Source: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
A couple of people have noticed (as did I) that the sun is essentially blank.
There was one small sunspot sunspeck 1511 yesterday, giving a sunspot count of 13. Today there’s a a small cluster of spots near the SE limb:
Source: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_HMII.jpg
While this quiet sun not unprecedented, given the expected solar maximum is only about 7 to 9 months away, it is interesting and lends credence to the idea that this is one of the quietest solar cycles in a very long time.
You can check the latest status and imagery on the WUWT Solar Reference Page
BTW in case anybody is wondering, the WUWT climate widget has had problems getting updated sunspot numbers posted, I’ve had to resort to manual updates until such time I can wade into the issue. So if the spot and 10.7CM numbers are wrong, you know why.
J Martin says: June 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm
The Hypothesis that several of us are now considering is as follows…….
I am not familiar with your experience in this field (link would be appreciated) but since you are regular contributor you may be aware of fact that:
Vukcevic hypothesis, as developed step by step and made known to the WUWT during last couple of years, shows that Solar systems internal (mainly) electric currents and magnetic fields feedback is
– strong enough to drive solar oscillations
– strong enough to move the earth’s magnetic field
– strong enough to drive global temperature change
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/VH.htm
Any advance on the above would enrich existing understanding.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
June 24, 2012 at 10:52 pm
How can an induced magnetic field created externally be separated from one generated at the core if you can only measure the sum at the surface?
The external field changes are of the order of a few hundred of nanoTesla. The core field is a million nanoTesla.
Steve says:
June 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Good Lord! Are you wackos trying to blame the sun for global warming?
—-
Why shouldn’t we?
vukcevic says:
June 24, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Sun, Earth and climate as seen through spectral analysis
Quo usque tandem abutere, Vuk, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?
J Martin says:
June 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm
From the familiar (to us oldtimers here) “over time” graphs in slide 6, Livingston and Penn are showing measurements of visible spots. Robert Bateman and I noted this in one of the old posts on the subject and think that we’ve already lost some spots to the L&P effect.
If you follow the peaks in the Intensity plot or the pits in the B Gauss plot, extrapolations to now pass the horizontal thresholds of invisibility. This changes what had been the straight line approximation they had used before to something approaching a hyperbola with the threshold as the asymptote.
I have no problem with reporting data based on visible spots for now, it’s nice to hear some conservative reporting instead of the alarmist Schneideresque reports we read on other topics.
This topic remains the most interesting item I’ve learned from WUWT, thank you Anthony and Leif.
And yes, this is a great time to be a solar scientist.
Leif Svalgaard says: June 25, 2012 at 4:28 am
vukcevic says:
Quo usque tandem abutere, Vuk, patientia nostra? ……..
Sed ita a principio incohatum esse mundum, ut certis rebus certa signa praecurrerent.
as I show here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/VH.htm
Hi Leif,
You are very keen on noting that our current SSN is too high compared to historic recording and I think I am right in saying that this is why you don’t support Svalgaard’s cosmic ray theory (because there has been no real increase in SSN to account for the warming since 1980 or thereabouts). Please correct me if I am wrong here – I don’t want to put words in your mouth and I have to say that your arguments are very persuasive
However, the SSN cycle is correlated with global temperature at some level so I guess what I would like to know is whether you think there is a causal link between them and if have any theories about a mechanism for this. I am still quite keen on the cosmic ray theory because it is something we can test and to date the mechanism holds up, but – as with any theory – it looks good until we get a better one and I wondered if you had anything that you thought was better.
Sorry Leif, mixing up my Scandinavians’ here – Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of course. please forgive me!
@ur momisugly Lief
“Quo usque tandem abutere, Vuk, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?”
++++
Usquequo dubie sanctos patres vestros? De sancta gradalis dicitur: “Nihil sub sole novum,” apparently.
Vuk, keep an open mind. I loved your sum of N magnetic poles v.s. temperature.
MDR says:
June 24, 2012 at 5:48 pm
I thought the geomagnetic field is governed by the fluid motions of the mantle inside the Earth, and not by the sun. So what do you mean when you say the sun is the driver of changes to the geomagnetic field?
===============
We have theories about the magnetic fields of the sun and earth. They are like bed-time stories. They make folks feel comfortable but have little predictive power, which suggests they are unlikely to be correct.
The Curie temperature is 770 C for iron. The earth’s iron core is thought to be considerably hotter than that. This suggests the earth’s magnetic field cannot be internally generated. One possibility is that the field is the result of the motion of the earth in an externally generated electro-magnetic field.
