New paper suggests the sun's magnetic fields defines climate over the long term

Story submitted by Cornelis de Jager

(past president ICSU;past pres. COSPAR)

In a recent publication entitled Terrestrial ground temperature variation in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle, Cornelis (Kees) de Jager and Hans Nieuwenhuijzen, from the Space Research Organisation of the Netherlands have analysed the dependence of the global earth temperature on the polar as well as the equatorial magnetic fields. The new aspect in this research is that all earlier investigations in this field only sought for the dependence of the terrestrial ground temperature on the number of sunspots, which is a “proxy” for  the equatorial magnetic fields of the sun.  But the sun has two big magnetic areas, the equatorial and the polar one. In this research both are included.

In their analysis the Utrecht scientists restricted to the relatively long-term variation of both fields as well as the temperature, such in order to exclude short-term phenomena such as temperature variations due  to volcanoes or processes like El-Nino.

By including the two magnetic field areas in their  analysis it could be shown that during the major part of the four centuries investigated, i.e. the period 1610 till  around  1900 – 1950 , the  average terrestrial ground temperatures depend solely on solar magnetic field variations. After 1900 there is an increasing excess in the temperature which is ascribed to anthropogenic  activity.  After the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20thb century the sun went through an exceptional,  not before observed phase transition that lasted relatively long, i.e. from about 2005 till 2010.

Usually,  the transitions between solar variability phases takes no more than one to two years. During that transition period and after that, solar activity was exceptionally low. The consequent small contribution to the terrestrial temperatures is the cause for the standstill in the rise of temperature observed since the middle of the 20th century.

CdeJager_Fig1

The above can be illustrated in figure 1, the diagram  shows three curves. The middle one is the average terrestrial ground temperature  (dots) through which a smoothed average curve is drawn .(The LOWESS technique is used for smoothing). The upper line shows the solar contribution and the bottom curve is the difference between the two. It shows a nearly flat variation which demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields.  The average “zero-line” show a very slow , yet unexplained, increase over the centuries.

The paper is published in Natural Science vol. 5, pp. 1112- 1120, 2013 (open access). It can also be consulted at http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-CdeJ-HN-Sun-climate-NS-5-1112.pdf

Advertisements

144 thoughts on “New paper suggests the sun's magnetic fields defines climate over the long term

  1. “It shows a nearly flat variation which demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields”. No it doesn’t. “Is solely due to” is wrong as it implies a causality. All it really shows is that the two appear to be correlated to some degree.

  2. “The consequent small contribution to the terrestrial temperatures is the cause for the standstill in the rise of temperature observed since the middle of the 20th century.”
    _____________________
    That’s a bold statement.

  3. “After 1900 there is an increasing excess in the temperature which is ascribed to anthropogenic activity.”
    Asserted, not proven, and even the assertion leaves things such as land-use, soot, and other anthropogenic factors to be possible causes, not merely CO2 (although no doubt the CAGW crowd will insist that it’s all CO2.)

  4. “After 1900 there is an increasing excess in the temperature which is ascribed to anthropogenic activity. After the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20thb century the sun went through an exceptional, not before observed phase transition that lasted relatively long, i.e. from about 2005 till 2010.
    Usually, the transitions between solar variability phases takes no more than one to two years. During that transition period and after that, solar activity was exceptionally low. The consequent small contribution to the terrestrial temperatures is the cause for the standstill in the rise of temperature observed since the middle of the 20th century.”
    Strange that they attribute the increase from 1900 to anthropogenic activity then in the next sentence note “the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20th century”.
    As for the standstill this century, the other way of looking at it, is that solar activity has actually been relatively high to be able to maintain temperatures until the decrease in solar activity which really began in 2008 from the weak and long minimum onwards:
    http://snag.gy/nf9SK.jpg
    “The average “zero-line” show a very slow , yet unexplained, increase over the centuries.”
    There are two centuries where it is flat as a pancake, i.e. from 1730 to 1930, here is CET for that period: http://snag.gy/2q2kT.jpg

  5. Current paradigm for CAGWers regarding the sun is that its influence on climate is negligible (sic), as this makes it easy to put the blame on 20th century warming on CO2. However, I predict a 180º turn regarding this point, as temperatures continue to reject to climb up in the next years. When this happens, they will want to blame the sun, saying things like “if it weren’t for the current quiet sun, temperatures would be this much hotter” and “once the sun activity returns to normal we are all gonna fry”.

  6. By including the two magnetic field areas in their analysis it could be shown that during the major part of the four centuries investigated, i.e. the period 1610 till around 1900 – 1950 , the average terrestrial ground temperatures depend solely on solar magnetic field variations. After 1900 there is an increasing excess in the temperature which is ascribed to anthropogenic activity.
    That sounds like “It wasn’t the sun, so it has to be anthropogenic! We can’t think of anything else it could be.”

  7. Nylo says:
    October 31, 2013 at 5:05 am
    ___________________
    The warmists have been making those claims about “quiet sun” for quite some time. Correlation still doesn’t equal causation.

  8. Nylo says:
    October 31, 2013 at 5:05 am
    Current paradigm for CAGWers regarding the sun is that its influence on climate is negligible (sic), as this makes it easy to put the blame on 20th century warming on CO2. However, I predict a 180º turn regarding this point, as temperatures continue to reject to climb up in the next years. When this happens, they will want to blame the sun, saying things like “if it weren’t for the current quiet sun, temperatures would be this much hotter” and “once the sun activity returns to normal we are all gonna fry”.

    Yeah, I’ve seen some making comments along those lines, but the CAGW crowd have dug themselves into a deep hole by denying solar forcings for years. Judith Curry writes about it here:
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-solar-variations-dont-matter/
    I think the Hockey Team & their ilk are still more focused upon the “missing heat hiding in the deep ocean” line of argument & are turning their backs to solar variability, which they (nor anyone else) really understands.
    Incoming Leif!

  9. A bit confusing is the fact that De Jager in this paper says that the uptick in global temperature in the 20th century ‘most probably’ has an anthropogenic origin, without proving that statement. This rebuts an earlier publication of De Jager et al ( see http://dare.uva.nl/document/190066 ) , in which the anthropogenic component wasn’t underlined as strongly. In his new paper De Jager writes about the polar influences: “Yet, the total polar flux is comparable in magnitude with the total equatorial one and offhand it does not seem that it wouldn’t affect terrestrial climate.”. Well, that is at least hypothetic!
    In the second part of the paper De Jager turns to the current cycle 24. He recognizes ‘trasition points’, the latest took place between 2005-2010. De Jager predicts a phase of Regular Oscillations, there is no new Maunder Minimum in prospect. This is another aspect in which De Jager breaks with his preceding papers. Is this a cosequence of progress in scientific knowledge, or is the polair component of the sun’s activity not such a reliable proxie?

  10. Yes!!!!!!!! I was waiting for this angle of research to follow recent solar corona discoveries to explain heat generation in both incidences of magnetic field effects. Physics is preserved.

  11. I have a problem with this paper. I am not comfortable with the temperature record as shown. It looks more like a Micheal Mann product than a true temperature record.
    With that said, I do believe that there IS a direct relationship between solar activity and Earth’s temperature, and solar magnetic fields could be a potential mechanism. However this paper does not fill me with confidence. I would love to see a Steve McIntyre audit of this paper.

  12. Look how nicely those lines match each other, along with the up-tick at the end. Clearly another clear case of our carbon pollution influencing the sun. If only the heroic, Nobel-prize-winning Michael Mann had known about this research earlier, why nobody except those Koch-funded righties would be able to deny his hockey stick…

  13. Dr. Svalgaard,
    Thanks for linking again to your Powerpoint, it is very informative and a rare opportunity for the public. However, without the narrative that you would no doubt provide in a presentation, it can be a little confusing following the thread. Can you show or explain what Slide 4 would look like after you have removed the artifacts from the sunspot count changes? Would you also refute a claim that the temperature rise since the Maunder was associated with an increase in TSI? Do you think there is any aspect of TSI that correlates to a hiatus in the LIA recovery around 1890? Thanks in advance!

  14. the paper says
    After 1900 there is an increasing excess in the temperature which is ascribed to anthropogenic activity. After the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20thb century the sun went through an exceptional, not before observed phase transition that lasted relatively long, i.e. from about 2005 till 2010.
    henry says
    ja ja
    nou weer die domme hollanders…
    I agree with DontGetOutMuch
    the times
    they are
    aaah, ehhh
    cooling
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
    Unbeleivably
    I also agree with Leif

  15. “After the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20thb century the sun went through an exceptional, not before observed phase transition that lasted relatively long, i.e. from about 2005 till 2010”
    Headline at Skeptical Science:
    Man made CO2 is effecting the Sun’s magnetic field!

  16. I’m sure glad they got rid of that historical 800-year lag between CO2 and temperature increase. For a moment there I was sure the glaciers were lying to us.
    /sarc.

  17. @kcrucible, the Dutch are an odd folk, but their English is usually outstanding, and well-versed in the connotative meanings of words, (perhaps since Dutch is quite idiomatically rich). All that aside they used ascribed which I believe they are using the fancy term for ‘assigned to’. Hence, they could be entirely agreeing with you!

  18. I tend to distrust ANY study that compares anything to the temperature record before 1979.
    It’s true, the Globe has warmed … but we don’t have a clue as to how much. Global Warming is indeed real …. it is a real manipulaiton of data to make it appear as if the earth has warmed more than it has.

  19. I too am wondering where the “grand maximum” comes from in this paper. Leif has pretty conclusively demolished this in terms of sunspot numbers, but since this paper is referring to magnetic field strengths and stating that this is more than just sunspots – is there something else they are measuring to come up with their maximum?
    This then raises the question of where their data for this ‘something else’ comes from in the earlier portion of their graph, given that he only data we have from this period is sunspot numbers.
    I still think there is solar influence on climate beyond just the TSI variation, but not sure this paper throws any light on the issue.

  20. D.Potter thinks
    still think there is solar influence on climate beyond just the TSI variation, but not sure this paper throws any light on the issue.
    henry says
    you figured that one right
    a quiet sun produces more UV, apparently
    hence more ozone, more peroxides & n-oxides, TOA, …
    hence more UV deflected to space..
    hence we are cooling…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-suggests-the-suns-magnetic-fields-defines-climate-over-the-long-term/#comment-1462293

  21. I wonder what the inclusion of the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period would do to their analysis?

  22. The difference is the adjustments to the temperatures that were made to the data sets to disinform people and get them to believe in global warming.

  23. This paper isn’t making a lot of sense as shared here (conflicting statements). Hopefully a visit to the reference link will clarify.
    Mods – PIMF means “preview is my friend”.

  24. Since the uptick in terrestrial temperatures (above the unexplained background rate) is almost entirely a product of data manipulation it is unsurprising that the recent temperature data appears to diverge from historical norms. I would love to see this work redone only using temperature data from the satellite era to check if the correlation holds. Also, by using a “relatively long-term variation of both fields as well as the temperature” this will effectively mask the recent hiatus in global temperature increase.
    Rigged data + hide the decline = epic fail.
    However, very nice to see that even the CAGW crowd are capable of doing some good science and revealing a strong link between the sun and climate where unmolested data is available i.e. pre 1900 or so.

  25. The more recent astronomical knowledge reveals that space is anything but. The best way to visualize the Universe is as a fabric of plasma and a continuously varying E/M field whose nodes and H(x,y,z,t) can be described via some sort of grand tensor which itself is a function of time. Within this fabric reside the stars, black holes, quasars, planets, other celestial bodies, dust, gas etc. As Mr. Spock noted: “Fascinating.”

