Guest post by David Archibald
Solar Cycle 24 has already seen five consecutive colder winters. This is a link to a post about a German meteorologist who has seen the light. Eventually people will work their way back to where all the energy comes from. The amount and type of energy coming from the Sun varies on time scales up thousands of years. Now that we are somewhere near the peak of Solar Cycle 24, let’s see how things are progressing.
Figure 1: MF, TSI, F10.7 Flux and Sunspot Number 2009 – 2013
From Dr Svalgaard’s site, this figure shows that the F10.7 flux is hovering around 100, which is the breakover point between sea level rising and sea level falling. In turn that also means it is the breakover point between the planet warming and the planet cooling. Given that activity will drop once we pass solar maximum, cooling is in train from here.
Figure 2: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2012
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle was at 70.6° as at November 2012. Solar maximum occurs when it reaches 74° – so a little bit further to go.
Figure 3: Ap Index 1932 – 2013
The Ap Index has fallen back below the levels of previous solar minima.
Figure 4: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2012
The solar wind flow pressure has also seen its peak for this cycle.
Figure 5: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2013
The neutron count is likely to trend sideways for another year before rising to a new peak for the instrumental record.
Figure 6: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1968 – 2013
The Interplanetary Magnetic Field appears to have peaked for this cycle.
Figure 7: Solar Cycle 24 Sunspot Number compared to the Dalton Minimum
This chart compares the development of Solar Cycle 24 with the Dalton Minimum. The Solar Cycle 24 is tracking Solar Cycle 5 very closely.
Figure 8: Solanki Sunspot Number Reconstruction 9455 BC to 2035 AD
The data is from Solanki et al 2004 “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”, courtesy of David Evans. A projection to 2035 is included based on Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of an amplitude for Solar Cycle 25 of 7. The average annual sunspot number in Solanki’s reconstruction is 28.7. The average annual sunspot number for the second half of the 20th century is 72.
Figure 9: Solanki cumulative sunspot reconstruction
This graph takes the data from Figure 7 and is additive relative to the average sunspot number over the period of 28.7. It shows that solar activity trends for thousands of years at a time.
Figure 10: Steinhilber et al TSI reconstruction 7,362 BC to 2007 AD
Similarly, Steinhilber et al reconstruction TSI relative to 1,365.57 W/m2 with data courtesy of David Evans.
Figure 11: Steinhilber et al TSI reconstruction cumulative
This graph takes the data from Figure 9 and plots it cumulatively. It also shows that solar activity trends for thousands of years. The Steinhilber reconstruction does show the beginning of the Dark Ages cold period and the Little Ice Age quite accurately.
Elizabeth, is your last name Goddard?
if you want to understand the ice, look at volume
For other folks, understand that there is a bottom melt season and a top melt season.
Data freaks can go look at the arctic bouy data to see real time recordings of the water temp under the ice. Interesting things happen when you have open water and big storms.. there even is a special name for the type of pumping that goes on.
And its always good to see Leif hold court. You folks are lucky to have a great scientist and good man answer your questions. he has the patience of job when it comes to folks who refuse to learn.
Thanks. Here’s a good one: http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2008B.htm
David Archibald: To find what you seek, simply type in “Archibald sea level F10.7 flux” in the search function on the upper right.
OK. I got 388,000 returns. I have been following your solar activity projections/predictions for several years now. You don’t seem to have been accurate.
Here I was working my way through this collection of comments and links (quite well I thought) until I got to the “burn marks” issue as something “showing evidence of restrike.” (and stirke, too, I suppose)
For what it is worth (?), here is the link to the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay#Theories_of_Origin
An “impact event” is mentioned and dismissed. No burn marks, though.
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 4:00 pm
If anything your plot shows an increasing falsification of your ‘formula’.
Well, science needs to know the cause, if ‘formula’ fails, I am out.
I came across numbers which would suggest that the auroral electro jet’s power varies from about 400 to1000 GW
Couldn’t find numbers for the equatorial electrojet, any ideas?
vukcevic says:
February 27, 2013 at 11:08 am
Well, science needs to know the cause, if ‘formula’ fails, I am out.
