While many science related government agencies are shut down (NASA GISS is deemed ‘non-essential’ for example) some remain open due to statements like this:
Due to the Federal Government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable. However, because the information this site provides is necessary to protect life and property, it will be updated and maintained during the Federal Government shutdown.
The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center remains open, and they’ve updated their solar cycle progression graph set. Today, as we watch the sun we find only two small sunspot groups, both rather anemic.
![latest_512_4500[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/latest_512_45001.jpg?resize=512%2C512)
The latest data is not encouraging for Solar Cycle 24 as the SSN numbers have taken a pretty big hit. In fact, all the solar metrics have taken a hit at a time near the peak when their should be many more sunspots and indications of an active solar dynamo.
The SSN numbers for September dropped to about 37:
Radio flux is also down:
And the Ap Index, an indicator of solar magnetic activity is still bumping along the bottom. Compare it to the peaks seen in Solar Cycle 23 in 2004:
Clearly, we’ve passed solar max, as this magnetic field chart showing the magnetic filed has reversed (a signature of solar max) shows:
Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present
From Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source
It seems that even though the solar magnetic field has flipped, predictions of associated climate doom have not come to pass.
Date: 07/10/13
Sun’s magnetic field about to flip, could affect Earth’s climate
The Sun’s magnetic field is soon going to flip by 180-degrees which could lead to changes in climate, storms and even disrupt satellites, scientists have warned. The Sun’s magnetic field changes polarity approximately every 11 years. It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the Sun’s inner magnetic dynamo re-organises itself.
http://www.thegwpf.org/suns-magnetic-field-flip-affect-earths-climate/
Rather than an active flip, it’s more like the sun is rolling over and playing dead.
More at the WUWT Solar reference page
https://www.google.com/#q=solar+versus+temp+variation+last+1000+years
How about we just don’t reopen GISS at all?
The sun’s flip or lack of flip of it’s magnetic field has NO climate relationship.
Today, as we watch a the sun we find only two small sunspot groups, both rather anemic.
SIDC reports for today 5 groups, Kanzelhohe 7 groups, NOAA 5 groups.
milodonharlani says:
“How about we just don’t reopen GISS at all?”
Good point. With the government shutdown, there is no reason to fund non-essential departments like GISS. They evict old folks from their own homes. How is that OK, but shutting down GISS is off-limits?
Today, as we watch a the sun we find only two small sunspot groups, both rather anemic.
SIDC reports for today 5 groups, Kanzelhohe 7 groups, NOAA 5 groups, Catania 10 groups, Crimea 4 groups.
REPLY: Obviously, they are better at counting sunspecks than I, a problem we both know about. From my viewpoint I only saw two groups of significance- Anthony
What will have a climate impact is IF the following solar parameters reach the averages I list below.:
They are the following:
solar flux avg. sub 90
euv light avg. sub 100 units
ap index avg. sub 5.0
cosmic ray count per minute avg. north of 6500
solar irradiance avg. off.015% or more
solar wind avg. sub 350km/sec or lower
imf field avg. 4.0 nt or lower
Once these solar averages are attained following several years of sub solar activity in general(20005- present) the temperature trend will be down due to the primary solar effects themselves and the associated secondary effects.
As solar cycle 24 winds down and we head into very weak solar cycle 25 these solar average I have listed above should be able to be attained, for much of the time.
Many studies which I can post suggest the Maunder Minimum featured solar parameters as low or lower then what I have put forth, and past history shows this was the coldest part of the LITTLE ICE AGE(1350-1850 approx.) which itself was in response to very low solar activity in general throughout that time period.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 7, 2013 at 9:27 am
https://www.google.com/#q=solar+versus+temp+variation+last+1000+years
Wow – seriously? Did you even do that Google search? I think if you had you wouldn’t have bothered posting it… first comment too… pathetic.
Now, if there was an actual chart there somewhere, that would be interesting… of course, assuming they used the same method to gauge modern sunspots and temperature as they did 1000 years ago
Leif on Aug. 06th predicted from Aug.06-Dec. 31,2013 that the solar flux would average 120 and the ap index 10.
So far much below those predictions. .
tmonroe says:
October 7, 2013 at 9:43 am
Now, if there was an actual chart there somewhere, that would be interesting… of course, assuming they used the same method to gauge modern sunspots and temperature as they did 1000 years ago
http://www.leif.org/research/NH-Temperatures.png is perhaps the best there is.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 5, 2013 at 10:58 am
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 4, 2013 at 11:42 am
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 24, 2013 at 11:20 am
http://books.google.com/books?id=vUtSluaODqYC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=the+11+year+solar+cycle+continued+during+the+maunder+minimum&source=bl&ots=g4qt3JnWMQ&sig=URAhIGZWdOjfuRpPj4w6ZRNnSx8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y-09UtWKFuaHygHOiYCYDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=the%2011%20year%20solar%20cycle%20continued%20during%20the%20maunder%20minimum&f
This study is of my school of thought when it comes to solar variability. Time will tell.
lsvalgaard says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/september-solar-slump-continues/#comment-1439259
henry says
no doubt Lsvalgaard (who continues to deny there is a God who actually made the weather)
still cannot see that you can draw a binomial , i.e. a para- (from the top) and hyper- (from the bottom) bolic curve for the sun’s polar field strengths that will show that the slump will continue until at least 2016 as predicted by me (and others).
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Ug. Time to knock the little red line another notch.
http://iceagenow.info/page/2/
What’s happening with the Livingston & Penn effect, Leif? It looks to my (untrained) eye as if it is flattening out. Is that your interpretation, or is it too soon to come to any conclusions?
I would be interested to read your take on this.
TIA.
http://www.leif.org/research/NH-Temperatures.png is perhaps the best there is.
That chart has been proven to be completely false. It is a joke.
Anything is possible says:
October 7, 2013 at 9:57 am
What’s happening with the Livingston & Penn effect, Leif? It looks to my (untrained) eye as if it is flattening out.
It is flattening out: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png as it should if the sun keeps cutting off the low end of the distribution below 1500 Gauss.
Like Kanzelhohe, SDO HMIIF 1K has 7 groups at noon UT: http://solen.info/solar/images/2013/10/SDO_20131007.png
TSI is just going up and down about 0.1% Guess we’ll find out in a few years (or decades) how much TSI matters versus sunspots. Especially if we have extremely low cycles.
How quickly did the European glaciers rebound in the last minimum? Temperature isn’t enough of demonstration for most, while the imagery of small Swiss villages buried in ice should end the CO2 hysteria.
https://www.google.com/#q=a+graph+of+temperatures+for+last+1000+years
The temp. graph in this article is an accurate picture of the true temp. changes that have taken place over the last 1000 years.
the article that is from watts up with that
New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago | Watts
THIS ONE HAS THE ACCURATE TEMP. CHART.
Bill says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:04 am
TSI is just going up and down about 0.1% Guess we’ll find out in a few years (or decades) how much TSI matters versus sunspots. Especially if we have extremely low cycles.
TSI has not gone down as cycle 24 has done, neither has the number of CMEs:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-not-following-SSN-F107.png
The magnetic flux for solar cycle 24 is among the lowest since solar cycle 5 and that is where it is at, when it comes to the climate.
Look at the ap index post 2005 in contrast to prior 2005.
I would suggest that solar cycle 24, is running below that of solar cycle 5 which was associated with the Dalton Solar Minimum.
solar slump continues
It will get even more slumpy, or is it slumpier?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Sun isn’t an isolated electromagnetic entity, it is the primary component of the wider electromagnetic system .
HenryP says:
October 7, 2013 at 9:50 am
In the Bible, God does indeed literally make the weather happen. He Himself opens the storehouses of rain, hail & snow (Psalms 147:16 & 148:8 & Job 37:6 & 38:22), to let these forms of precipitation drop down onto the flat earth from above the solid vault of heaven (Genesis 1:6, etc.) covering it, with windows or doors through which the sun & moon can pass & from which the stars hang, in danger of falling to earth. He also Personally produces ice, dew, thunder & lightning, along with all other natural phenomena.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+37&version=NIV
TSI acting as one would expect for solar cycle 24 thus far. Wait a few years from now and then see where it is at.
Again more important when it comes to climate is the EUV flux which is only running around 120, much lower then what it should be for a so called solar cycle maximum.
This cycle is so very weak.
Solar flux average was 102.5 for Sep. closer to typical solar minimum readings, and this was suppose to be the maximum for this cycle. AP INDEX just north of 5.0! This is a maximum for this cycle? What next.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vUtSluaODqYC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=the+11+year+solar+cycle+continued+during+the+maunder+minimum&source=bl&ots=g4qt3JnWMQ&sig=URAhIGZWdOjfuRpPj4w6ZRNnSx8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y-09UtWKFuaHygHOiYCYDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=the%2011%20year%20solar%20cycle%20continued%20during%20the%20maunder%20minimum&f
I POSTED THIS OFTEN,BUT IT IS A MUST READ. LAST TIME I WILL POST THIS.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 7, 2013 at 9:43 am
What will have a climate impact is IF the following solar parameters reach the averages I list below.:
They are the following:
solar flux avg. sub 90
euv light avg. sub 100 units
ap index avg. sub 5.0
cosmic ray count per minute avg. north of 6500
solar irradiance avg. off.015% or more
solar wind avg. sub 350km/sec or lower
imf field avg. 4.0 nt or lower
Salvatore, can you tell me where to find long term trends/data of solar wind?
Thanks,
Seth
“Bill says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:04 am
TSI is just going up and down about 0.1% Guess we’ll find out in a few years (or decades) how much TSI matters versus sunspots. Especially if we have extremely low cycles.
###########
Bill the climate doesn’t see spots. Humans see spots because we have eyes. The climate “sees” TSI. spots are interesting only insofar as they can be connected to or serve as proxies for physical entities which could impact the climate.
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:16 am
Sun isn’t an isolated electromagnetic entity, it is the primary component of the wider electromagnetic system .
Nonsense, the solar wind keeps all [electric and] magnetic influences away
milodonharlani says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/september-solar-slump-continues/#comment-1439324
henry says
true
but you missed Isaiah: 40: 21-31
note that not “one star is missing”
because if it were
we would not be here
(as I realized some time ago)
but don’t forget that the bad sometimes goes together with the good
(to prevent more bad?)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Be blessed.
Wow these comments are a wild mix.
http://www.solen.info/solar/
this gives solar wind data.
Steven Mosher says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:32 am
The climate “feels” solar magnetism as well as “seeing” TSI. To the extent that sunspots might be a proxy for solar magnetic flux, then, yes, the climate does experience the effect they reflect.
I think these are very exciting solar and climate times!
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:33 am
Sun isn’t an isolated electromagnetic entity, it is the primary component of the wider electromagnetic system .
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:16 am
“Nonsense, the solar wind keeps all [electric and] magnetic influences away”
To a point but the wind is effected by those [electric and] magnetic influences and thus in turn they do effect us indirectly… at least at this point. Shifts in solar wind can have…unexpected results…
temp says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:42 am
“Nonsense, the solar wind keeps all [electric and] magnetic influences away”
To a point but the wind is effected by those [electric and] magnetic influences and thus in turn they do effect us indirectly… at least at this point. Shifts in solar wind can have…unexpected results…
Pay attention to the direction of causality. The solar wind and its associated effects come from sun.
solar magnetic flux;
aa index;
solar cycle variations;
coronal holes
[1] Since measurements began in the late nineteenth century, there has been a secular increase (with superposed ripples due to solar cycles) of the aa geomagnetic index [Mayaud, 1972]. Starting from this observation, Lockwood et al. [1999a, 1999b] conclude that the total open solar magnetic flux has increased by 41% from 1964 to 1995 and by 130% over all but the last 5 years of the twentieth century. However, solar data for more than two solar cycles – Carrington maps from Mount Wilson, and Wilcox Solar Observatories and newly reanalyzed data from the National Solar Observatory – show no secular trend in overall photospheric flux. More importantly, the magnetic flux open to interplanetary space (as calculated from photospheric measurements and assuming potential fields to a height of 2.5 R⊙) fails to show evidence of a secular increase over the last two solar cycles. Like Lockwood et al., we do not explicitly take account of transient events. Thus both data and calculations imply that the Sun’s average coronal magnetic flux has not increased over the last two solar cycles. Analysis of simulations with the potential field source surface model shows that the interplanetary magnetic flux is not simply related to the erupted photospheric solar magnetic flux. Both results are in agreement with the findings of Wang et al. [2000]. The topology, rather than the strength, of the emergent solar magnetic field may be a major determinant of the interplanetary magnetic field experienced at Earth.
This is where the key is with the solar /climate connection and this process has reversed post 2005 in a big way.
I seem to remember that people have correlated cooler temperatures with longer cycles (as opposed to or in addition to lower SSN). The suggestion for Cycle 24 was that it would be long because of the slow ramp up. Since it looks like it is never going to get any higher, how is the estimate of the length of SC24 doing? Are we still looking at 12+?
I guess what I am asking is what metrics are used to forecast/estimate cycle length?
HenryP says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:37 am
You’re right. Not one of the starry host was missing at that time, yet previously in Isaiah & in the New Testament (eg, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13 & 8:10) we learn that in the end time, the stars will indeed fall to earth.
Isaiah 34:4: All the stars in the sky will be dissolved and the heavens rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 9:36 am
Today, as we watch a the sun we find only two small sunspot groups, both rather anemic.
(SIDC reports for today 5 groups, Kanzelhohe 7 groups, NOAA 5 groups, Catania 10 groups, Crimea 4 groups.)
Bet you woudn`t see 10 groups with this.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Galileoscope2.jpg
or this,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Scheinerscope2.jpg
Robuk says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:50 am
“(SIDC reports for today 5 groups, Kanzelhohe 7 groups, NOAA 5 groups, Catania 10 groups, Crimea 4 groups.)”
Bet you woudn`t see 10 groups with this.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Galileoscope2.jpg
Irrelevant as the modern group count of about 5 is determined using telescopes like this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png.
Leif and Mosher,
I was not clear in my previous post. I understand that TSI is supposed to be the main player.
I was referring to this graphic
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
and the fact that here the TSI over the last few years is cycling (randomly?) up and down
with small changes. I will look at the new graphs you posted Leif. Are those normalized in some way when the two cycles are plotted?
However, people do refer to an “active” sun w.r.t. sunspots (including Leif I believe) and what we see does depend on local magnetic effects on the sun. The sunspots are
actually cooler (as you both know) so I found that interesting a few years back. It is also interesting that historically several cold periods did seem to coincide with low sunspot cycles. Leif tells me the understanding here is low to medium and that he believes this could actually be due to volcanic activity. I was merely commenting that if indeed we go through some very low sunspot cycles, we will see what happens to temperatures and we should have good measurements of a variety of solar parameters so it will be interesting times over the next 5-20 years and we should learn a lot about the sun and its effect on climate.
Sun’s magnetic field about to flip, could affect Earth’s climate
Polar field flip not as such, but it is a precursor to the sunspot polarity change at the next minimum, that is the one that matters:
How? you might ask.
According to NASA the sunspot magnetic cycle polarity change interacts with the Earth’s magnetic field.
“solar coronal mass ejections CMEs in the even-numbered solar cycles tend to hit Earth more often with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such CMEs open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm “
To test NASA’s observation taking account sunspot cycles polarity, alternating in and out of the phase with the Earth’s magnetic field, and using available geomagnetic data, combining two magnetic fields (solar and the Earth’s) gives a very familiar ‘oscillation’ waveform
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Since this was strongly disputed by Dr. Svalgaard, the Stanford’s solar expert, a further analyses established more evidence of the Sun-Earth electromagnetic link, this time revealed as change in the rate of Earth’s rotation or LOD
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
As the polar fields extrapolation of the equation was ridiculed some years ago, but now proven by the events, the above two findings are also declared ‘numerology’ and pseudoscience.
Antagonism of the establishment with the ‘blue skies’ ideas and research is nothing new.
Bill says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:06 am
and the fact that here the TSI over the last few years is cycling (randomly?) up and down
with small changes.
Actually, the up-down ‘cycles’ you see are not really due to changes in [real] TSI, but are simply due to the fact that the Sun is rotating and that activity is not evenly distributed in longitude. To first approximation one side of the Sun has most of the activity [for the moment] and so when that activity side rotate onto the backside we see a dip in TSI and sunspot number and F10.7 microwave flux, then when the Sun rotates the activity onto the earth-side we see the peaks.
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:09 am
Antagonism of the establishment with the ‘blue skies’ ideas and research is nothing new.
Antagonism of scientists with worthless pseudo-science is nothing new and is as it should be.
Bill says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:06 am
I was referring to this graphic http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
As the graphic says, you should use the newer [updating] version
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png
Leif said: so when that activity side rotate onto the backside we see a dip in TSI and sunspot number and F10.7 microwave flux, then when the Sun rotates the activity onto the earth-side we see the peaks.
I see. Very interesting. I just learned the other day that the sun’s rotation period is roughly a month which I also found interesting.
The graphs with the annual averages you posted (looks like in June?) are easier to interpret. Are those updated on your website periodically? Those would be good ones for Anthony to link to.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:45 am
“Pay attention to the direction of causality. The solar wind and its associated effects come from sun.”
Congrats for knowing that… did you also know they eb and flow? Maybe you should reread what was said and think of a better more scientifically grounded post.
Bill says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:19 am
The graphs with the annual averages you posted (looks like in June?) are easier to interpret. Are those updated on your website periodically? Those would be good ones for Anthony to link to.
The annual average is posted at the average day for the observation of each year [approximately early July]. I have updated that graph daily, but the satellite that measures TSI is now broken, so for the foreseeable future no more accurate TSI 🙁
This [long] document gives an overview of the plans for continuing TSI measurements. Ironically it was put together just a few months before the satellite broke: http://www.leif.org/EOS/NASA-TSI-Overlap-Panel.pdf
temp says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:43 am
Congrats for knowing that… did you also know they ebb and flow? Maybe you should reread what was said and think of a better more scientifically grounded post.
Regardless of what the solar wind speed is, the flow is always away from the Sun. That is the scientific reason for my comment. Magnetic influence cannot flow back to the Sun, because the solar wind [at Earth] flows away from the Sun 11 times faster than a magnetic disturbance can flow towards the Sun. You can learn more about this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave
I just looked at the solar image from the Solar Page, and counted eight sunspot groups, including two or three on the extreme edge. Only the one center spot is of any size, and some groups are quite small — almost undetectable. Doesn’t look like a very active sun, not from what I’ve seen in the past.