  26. climate reason says (in his quoted article)….
    Or merely a hiatus in the ever upwards rise of temperatures since the start of the record in 1659 which may or may not be affected by CO2 and radiative physics?
    henry says
    I wonder if ever you got what I was saying, here,
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
    it is the (extra) warming of the oceans that caused more CO2 to be released
    as there are giga tons of bicarbonates in the oceans
    HCO3- + heat => CO2 + OH-
    there is a causal relationship
    not that CO2 causes any more warming, whatsoever
    there is really no proof of that….

  27. Matt Skaggs says:
    October 31, 2013 at 7:23 am
    Can you show or explain what Slide 4 would look like after you have removed the artifacts from the sunspot count changes?
    That is shown in Slide 5. The point is that the magnetic flux from the Sun did not increase dramatically from the 19th to the 20th century.
    Would you also refute a claim that the temperature rise since the Maunder was associated with an increase in TSI? Do you think there is any aspect of TSI that correlates to a hiatus in the LIA recovery around 1890? Thanks in advance!
    Since the TSI generally follows the sunspot number, TSI will not increased over the last 300 years as the sunspot number hasn’t.
    More on TSI here: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf

  28. If Leif is correct about the weighted sunspot numbers since after 1945 (which is very plausible) then the “grand modern maximum” is reduced by 20%, there is still an increase in successive solar cycles and solar activity from 1875 (SC-12) to the peak of 1960 (SC-19) and what makes this 20% reduction very interesting is that there was a sharp decline in solar cycle 20 during the 1970s and then activity increased again with SC-21 during the 1980s and gradually declined again with solar cycles 22 and 23 over the 1990s and 2000s and has continued to decline until the present, solar cycle 24. If the earths temperature is greatly influenced by the sun then there should be no temperature hockey-stick.
    The relationship between solar activity and temperature should resemble this http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nov-ssn-v-feb-tmin-1875-20121.gif

  29. astonerii says:
    October 31, 2013 at 9:23 am
    “The difference is the adjustments to the temperatures that were made to the data sets to disinform people and get them to believe in global warming.”
    The ‘adjustments’ are the anthropogenic influence, you see.

  30. Sparks says:
    October 31, 2013 at 11:51 am
    there is still an increase in successive solar cycles and solar activity from 1875 (SC-12) to the peak of 1960 (SC-19)
    Cherry picking end points is a common thing for people to do when they peddle their view point. You should start with 1859 [max of a cycle] and end with 2012 [also max].

  31. I’m not impressed with this at all. Once again, it’s just curve fitting.
    Rather than doing the rooting around myself, does anyone have links to the datasets used?
    I also note that they didn’t show the stats for the relationships, and that they have compared smoothed datasets.
    Not impressed at first look, that’s for sure. This is particularly true regarding this claim:

    Around 2007, after the Grand Maximum of the 20th century, solar activity, after having gone through a remarkable transition period (~2005 to ~2010), entered into another Grand Episode.

    Say what? They don’t define a “Grand Episode”, other than as follows:

    During the first decade of the present century we have witnessed the exceptional and very intriguing phase transition (cf. Clete and Lefevre, [21]; reviews by Lockwood, [22]; De Jager and Duhau, [23,24]; De Jager, [25]). Such transitions occur between Grand Episodes of solar variability. A very well-known Grand Episode is the Maunder Minimum than [sic] lasted from about 1610 till about 1740, and another episode, one of the highest of the past ten thousand years (Usoskin et al., [26]; Solanki et al., [27]) is the recent Grand Maximum, this being the period of very intense solar activity that was witnessed during the main part of the 20th century.

    Sorry, but that’s just scientiphisticated handwaving. It’s particularly so when you consider that there hasn’t been any “Grand Maximum” … I’d give this paper a D- …
    w.

  32. Willis Eschenbach says:
    October 31, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    I’m not impressed with this at all. Once again, it’s just curve fitting.
    ____________________
    Yep, but then, It all falls apart, late 20th century -> present.

  33. Alan Robertson says:
    October 31, 2013 at 3:54 am
    pimf
    [? Mod]
    __
    Preview Is My Friend… regarding formatting error in post immediately prior…
    goofed off paying attention mostly to the girls in typing class (the only reason to take typing class.)

  34. de Jager is a distinguished older solar scientist. His paper brings the following to mind:
    Eddington in his later years had some really nutty ideas about ‘The Theory of Everything’. He once stared a lecture, in 1938, with the claim: “I believe that there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 013 206 protons in the universe and the same number of electrons”. As young, the physicist Samuel Goudsmit heard Arthur Eddington’s lecture on the fine structure constant and asked his older colleague H. A. Kramers if all physicists went off the deep end as they grew older. Kramers reassured him, “No Sam, you don’t have to be scared. A genius like Eddington may go nuts, but a fellows like you and I just get dumber and dumber”.

  35. From page 4 of the pdf
    http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-CdeJ-HN-Sun-climate-NS-5-1112.pdf
    “”” That curve confirms that dur- ing the years ~1600 till ~1900 the longer-scale terrestrial temperature variations are virtually only sun-driven. The deviating gradient of the lower end-part of that line might indicate some dependence on the Maunder Mini- mum. The upward gradient after ~1900 reflects the well- known temperature increase of the 20th century.”””
    What is the contribution from a decreasing terrestrial magnetic field, to a sun driven warming, over the period? Like the hole we call the south atlantic anomaly SAA is been increasing in size, while the field has been declining radially outward from the SAA. allows more of anything in, that the sun throws our way.
    Time to make the last run…

  36. Carla says:
    October 31, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    Like the hole we call the south atlantic anomaly SAA is been increasing in size, while the field has been declining radially outward from the SAA. allows more of anything in, that the sun throws our way.
    Not really. The solar wind sees the Earth’s magnetic field far [like 40,000 miles) from the Earth and at that distance smaller scale anomalies like the SAA are essentially gone as the magnetic field falls of very strongly with distance for structures smaller than the radius of the Earth.

  37. The funny thing is that in the lab magnetic fields are used to direct particles(not much good for accelerating them) and electric fields are used to accelerate them… why does this change when we get to the sun??

  38. Brant Ra says:
    October 31, 2013 at 2:14 pm
    The funny thing is that in the lab magnetic fields are used to direct particles(not much good for accelerating them) and electric fields are used to accelerate them… why does this change when we get to the sun??
    It doesn’t change at all. What is important is that the electric fields on the Sun are generated by changing magnetic fields according to Faraday’s law “Any change in the magnetic environment of a coil of wire will cause a voltage (emf) to be “induced” in the coil.”

  39. Slow but unexplained increase in temperature? Hello! We’re just coming out of the last little ice age, not to mention the last major ice age merely 11,700 odds years ago. You kn ow the one that covered Canada in a two mile thick sheet of ice – yeah that one.

  40. albertalad says:
    October 31, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    You know the one that covered Canada in a two mile thick sheet of ice – yeah that one.
    After ‘that one’ the temperature peaked several thousand years ago and has been decreasing ever since, apart fro small random fluctuations as we now seeing…

  41. albertalad says:
    October 31, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    Slow but unexplained increase in temperature? Hello! We’re just coming out of the last little ice age, not to mention the last major ice age merely 11,700 odds years ago. You kn ow the one that covered Canada in a two mile thick sheet of ice – yeah that one.

    Really? Are you sure you didn’t confuse the Little Ice Age, which is the latest cold period the planet went through, with the Wisconsin glacial epoch that ended about 10,000 years ago and which did cover Canada in ice? If you think trends are important, then the trend since about 8.000 BP is gradual cooling with sharp excursions both warmer and colder.

  42. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 31, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    Cherry picking end points is a common thing for people to do when they peddle their view point. You should start with 1859 [max of a cycle] and end with 2012 [also max].
    Do you mean in my the graph? to start with 1859 and end with 2012? If you do, I don’t have a problem with doing that, how would it be mistaken for ‘cherry picking’ when there are two identical trends no-matter where the data begins or ends?
    Elaborate for me, thanks.

  43. Sparks says:
    October 31, 2013 at 2:45 pm
    when there are two identical trends no-matter where the data begins or ends?
    Elaborate for me, thanks.

    Since the two cycles before when you began were large sunspot cycles that changes the trend.

  44. Sparks says:
    October 31, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    Is your wolf corrected Sunspot Number available online somewhere?
    A good approximation is simply to multiply all the official values before 1947 by 1.2

  45. lsvalgaard says:
    October 31, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    Since the two cycles before when you began were large sunspot cycles that changes the trend.
    Okay I see, thanks, I’ll correct that.

  46. lsvalgaard says:
    October 31, 2013 at 2:53 pm
    A good approximation is simply to multiply all the official values before 1947 by 1.2
    Does that include the Sunspot area record or just sunspot numbers?

  47. lsvalgaard
    I did mention the LIA and the major ice age previous ending approximately 11,700 years ago. The essence of my thought, whether right or wrong, was of course we were warming after these periods. However, even as we experience a less then predicted rate of warming we are still warming – just not at the rate previously predicted. The question is whether it is man made, according to the AGW side, or natural as I like to claim.

  48. Sparks says:
    October 31, 2013 at 2:58 pm
    Does that include the Sunspot area record or just sunspot numbers?
    The sunspot areas are not affected by the Waldmeier inflation but have their own problems.

  49. Timothy Sorenson,
    I agree, I believe this is a translation muddle. The “is ascribed to” here I believe means “is said to be caused by”, i.e. the authors do not necessarily agree with that.

  50. albertalad says:
    October 31, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    lThe essence of my thought, whether right or wrong, was of course we were warming after these periods.
    We are not warming. We are slowly cooling inching along to the next glaciation.

  51. This paper is nonsense.
    1. The top line shows the “solar contribution”. It has a certain amount of wiggle. The bottom line shows the difference between “solar contribution” and measured. It has just as much wiggle, actually it looks like there’s a bit more wiggle. Ergo- no correlation.
    2. The paper has no right to infer anything, because of the lack of correlation, but it has absolutely no right to say that anthro activity caused the recent divergence, because they didn’t even study it. ie, it’s an argument from ignorance. The most they are entitled to say is that they don’t know if it has any meaning and in any case they don’t know what caused it.

  52. The following is a January 1, 2013 review paper that summarizes the research to determine the history of solar activity over the last 10,000. The attached review paper provides multiple peer reviewed studies written by different researchers using different proxies which all support the following assertions:
    1) We were living in a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum
    2) The modern age grand solar maximum correlates with the warming of the planet
    3) The solar magnetic cycle activity in the modern age grand solar maximum is the highest in terms of modulation of cosmic ray flux in 10,000 years.
    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/download/lrsp-2013-1Color.pdf
    A History of Solar Activity over Millennia
    The review paper explains the factors involved in analyzing the proxy data and includes results from multiple papers and includes the results from the following multiproxy paper: see review paper page 48, figure 20 which is graphical summary of the results from the following paper:
    “9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings” by
    Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreu, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Mann, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms, February 14, 2012
    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full

  53. William Astley says:
    October 31, 2013 at 3:10 pm
    1) We were living in a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum
    2) The modern age grand solar maximum correlates with the warming of the planet
    3) The solar magnetic cycle activity in the modern age grand solar maximum is the highest in terms of modulation of cosmic ray flux in 10,000 years.

    In spite of your congratulatory support for this, all three statements are unfortunately not true, as we have discussed many times before.

  54. PS
    Meanings of “ascribe to” according references include “chalk up to”, “impute to”, and “put down to.” I.e. the causality is questionable. So the authors are not saying “caused by”, else why didn’t they simply say that? Their science may be flawed, but it unfair to say they agree that human activity caused the divergence.

  55. No records of a million years here and a million years there, soon you got billions of years not in the data set.
    The earth most likely does not know, feel or care that humans burn oil and gas, for sure the sun has no reason to care as it burns things we know not of at all ourselves.
    We over rate our impact by unknown non existing powers.
    These global warming cult people can not even build a web site to over charge humans for health insurance. That they have any knowing the long term effect of the sun seems a bit odd.

