NASA on the sun: '…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate."

Researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming.

From NASA GSFC:  Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star.  While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

Sun-Climate (cycle, strip)

These six extreme UV images of the sun, taken by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, track the rising level of solar activity as the sun ascends toward the peak of the latest 11-year sunspot cycle. More

Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem.  To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop.  The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.

One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun’s total output, such a small fraction is still important.  “Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined,” he says.

Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum.  Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more.  This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

Sun-Climate (tsi, strip)

Space-borne measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI) show ~0.1 percent variations with solar activity on 11-year and shorter timescales. These data have been corrected for calibration offsets between the various instruments used to measure TSI. SOURCE: Courtesy of Greg Kopp, University of Colorado.

Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface.  There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence.  For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent.  Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.

Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further.  He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it.  “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies.  [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.”  In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Sun-Climate (sep, strip)

How incoming galactic cosmic rays and solar protons penetrate the atmosphere. SOURCE: C. Jackman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, “The Impact of Energetic Particle Precipitation on the Atmosphere,” presentation to the Workshop on the Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate, September 9, 2011.

Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiples layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics.  But just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it’s not real.

Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.”  Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.

Sun-Climate (pacific anomaly, strip)

Composite averages for December-January-February for peak solar years. SOURCE: G.A. Meehl, J.M. Arblaster, K. Matthes, F. Sassi, and H. van Loon, Amplifying the Pacific climate system response to a small 11 year solar cycle forcing, Science 325:1114-1118, 2009; reprinted with permission from AAAS.

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global.  The Pacific region is only one example.

Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that “When Earth’s radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a chance in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally.  The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA.”

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature.  “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.”  This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.  The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.

Sun-Climate (sunspot numbers, strip)

The yearly averaged sunspot number for a period of 400 years (1610-2010). SOURCE: Courtesy of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering.  More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.”   This is not a large number, but it is significant.

Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now.  Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years.  Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”

Sun-Climate (faculae, 200px)

This image of the Sun’s upper photosphere shows bright and dark magnetic structures responsible for variations in TSI. SOURCE: Courtesy of P. Foukal, Heliophysics, Inc.

In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps.  Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager.  Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number:  the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths.  This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.

In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex.  The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity.  Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae.  Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity.  Of particular interest are the faculae.  While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not.  This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum.  A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.

Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study.  Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results.  Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.

Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists.  However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.

Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores.  Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity.  A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars.   Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.

The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519.

Author: Dr. Tony Phillips  | http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

See also the December Solar slump here

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
319 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 11, 2013 7:37 am

MiCro says:
January 11, 2013 at 7:28 am
Wouldn’t the majority of the energy from the sun come from the shorter wave lengths UV-X-Ray?
No, 93% of the energy comes from visible and infrared wave lengths.

January 11, 2013 7:56 am

MiCro says:
January 11, 2013 at 7:28 am
Maybe “majority” isn’t the right word, but the higher energy of the shorter wave lengths even with a lower flux rate would still be a huge amount of energy, all deposited into the upper atm.

January 11, 2013 8:33 am

MiCro says:
January 11, 2013 at 7:56 am
Maybe “majority” isn’t the right word, but the higher energy of the shorter wave lengths even with a lower flux rate would still be a huge amount of energy, all deposited into the upper atm.
The 93% I quoted is not the flux of photons but the total energy they carry. ‘Huge’ amount is relative. Compared to the total it is not huge, but you are somewhat correct about the upper atmosphere. It is heated to 1000 degrees, but the air is so thing [a trillionth of the density at the surface] that there is actually very little energy up there [you would freeze to death if put there]. And it does not get down to the surface.

January 11, 2013 8:46 am

“According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific.”
This is not true for 1969 and 1979 as the solar wind was slower then:
http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

January 11, 2013 9:18 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 11, 2013 at 8:33 am
“The 93% I quoted is not the flux of photons but the total energy they carry. ‘Huge’ amount is relative. Compared to the total it is not huge, but you are somewhat correct about the upper atmosphere. It is heated to 1000 degrees, but the air is so thing [a trillionth of the density at the surface] that there is actually very little energy up there [you would freeze to death if put there]. And it does not get down to the surface.”
It as you note about 7% of the Suns output, and iirc it varies a lot over the solar cycle.
I also recall a unexpectedly large drop in the troposphere (stratosphere?) height during the last Solar minimum.
But, I think it is very easy to proof it’s not CO2, whatever the real cause is. You can buy a $70 IR thermometer and point it up at a clear sky, on a 35F day when it wasn’t picking up energy from the Sun it read the minimum it will read, -40F, and while pointed closer(though not at) to the Sun it read it’s Max 608F. Pointing at clouds reads close to air temp.
If I had any doubts it isn’t CO2 causing the warming at the surface, this experiment proves to me it can’t be. I think if more people saw this, it would change their minds, and the next clear day I plan on getting some pictures.

