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.
Roger says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:41 am
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.
So far both Hathaway [his old prediction] and Archibald have been wrong. The past year the SSN has averaged 60 and there is more to come [hasn’t quite peaked yet]. Corbyn predicts very strong tornado conditions in the US next week. Let’s see how that goes.
rgbatduke,
I am with you on the near field verses far field manifestation of the earth’s magnetic field when dipoles are compared with quadripoles or higher order poles. I’d say there is plenty of model evidence for that, and I suspect that there may be measurements as well. It is true in acoustics.
Interesting point you raise about the interaction of the EMFs from the Sun and the Earth.
Though I can see that a splash of plasma hitting the earth and it’s associated magnetic field could yield some physical effect if only heating as indicated by the last big flare 5 weeks ago, I do wonder about the base field from the Sun itself.
Would there be a back EMF in the earth?
Would the cycles of the Sun’s field influence the cycles here on Earth. Is there a coupling of the Sun’s behavior wrt to it polarization and intensity with that of earth? I doubt there is any historical evidence of what the magnetic behavior of the Sun on the EPOCH time scale, I can’t imagine how the Sun’s magnetic field could be recorded in Earth’s nature without human instrumentation.
I think that is an interesting question and echos somewhat back to the planetary paper of last week. Who would have a model for this? I would love to see that.
Predicting tornadic activity in the US during tornadic activity season when conditions are ripe for tornadic temperature and pressure gradients (thanks to the ocean) reminds me of the circular reasoning of CO2.
It goes something like this: C02 must be the driver when all the other natural conditions are ripe for a warmer world, so let’s put a CO2 “factor” (sometimes referred to as a fudge factor but is not a mathematical construct of the mechanism) in the temperature equation and then “senario” that, sure enough, CO2 is driving temperature.
If Corbyn is saying that there is a solar factor (and it just happens to be the current one) in this tornadic season and is predicting tornadic activity partly because of it, I am really, really, really impressed by his scenario-ish predictive fudge factor acumen. Really, really. As much, if not more so, than I am with HadGEM 1 scenario-ish predictive fudge factor acumen. No, really.
Paul Westhaver says:
April 22, 2012 at 10:04 am
I am with you on the near field verses far field manifestation of the earth’s magnetic field when dipoles are compared with quadripoles or higher order poles
But this does not apply to the Sun’s field because the structure of the field that leaves the Sun is fixed very near the sun and the field strength does not fall of with distance as it would in a vacuum. the reason is that the solar wind is a conducting medium and transports the field with it.
I do wonder about the base field from the Sun itself.
Would there be a back EMF in the earth?
That field does not reach the earth as in a vacuum, but instead is embedded in the solar wind. When it hits the Earth, the solar field is down to 1/10,000th of the Earth’s field.
I can’t imagine how the Sun’s magnetic field could be recorded in Earth’s nature without human instrumentation.
The Sun’s field as embedded in the solar wind weakly modulates the flux of cosmic rays reaching the Earth, which in turn determines the production of Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14. The global, total production of 10Be is 2 ounces and that of 14C, 17 pounds. These isotopes are deposited in polar ice and in tree rings, respectively, where we can measure them by their radioactivity.
@Leif Svalgaard:
I thought that the Blackett Effect ( postulated and rejected ) was based on “all materials” while the Barnett Effect was restricted to a particular case of magnetic permeability and gyromagnetic ratio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio (an obscure concept, at least to me)
and so more “plausible”. That is, a material that can be permeated by some initial traces of external magnetic field, and HAS a ‘gyromagnetic ratio’ could then build up its own magnetism via rotation. Is that not what causes the earth, with a molten metal core ( permeable and with a gyromagnetic ratio) to create a magnetic field?
If it is not that, then what ARE the right terms for the physical properties that make magnetic fields in spinning spheres of molten metal? (Molten permeable materials? Fluid conductors?)
Clearly something couples rotating conducting materials with self generation of magnetism:
http://www.universetoday.com/14664/how-do-you-model-the-earths-magnetic-field-build-your-own-baby-planet/
So if not the Barnett Effect, what is it?
(I profess, I don’t know what it is or what to call it. Just that there are both laboratory scale demonstrations, per that article, and the existence proof of the Earth’s magnetic field, so it does look to me like it ought to have a name and be a known bit of physics. I just haven’t figured out which of all the Mumble Effects folks have named over the years might be the right one… If I knew what to call it, I could likely figure out ‘to what it applies’ more readily. Gases? Metals only? Things in an external mag field?)