  56. Mike Jonas says:
    October 31, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    “This paper is nonsense.”
    I agree completely. The correlation between deltaTsun and deltaTearth is 0.43; between deltaTearth and residual, 0.91. (These are ballpark numbers, because the authors provide raw deltaTearth data only, and I used my own smoother…but I don’t think using their smooth would change these correlations by much). If I look at pre-1970 only, the respective numbers are 0.41 and 0.62. My conclusion is that there is nothing here at all.
    They do get points for linking to the data 🙂

  57. Dr. Isvalgaard, I don’t know how popular roller coaster rides are there, but I find describing the long temperature decline as a downhill roller coaster ride provides a meaningful description to those who don’t grasp the idea of short-term rises in a long-term decline. Hopefully, though, you don’t have to get down to that basic level with those you interact with.

  58. lsvalgaard says:
    October 31, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    Carla says:
    October 31, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    Like the hole we call the south atlantic anomaly SAA is been increasing in size, while the field has been declining radially outward from the SAA. allows more of anything in, that the sun throws our way.
    Not really. The solar wind sees the Earth’s magnetic field far [like 40,000 miles) from the Earth and at that distance smaller scale anomalies like the SAA are essentially gone as the magnetic field falls of very strongly with distance for structures smaller than the radius of the Earth.
    —-
    Effects of solar activity and geomagnetic field on noise in
    CALIOP profiles above the South Atlantic Anomaly
    V. Noel1, H. Chepfer2, C. Hoareau3, M. Reverdy3, and G. Cesana3
    © Author(s) 2013
    http://www.atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/6/8589/2013/amtd-6-8589-2013.pdf
    …We find
    5 the amount of noisy profiles is influenced by the 11 yr cycle of solar activity, fluctuates
    by ±5% between 2006 and 2013, and is anticorrelated with solar activity with a 1 yr lag.
    The size of the SAA grows as solar activity decreases, and an overall westward shift
    of the SAA region is detectable. We predict SAA noise levels will increase anew after
    2014…
    ..Literature teaches us that the amount of radiation emitted from the SAA, which
    impacts the noise in CALIOP observations, is anticorrelated with the 11 yr cycle of solar
    activity (with 1 yr lag) (Furst et al., 2009). This anticorrelation is due to heating of the
    exo- and thermosphere during maximum solar activity, which leads to a higher neutral
    density in the altitudes below affected by the SAA (e.g. Qian et al., 2006). This in
    creases the absorption and deflection of trapped particles, resulting in a lower particle
    flux compared to when the solar activity is minimum (Dachev et al., 1999). Thus the
    flux of energetic particles emitting radiations below CALIOP is smaller than during minimum
    solar activity. The 1 yr lag reflects the time needed for the atmosphere to react to
    incoming solar energy…
    Geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly and global sea level rise: A direct connection?
    De Santisa,. Qamilia, G. Spadad, P. Gasperinie
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611002896
    …The monotonic increase of the SAA surface area since 1600 may have been associated with an increased inflow of radiation energy through the inner Van Allen belt with a consequent warming of the Earth’s atmosphere…
    Changes in the Earth’s magnetic field over the past century: Effects on the ionosphere-thermosphere system and solar quiet (Sq) magnetic variation
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JA018447/abstract
    Ingrid Cnossen1,2,*, Arthur D. Richmond1
    7 FEB 2013
    The strongest differences occurred between ~40°S–40°N and ~100°W–50°E, which we refer to as the Atlantic region. The height and critical frequency of the F2 layer peak, hmF2 and foF2, changed due to changes in the vertical E × B drift and the vertical components of diffusion and transport by neutral winds along the magnetic field. Changes in electron density resulted in changes in electron temperature of the opposite sign, which in turn produced small corresponding changes in ion temperature. Changes in neutral temperature were not statistically significant. Strong changes in the daily amplitude of the Sq variation occurred at low magnetic latitudes due to the northward movement of the magnetic equator and the westward drift of the magnetic field. The simulated changes in hmF2, foF2, and Sq amplitude translate into typical trends of ±1 km/decade (night) to ±3 km/decade (day), −0.1 to +0.05 MHz/decade, and ±5 to ±10 nT/century, respectively. These are mostly comparable in magnitude to observed trends in the Atlantic region.
    The simulated Atlantic region trends in hmF2 and foF2 are ~2.5 times larger than the estimated effect of enhanced greenhouse gases on hmF2 and foF2. The secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field may therefore be the dominant cause of trends in the Atlantic region ionosphere…..
    Trick or Treat Dr. S.
    How’s that for cherry picking?
    But looking at our little magnetic anomaly (hot spot), its relationship to Earth’s radiation belts (torus or disk), its influx of particles and it looks like a version of planetary accretion..

  59. In reply to:
    Lief said October 31, 2013 at 1:26 pm : “de Jager is a distinguished older solar scientist. His paper brings the following to mind:” blah blah blah
    William: That comment sounds very much like an ad hominem. Is name calling part of becoming a scientist?
    In reply to: lsvalgaard says: October 31, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    William Astley says:
    October 31, 2013 at 3:10 pm
    1) We were living in a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum
    2) The modern age grand solar maximum correlates with the warming of the planet
    3) The solar magnetic cycle activity in the modern age grand solar maximum is the highest in terms of modulation of cosmic ray flux in 10,000 years.
    Lief: In spite of your congratulatory support for this, all three statements are unfortunately not true, as we have discussed many times before.
    William: Lief you make statements without links to peer reviewed papers. You make statements that are not supported by peer reviewed papers. There appears to be a very long list of scientists (say 20 specialists) who’s published results in multiple peer reviewed papers support the assertion that the sun was in a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum during the last 70 years based on an analysis of multiple proxies. The last published paper was in January, 2013. The results of that paper supported the previous papers.
    The warmists tried to make the medieval warm period go way and then. The warmists tried to make the grand solar magnetic maximum go away. The warmists tried to make the current abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle go away. I am not sure how the warmists will make global cooling go away that is caused by the current abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle go away.
    A History of Solar Activity over Millennia was written by Ilya G. Usoskin, published in 2013, and is included in the formal review set of papers entitled the “Living Sun”. In it Usoskin explicitly states we were living in a grand solar maximum cycle and provides multiple peer reviewed papers to support that assertion including the most recent paper “9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings, published 2013” which was written by 15 authors. The results of the 2013 paper supports the 2004 and 1999 published papers.
    http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/1999/170_Lockwoodetal_nature.pdf
    A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years by M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html
    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki , I. G. Usoskin, , B. Kromer, , M. Schussler , & J. Beer
    “According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
    “9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings” by
    Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreu, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Mann, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms, February 14, 2012
    This also is an interesting paper see figure 1.
    Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints by I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanki, and G.A. Kovaltsov http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0385v1.pdf
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
    “According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985. Since then the sun has been getting quieter. By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.”
    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/download/lrsp-2013-1Color.pdf
    A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

  60. Carla says:
    October 31, 2013 at 5:38 pm
    This anticorrelation is due to heating of the exo- and thermosphere during maximum solar activity, which leads to a higher neutral …
    You are confusing effects due to heating by Ultraviolet and the effects of the solar wind.
    William Astley says:
    October 31, 2013 at 5:56 pm
    William: Lief you make statements without links to peer reviewed papers.
    We have been here before and I have linked to many peer reviewed papers, e.g. to this peer reviewed paper debunking the doubling of the open flux: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
    Perhaps you should pay more attention to the peer reviewed literature..

  61. Hi, Dr. Svalgaard,
    Did you enjoy the Victor Borge (in Copenhagen) video I posted the other day?
    Your non-scientist student,
    Janice

  62. Janice Moore says:
    October 31, 2013 at 9:06 pm
    Did you enjoy the Victor Borge (in Copenhagen) video I posted the other day?
    What is not to like ;-). I have seen him perform live several times, even back in Copenhagen where he was known as Børge Rosenbaum [in the same building where my office was].

  63. Can’t be other way round? Teprature influences the magnetic field? I will be very happy if you could click on my name for the cause and solutions to CC.

  64. lsvalgaard says:
    October 31, 2013 at 8:18 pm
    William Astley says:
    October 31, 2013 at 5:56 pm
    William: Lief you make statements without links to peer reviewed papers.
    We have been here before and I have linked to many peer reviewed papers, e.g. to this peer reviewed paper debunking the doubling of the open flux: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
    Perhaps you should pay more attention to the peer reviewed literature..
    William:
    It appears you are attempting to avoid answering the question. I specifically provided peer reviewed papers (1999, 2004, and 2013) written by multiple authors to support the assertion that:
    1) We were living in a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum (Note past tense as the solar magnetic cycle is declining. The decline in solar activity is the greatest decline in 8000 years based on an analysis of multiple proxies.)
    2) The modern age grand solar maximum correlates with the warming of the planet
    3) The solar magnetic cycle activity in the modern age grand solar maximum is the highest in terms of modulation of cosmic ray flux in 10,000 years based on an analysis of multiple proxies.
    In addition to the peer reviewed papers I provide a link to a 2013 BCC interview of the senior scientist Lockwood. Lockwood’s comment in that interview also supports the three above assertions.
    The peer reviewed paper you provided a link to disputes Lockwood’s 1999 paper. Lockwood’s 1999 paper is being vindicated as the solar magnetic cycle declines. It is odd that you do not note that fact. The paper you quote does not appear to dispute the fact that we were living in a grand solar maximum. Do you or do you not have peer reviewed papers to dispute the peer review papers that I quoted to support the three very important assertions made above?
    http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/1999/170_Lockwoodetal_nature.pdf
    A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years by M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html
    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki , I. G. Usoskin, , B. Kromer, , M. Schussler , & J. Beer
    “According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
    “9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings” by
    Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreu, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Mann, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms, February 14, 2012
    This also is an interesting paper see figure 1.
    Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints by I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanki, and G.A. Kovaltsov http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0385v1.pdf
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
    “According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985. Since then the sun has been getting quieter. By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.” http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/download/lrsp-2013-1Color.pdf
    A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

  65. I was suspicious about the curves and wiggles and particularly the endpoints when I realized that the smoothing period of 18 years was larger (by one) than the “hiatus”. That is exactly how declines are hidden.
    A rotating conductive object in a varying magnetic field responds by changing its rotating rate. Is it too bold to say climate change correlates with changes in the length of the day (LOD)? I don’t think so.
    Maybe gravitational influences exceed Tesla’s torque by 2 orders of magnitude. Maybe the torques only affect some fluid portion of the planet.

  66. lsvalgaard says:
    October 31, 2013 at 11:50 am
    The point is that the magnetic flux from the Sun did not increase dramatically from the 19th to the 20th century.
    The point in my opinion is that the solar activity actually did.
    The article states:
    “The upper line shows the solar contribution and the bottom curve is the
    difference between the two. It shows a nearly flat variation which
    demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is
    solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields.”

