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.
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.