Old Patriot says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Doesn’t look like a very active sun, not from what I’ve seen in the past.
It is quite normal that weak cycles show extreme variations in activity. The standard example is cycle 14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
In labeling the red curves as “predicted values,” the authors of the associated X-Y plots draw conclusions from equivocations thus being guilty of the equivocation fallacy. The presence of this fallacy makes the methodology of the research seem scientific when it isn’t.
Wow,
this is just like the heyday of Scientific American, except in 3D and on steriods !
Learning is easy when you can see all sides of the debate.
The only problem is the limited time available to read, between stopping work in the evening and going to work in the morning.
more please.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:15 am
……………..
I note and welcome your new attitude; you do not any longer dispute the data as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
as you said elsewhere:
When it comes to the data being king, I readily confess.
The data is the king ! Long live the king !
Terry Oldberg says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:13 pm
In labeling the red curves as “predicted values,” the authors of the associated X-Y plots draw conclusions from equivocations thus being guilty of the equivocation fallacy.
I don’t think so. Experience shows that the main parameter that determines the size and shape of the sunspot curve is the maximum value. So, if you can predict that value, the rest of the curve can be drawn with reasonable confidence. No equivocation fallacy here, just ordinary [uncertain] science.
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:31 pm
I note and welcome your new attitude; you do not any longer dispute the data as shown here
Your graphs are nonsense and do not merit further comment. Data is one thing, wrong interpretation is something else.
Life and property. Not sure we have much control over the sun yet-Lol
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Your graphs are nonsense and do not merit further comment.
Sir, my graphs are just another form of presenting the data.
‘When it comes to the data being king’, You do not confess any more?
Strange that.
Salvatore Del Prete by far more prolific contributor is awaiting your attention.
Bye.
Anyone else think that 2017 will be the beginning of the next solar minimum?
Far from being the final word on climate change, last week’s United Nations report suggesting near certainty that human activity is causing a rise in Earth’s temperatures is actually further proof that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong and the Earth is cooling right on schedule, according to one of the leading scientists who is skeptical of the climate-change premise.
Last week, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported it was 95 percent certain that climate change was the result of human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels that emit “greenhouse gases.”
“That’s the result that they get when you premeditate your science,” said Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. “When you set out to establish a certain scientific outcome and you program your computers to do that, you shouldn’t be surprised if that’s the result you get. The problem is what they’re getting out of their computers is not fitting with what’s actually happening. Of course, that’s been the problem with the IPCC all along.”
Ball told WND the deception of the IPCC and its allies can be seen in how the reports are released, with the policy statement drawing headlines while the scientific information comes later and is largely ignored.
“(The summary for policymakers) is a document written to scare to public and scare the politicians into providing more funding for their own research and their own political agenda,” he said. “The actual science report, which it supposedly is based on isn’t going to be released right away. They’ve always done it his way because the summary for policymakers completely disagrees with what the science report is saying. They know that the media and the public are not going to read the science report. And they also know that if any of them get into it, they won’t understand it anyway.”
The latest data actually show temperatures have dropped in recent years. The IPCC and other scientists have branded this as a “pause” in climate change. Ball said that characterization implies that temperatures are temporarily holding steady and will inevitably rise again soon. He said that conclusion is dead wrong.
“The temperature is going down and has for 17 years while carbon dioxide increases,” Ball said. “According to their hypothesis and model, that’s simply not supposed to happen. Rather than doing what they should do and coming out and saying, ‘Our science is wrong, our models are wrong and we apologize for all the inconvenience we’ve caused you,’ they’re just plowing ahead.”
The long-held contention of those who warn of climate catastrophe is that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere lead to higher temperatures. So if that belief is incorrect, why are temperatures getting cooler?
“The sun is causing the cooling that’s going on. The sun reached a peak of activity around 2000 and has been declining ever since,” said Ball, who noted that the cooling trend will continue for years to come.
“We’re heading toward what occurred around the year 1800. It was called the Dalton Minimum of low sunspot activities,” he explained. “We certainly are down to that in number of sunspots this year. That means the cooling will continue at least until 2030 and yet the government is preparing for warming, which is outrageous. Some people think that this cycle of sunspot activity and global cooling will take us down to as cold as it was around 1680, which was the nadir of the Little Ice Age.”
More evidence backing up Ball’s position comes from the polar regions. New reports from the National Snow and Ice Data Center suggest Antarctic ice levels are at record highs. Ball said the southern hemisphere has been cooling for some time. He believes the clinching evidence comes from the Arctic Circle.
“This was the year that even one scientist at NASA predicted that the Arctic ice in the summer would be gone completely,” he said. “Well, there’s 60 percent more ice this year than last year and the reason is because of the cooling sun and the cooling temperatures.”
Ball also rejects the contention that climate change brings on more extreme weather events, not just higher temperatures. He said hurricane season was very quiet this year and tornadoes were down as well. He chalked up record high and low temperatures to the jet stream shifting from a west-east flow to more of a north-south line.
The “premeditated” science is a major culprit for the climate-change concerns, according to Ball. But he also blames the media.
“The main reason they were able to get away with what they’ve gotten away with is that a majority of the mainstream media were complicit in what (the IPCC and other scientists) were doing,” Ball said. “This is where the Founding Fathers have been corrupted because they believed the media would be the watchdogs, the gatekeepers. The mainstream media have failed completely.”
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Sir, my graphs are just another form of presenting the data.
‘When it comes to the data being king’, You do not confess any more?
The solar-geo thingy is not valid data. There are also correlations between global warming and the number of pirates and the price of a US postage stamp. Perhaps you should apply your blue-sky expertise to those data. Salvatore is just a useful fool in that responses to him allow me to slip in educational material. You do not measure up in usefulness for that purpose.
Leif you are in D E N I A L
I do a monthly report when the SIDC comes out with their official sunspot number. They release the number promptly on the 1st of the month so mine has been out for a week:
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/september-2013-sunspot-report/
I try to add a little armchair summary of the state of solar sunspot activity for that month. I’m sure Dr. Svalgaard would have a field day correcting my non-scientist roundup comments. lol!!!
azleader says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:27 pm
I’m sure Dr. Svalgaard would have a field day correcting my non-scientist roundup comments
You are doing fine.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Leif you are in D E N I A L
Indeed, when it comes to the relevance of your scatter-shot vapid comments.
https://www.google.com/#q=temperature+graphs+showing+little+ice+age+and+medeval+warm+periodhttps://www.google.com/#q=temperature+graphs+showing+little+ice+age+and+medeval+warm+period
Shows how the IPCC and others on this web-site have distorted the temperature record for the past 1000 years or so.
hey vuk
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001/pdf/1748-9326_8_4_045001.pdf
The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick
“The climate “feels” solar magnetism as well as “seeing” TSI. To the extent that sunspots might be a proxy for solar magnetic flux, then, yes, the climate does experience the effect they reflect.”
thats better. in the end one must ‘translate” spots ( which are visual phenomena with all the counting rulz that Leif is untangling) to real physical units. In other terms “spots’ are not a physical unit and you wont find any law of physics which quantifies over physical units involving spots as a term.
Reading through the comments and I had to laugh at what Isvalgaard had to say. Not real TSI?
Here is what he said:
Actually, the up-down ‘cycles’ you see are not really due to changes in [real] TSI, but are simply due to the fact that the Sun is rotating and that activity is not evenly distributed in longitude. To first approximation one side of the Sun has most of the activity [for the moment] and so when that activity side rotate onto the backside we see a dip in TSI and sunspot number and F10.7 microwave flux, then when the Sun rotates the activity onto the earth-side we see the peaks.
I would expect that Isvalgaard would know the definition of TSI, but maybe he chose to ignore the definition inorder to blow more smoke. Eh, only he knows. Maybe he provided us with a joke. Kinda like the hockey stick graph he used earlier.
TSI: Total Solar Irradiance as measured as Solar energy per unit time over a unit area perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at the top of Earth’s atmosphere. Thanks for the laugh.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/a_tale_of_two_climate_hockeysticks.html
What I sent above exposes the false charts of temperatures for the past 1000 years that have been sent over this web-site.
Tim ,Leif will say,show, refute anything to try to prove all his wrong assumptions.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:04 am
https://www.google.com/#q=a+graph+of+temperatures+for+last+1000+years
The temp. graph in this article is an accurate picture of the true temp. changes that have taken place over the last 1000 years.
————————————————————–
This is the second time the provided link led to a page of search results, not a single article. This is not useful.
The first one you posted did lead to an article here, the second result on that page
:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
It appears to be a highly biased account of those temperatures and supports the now debunked hockey stick and pooh poohs the skeptics. It does not have a graph, just propaganda. It seems like it was edited by that guy who got banned from being able to edit climate change articles.
Tim Walker says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm
TSI: Total Solar Irradiance as measured as Solar energy per unit time over a unit area perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at the top of Earth’s atmosphere. Thanks for the laugh.
In talking about solar activity the ‘Total’ in TSI is best viewed over an area with unit 4pi, i.e. a sphere surrounding the Sun with radius 1 AU.
If you wish to stick to your ‘definition’ then TSI varies 6.6% over a year as the distance from the sun to the ‘top of Earth’s atmosphere’. This is the TSI that is important for the climate, but is not the TSI people usually talk about. So the joke is a bit on you. However, I don’t laugh at other people.
Salvatore, I like Leif’s site and much of his educational comments, but I do agree about how he chooses to discuss things. There are times he can be very annoying. I also have to admit that at least some of your comments are not far from how he described them. You need to learn how to better provide links instead of using google searches. Good luck with your research. I’m grateful that other perspectives are being looked at.
Okay, I will admit there are five sunspot groups on this side of the sun today – but only two of them are really substantial, so Anthony is correct enough. One is on each side of the solar limbs, waaay over to each side, and one way below the two obvious ones looks like somebody got a booger on the display, and not even a very impressive one.
I find it amusing that posters are now plucking up courage and expressing doubts about some things Dr Lsvalgaard has said as evidenced on posts above. As others have said many times,be respectful towards others points of view when you are acknowledged as the guru at the top of the tree because when you reveal that you are human like everybody else and make mistakes, you will be politely (not arrogantly) reminded! PS. I am a biotechnologist (a doctor also) so cannot refute Dr Lsvalgaard in his field, but I can hold my own against the Lsvalgaards in my field (I had to post this because I am fed up with the good Doctors apparent disrespect for anybody who does not agree with him).
Thanks Tim. The way I see it this prolonged solar minimum is going to clear up much of what is being discussed on this board. I say within the next year or two.
James Fosser says:
October 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm
I am fed up with the good Doctors apparent disrespect for anybody who does not agree with him).
Respect has to be earned. Do that and you get my respect. Spout nonsense or wishful thinking and you don’t get any.
Would you say that your comment earned respect?
Leif made some predictions about solar flux and ap index for the rest of this year. So far way off, but the year is not over and I will post those predictions made Aug. 06 2013 right or wrong when the year is over.
Leif you will be held acountable for everything you say from a scientific perspective, right or wrong.
Another example will be the IMF floor. We will see if 4.0 nt holds or not going forward, and future evidence to support or not support a floor of 2.0 nt during the Maunder Minimum.
Eample two, we will see the climate reaction to prolonged solar conditions.
Leif’s temperature graphs are fabrications putting it politely.
Leif blows more smoke about TSI. He provides another joke.
He says: that in talking about TSI, he is talking about the solar activity. Wow, someone had a way of measuring total solar activity. At least that is what he is implying. He says that is the TSI people usually talk about. Where is that data shown? All the TSI graphs I’ve seen are of the total amount of Solar energy as I talked about above. Infact in another post Leif explained part of the fluctuation in TSI was because of Earth’s orbit. and in the post above he explained fluctuation in TSI is because of the variance in energy coming from the different parts of the Sun. Lief you really like to ignore other people’s facts if they interfere with your argument.
About laughing at other people: too bad you don’t enjoy comedians or clowns. You did say you don’t laugh at other people. I can see though how you would be irritated by the idea or the nerve of someone getting a laugh about what you say. Me, I can even enjoy when the joke is on me. For example: I’ll laugh later for wasting time discussing this with you. I could of just as well discussed this with a hot air balloon. The same result, except ….
Tim Walker says:
October 7, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Salvatore, I like Leif’s site and much of his educational comments, but I do agree about how he chooses to discuss things. There are times he can be very annoying. I also have to admit that at least some of your comments are not far from how he described them. You need to learn how to better provide links instead of using google searches. Good luck with your research. I’m grateful that other perspectives are being looked at.
———————————————————-
Tim, there are times when you are very annoyed. I am not annoyed with Leif when I disagree or am puzzled by what he says. The fact that you are annoyed and I am not means that it isn’t him who is annoying, but you who are annoyed. If he were truly annoying, then I would have been annoyed too. He doesn’t have the power to annoy me, I do. So when I am annoyed by something, it is my choice to be annoyed, not their power to annoy. Don’t play victim. Own the fact that you choose to be annoyed when you read Leif’s stuff. Don’t get annoyed, refute it if you can, but please don’t blame Leif for your choosing to be annoyed. He can’t protect you from yourself.
I am thinking which upcoming month will have the first blank day. By the end of the year? yes or no.
Thank you for your comment James Fosser. I’m just a bit fed up with his disrespect toward others also, but it does paint quite an interesting picture of his ego.
My solar parameter averages theory:
My average solar parameter theory states if these solar parameter averages are attained folllowing several years of sub-solar activity in general the temperature trend is going to be down.Sub solar activity in general started in year 2005.
THEY ARE:
Solar flux avg. sub 90.
Solar wind speed avg. sub 350 km/sec.
Ap index avg. sub 5.0 some spikes the other 1% of the time.
Cosmic ray count per min. north of 6500.
E 10.7 flux 0-105NM avg. sub 100.
Solar irradiance avg. off .015% or more.
IMF field 4.0 nt avg or lower
.
OTHER ITEMS AND SECONDARY EFFECTS
1.Weakening geomagnetic field which will compond solar effects.
2. This following several years of sub-solar activity in general which started in earnest during year 2005.
Some Secondary effects:
A more meridional atmospheric circulation due to ozone distribution changes in the stratosphere due to very low EUV light values. In turn a more meridional atmospheric circulation will result in more clouds, precip., and snow cover for the N.H. Colder temperatures ,increase in albedo.
Low solar wind will result in an increase in galactic cosmic rays (also have to take into account the strength of earth’s magnetic field, which when weak will compound solar effects) which will result in an increase in clouds ,lower temperatures.
Weak solar irradiance will result in weaker amounts of visible light penetrating the ocen surface ,result will be lower ocean heat content.
Low ap index with spikes will promote more volcanic activity as will an increase in galactic cosmic rays ,many studies have shown. Mr. Casey of the Space and Science Center has research in support of this.
An increase in volcanic activity if high latitude will contribute to warming the stratosphere in the higher latitudes resulting in a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern, while at the same time cool the surface of the earth due to so2 particles reflecting incoming sunlight.
Some speculate that the cold phase of the PDO( more la ninas ,less el ninos) is tied into prolonged solar activity ,due to rotational changes in the earth ,due to an increase in gelogical activity.
That is my basic take, easily falsified if the solar parameters I said are reached and the climate does not show a decline in the temperature trend.
Maunder Minimum, and Dalton Minimum lend support to the above.
.
Maunder Minimum 1650-1700 Dalton Minimum 1790-1820.
…
Thank you Jeff Mitchell for a great post. You are right. A deep breathe and I’ll try to take responsibility for what I can truly deal with, myself. You made me laugh at myself.
Steven Mosher says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:42 pm
……….
Thanks for the link I shall look at it.
The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the dawn–dusk component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), By, is well established and is known as the ‘Mansurov effect’.
I think that needs correcting to: ‘Svalgaard-Mansurov’ effect which I think is defined as the polar cap magnetic deflections, associated with ionospheric currents flow resulting from the release of magnetic tension on newly open magnetic field lines.
On the other hand as much as I disagree with Leif, I still have learned much from him. He knows much, but wants to be correct all the time on everything, and if one should disagree he will do everything in his power to try to show that person does not know what he/she is talking about. That is the problem as I see it.
He is smart, but won’t give anyone else much of any credit that has a different view from his view.
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2013 at 2:32 pm
“The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the dawn–dusk component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), By, is well established and is known as the ‘Mansurov effect’.”
I think that needs correcting to: ‘Svalgaard-Mansurov’ effect which I think is defined as the polar cap magnetic deflections, associated with ionospheric currents
The Mansurov effect is correct as it is about ‘ a meteorological response’ which Mansurov thought he has discovered: “Mansurov S M, Mansurova L G, Mansurov G S, Mikhnevich V V and Visotsky A M 1974 North–south asymmetry of geomagnetic and tropospheric events”
The Svalgaard-Mansurov Effect is a real [and different] effect that takes place in the ionosphere and the magnetosphere.
Lefi what happens in what part of the atmosphere does impact other parts of the atmosphere because the atmosphere is all interconnected, regardless of density .
Great reading, and fun.
Mods please
‘Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm
Leif’s temperature graphs are fabrications putting it politely.”
Accusing Leif of telling lies is beyond the pale. If somebody has an issue with his charts let them do as Anthony and McIntyre have done and dig into to the data to show folks why.
Steve Mosher’s link mentioned ‘Mansurov effect’
Dr. S comments The Mansurov effect is … about ‘ a meteorological response’ which Mansurov thought he has discovered
Oh well, never mind tovarisch Mansurov.
Vukcevic also thought he discovered similar effect, this time due to the geo-solar magnetic oscillations, which apparently do not exist:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSO-Rap.htm
Oh well, never mind comrade Vukcevic.
As an addendo to my above post:
Dr. Lockwood thought he discovered that ‘cold winters are associated with
low solar activity’
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/pdf/1748-9326_5_2_024001.pdf
Oh well, never mind Mike.
lsvalgaard says: Dear Dr Isvalgaard. I was being respectful to you by making my comment. I was not requiring handclaps from other posters concerning my sentiments .I shall not comment further about this matter because I think that l am now big enough to know that this is a science blog and I should keep my mouth shut. I apologise if I went too far
Wow, another nasty solar thread. It used to be that one could learn a lot about these things but now lately it seems the comments are mostly about personal attacks on Dr S. Perhaps those that disagree with him should set up a page such as he has and list there all your research so that the rest of us can go there and learn from you also.
I have no idea why folk keep spouting the TSI , it is the highly variable individual solar components that each in their own way affect the earths weather and climate…….not the bulk TSI!
Tom we have sent research that runs counter to the great Dr. S.
In addition we have provided thoughts that run counter to the great Dr. S.