    -I have problem already with the use of the “*solely *due to the variation of the sun’s
    magnetic fields” – I think nothing in climate is solely due to one factor and I tink the temperature rise definitely is not solely result of the solar magnetic field variation – if it is result of it at all, not speaking “defined” by it…
    And the “nearly flat variation” – looks to me more like a joke than a serious scientific claim.
    I have cardinal problem with the graph too – and I don’t wonder something
    like the “nearly flat variation” one deduces from it, when it is so unreal.
    Besides the question where the authors got the “hockeyshtick” temperatures –
    and especially where they got the temperatures from 17 and 18th century, comparable to solar indices anyway – only comparable direct solar indices we have from 18th century is SSN. Which shows definitely something completely else than the authors depict and more or
    less directly falsifies core claims from their paper straight away.
    How the real direct solar proxy data look one can see again here:
    http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/SSN-300-Trends.PNG.
    I note, that the data are even corrected for too high slope according to your
    suggestions.
    And even so they show not dramatically, but anyway rising trends in the solar activity in the 20th century – and even one certainly doesn’t see there any “Grand maximum” – which is another thing I have problem with in the graph – and here I completely agree with you – the prominent 20th century trend can be without any doubt detected there anyway.
    Even better it can be seen at this graph:
    http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/SSN-300-Fig1.png
    we have already discussed.
    The graph shows clearly very prominent solar activity trends – and I in fact actually created it with sole intention to falsify your claim that it is “observational fact” that there is “no trend in solar activity last 300 years”.
    But paradox is that except the linear regression lines (my Czech Open Office offers as “Linearni regrese” and one unfortunately can’t change it) I didn’t use any OLS trends whatsoever and instead I just plotted the 100, 50 and solar cycle SSN averages. The rising tendency in the past is I believe visible on first glance – and also the currently falling tendency (The average for current SC24 is the average “so far”) and I think the almost SSN 10 difference between 18th and 20th century averages speaks for itself – because the all time 1700-2013 ISN record SSN average is 58.5 (after the correction suggested by you), so the change between 18th and 20th century is in order of 15+% of it – and I also note the difference between SSN average of 1st and 2nd half of the 20th century is almost 35% of it on the arbitrary SSN scale!
    This all I think shows there is rather nothing like “near flat variation”, and there indeed was rise of solar activity in 20th century – although not drammatical – unlike now, where is clearly the drammatical decline – which btw could be not only quantitative but also qualitative – as the spectral data seem to suggest, especially in the visible and SWIR regions. I will rather not elaborate publicly, but when one sees the most recent solar spectrum from SORCE available (2010) and its variation and compares it to the spectrum just half decade before and its variation and compares it all to TSI record from the very same satellite, one has feeling of either something is rotten in NASA data handling or if not then worse – one would in such case like to exclaim: forget global warming, there could be something much worse happening…

  67. Leif,
    I assume that during most recent cycles the solar activity in the southern hemisphere was higher than the activity in the northern hemisphere. If one simply adds up the SSNs per hemisphere, one finds for SC 23:
    – northern hemisphere: ‘3838’
    – southern hemisphere: ‘4308’. So the activity is about 12% higher in the southern hemisphere.
    How can this huge difference between the activity in two hemispheres be explained?
    Concerning SC 24, the most recent data show
    – northern hemisphere: ‘1256’
    – southern hemisphere: ‘946’.
    Can we conclude that from now on – during SC 24-, the activity in the southern hemisphere will be mostly higher than in the northern hemisphere?

  68. William Astley says:
    November 1, 2013 at 1:33 am
    The paper you quote does not appear to dispute the fact that we were living in a grand solar maximum.
    It shows that the purported 130% increase did not happen. Lockwood has since then admitted that the open flux did not more than double, but rather increased from 1900 to mid-century and has now decreased to values similar to those of 1900.
    Do you or do you not have peer reviewed papers to dispute the peer review papers
    We have been here before but you seem not to have paid attention.
    here is a peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf
    “recent solar activity is high, but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr”
    here is a peer freviwed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
    “extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was similar to, or even higher than, that of today…our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations.”
    here is a peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
    “…they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years”
    here is a peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
    Figure 3, red symbols
    here is a peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
    Figure 10, showing that the open flux during rge middle of the 19th century was no different from that in the middle 20th century. Figure 14 [from the peer reviewed Steinhilber 2010] showing that the open flux in the 18th century is not different from that in the 20th.
    rikgheysens says:
    November 1, 2013 at 7:30 am
    So the activity is about 12% higher in the southern hemisphere.
    How can this huge difference between the activity in two hemispheres be explained?

    I don’t think it is all that ‘huge’.
    during SC 24-, the activity in the southern hemisphere will be mostly higher than in the northern hemisphere?
    I think for the rest of the cycle the South will dominate.
    Here is more on those asymmetries: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf

  69. In reply to: lsvalgaard says: November 1, 2013 at 8:25 am
    William: The problem is solved, the paradox is resolve/removed as to what caused past cyclic global warming and cooling. You quoted older papers that were incorrect and have been superseded. The Maunder minimum is return (there is an explanation for why the planet cooled during the Little Ice age, very low period of solar magnetic cycle activity and why the planet warmed during the Medieval warm period, very high period of solar magnetic cycle activity) The recent grand solar maximum is returned. Furthermore the 2012 paper notes the high resolution long term climate record tracks the solar cosmogenic isotope changes (planet warms when the solar magnetic cycle is high and there is low cosmic ray flux and the planet cools when the solar magnetic cycle is low and there is high cosmic ray flux), which as the paper notes: “is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone.” This is fortunate as this provides a physical explanation as to why there is cyclic global climate change in the past. My faith in the scientific process is returned.
    The 2012 paper notes the cosmic ray flux during the Maunder minimum was 1.6 times greater than current, see figure Fig. 3. (C) Same as (B), but zoom-in of the past millennium. Capital letters mark grand solar minima: O: Oort,W:Wolf, S: Spörer,M: Maunder, D: Dalton, G: Gleissberg.
    The older papers you quoted concerning cosmogenic isotope analysis were incorrect. They used the old Antarctic Be10 record which does not capture Be10 changes as the rate of snowfall in that region has not sufficient to capture high temporal changes in Be10. That explains why the Greenland Be10 record which is high temporal resolution did not agree with the old low temporal resolution Antarctic Be10 record. The 2012 paper uses a high resolution Antarctic ice core and uses multiple radionuclide records. As the 2012 paper notes there is strong correlation of past climate changes and solar activity which “is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone.”
    The following are key quotes from the paper.
    “The common signal represents a low-noise record of cosmic radiation, particularly for high frequencies, compared to earlier reconstructions, which are only based on single radionuclide records. On the basis of this record, we then derived a reconstruction of total solar irradiance for the Holocene, which overall agrees well with two existing records but shows less high-frequency noise. A comparison of the derived solar activity with a record of Asian climate derived from δ18O in a Chinese stalagmite reveals a significant correlation. The correlation is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone.”
    “By combining several radionuclide records with PCA as done in this study, an assessment of the systematic uncertainty can be done. The common signal in radionuclide records describes about 70% of the variance, implying that the system effects cause the remaining 30%. These system effects are removed by using only the first principal component. The robustness of PCA was tested by applying a jackknife method, applying PCA to subsets of radionuclide records by leaving out single records. The jackknife uncertainty is on average 5% (SI Appendix, Section S8), which is significantly smaller than the large (greater than 50%) variations due to changes in solar activity between periods of low solar activity like the Maunder minimum (20) and of high solar activity like the past decades.”
    “…So far most reconstructions were based on only one single radionuclide record, which makes detection and correction of these deviations impossible. Here we combine different 10Be ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica with the global 14C tree ring record using principal component analysis. This approach is only possible due to a new high-resolution 10Be record from Dronning Maud Land obtained within the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica in Antarctica.…”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
    “9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings” by
    Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreu, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Mann, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms, February 14, 2012

  70. lsvalgaard says: “My problem with the paper is: After the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20th century There was no such thing.”
    Sorry Lief, but pointing to your Sun Spot counting disagreement paper, (again), is not going to cut it.
    Do you have scientific method of counting and weighting Sun Spots accurately that eliminates human bias, and the results from that method of counting and weighting? Results that can then be compared to current means of counting Sun Spots that you are in disagreement with.

  71. William Astley says:
    November 1, 2013 at 9:58 am
    My faith in the scientific process is returned.
    Confirmation bias always wins.
    That explains why the Greenland Be10 record which is high temporal resolution did not agree with the old low temporal resolution Antarctic Be10 record.
    You didn’t pay attention to this peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
    “…they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years”
    As a result of the ISSI team 233 meetings the cosmic ray proxies are being revised again and the paper you like is already obsolete.
    Darren Potter says:
    November 1, 2013 at 10:36 am
    Do you have scientific method of counting and weighting Sun Spots accurately that eliminates human bias, and the results from that method of counting
    Counting sunspots is very scientific. Human bias can be eliminated by comparing with the geomagnetic record. The comparison shows good agreement. You can see more about that here: http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf and here http://www.leif.org/research/Using-Old-Geomagnetic-Data.pdf

  72. tumetu etc says
    1) The rising tendency in the past is I believe visible on first glance
    2) here could be something much worse happening…
    henry says
    1) I did a similar thing with the ssn data that I got somewhere and also found an upward trend, but the correlation rsquared was 0.0, (less than 0.05)
    that tells you something?
    if you look from 1950 to now the line is pretty straight.
    So I reckon it is improved detection techniques that caused the up-trending in the first place.
    Forget about SSN, rather look at maximum temperatures.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    2) it is globally cooling now but that is not a catastrophe other than the droughts at >[40] latitudes from around 2021-2028 on the great plains of the americas (Canada & USA)
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  73. It’s true that direct observation would be better. It make take a new research satellite to do that.

  74. HenryP says:
    November 1, 2013 at 11:42 am
    “1) I did a similar thing with the ssn data that I got somewhere and also found an upward trend, but the correlation rsquared was 0.0, (less than 0.05)
    that tells you something?”

    Yes, tells (I somehow happen to have couple of university exams from statistics…), but you somehow forgot to tell me what correlation. Correlation of what with what?
    “if you look from 1950 to now the line is pretty straight.”
    Again, line of what? If you mean a linear trend of SSN 1950-2000, it is actually even descending – only petty problem with it is, that if you don’t understand statistics, you can’t know that it has no meaning whatsoever, because it is arbitrary period trend-line from high amplitude, asymmetric (in both dimensions – if it tells you something) quasi-periodic signal on arbitrary scale, with population of only ~5 cycles. If you want to get something meaningful from quasiperiodic signals as SSN for shorter periods you must pretty well know what you are actually doing.
    There are of course ways how to make meaningful linear trends with periodic signal – it is not rocket science: you must chose meaningful periods – and there is also way how to estimate meaningful trends without OLS at all – that’s the way of averaging – as on the second picture I linked (again for you).
    There is also way how to show linear trends from SSN using its OLS trends. If you want idea how to show there was prominent trend in the 20th century SSN, and also in its 2nd half and with profile exactly coinciding with the last warming period, look here – as you can see, animated for easier understanding, the points for constructing the red and blue curves are the OLS trend right tails, trend vectors, I note the beginning of the periods are exactly official SSN beginnings of SC13 and SC20 – or here – the points for constructing the red and blue curves are trend means for the periods (exactly minima to minima and minima to maxima) – which is the central value of the OLS trend describing periodic signal level change for the period.
    The reasons why researchers don’t find the trends in the solar indices are very likely that they don’t understand statistics sufficiently for them to get meaningful results – it is most probably the reason of the epic fail of Lockwood and Frohlich 2007 “1987 claim” that the solar activity declined since 1987 although at period length scales where it has any sense to make trends of solar activity from SSN it in fact rose well into the 2000s – and their claim can be ultimately falsified by sole, moreover flat OLS trendline 1964.8-2006.12 from ISN – so their claim is now obsolete and was obsolete already in time of their infamous paper publication in 2007, because the rising SSN trend actually turned into descending already in March 2006, so they could find out then …if only they would know what they’re doing (…of course if they just don’t want to get the meaningful results, because it would inevitably collapse their confirmation bias.)
    The reasons why researchers don’t find good correlation between say sea surface temperature and solar activity indices are that the relation between temperature and insolation is physically mediated by heat content, constantly dissipating from the sea surface (at rate dependent on 4th power of the sea surface temperature, moreover in considerable part escaping as latent heat, because water has actually ways lower emissivity than useful fachidiots like Trenberth imagine) but created by solar EM radiation absorbtion in considerable depths, way below the points where the sea surface temperature is actually measured, moreover different wavelengths penetrate different depths and some of them variate in phase with solar cycle (UV), some in counter-phase (visible) and some once in phase and once in counterphase – so they can’t find good correlation solar activity-sea surface temperature in the first place, for reasons rarely anybody from them understands, which nevertheles are in fact established and sound physics and statistics of more or less college level. -That somebody isn’t able to find some relation, say because the one is not cappable to find it, doesn’t in any sense mean the relation doesn’t exist.
    2) it is globally cooling now but that is not a catastrophe other than the droughts at >[40] latitudes from around 2021-2028 on the great plains of the americas (Canada & USA)
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

    Here you most probably don’t know a bit about what I was talking about – intentionally cryptically, only intended for Leif to which the reply was originally addressed to – because I’m responsible decent person and I don’t want to cause confusion and alarm with some ominous finds I made from the SORCE SIM spectral data when going beyond the Ermolli et al 2013 methods and conclusions – at least before I check with NASA the data integrity to make sure that what I’ve found is not another artifact of some sort and prepare whole thing for official publication, explaining thoroughly what I think my finds mean (which only what I’m willing to elaborate for now have to do with IR variability, which in some important regions behaves in the current solar cycle considerably differently than Ermolli et al purport and with possible global implications way beyond just droughts at some places in America).

