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?quality=83)
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.