Dr. S. needs too and will be taken to task on every single issue that he tries to convey is ,when the reality is there is substancial doubts.
That image sets off my vertigo.
Tom, Lief didn’t set up this page or create this post. He just comments on it like the rest of us. You are right about some remarks that showed the irritation I choose to allow. Just as you choose to be irritated by any who disagree with Lief. Science isn’t about agreeing on what a few people think. That is one of the reasons this is such a great blog.
Ian, you are right, it is the separate parts of TSI that seem to be most important. I tried to keep my disagreement with Lief to simple terms. Your comment sent me back to an old post of Anthony’s. It is a good one to review. There is some evidence for UV’s fluctuations having an important impact on our climate. Here is the post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/nasa-on-the-sun-tiny-variations-can-have-a-significant-effect-on-terrestrial-climate/
I have applied a recursive 13-month, low-pass filter to the recent sunspot data. (Note: this filter is NOT the same as a 13-month centered average.) The presence of a second bump is now pretty clear. Check out the png’s at https://www.icloud.com/photostream/#A15oqs3qGcal2A.
Also, my website shows a simple dual-gaussian fit of the prior sunspot cycle. Check out the png. The nice thing about these fits is the separation of the rise time of the cycle from the decay of the cycle.
Tim Walker says:
October 7, 2013 at 4:33 pm
“Tom, Lief didn’t set up this page or create this post. He just comments on it like the rest of us. You are right about some remarks that showed the irritation I choose to allow. Just as you choose to be irritated by any who disagree with Lief. Science isn’t about agreeing on what a few people think. That is one of the reasons this is such a great blog.”
Apparently you cannot read. I was referring to the leif.org page where Dr S presents papers and research for everyone to read and review for themselves. No one that disrespects him has done anything close. Why? I am not irritated by those who disagree with Dr S. , I could not be such a judge, however, I do get irritated by those who do not, will not or cannot provide their own research links to support their positions. That is my bitch. Trash him all you like, but unless you can back up your words with valid research that you did, it falls on deaf ears.
Tom in Florida, your comment: “Apparently you cannot read.” says it all. Thanks for the good laugh. It is amazing how you knew someone else is reading the posts for me.
You are right as soon as someone, Dr. S., Vukcevic, Salvatore Del Prete, or Anthony himself present a position no one else should disagree without doing their own research and having their own research link to support said disagreement. I guess all of the rest of us are ignorant. /SARC/
Seems I was a bit low a few years ago by guessing the average SSN would not get over 47. Oh well, but consolation is it was closer than many others that were far too high. Live and learn, but will always keep an eye on just how tiny the specks are they are now counting (I know Leif, that is attempted to be “adjusted for”).
I had been looking at this page recently: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/more-tsi-variation-and-big-uv-variance/ It seems to present a counter claim.
Jeff Mitchell says:
October 7, 2013 at 2:21 pm
“Tim, there are times when you are very annoyed. I am not annoyed with Leif when I disagree or am puzzled by what he says. The fact that you are annoyed and I am not means that it isn’t him who is annoying, but you who are annoyed. If he were truly annoying, then I would have been annoyed too. He doesn’t have the power to annoy me, I do. So when I am annoyed by something, it is my choice to be annoyed, not their power to annoy. Don’t play victim. Own the fact that you choose to be annoyed when you read Leif’s stuff. Don’t get annoyed, refute it if you can, but please don’t blame Leif for your choosing to be annoyed. He can’t protect you from yourself.”
I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read this. I must be of a different species from another planet. What Dr. Leif Svalgaard says to other people is despicable. What Mr. Mitchell says is simply inhuman, beyond the pale.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:40 pm
You are doing fine.
azleader says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:27 pm
I’m sure Dr. Svalgaard would have a field day correcting my non-scientist roundup comments
Thanks, Dr. Svalgaard… that’s high praise coming from you!
wayne says:
October 7, 2013 at 5:15 pm
will always keep an eye on just how tiny the specks are they are now counting
They have counted specks like that since 1877.
Alexander Feht says:
October 7, 2013 at 6:19 pm
I must be of a different species from another planet
Then watch out for the ‘Men in Black’…http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/meninblack/
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 2:01 pm
In talking about solar activity the ‘Total’ in TSI is best viewed over an area with unit 4pi, i.e. a sphere surrounding the Sun with radius 1 AU.
If you wish to stick to your ‘definition’ then TSI varies 6.6% over a year as the distance from the sun to the ‘top of Earth’s atmosphere’.
__________________
Thanks for the reply there Dr. S. Been thinking about how we measure that lately and what we are seeing at the time when the measurements are made.
Have you done any reading on :
Warps, Bending and Density Waves Excited by Rotating
Magnetized Stars: Results of Global 3D MHD Simulations
M. M. Romanova,1?, G. V. Ustyugova2, A. V. Koldoba2, R. V. E. Lovelace 1
1 Department of Astronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-6801, USA
2 Keldysh Institute for Applied Mathematics, Moscow, Russia
20 March 2013
ABSTRACT
We report results of the first global three-dimensional (3D) magnetohydrodynamic
(MHD) simulations of the waves excited in an accretion disc by a rotating star with a
dipole magnetic field misaligned from the star’s rotation axis (which is aligned with
the disc axis). The main results are the following: (1) If the magnetosphere of the
star corotates approximately with the inner disc, then we observe a strong one-armed
bending wave (a warp). This warp corotates with the star and has a maximum amplitude
between corotation radius and the radius of the vertical resonance….
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1161v2.pdf
Reason being we have a rather large warp in Ole Sols current sheet.
Lovelace has another related article about MRI Magneto-rotational Instability..
Are we seeing any counter rotation in the solar atmosphere out to 1AU? Or is everthing co-rotational?
Wish the boys on the site would play nice.. and stop taking some of Leif’s comments so personally, lots of problems to be worked out. But thanks Dr. S….long may you run…
oops “Long May You Run,” Neil Young..
Carla says:
October 7, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Are we seeing any counter rotation in the solar atmosphere out to 1AU? Or is everthing co-rotational?
There is corotation out to a few solar radii, after that the solar wind expands radially and does not corotate any more than water drops from a garden sprinkler does.
Some of this is very funny, but I do occasionally feel like I am back in the school playground, in a crowd of other kids, watching two small boys try to belt the crap out of each other. Those were the days!
Carla says:
October 7, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Been thinking about how we measure that lately
We measure it by letting raw sunlight fall on a surface and seeing how much that surface heats up. Actually, in reality we try to keep the surface at a constant temperature by heating it electrically and measuring how how electricity we use to do that.
and what we are seeing at the time when the measurements are made.
We are seeing what the Sun sent our way 8 minutes and 31 seconds ago.
Tim Walker says:
October 7, 2013 at 5:04 pm
“Tom in Florida, your comment: “Apparently you cannot read.” says it all. Thanks for the good laugh. It is amazing how you knew someone else is reading the posts for me.
You are right as soon as someone, Dr. S., Vukcevic, Salvatore Del Prete, or Anthony himself present a position no one else should disagree without doing their own research and having their own research link to support said disagreement. I guess all of the rest of us are ignorant. /SARC/”
You must be a politician. You ignore the simple statement that was made only to disagree with what you want to have been said rather than what was actually said. My “Apparently you cannot read” was a svalgaardian reply to your remarks that indicated you did not comprehend what I said. The last part of your comment is a perfect example of this. This is what I wrote:
” I am not irritated by those who disagree with Dr S. , I could not be such a judge, however, I do get irritated by those who do not, will not or cannot provide their own research links to support their positions. That is my bitch. Trash him all you like, but unless you can back up your words with valid research that you did, it falls on deaf ears.”
Do you see where it says ” I am not irritated by those who disagree with Dr S. “? You obviously decided to ignore that or failed to read it correctly.
Do you see where it says ” I do get irritated by those who do not, will not or cannot provide their own research links to support their positions. That is my bitch. Trash him all you like, but unless you can back up your words with valid research that you did, it falls on deaf ears.”
See where it says “trash him”, that does not mean disagree it means “personal attack”.
So when you personally attack someone because you differ with their position WITHOUT ample justification for your position, then it is just that, a personal attack and nothing more.
And there is way too much of that in the solar threads of late and it serves no useful purpose.
Lief says: Then watch out for the ‘Men in Black’
I appreciate the intentional levity you throw in every now and then. With that said, I want to talk about TSI. This isn’t about any theory we should be disagreeing on. Concerning what your said about TSI: In talking about solar activity the ‘Total’ in TSI is best viewed over an area with unit 4pi, i.e. a sphere surrounding the Sun with radius 1 AU.
I went to this site:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/ We had only one satellite, SOURCE, measuring TSI. It wasn’t measuring the TSI over a sphere with a radius of 1 AU. It was measuring and I quote from the above site, ” The TIM instrument measures the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), monitoring changes in incident sunlight to the Earth’s atmosphere using an ambient temperature active cavity radiometer to an absolute accuracy of 350 parts per million (ppm, 1 ppm=0.0001%) (1-sigma) and a precision and long-term relative accuracy of 10 ppm per year. The standard Level 3 TSI data products produced by the SORCE program consist of daily and 6-hourly average irradiances, reported at a mean solar distance of 1 astronomical unit (AU) and zero relative line-of-sight velocity with respect to the Sun.”
The data is being measured at Earth’s location and adjusted to show the TSI at Earth’s average distance from the sun. But this is still at a point and not for a whole sphere. In fact you refer to that very fact when you said:
Actually, the up-down ‘cycles’ you see are not really due to changes in [real] TSI, but are simply due to the fact that the Sun is rotating and that activity is not evenly distributed in longitude.
So the [real] TSI as you put it is a measurement at one point and not of the total TSI viewed over an area with unit 4pi i.e. a sphere surrounding the Sun radius 1 AU. Further more your answer to Bill shown below is misleading and doesn’t correctly answer him.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:13 am
Bill says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:06 am
and the fact that here the TSI over the last few years is cycling (randomly?) up and down
with small changes.
Actually, the up-down ‘cycles’ you see are not really due to changes in [real] TSI, but are simply due to the fact that the Sun is rotating and that activity is not evenly distributed in longitude. To first approximation one side of the Sun has most of the activity [for the moment] and so when that activity side rotate onto the backside we see a dip in TSI and sunspot number and F10.7 microwave flux, then when the Sun rotates the activity onto the earth-side we see the peaks.
The TSI graph when we look at it doesn’t just have an up-down cycle representing only the fact that the Sun is rotating. The TSI does go up and down and not in a pattern just caused by the Suns rotation. If you were right the that the up-down cycles are simply caused by the Suns rotation, then the peaks and valleys would be the same. Also there is not one side of the Sun that is continuously radiating more TSI than the other side.
Tom in Florida says:
October 7, 2013 at 8:04 pmMy “Apparently you cannot read” was a svalgaardian reply to your remarks
And there is way too much of that in the solar threads of late and it serves no useful purpose.
Guess who responds to much of the comments in the solar threads and you called your own comment a ‘svalgaardian reply”. Maybe that explains how those threads get that way. Justifying someone else because of a Dr. in front of their name and research they do is bogus. On this blog we’ve learned that even us lesser educated schmucks can still sometimes spot bogus information even if we can’t follow all of the scientific debate or do our own research. Of course we can look pretty stupid at times too, but then so do the best of scientists and doctors.
Tim Walker says:
October 7, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“We had only one satellite, SOURCE, measuring TSI. It wasn’t measuring the TSI over a sphere with a radius of 1 AU. It was measuring and I quote from the above site…”
All that is irrelevant. The issue is and was solar activity. As far a the Sun is concerned that is a global measure. TSI as measured [over an area 0.5 square cm] from our vantage point can be a useful measure of solar activity when integrated over the whole 4pi surface of a sphere surrounding the Sun and reduced to a fixed distance of 1 AU. Since we only observe half of the Sun at any given time we must average over one full solar rotation [27 days] to get a meaningful result, with the uncertainty caused by a variation with time of the ‘real’ TSI built in. The large ‘swings’ we observe are mainly due to solar activity being unevenly distributed over the surface in an ever-changing pattern.
If you were right the that the up-down cycles are simply caused by the Suns rotation, then the peaks and valleys would be the same. Also there is not one side of the Sun that is continuously radiating more TSI than the other side.
The peaks and the valleys vary because the distribution of activity over the surface varies a bit with time. And nobody said that one side continuously radiates more that the other side. That is your own bogus interpretation. The fact is that the activity is continuously changing but a lot less than the apparent changes due to solar rotation. I expressed that by saying “To first approximation one side of the Sun has most of the activity [for the moment]”. You can see this clearly here http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-and-Rotation.png which shows [blue curve] daily values of TSI and [pink curve] the rotational means. An example is shown in the green box that contain data for five rotations. Note the large swings of the blue curve and the almost steady pink curve. From time to time the are changes also in the pink curve as solar activity obviously does vary with time.
even us lesser educated schmucks can still sometimes spot bogus information
You can rest assured that the information you get from me is not bogus, but in general you do poorly in spotting the actual bogus ‘information’ our habitual self-aggrandizing pseudo-scientists spouts here on WUWT. That stuff you seemingly lap up unquestioningly. You mentioned that you laugh of clowns and comedians, are you suggesting that you are a clown or a comedian so its is OK to laugh at you?
Tim Walker says:
October 7, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“We had only one satellite, SOURCE, measuring TSI. It wasn’t measuring the TSI over a sphere with a radius of 1 AU. It was measuring and I quote from the above site…”
All that is irrelevant. The issue is and was solar activity. As far a the Sun is concerned that is a global measure. TSI as measured [over an area 0.5 square cm] from our vantage point can be a useful measure of solar activity when integrated over the whole 4pi surface of a sphere surrounding the Sun and reduced to a fixed distance of 1 AU. Since we only observe half of the Sun at any given time we must average over one full solar rotation [27 days] to get a meaningful result, with the uncertainty caused by a variation with time of the ‘real’ TSI built in. The large ‘swings’ we observe are mainly due to solar activity being unevenly distributed over the surface in an ever-changing pattern.
If you were right the that the up-down cycles are simply caused by the Suns rotation, then the peaks and valleys would be the same. Also there is not one side of the Sun that is continuously radiating more TSI than the other side.
The peaks and the valleys vary because the distribution of activity over the surface varies a bit with time. And nobody said that one side continuously radiates more that the other side. That is your own bogus interpretation. The fact is that the activity is continuously changing but a lot less than the apparent changes due to solar rotation. I expressed that by saying “To first approximation one side of the Sun has most of the activity [for the moment]“. You can see this clearly here http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-and-Rotation.png which shows [blue curve] daily values of TSI and [pink curve] the rotational means. An example is shown in the green box that contain data for five rotations. Note the large swings of the blue curve and the almost steady pink curve. From time to time the are changes also in the pink curve as solar activity obviously does vary with time.
even us lesser educated schmucks can still sometimes spot bogus information
You can rest assured that the information you get from me is not bogus, but in general you do poorly in spotting the actual bogus ‘information’ our habitual self-aggrandizing pseudo-scientists spout here on WUWT. That stuff you seemingly lap up unquestioningly. You mentioned that you laugh of clowns and comedians, are you suggesting that you are a clown or a comedian so it is OK to laugh at you?
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Hello,
I hope you are fine. Thanks for the links to your paper and for the link to a paper that proposes a different model.
http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/757/1/L8/pdf/2041-8205_757_1_L8.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/169/1/137
The solar observations appear to support the assertion that the flux tubes form at the base of the convection zone. (Magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots are decaying linearly. Pores are no longer forming on the sun. Extrapolating current observations it appears the sun spot count for solar cycle 24 will end abruptly as the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes is no longer sufficient to survive the turbulent forces in the convection zone.)
The solar magnetic cycle can be interrupted if the large solar scale magnetic field is only a result of the residue from the sunspots with a completely independent mechanism to create the sunspots, as Charbonneau proposes in this review paper. With that hypothesized model the sunspot creation mechanism can stop and restart.
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-3/
Dynamo Models of the Solar Cycle
Current models of solar dynamo action posit that differential rotation drives the process of converting poloidal to toroidal flux. This would result in a continuous loss of energy from the differentially rotating convective envelope and Reynolds’ stresses have long been thought of as a means to replenish and sustain the angular velocity gradient. …. …. The inferred weakness of Reynolds stresses poses a problem to theories of meridional circulation, which rely on the former to effect angular momentum transport in order to sustain the latter. Very weak turbulent stresses would imply a correspondingly weak meridional circulation (e.g., [29]).
Serious trouble soon appeared on the horizon, however, and from no less than four distinct directions. First, it was realized that because of buoyancy effects, magnetic fields strong enough to produce sunspots could not be stored in the solar convection zone for sufficient lengths of time to ensure adequate amplification. Second, numerical simulations of turbulent thermally driven convection in a thick rotating spherical shell produced magnetic field migration patterns that looked nothing like what is observed on the Sun. Third, and perhaps most decisive, the nascent field of helioseismology succeeded in providing the first determinations of the solar internal differential rotation, which turned out markedly different from those needed to produce solar-like dynamo solutions in the context of mean-field electrodynamics. Fourth, the ability of the α -effect and magnetic diffusivity to operate as assumed in mean-field electrodynamics was also called into question by theoretical calculations and numerical simulations.
It is fair to say that solar dynamo modelling has not yet recovered from this four-way punch, in that nothing remotely resembling concensus currently exists as to the mode of operation of the solar dynamo. As with all major scientific crises, this situation provided impetus not only to drastically redesign existing models based on mean-field electrodynamics, but also to explore new physical mechanisms for magnetic field generation, and resuscitate older potential mechanisms that had fallen by the wayside in the wake of the α -effect – perhaps most notably the so-called Babcock–Leighton mechanism, dating back to the early 1960’s (see Figure 2). These post-helioseismic developments, beginning in the mid to late 1980’s, are the primary focus of this review.
William: Observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted, would confirm the above dynamo mechanisms are no longer viable. The current dynamo model assumes the differential motion in the plasma creates the sunspots from the solar large scale field. That model requires there be a large scale field. That model cannot restart if the large scale field is lost.
6.3 Flux tubes versus diffuse fields
An alternate viewpoint is to assume that the solar magnetic field is a fibril state from beginning to end, throughout the convection zone and tachocline, and that whatever large-scale field there may be in the photosphere is a mere by-product of the decay of sunspots and other flux tube-like small-scale magnetic structures. The challenge is then to devise a dynamo process that operates entirely on flux tubes, rather than on a diffuse mean field. Some exploratory calculations have been made (e.g., DeLuca et al., 1993), but this intriguing question has received far less attention than it deserves.