  75. Reading back I just have to respond to dr Svalgaard. I am always happy he responds to the solar threads but the confirmation bias he accuses others of is firing back at himself too sometimes. Just two posts above in response to William Astley he says:

    You didn’t pay attention to this peer reviewed paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
    “…they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years”
    As a result of the ISSI team 233 meetings the cosmic ray proxies are being revised again and the paper you like is already obsolete.

    The paper William Astley citates is however from 2012 and is newer then the Berggren et al 2009 paper Leif directs to. Even worse is that the 2012 paper actually references to the Berggren paper so the authors surely took notice of it. The ISSI team meeting I can’t say anything about but it too is older then the paper from Astley (moreover Leif is leader of team 233).
    In regard to the Grand Maximum that Cornelis de Jager the guest author here mentions and Leif always strongly opposes too I would like to mention that De Jager started his astronomy study in 1939. He will have been looking at the sun for quite a long time and if he chooses to ignore Leif’s adjustments for 1945 I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  76. Gerard says:
    November 1, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    The paper William Astley citates is however from 2012 and is newer then the Berggren et al 2009 paper Leif directs to
    Newer papers are not necessarily ‘better’. Having looked at the Sun for a long time is not always good. You can go blind, both literally and figuratively. Often the younger generation have a more nuanced view. de Jager ignores the advice of the sunspot community [e.g. http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home ] likely because it doesn’t fit with his pre-conceived ideas. This is a common human foible, that we all are afflicted with [at least to some degree].

  77. Gerard says:
    November 1, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    moreover Leif is leader of team 233
    what is that supposed to mean? I’ll interpret it generously to mean that I therefore know what I’m talking about. But check out the team members: http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
    Title: Long-term reconstruction of Solar and Solar Wind Parameters
    Co-Organizers: Leif Svalgaard (USA), Mike Lockwood (UK), Jürg Beer (Switzerland)
    Team members: Andre Balogh (UK), Paul Charbonneau (Canada), Ed Cliver (USA), Nancy Crooker (USA), Marc DeRosa (USA), Ken McCracken (Australia), Matt Owens (UK), Pete Riley (USA), George Siscoe (USA), Sami Solanki (Germany), Friedhelm Steinhilber (Switzerland), Ilya Usoskin (Finland), Yi-Ming Wang (USA)
    The very best in the business.

  78. lsvalgaard says: “Counting sunspots is very scientific. Human bias can be eliminated by comparing with the geomagnetic record.”
    I am taking that as a No in answer to my question.
    In that your answer implies that counting of sunspots is still done by human, thus subject to bias, and requiring bias corrections dependent and unique to human doing the counting. Bias corrections that would be open to debate. Along with results being unverifiable in that each sunspot counting is a one time event.
    Instead of say using a program written to determine size and count of sunspots based on scanned in images that capture a window in time. A program which provides reproducible results, when fed same previously analyzed images. A program by its nature that would eliminate individual bias, and would also encourage an agreed upon grouping of sunspot sizes by those using the program to analyze sunspots.

  79. Darren Potter says:
    November 1, 2013 at 10:09 pm
    In that your answer implies that counting of sunspots is still done by human, thus subject to bias
    I don’t know what you mean by ‘bias’. The counting is subject to random errors. With many hundred of people all over the world, these errors cancel out and the count becomes unbiased. Now there is one weak link in this, namely the use of Locarno as a reference station. If Locarno is wrong, everybody becomes wrong [but the same way]. There are two ways to deal with this: 1) compare Locarno with a large subset of other stations to check for any drifts [which is done], and 2) to compare with other measures of solar activity, e.g. the 10.7 cm microwave flux or the geomagnetic effects. Since these other indicators do not represent exactly the same physics there can still be deviations, but they will be known and can be corrected for. What is wrong in this is to say that because there are humans in the loop, the results will be ‘biased’. It is precisely the opposite, because there is one instrument that is not changing and that is the human eye [averaged over hundreds of people]. So, we can be sure that there is a solid baseline. There are two basic counting methods: unweighted [where every spot is counted just once] and weighted [where a spot is counted according to its size]. The difference between the two methods can be [as is being] determined by running the two methods in parallel. We have 400 years of experience in counting sunspots, so we know what we are doing. And there are rules for how to group spots, etc, but experience has shown that it is better not to have too many rules and simply let people count what they think they see. We deal with the differences between people’s counts by statistics. This works well. Some people think there is ‘political bias’ and that the counting is deliberately in error. This is pure nonsense as the counters come from countries all over the world.
    Instead of say using a program written to determine size and count of sunspots based on scanned in images that capture a window in time.
    There are such programs, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Watson3.pdf
    They confirm that the human counting works fine.

  80. “It shows a nearly flat variation which demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields.”
    I don’t understand the above at all. Can someone explain how they come to this conclusion ?

  81. This paper is saying that anthropogenic activity is causing temperatures to increase at the rate of ~0.3 degrees per century currently. So the random 2 degrees that is probably meaningless and that the politicians enjoy quoting is 600 to 700 years away.
    It would be interesting to see this magnetic stuff combined with other solar stuff, TSI (or integrals of), UV and so forth. At the end of the day, the sun is the only significant source of warmth on this planet. Unless mankind’s terawatt energy use adds up to a significant amount of heat.

  82. New paper suggests the sun’s magnetic fields defines climate over the long term
    What is defining the sun’s magnetic fields?
    The sun’s magnetic fields have a dipolar and quadrapolar features.
    The earth’s magnetic fields have a dipolar and quadrapole features.
    The earth’s magnetic field, in particular the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA or SAA) increases in size, as the overall dipole strength decreases. This occurs when the solar dipolar field decreases over a solar cycle.
    But at the same time both sun and earth’s quadrapole increases?
    Too many open windows on my laptop. Need to find the article which refers to the increase in earth’s quadrapole components. Something about a slow drizzle of electrons over the Antarctic peninsula in close proximity to the SAMA/radiation belt anomaly.
    And they call it a hotspot..go figure.

  83. J Martin says
    At the end of the day, the sun is the only significant source of warmth on this planet
    henry says
    true
    without the sun there is nothing, really
    it is the sun’s output, & distribution of radiation that causes cooling and warming periods,
    and it is part of creation.
    Otherwise there could be runaway warming or runaway cooling…

  84. When to drizzle and when not to drizzle..
    but there is a “steady drizzle” of electrons that is varying with the solar magnetic cycle.
    “Longitudinal hot-spots in the mesospheric OH variations due to
    energetic electron precipitation”
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/13/19895/2013/acpd-13-19895-2013.pdf
    M. E. Andersson 1, P. T. Verronen 1, C. J. Rodger 2, M. A. Clilverd 3, and S. Wang 4
    © Author(s) 2013.
    Abstract
    ..Analysis of selected OH data sets
    for periods of different geomagnetic activity levels shows that the longitudinal OH hotspot
    south of the SAMA (the Antarctic Peninsula region) is partly caused by strong,
    regional electron forcing, although atmospheric conditions also seem to play a role.
    This OH hot-spot is even seen weakly during periods of lower geomagnetic activity,
    which suggest that there is a steady drizzle of electrons affecting the atmosphere, due
    to the Earth’s magnetic field being weaker in this region.
    1 Introduction
    An important source of variability of mesospheric OH comes from energetic particle
    precipitation events that originate from explosions on the surface of the Sun (Thorne,
    1977; Heaps, 1978; Verronen et al., 2006, 2007, 2011; Damiani et al., 2008, 2010b;
    Jackman et al., 2011). In contrast to solar protons, which propagate directly from the
    Sun into Earth’s atmosphere, energetic electrons are first stored and energized in the
    radiation belts. During geomagnetic storms, strong acceleration and loss process occur
    ( Reeves et al., 2003), which can both boost the trapped population and lead to significant
    loss of electrons into the atmosphere. Energetic electron precipitation (EEP) from
    the radiation belts affects the neutral atmosphere at magnetic latitudes of about 55–
    72deg.  and results in the enhancement of HOx through water cluster ion chemistry. This
    process is only effective below about 80 km, where enough water vapor is available
    (Solomon et al., 1981; Verronen and Lehmann, 2013). The atmospheric penetration
    depth depends on the energy of the particle, e.g. electrons with 100 keV and 3 MeV
    energy can reach 80 km and 50 km, respectively (see e.g. Turunen et al., 2009, Fig. 3).
    now where’s that quadrapolar thingy?

  85. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 9:26 am
    When to drizzle and when not to drizzle..
    but there is a “steady drizzle” of electrons that is varying with the solar magnetic cycle.

    They call it a ‘drizzle’ because the effect is minute and tiny.

  86. The Earth and the Sun’s magnetic field change is synchrony ?
    That’s interesting. Maybe Leif has a graph and an explanation for that ?

  87. J Martin says:
    November 2, 2013 at 9:55 am
    The Earth and the Sun’s magnetic fields change in synchrony ?
    No, the short answer is that they don’t.
    Now, there are small transient variations [up to a day] in the solar wind magnetic field coming from the Sun that have a small effect on the field we measure on the Earth [superposed on the main field of the Earth].

  88. lsvalgaard:
    thanks for posting…there is much to learn in your missives. thanks for being so generous with your knowledge.

  89. J Martin says:
    November 2, 2013 at 9:55 am
    __The Earth and the Sun’s magnetic field change is synchrony ?_
    That’s kinda what I’m looking for..but their scales are different..sun changes and everything follows..in a similar way..all planetary bodies having dipole and quadrapolar magnetic fields..and also similarily “hot-spots.”
    “Time evolution of the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly”
    Gelvam A. Hartmann; Igor G. Pacca
    http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0001-37652009000200010&script=sci_arttext
    June 2009
    ..The analysis of non-dipole fields in historical period suggests that SAMA is governed by (i) quadrupolar field for drift, and (ii) quadrupolar and octupolar fields for intensity and area of influence. Furthermore, our study reinforces the possibility that SAMA may be related to reverse fluxes in the outer core under the South Atlantic region. ..
    ..The analysis of the non-dipole geomagnetic field for the historical period shows that SAMA is an anomaly that is governed by quadrupolar and octupolar terms The SAMA center drift (westward and southward) seems to be characterized by quadrupolar field. Intensity variation and area of influence is governed by quadrupolar and octupolar terms..
    Which region (SAMA) we know couples with the radiation belts, which we know are highly sensitive to solar wind pressures and parameters. Wonder how the new Van Allen Belt Radiation Probes are doing..
    Might there also be some gravitational focusing of some of these fluxes..here on Earth?