I know, it’s not your job to reduce my ignorance ( It would be a full time job, it is for me 😉 but a pointer to a name would be helpful…
Spinning {stuff} will self magnetized due to ration under {some conditions} as evidenced by the above existence proofs. So what is special about the {stuff} or the {conditions} that makes the {physics property} driving it not applicable to changes of angular momentum in the sun?
Yes, too many holes in that sentence… But it gives a free field for admiring holes in the idea 😉
E.M.Smith says:
April 22, 2012 at 10:23 am
Is that not what causes the earth, with a molten metal core ( permeable and with a gyromagnetic ratio) to create a magnetic field?
No, the Earth’s field [and the sun’s] is generated by a dynamo effect where convection currents drive a conductor through an existing magnetic field to amplify it and keep it going. Rotation as such is not the mechanism. In the sun, there is ‘differential’ rotation, meaning that some parts of the Sun is rotating at a slight;y different speed than other parts. That aids the dynamo to make the variations more pronounced than in the Earth. Up-thread I gave a brief explanation of solar magnetism, look for it.
Here is a fantastic animation of a spiral projection of the heliospheric current sheet. (Parker Spiral) The animators conveniently placed the planets in the space.
In the Info section of the video, it is noted, among other things that the sheet thickness is about 10,000 km thick. The diameter of the earth-ish.
What is evident is an oscillating loosely periodic behavior.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 22, 2012 at 10:30 am
No, the Earth’s field [and the sun’s] is generated by a dynamo effect where convection currents drive a conductor through an existing magnetic field to amplify it and keep it going. Rotation as such is not the mechanism.
The predominately north south alignment of the earth’s magnetic field is not explained by convection. It is explained as a consequence of the difference in the rotational speed of the different layers of the earth’s interior, which would tend to would align the convection currents as north-south tubes.
If the magnetic field is self amplifying, this creates a new problem. How did it get started in the first place? What caused the initial magnetic field and how do we know the same process is not in operation today?
So the implication is that the {stuff} from my statement is ‘a conductor’ and the {conditions} are ‘the presence of a preexisting even if small magnetic field’ and the {physics property} is the usual ‘conductor in a mag field makes electricity’ followed by recursive feedback.
Substituting:
One presumes it would be that the conductor and the magnetic field are moved together by changes in Angular Momentum of the sun, thus no differential in the electric current production and no differential in the magnetic moment.
Has that a hope of accuracy? Is the solar magnetic field constrained to the physical space of the material? ( I would expect so, but then again, the flow of magnetic field ‘frozen’ into bits of solar wind and flares seems odd to me, so I have to ask. Is any of the mag field stuck outside the ball of conductor with changing AM, and if so, it is enough to make any difference at all? I expect ‘no impact’ but would like an ‘appeal to authority’ 😉 But on the one hand, we want mag field frozen into the material and on the other hand, the dynamo demands the material moving relative to the magnetic field. One presumes they are different bits of material…
To the extent that holds, one must then show that the solar material vs magnetic fields movements are somehow disrupted by changes in gross AM. I don’t see a way to do that… one ends up in the ‘slopping bowl of fluid’ metaphor and due to solar gravity that gets back to tides that are ‘not enough’…
Does that sum it up? Or do I need more time wandering and inspecting trees in the woods? 😉
Global cooling hits the Arctic.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 22, 2012 at 4:55 am
Leif, I’m not at my usual machine today so I can’t read those pdf’s until I get home later tonight, have you any thoughts on other ‘solar analog’ or ‘solar twin’ stars worth studying?
I’ve been reading about these stars for awhile now (but I’ll admit not nearly long enough as yet) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_analog These stars have interesting features of mass metallicity and activity.
Notice the Sun compared to the similar but slightly smaller and less active Tau Ceti. What I would like to find out is, Tau Ceti has less activity, is this because the star it’s self has less mass, or is it due to it’s composition (metallicity) or could it be that when this star formed there wasn’t enough material left over for a planetary system of larger planets that our solar system has, or is it a combination of all factors.
I think this is the best way to proceed in understanding our sun and planetary process, what we need to know or confirm about our sun is there in other stars, we know what criteria we need to observe and study, (sadly if the majority of funding is currently going to the politico-sciences to unsuccessfully confirm man made global warming then other worthwhile research looses out).