William Astley says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:05 pm
The solar observations appear to support the assertion that the flux tubes form at the base of the convection zone.
No, they do not support that assertion. On the contrary there is evidence that they form much closer to the surface.
Pores are no longer forming on the sun.
Pores are forming galore. Today is a good example: ftp://inaf-node-83.oact.inaf.it/2013/Draw2013/OAC_D_20131007_083000.jpg
Extrapolating current observations it appears the sunspot count for solar cycle 24 will end abruptly as the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes is no longer sufficient to survive the turbulent forces in the convection zone.)
As per the above, it does not appear that your assertion here is correct.
The solar magnetic cycle can be interrupted
Since you have never defined what you mean by ‘interrupted’ [it appears to be some kind of mantra] your considerations do not connect.
That model requires there be a large scale field. That model cannot restart if the large scale field is lost.
The large-scale field is never lost; even during the Maunder Minimum, the large-scale field was merrily modulation cosmic rays [even more as today].
The challenge is then to devise a dynamo process that operates entirely on flux tubes, rather than on a diffuse mean field.
The large-scale field also exists as fibrils. There is no diffuse mean field, never was any. This has been clear for many decades, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 9:48 pm
Tim says:
Thank you for the detailed explanation of how you are looking at the topic of TSI changes. This is a better explanation than your first one. Of course how you explained it the first time:
Lief said:
“Actually, the up-down ‘cycles’ you see are not really due to changes in [real] TSI, but are simply due to the fact that the Sun is rotating and that activity is not evenly distributed in longitude.”
Tim says:
Didn’t show that the TSI rotational means still fluctuates all of the time. I’m glad that you admit the TSI fluctuates. And yes TSI isn’t fluctuating by a great percentage, but the fluctuation isn’t all simply due to the fact that the Sun is rotating and the activity is not evenly distributed. That was your error in the original post. I’m glad that you’ve corrected the impression you left.
Lief says:
You can rest assured that the information you get from me is not bogus, but in general you do poorly in spotting the actual bogus ‘information’ our habitual self-aggrandizing pseudo-scientists spouts here on WUWT. That stuff you seemingly lap up unquestioningly.
Tim says:
You bring up a good thought about the possibility of your stuff being bogus or not. Much of your stuff I don’t know enough to comment on one way or the other, but I do feel how you twist and attack what others say is at times bogus. Of course you could be right in all of your understanding of all that you comment on. I just doubt it. No one is right all the time. Just some think they are or feel they have to come across that way.
About me lapping up unquestionably stuff, bogus ‘information’ as you put it. How in the world do you know what I believe of the theories presented on here? Much less whether or not I believe any of it unquestionably. Some of the theories presented on here I have posted doubts and outright denial of believe about. Sometimes even you are wrong. You really don’t know everything.
Lief said:
You mentioned that you laugh of clowns and comedians, are you suggesting that you are a clown or a comedian so its is OK to laugh at you?
Tim says:
You had to stretch for that ‘svalgaardian reply’. I’m sorry to say, not only was I not making any suggestion of the type you twisted my words to say, but one doesn’t have to work in the honorable professions of clowns or comedians for it to be alright to laugh at them. You obviously don’t understand that. That’s okay. And by the way it’s okay to laugh at me. I laugh at myself sometimes, try it. I would say that the best of people can laugh at themselves and are comfortable with being laughed at. To be honest there are also times when the best of us have a hard time seeing the humour and could allow themselves to be irritated by being laughed at. Someone last night threw an egg at my windshield as I drove my car. I expect they laughed. I didn’t.
LS and Mosher will disappear into the background with the lukewarmers over time as most of their assertions seems to come to nothing (re SSN, temperatures based on fraud GISS etc( which Mosher used BEST Project, “MUller a Skeptic” PLEZZEEE LOL. David Archibald has made a much better job at every prediction LS fail…However LS has made some useful HT contributions here re OTHER stories LOL
Mosher should stick to investigative journalism Gleick affair excellent …..Just joking
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:09 am
“TSI has not gone down as cycle 24 has done, neither has the number of CMEs”
I can confirm departure of TIM TSI from following SSN and F10.7:
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/TIM-F107-SSN.png
However ACRIM3 data show opposite departure:
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/ACRIM3-F107-SSN.png
and in the PMOD data the difference is ambiguous and almost completely missing:
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/PMOD-F107-SSN.png
Which again suggests there are major problems with the TSI datasets.
However both ACRIM3 and PMOD show the cycle 24 peak period TSI level is very likely significantly lower (at least ~0.3 W/m^2) than in peak period of cycle 23 – as also suggest both SSN and F10.7 data. The TIM data can’t much contest the fact, consistently suggested by multiple available datasets, because they don’t cover cycle 23 peak period in the first place.
Tim Walker says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:30 pm
Didn’t show that the TSI rotational means still fluctuates all of the time. I’m glad that you admit the TSI fluctuates. … That was your error in the original post.
No error, I carefully said: “To first approximation one side of the Sun has most of the activity [for the moment]”. This means that the main reason for the observed swings is rotation, not that all of the variation was. So your attempt to recover from your misplaced rant fails.
No one is right all the time.
I only comment on what I’m pretty sure that I’m right on. And I do not ‘blow smoke’ etc. Nor twist your words [they don’t need to be twisted].
You obviously don’t understand that. That’s okay. And by the way it’s okay to laugh at me.
I don’t understand that that it is OK to laugh at an honest attempt to explain something. And I would not stoop to laughing at you. Crying perhaps.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:28 pm
Which again suggests there are major problems with the TSI datasets.
There are indeed major problems with PMOD and ACRIM. Not with TIM/SORCE. As Kopp & Lean explains in http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf “Uncorrected scattering and diffraction
are shown to cause erroneously high readings in non‐TIM instruments”
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:28 pm
However both ACRIM3 and PMOD show the cycle 24 peak period TSI level is very likely significantly lower (at least ~0.3 W/m^2) than in peak period of cycle 23
I have shown in several places that PMOD has a systematic degradation error of 0.2 W/m2, at least since 2003 and probably more going back to 2000: e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-diff-PMOD-SORCE.png
I once saw a caricature, mother plant bends over to what seems to be her daugther and says: “Humans are pretty useless but at least they give off CO₂”. Some comments are … at least they increase the counter.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:54 pm
“Uncorrected scattering and diffraction are shown to cause erroneously high readings in non‐TIM instruments”.
But to me from this graph:
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/ACRIM3-F107-SSN.png
when I compare it to simmilar for TIM:
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/TIM-F107-SSN.png
which shows opposite departure of TSI from both SSN and F10.7
(I would intuitively think what measures TIM is right, because I looked into how is it constructed and what improvements it brings, but that’s just my feeling).
it looks like the ACRIM3 dataset not overestimates but underestimates the TSI change – has erroneously low, not high, relative readings in SC24, even lower than PMOD – both basically measure less TSI change from minimum (ACRIM3 ~+0.5W/m^2, PMOD ~+0.6W/m^2) than TIM (~+0.7W/m^2) in SC24 (minimum-to-peak) – and so it looks like the TSI departure up from closely following SSN and F10.7 is oposite (in ACRIM3) or virtually none or ambiguous (in PMOD).
I suspect the citation talks about the problems with generally too high TSI level measured due to the scattering and diffraction, not about relative magnitude of TSI change readings.
In any case the TSI level relative change from the SC23 peak level (significantly higher) to SC24 peak level (significantly lower), showed by both ACRIM3 and PMOD datasets, looks to me being unequivocal and consistent with SSN and F10.7 data, only the magnitude of it can be maybe disputed, but anyway not much using the TIM data, because it was simply not there to measure the SC23 peak.
Science should not be just proving something is right or wrong, Occasionally odd things pop-out of the data, which may be no more than coincidence, but still worth taking note of.
Number of comments (not only mine) mentioned the solar and geo magnetic fields.
During last three years I collated the data for the maximum daily value of the Ap index (related to strength of geomagnetic storms) and the geomagnetic Bz component as measured in Tromso (Norway):
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
The bottom graph is the one I would like to draw your attention to. It shows an apparent annual cycle, but it is not 12 months, it is more like 13 months (min on the geomagnetic red curve is 01/Jan/2012 and 03/Feb/2013, making it 399 days.
Now for a bit of controversy:
Astronomers (science) and Astrologers (pseudoscience) will readily recognise this number of days,: it is number of days between consecutive sun-Earth-Jupiter alignment.
Now for more controversy:
Ahaaa, you might say ‘gravitation tidal effect’.
I don’t think so, since the heliocentric angular displacement between two planets at the above dates is about 69 (or more accurately 360-69= 291) degrees.
If this effect is real (and there is no evidence that it is) it must be magnetic, not gravitational.
Hi doc, just ‘sayin’, can’t we have some fun?
I’d be very interested to know what catastrophists would say if Glowbull warming got underway again when the Sun “wakes up” from its slumber.
Would they still blame CO2 for Glowbull warming?
lsvalgaard says:
October 8, 2013 at 12:02 am
“I have shown in several places that PMOD has a systematic degradation error of 0.2 W/m2, at least since 2003 and probably more going back to 2000: e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-diff-PMOD-SORCE.png
Yeah, we already discussed it. Actually PMOD shows 0.53W/m^2 change between SC23 and SC24 peaks – without your 0.2W/m^2 it would be 0.33W/m^2. Both nevertheless look underestimate relative TSI change when compared with TIM, so I think the 0.3W/m^2 difference between SC23 and SC24 peaks TSI level could be rather a conservative estimate.
I mean both PMOD and ACRIM – which indeed could be a degradation issue.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Pores are forming galore. Today is a good example: ftp://inaf-node-83.oact.inaf.it/2013/Draw2013/OAC_D_20131007_083000.jpg
While this illustrates your point, the Catania interpretation is interesting as there should have been one group less. Groups 9 and 10 are magnetically one group.
“Last week, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported it was 95 percent certain that climate change was the result of human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels that emit “greenhouse gases.”
Of course, as Lord Monckton points out, they used a statistical ‘sleight of hand’ (that being not using ANY statistical analysis at all) to arrive at that increase in ‘certainty’. You have to watch for the pea being whisked into the hand of the guy running the shell game. The 95% is a figure that the politicos wanted and reflects a nonsense finding intended to strengthen the policy wonks hand.
Jan Alvestad says:
October 8, 2013 at 2:46 am
While this illustrates your point, the Catania interpretation is interesting as there should have been one group less. Groups 9 and 10 are magnetically one group.
In order to be compatible with the past counting method we cannot use the magnetic field to discriminate between groups, so 9 and 10 must be counted as two groups as Wolf and Wolfer would have counted them as two groups also [based on the distance between them].
***
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm
He is smart, but won’t give anyone else much of any credit that has a different view from his view.
***
Maybe you’ve never had a disciplinarian instructor or supervisor. When said instructor/supervisor doesn’t cut you to shreds, assume you did good. Not satisfying perhaps, but that’s life.
https://www.google.com/#q=2+dynamics+of+climate+and+geophysical+indices
The above article shows a definite correlation between the ACI index,LOD, and temperature. change dT.
It shows during prolong minimum solar periods the length of day decreases(EARTH ROTATES FASTER) which gives rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation index(ACI) and thus lower surface temperatures in response to this type of[ atmospheric] circulation pattern.
Look at erh graohs, when adjusted for a lag time of 4-6 years the correlation is quite strong. A lag time between an ACI change and [temperature] is to be expected.
This is more further evidence of a solar/climate relationship.
[“Look at erh graohs” is “look at the graphs” ? Mod]
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03.htm
This time the article will post correctly ,sorry about the previous post.
I strongly suggest looking at this latest link(above post) that shows a clear solar/climate relationship.
Leif ,keeps thinking it is all about TSI, which is but a small part of the solar/climate connection.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 8, 2013 at 8:52 am
“Leif keeps thinking it is all about TSI, which is but a small part of the solar/climate connection.”
I don’t know what really Leif thinks, but what he says it sometimes certainly could look like you say. 🙂
To sum up what I sent. When there are periods of prolonged solar minimum activity the length of day decreases( LOD) which give rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation index(ACI) which tranlates into lower N.H temperatures with a time lag of 4-6 years.
The correlation is very strong. Look at the graphs.
Just a dummy with a perception…….a major solar minimum and we expect no temperature differences? Hum…scratching head. The first minimum in years and we expect the same?
Tallbloke’s Talkshop has an interesting article. Solar wind linked to terrestrial mid- latitude atmospheric pressure variation. Good read.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:23 pm
William: Pores are no longer forming on the sun.
Lief: Pores are forming galore. Today is a good example: ftp://inaf-node-83.oact.inaf.it/2013/Draw2013/OAC_D_20131007_083000.jpg
William: You are confusing tiny sunspots with pores. Yes there are now very many tiny sunspots on the surface of the sun as the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes as declined to the point that they are being torn apart in the convection zone the result of which is many small tiny sunspots are opposed to large sunspots as occurred in other cycles.
William: The solar magnetic cycle can be interrupted if the large solar scale magnetic field is only a result of the residue from the sunspots with a completely independent mechanism to create the sunspots, as Charbonneau proposes in this review paper. With that hypothesized model the sunspot creation mechanism can stop and restart.
Lief: Since you have never defined what you mean by ‘interrupted’ [it appears to be some kind of mantra] your considerations do not connect.
William: That model requires there be a large scale field. That model cannot restart if the large scale field is lost.
Lief: The large-scale field is never lost; even during the Maunder Minimum, the large-scale field was merrily modulation cosmic rays [even more as today]. (William: The large scale magnetic field of the sun is local to the sun does not modulate cosmic rays that strike the earth, the solar heliosphere does.)
William: An interruption to the solar magnetic dynamo occurs or is defined to be when ‘the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes has declined to the point where the flux tubes are torn apart in the convection zone, as they rise up to the surface of the sun.’ I will repeat as you do not seem to remember that statement: ‘An interruption to the solar dynamo mechanism occurs when the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes has declined to the point where the flux tubes are torn apart in the convection zone, as they rise up to the surface of the sun.’
I do not disagree that there was a magnetic cycle during the Maunder minimum and that the solar magnetic large scale field did not disappear during the Maunder minimum. I completely disagree with the outlandish statement that solar magnetic cycle during the Maunder ‘was merrily modulating cosmic rays [even more as today]”.
As there were no visible sunspots on the surface of the sun during the Maunder minimum how in the world can solar magnetic cycle modulate the cosmic rays stronger during the Maunder minimum than now? That statement is outlandish as it creates unexplained paradoxes. Typically during normal periods of the practice of science an outlandish paper that creates unexplained paradoxes would be rejected.
What do we currently observing? There are fewer sunspots on the surface of the sun now than past cycles. How has the solar heliosphere changed? The solar heliosphere is weaker. As solar heliosphere is weaker the number and strength of galactic cosmic rays (mostly highly high speed protons created in our galaxy by super nova) has increased. The solar heliosphere is the name for a cloud of solar gas and pieces of the solar magnetic flux that is pushed off into space by the solar wind. The pieces of magnetic flux in the solar heliosphere deflect GCR so when the solar magnetic cycle is strong (high wind solar wind speeds and more sunspots on the surface of the sun) the solar heliosphere is large and strong which in turn results in less GCR striking the earth. The opposite occurs when the solar magnetic cycle is weak such as currently.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
This is a count of neutrons that shows how GCR has varied from 1966 to present.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=02&startmonth=09&startyear=1966&starttime=00%3A00&endday=02&endmonth=10&endyear=2013&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=1440&picture=on
There is evidence in the paleoclimatic record of abrupt climate changes every 6000 years to 8000 years. If 1) I understand the mechanisms and 2) the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted then the following will happen:
1. The formation of sunspots will end abruptly as compared to the smooth drop-off in sunspot counts in previous cycles.
2. The planet will experience relatively rapid cooling to little ice age temperatures. How much cooling will depend on the portion of warming in the last 50 years that was due to CO2. The cooling will be relatively rapid as there was a mechanism (related to the current solar magnetic cycle change) that was inhibiting Svensmark’s GCR modulation of low level cloud mechanism (higher GCR more clouds) which explains why GCR was high in the recent past and the planet did not cool.
3. I am not sure how rapid the drop off in the solar large scale magnetic field will be or how low the solar wind speeds will drop to. There needs to be more data to develop and refine a new solar dynamo model.
4. There is no need to explain what will happen to cause a Heinrich event until there is unequivocal observational evidence of 1 and 2.
Tim Walker says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm
Reading through the comments and I had to laugh at what Isvalgaard had to say. Not real TSI?
Here is what he said:
Actually, the up-down ‘cycles’ you see are not really due to changes in [real] TSI, but are simply due to the fact that the Sun is rotating and that activity is not evenly distributed in longitude. To first approximation one side of the Sun has most of the activity [for the moment] and so when that activity side rotate onto the backside we see a dip in TSI and sunspot number and F10.7 microwave flux, then when the Sun rotates the activity onto the earth-side we see the peaks.
I would expect that Isvalgaard would know the definition of TSI, but maybe he chose to ignore the definition inorder to blow more smoke. Eh, only he knows. Maybe he provided us with a joke. Kinda like the hockey stick graph he used earlier.
TSI: Total Solar Irradiance as measured as Solar energy per unit time over a unit area perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at the top of Earth’s atmosphere. Thanks for the laugh.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Tim Walker says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm
TSI: Total Solar Irradiance as measured as Solar energy per unit time over a unit area perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at the top of Earth’s atmosphere. Thanks for the laugh.
In talking about solar activity the ‘Total’ in TSI is best viewed over an area with unit 4pi, i.e. a sphere surrounding the Sun with radius 1 AU.
If you wish to stick to your ‘definition’ then TSI varies 6.6% over a year as the distance from the sun to the ‘top of Earth’s atmosphere’. This is the TSI that is important for the climate, but is not the TSI people usually talk about. So the joke is a bit on you. However, I don’t laugh at other people.
Tim, says:
The good or maybe it’s bad doctor is obfuscating peoples understanding of TSI. In other words he appears to be lying or at best really amazingly doesn’t know what he is talking about concerning TSI. Anyone can contact a doctor of climatology or some other relevant science as I did to check.
TSI is defined as the Total Solar Irradiance is the measurement of the total Irradiance of the Sun at the top of our atmosphere in watts per square meter and adjusted to reflect our average yearly distance from the sun.