However, we know from the paleo records that climate change is associated with magnetic field change. We are in a period of rapid magnetic field change and rapid climate change. Since the IPCC has identified CO2 as the main driver of climate, this is strong evidence that CO2 drives the earth’s magnetic field. That rapid changes in the earth’s magnetic field are being caused by rapid changes in CO2 levels.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 24, 2012 at 8:56 pm
ClimateForAll says:
June 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Four.) Direction, speed and intensity of geomagnetic polarity has to be effected by some other outside source other than the Earth’s core.
The conductivity of the core is so high that for all intents and purposes it acts as a superconductor preventing any outside magnetic influence to penetrate more than a few hundred meters into the core.
===============
That makes no sense at all. If the earth’s core is functioning as a super-conductor it will be extremely sensitive to outside electro-magnetic fields and these will induce a field in the super-conductor.
What you are describing is a Faraday cage. However, a compass still works inside a Faraday cage, which shows that the cage is only shielding rapidly changing fields. A slowly changing field such as that induced by the earth’s motion is not blocked.
ClimateForAll says:
June 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm
While some have speculated that the Sun may play a minor role, I doubt it. To presume that geomagnetism is uneffected by outside influneces would seem a fools errand.
=============
Agreed. The earth is in motion. Its core is a conductor, heated above the Curie point. Thus, the earth’s magnetic field is more likely induced by the earth’s motion within an existing field. The source of this field is quite possibly the sun.
vukcevic, there’s something phase-confounded with solar magnetic ~22 year. I’ve never seen it reported or discussed anywhere. So far as I can tell, it’s completely off everyone’s radar.
ClimateForAll says:
June 25, 2012 at 12:28 am
Then explain how something as unnatural and seemingly mathematical as the trajectory of MNP could happen.
There is nothing magical or physical about the MNP. In the core the field is very irregular as it is generated by convection in the highly conducting liquid iron fluid as a system of convection cells, and there is really nothing dipolar about it. Rather there are many poles all over the core. One can describe the field as the composite of a set of spherical harmonics [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics the math looks tough, but at least look at the pictures. We use those functions also to describe the field of the sun, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Calculation%20of%20Spherical%20Harmonics.pdf ]. The important point is that the harmonics have a ‘degree’ n. For the monopole, n is 0, for the dipole n is 1, for the quadrupole n is 2, for the octupole n is 3, etc. The field from each pole decreases with distance, r, as 1/r^(n+2). This means that for an octupole, say, the field falls of as 1/r^5, thus very rapidly. So, the higher degree harmonics basically disappear at large distances from the source. This means that with increasing distance any field will look like a dipole. At the surface of the Earth the location of this fictional dipole [fictional because there is no such single dipole at the source in the core] is just determined by the accident of being at a certain distance form the source. Further away [i.e. out in space around the Earth] the dipole pole is a different place and has hardly moved at all.
There has to be some other force involved, and its not the Sun,
No special force is needed. The observed random fluctuations of the convection cells is all it takes. Here is what the changes in the field at the surface of the core http://www.leif.org/research/core-secular-change.png very disorganized and random.
Have you had a chance to investigate the HESS data on the hard proton spectrum?
Has nothing to do with magnetic changes in the solar system.
Having said that, the heliosphere is not by any means, unimpeded by interstellar mass, energy or magnetic wave forms outside of the sphere. Something, in the form of energy is impinging on the sphere. Would you not agree?
No, what is happening is basically the same as what happens to your hair when you run fast: you create an airflow around your head.
vukcevic says:
June 25, 2012 at 3:20 am
Vukcevic hypothesis, as developed step by step and made known to the WUWT during last couple of years, shows that Solar systems internal (mainly) electric currents and magnetic fields feedback is
– strong enough to drive solar oscillations
– strong enough to move the earth’s magnetic field
– strong enough to drive global temperature change
All of which is pure nonsense asyou have been told so many times.
vukcevic says:
June 25, 2012 at 6:00 am
Sed ita a principio incohatum esse mundum, ut certis rebus certa signa praecurrerent.
nonsense in any language is still nonsense
Rob Potter says:
June 25, 2012 at 6:25 am
You are very keen on noting that our current SSN is too high compared to historic recording and I think I am right in saying that this is why you don’t support Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory (because there has been no real increase in SSN to account for the warming since 1980 or thereabouts).