Thank goodness for the amateur astronomers (and those enthusiasts from various backgrounds and disciplines) around the globe doing countless man hours of unpaid research and a lot of the donkey-work.
rgbatduke,
Paul Westhaver
I did some initial research, it appears there is a tenuous link imbedded in the secular variation of the Earth’s field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBz.htm
If indeed there is a permanent effect than it is via CME’s, solar magnetic ropes frequently establish direct but temporary link between the solar ‘surface’ and the Earth’s poles. No noticeable effect can be found in the Antarctica. I think the Arctic effect is a consequence of instability due to bifurcation of magnetic field in the N.H. Currently I keep recording and plotting data in view of confirming previous finding.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
Paul Westhaver says: April 22, 2012 at 10:58 am
……………..
Here you can see Parker spiral passing via Mercury (brown) and the Earth (blue), with a solar ‘astrology’ calendar to follow.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/J-S-angle.htm
Paul Westhaver says:
April 22, 2012 at 10:58 am
Here is a fantastic animation of a spiral projection of the heliospheric current sheet. (Parker Spiral)
It is, indeed, fantastic what modern computer methods can do. When we discovered the current sheet I made one of the first drawings of by hand: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/262766a0-HCS-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
ferd berple says:
April 22, 2012 at 11:04 am
If the magnetic field is self amplifying, this creates a new problem. How did it get started in the first place? What caused the initial magnetic field and how do we know the same process is not in operation today?
This is actually a very deep question. It is believed that the first magnetic field was made just after the Big Bang by a mechanism called the Biermann Battery Effect “The basic problem any battery has to address is how to produce finite currents from zero currents? Most astrophysical mechanisms use the fact that positively and negatively charged particles in a charge-neutral universe, do not have identical properties. For example, if one considered a gas of ionized hydrogen, then the electrons have a much smaller mass compared to protons. Thus that for a given pressure gradient of the gas the electrons tend to be accelerated much more than the ions. This leads in general to an electric field, which couples back positive and negative charges. If such a thermally generated electric field has a curl, then from Faraday’s law of induction a magnetic field can grow. The resulting battery effect, known as the Biermann battery, was first proposed as a mechanism for the thermal generation of stellar magnetic fields”
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March08/Subramanian/Subramanian3.html
E.M.Smith says:
April 22, 2012 at 11:30 am
So what is special about the conductive materials or the preexisting magnetic fields that makes ‘the conductor in a mag field making electricity’ driving it not applicable to changes of angular momentum in the sun?
This really has nothing to do with angular momentum in the first place. Here is more on how the current thinking explains the solar cycle: http://www.leif.org/EOS/SunMagneticCycle.pdf
Sparks says:
April 22, 2012 at 11:50 am
I think this is the best way to proceed in understanding our sun and planetary process, what we need to know or confirm about our sun is there in other stars, we know what criteria we need to observe and study, (sadly if the majority of funding is currently going to the politico-sciences to unsuccessfully confirm man made global warming then other worthwhile research looses out).
This is a very active research area. I hinted at it in a recent presentation at the 2011 Fall AGU meeting: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf [slide 19]: “Large planets very close to their host star are expected to exert a much larger effect than the farflung smaller planets in our solar system. A ‘Mega Jupiter’ with mass 3MJ and at 0.052 AU would have a tidal effect 4*100^3 = 4,000,000 times larger than our Jupiter’s [τ Boo].
HD 168443, with the innermost planet at 0.3 AU, has a dL/dt, with a periodicity of 58 days, that exceeds by more than five orders of magnitude that of the Sun. If orbital angular momentum variation plays a role, its effects should be visible in this system
Magnetic cycles might be visible in XUV or X-ray emission, or even total brightness for large star spots
(Poppenhäger & Schmitt, ApJ, 2011):
“We conclude that there is no detectable influence of planets on their host stars, which might cause a lower floor for X-ray activity of these stars”
So far, no star cycles synchronized with any exoplanets have been found
Sparks says: April 22, 2012 at 11:50 am
………………..