  90. Hmmm… like all orbiting bodies have their primodial “belly buttons,” (hot spots) still receiving, neutralents ha ha

  91. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 10:43 am
    all planetary bodies having dipole and quadrupolar magnetic fields..and also similarily “hot-spots.”
    You are making too much of this. The quadrupoles, octupoles, etc are mathematical things, not physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipole_expansion The expression of a field as a combination of multipoles is a way of describing an irregular, ‘noisy’ quantity varying over the surface of a sphere. As all fields are irregular there will be such multipoles everywhere. An important property of the multipolar expansion is that the higher orders [quadrupoles and up] diminish in strength with distance, such that from far only the dipole effectively remains and all these higher orders are gone. Conversely, as we go deep into the Earth to where the field is generated we find a very irregular field e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Magn-Field-Core-Boundary.png
    All this simply expresses the fact that the fields are ‘messy’.

  92. tumetu etc says
    because it is arbitrary period trend-line from high amplitude, asymmetric (in both dimensions – if it tells you something) quasi-periodic signal on arbitrary scale, with population of only ~5 cycles. If you want to get something meaningful from quasiperiodic signals as SSN for shorter periods you must pretty well know what you are actually doing.
    henry says
    the graph on the drop of maximum temperatures (which nobody but me is looking at)
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    predicts that over the period 1927-2016 the SSN line must be straight
    here is the latest on that:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/trend
    it seems to me the line is pretty straight. Perhaps by 2016 it will be straight.
    Do you see that my theory (i.e. my results) works?

  93. And what about the “electron halo,” in the outer solar corona. Which in my mind (outer corona) looks like the biggest baddest radiation belt in the solar system.
    What changes are created in the outer corona when the electron density is increased that might affect the amount heat produced in the corona?

  94. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 11:36 am
    What changes are created in the outer corona when the electron density is increased that might affect the amount heat produced in the corona?
    The corona is electrically neutral. For every electron there is a proton [ignoring the tiny amounts of other elements]. Causality flows the other way: it is the heating of the corona that determines the overall density [of both electrons and protons]. The heating is mostly accomplished by very hot electrons [‘halo’ electrons], where ‘halo’ does not refer to something surrounding the sun, but to electrons at the outer limits of the distribution of electron velocities, e.g. http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2006-1/fig_23.html

  95. lsvalgaard says:
    November 2, 2013 at 11:01 am

    … An important property of the multipolar expansion is that the higher orders [quadrupoles and up] diminish in strength with distance, such that from far only the dipole effectively remains and all these higher orders are gone. ..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipole_expansion
    The quadrupoles need not propagate far out, as the Earth’s radiation belt or Sun’s corona (haloes) are in close proximity to the rotating sphere. In the case of the Van Allen radiation belts as low as 100km above the “hot spot.” (SAMA) And we know the radiation belts fluctuate with solar cycle.
    Hot spots where more radiation belt precipitation occurs are also found in higher latitudes in both N. and S. hemispheres. other anomalies etc. not so messy as Earth’s field is being defined and changes incurred seem to be related to rotational (dipolar) and solar influences affecting quadrupoles and higher.
    So..how does changes in the sun’s dipolar field and quadrupole field affect Earth’s rotational differential? Could it be through the coupling of the radiation belts with the quadrupole (higher), via solar activity?

  96. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 12:40 pm
    The quadrupoles need not propagate far out, as the Earth’s radiation belt or Sun’s corona (haloes) are in close proximity to the rotating sphere.
    Only the dipoles are important here.
    In the case of the Van Allen radiation belts as low as 100km above the “hot spot.”
    Not due to the solar wind but the solar UV radiation heating the thermosphere.
    So..how does changes in the sun’s dipolar field and quadrupole field affect Earth’s rotational differential? Could it be through the coupling of the radiation belts with the quadrupole (higher), via solar activity?
    They don’t. You seem to fixated on the idea that the extremely flimsy things in the corona, heliosphere, and interstellar space even something influence stuff. They don’t. The Sun is the big Kahuna and runs the show.

  97. lsvalgaard says:
    November 2, 2013 at 11:58 am
    …The heating is mostly accomplished by very hot electrons [‘halo’ electrons], where ‘halo’ does not refer to something surrounding the sun, but to electrons at the outer limits of the distribution of electron velocities, e.g. …
    ___
    ee Yes, Dr. S., sometimes it does mean a Halo surrounding the sun. Having an eerily similarity to Earth’s radiation belt.
    On the existence of a cosmic ray electron halo
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MitAG..43..285S
    Schlickeiser, R.; Thielheim, K. O.
    Astronomische Gesellschaft, Wissenschaftliche Tagung, Basel, Switzerland, Sept. 19-23, 1977. Astronomische Gesellschaft, Mitteilungen, no. 43, 1978, p. 285-288.
    It is shown that a one-dimensional stationary diffusion-energy loss propagation model can provide a reasonable explanation for the existence of a cosmic ray electron halo, that is, a rather broad disk-shaped confinement region of cosmic ray electron. A defined injection term, a power-law energy dependence of the diffusion coefficient, and an E-squared energy loss term are used in the calculation. With a proper choice of parameter values the model provides a good fit to the observed electron energy spectrum in the vicinity of the sun.
    ELECTRON HALO AND STRAHL FORMATION IN THE SOLAR WIND BY RESONANT
    INTERACTION WITH WHISTLER WAVES
    http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/2005_aj_540.pdf
    C. Vocks,1 C. Salem, and R. P. Lin
    Space Sciences Laboratory, 7 Gauss Way, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
    and
    G. Mann
    Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany; cvocks@aip.de
    Received 2004 October 11; accepted 2005 March 3
    ABSTRACT
    Observations of solar wind electron distribution functions (VDFs) reveal considerable deviations from a simple
    Maxwellian VDF. A thermal core and a suprathermal halo and antisunward, magnetic field–aligned beam, or ‘‘strahl,’’
    can be distinguished. At higher energies above 2 keV, a superhalo can even be observed.Akinetic description of electrons
    in the solar corona and wind, including resonant interaction between electrons and whistler waves, can reproduce
    an enhancement of suprathermal electron fluxes compared to the core flux. The whistler waves are assumed to
    be generated below the solar coronal base and propagate through the corona into interplanetary space. However, the
    resonance condition with these whistlers can only be fulfilled by electrons that move sunward.

  98. Leif, regarding your forecast, is it true that your timing was off?
    The method I use has a more accurate timing for working out solar maximum and solar minimum, so all that is needed for an extremely accurate forecast of solar cycles is the relationship between the length of a cycle (its timing) and the sunspot number (intensity). If you already know this how was your timing off?

  99. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 12:57 pm
    ee Yes, Dr. S., sometimes it does mean a Halo surrounding the sun. Having an eerily similarity to Earth’s radiation belt.
    But in the cases you cite, it does not mean a halo surrounding the sun. You seem particular dense today. Halloween hangover?

  100. Sparks says:
    November 2, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    Leif, regarding your forecast, is it true that your timing was off?
    The method I use has a more accurate timing for working out solar maximum and solar minimum, so all that is needed for an extremely accurate forecast of solar cycles is the relationship between the length of a cycle (its timing) and the sunspot number (intensity). If you already know this how was your timing off?

    I didn’t really predict the time of the maximum. This was back in 2004 and it was not known how long cycle 23 was going to be. The relationship between length and size is not absolute, for example the very high cycle 4 was one of the longest cycles ever.
    We used a ‘nominal’ [average] cycle length in our 2004 paper http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf to get maximum on 2011. And BTW the highest sunspot number in any month of SC24 was in November of 2011.

  101. Should we add “counter-streaming solar wind suprathermal electrons,” to the “electron halo,” which is very much apart of the solar corona. Gee. Dr, S., these guys can paddle upstream.
    ee suprathermal sounds hot to me.
    Statistics of counter-streaming solar wind suprathermal electrons at solar minimum:
    STEREO observations
    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/45/54/66/PDF/halo_depletion_lavraud.pdf
    B. Lavraud,1,2 A. Opitz,1,2 J. T. Gosling,3 A. P. Rouillard,4 K. Meziane,5 J.-A.
    Sauvaud,1,2 A. Fedorov,1,2 I. Dandouras,1,2 V. Génot,1,2 C. Jacquey,1,2 P.
    Louarn,1,2 C. Mazelle,1,2 E. Penou,1,2 D. E. Larson,6 J. G. Luhmann,6 P.
    Schroeder,6 L. Jian,7 C. T. Russell,7 C. Foullon,8 R. M. Skoug,9 J. T.
    Steinberg,9 K. D. Simunac,10 and A. B. Galvin10
    10 Feb 2010
    Abstract. Previous work has shown that solar wind suprathermal electrons can display a
    number of features in terms of their anisotropy. Of importance is the occurrence of counterstreaming
    electron patterns, i.e., with “beams” both parallel and anti-parallel to the local
    magnetic field, which is believed to shed light on the heliospheric magnetic field topology. In
    the present study, we use STEREO data to obtain the statistical properties of counterstreaming
    suprathermal electrons (CSEs) in the vicinity of corotating interaction regions
    (CIRs) during the period March – December 2007. Because this period corresponds to a
    minimum of solar activity, the results are unrelated to the sampling of large-scale coronal
    mass ejections, which can lead to CSE owing to their closed magnetic field topology. The
    present study statistically confirms that CSEs are primarily the result of suprathermal electron
    leakage from the compressed CIR into the upstream regions with the combined occurrence of
    halo depletion at 90° pitch angle…

  102. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 1:27 pm
    Should we add “counter-streaming solar wind suprathermal electrons,” to the “electron halo,” which is very much apart of the solar corona. Gee. Dr, S., these guys can paddle upstream.
    ee suprathermal sounds hot to me.

    No, because there is no electron halo around the sun. Energetic particles can always travel upstream, For example ordinary cosmic rays. The particles you are confabulating about are a very small number of energetic particles that do not couple anything.

  103. Leif, even though the timing was a bit off I still think it is impressive to predict SC24 to be weakest for 100 years Using the precursor method, you should look into methods that deal with timing and use them with your precursor method.
    The relationship between length and size is not absolute
    This appears to be true for maximum peak to peak, though weaker cycles generally have longer solar minimums can this relationship between solar minimums and sunspot number be used?

