WUWT’s resident solar expert Dr. Leif Svalgaard (and others) says ‘None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle’ and the panel he was on talk about the current state of our solar cycle at the AGU Fall Meeting.
Here is Dr. Svalgaard’s current SSN plot:
Watch the video, Leif is on the left hand side.
At this year’s Fall Meeting of American Geophysical Union, held in San Francisco that I attended, prominent solar scientists made a presentation on weak Solar Cycle 24 and its consequences. They included:
- Nat Gopalswamy, astrophysicist, Solar Physics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
- Leif Svalgaard, senior research scientist, W. W. Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, California
- Marty Mlynczak, senior research scientist, Climate Science Branch, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
- Joe Giacalone, professor and associate director, Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
They agreed that the current solar cycle is on track to be the weakest in 100 years and that is an unprecedented opportunity for studying the Sun during this period. While the weak solar cycle trend is not new for the Sun, it is new and interesting for scientists who observe and measure it today with modern instruments and methods.
In this panel, scientists examined the current solar cycle in relation to past cycles and discuss the consequences of the weak solar cycle on the various layers regions between the Sun and Earth, including implications for space weather, atmosphere and climate.
Here is part of the press release package:
Solar signatures and Heliospheric Consequences of the Weak Activity Cycle 24
Nat Gopalswamy, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771,
The Sun in the middle of its activity maximum that is relatively weak. The maximum phase ended in the northern hemisphere of the Sun and began about a year ago in the south.
The weak activity of cycle 24 is thought to be due to the weak polar magnetic field in cycle 23. If this trend continues for the next couple of cycles, the Sun may be heading for a global minimum.
Whether global minimum or not, the weak solar cycle has resulted in milder space weather: there are not many large geomagnetic storms and the energetic particle events are also generally of lower intensity. The milder space weather also reduces the drag on satellites and it is easy to keep them in orbit. On the other hand the space debris also have longer life, posing increased collision threat to operating satellites.
The weak solar activity in terms of the sunspot number did not quite translate into the CME rate itself. The CME occurrence rate in cycles 24 and 23 are comparable in the maximum phase. Then how do we understand the mild space weather in cycle 24?
A clue to the reason for milder space weather came from the fact that all CMEs that produced particle events are halo CMEs in cycle 24, compared to about 70% in cycle 23. Halo CMEs originate from close to the disk center and expand rapidly and give the appearance of surrounding the Sun. There must be something different about the size of the CMEs in SC 24.
Gopalswamy and co-‐workers examined the relation between CME width and speed and found that the cycle 24 CMEs are wider than the cycle 23 ones for a given speed. For energetic CMEs (speed exceeding 1000 km/s), the width is higher by about 40%.
When they examined the total pressure (magnetic pressure + plasma pressure) in the heliosphere from measurements made by spacecraft such as ACE and Wind, they found that the pressure decreased by an astonishing 40% in cycle 24. From this they inferred that the pressure must drop by a similar amount near the Sun. CMEs released into this low-‐pressure medium, expand more than usual, resulting in weaker fields, and hence weaker geomagnetic storms. The magnetic field strength in CMEs decides the intensity of geomagnetic storms.
As far the particle radiation, the situation is a bit more complicated. The reduced total pressure means a slight increase in the Alfven speed in the heliosphere. The Alfven speed is the characteristic speed of the medium. A CME needs to be faster than the Alfven speed to drive a shock that accelerates particles.
Therefore, it is slightly easier for the cycle 24 CMEs to drive shocks. However, the shocks are propagating through a medium of reduced magnetic field, which is known to be less conducive for accelerating particles to high energies. This means the number of particle events is not very low, but the events are generally of lower intensity and energy.
Here are other parts of the press release. Source: AGU
Sigh…
Hit a key and suddenly a long comment is gone into the ether…
@GallopingCamel:
A lot of things conspired against me… including that I’m now the Senior Guy at work after 2 folks have moved on… so I’m suddenly not just picking up crumbs but leading the effort…. BTW, I intend to be at Grandma’s Kitchen about 2pm this Sunday if all works out….
I am trying to get my blog activity back up. We’ll see.
@Those asking about Heinrich Events:
I think it’s not on the cards. Maybe a Bond Event, though that depends on if the Little Ice Age was a Bond Event or a 1/2 Bond Event. I had more in the comment that bit the dust, but these links cover it too:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full (which I think has it more right than I do in my speculations…. the graphs there imply about 300 years before it gets icky. Fine with me…)
Lief, when does something like that become causation? Or rather, the better question might be: what in your field of solar physics would cause you and other solar physicists to say ‘this causes that’. I appreciate how you pointed out that two 100-year cycles do not constitute a defining cycle of the sun, and given the life of the sun and our planet, that’s judicious.
But how do you know definitively? And it’s corollary, how do you know something ain’t so?
Sorry for misspelling your first name, Leif.