January 11, 2013 9:22 am

MiCro says:
January 11, 2013 at 9:18 am
It as you note about 7% of the Suns output, and iirc it varies a lot over the solar cycle.
If that drives the temperature then the temperature has to vary a lot over the solar cycle and it does not.

MattS
January 11, 2013 9:36 am

Leif,
I have a question. Given the article discusses changes in individual components of TSI as possible climate change drivers, is there enough data to determine if there are long term trends / cycles in the spectral composition of TSI? Not total energy, just the distribution across the spectrum.

MattS
January 11, 2013 9:38 am

By long term I mean anything longer than a single solar activity cycle.

January 11, 2013 9:53 am

MattS says:
January 11, 2013 at 9:38 am
By long term I mean anything longer than a single solar activity cycle.
There is a lot of confusion about this, If the spectral distribution is the same in every cycle then the effect of that should also be the same in every cycle [modulated by the size of the cycle], so the long-term variation should follow that of the solar cycle. We have very good evidence that UV does in fact just follow the cycle [since 1722]. If one postulates that the change in spectral distribution is brand new and has never been seen before, then it is hard to ascribe long-term climate change to a recent, unprecedented change in spectral distribution.

January 11, 2013 9:58 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 11, 2013 at 9:22 am
“If that drives the temperature then the temperature has to vary a lot over the solar cycle and it does not.”
While I agree that is a reasonable comment, as the topic of this thread points out there could be more subtle interactions involved. possibilities of altering the jet stream, or longer temp thermal cycles imparted into the thermal mass of the oceans, cloud production, distribution of clouds, etc, etc.
I do not buy that because we can’t think of a better reason, it therefore has to be CO2, I did not think this was how science was suppose to work.

January 11, 2013 10:04 am

MiCro says:
January 11, 2013 at 9:58 am
I did not think this was how science was suppose to work. […]
there could be more subtle interactions involved

Science does not work with vague ‘could-be’, ‘possible’ interactions either.

Matthew R Marler
January 11, 2013 10:07 am

Leif Svalgaard: Your irrelevant [and incorrect] reference to NASA, reminds me of the Dunning–Kruger_effect:
Please tell us in detail, quoting him, the previous point he addressed, and NASA exactly, how Stephen Wilde was both incorrect and irrelevant.
I think you cite “Dunning-Kruger” whenever you lack a cogent and correct reply to a point that you don’t like to acknowledge.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2013 at 1:36 am
Here Wilde presents a few of relationships: “more of this will follow from more of that.” Lots of scientific knowledge of practical value is incorporated in such rank orderings, such as: treatment of HIV with reverse transcriptase inhibitors will retard the development of AIDS and reduce the transmission of HIV; or continued undisciplined use of antibiotics will continue to produce extensively drug resistant populations of gonorrhea, syphilis, TB and MRSA. A perfectly legitimate non-quantitative hypothesis, probably testable, is that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, starting now, will induce a mean Earth surface temperature change of less than 10% of the standard deviation of temperature changes observed during the last 150 years (or less than 10% of the RMSE of the “equilibrium” approximation to the Earth surface temperature across time and the Earth surface. I am not sure what the “equilibrium temperature of the Earth is now [perhaps 289K?], but clearly every point on Earth has a different temperature than that almost all of the time, and RMSE is the square root of the average of squared errors across the sampled points of the Earth’s surface, the errors computed hourly at every place for a year.)
Although the calculated change of the notional “equilibrium” temperature caused by CO2 increase follows a quantitative law, what exactly it is in the Earth climate system that the “equilibrium” temperature relates to has never been quantitatively specified, in part because the Earth climate system is never in “equilibrium”, or even “steady state”. It isn’t an act of “Dunning-Kruger contumely to point this out.