  104. Don’t take this so personal Dr. S. The GCR in the form of an “Suprathermal Electron Halo,” surround the Sun as a disk and what of it that it is of INTERSTELLAR ORIGIN. And those same suprathermal electrons with their corotating interaction regions are some how affecting solar rotation and thereby the solar cycle, then yes.. I am particularly full of it today…my brain is more densely populated with electron densitys and interactions within rotating magnetospheres. You really might take a lookee see..
    And from the intro of the same article:
    Statistics of counter-streaming solar wind suprathermal electrons at solar minimum:
    STEREO observations
    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/45/54/66/PDF/halo_depletion_lavraud.pdf
    1.1. Counter-streaming suprathermal electron patterns
    Owing to their mean-free path of order 1 AU, solar wind suprathermal electrons are essentially collision-less.
    They travel freely along the magnetic field while thermal electrons and ions are essentially bound to one another in the solar wind rest frame. Up to about 2 keV, solar wind electrons can be decomposed into three main populations (e.g., Feldman et al., 1975; Pilipp et al., 1987a): (1) the “core” population, extending from zero to several tens of eV and whose density, temperature and anisotropy are variable; (2) the “halo” population, a tenuous and generally isotropic suprathermal population (typically above 70 eV); and (3) the “strahl”, an intense beam of suprathermal electrons aligned to the magnetic field and directed outward from the Sun;
    it carries a substantial heat flux away
    from the solar corona.
    Solar wind electron spectra near 1 AU are characterized by a clear spectral breakpoint
    around 70 eV that separates the halo and strahl from the thermal electrons.
    There often occur substantial departures from the general characteristics of solar wind electrons given above.
    This is specifically true for the suprathermal populations (halo and strahl) whose properties shed light on the heliospheric magnetic topology
    (e.g., Gosling et al., 1987; Gosling, 1990; Kahler and Lin, 1994).
    In particular,
    counter-streaming, i.e., sunward-directed
    suprathermal electron beam-like features are frequently observed in the solar wind.
    (1) Strahl broadening at heliospheric distances beyond 1 AU (Hammond et al., 1996) may occur due to waveparticle
    interactions and pitch angle (PA) scattering (e.g., Gary et al., 1994; Vocks et al., 2005; Saito and Gary,
    2007; de Koning et al., 2007; Owens et al., 2008; and references therein).
    This process is also deemed to contribute to the formation of the sunward-directed portion of the roughly isotropic halo population (Gosling et al., 2001a; Maksimovic et al., 2005; Štverák et al., 2009),
    which cannot be reproduced by simple exospheric solar wind
    models (Lie-Svendsen et al., 1997; Pierrard et al., 1999; Maksimovic et al., 2005)…

  105. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 2:02 pm
    Don’t take this so personal Dr. S. The GCR in the form of an “Suprathermal Electron Halo,” surround the Sun as a disk
    There is no disk surrounding the Sun. The GCR electron halo is related to the disk of the Galaxy, not to the Sun and has to do with how some electrons can escape the disk [because there are hotter]. You are thoroughly confused, as people often are when they are pursing an idee fixe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_(psychology)

  106. lsvalgaard says:
    November 2, 2013 at 1:37 pm
    Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 1:27 pm
    Should we add “counter-streaming solar wind suprathermal electrons,” to the “electron halo,” which is very much apart of the solar corona. Gee. Dr, S., these guys can paddle upstream.
    ee suprathermal sounds hot to me.
    No, because there is no electron halo around the sun. Energetic particles can always travel upstream, For example ordinary cosmic rays.

    In the abstract from: ELECTRON HALO AND STRAHL FORMATION IN THE SOLAR WIND BY RESONANT INTERACTION WITH WHISTLER WAVES
    http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/2005_aj_540.pdf
    C. Vocks,1 C. Salem, and R. P. Lin
    “At higher energies above 2 keV, a superhalo can even be observed.”

  107. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm
    “At higher energies above 2 keV, a superhalo can even be observed.”
    They are talking about the distribution of velocities, not about a distribution in space:
    “Observations of solar wind electron distribution functions (VDFs) reveal considerable deviations from a simple Maxwellian VDF. A thermal core and a suprathermal halo and antisunward, magnetic field–aligned beam, or ‘‘strahl,’’ can be distinguished. At higher energies above 2 keV, a superhalo can even be observed.”

  108. Make it simple they sometimes say,
    If you were outward halfway between A Centuri and the sun and were to look back with your special telescope you would see an ever increasing intensity of light as you near the disk, which may be called halo.
    Said halo would include interactions stated in above articles and include an Electron population contained therein.
    What’s the deal, the solar corona cannot be loosely defined by graduating halo densitys.

  109. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm
    Make it simple they sometimes say
    You have dumbed it down to the point where it makes no sense to me. Perhaps I’m not dumb enough…

  110. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm
    which may be called halo
    The ‘halo’ your various links are talking about is not a halo is space on in the sky and one you can see. It is a halo in the distribution of velocities. I’ll try to explain: When you have a lot of interacting particles they will have a spread in velocities. They collide with each other or deflect each other so even if they have an average speed [which determines the temperature] some particles will move a bit faster than average, so a bit slower. In thermal equilibrium the spread will look approximately like a bell-shaped curve. In the corona we actually observe more particles move faster and also some that move slower than expected from the bell-curve. These particles are called the ‘halo’ particles, telling us that the lot is not in thermal equilibrium. That is what is meant by ‘halo’. The observed spread is found to be skinnier than the bell-curve. That is called the ‘strahl’, meaning ‘ray’ in German. So instead of a nice bell-curve we observe a strahl and a halo when we plot the observed speeds. But that is in the distribution, not in their spatial distribution which is what we ordinary would call a halo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(religious_iconography)
    The two ‘halos’ have nothing to do with each other.

  111. The following figure puts in to perspective, the velocity distribution, in heliocentric distance 0.3 to 2 AU,
    the core, halo and strahl of electron density. I would think that the solar gravitational focusing effect on interstellar stuff, might also be a part of the population out that far..
    Suprathermal Particle Populations in the Solar Wind and
    Corona, Exploring the Solar Wind
    http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/32539.pdf
    M. Lazar, R. Schlickeiser and S. Poedts (2012).
    pg. 10
    Fig. 5. Radial variations of the relative number density for the core (full line), halo (dashed
    line), and strahl (dotted line) populations, respectively,..During the solar wind transport an important fraction of the strahl electrons may be diffused and transferred to the halo population
    (after Maksimovic et al.(2005)).

  112. Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    The following figure puts in to perspective
    You are completely missing the boat here. What is important is what fraction of the solar wind the halo particles make up. Go search for that. You’ll find that the fraction is very small and that therefore the halo, strahl, and core thingies are completely negligible. Now, they are good tracers of some solar wind properties, but that is a different matter. So, homework for this weekend is the find out what that fraction is. The non-thermal particles compared to the thermal [bulk] particles.

  113. Leif: Any word from the South American Parana River??(sp?) The one alleged to track sun spot numbers closely. I would be interested to know if it’s numbers match the Sun’s dormancy?

  114. HenryP says:
    November 2, 2013 at 11:14 am
    “the graph on the drop of maximum temperatures (which nobody but me is looking at)
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    predicts that over the period 1927-2016 the SSN line must be straight”

    This starts to be amusing.
    If it will be straight then what? What it would mean? (My bet is that the line will absolutely definitely not be straight in 2016 – but even if it did, it wouldn’t seem to me having any meaning whatsoever.)
    “here is the latest on that:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/trend
    it seems to me the line is pretty straight. Perhaps by 2016 it will be straight.
    Do you see that my theory (i.e. my results) works?”

    The SIDC SSN data at WFT are incorrect due to so called Waldmeier discontinuity (Dr. Svalgaard many times emphasized this here!). With the corrected SSN data your trendline will look like this.
    – It pretty doesn’t seem that it would like to level in 2016, and I actually calculated for you, that you would need like SSN 150+ from now on until the end of 2016 for the line to make it to your longed-for flatline. (Future SSN simulation – how SSN would need to look -for you to get the 1927-2017.0 flat trend you can find here).
    So what theory? I don’t see any theory, even less a working theory. I see only a completely arbitrary period trendline through a quasiperiodic signal, moreover made using incorrect SSN record, made by somebody likely completely confused, visibly not understanding basics of basics of statistics.

  115. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CGMQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Ffull%2F10.1080%2F15715124.2013.826234&ei=yaR1UvWnEKrg2wWn2YHQAw&usg=AFQjCNF6jAGwNP4h_n5eP4KPv2yX3psACA
    It’s paywalled but it’s Sept. 2013 and it’s Mr. Guerro. Anyone out there have a subscription to the…..International Journal of River Basin Management????
    It’s title is: Parana River Morphodynamics in the age of Climate Change

  116. Tumi says
    So what theory? I don’t see any theory, even less a working theory.
    henry@Tumi
    A careful study of maximum temperatures of the recent temperature records reveals that Earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
    Not only my results show this, here:
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    but those of others as well, e.g.
    1) http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
    2) Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
    Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
    Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
    Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes.
    end quote
    so, Tumi, to put you in the picture:
    The De Vries/Suess and Gleissberg cycles with periods close to 1470/7 (~210) and 1470/17 (~86.5) years have been proposed to explain our observations.
    personally I am sticking to 88 years, for the current cycle (the cycle we are in).
    hence my proposal that over this 88 year cycle which in itself consists of 4 full solar cycles of each 22 years, the line of SSN versus time must become flat, more or less.
    Indeed according to my own data set of yearly mean SSN the line is flat or nearly flat from 1927 -2010 with an average of 67. The slope of -0.04 could also be due to where we are now in the De Vries cycle? (I have no idea where we are now within the De Vries cycle)
    you also have not reacted to your other misunderstanding on what happens TOA.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/solar-spectral-irradiance-uv-and-declining-solar-activity/#comment-1463298
    Don’t tell others here of not understanding the “basics” as it sounds the same as calling me a fool. Always remember this is being like at college / university and we are students and teachers to each other. In such a class we treat each other always with respect and dignity, no matter how much we disagree.
    btw
    I received my qualification in Datametrics (Statistics) from the University in South Africa cum laude.

  117. HenryP says:
    November 3, 2013 at 1:54 am
    A careful study of maximum temperatures of the recent temperature records reveals that Earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
    I was looking into the solar cycle asymmetricity issue. The quasi metacycles one quite well can see in SSN integral. Something from results you can see e.g. here Mind the trends. But I still lack sound theory, what mechanism could cause something like that and the period doesn’t look like fixed, so I’m not much prone to take such things at face value.
    so, Tumi, to put you in the picture:
    The De Vries/Suess and Gleissberg cycles with periods close to 1470/7 (~210) and 1470/17 (~86.5) years have been proposed to explain our observations.
    personally I am sticking to 88 years, for the current cycle (the cycle we are in).

    I’m not much into the cyclomania, I don’t belive the things are so simple.
    hence my proposal that over this 88 year cycle which in itself consists of 4 full solar cycles of each 22 years, the line of SSN versus time must become flat, more or less.
    Indeed according to my own data set of yearly mean SSN the line is flat or nearly flat from 1927 -2010 with an average of 67. The slope of -0.04 could also be due to where we are now in the De Vries cycle? (I have no idea where we are now within the De Vries cycle)

    I don’t know what yearly SSN data you have, but the data at WFT are 20% too high after 1947 and doesn’t agree with other solar indices. I definitely don’t believe 1927 -2016 SSN trend will be flat. It is simply utterly impossible given the current low solar activity and given all the indices, indicating the SC24 peak in the beginning of 2012. Even if I would unconditionally believe the quasi-cycle given by rectangular SSN integral, the trend can’t level in 2016, because solar cycles are asymmetric, so it can’t happen in SC24 and most probably not even SC25.
    you also have not reacted to your other misunderstanding on what happens TOA.
    I actually did.
    Don’t tell others here of not understanding the “basics” as it sounds the same as calling me a fool. Always remember this is being like at college / university and we are students and teachers to each other. In such a class we treat each other always with respect and dignity, no matter how much we disagree.
    btw
    I received my qualification in Datametrics (Statistics) from the University in South Africa cum laude.

    Then it is even worse when you’re unable to use what you’ve learned. It is nonsense to make arbitrary period trends through asymmetric periodic signal. It will not work. The SSN scale is too wide and the SSN signal too asymmetric to get meaningful results without extremely careful choosing trend periods.
    And btw I don’t much understand what respect to others you find in repeating nonsenses into oblivion, even others tell you, what is wrong with it. If you want dignity, you should first understand what is it – if you don’t want to look or be called fool then first don’t make it from yourself.
    I’m definitely not your teacher, nor student. That was you who answered my reply to Leif, mentoring me whether I know what’s correlation, never answering my question what correlation you mean, of what with what, in the first place, claiming that line from 1950 is flat, when it has anyway no meaning whatsoever, moreover directing me that I should forget about SSN and look into your temperatures – where I was anyway looking already, because you already linked me to it and haven’t found there anything much interesting. It doesn’t look to me too polite nor dignified, when it is clear, that my original post here was about SSN, its trends (which are there and quite well coinciding with the last warming period, although there are multiple reasons given by basic of basics physics, why the solar activity can’t correlate well with surface temperatures, especially not with sea surface temperature at short timescales) and generally solar activity – which is the topic of this thread – not speaking that first you must have solar activity, then the resulting surplus radiation absorbed, converted to heat content, then the heat content must get somehow on the surface, because loads of it is generated several meters below it, concentrated enough to produce a temperature change and only then maybe you get some your temperatures. So please don’t try to teach me how to behave, before you learn it yourself.