I don’t expect Leif to apologize or admit his error. You notice he didn’t directly address my correction to him, instead he came up with a crazy statement of how the Total is best viewed. He avoided talking about what the correct definition of TSI is. I really wish there was an ignore function on here. I would ignore all of Leif’s posts in the future not because he brings a certain amount of knowledge into the blog, but because of how he uses that knowledge. He systematically uses it in such a way that one person, who likes Lief’s posts, coined the term ‘svalgaardian reply’ for how Lief attacks others posts. And yes he does annoy me, but I’ve tried to consistently give him positive feedback as I can.
William Astley says:
October 8, 2013 at 10:36 am
William: You are confusing tiny sunspots with pores. Yes there are now very many tiny sunspots on the surface of the sun as the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes as declined to the point that they are being torn apart in the convection zone the result of which is many small tiny sunspots are opposed to large sunspots as occurred in other cycles.
A pore is just a tiny sunspot without penumbra. You can see that for yourself here ftp://inaf-node-83.oact.inaf.it/2013/Draw2013/OAC_D_20131007_083000.jpg there are two columns marked ‘s’ and ‘p’, standing for ‘spots’ and ‘pores’. and ALL flux tubes are torn to pieces in the convection zone. The pieces re-assemble in the photosphere. You can observe that process here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFF7xdcEMFg
The large scale magnetic field of the sun is local to the sun does not modulate cosmic rays that strike the earth, the solar heliosphere does
The magnetic field in the heliosphere [which is what modulates the cosmic rays] is controlled by the large-scale magnetic field, which is turn is made up of numerous small-scale elements. You can learn about the role of the large-scale magnetic field here: http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields%2C%20the%20Solar%20Corona%2C%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
I will repeat as you do not seem to remember that statement: ‘An interruption to the solar dynamo mechanism occurs when the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes has declined to the point where the flux tubes are torn apart in the convection zone, as they rise up to the surface of the sun.’
The flux tubes are torn to pieces all the time. cf. the trilobite movie linked to above [note how the black and white pieces re-assemble into strong concentrations of black and white [which are sunspots].
I completely disagree with the outlandish statement that solar magnetic cycle during the Maunder ‘was merrily modulating cosmic rays [even more as today]”.
You cannot disagree with the data. There is now general agreement among cosmic ray researchers that strong cosmic ray modulation occurred during the Maunder and Spoerer grand minima, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf “continued 10Be variability [cosmic ray modulation] suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima”. You can see that for yourself in their Figure 2d. Or check out Slide 2 of http://people.hao.ucar.edu/judge/homepage/presentations/cs13.pdf “Very few sunspots were observed, nearly all of them in one hemisphere, yet 10Be ice core records (e.g.,Beer2000) indicate continued modulation of cosmic rays by heliospheric magnetic fields”
As there were no visible sunspots on the surface of the sun during the Maunder minimum how in the world can solar magnetic cycle modulate the cosmic rays stronger during the Maunder minimum than now? That statement is outlandish as it creates unexplained paradoxes. Typically during normal periods of the practice of science an outlandish paper that creates unexplained paradoxes would be rejected.
Well, what needs to be rejected is the [your] notion [at variance with the data] that no visible sunspots means no magnetic field. The Livingston and Penn finding implies is that the magnetic field can still be there, but that it is just weak enough that visible sunspots do not form, i.e. that the process that re-assembles the field elements into strong concentration [creating sunspots by cooling the plasma] was operating less efficiently.
The pieces of magnetic flux in the solar heliosphere deflect GCR so when the solar magnetic cycle is strong (high wind solar wind speeds and more sunspots on the surface of the sun) the solar heliosphere is large and strong which in turn results in less GCR striking the earth.
Since we observe strong modulation during the Maunder minimum the magnetic field back then was strong enough to do this [regardless of no visible sunspots].
If 1) I understand the mechanisms and 2) the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted
since you evidently do not understand the process and the solar magnetic field was never interrupted, the rest of what you surmise has no merit.
Tim Walker says:
October 8, 2013 at 11:37 am
but maybe he chose to ignore the definition in order to blow more smoke.
He expanded on the definition to explain the strong solar rotational modulation.
The rest of your rant is for the ‘ignore function’.
Tim Walker says:
October 8, 2013 at 11:37 am
” I really wish there was an ignore function on here. I would ignore all of Leif’s posts in the future ”
Then why don’t you do so.
” He systematically uses it in such a way that one person, who likes Lief’s posts, coined the term ‘svalgaardian reply’ for how Lief attacks others posts. ”
I see once again you miss the nuances of the English language. Perhaps it is not your native tongue. (how’s that for a Svalgaardian retort). It was I that you are referring to. I coined the phrase out of admiration for the way he can quickly and to the point backhand those that refuse to even try to understand what he says due to their own confirmation bias. I have been reading this blog for a long time and have seen Dr S patiently explain the same points over and over and over again and again and again. Anyone who disagrees can go to his research page, pluck anything they want to disagree with and then discuss the reasons they disagree citing proper evidence to support their position, or not. It is the “Or Nots” that receive those retorts.
Tim Walker said:
What error? TSI is the ‘total’ solar irradiance at a distance of 1 AU (149,597,871 km) from the Sun. The units are watts/meter². The area of incidence is not specified as part of the definition. So any measurement of solar radiation normal to a surface at 1 AU and divided by the area of that surface will suffice.
So using an area 4π at 1 AU, as suggested by Leif, is admissible, and makes sense because it’s the largest possible solid angle at that distance, and would tend to smooth out any observed variances.
How does your expected value of TSI measured at the “top of the atmosphere”, but normalized to 1 AU, differ from that? Noisier, perhaps, if it uses a smaller sampling area.
As Leif pointed out, the unnormalized “top of the atomsphere” irradiance would actually be a more accurate representation of the Earth’s actual insolation, but would not strictly be considered “TSI”.
😐
John Day says:
October 8, 2013 at 4:09 pm
“TSI is the ‘total’ solar irradiance at a distance of 1 AU (149,597,871 km) from the Sun. The units are watts/meter². The area of incidence is not specified as part of the definition. So any measurement of solar radiation normal to a surface at 1 AU and divided by the area of that surface will suffice.
No, it will definitely not suffice and it is not like TSI is defined – TSI primarily is defined at TOA at Earth actual distance from Sun and that is also how it is measured (and varies almost 100W per m2 during year). Only then is normalized to 1AU, so it then looks like it varies just slightly, which in reality definitely is not the case.
“So using an area 4π at 1 AU, as suggested by Leif, is admissible, and makes sense because it’s the largest possible solid angle at that distance, and would tend to smooth out any observed variances.
We don’t need to smooth the the variances, we need to see them to be able say anything realistic about weather and climate! And BTW: Smoothing always introduces error, not suppresses it and often leads to incorrect assumptions and conclusions.
“As Leif pointed out, the unnormalized “top of the atomsphere” irradiance would actually be a more accurate representation of the Earth’s actual insolation, but would not strictly be considered “TSI”.”
I think you misrepresent Leif.
The Earth distance TSI is standard way of representing TSI, and it is actually measured like that – the actual Earth distance TSI data are standard part of the TSI data e.g. from SORCE-TIM. (see here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt , column 10)
The 1AU TSI data is in principle not good representaiton of Earth insolation for any imaginable purposes, it is a column of numbers (in above TSI data column 5) describing calculated solar power through 1m^2 at a circle of Earth orbit mean diameter (which is derived from the measured solar power at Earth distance using orbital parameters) -the Earth is except two instants in year somewhere else than at such circle, because its orbit is eliptic.
The eliptical orbit of the Earth cycle couples with its rotation axe tilt cycle, which then both together determine (quite a) different insolation of different places on Earth, which also have considerably different optical properties and therefore absorb considerably differently the actual insolation (converting it to heat).
-If you would use 1AU TSI say for predicting weather, you would fail epically.
You can use it for predicting climate for mid-term periods ranging to at max. centuries, but same way you can use the original Earth distance TSI (- the 1AU TSI is derived from Earth distance TSI, not vice versa).
You would anyway fail again if you would like to predict say iceage – which is not only result of the Milankovich cycles (in fact they’re if anything just a factor of a secondary importance) but primarily of perihelium antiphase with southern solstice – because it is the southern hemisphere where is most of the ocean (and especially at lower more insolated latitudes), cappable of absorbing and accumulating considerably more of the solar irradiance per area than landmass materials or ice – so if perihelium is in phase with southern solstice (as more or less still is in the present age – the difference is just 2 weeks – in fact exact phase happened in the so called Medieval warm period) the Earth climate is warm, if it gets in antiphase, the climate gets cold, simply because Eath surface in total intercepts considerably less solar irradiance converting it to heat, which triggers whole scale of processes leading to ice age. -You never could explain this triggering process with 1AU TSI.
John Day says:
October 8, 2013 at 4:09 pm
Tim Walker said: TSI is defined as the Total Solar Irradiance is the measurement of the total Irradiance of the Sun at the top of our atmosphere
And is a bit dumbed down. What is the ‘top of the atmosphere’? There is no such thing. Is it at 50 miles altitude, 100 miles, 200 miles, or what? And where on the globe? the Equator? Boulder, Co? or what? Actually, the numbers given by the experimenters are referred to the center of the Earth and to 1 AU.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
October 8, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Lief you appear to be baiting and switching. i.e. Your comments appear to be made to misdirect the conversation away from what is happening to the sun now and how will that change affect both the sun and the earth’s climate.
Obviously observations will determine what will happen next to the sun and will determine if this current abrupt change to the sun will result in cooling of the earth. It is not possible to hide cooling or talk away anomalous significant cooling and for that cooling to be connected the solar magnetic cycle 24 change.
1. I do not disagree that there was a magnetic cycle during the Maunder minimum and that the solar magnetic large scale field did not disappear during the Maunder minimum. I completely disagree with your outlandish statement that the solar magnetic cycle during the Maunder ‘was merrily modulating cosmic rays [even more as today]”. That is absurd. The Maunder minimum is a period when there were no sunspots on the surface of the sun for 70 years. How can there be a solar magnetic cycle that merrily modulates cosmic rays [even more as today] during the Maunder minimum. That is an irrational statement, which I assume you have made to make people think that there was no Maunder minimum, to divert the attention away from the fact that are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climatic record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
As I have stated the planet has not cooled due to the increase in GCR which is now observed due to the weak solar heliosphere as there was a mechanism that was inhibiting the different cloud modulation mechanisms. As there was the very large increase in sea ice in the Arctic in 2013 and was record sea ice for all months in the Antarctic it appears the mechanisms by which the solar magnetic cycles modulates planetary temperature are once again working.
The remaining comments are related to what is happening to the sun.
2. The magnetic field strength of newly formed sun spots is decaying linearly.
3. Observationally large high strength sunspots are being replaced with tiny weak magnetic field sunspots, pores. Observations 2 and 3 are different than a simple slow down in the number of sunspots produced by the sun. Observations 2 and 3 require a physical explanation. Something fundamental has changed to the solar dynamo.
4. The standard model for the solar dynamo has the magnetic flux tubes – that rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun – formed at the base of convection zone in the narrow region that separates the convection zone from the radiative zone. That region is called the tachocline. Theoretical calculations indicate the magnetic flux tubes require a magnetic field strength of roughly 10,000 gauss to 30,000 gauss when the magnetic flux tubes are released from the tachocline to avoid being torn apart by the turbulent forces in the convection zone.
To explain observation 2 and 3 for some reason there has been a change or disturbance at the tachocline which is reducing the magnetic field strength of flux tubes that are formed there. The important logical point is the magnetic field strength of the magnetic flux tubes must decline to explain the change in sunspot properties on the surface of the sun. There appears to be no competing viable hypothesis assuming standard dynamo model is correct.
5. Now if the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes falls below the 10,000 gauss to 30,000 gauss range the magnetic field tubes will be torn apart by turbulence in the convection zone. If the magnetic flux tubes are torn apart then the solar dynamo will be interrupted. No sunspots on the surface of the sun as opposed to weak sunspots which are no longer visible.
Now it is possible the mechanism at the tachocline will suddenly recover or the field strength of the magnetic flux tubes will stay just above the 10,000 to 30,000 Gauss level. Additional solar observational evidence is required to answer that question of what will happen next.
Tom in Forida says:
October 8, 2013 at 3:17 pm
———————————–
An ignore button would be nice for reducing the spam.
William Astley says:
October 8, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Lief you appear to be baiting and switching
Nonsense, I’m telling you what is happening with the Sun as far as we know.
It is not possible to hide cooling or talk away anomalous significant cooling
Cooling has absolutely nothing to do with how the Sun behaves. The Sun does its thing regardless of the Earth.
I completely disagree with your outlandish statement that the solar magnetic cycle during the Maunder ‘was merrily modulating cosmic rays [even more as today]”. That is absurd.
That is an observational fact. As I showed you. This has been known now for more than a decade.
not cooled due to the increase in GCR which is now observed
Cooling has absolutely nothing to do with how the Sun behaves. The Sun does its thing regardless of the Earth.
The magnetic field strength of newly formed sun spots is decaying linearly.
so what? that just means that the mechanism that concentrates the magnetic fields into spots is operating less efficiently
something fundamental has changed to the solar dynamo.
No, the re-assembly into spots of the shredded flux tubes is a surface phenomenon and has nothing to do with the dynamo.
formed at the base of convection zone in the narrow region that separates the convection zone from the radiative zone. That region is called the tachocline…avoid being torn apart by the turbulent forces in the convection zone.
There is good evidence that the dynamo is a shallow dynamo [not operating just below the convection zone] and ALL flux tubes are ALWAYS torn apart.
There appears to be no competing viable hypothesis assuming standard dynamo model is correct
It is not a given that the standard deep dynamo is correct, for one the solar magnetic memory is too short for a deep dynamo. And the shredding and re-assembly have nothing to do with the dynamo.
If the magnetic flux tubes are torn apart then the solar dynamo will be interrupted.
The flux tubes are ALWAYS torn apart and the dynamo is never interrupted.
Additional solar observational evidence is required to answer that question of what will happen next.
Additional observations are always needed and welcome. What is required most is that people [e.g. you] stop being mired in old, obsolete ideas that are at variance with observations. Even if that conflicts with their cherished views. You can learn more about the exciting times ahead here http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
Everyone knows that the solar minimum has caused the increase of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere, otherwise we would be experiencing an ice age that was predicted by Mr; Hansen in 1977.
Yup, that’s as good as anyone else knows about global warming and cooling.
😉
Steven Hill says:
October 8, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Everyone knows that the solar minimum has caused the increase of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere, otherwise we would be experiencing an ice age that was predicted by Mr; Hansen in 1977.
Anything increasing CO2 might help: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm 🙂
Salvatore gives the impression (done either mistakenly or with forethought) that energetically, TSI is a small part of what is available from the Sun. Anything else he says could not be further wrong then that.
A question for Leif (and others) in regards to TSI: While the TSI may not change all that much through the 11-year cycles, is there a change in the sun’s spectrum over that cycle? Do NIR, SWIR, LWIR, UV, and/or EUV levels shift as the cycle progresses, and specifically may one band of the electromagnetic spectrum see an increased output from the sun while another band decreases? I ask because I would think that while the TSI may not change more than a few tenths or hundredths of a percent, various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum may shift a few percent, with some increasing as others decrease. Might such a shift in the spectrum have a greater effect than TSI?
From experiments I have run in our optics lab (my work is primarily in laser R&D), I know that some gases can absorb more energy from some wavelengths compared to others and that the relationship between a gas absorbing one wavelength of EMR and another absorbing another wavelength is not linear and since the proportion of atmospheric gases are not equal (obviously) a change in one wavelength may have a greater effect than the change in output of another. Therefore wouldn’t an increase or decrease in those wavelengths have a non-linear response in the amount of energy ‘trapped’, so a shift in the sun’s spectrum may see a disproportionate reaction in the amount of solar energy taken up by the atmosphere even though the TSI has varied little?
I await your response(s).
Well, it’s happened again, Anthony complains about a ‘solar slump’ and it sets off a solar flare. M2.8 this time: http://www.solarham.net/
We call it the ‘Watts Effect’
😐
lsvalgaard says:
October 8, 2013 at 4:53 pm
…There appears to be no competing viable hypothesis assuming standard dynamo model is correct
It is not a given that the standard deep dynamo is correct, for one the solar magnetic memory is too short for a deep dynamo. And the shredding and re-assembly have nothing to do with the dynamo…
Ok..
So where are the changes in the current solar situation coming from..
Poles rotating at one speed, equatorial at another and did you say also a hemispheric difference also.
What about the corotating parts of the outer corona and super halo interactions. Is there an electron and a proton halo? If the system got enough high speed terra and peta ev range GCR, it could affect the halo population and upset the corotating parts of the outer corona and super halo changing its speed and interactions and particle populations.
They say once those pesky GCR reach the required electron volt level, they no longer see any solar modulation and they then become the modulator..
TSI and re accelerated neutrals and GCR .. What is a mess of radiation?
The heat under the pot of water has been turned down. Prepare for colder winters, shorter summers. It’s Catastrophic Global Winterization (CGW). Arguing solar physics does not resolve long term climate prediction. However driving my SUV on lakes that have not froze since the 17th century! That sounds like fun!
So does skiing on October 1… http://crystalmountainresort.com/The-Mountain/mountain_report
…how about cross country skiing in Deadwood Wyoming!
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/communities/lead-deadwood/blizzard-paralyzes-northern-hills/article_2ae6ed05-9c88-527a-90d4-5fc319086820.html
Why is the south pole so cold? Low solar activity:
Check out the photos at the bottom of the page!
http://www.wunderground.com/news/winter-storm-atlas-your-reports-20131003
highflight56433 says:
October 8, 2013 at 8:48 pm
“Why is the south pole so cold? Low solar activity.”
Wouldn’t it be because it is over 9 thousand ft above sea level?
Are you referring to the shift of Magnetic north. It is always fluctuating, ask pilots. Forgive me if I am off the point. But low solar activity (sun spots) will affect the amount of galactic sub atomic particles bombarding our planet that create clouds, as high solar activity diverts them away from the planet.
DCE says:
October 8, 2013 at 7:32 pm
A question for Leif (and others) in regards to TSI: While the TSI may not change all that much through the 11-year cycles, is there a change in the sun’s spectrum over that cycle?