First off, I visit this site at least once a day, 365 days a year. I comment maybe twice a year. I must chime in….. I find Leif Svalgaard, whether you love him or hate him, to be one of a small population of honest scientists out there. Actually, probably all of the scientists in his field rank among the most honest. I have yet to see an astrophysicist or someone in the solar physics field pulling an Al Gore or a Michael Mann. These guys seem to work tirelessly in their efforts to develop a better understanding of their field and Dr. Svalgaard is always brutally honest. I find myself searching the comments to see what he has to say and I, for one, appreciate the fact that he is a part of the WUWT community.
Policycritic says:
December 13, 2013 at 9:38 pm
Lief, when does something like that become causation?
When we figure out what the physics is that is behind the correlation. Today we know that the Sun is the cause of geomagnetic storms because we know the mechanism; we know how it works. A century ago there was still doubt about this [Lord Kelvin…], but in the meantime we have found the mechanism and can account for the energy involved and there is no longer any doubt.
@RACookPE1978:
As Leif said: It’s a “correlation is not causality” thing.
There are a LOT of things that happen to correlate. So many that you can not attribute probable causality. IMHO, it is lunar tidal more than solar (that PNAS paper above) but that’s just a personal choice, not a proof.
The planets stir the solar system (most of the angular momentum is in the planets) and it all moves in correlated patterns due to Orbital Resonance. That causes a (likely too small to matter) change in TSI and a larger (and might be enough to matter) change in UV vs IR (so the solar energy ends up in different places – UV in the ocean deeps, IR in surface evaporation). At the same time lunar tidal movements change where the water is on the planet. At the same time atmospheric tides move the air around. At the same time crustal tides change the degree of volcanic activity. At the same time GCR change as the solar changes happen.
It’s all a big correlated mess that can not be disambiguated by time of happening. So pick your favorite Hobby Horse and put your hat on it. I choose Lunar Tidal, but it’s just a guess….
What is very clear from the period of Bond Events and even Heinrich Events is that it is NOT CO2. Nature has a metronome, not a consistent rise…
FWIW, the best I can figure is that we’re cold until about 2040, then warm again, then in about 300 years head into the meat locker for the next Glacial. No, not worried about it. Somebody else will have that problem. But warming is not a problem.
Is it just me or is there a curious near correlation to temperature.
Highs in the 40s and 50s dropping in the 70s (the global freezing scare) then climbing again in the 80s and now dropping again (as the temps all over the northern hemisphere seem to be following at the moment 😉
Yeah, it’s probably just me.
I wonder how past solar minima were named? Dalton, Sporer, Maunder etc. Any way we can nominate Dr. Svalgaard and have this one named the “Svalgaard Minimum”? He would be very deserving! Thank you, Leif, for your contributions to solar science. Merry Christmas, CRS
The SIDC sunspot cycle was one example I used to illustrate how bad running mean “smoothers” are and how they distort the data.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers
It’s interesting to note that the smoothed SSN show the cycle max aligns with the lowest monthly SSN count in last 2.5 years.
CRS, DrPH says:
December 13, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Maybe Leif has gone to bed – if not, he should do so.
Anyway, he has multiple times (starting several years ago) suggested the honor go to John Allen “Jack” Eddy. Should be easy to find out why. And now I’m going to bed.
[snip . . that was internally inconsistent, perhaps you could review and repost . . mod]
Solar scientists have no doubt that the Ap index is a direct and well established measure of solar output, after all the ‘terra-genic’ components from the geomagnetic measurements are eliminated.
Website http://www.solen.info/solar/indices.html gives daily range of the Ap index, I have tracked the daily maximum values for just under 3 years (starting 1/1/2011).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-Max.htm
Visual inspection shows that:
– there is no direct correlation with the observed sunspot number (SSN)
– emergence of something which looks like annual ‘oscillation’.
The first point is well known; there are extensive papers considering various aspects of the Ap index.
The second point is new to me, and since the sun ‘couldn’t care less’ about geo-year, possibility that the Ap measurements has some ‘terragenic’ contamination needs to be considered.
Notes on the spectral response
– main lobe is cantered at 364 days, but it should be noted that the resolution (for 1065 daily data values) is + – 5 days.
– Two additional lobes at 178 and 222 days have no immediately apparent obvious link to either solar or geo time base. However, the mid period is 200 days (here the spectral resolution is + – 2 days), giving possibility of a further elaboration, but that would be beyond scope of this post.
All of the above may be just a coincidence, or alternatively an aspect of the Ap index apparent only during weak solar cycles, or even as Dr. S often says ‘noting new there, all seen before’.
I am searching for someone whos memory is better than mine… A few years back there was a piece titled: “… Hope To Hell It’s Not True” or some such. It was about a group of students beginning back about 1995 tracking a spectral line in sun spots. This spectral line was diminishing and appeared to drift toward zero about the year 2015… I would like to review that post. Also I would like to ask a couple of questions:
1. Has that inquiry continued. 2. Is the trend still headed for zero in 2015.
Anthony, as this was your quote, do you still “Hope to hell it is not true!”