  118. Tumi says
    It is nonsense to make arbitrary period trends
    Henry says
    you keep saying this, when I went out of my way to show you in at least three different ways that the choice of a 87 or 88 year (Gleissberg) cycle was not arbitrary
    It is the only way to explain my own results?
    btw my own ssn data came from here:
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/table_international-sunspot-numbers_yearly.txt
    The truth is: you have no “own” results
    so you rely on observations made by others which could be subjective….
    yet, you keep on claiming that I am the one who is talking “nonsense in oblivion”
    How dare you insulting me when you have no results?
    Tumi says
    I’m not much into the cyclomania, I don’t belive the things are so simple.(sic)
    henry says
    you can believe and defend whatever opinion you have here as long as you treat or learn to treat others who think or believe differently with respect.

  119. HenryP says:
    November 3, 2013 at 9:36 am
    you keep saying this, when I went out of my way to show you in at least three different ways that the choice of a 87 or 88 year (Gleissberg) cycle was not arbitrary
    It is the only way to explain my own results?

    Yeah, indeed it is not arbitrary – 88 years is 8 solar average cycles which is 2^3, so any harmonic analysis must get the number, which doesn’t mean it is a metacycle.
    btw my own ssn data came from here:
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/table_international-sunspot-numbers_yearly.txt

    Yeah, incorrect ISN yearly, published by NOAA, so what? Why you have Leif here, the very man who corrected it and finally it makes sense, when you don’t listen?
    The truth is: you have no “own” results
    so you rely on observations made by others which could be subjective…

    Again the same relativistic nonsense, how many times it was already discussed here…hundreds of times?
    yet, you keep on claiming that I am the one who is talking “nonsense in oblivion”
    How dare you insulting me when you have no results?

    …what results you have? -the non-leveling nonsensical SSN trendlines at WFT? Stating the obvious that 8 solar cycles last 88 years or that southern hemisphere is warmer than the northern?
    you can believe and defend whatever opinion you have here as long as you treat or learn to treat others who think or believe differently with respect.
    I don’t like flames, but it was you who quite impolitely commented on my reply intended to somebody else and pushed again your spam full of mistakes, we have seen so many times here already. It is really not my fault it doesn’t make much sense and I’m never far to tell the obvious, it is not my fault you don’t listen to objections and instead become defensive – thats usually sign of argument weakness. But you can stay calm, next time I’ll definitely respect your opinions and so to speak leave them to others to be replied, you can be absolutely sure about it.

  120. lsvalgaard says:
    November 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm
    Carla says:
    November 2, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    The following figure puts in to perspective
    You are completely missing the boat here…
    —–
    What boat?
    What part of the helioglow, extended corona, halo or whatever you want to call it is due to the suns own gravitational focusing of interstellar neutrals?
    Inflow direction of interstellar neutrals deduced from pickup ion measurements at 1 AU
    Christian Drews1,*, Lars Berger1, Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber1,
    Peter Bochsler2, Antoinette B. Galvin2, Berndt Klecker3,
    Eberhard Möbius2,4
    22 SEP 2012
    [1] Observations of interstellar pickup ions inside the heliosphere provide an indirect method to access information on the surrounding interstellar medium. The so-called pickup ion focusing cone and pickup ion crescent, which show an imprint of the related longitudinal distribution of interstellar neutrals in form of two overabundances on the down- and upwind side of the sun, are both believed to be aligned along the inflow vector of the interstellar medium. By finding their longitudinal positions, we can give an accurate value for the inflow direction λISM of interstellar matter. For that we performed an epoch analysis of interstellar pickup ions measured by the PLAsma and SupraThermal Ion Composition instrument (PLASTIC) on the Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory mission (STEREO) and were able to reveal in situ the longitudinal distribution of interstellar He+, O+, and Ne+ pickup ions in the ecliptic plane at 1 AU. The previously accepted values for the inflow direction of interstellar matter in ecliptic longitude, as obtained with Ulysses/GAS (λ = 75.4° ± 0.5°), Prognoz 6 (λ = 74.5° ± 1°), and ACE/SWICS (λ = 74.43° ± 0.33°), are currently debated, especially in view of recent results from the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) mission that show an inflow direction of interstellar neutral helium of λ = 79° + 3.0°(−3.5°). Four years of data collected with PLASTIC aboard STEREO A provided statistics sufficient not only to obtain values for the inflow direction of interstellar helium (λCone = 77.4° ± 1.9° and λCrescent = 80.4° ± 5.4°, deduced from an analysis of the He+ focusing cone and crescent, respectively) but also to derive values for the inflow direction of interstellar neon (λCone = 77.4° ± 5.0° and λCrescent = 79.7° ± 2.6°) and oxygen (λCrescent = 78.9° ± 3.1°). Although our values for He+, O+, and Ne+ are consistent with results from ACE, Ulysses, and Prognoz 6, considering the statistical and systematic uncertainties (except λNe,Crescent), they are systematically larger than the previously accepted values of 74.99 ± 0.55° and show a better agreement with the values from IBEX.

  121. Carla says:
    November 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    What boat?
    What part of the helioglow, extended corona, halo or whatever you want to call it is due to the suns own gravitational focusing of interstellar neutrals?

    That the solar wind is MUCH denser and massive than the interstellar medium which then has no influence on what the Sun is doing. Take a place in the high corona, say at 10 solar radii distance from the Sun. The density there has a certain value. So, the heliopause is 2000 times further away, which means that the density out there is 2000 squared = 4 million times smaller than in the high corona. That extremely thin solar wind is holding off the interstellar medium, so it doesn’t matter what that medium is doing or what the sun is doing to that. There are no effects on the Sun from the interstellar medium.

  122. I have been talking with some friends and associates about a mechanism that would appear to explain (at least in some reasonably meaningful detail, where today this is lacking) how the Sun can modulate Earth’s temperatures. One of these colleagues pointed me to de Jager’s recent paper via this URL (I drop by wattsupwiththat.com very occasionally otherwise):
    The appears to be a form of highly resonantly-harmonized plasma flows from coronal holes and generally from poleward locations of the Sun (perhaps corresponding to the solar polar magnetic field components, in contrast to the solar equatorial magnetic fields components, both studied by de Jager in connection with correlations to Earth temperatures). Let’s call this highly resonantly-harmonized plasma flow “Heavy Coupled Plasma” (or HCP, for short).
    During solar minimum, 1) the strong poloidal field of the Sun pushes these HCP flows more into the heliospheric current sheet (HCS), 2) the HCP flows may themselves are perhaps more active, and, 3) the HCS is flatter, so any HCP flows coupled through the HCS will more frequently encounter the Earth system. Once encountering the Earth system, the HCPs heighten the drag on Earth’s magnetotail (for several reasons, that are covered in a lengthy draft manuscript), which is the primary energetic interchange mechanism between the interplanetary plasma medium and the Earth’s own plasma system. These HCPs couple energy through various processes (including so called “reconnections” in Earth’s magnetotail/plasmatail), which resonates with the waveguide like magnetosphere/magnetotail system (which would be better called plasma Earth system, since it is both magnetic and mass effects that are important, especially when it comes to HCP). There are numerous (conjectured) effects of HCP (for which there is signature evidence): heightened cardiac arrest, heightened heart rate variability, increased extreme weather events, increased geomagnetically induced currents in the electric power grid, increased anomalies on geosynchronous satellites (others, but especially geosynchronous) … and … drum roll … very likely on ionization rates and cloud nucleation rates.
    It is this part of our discussions that I suspect this group will be most interested in — that HCPs appear correlated to ionization rate and cloud nucleation rates.
    But there is more. As waves and particles penetrate the interface between the interplanetary plasma medium and the plasma Earth system, they eventually equilibrate in many ways — e.g., at higher altitudes there are many charged particles circulating around the Earth in the ring current (which gets stronger during geomagnetic storm events, or plasma storm events, so we know the ring current is very much connected to solar activity). But as we look closer to Earth level the charge differences moderate through various processes into the substantial neutral atmosphere (neutral at least in comparison to the ionosphere).
    But how do these charged particles flow in the ionosphere? Or even in the upper atmosphere (there isn’t a hard boundary of course)? In the ring current, the positive ions (and protons) circulate around the Earth clockwise, while the negative electrons circulate in THE OPPOSITE direction around the Earth counterclockwise. If you’ve never pictured this, please do so for a moment.
    A key feature of this combination of positive ions circling the Earth clockwise and negative electrons circling the Earth counterclockwise is an effect called “plasma laning” – which in layperson’s term is no more and no less than what happens on a crowded sidewalk where people going East will follow others going East, and people going West will follow others going West. It is a minimum energy state that is naturally sought in both systems.
    So then imagine what happens when these HCPs (Heavy Coupled Plasma flows, in case you forgot) encounter plasma laning features? You guessed it. It throws them into turmoil, causing ionization (conjecturally, but with evidence to support), and then also cloud nucleation.
    (I think all readers here are likely aware of the following but will mention just to insure.) There have been numerous studies (de Jager’s is but one) that show correlation between solar cycles and Earth temperature. The thing missing has always been an explanation with sufficient leverage, i.e., solar irradiance fluctuations are simply way too small. Svenmark’s clouds have a better change, but still it does not seem wholly convincing that cosmic rays are up to the job. But if you take the cosmic rays and plasma laning disruptions together (and maybe the cosmic rays are concomitant effects with the HCPs) then I believe one may have a conjecture for solar modulation of Earth temperatures that might offer sufficient leverage of the cloud coverage to explain the many observed correlations.
    de Jager’s paper is supporting of this conjecture because he finds a linkage between the polar magnetic field strengths and Earth temperatures, but struggles to explain it in detail:
    “For the contribution related to the polar ensemble of activities a quantitative physical explanation has not yet been forwarded, but in view of the negative sign of the constants b and d in Equations (1) and (2) we infer that the most probable candidate for polar sun-induced warming is the solar wind emanating from coronal holes.”
    It seems that de Jager had a hard time imagining what effect from the polar ensemble of activities could influence temperature. Given the depiction of HCPs above, which is not yet present in specific in the space physics literature, this is not surprising. In fact, there appears to be a broad general presumption that it is during the height of the solar sunspot cycle that the Sun is the most energetic Earthward, but discussions with colleagues here (together with a fair amount of secondary research of many results showing effects anticorrelated to sunspot cycle) brings this presumption into question.
    There may be a reason that the Heavy Coupled Plasma/HCP flows may have received little notice: they may represent dark matter or dark energy. The fundamental point is that there is extensive evidence supporting a conjecture of HCP flows (the draft manuscript is currently in review, please get in touch if you know or are someone with expertise in multiple of the relevant disciplines required to validate the conjecture, space physics, particle physics, astrophysics, Heliophysics, perhaps even heliobiology because some of the signatures are there, space weather and satellites, space weather and electric power grids: Burkhart@alumni.caltech.edu).
    There are other phenomena that appear, quite possibly, to be explainable by Heavy Coupled Plasma (neutrino flavors and oscillations, Redshift, isotope decay rate accelerations/oscillations, and even the Earth and Moon orbits). But the most impactful appears possibly to be lengthy electric power grid failure, which seems to me quite likely to represent the chief natural disaster humanity faces, if we do not better protect electric power grids and satellites from solar influences (harsh space weather) — the 1859 Carrington Event type event, perhaps.
    Hey, sorry for the long post; but hopefully it will be beneficial to readers — and maybe help sound science move forward a smidge.

Comments are closed.