There could be, but it doesn’t really matter, because that change would also occur in the next cycle, so everything would still follow the cycle. A popular component is the UV [has more energy per photon, varies relatively more, etc]. We actually have a very good UV-monitor in the Earth’s ionosphere [created and maintained by the UV]. Thermal winds in the ionosphere move the conducting air across the Earth’s magnetic field setting up a dynamo creating an electric current whose magnetic effect can be measured at the surface. The magnetic effect of the current was discovered in 1722 by George Graham and we have measured it ever since. Slides 9, 11, 12 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf show the variation of the effect [and thus directly of solar UV] over the past 1.5 centuries. As you can see, the variation is just that of the sunspot number itself, so any effect of UV on climate would simply also just follow the sunspot number [and basically TSI].
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 8, 2013 at 7:44 pm
TSI primarily is defined at TOA at Earth actual distance from Sun and that is also how it is measured
There is no such thing as the TOA. What is meant is so far away from the surface that the influence from the air is gone. Some measurements [e.g. PMOD] is not even made near the Earth, but a million miles away [towards the Sun]. To use TSI for climate research, it is reduced to the center of the Earth. To use TSI for solar research it is reduced to 1 AU. This thread is concerned with solar activity so TSI at 1 AU is the relevant quantity, and for comparison with solar activity predicted by theory we need TSI at all longitudes of the Sun to cover the whole surface, thus a 27-day average, and ideally also over all of the 4pi total surface. The latter we actually don’t know precisely as it is not given that TSI does not vary with latitude [that assumption is probably false, but not be much].
Peoples ignorance of science is amazing. I include myself on my last post. I am about the write a letter to the editor of the local paper, as ‘deniers’ and unbelievers are compared to those who denied Gallilaeo etc., isn’t it the other way around. LOL
in response to Jan Alvestad:
While this illustrates your point, the Catania interpretation is interesting as there should have been one group less. Groups 9 and 10 are magnetically one group.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 8, 2013 at 6:32 am
In order to be compatible with the past counting method we cannot use the magnetic field to discriminate between groups, so 9 and 10 must be counted as two groups as Wolf and Wolfer would have counted them as two groups also [based on the distance between them].
Leif, while everyone would be able to observe the two spots, anyone who wants to calculate the spot number would have to make a decision (interpretation) on whether this is one group or two groups (the latter will bias the SN upwards). An experienced observer would know that spots spaced 10-15 degrees apart longitudinally, whether on a straight line or slightly slanted, could be one region. That decision is easy if you have the aid of a magnetogram and difficult without. In the case or AR 11861 some observers (Catania, Locarno) split the spots into two groups, while the others (Kanzelhohe, SWPC …) didn’t. I don’t know if any of the latter group uses magnetograms to aid their interpretations, but I have no reason to think so. After the initial observations AR 11861 is helping us towards an interpretation most observers would agree with as more spots have developed. In this case it is obvious that those that made the initial split made an interpretational error (that can be corrected), in other cases such a region might continue to decay and no agreement would be reached in the absence of knowledge of polarities.
lsvalgaard says:
October 8, 2013 at 9:00 pm
“There is no such thing as the TOA. What is meant is so far away from the surface that the influence from the air is gone. Some measurements [e.g. PMOD] is not even made near the Earth, but a million miles away [towards the Sun]. To use TSI for climate research, it is reduced to the center of the Earth. To use TSI for solar research it is reduced to 1 AU. ”
OK, I correct myself, center of the Earth, you’re right. -That 7000km (once minus, mostly something between and never plus when SORCE is in shadow of Earth) out of 147-152 million is HUUGE difference (something like less than 0.00005), especially for rotating Earth completing revolution once a day and satelite completing orbit x times a day, I know Leif…
TOA TSI definition and center of the Earth definition are interchangeable, there is in principle no significant difference between them whatsoever, neither for climatology, nor for solar physics.
And now for the real stuff Leif, this page is about climate, not solar physics and slight, purely technical nuances in definitions customs.
So when we talk about differences between Earth distance TSI and 1AU normalized TSI (which I find completely useles, superfluous and often quite confusing in climate research), then instead of pedanteries, please explain to the readers the relatively big difference of all epoch averages in SORCE-TIM TSI data (- which you often vocally deem much better than other TSI data – which I usually tend to agree):
0.76537 W/m2 – in 6h record – and 0.75065 W/m2 – in daily TSI record respectively between Earth distance TSI and calculated 1 AU TSI (yes, calculated, from just couple of hundred km above TOA raw measurements – the SORCE is at 645km orbit around Earth, not in center of Earth, neither in L1 like SOHO).
What such a relatively big discrepance results from? Somebody confused nmi with kilometers in NASA as with the mission to Mars or something like??
I would think, that before you, or somebody else explains the discrepance then clearly a debate about TSI use for climate research hasn’t any sense whatsoever, because the difference just BTW means also difference of 2.28×10^22 Joules for the Earth heat budget just in SORCE-TIM era (since february 2003) and Mr. Trenberth could search for his missing heat whole his life, never realizing it could very well never have arrived in the first place.
Im with you Anthony. The bean counters are trying to salvage their jobs with erroneous sun spot counts. David H., who is in charge of managing the prediction chart, predicted this cycle would be even higher than the previous one.
All anyone has to do is go to spaceweather and look for the differences in sun spot counts between the years 2004 and 2010, and see for themselves.
I did blog about it some time ago if anyone is interested.
I don’t see what advantage there is to either changing how we count spots are arbitrarily give a higher count than before, but I rank this right up there with the quality and change of surface stations.
Its pure madness.
Pamela Gray says:
October 8, 2013 at 5:41 pm
“Salvatore gives the impression (done either mistakenly or with forethought) that energetically, TSI is a small part of what is available from the Sun. Anything else he says could not be further wrong then that.
Isn’t this a strawman? Wasn’t Salvatore talking about climate/solar connection and that TSI changes must not be necessarily the major factor from the changes brought about by changes of solar activity? What about Svensmark – his solar activity-GCR-climate connection is certainly estimated by him to have much higher effect than TSI changes?
Vukcevic: Sun isn’t an isolated electromagnetic entity, it is the primary component of the wider electromagnetic system .
Dr. Svalgaard: Nonsense, the solar wind keeps all [electric and] magnetic influences away.
Doc you are overcooking your denial.
The main difference between solar wind and the CME loop properties is that Solar Wind -SW magnetic field lines are open, while Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections -ICME field lines are dominantly closed and still connected to the Sun.
It is opposite to what you claim, i.e. CMEs sweep solar wind out of the way, and solar wind doesn’t penetrate CME electromagnetic loop.
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
When a coronal mass ejection travels into interplanetary space, it creates a huge magnetic cloud containing bidirectional, or counter-streaming, beams of electrons that flow in opposite directions within the magnetic loops that are rooted at both ends in the Sun. The CME also drives an upstream shock ahead of it sweeping much weaker solar wind out of the way .
The above is correct interpretation of the SW-CME relationship and not one which you insist on; while you continue to do so any further discussion is pointless.
@tumetuestumefaisdubien1 (‘You’re killing me, you make me feel good’ – Hiroshima Mon Amour):
“The 1AU TSI data is in principle not good representation of Earth insolation for any imaginable purposes, it is a column of numbers …”
That’s why I said the unnormalized value would be a more accurate representation for actual insolation. Nevertheless, the normalized values are the ones most often quoted in scientific research and are very useful for climate studies, precisely because they’re calibrated to remove variations not caused by changes in the Sun itself.
In other words, it helps to answer the question “Is it hotter on Earth now just because the Sun got hotter, or for some other reason(s)?”
The folks at the Boulder Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) who maintain the SORCE TSI data, have reconstructed the normalized TSI back to the 17th century (1610), which shows that TSI (formerly “The Solar Constant”) is increasing, very slowly:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
(data here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt)
I would like to ask Leif if he accepts this reconstruction of historical TSI.
John Day says: October 9, 2013 at 5:33 am
I would like to ask Leif if he accepts this reconstruction of historical TSI.
I would be pleasantly surprised if he does ( Dr. S’s TSI graph two in here )
Jan Alvestad says:
October 9, 2013 at 12:25 am
After the initial observations AR 11861 is helping us towards an interpretation most observers would agree with as more spots have developed. In this case it is obvious that those that made the initial split made an interpretational error (that can be corrected), in other cases such a region might continue to decay and no agreement would be reached in the absence of knowledge of polarities.
Consider three methods of determining groups:
1) only the configuration (tilt, size in longitude)
2) taking into account the temporal evolution
3) looking at magnetic polarities
In general, the three methods will result in a different group count. If we want to maintain a homogeneous group count over time, it is not good to have the count change by ‘improving’ the method [unless we compensate for that by putting a special time-varying k-factor on the groups]. I would argue that only 1) should be used. Unfortunately, the observers started to use Waldmeier’s classification around 1947 so the group count is about 5% ‘too high’ since then. This can be corrected.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 9, 2013 at 12:28 am
And now for the real stuff Leif, this page is about climate, not solar physics
The title says ‘solar slump’, not ‘climate something…’
please explain to the readers the relatively big difference of all epoch averages in SORCE-TIM TSI data 0.76537 W/m2 – in 6h record – and 0.75065 W/m2 – in daily TSI record respectively between Earth distance TSI and calculated 1 AU TSI What such a relatively big discrepancy results from?
While the average distance over a year is 1 (AU), that is not the case of the average value of the inverse square of the distance..
ClimateForAll says:
October 9, 2013 at 12:33 am
The bean counters are trying to salvage their jobs with erroneous sun spot counts
Nonsense. One cannot fake the spot count as the number of spots regulate the geomagnetic effects [and the microwave flux] so there are two independent checks on the count.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:17 am
What about Svensmark – his solar activity-GCR-climate connection is certainly estimated by him to have much higher effect than TSI changes?
Except that the data does not support Svensmark, so it doesn’t matter what he estimates.
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2013 at 3:08 am
creates a huge magnetic cloud containing bidirectional, or counter-streaming, beams of electrons that flow in opposite directions within the magnetic loops that are rooted at both ends in the Sun
Those electrons are particles much more energetic than the rest of the particles in the cloud and are only a very minute population. Like cosmic rays that can ignore the solar wind because of their high energy, the energetic electrons can as well. As they stream both ways they do not constitute an electric current and have no magnetic effects. Furthermore they ‘mirror’ back before reaching the Sun and therefore have no influence on the Sun.
while you continue to do so any further discussion is pointless.
This is not a discussion, but an attempt to educate you, and if you refuse to learn, the attempt is perhaps pointless.
lsvalgaard says:
October 9, 2013 at 6:27 am
“While the average distance over a year is 1 (AU), that is not the case of the average value of the inverse square of the distance..
…Which only well further confirms the 1AU TSI data are unsuitable for implications in climatology.
Bur moreover there’s a substantial discrepancy between 1AU TSI SORCE-TIM era averages of the 6h and 1 day SORCE-TIM record of 0.27375 W/m2 and substantial difference between Earth-distance TSI era averages in the 6h and 1 day record respectively of 0.28848 W/m2.
In other words the 1AU TSI era average coming from 6h record is 1360,83224 W/m2 (while from 1 day record it is 1361.10599 W/m2) and Earth-distance TSI era average coming from 6h record is 1360.06686 W/m2 (while from 1 day record it is 1360.35534 W/m2).
Which, whatever explanation you come up with now, further underlines the unsuitability of the 1AU TSI record for implications in climatology, and I would think that if anything could be used in this regard from the SORCE-TIM data then clearly the 6h Earth-distance TSI data (because they very likely better record the Earth actual insolance) and definitely not the normalized 1AU 1 day TSI data.
Their era averages differ 1361.10599 – 1360.06686 = 1.03913 W/m2 !, which is clearly substantially more than what actual TSI level change during the era could possibly really contribute to the global heat budget change.
I note, that the equivalent of the difference in global absolute heat resulting from solar irradiation absorbtion in the era would be ~3.1×10^22 Joules and again Mr. Trenberth could search for his “missing heat” whole his life, but the SORCE-TIM Earth-distance TSI data (both 6h and 1 day cadence) quite very strongly suggest it never arrived in the first place.
So I would suggest abandoning of the game with the 1AU TSI, which is for very obvious reasons impossible to win and get back to the more or less hopefully real numbers in the SORCE-TIM 6h Earth-distance TSI record.
(SORCE-TIM looks dead now since August, which is very unfortunate in cycle peak period, and I really hope it will get restored at least for overlap calibration with TCTE, otherwise simmilar problems as with ACRIM gap will arise again)
John Day says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:33 am
I would like to ask Leif if he accepts this reconstruction of historical TSI.
No, I do not, as it is based on the Group Sunspot Number which we now know is incorrect , see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf
John Day says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:33 am
I would like to ask Leif if he accepts this reconstruction of historical TSI.
See also slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
@Leif>No, I do not, as it is based on the Group Sunspot Number which we now know is incorrect
So, if reconstructed ‘correctly’, what would the historical TSI plot look like? Would it still show an overall slight but steady increase since 1610?
John Day says:
October 9, 2013 at 6:58 am
So, if reconstructed ‘correctly’, what would the historical TSI plot look like? Would it still show an overall slight but steady increase since 1610?
I don’t think so, but we have a potential problem before 1700 [because of the Livingston & Penn effect], but after 1700 we are in pretty good shape. My best guess would be the bottom panel of http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-GSN-SSN-Background.png
lsvalgaard says:
October 9, 2013 at 7:03 am
My best guess would be the bottom panel of http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-GSN-SSN-Background.png
One caveat: this reconstruction is based on the same method as used by LASP [TSI riding on top of a background given by the solar cycle average of the sunspot number]. I personally think that this is not a good way of reconstructing TSI, but I wanted to compare apples with apples.
@Leif> I personally think that this is not a good way of reconstructing TSI, but I wanted to compare apples with apples.
What is a better way to reconstruct TSI? Perhaps using proxies? Has anyone done this?
John Day says:
October 9, 2013 at 7:23 am
What is a better way to reconstruct TSI? Perhaps using proxies? Has anyone done this?
Here is one attempt: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL946658.pdf and my own: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
attempt: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
This is an illustration of a magnetic flux rope: http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
Dr. Svalgaard: ( referring to electrons in a flux rope) …..as they stream both ways they do not constitute an electric current and have no magnetic effects.
Vukcevic quotes other solar scientists:
A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field….the flux rope is maintained only by the electron current.
This is because the proton current alone cannot make a structure smaller than the proton cyclotron radius and protons are assumed to have no bulk drift except for thermal motion…..In the initial equilibrium, the electrons move along the magnetic field lines, and this electric current generates the magnetic field of the flux rope.
The extremely high conductivity of plasma implies that the electric currents can be maintained for a very long period of time, an average flux rope electric current is estimated to be about a billion Amps, with energy of order 10^24 – 10^30 Joules.
Implication of the above is that electric current / magnetic field are still connected to the Sun, even if mass ejection has stopped some time before, and ejected mass of heavier particles may have moved large distance
While mass ejection lasts (for few hours) the current will start and close at the CME’s origin, but as mass ejection ends the current loop becomes independent from its initial location, and as long there are enough electrons in corona (to propagate electric field around the loop) the electric current will flow within force-free flux rope structure.
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2013 at 11:15 am
Dr. Svalgaard: ( referring to electrons in a flux rope) …..as they stream both ways they do not constitute an electric current and have no magnetic effects.
Vukcevic quotes other solar scientists:
A flux rope requires a large electric current to maintain its magnetic field….the flux rope is maintained only by the electron current.
These electrons are not the counter streaming electrons. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Doc, I am always ready to modify volume of my knowledge (not necessarily in the positive direction), perhaps you could elaborate what you have in mind, since I am ignorant of any other electrons presence within the flux loop.
I suggest the stars rolling up like a scroll is a clear image of a black hole sucking in stars in sight of the earth, just a thought.
The predictions are running hot. Quelle surprise! Not.
Edit: “when their should be” there
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm
since I am ignorant of any other electrons presence within the flux loop
The solar wind is basically radially expanding thermal plasma with the same number of electrons as protons [5 per cubic centimeter at 1 AU] thus is electrically neutral. The wind expands because it is hot. It evaporates into space dragging the magnetic field with it. A coronal mass ejection [which may develop into a magnetic cloud] is basically a large blob of extra hot thermal neutral plasma expanding away from the sun. Various energetic processes near the sun [flares, magnetic reconnection, shocks] can accelerate some of the electrons to much higher energy, we call those suprathermal electrons moving much faster [at about 1/10 of the speed of light – a hundred times faster than the solar wind itself] than the expanding wind and trapped on the spiral magnetic field lines [much like particles in the Earth’s radiation belts] moving along the field lines [i.e. not radially] until the electrons come to the other end of the field line near the sun. Because the field is increasing in strength when the electrons approach the sun, the electrons will ‘mirror’ back [like in the Earth’s radiation belts] and bounce back and forth from one end to the other end where there will bounce again going back where they came from, thus creating a population of ‘counterstreaming’ electrons [which, of course, is not an electric current as the particles stream both ways]. Not all magnetic clouds are so lucky as to have energetic, suprathermal [meaning very hot, not in thermal equilibrium] electrons injected into them, so only a fraction [perhaps 25%] of MCs have the counterstreaming particles, which in any case are just a very small fraction of the electrons actually present. Because of the near infinite conductivity of the plasma, any magnetic configuration [that is not potential] will have associated electric currents carried by the ordinary thermal electrons [because they are the most abundant and are easier to move around]. The Heliospheric Current Sheet is the prime example of this. The currents prevents the magnetic field from changing: any imposed change will generate a current opposing the change [so you have frozen-in fields]. These currents have nothing to do with the suprathermal counterstreaming electrons.
Thanks doc for clear and detailed explanation. Could counterstreaming balance be altered by encounter with a magnetosphere having in mind polarity of two fields ?
http://www.solen.info/solar/
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_HMIB.jpg
Oh heavens. There are no sunspot groups in the solar northern hemisphere. It appears they have disappeared. Also there appears to be little or no residue from the shredded magnetic flux tubes in the northern hemisphere.
The so called dual peak in the sunspot count was caused by the solar northern hemisphere leading the solar southern hemisphere.
Could what is happening in solar northern hemisphere be an indication as to what is going to happen to the solar southern hemisphere?
This is a peculiar solar cycle.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 9, 2013 at 11:40 pm
…Which only well further confirms the 1AU TSI data are unsuitable for implications in climatology.
The models use the Earth-distance values as their time-step is of the order of 5 minutes, but over a year there is no difference so for correlative studies for CLIMATE [30-yr average weather] the 1AU data is very appropriate. And for the SUN the Earth-distance TSI is meaningless.