It failed for the past…
I came across numbers which would suggest that the auroral electro jet’s power varies from about 400 to1000 GW
From 0 to 100 GW would be more accurate. Values above 100 GW are extremely rare. Typical value is around 25 GW for rather active periods. For the past several years the input has been smaller, like 10 GW or smaller, e.g. see http://www.leif.org/research/POES%20Power%20and%20IHV.pdf or http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/Intro.html
Couldn’t find numbers for the equatorial electrojet, any ideas?
There is difference between the strength of a current and its power. If the current is not dissipated into a medium there is no power, for example the current that powers a 100 Watt light bulb does not dissipate 10 Watt unless it is passed through the filament [the ‘load’] in the bulb. So it is not a meaningful question to ask what power the equatorial electrojet carries. A simple answer would be close to 0 GW. For the auroral electrojet the situation is different because there are actually particles precipitating into the ionosphere.
for example the current that powers a 100 Watt light bulb does not dissipate 100 Watt unless it is passed through the filament
So it is not a meaningful question to ask what power the equatorial electrojet carries.
Thanks.
Including the electromagnetic induction in the hydro- and litho- spheres from each set of currents, any numbers ?
vukcevic says:
February 27, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Including the electromagnetic induction in the hydro- and litho- spheres from each set of currents, any numbers ?
Well, I gave you typical values for the current, i, and for the resitivity, R, so you can calculate the energy from Q = i^2 * R * t, or the power Q/t = i^2 * R over any crossection you prefer for sea water. Now, the Lorenz force has two parts: charge*electric field and charge*velocity X magnetic field, so you can calculate those forces for any configuration you want. Since the ocean and lithosphere are loads there will be a power input. People have done that [and you can do it too] and the power is very small. But try yourself. If necessary read up on electric currents, power, and resistivity, lots of good stuff on the internet, or in any textbook on electricity.
Hi Mr. Mosher,
I am not aware of a balanced position of yours to the arctic sea ice debate, as I don’t recall any mention of the 40% volume loss about 70 years ago, of the AMO or black carbon, which combined may leave little room for other contributors.
I also don’t see support for your pet culprit CO2 by Leif Svalgaard’s excellent contributions .
Why don’t you use your outstanding intellect and knowledge of so many things to do some real science, such as confirming Anthony Watt’s new station siting study or investigating Frank Lansner’s observation of the deviation of land measured temperatures from sea surface data since the 1980s, though these trends never diverged before, nor do in satellite data.
lsvalgaard says:
February 27, 2013 at 12:59 pm
…….
Not calculating Lorenz, thanks, that is simple, done it. Need difference in the total 11 year energy input of about 2x10E20 Joules between the rise and fall time (green line in http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGMF.htm ) to justify appearance of 22 year component in the Earth’s field. (which is probably a very small fraction of the total electromagnetic input in the polar caps)
Leif, RE: The dynamo on the Sun, are you saying the outer mass is enough to create currents that effect the Magnetic field of the core?
michaelwiseguy says:
February 26, 2013 at 3:16 pm
“Solar cycle 24 rules. We would be paying a global carbon tax right now if not for the exaggerated solar minimum of cycle 24. I hope we can come to a consensus and somewhat reliable climate change effect as a matter of solar activity, so we can adapt accordingly.”
When you say ‘climate change’, I take it that you mean long term Natural Variability of cooler and warmer periods? If so, I agree.
Matthew R Marler says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:32 am
Don’t be daunted by the task you have taken on, oh seeker after truth. Read all 388,000 returns. You will be much wiser for the experience.
vukcevic says:
February 27, 2013 at 2:35 pm
Not calculating Lorenz, thanks, that is simple, done it.
Good, so you know that it is totally ineffective.
Need difference in the total 11 year energy input of about 2x10E20 Joules between the rise and fall time (green line in http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGMF.htm ) to justify appearance of 22 year component in the Earth’s field.
You are not clear: there is a tiny 22-year variation in geomagnetic activity [about 3 nT, see Figure 23 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf ]. This is about 1/8 of the total variation of activity, so if the average power input is, say, 16 GW [in a good year] you can take 1/8 of that [2 GW] and integrate over 11 years from solar max to solar max [not min] yielding 7E17 Joule. But this is an external variation. The internal part would be about half. If you consider the variation is Dst [ring-current] similar fractions apply. There is no other 22-year variation.