See my post at WUWT of nearly 3 years ago, with a link to a study of an actual case analysed and published only one month earlier.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/12/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/#comment-159157
@ur momisugly vuckevic
Hi misha,
McAdam,Canada
Vukcevic,
At the risk of getting slightly off-thread I looked at your “Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity” plot at your main page. My math isn’t too shabby and I wanted to confirm your assertion that the sunspot number plot is a modeled by the absolute value of 2 sinusoidal functions. That is two periodic functions superimposed. Also I presume you did come curve fitting to generate the formula.
My understanding of resonance is specific in relation to the phase of an input to the phase of the output. Are you making an asserting of that specificity? Or, rather are you using the term resonance in the vernacular? Either way I am interested 1) by the function and 2) at the prospect that there is a self- amplifying attribute implied.
You seem equipped to overlay the periodic behavior of of the sunspot cycle with other periodic or modulated periodic systems…..have you? You ought to if you haven’t.
I have been able to stimulate low frequency modulated damped RESONANT responses from high frequency and very weak inputs. (acoustics) Seems to me such thing exist in other realms of physics of which I am less acquainted.
Thanks for the link. I have not yet looked at Tromso etc…. will do so.
Vukcevic,
Incidentally, I don’t have a web page illustrating my science for reasons which give comfort to my clients. Nearly everything I do has some commercial value tied to somebody else’s interests (not oil) so I adhere to my policy of silence in my field of commercial activity. Global warming is not that field. I am well published at the US patent office, which is in the public domain.
Michele says: April 22, 2012 at 12:58 pm
…………
Thanks for the link
MacAdam, Canada, is an area of ‘post Laurentide’ ground uplift.
“These coastlines have already risen several hundred meters and will continue to rebound. The researchers have created models predicting that about 30% percent of the Hudson Bay gravitational signal was due to the uplift. It is thought that convection in the underlying mantle may be contributing the remainder. The uplift in the area of Nastapoka Arc is about 3.5 meters per 100 year period. Changes in the gravitational anomaly (tendency of objects to move from lower into higher gravity area)…..”
see page 3 and further in : http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NATA.htm
Vukcevic,
I had a look at this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
About halfway down you have a “suggested model” and I think I can get a similar surface mapping if I use a model wherein there are 2 toroidal, interlocked, oblique and precessing flows.
In otherwords, 2 flowing rings, that are interlocked like chain links, however not quite at right angles. Also the 2 links move together with a slow precess and a changing relative angels between their equitorial planes.
Do you get my meaning? I’d provide a sketch if I knew how to include one.
vukcevic says:
April 22, 2012 at 12:05 pm
If indeed there is a permanent effect than it is via CME’s, solar magnetic ropes frequently establish direct but temporary link between the solar ‘surface’ and the Earth’s poles.
There is a permanent [not temporary] magnetic link between the sun and the Earth’s magnetosphere. CMEs and ‘ropes’ have nothing to do with this. There is always a direct link. The link and effects are global and show up equally in the Arctic and the Antarctic at the same time.
Paul Westhaver says: April 22, 2012 at 1:15 pm
…………..
Are you making an asserting of that specificity? Or, rather are you using the term resonance in the vernacular?
Well, hmm…. yes and no,.. maybe……Seriously, the equations are not result of some scientific endeavour; they are product of a straightforward intuition. Some years ago, my daughter as part of her science homework, told me of a ‘Sunspot cycle’ something new to me. As a half-ignorant electronic engineer in that particular area of science, in its pattern I recognised beat of two close frequencies, it took few days to realise that two planetary sidereal and synodic parameters did the job.
See: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Field of applied acoustics is an area where understanding of resonances is essential; have you ever fired a starting gun in an empty concert hall?
Vuckevic, slow and steady. Interesting times we live in.
Dr. Svalgaard, some excellent and informative posts as always.
Piers Corbyn also incorporates the moon and it’s interaction with earth and related magnetic fields. Watching the America midwest closely this week.
Vukcevic,
Beat frequency… Well that is absolutely fantastic!!
People don’t intuitively detect beat even though it is all around us. That was terrific stroke of intuition. Koodoos! I’ve been looking at it for years and never thought to consider beat…..very clever.
That opens up a whole area of examination, ie beat resonance. esp driven by the harmonics. It is no surprise that the sunspot cycle driver is such mystery.
Really…. a good job on that model.
Paul Westhaver says:
April 22, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Beat frequency… Well that is absolutely fantastic!!
Except that the solar cycle is not a set of oscillators, no matter how many people think so.