MattS
January 11, 2013 10:14 am

Lief,
While the article specifically talks about UV, I am thinking more broadly. Thinking about it at the broadest level, what the article says is that the spectral composition rather than total energy can cause changes in atmospheric composition that affect albedo and thus affects how much energy the climate system actually absorbs from TSI. I would think that the solar cycle is to short for spectral changes tied to it to have a significant impact on temperature. However what if there are longer term variations.
I am not positing a new or novel change in spectral distribution.
Are there any observational datasets on TSI composition that could be analysed for trends / cycles NOT connected to the 11 year solar cycle? I am not looking for / asking about datasets tracking specific components such as UV but observations of the full composition across the EM spectrum. If such a dataset exists, how far does back?

Matthew R Marler
January 11, 2013 10:14 am

Leif Svalgaard: If the spectral distribution is the same in every cycle then the effect of that should also be the same in every cycle
That assumes that the response of the Earth climate system is linear across the spectrum. Is that known to be true?

January 11, 2013 10:29 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 11, 2013 at 10:04 am
“Science does not work with vague ‘could-be’, ‘possible’ interactions either.”
True, but I didn’t imply I knew what the cause of modern warming is either, only what isn’t.

January 11, 2013 10:35 am

Matthew R Marler says:
January 11, 2013 at 10:07 am
Please tell us in detail, quoting him, the previous point he addressed, and NASA exactly, how Stephen Wilde was both incorrect and irrelevant.
You can read his comments yourself. He has several times expressed annoyance with the fact that NASA did not give him credit for his ideas. And that ‘NASA now sides with him’, that essentially everything he says are backed up by NASA, etc. These remarks [which are incorrect] are classic D-K symptoms. As such they are irrelevant to the science at hand.

January 11, 2013 10:41 am

Sunspot variability may not provide sufficient energy variability but, as I calculate magnetic field interactions, may well act as the control valve.
This type of control permeates throughout most if not all electronic circuits.
For those not familiar with electronics, just consider energy required to open or close hydro-power station sluice gate and the amount of the stored energy released by such action.
Oceans are reservoir of the energy. In the North Atlantic the ‘gate’ is opened and closed regularly following a pattern we know as the AMO.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm

January 11, 2013 10:42 am

Matthew R Marler says:
January 11, 2013 at 10:07 am
Please tell us in detail, quoting him
If you really want to have it rubbed in here is a smattering:
Stephen Wilde says:
Very similar to my work of the past 5 years.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:58 am
This is getting very close to the narrative set out in my New Climate Model
Whatever defects may be found it seems that my work might well have been a lot closer to the truth than that from any of the climate professionals.
It would have been nice to have had some attribution given the overlap with my earlier work and the similarity of the language used.
NASA apparently agrees with me but I think I am several steps ahead
All the evidence is going my way
And I have NASA on side as regards the solar effects on circulation
It is clear that the report of their findings contains several statements that mirror the position that I have been setting out for several years and the general approach is identical in all essential features to my previously expressed diagnoses of climate features.
All of that is implicit in my earlier work and indeed now at last in the NASA report but currently I am way ahead of them in interpreting the data and the interconnected climate consequences of the various observations

January 11, 2013 10:51 am

@LiefS: 7:13am The Earth’s fluctuations are observed. We have no observations of the Sun’s variability on that scale.
I could say that “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” but I have epistemological problems with that phase. If you look hard for something your theory says should be there and you don’t find it — well maybe the theory is wrong and it is really absent. Be that as it may, we don’t have 2000 years of satellite data and 10Be data isn’t conclusive.
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: The Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age. Is it an elephant or a mouse?
The Maunder might be a real event. It might be a measurement artifact as a result of poor calibration and stubborn observatory directors.
The Little Ice Age might be a real global climate event, a regional climate event, an extreme weather event that became folklore.
If either the Maunder or the LIA were not real, that would put the kibosh on a solar-climate link.
Even if the Maunder was real and the LIA was a real global event, the link could be anywhere in a spectrum of causal to purely coincidental.
I read here that you are involved in a team project to recalibrate the historical observed sunspot number records. Where do the Maunder and Dalton cycles currently stand within this project? What is the name of that project for future reference?
Meaning no disrespect, meaning no disingenuity, I gather from “We have no observations of the Sun’s variability on that scale.” that you think any Maunder and LIA link is at most coincidental and probably insubstantial.

Matthew R Marler
January 11, 2013 10:57 am

Leif Svalgaard: You can read his comments yourself.
Indeed I did. You made a possibly baseless assertion that his comments were false and irrelevant. I request that you back it up, so we know in detail which of his comments you think are false and irrelevant, and why.

