An article in the New Scientist says:
But Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert has this to say:
Solar max is a slippery concept. One can be more precise and *define* solar max for a given hemisphere as the time when the polar fields reverse in the hemisphere. The reversals usually differ by one or two years, so solar max will similarly differ. The North is undergoing reversal right now, so has reached maximum. The South is lagging, but already the polar field is rapidly decreasing, so reversal may be only a year away. Such asymmetry is very common.
Here is a link to the evolution of the polar fields as measured at WSO:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
And here’s data all the way back to 1966, note there has not been a crossing of the polar fields yet in 2012, a typical event at solar max:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Here is a link to a talk on this: http://www.leif.org/research/ click
on paper 1540.
Dr. Svalgaard adds:
Solar max happens at different times for each hemisphere. In the North we are *at* max right now. For the South there is another year to go, but ‘max’ for a small cycle like 24 is a drawn out affair and will last several years. To say that max falls on a given date, e.g. Jan 3rd, 2013, at UT 04:15 is meaningless.
Somebody is coming around:
[“21] In the model, the change in phase between the heliospheric modulation potential and sunspot maxima is a direct result of assuming the HCS continues to cycle in the same manner, regardless of the strength of the sunspot cycle. Thus we suggest that the solar cycle polarity reversals were unaffected by the relative absence of sunspots during the Maunder Minimum. In turn, this argues that the solar dynamo continues to cycle with an approximately 11-year period throughout grand solar minima, but that the necessary photospheric flux emergence takes place in flux tubes with field too weak, or of too small a diameter, to form sunspots [Spruit, 1977] ((the Livingston & Penn effect)). The presence of small flux tubes with no dark sunspots may imply that although UV emission from the chromosphere would be lower during grand minima (such as the Maunder Minimum) than during grand maxima (such as recent decades), the visible and infrared emissions from the photosphere would actually be greater than in recent years ((TSI higher during Maunder Minimum)). During the recent long and extended solar minimum SC23/SC24 observations by the SORCE satellite [Harder et al., 2009] show that the decline in UV was larger than expected but that IR and visible emissions increased.
[22] Applying the [open solar flux] OSF model to future variations, we note a continued decline in solar activity over cycles 24 and 25 may not produce a steady decline in OSF. The model predicts that even a steady decline in sunspot number may result in a plateau in OSF during SC24 ((they are discovering the floor))”
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L19102, doi:10.1029/2012GL053151, 2012
Heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays during grand solar
minima: Past and future variations
M. J. Owens, I. Usoskin, and M. Lockwood
There is also some nonsense in the paper, but they at least got the above right. Things in ((are my comments))
JanP
What? No, I am not. Why would you say that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jan, seriously? Read the string again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve given you most of the day to respond and…. nothing. Perhaps you are just busy.
Bottom line is that you said that the IPCC AR4 WG1 was representative of your opinion if the science. I then presented to you a graphic showing warming for various scenarios, including committed warming from CO2 levels post 2000. You advised that this graphic was NOT a proper representation of the science. In fact, you said:
“The curves you see in the graphic are low-pass filtered model output. It is not scientifically sound to compare low-pass filtered model output, where short-term unforced variability on interannual time scales has been largely removed, with unfiltered data from observations that have all the short-term unforced variability present.”
Jan, you have asserted that WG1 represents your opinion on the science, and you have also asserted that in this case WG1 has published something not scientificaly sound. At worst this means you think they are dead wrong, at best, that the graphic is misleading.
Many assumptions are made about the sunspot cycles intensity effect on the global temperatures. None of the proposed solutions demonstrate numerically existence of a direct link. However, simple arithmetic will show that interactions between the Earth’s magnetic field change and the solar magnetic cycles show strong correlation to the North Hemisphere’s (de-trended) temperatures, most likely as a consequence of the AMO, while correlation in the SH is much weaker.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
Reasons why the NH apparently does respond strongly , and the SH not so much, are somewhat more complex but could be explained by combination of the geomagnetic and the oceanographic differences.
By adding the temperatures of two hemispheres into a single global data stream the effect is diminished in the intensity, and less likely to be positively identified.
vukcevic says:
October 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm
However, simple arithmetic…
Einstein said: “make it as simple as possible, not no simpler”. Simple solutions to complex preoblems are almost always wrong.
Bart says:
October 5, 2012 at 7:51 am
Geoff, please post any links where you discuss what you have uncovered. It could be helpful an enlightening.
Bart, the link I provided earlier gives the base detail. We are not permitted to discuss the detail here but feel free to discuss on my blogs.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/218
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Somebody is coming around:
Lots of assumptions here both by Lockwood’s model and yourself.
You guys can play around with the components of the HMF but at the end of the day the GCR flux is the most reliable source which sums magnetic strength, wind speed and tilt angle. I have not seen evidence of Maunder Minimum GRC flux matching the current readings.