Bur moreover there’s a substantial discrepancy between 1AU TSI SORCE-TIM era averages of the 6h and 1 day SORCE-TIM record of 0.27375 W/m2 and
You have to calculate correctly. If you do that you would get for 2013 Jan.1 -July 15 1361.2838 [6h] and 1361.2836 [1d], thus no difference. How to do it correctly: there are missing data in the record. if a 6-h value is missing, you most omit the other three 6-h values for that day and that whole day for the 1-d values when calculating the averages.
vukcevic says:
October 10, 2013 at 12:29 am
Thanks doc for clear and detailed explanation. Could counterstreaming balance be altered by encounter with a magnetosphere having in mind polarity of two fields ?
Since a magnetosphere is such a small object compared to the magnetic cloud any changes would be negligible. There are other much more important processes that influence the counterstreaming, e.g. reconnection within the cloud. The balance is really not an issue as the suprathermal electrons bounce back and forth between the two ends of the field lines many times [the bounce time at 1 AU of the order of a few hours].
William Astley says:
October 10, 2013 at 1:49 am
Could what is happening in solar northern hemisphere be an indication as to what is going to happen to the solar southern hemisphere? This is a peculiar solar cycle.
Not really, all cycles are asymmetric. Cycle 14 [which the current cycle look very much like] had the North leading, followed by the South catching up later in the cycle: http://www.leif.org/research/N-S-Asymm-SC14-month-Groups.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:41 am
The models use the Earth-distance values as their time-step is of the order of 5 minutes, but over a year there is no difference so for correlative studies for CLIMATE [30-yr average weather] the 1AU data is very appropriate. And for the SUN the Earth-distance TSI is meaningless.
You’re right, I agree, for the 30 years correlations is meaningless to use Earth-distance data – at least if the 1AU data agree with the Earth distance data.
“You have to calculate correctly. If you do that you would get for 2013 Jan.1 -July 15 1361.2838 [6h] and 1361.2836 [1d], thus no difference. How to do it correctly: there are missing data in the record. if a 6-h value is missing, you most omit the other three 6-h values for that day and that whole day for the 1-d values when calculating the averages.”
You’re right. The period and missing data are critical.
I did as you said and the differences virtually dissapeared, except one: the 0.28 W/m2 between 6h and 1d record. So I was intrigued by it and so I again visited the SORCE page to check the data – what was my surprise that they are completely different than the data I downloaded back in May – I checked with another copy from April I had in the computer – here a comparison of the three sets – and it looks it was not me who changed the data and that a 1984memory hole occurence subtracted ~0.277 from all the values – possibly to get the record agree with the 6h record. (but it is my falt – I should have checked before)
So I checked the new data and the result was no differences except one:
the era solar constant level seemed to come out 1360.8, consistently from all averages I did (with leaving holes and values out ) -which would be good news for Mr. Trenberth that he can spare some time for searching something else -e.g. excess heat.
But I checked with my statistician and confirmed my suspicion that to leave out the valid values from record dominated with known wave is definitely not correct way to obtain valid averages – it is already better to fill in properly the wave fit -if done correctly with only “risk” that the slight bit of modulation which is anyway not there will keep not be there, instead of leaving out data and introduce even more bias. -So I did with the Earth distance data and it came out that the averages of all periods I checked then closely hower around 1361.0 W/m^2.
Indeed one needs to calculate correctly – it will save the time.
Only thing I’m now puzzled with is the differences between the averages of the 6h values – I mean where all 4 values are present -and the 1 day values. For instance:
6h record:
date—————-1AU————Earth-distance
20030305,13 1361,3160 1384,0894
20030305,38 1361,3280 1383,9118
20030305,63 1361,3180 1383,7617
20030305,88 1361,3463 1383,5839
Averages: 1AU 1361,3271 Earth-distance 1383,8367
while in 1d record:
20030305,5 , 1AU 1361,3227 , Earth-distance 1383,9695
I know I’m carper, why is it?
Leif Svalgaard:
In your post at October 10, 2013 at 6:41 am you say
I know almost nothing about solar matters and bow to your vastly superior knowledge of them. And I agree with your stated point concerning “correlative studies for CLIMATE [30-yr average weather]”. However, but on one related point I beg to differ with your view.
It is true that “for the SUN the Earth-distance TSI is meaningless”, but it does not follow that it is meaningless for the Earth’s climate. I argue that the “Earth-distance TSI” probably has significant effect on the Earth’s climate: I explain this as follows.
Global temperature varies throughout the year. This results from two effects;
(a) The inclination of the Earth combines with the Earth’s orbit around the Sun to provide the seasons.
And
(b) the greater coverage by oceans of the Southern Hemisphere (SH) than the Northern Hemisphere (NH) combines with the greater thermal capacity of water than of land to vary global temperature (i.e. the average of SH and NH temperatures).
Hence, during each year the global temperature rises by 3.8°C from January to June and falls by 3.8°C from June to January.
Such an oscillating system could be expected to provide harmonics with much longer time frequencies than a single year. Therefore, climate variations may be induced by the seasonal variation of global temperature.
The Earth’s orbit is elliptical and the Earth is closer to the Sun in January (when global temperature is lowest) than in June (when global temperature is highest). This reduces the variation of global temperature during each year because total solar energy falling on the Earth (TSI) varies with the square of distance from the Sun.
If the Earth were furthest from the Sun in January and closest in June then “the Earth-distance TSI” would enhance the seasonal variation in global temperature so it would be greater than 3.8°C. This could be expected to increase any harmonic effects of the seasonal oscillation in global temperature.
Hence, I argue that “the Earth-distance TSI” probably does have an effect on global climate because it alters the magnitude of any harmonic effects resulting from seasonal variation in global temperature. But such harmonic effects cannot be quantified unless and until they are identified.
What can be said with certainty is that the strong probability of such harmonic effects adds complexity to “correlative studies for CLIMATE [30-yr average weather]”.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:27 am
It is true that “for the SUN the Earth-distance TSI is meaningless”, but it does not follow that it is meaningless for the Earth’s climate. I argue that the “Earth-distance TSI” probably has significant effect on the Earth’s climate
This thread is about the sun, not about the Earth. The climate models use the Earth-distance version as they should, On time scales of thousands of years the distribution of TSI through the year is very important [the Milankovitch cycles rely on this], but I still have to see any valid correlative claim of Sun-Weather-Climate effects depending on the Earth-distance TSI being different from the 1AU TSI. Perhaps you could show me some.
lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:37 am
“I still have to see any valid correlative claim of Sun-Weather-Climate effects depending on the Earth-distance TSI being different from the 1AU TSI. Perhaps you could show me some.
Weather is clear – since the solstices are almost in phase with perihelion/aphelion and the Earth distance TSI difference for solstice-perihelion/aphelion is mere ~1 W/m^2, the Earth distance will not much change anything – for now. (We live in age of orbital forcing playing small role, so other factors of comparably smaller magnitude of effect can intermittently prevail).
But when they go out of phase (which is already happening – but we’re still more or less at the top of the precession cycle) it will not just change the seasons, but likely change the climate profoundly (alhough possibly not leading to global iceage in this cycle), because the total effective insolation of Earth will descend quite steeply (yes, the sinus is cruel at points around PI, especially when coupled with square distance) and exactly because of the variation of Earth distance TSI.
The effect in my opinion is more or less exactly opposite to what imagined Milankovitch – the cooling potentially leading to iceage is in my opinion not triggered by less insolation of northern hemisphere but by less insolation of southern hemisphere where is more ocean – surface water, which has very different optical and thermal properties than landmass materials, is much less reflective, which is aided by waviness, especially near terminator at high incidence angles, able to absorb considerably more solar radiation, to higher depths, with lower change of the temperature, given by higher heat capacity, and therefore considearbly lower radiative loss rate, which is even further underlined by the optics of the water interface with air, which much more than solar spectrum from outside, reflects back the IR from inside, moreover in very thin layer due to very low transmissivity for mid-IR, it aides ocean in spending more than third of the received energy on surface evaporation – transporting heat to atmosphere directly, lowering so considerably the lapse rate which further lessens the radiative loss by higher effective atmospheric temperature, slowing the heat dissipation.
The ocean having all this properties will get clearly less insolated during the year due to precession cycle – when summer solstice will get out of synchro with perihelion (every year adds ~16 minutes). The ocean which is not only more present at the southern hemisphere, but it is present there preferably at well insolated latitudes:
equator-tropics: the ocean is ~74.8% (~73% at NH, ~76.5% at SH) of the area,
tropics-polar circle: ocean is still ~70.5% (but ~48.3% at NH, ~92.7% at SH)
polar circles-poles ocean is ~48,5% (~73% at NH, ~24% at SH) , but mostly covered by sea-ice at least for some time in the year. (you can see for yourself in detail if you look into the data: tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/GLOBAL-OCEAN-LAND-STRATIFICATION-1DEGREEresolution.xls – graph: http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/SOUTHERN-NORTHERN-OCEAN-STRATIFICATION.png).
To imagine – now the Sun gets in zenit in time of perihelion at the tropic of Capricorn (imagine ~center of Australia), and Earth is closer to Sun so it gets there ~65 W/m2 more on top at solstice, then after the ~10000 years it will get this 65W/m^2 less there. Ocean reflects ~2% when Sun in zenit, while it reflects ~3% at the ~47° angle. Landmass reflects 7-40%, usually 10-20% – and especially much in the deserts around tropic – so when the Sun will be in perihelion around northern solstice African and Middle Eastern (twice the Australia area+) deserts will be even more hot, nevertheless directly reflecting 25-30% of the sunlight back to space, the far eastern deserts more north as well as North American West dtto. -And Kepler’s 2nd law will in my opinion only help the effect, not act against it as some argue, because it will make the perihelion summer over the northern deserts shorter. While south freezed, circumpolar conveyor slowed to arrested, seaice covering more and more ocean (which therefore stops absorbing the heat there) expediting the process by accelerating ice albedo positive feedback.
I very roughly estimate the apsidal/axial precession effect will alone lower the global effective surface insolation (I mean insolation which gets absorbed, converted to heat) 5+ W/m2 when globally averaged. I’m at the time unable to give more exact number, because I don’t have a reliable albedo stratification. But I think this suffices for the idea. The main “culprit” here is clearly the Earth distance TSI (with 1AU TSI clearly playing no role) in complicity with axial precession – it is not exactly a correlation study, but anyway I’m afraid that the Earth distance TSI was, is and likely will be the chief co-factor of most profound climatic changes this planet could experience, although the currently low eccentricity will reduce the effect.
lsvalgaard:
Thankyou for your response to my post at October 10, 2013 at 7:27 am.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/september-solar-slump-continues/#comment-1443092
in your reply to me at October 10, 2013 at 7:37 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/september-solar-slump-continues/#comment-1443099
However, I admit to being somewhat puzzled by your reply.
Perhaps my post was not sufficiently on topic because as you say
However, your post I was commenting and your reply both refer to “climate models” which are of the Earth’s climate and not the Sun’s.
Also, your reply says
I see no reason for me to do that. I was responding to your points about TSI and “correlative studies for CLIMATE [30-yr average weather]”. My concluding two paragraphs said
So, I would be grateful if you were to discuss what I wrote and not what you would have preferred me to write.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:23 am
So, I would be grateful if you were to discuss what I wrote and not what you would have preferred me to write.
It is hard sometimes to distinguish because the topic in question is leading one’s thoughts in a certain direction which is perhaps not what was meant. My point was that there is a distinction between the climate effects of the orientation and orbit of the Earth and that of solar activity. The former effects are large [can lead to glaciations] and are undisputed. The latter effects are small and not even convincingly demonstrated as they tend to drown in the noise. Your ‘harmonic’ effects have not been seen as far as I know and are IMHO irrelevant for the topic of this post. Perhaps you could steer me to observations showing said effects.
Richard, the journals are fairly complete in their coverage of Earth’s distance from the Sun affecting its weather pattern variations. This is an intrinsic factor as in the Earth moves closer to the Sun, not the other way around. This distance factor (which is NOT a solar factor) is already a considered factor of GCM forecasts and projections, as is the cyclic change in TSI (which IS a solar factor).
What is your preferred Solar mechanism and how does it work to force temperature trends?
Dr. Svalgaard Since a magnetosphere is such a small object compared to the magnetic cloud any changes would be negligible. There are other much more important processes that influence the counterstreaming, e.g. reconnection within the cloud. The balance is really not an issue as the suprathermal electrons bounce back and forth between the two ends of the field lines many times [the bounce time at 1 AU of the order of a few hours].
That is really interesting. Ok, let’s for time being leave feedback to the sun aside.
Jupiter magnetosphere isn’t exactly negligible, solar wind at 5AU is at least 25 x (if not more) weaker than at 1 AU, and the J’s magnetic field strength is about 20 times stronger than the Earth’s (the J’s magnetosphere spatial angle could be up to 500 x the Earth’s).
If the first encounter’s reconnection alters the balance slightly, the subsequent bounces would increase the effect. Just speculating, but it is possible.
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:41 am
William:
General comment on how the solar cycle 24 magnetic cycle change will affect cloud cover on the earth: It is important to note regardless of the physical explanation as to what is currently happening to the sun it is a fact that as a result of the slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle and linear decay of the newly formed sunspots the solar heliosphere has weakened. As result of the weakening of the solar heliosphere there are now more galactic cosmic rays (GCR, mostly high speed protons) striking the earth’s atmosphere.
GCR strike the earth’s atmosphere and create ions that affect cloud formation and cloud optical properties. For some unexplained reason the cloud modulation effects of GCR was inhibited so that even though GCR levels where recently the highest every measured in the space age, the planet did not cool. Whatever has inhibiting the GCR cloud modulation mechanism appears to have stopped, there was record summer cloud cover which caused record low temperatures in the Arctic this summer and there was record sea ice formed in the Antarctic.
Based on what has happened before when there was a Maunder like minimum the same regions that warmed when the solar magnetic activity has high due to the solar magnetic cycle modulation of cloud cover will now cool as there will be an increase in low level clouds. Interesting there will also be a reduction in high level cirrus clouds.
The net effect of low level clouds is to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight off into space. The net effect of high level wispy cirrus clouds is to warm the planet by the greenhouse effect. So a reduction in cirrus clouds will cool the planet. Curiously it has been found that there was a reduction in low level clouds in the Arctic and a increase in cirrus clouds which coincides with the observed past warming in the Arctic. There is hence observational evidence that a significant portion of the Arctic warming in the last 70 years was caused by the reduction in low level clouds and increase in high level wispy cirrus clouds.
The cirrus cloud effect is not observed over the Antarctic ice sheet as it is so cold there is insufficient water vapour to form the cirrus clouds in the winter.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=02&startmonth=09&startyear=1966&starttime=00%3A00&endday=02&endmonth=10&endyear=2013&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=1440&picture=on
William:
In reply to your comment: The observational anomaly is not that the solar northern hemisphere leads the solar northern hemisphere (thanks for the link I was aware that there was been and that there is currently a north/south asymmetry in the solar magnetic cycle that is not however the anomaly). The anomaly is that there are now no sunspots/sunspot groups in the northern hemisphere and there is evidence that the magnetic flux tubes are being shredded/torn apart in the solar northern hemisphere (See comment). i.e. The sunspot group formation mechanism is no longer producing sunspots in the northern hemisphere and it appears the solar southern hemisphere will experience the same fate.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_HMIB.jpg
http://www.solen.info/solar/
What was happened in the solar northern hemisphere is what to expect in the solar southern hemisphere. If one looks at the solien’s overlay of the magnetogram view of the sun (The magnetogram is due to a magnetic fields effect on elemental emission lines in the solar photosphere. A strong magnetic field causes individual emissions lines of an element to split in two lines which is called the Zeeman effect. The emitted photons from each Zeeman split emission line have opposite polarity. A polarization filter can therefore be used to determine large regions of the sun what have magnetic flux loops passing through them).
Looking at the solen site’s solar magnetogram/optical overlay of the sun the following is apparent. The solar southern hemisphere large sunspots are being replaced by tiny sunspots and in some cases there is no visible sunspots at all only large magnetically active regions which is the residue that would be created if the magnetic flux tubes are shredded as they rise through the convection zone.
Comments:
There are two hypothesis proposed in this forum to explain why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly:
1) Tachocline Zone Solar Magnetic Dynamo Hypothesis: The current standard model (this is the standard model for the dynamo not William’s hypothesis) for the solar magnetic dynamo has the magnetic flux tubes which when released rise up to the surface of the sun to form produced in the narrow region (deep within the sun) that separates the solar convection zone and the solar radiative zone. It is hypothesized that the shearing motion between the convection zone and the radiative zone creates the magnetic flux tubes in the tachocline.
Theoretical calculations indicate the magnetic flux tubes require a magnetic field strength of around 10,000 to 30,000 gauss when released to survive the turbulent forces in the convection zone. There are multiple different possible explanation as to what could happen to the tachocline to explain the linear reduction in the field strength of the magnetic flux tubes (the tachocline is disturbed or narrower for example which reduces available time for amplification to create the flux tubes for example). Regardless of what creates the magnetic flux tube at the tachocline, that mechanism requires a magnetic field strength of 10,000 to 30,000 gauss to avoid being torn apart by turbulent forces in the convection.
One variation of the tachocline hypothesis has the remnants of the past solar magnetic cycle moving from the poles down into the tachocline. The remnants are then the seeds for the next solar magnetic cycle. This variation of the tachocline solar dynamo mechanism provides an explanation for the butterfly pattern as the solar cycle progresses.
2. Convection Zone Solar Magnetic Dynamo Hypothesis: This is not the standard model for the creation of magnetic flux tubes. It is believed this model hypothesizes that rising and falling regions in convection zone and other motions in the convection zone concentrates the existing magnetic field lines amplifying them.
The convection zone solar magnetic dynamo mechanism was abandoned by most solar theorists as the magnetic flux tubes are buoyant. Calculations indicate the magnetic flux tubes will hence rise to the surface of the sun and therefore cannot create the observed great concentration of magnetic flux which is called a sunspot/sunspot group which can have a magnetic field strength of up 3000 gauss. It is not clear how a convection zone solar magnetic dynamo mechanism could explain the butterfly pattern.
It is important to note that the observed magnetic flux loops on the sun are relatively shallow unlike the magnetic flux lines on the earth which pierce the core of the earth. This explains why sun can have for a short period of time two magnetic north poles.
Also it is important to note majority of the magnetic flux created each solar cycle is destroyed, cancelled or sent off into space.
lsvalgaard:
In your post at October 10, 2013 at 8:34 am you respond to my having said
By writing
Say what!?
I write “unless and until they are identified” and you ask me to “steer {you} to observations showing said effects”.
The important points are
1.