(which is probably a very small fraction of the total electromagnetic input in the polar caps)
It is incorrect to talk about ‘electromagntic input’.
Sparks says:
February 27, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Leif, RE: The dynamo on the Sun, are you saying the outer mass is enough to create currents that effect the Magnetic field of the core?
The dynamo does not operate in the core, but in [or near] the outer convection zone, and the movement of the plasma [a tiny fraction of the total mass] there is responsible for [and sufficient to] create the currents that generate solar activity.
Leif, You are saying YES.
Leif, that does not add up ‘sufficiently’, the sun’s core is the source of it’s magnetic field. Are you therefor saying that the mass surrounding the core is enough to effect it’s field?
mario lento
Uhm… there is always all year round ice in the Antarctic… Am I missing something here?
at the antarctic maximum last year when antarctic sea ice was very high we were being told by the experts that antarctic sea ice melted out totally every summer and therfore it was not important.
donald penman says:
February 27, 2013 at 10:00 pm
you wrote “at the antarctic maximum last year when antarctic sea ice was very high we were being told by the experts that antarctic sea ice melted out totally every summer and therfore it was not important.”
I think you might be talking about the Arctic, but no that ice has not melted out every summer either… I don’t know what you are talking about. The Antarctic ice never melts out… never in human lifetime that I know of.
Sparks says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:34 pm
the sun’s core is the source of it’s magnetic field.
No, it is not. The magnetic field is generated and maintained in the rarefied outer layers of the Sun.
lsvalgaard, thanks for the info.
After my extended nap it occurred to me that the faint Sun paradox is mute if the Sun is older than predicted. The Earth has a pre-history beyond what we can see presently. The Sun is a billion years older than deduced thus far.
Consider the Earth coalescing from the early solar system and is a giant dirty snow ball with a slowly evolving inner core. A billion years of accrued may, estimated at some 100 billion tons (likely more in the early solar system), creates an increase of heat and pressure on the inner Earth as well as crusting the outer ice with sedimental dust that changes the absorption of heat from the faint Sun. At some point the outer core swells and fractures the early dirty ice surface, ice melts and the early continents are formed from excreted magma. This is the 4.5 billion or so years that we can “see”. The proto-moon’s impact later shatters the early continent(s) and starts the tectonic drift and starts the Earth spinning very fast, much faster that a 24 hour cycle. Now the stronger Sun’s luminescence is shone on much more surfaces than before. Life started at the hydrothermal vents and evolved to the now liquid oceans, i.e. the Sun is now “bright” enough to keep the melt water from freezing again and provide energy to evolving bacteria from the depths.
Kajajuk says:
February 28, 2013 at 11:33 am
After my extended nap it occurred to me that the faint Sun paradox is mute if the Sun is older than predicted. The Earth has a pre-history beyond what we can see presently. The Sun is a billion years older than deduced thus far.
Unfortunately, we can measure [and compute] the ages of the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, and the Meteorites by widely differing methods, and they all agree within a 100 million years [even the differences are largely understood] with 4.6 billion years, so they do all have about the same ago. The theory of stellar evolution is very well established [we have billions of stars to test it on], so there is no escape from the paradox that way.
Acknowledged, thanks.
lsvalgaard says:
February 27, 2013 at 11:01 pm
“No, it is not. The magnetic field is generated and maintained in the rarefied outer layers of the Sun.”
The magnetic field is observed ‘in the rarefied outer layers of the Sun’ obviously there is disagreement on the generation of the suns magnetic field, I’m okay with your version of the suns workings, but it’s not carved on stone with me. Have you done a speculative posts Leif? I’d like to hear/read some other potential theories and ideas on the subject.
Sparks says:
March 1, 2013 at 12:45 pm
The magnetic field is observed ‘in the rarefied outer layers of the Sun’ obviously there is disagreement on the generation of the suns magnetic field,
Not among scientists who know anything about this. To create and maintain the observed field it is generally accepted that a ‘shear’ layer must be present to ‘wind up’ the magnetic field. There are shear layers in the outer convection zone, but not in the stable radiative interior. This is why we deduce that the dynamo works in the outer layers and not in the interior.