January 11, 2013 11:00 am

@LiefS: 7:13am It is not that new theories bubble out of thin air and then we go and see if we can find data that support them
Now you are being disingenuous. I’ve been careful to emphasize testing new theories on existing data.
Plate tectonics was forced upon us by observations of magnetic stripes on the sea floor, and did not spring from open minds.
Run the clock back further. The (incomplete) Theory of Continental Drift brewed up in the open minds of Wegner and others before him, long before paleomagmetic ocean floor data. They were trying to make sense of observed geographical, geological, and zoological data from the continents separated by oceans
Indeed, why would anyone fund a project to magnetically map the Atlantic Ocean floor if there were not competing theories to test? Good experimental design first requires a hypothesis.

January 11, 2013 11:00 am

Leif said:
“He has several times expressed annoyance with the fact that NASA did not give him credit for his ideas. And that ‘NASA now sides with him’, that essentially everything he says are backed up by NASA”
No annoyance, just sadness but I’m pragmatic about it.
Not everything either, just certain basic essentials and in any event I go further than them in considering the logical implications and working them into a more complete climate description.
Is not Leif suffering from D-K syndrome ? Also perhaps denialism and projection?
My comments cannot be incorrect or irrelevant to the science in hand because my previously published work clearly sets out the very processes that are at the heart of their article.

January 11, 2013 11:38 am

MattS says:
January 11, 2013 at 10:14 am
I would think that the solar cycle is too short for spectral changes tied to it to have a significant impact on temperature. However what if there are longer term variations.
There is no evidence for such, on the contrary, the evidence we have of UV going back centuries argues against such, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
Are there any observational datasets on TSI composition that could be analysed for trends / cycles NOT connected to the 11 year solar cycle?
Not that I know of.
Matthew R Marler says:
January 11, 2013 at 10:14 am
That assumes that the response of the Earth climate system is linear across the spectrum. Is that known to be true?
no, it just assumes that the response is equal for solar cycles of equal size.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 11, 2013 at 10:51 am
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: The Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age. Is it an elephant or a mouse?
it is an elephant, for sure
The Maunder might be a real event. It might be a measurement artifact as a result of poor calibration and stubborn observatory directors.
It is not an artifact.
The Little Ice Age might be a real global climate event, a regional climate event, an extreme weather event that became folklore.
The LIA is real too
the link could be anywhere in a spectrum of causal to purely coincidental.
And I put in in the latter category.
I read here that you are involved in a team project to recalibrate the historical observed sunspot number records. Where do the Maunder and Dalton cycles currently stand within this project? What is the name of that project for future reference?
There are TWO projects. One about SSNs [ http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home ] and one about the longer-term variations http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
We are working our way back in time. Activity before 1826 is the topic of the next meetings [first one in Tucson, AZ, in about a week].
that you think any Maunder and LIA link is at most coincidental and probably insubstantial.
Yes, I think so. I have some thoughts on the MM here: http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf [a large ppt file with animations here http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.ppt ] and here http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Wind%20During%20the%20Maunder%20Minimum.pdf
My working hypothesis [which is speculation, of course] is
1. The Maunder Minimum was not a deficit of magnetic flux, but
2. A lessening of the efficiency of the process that compacts magnetic fields into visible spots
3. This may now be happening again [the so-called Livingston and Penn effect]
4. If so, there is new solar physics to be learned
Stephen Rasey says:
January 11, 2013 at 11:00 am
Indeed, why would anyone fund a project to magnetically map the Atlantic Ocean floor if there were not competing theories to test? Good experimental design first requires a hypothesis.
The measurements were not made to test Continental Drift [which was pretty much discarded at the time].
Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2013 at 11:00 am
My comments cannot be incorrect or irrelevant to the science in hand because my previously published work clearly sets out the very processes that are at the heart of their article.
More D-K in my opinion. Your ‘work’ is too vague to be tested and does not ‘clearly’ set out any of the processes, and is in any case [and rightly] not considered by NASA.

January 11, 2013 11:49 am

Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2013 at 11:00 am
Not everything either, just certain basic essentials
Stephen Wilde says:
January 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm
“identical in all essential features”

January 11, 2013 12:21 pm

So, my comments are indeed correct and relevant but Leif simply judges that my work lacks practical utility whereas in fact I have listed ways in which it could show predictive skill.
He should apologise for his baseless assertions.

1 7 8 9 10 11 13