I don’t support the cosmic ray speculation because it is refuted by observations. Svensmark claims that the low clouds are influenced by cosmic rays [and thus inversely by solar activity]. Solar activity has been decreasing since the 1980s and so, according to Svensmark, the coverage of low clouds should have been increasing [leading to decreasing temperature over that interval]. However, as you can see here http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif low clouds coverage have instead decreased and as we all know temperatures have increased]
However, the SSN cycle is correlated with global temperature at some level
Indeed, simple physics predicts a cyclic change over a solar cycle of 0.1 degree and some people claim to have found that.
ferd berple says:
June 25, 2012 at 7:15 am
The Curie temperature is 770 C for iron. The earth’s iron core is thought to be considerably hotter than that. This suggests the earth’s magnetic field cannot be internally generated.
The Curie temperature issue is for a permanent magnet where the magnetic domains get randomized at higher temperature. But this does not apply to magnetic fields generated by movements of the liquid core.
If the earth’s core is functioning as a super-conductor it will be extremely sensitive to outside electro-magnetic fields and these will induce a field in the super-conductor.
Exactly, but in the very outmost few meters of the core and that field will cancel out the external field and prevent it from penetrating further inwards to where the generation of the internal field takes place. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
ferd berple says:
June 25, 2012 at 7:53 am
Thus, the earth’s magnetic field is more likely induced by the earth’s motion within an existing field. The source of this field is quite possibly the sun.
In fact, the induction part is very correct, except that the existing field is that of the earth itself, not the sun’s. The process is called a self-sustaining dynamo. The sun does the same, complete with reversals and all.
ferd berple says:
June 25, 2012 at 7:53 am
Thus, the earth’s magnetic field is more likely induced by the earth’s motion within an existing field. The source of this field is quite possibly the sun.
A bit more on the dynamo http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO240004_Jerks.pdf
Steve says:
June 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Good Lord! Are you wackos trying to blame the sun for global warming?
__________________________________________
Steve, How warm would the earth be if there was no sun HMMMmmm?
The sun is a variable star, even Lief will tell you we do not know everything there is to know about the sun. Hathaway & Wilson Predicted 160 ± 25 in 2006 and Horstman 185 in 2005 while Lief predicted 70 ± 2 in 2005 SEE: Prediction Panel: May 24, 2007 List http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/May_24_2007_table.pdf
Even the National Geographic News seems to think the sun is going into a less active state.
Another article on the same studies: Universe Today
It looks like Nature herself is going to answer the question about whether the Sun has a major effect on the earths climate.
If you have an inquiring mind you might want to look at these graphs:
Solar spectrum from ~ LASP Colorado
Solar and Terrestrial Radiation
Solar radiation and intensity at diferent wafelengths at different Ocean depths
Total Solar Radiance 2003 to 2012 ~ LASP Colorado
PAPERS and NASA ARTICLES:
Dec 2, 2003 ~ Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years.
Sept. 23, 2008 ~ NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low
These wavelengths, “….the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum,… that increased, are the portion of the Sun’s spectrum that penetrate the ocean as seen in the above Graph So while the Total Solar Insolation may not vary much the ratios DO VARY. Do not forget that 70% of the earth is covered by oceans and the ocean has a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere. CO2 back radiation has very little if any impact on the ocean because the energy can not penetrate beyond the surface as the energy from the sun does..
Gail Combs says:
June 25, 2012 at 9:09 am
Dec 2, 2003 ~ Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years.
This is very likely not the case http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 25, 2012 at 8:23 am
All of which is pure nonsense as you have been told so many times.
Top world institutions, NASA, NOAA, ETHZ, SIDC, Stanford –WSO, etc hold on their files data which is accepted by most scientists for their work.
The fact that the data contain information which can be cross-correlated, and in doing so show relationships previously unknown, you may call ‘nonsense’, I call it good old fashioned research, which practical engineers often have to do before they embark on a request for financial resources and constructing a working model.
Some elements of my model are assembled here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/VH.htm
including some of your data, you appear to be unwilling to reconcile with the rest of universe in which it exists
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LS-TSI.gif
Dr. Svalgaard, you are wrong to assume that the spectrum for the Earth’s magnetic field shown here (green line)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-SH.htm
is the surface field, it is the assumed field at the boundary of the earth’s core and mantle, and as you can see it is closely synchronized with solar magnetic cycle.
You need to get your info updated. It may not be entirely productive that matters which we may not understand we just discard as ‘nonsense’.