Perhaps we could see the entire paper before commenting, but Lockwood unlike you, places a high regard on UV variations and climate connections which he notes the UV readings are surprisingly low. Pity we dont have reliable UV values for the Maunder.
The so called L&P Effect is rapidly becoming isolated with many providing evidence of its non existence.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/280
Sunspot magnetic strength is basically following the sunspot cycle as expected.
But this one happens to work
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
and further more these calculations are supported by (no less than four) independent unrelated reconstructions (Proctor, Gray, Man, Folland)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
as listed here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/speleothem/scotland/scotland_data.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/amo-gray2004.txt
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iamo_manna.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/snao-folland2009.txt
Geoff Sharp says:
October 5, 2012 at 11:34 pm
the GCR flux is the most reliable source which sums magnetic strength, wind speed and tilt angle
I guess you missed the title of the paper: ‘Heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays during grand solar minima: Past and future variations’
The so called L&P Effect is rapidly becoming isolated with many providing evidence of its non existence.
On the contrary, one of your own graphs shows how well the decline matches that of L&P: http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf (slide 6)
It is quite normal that when new epoch-making discoveries are made, that there are a lot of ‘rear-guard’ action trying to preserve status quo. You are no exception.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 5, 2012 at 11:34 pm
the GCR flux is the most reliable source which sums magnetic strength, wind speed and tilt angle
I guess you missed the title of the paper: ‘Heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays during grand solar minima: Past and future variations’
The so called L&P Effect is rapidly becoming isolated with many providing evidence of its non existence.
On the contrary, one of your own graphs shows how well the decline matches that of L&P: http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf (slide 6)
Even deToma has come around [lower graph on slide 5] and Fraser Watson [slide 7]
It is quite normal that when new epoch-making discoveries are made, that there are a lot of ‘rear-guard’ action trying to preserve status quo. You are no exception.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 5, 2012 at 11:34 pm
at the end of the day the GCR flux is the most reliable source which sums magnetic strength, wind speed and tilt angle.
As discovered by me: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/262766a0-HCS-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
October 5, 2012 at 11:34 pm
The so called L&P Effect is rapidly becoming isolated with many providing evidence of its non existence.
Here is a section of my keynote talk at http://www.tiems.info/about-tiems/oslo-conference-2012.html :
Recent Changes in the Sun?
Historically all solar indices have been closely correlated as they all derive from the same source: the variable magnetic field. In fact, the various reconstructions of past (and predictions of future) activity all rely on the implicit assumption that the correlations stay the same over time. This is likely to be true for indices that have a close physical connection, like the 10.7 and UV fluxes, but is not given a priori for correlations that are more indirect, e.g involving the sunspot number: the processes creating visible sunspots are varied and not fully understood. And indeed, while there has long been a stable relationship between the 10.7 flux and the sunspot number, allowing one to calculate or map one from the other, that relationship has steadily deteriorated in the past decade to the point where the sunspot number for a given flux has decreased by about a third (Figure 12).
A similar decrease of the sunspot number for a given amount of magnetic flux in the plages surrounding active regions has occurred as well as a decrease of the number of spots per active region. This is unprecedented in the observational record. We interpret this decrease as a loss of primarily the small spots. (((which is why looking at the largest spots is not so good)))
Observations by Livingston & Penn since 1998 until the present show that the average magnetic field in sunspots has steadily decreased by 25% [Livingston et al., 2012], regardless of the fact that we are now again at the maximum of a solar cycle. Since the magnetic field cools the spots, a decreasing field means that the sunspots are getting warmer and that their contrast with the surrounding photosphere is getting smaller, making the spots harder to see. There is a minimum field strength in visible spots of about 1500 Gauss [0.15 T] and as that 1500 G threshold is approached, magnetic fields appear at the solar surface which do not form dark sunspots or pores. Owens et al. [2012] suggest that the photospheric flux emergence in such cases may take place in flux tubes with field too weak, or of too small a diameter, to form sunspots, citing Spruit [1977]. The observed distribution of number of spots vs. field strength has been shifting steadily towards that limit. If, and that is a big if, this trend continues, the number of visible spots in the next cycle [and perhaps beyond] may fall to values not seen since the Maunder Minimum, but without dramatic changes in the emerging magnetic flux. Without the dark spots, Total Solar Irradiance might even be a bit higher. It is not clear what this will mean for the impact of solar activity on the Earth’s environment, if any, but it portends exciting times for solar physicists.
Leif Svalgaard says:
….the GCR flux is the most reliable source which sums magnetic strength, wind speed and tilt angle.
As discovered by me: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/262766a0-HCS-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
M. Vukcevic says:
And even of more profound importance for the understanding natural variation in climate change is the coupling between the solar and the Earth’s magnetic fields.
