
– – – – – –
Leif,
Thank you.
Due to the many scientists coming here, education is WUWT’s most important product. Please persist as a solar sensei here.
Personal Note: I still have that bottle of Aqua Vitae, even though its delivery is 2 years late. : )
John
vukcevic says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:12 am
When prediction are ranging from a strong SC25 to start of a grand minimum, all within 10 months of the near static polar fields, when compared to 400 years of the sunspot records, is the best the science can offer
Science allows for failed speculations.
Pyers Corbyn probably knows more about the sun than most here (with David Archibald), in relation to future solar activity and weather because they have been correct most of the time. ie Hathaway forecast SSN 170 in 2006, versus 40-50 by Archibald. Hathaway does not forecast he just looks at present data and fits a current curve through it. At least hes honest and doesnt pretend to know… I don’t think they (Corbyn) bother posting anything here. They (Corbyn and Co) are paid to forecast because they seem to be considered highly reliable. Corbyn must know something about the sun that Svaalgard doesn’t.
GlynnMhor,
Greetings. Nice to see you here in a positive environment rather than the G&M mosh pit.
Regards,
Paul
Gentlemens,
It is truly this is all unscientific! Sorry about such a statement.
I can not believe any of you are not interested in unresolved issues without whose solutions are sterile your discussions.
Well, now you have to say that the planets and their arrangement of the main causes of these phenomena.
If you do not believe, ask and I’ll tell you.
Sorry for my attitude, but I have to say this, because everything is out of the amounts of logic.
If your house is a mess, some of you must have been subjected to influence from within, if you are as a whole.
Come on please, which of today’s astronomers, and we know what the planets have spin?
Here, I will prove: because in perihelion has so much energy to recover it.
I have the math to prove to about 20 pages of diagrams and text.
Stay still in your convictions, if you do not want fair discussion.
These are all erroneous basis on which individuals are invited.
Draft of my letter to local paper, in response to an advocacy piece regarding McKibbon’s latest
book. Criticism is welcome. ….Lady in Red
I fell through the rabbit hole, into the world of climate change, several years ago after reading an English newspaper account about scientists at the University of East Anglia refusing to allow another to share their data and attempt to recreate their computer models predicting that the world was going to a climate hell in a hand basket.
I didn’t understand anything about the science itself, but I was indignant that supposed scientists would be secretive, refuse to share, to allow others to hone and improve upon their work.
What’s evangelical about about global warming, Rev. Waldrop asked in yesterday’s paper. Everything. Global warming (or the new meme “climate change” because, you see, the world stopped warming a decade ago) is a scientific fraud. There is no there there. Billions of dollars are being spent by governments all over the globe to conduct fraudulent research – research only to further confirm the crisis or to study mitigation. There are hardly two research pennies being spent to challenge the thesis: man is rapidly destroying the planet; CO2 emissions are the problem; we can fix it.
Not one of those assumptions is predicated upon any repeatable, quality, observational science. It is all a function of tweaked computer models predicting disaster into the future, but, worse: the models are unable to replicate the weather and the climate we’ve already lived.
Of course we should be good stewards of the earth. But that has little to do with (beyond stocks and bonds and pork bellies and wheat futures) creating a new commodity market for the likes of Goldman Sachs, trading carbon chits around the world: you “pollute” (are all the living things emitting carbon dioxide really evil “polluters?”) less and sell your carbon token to someone in China who gets to “pollute” more. And, big banking gets the commission. Is this your vision of the earth’s future?
I have no doubt that many, inside the maelstrom of the research, have come to believe themselves, but, sadly, it makes it no less fraud. No one – yep, no one – within the official climate science community will debate or publicly challenge anyone skeptical of their work. They wail and moan, sign groupthink letters confirming that “the science is settled,” but they will not engage.
Come on in, people; the water’s fine! You don’t need a degree in physics to understand what’s happening in “official climate science.” The Climategate correspondence is a hoot of idiotic arrogance. The wonderful Harry_ReadMe file written by the frustrated computer programmer – working for years to make sense out of computer code that crashed without error messages, working to make consistent data from an array of different sources (only to be told none of it mattered because “they” knew what the answer was, what “they” wanted) is the showcase of sloppy science. You can read about NOAA surface temperature stations located, all over the country, beside commercial air conditioners or in the path of jet engine exhaust. Would NOAA, a biggie, grown up and important government agency, do that? Yes.
The global warming science and advocacy community is perpetuating an international fraud many times larger and more complex than the Lysenkso fraud which held the Soviet Union in thrall from the 1930’s into the 1950’s.
Just last month, Dr. Peter Gleick, head of the Pacific Institute and chair of the AGU’s scientific ethics committee, declined to participate in a Heartland Institute conference on climate science, but, the same day, Gleick posed as a Heartland board member who had “misplaced” board documents and tricked a Heartland employee into sending the proprietary material to him. When what he got wasn’t sufficiently damning in his estimation, he wrote, or had written (sleuths contend the writing style is Gleick’s), an overview memo, contending among other things, that the Heartland Institute was trying to intimidate high school science teachers into not teaching science! About Gleick’s memo, the Atlantic Monthly opined: “It reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”
Gleick has resigned from the AGU science ethics committee and has stepped down, temporarily, as prez of the Pacific Institute, but he’s lecturing at Oxford University this week. (Is this too funny? I am not making this up.)
The good news is that the curtain has been whisked back and the fraud exposed. More important, the blogosphere is awash is in smart, thoughtful folk who care both about the climate and honest science.
Please see for yourself: my favorite sites are WattsUpWithThat.com and JudithCurry.com.
WattsUp was created by a brilliant former meteorologist and tv weather man (who is also deaf), Anthony Watts. Judith Curry’s site is pretty new. She is head of Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and is almost the only mainstream scientist to debate and engage outside the hallowed walls of academe. For over a year after she began her on-line interactive discussion, folk in “The Community” issued a career fatwa, but, somehow, she survived. (I think she’s tenured. And gutsy.)
Bill McKibbon, author of Rev. Waldrop’s book review, “hangs out” at Joe Romm’s site, the Climate part of ThinkProgress.org, a funded blog, with paid staffers. The Climate part of ThinkProgress has a very focused, mostly virtual-high-fives, comments section. They have a low tolerance for questions or dissent. Because I asked questions that were too challenging, I’ve been banned completely: straight into the spam. (None of the blogs pushing catastrophic climate change with which I’m familiar tolerate questions, genuine interaction. The discussions at WattsUp and JudithCurry, however, are wide-ranging and thought-provoking. You can learn, play “fly on the wall” there.)
I can’t finish this letter without a mention of Steve McIntyre, a retired Canadian mining engineer. Over a decade ago, McIntyre saw a graph of global warming catastrophe that looked suspicious to him. Being curious, he wrote for information, for data. Denied. He wrote formal FOIA requests for the data. Also, denied. McIntyre, a soft-spoken, gentle, respectful — but persistent – (and quite brilliant) man, kept writing. For years. McIntyre’s gentle persistence precipitated Climategate and the fraud of contemporary climate science. McIntryre crashed the walls of science fraud. McIntyre’s story is too long for this letter, but his name will be written in bright lights one hundred years from now, and beyond, in the annals of the greats in science. (McIntyre’s website is ClimateAudit.org, but, mostly, it’s much too technical for me.)
(Anthony Watts and Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre maintain their sites as a labour of love. ThinkProgress has big bucks funding.)
Come on in, folk! Earth Day’s coming up. Take care of the earth. Take care, and be respectful, of all its creatures (including man). But, don’t be stupid.