—————————————————-
m.v. -“Sed ita a principio incohatum esse mundum, ut certis rebus certa signa praecurrerent.”
l.s. – nonsense in any language is still nonsense
—————————————————-
It is not nonsense, it is a counter quote by the very same Marcus Tullius Cicero, this time talking about nature rather than politics as you would have it.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 25, 2012 at 8:06 am
…………
I am not certain what you might have in mind
vukcevic says:
June 25, 2012 at 9:44 am
Top world institutions, NASA, NOAA, ETHZ, SIDC, Stanford –WSO, etc hold on their files data which is accepted by most scientists for their work.
Nothing wrong with the data. That you find spurious correlations is the nonsense part. And worse, you dilute the scientific content of WUWT. Go over to tallbloke and add to his nonsense instead.
Dr. Svalgaard, you are wrong to assume that the spectrum for the Earth’s magnetic field shown here
is the surface field, it is the assumed field at the boundary of the earth’s core and mantle, and as you can see it is closely synchronized with solar magnetic cycle.
It would help if you label your graphs. Also note WHERE on the core-boundary this is taken. You used to talk about the Y-shaped ‘tuning fork’ at the surface. So you have given up on that. At any rate, your graph does not show any synchronization. You used to plot the change of the field, are you now plotting the actual field? It is this moving target behavior that shows how shaky the whole thing is.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 25, 2012 at 10:18 am
You used to plot the change of the field, are you now plotting the actual field?
That is an odd question; (not to say nonsense, too overused), of course it is change in the field (an article will be online soon with all details) . If it were the field it would mean the Earth’s MF flips every 22 years.
I see Petaluma contest was won by a Brit; what no local talent ?
vukcevic says:
June 25, 2012 at 10:44 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 25, 2012 at 10:18 am
That is an odd question; (not to say nonsense, too overused), of course it is change in the field (an article will be online soon with all details) . If it were the field it would mean the Earth’s MF flips every 22 years.
How about labeling the graph correctly? Here is the change of the field at the core boundary http://www.leif.org/research/core-secular-change-png.pdf which one of those blobs are you talking about?
If it were the field it would mean the Earth’s MF flips every 22
I would not put it past you to claim such, but actually you can add any [large] constant to a variable without changing the power spectrum, so no flip is needed.
Here is the change of the field at the core boundary http://www.leif.org/research/core-secular-change.png which one of those blobs are you talking about?
ClimateForAll says:
“Let me also go on record that I postulate that a very high energetic field, either from the galactic plane or from dark matter is directly involved in effecting the earths magnetic field.”
Your statement makes me wonder if our cosmos is like a large scale nuclear magnetic resonance instrument. The earth and/or sun, (galaxy) is aligned in a huge magnetic field. Occasionally, from somewhere, a huge electromagnetic event disturbs the alignment, and then the earth and/or sun return to be aligned with this huge magnetic field.
@Eric Simpson,
Interesting, my less understanding is that prior to around 1960 the greenhouse gas theory was not widely accepted. Only with the rise of the environmentalists did the greenhouse gas theory find its new home
Actually, it is imho even more interesting than that from the point of view of the history of science. Unless I am mistaken, the greenhouse effect,” although known long before, was first popularized in the media when Carl Sagan sallied forth to do combat against the arch-heretic Emmanuel Velikovsky, who had upset the gradualist apple cart by claiming that Venus would be a hot planet because it was youthful in comparison to cooler planets of the solar system. When he turned out to be correct, the gradualists had to come up with an alternative explanation, and since Venus does have a very large amount of atmospheric Co2, the Greenhouse theory fit the fill.
Again — I am far from an expert, but I have read that this explanation is impossible, since Venus actually radiates more heat than it absorbs from the sun, even given its close orbit. But no one bothered with that in the days of these heroic battles. Sagan was called upon to smite the boar, and he did.
Assuming that this analysis is correct, it would raise some very interesting questions about the close connection between AGW theory and the defense of standard gradualist cosmology in the 20th (and now 21st) century.
I am far from being a doctrinaire defender of Velikovsky — but it does seem to me that he was right about a number of things, and that in particular his emphasis on catastrophic events as shapers of the cosmos is far more correct than the dogmatic gradualism whose narcissism he had so offended by suggesting, for example, that the planets were not all formed at the same time through the gradual accretion of disparate particles of dust. That his offense may have shaped the ensuing history of the environmental movement makes the episode all the the more intriguing.
-psi