As discovered by me: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Snap!
vukcevic says:
October 6, 2012 at 10:51 am
And even of more profound importance for the understanding natural variation in climate change is the coupling between the solar and the Earth’s magnetic fields. As discovered by me
Except that coupling is spurious.
Oh, yea, all 150 years of it, plus another 150 years of the corroborated reconstruction.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
in contrast with 10 years of the L&P ‘effect’ (unconfirmed and irreproducible) which is an absolute.
Hey doc, you do have a sense of humor.
vukcevic says:
October 6, 2012 at 11:57 am
Oh, yea, all 150 years of it, plus another 150 years of the corroborated reconstruction.
Oh, yeah, this is rubbish. Sorry to say so, but there is no validity that I can see to any of this. Now, I may just be incompetent to judge such things, so why would you so vehemently object to my evaluation of your handiwork? Take it as a man and just go your own way regardless; after all you have hundred of thousands of devoted followers out there [and at NASA, FBI, CIA, NOAA, ESA, JPL, etc].
Oh, yeah, this is rubbish. Sorry to say so, but there is no validity that I can see to any of this.
No, you are sorry not
because you know rubbish it is not,
you are very sorry because what I got.
Just you wait, ‘enry ‘iggins,
Just you wait until you see this!
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AOP.htm
until you find out what the NAP is
Just you wait, ‘enry ‘iggins
Then you’ll be sorry, but your sorry’ll be too late!
NASA, NOAA and USGS are regular visitors to my web-pages, I haven’t noticed the ESA , but hey, what do you know about CIA and FBI ?
vukcevic says:
October 6, 2012 at 1:37 pm
what I got.
Good luck with that
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“How is it that when solar forcing is known to vary by an amount that you now argue is equivalent to 10-15 years of ‘global warming’, neither the models nor the error bands on their predictions incorprate this variation?”
I guess the problem is that no one really knows how the solar cycle is going to develop over future decades and centuries, …
Then why don’t the error bands reflect that? And despite your voluminous response that expounded on things not asked, why didn’t you answer that question the first time it ws asked?
Speaking of error bands, what is the uncertainty in the solar input for the past – the period over which the models were calibrated and of the data which was used to back out the alleged CO2 effect? And how was that uncertainty propagated forward in the model predictions that you already refuse to stand behind without ad hoc adjustments?
Which of course brings us back to the other questions, asked more than once, that remain unanswered:
How long can global average surface temps remain flat before you admit your theory is bust?
Is the ~25 year period that you have stipulated sufficient for that, or not? If not, please revise your previous answer.
How long would they have to rise at less than the 0.2C/decade rate predicted by the low end of your scenarios before you will accept that you are wrong?
How much can they drop, before you will come to that conclusion?
These are not difficult questions, for someone who makes claims …
I find the prospect of the sun going into a Maunder minimum like state very exciting. I really hope it’s going to happen. It will be sort of the ultimate test for the question which one of the two forcing dominates nowadays, anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing or solar forcing.
It cannot be a test, if you will not commit to specific, quantified criteria upon which failure would be judged to have occurred.
Answer the questions.
Leif,
I just noticed an article, they think Voyager 1 has likely left the solar system (heliopause).
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/10/more-evidence-that-voyager-has-exited-the-solar-system/
Charged particle counts dramatically dropped. Possible instrument failure? More GCR’s, magnetic field data not yet definite.
Do you have more info and references? Possibly something for a quick post before Anthony throws in the “open thread weekend” towel again?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm
I just noticed an article, they think Voyager 1 has likely left the solar system (heliopause).
I saw it too. I don’t think it is a malfunction [it would too much of a coincidence], but we have to await what the experimenters say.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm
More GCR’s
Arguable, the most important piece of information we can get form the Voyagers is a measurement of the cosmic ray spectrum [or count] in the Local Interstellar Medium. This value underlies our whole calculation of the solar modulation of cosmic rays and has until now only been guessed at.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 6, 2012 at 7:11 am
On the contrary, one of your own graphs shows how well the decline matches that of L&P: http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf (slide 6)
Fig. 6 shows the FSU and L&P data following the sunspot cycle. This is what you get once the erroneous data collection method of L&P is removed.
Dr. S
Kadaka
I superimposed two images (GCR and charged particles)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/V1.htm
considering time coincidence and amplitude values (GCR vs protons) I would guess everything is functioning as normal.
On matters galactic:
NASA records new ‘black hole’ in action
Geoff Sharp says:
October 6, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Fig. 6 shows the FSU and L&P data following the sunspot cycle.
All the figures show that there is a weak solar cycle variation [to be expected] on top of the general downward trend. This is regardless of L&P. F10.7, MSPI, CaII, Spots/Group, Owens et al (GCRs) all are what show this. L&P just happens to confirm the decline.