Oscillating systems usually exhibit harmonic effects so it can be expected that the climate system does for the reasons I explained.
And
2.
Any harmonics could be interpreted as indications of ‘something’ when conducting what you called “correlative studies for CLIMATE [30-yr average weather]”.
It is ridiculous to claim that the strong probability of harmonics is “irrelevant for the topic of this post” which is about identifying ‘drivers’ of climate. Observed correlations may merely be observation of harmonic effects. And, conversely, climate fluctuation can be ascribed as being a result of such probable harmonics in the absence of evidence to the contrary. But, as I said, such harmonic effects cannot be quantified unless and until they are identified.
Richard
Pamela Gray:
At October 10, 2013 at 8:42 am you say and ask me
The TSI variation as a function of solar distance IS a climate effect as I explained.
The incorporation of this in climate models does not interest me because those models are flawed in principle so should be scarapped and ‘done over’.
I do not have – and I do not know enough to have – a “preferred Solar mechanism” which works “to force temperature trends”.
Richard
vukcevic says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:06 am
Jupiter magnetosphere isn’t exactly negligible, solar wind at 5AU is at least 25 x (if not more) weaker than at 1 AU, and the J’s magnetic field strength is about 20 times stronger than the Earth’s (the J’s magnetosphere spatial angle could be up to 500 x the Earth’s).
We have been down this road a zillion times. What is important is the cross-section of the Jovian magnetosphere compared to that of a CME or Magnetic cloud. The magmetosphere is a thousand times smaller than the CME. To see it try to calculate the two cross-sections yourself; all the data is readily available on the internet [e.g. wikipedia].
If the first encounter’s reconnection alters the balance slightly, the subsequent bounces would increase the effect. Just speculating, but it is possible.
No it is not possible as the first encounter has a negligible effect to begin with. Even if the balance is altered that has no effect on the sun as the electrons mirror high above the sun’s surface.
William Astley says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:32 am
General comment on how the solar cycle 24 magnetic cycle change will affect cloud cover on the earth
Not relevant for discussion of how the Sun behaves.
The anomaly is that there are now no sunspots/sunspot groups in the northern hemisphere and there is evidence that the magnetic flux tubes are being shredded/torn apart in the solar northern hemisphere
Not anomalous as that happens regularly [and there are again sunspots in the north]. And ALL flux tubes are ALWAYS shredded/torn apart ALL the time.
It is hypothesized that the shearing motion between the convection zone and the radiative zone creates the magnetic flux tubes in the tachocline.
There are other shear layers: one just below the photosphere and one halfway down to the tachocline where the meridional circulation changes direction.
Regardless of what creates the magnetic flux tube at the tachocline, that mechanism requires a magnetic field strength of 10,000 to 30,000 gauss to avoid being torn apart by turbulent forces in the convection.
It is most likely that the sunspots are not created in the tachocline and ALL flux tubes are ALWAYS torn apart ALL the time.
One variation of the tachocline hypothesis has the remnants of the past solar magnetic cycle moving from the poles down into the tachocline. The remnants are then the seeds for the next solar magnetic cycle. This variation of the tachocline solar dynamo mechanism provides an explanation for the butterfly pattern as the solar cycle progresses.
Creation of the butterfly diagram does not require sunspots to be formed in the tachocline.
motions in the convection zone concentrates the existing magnetic field lines amplifying them.
The flux tubes are ALWAYS TORN apart and are not concentrated in the convection zone, but in the photosphere as is directly observed.
It is not clear how a convection zone solar magnetic dynamo mechanism could explain the butterfly pattern.
That it is not clear to you does not mean that it doesn’t happen.
richardscourtney says:
October 10, 2013 at 11:29 am
Oscillating systems usually exhibit harmonic effects
The climate is not an oscillator.
William Astley says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:32 am
The anomaly is that there are now no sunspots/sunspot groups in the northern hemisphere
Not anomalous as that happens regularly
Check out ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings
I picked about 20 days at random. Of those, the following showed no groups in the northern hemisphere::
2005/9/14
2004/3/5
2004/6/8
2004/9/1
1983/4/1
1983/5/10
lsvalgaard:
At October 10, 2013 at 2:07 pm you quote my having said at October 10, 2013 at 11:29 am
Then you say
Rubbish!
I explained how and why the climate SYSTEM oscillates within each year such that global temperature varies by 3.8°C during each year. The claimed rise in global temperature anomaly over the past century is a quarter of the amplitude of that oscillation.
As I said, “oscillating systems usually exhibit harmonic effects”, and harmonics occur at multiples of the basic frequency. As you say, “The issue is about excluding possibilities” and, therefore, the possibility (i.e. strong probability) of harmonic effects needs to be excluded and not ignored.
And if you want to argue that the “climate is not an oscillator” then I suggest that you argue with Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry because their recent paper in Climate Dynamics says otherwise
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1
This is the Abstract of their paper with emphasis added by me
Richard
richardscourtney says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:04 pm
And if you want to argue that the “climate is not an oscillator” then I suggest that you argue with Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry because their recent paper in Climate Dynamics says otherwise
First of all they say “quasi-oscillatory”, second, ‘oscillatory’ means ‘wavy’, not implying a physical oscillation where there is a restoring force. What is the restoring force in the climate?
vukcevic says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:06 am
Dr. Svalgaard Since a magnetosphere is such a small object compared to the magnetic cloud any changes would be negligible. There are other much more important processes that influence the counterstreaming, e.g. reconnection within the cloud. The balance is really not an issue as the suprathermal electrons bounce back and forth between the two ends of the field lines many times [the bounce time at 1 AU of the order of a few hours].
That is really interesting. Ok, let’s for time being leave feedback to the sun aside.
—–
Ok let’s say that the magnetic cloud impacts Earth’s magnetosphere, (field lines) reconnection occurs, some particles stream inwards towards Earth on Earth’s field lines at the X lines. At the same time, from the same reconnection event other particles stream back towards the Sun from the same reconnection X line and make it to the corona or super halo region.
Vuks, kinda like a field line assisted acceleration, from Jupiter, but I don’t see it making it back up past 1 AU less maybe on the tailside of the bubble.. The magnetic cloud would have punched up a hole in the current sheath, so …why couldn’t a reconnection event just backhaul?
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 11, 2013 at 6:14 am
So I checked the new data and the result was no differences
You also have to pay attention to the Version number. The current version is 14 and the data is different because the whole series was re-calibrated. That is why they publish the entire series every day instead of just the latest value for that day. The re-calibration makes a difference of about 0.3 W/m2.
I know I’m carper, why is it?
at that time the distance was changing during the day and TSI(Earth) was decreasing by -0.177 W/m2 per 6 hours. If there are missing values within the 6 hours then those will have to be dealt with as well. So there can be a different number of high-resolution values in each 6-hr interval. I think they calculate the daily values as the mean of all single high-resolution values and not of the four 6-hr values. It can be argued what is the better way of doing it, but we have to go by what they actually did.
lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 7:01 am
“The re-calibration makes a difference of about 0.3 W/m2.
So does it mean the whole TSI level is even 0.3W/m2 lower?
“at that time the distance was changing during the day and TSI(Earth) was decreasing by -0.177 W/m2 per 6 hours.”
I thought it could be something like that, sine can be cruel at some points especially when coupled with square distance. 🙂 But how this can have influence on the Earth-distance TSI? The satelite is still in Earth orbit, which doesn’t make much difference in distance even from one side to another.
I think they calculate the daily values as the mean of all single high-resolution values and not of the four 6-hr values.
But shouldn’t be the daily sum of high-resolution values same for one day as the sum of the high-resolution values for the 4x6hours?
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:19 am
So does it mean the whole TSI level is even 0.3W/m2 lower?
Yes the whole level is lower by a constant amount, approximately 0.3. I forget what the precise number is but it doesn’t matter as one simply discards the old values.
But how this can have influence on the Earth-distance TSI?
Because the distance changes during the day.
But shouldn’t be the daily sum of high-resolution values same for one day as the sum of the high-resolution values for the 4x6hours?
Well it is not the sums, but the averages that are important; here is an artificial data set made up with the following values (1,m,m,m,m),(2,2,2,2,2),(3,3,3,3,3),(4,4,4,4,4) i.e. with 4 intervals (the 6-h data); the ‘m’ means missing data. In each interval there are 5 high-resolution values [one 1 in the 1st interval, and five 2s in the 2nd interval, and five 3s in the third…]. The average values for the four intervals are clearly 1, 2, 3, and 4. The average of those 4 averages is 2.5. The daily average of 1,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,4 is 2.875
lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:02 am
…But how this can have influence on the Earth-distance TSI?
Because the distance changes during the day.
Yes but thats what we actually measure with Earth distance TSI – I would think one should not correct the Earth-distance TSI for the distance, the satelite should measure what comes and that’s all – the satelite is at the Earth distance, the distance difference during the orbit is less than 10^-5 and the rest – that the TSI varies with the distance from Sun is actually desirable to be measured.
“Well it is not the sums, but the averages that are important; here is an artificial data set made up with the following values (1,m,m,m,m),(2,2,2,2,2),(3,3,3,3,3),(4,4,4,4,4) i.e. with 4 intervals (the 6-h data); the ‘m’ means missing data. In each interval there are 5 high-resolution values [one 1 in the 1st interval, and five 2s in the 2nd interval, and five 3s in the third…]. The average values for the four intervals are clearly 1, 2, 3, and 4. The average of those 4 averages is 2.5. The daily average of 1,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,4 is 2.875”
Is this really the method how the values are derived from the high-cadence record? This primitive method is quite exactly why there’s the significant bias of about 0.2W/m^2 when one does the average of the incomplete TSI record. (The 1360.8 v. 1361.0) It would be a bit a pity with such a good detector. I would be thrown from statistics exam straight away if I do something like this.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Yes but that’s what we actually measure with Earth distance TSI – I would think one should not correct the Earth-distance TSI for the distance, the satellite should measure what comes and that’s all – the satellite is at the Earth distance, the distance difference during the orbit is less than 10^-5 and the rest – that the TSI varies with the distance from Sun is actually desirable to be measured.
The measurements are reduced to the center of the Earth [as they should be]. The variation over the orbit is 0.127 W/m2 compared to the instrument precision of 0.007 W/m2. By reducing all measurements to the center of the Earth, anybody can easily calculate what TSI should be at any desired point without having to worry about what the orbit looks like [which may even change with time]. So SORCE is doing it correctly. They are doing everything correctly now.
Is this really the method how the values are derived from the high-cadence record? This primitive method is quite exactly why there’s the significant bias of about 0.2W/m^2 when one does the average of the incomplete TSI record.
There is no systematic bias. And the problem with missing data is very minor as missing data is rare. Column three gives the average time for the measurements within each interval. If that time is significantly different from the ‘nominal time’ in column two you know there were missing data.
I would be thrown from statistics exam straight away if I do something like this.
I don’t see why. This is physics not stats. Some people would fill-in the missing data with an estimated average value, but that would be making up data and not be good.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:25 pm
But when they go out of phase (which is already happening – but we’re still more or less at the top of the precession cycle) it will not just change the seasons, but likely change the climate profoundly (although possibly not leading to global ice age)
Of course, none of that is disputed [and thus not of any interest]. The important parameter is the 1AU value because that is the one that varies without our foreknowledge. From the 1AU value we can calculate the Earth-distance value at any time. The SORCE people are doing everything right with one possible exception [and I’m still mulling that one over]. They calculate the Earth-distance at the time when the photon left the Sun 500 seconds ago. I think it should be half that, 250 seconds. You may enjoy this little investigation http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE%20Friday%20Effect.pdf At an early point it seemed that TSI was different on Fridays. It turned out to be caused by calibration activity on Thursday evenings [Boulder time] that interrupted the regular cadence, meaning that simple linear interpolation to recover the few missing values wouldn’t work.
lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:55 pm
“You may enjoy this little investigation”
Thanks Leif
lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:28 pm
There is no systematic bias. And the problem with missing data is very minor as missing data is rare. Column three gives the average time for the measurements within each interval. If that time is significantly different from the ‘nominal time’ in column two you know there were missing data.
I just wrote a reply, but it somehow, disapperaed on posting and I’m already quite titred to rewrite it.
So just briefly – there are 2.5% missing values in the 6h record. They are often in block of multiple missing values and the holes have quite uneven distribution, so the dominating carrier signal is lost with the solar activity modulation – as I’ve found the missing values are significantly more in the “perihelion half” so if one does average, even with proper period, the resulting averages are significantly biased.
Some people would fill-in the missing data with an estimated average value, but that would be making up data and not be good.
Is there really so much difference between filtering distance signal out – in case of the 1AU and puting the same signal in -in the case of filling the gaps in Earth distance record – to at least obtain better absolute level average? I of course don’t defent those who make up the data out of thin air or bias them, but I’m not completely sure if the neutral signal filling is worse than do unweighted averages of averages of uneven weight populations and believe it is physics. I always thought the discipline which teaches how to handle data properly is called statistics.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:08 pm
but I’m not completely sure if the neutral signal filling is worse than do unweighted averages of averages of uneven weight populations and believe it is physics. I always thought the discipline which teaches how to handle data properly is called statistics.
As long as the unevenness is small enough the proper thing is to calculate averages of what was actually measured [reduced to 1AU and to Earth-Center. Statistics cannot create data where there is none. Anyway our little exercise here has shown that it helps to know a bit about the data and how they were aquired rather than just try to use statistics to calculate the averages incorrectly. The SORCE people do the best that can be done and their data set is superb.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 2:37 pm
William Astley says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:32 am
The anomaly is that there are now no sunspots/sunspot groups in the northern hemisphere
Not anomalous as that happens regularly
William: The maximum for solar cycle 24 was in February, 2012 it is anomalous that their are no sunspot groups that are observable with a small telescope in the solar northern hemisphere now. Extrapolate what is happening to the sun. Professionally I am a senior specialist. I assist specialists in solving problems. I am given problems that others have failed to solve or when there is a crisis. One of the methods use to address complex problems particularly in a crisis situation is to keep all reasonably viable hypotheses on the table as evaluating the problem with different hypotheses may change the consequences and the appropriate action to address and/or manage the consequences.
We are the first humans to observe this particular solar change. Knowledge of how the sun has changed in the last 250 years cannot be used to support the assertion we know how the sun has changed in the last 12,000 years.
As I stated before, there is an enter different group of specialists that have discovered a set of quasar observations that indicate very large objects resist their collapse by a process that creates massive magnetic fields and charge unbalance. There are no black holes. The object that forms changes over time. There is evidence that charge is not conserved, that matter is created in the extreme conditions in these objects. There are massive jets and pieces of these objects that are ejected (knots in the jets). There is observational evidence that the quasars and the baby ejected quasars emit hydrogen and other elements creating astronomically large gas clouds and dust clouds. There is observational evidence of spiral galaxies evolving driven by this mechanism.
We cannot travel into the sun, cannot travel to directly observe other stars, as we do the sun. There are many assumptions concerning solar and stellar physics. The current solar and stellar model is based on limited knowledge, on assumptions. New observations such as an unexpected change to the sun now can change the solar model and the model for other stars.
There are sets of unexplained anomalies (in the paleo record of the earth, in our solar system, and astronomical observational anomalies) that all appear to be connected to the explanation as to what is happening to the sun now. Pretend or imagine that what is observed next is observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted, followed by massive unusual solar activity.
It is a big deal for science if there is a change in the stellar models and cosmological model, a change in fundamental physics, and for humanity if there is an almost unimaginable solar change, a very, very, powerful solar change that will affects climate on earth.
William Astley says:
October 12, 2013 at 2:07 am
it is anomalous that their are no sunspot groups that are observable with a small telescope in the solar northern hemisphere now.
There is a nice sunspot group in the Northern Hemisphere right now.
We cannot travel into the sun, cannot travel to directly observe other stars, as we do the sun.
We can see into the sun, measure conditions in the interior, even rotation and plasma flows using the same technique as we use on Earth to detect oil and gas inside the Earth.
There are many assumptions concerning solar and stellar physics. The current solar and stellar model is based on limited knowledge, on assumptions.
The current models are based on solid physics. You say ‘assumptions’. Name one.
lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:14 pm
“As long as the unevenness is small enough the proper thing is to calculate averages of what was actually measured [reduced to 1AU and to Earth-Center.”
It is improper in principle to calculate unweighted averages from incomplete populations with uneven weights.
Statistics cannot create data where there is none.
There are also other methods than fill in carrier signal (- which anyway must be exhaustively described for calculation of the 1AU TSI) to obtain valid averages. (But for obvious reasons the fill-in is the method of first choice -at least for preliminary purposes – for my purposes it suffices for now.) To calculate the averages without any correction for missing data making multiple percents of highly variable population, or even further leave out the another valid values is in my opinion definitely not good way to obtain a valid result in the degree of exactitude which even the incomplete data clearly still allow thanks to the exceptionally high instrument accuracy.
Anyway our little exercise here has shown that it helps to know a bit about the data and how they were aquired.
That’s what I’m trying to for some time – to find how what is available, what quality I can expect, etc. before I do some conclusions.
The SORCE people do the best that can be done and their data set is superb.
Here I fully agree, from what I’ve read about the instrument, data processing etc. it very much looks to me that the data is the by far best choice from what is available for the recent period. The potential further use of statistics to get from the data as much as possible is anyway only an option, which can be used or not. What is important are the primary data, acquired for as much of the covered period as possible. I find very unfortunate there are the problems now and I very much hope the SORCE team will succeed in solving them – do you have some interesting insider?
Btw. It looks like I solved the problem with the TSI-SST dependence calculation and as it looks now to me there’s another significant factor other than TSI for the 2nd half of 20th century SST rise and it even looks it a bit exceeds the TSI forcing when I use the HadSST3 data instead of the HadSST2. But I still must do the confidence analysis, so it is just what came out on the first sight.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
October 12, 2013 at 10:27 am
To calculate the averages without any correction for missing data making multiple percents of highly variable population, or even further leave out the another valid values is in my opinion definitely not good way to obtain a valid result in the degree of exactitude which even the incomplete data clearly still allow thanks to the exceptionally high instrument accuracy.
Without making up data or making assumptions about the distribution this is the best we can do. There are about 800 individual measurements per day. Now TSI is an average over the solar disk and that also changes with time [even on a minute basis if there is a very big flare], so we are better of not monkeying with the data. The completely RAW data is still available for special studies.
I find very unfortunate there are the problems now and I very much hope the SORCE team will succeed in solving them – do you have some interesting insider?
They are saving the battery power until they can get another spacecraft up so they can make in-flight comparison.