“Ken L. says:
December 13, 2013 at 6:36 pm
Just looking at the graphs, if there are mechanisms not currently and precisely known for the sun’s variation to effect climate( new comprehensive multi-disciplinary research underway as I recall reading last January), could there be a lag in effect? If so, could the warming
prior to the current pause( 80s and 90s) possibly have been related to the peak activity in the 50s and early 60s? And in addition, might we expect possibly cooling ahead from the current downward trend in solar activity? I would appreciate if anyone here might address that question from this curious layman?”
What then caused the GW in the 30s?
William Astley
‘It appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event, a once in 8,000 to 10,000 year event, a special solar magnetic cycle that causes abrupt cooling/abrupt climate events, abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field, an astonishing increase in earthquakes.’
As Maxwell Smart would say, the old catastrophic global cooling trick.
Leif still hasn’t made the connection between first snow in Egypt fir 112 yrs, 5 german winters in 6 being severe, UK december 2010 coldest for 100 yrs, UK wettest summer in memory, most severe russian winter in 100 yrs, etc.
@phodges
Well, the snow our children will not see any more must go somewhere. It’s all a matter of insolendynamics.
Umm, do I have to place the tag here?
If Leif wants a mechanism for a solar effect on the atmosphere before accepting solar causation of atmospheric changes would he accept at least the possibility of solar induced changes in the balance of ozone creation / destruction differentially at different heights and different latitudes ?
The solar effect on that balance does seem to differ above and below 45km and between equator and poles.
Such differential effects would affect tropopause heights and redistribute the surface pressure pattern in the form of high and low pressure cells and the jet streams flowing between them.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 14, 2013 at 2:00 am
If Leif wants a mechanism for a solar effect on the atmosphere before accepting solar causation of atmospheric changes would he accept at least the possibility of solar induced changes in the balance of ozone creation / destruction differentially at different heights and different latitudes ?
If placed on a numerical footing, perhaps. That is: calculating the effect of the various effects and putting numbers to them that can be compared with observations. Anything else is vacuous handwaving.
In reply to: Mike Wryley says: December 13, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Mr. Astley,
Interesting assertions, where would someone find out some details on the “Heinrich” event ?
I find it hard to believe that there isn’t a single paleoclimatic expert on a soapbox somewhere making the case for this.
William:
The paleoclimatologists do not discuss the Heinrich events as they have no idea what causes the cyclic Heinrich events. The abrupt climate change events are global and hence require a mechanism that can abruptly warm and abruptly cool both hemispheres. The mechanism is direct and indirect solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover.
The last Heinrich event (H0) is called the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event which occurred 12,900 years ago. The Heinrich event both initiates and terminates the interglacial period (the effect of the solar magnetic cycle restart on the earth is dependent on the orientation of the earth’s orbit at the time when the solar magnetic cycle restarts, the key orbital parameters are: the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the tilt of the earth’s orbit, and the seasonal timing of perihelion (whether the earth’s Northern or Southern hemisphere is closest to the sun during the hemisphere summer). The current orbital position with perihelion occurring in January is optimum to terminate an interglacial period.
http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/geog41066/7-Overpeck.pdf ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM Jonathan T. Overpeck and Julia E. Cole
….Abrupt shifts between warm and cold states punctuate the interval between 20 to 75 ka) in the Greenland isotope record, with shifts of 5–15C occurring in decades or less (Figure 1). These alternations were identified in some of the earliest ice core isotopic studies [e.g., (22)] and were replicated and more precisely dated by subsequent work (23). Further analysis of diverse records has distinguished two types of millennial events (13). Dansgaard/Oeschger (D/O) events are alternations between warm (interstadial) and cold (stadial) states that recur approximately every 1500 years, although this rhythm is variable. Heinrich events are intervals of extreme cold contemporaneous with intervals of ice-rafted detritus in the northern North Atlantic (24–26); these recur irregularly on the order of ca. 10,000 years apart and are typically followed by the warmest D/O interstadials. Both Heinrich and D/O events exhibit clear global impacts. summer monsoon, saltier northwestern tropical Pacific, drier northern South America, colder/wetter western North America, cooler eastern subtropical Pacific, and warmer South Atlantic and Antarctic.
Event Age, Kyr
H0 ~12
H1 16.8
H2 24
H3 ~31
H4 38
H5 45
H6 ~60
H1,2 are dated by radiocarbon; H3-6 by correlation to GISP2.
Heinrich events are global climate fluctuations which coincide with the destruction of northern hemisphere ice shelves, and the consequent release of a prodigious volume of sea ice and icebergs. The events are rapid: they last around 750 years, and their abrupt onset may occur in mere years (Maslin et al.. 2001). Heinrich events are observed during the last glacial period; the low resolution of the sedimentary record before this point makes it impossible to deduce whether they occurred during other glacial periods in the Earth’s history.
Heinrich events occur during some, but not all, of the periodic cold spells preceding the rapid warming events known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, which repeat around every 1,500 years. However, difficulties in establishing exact dates cast aspersions on the accuracy—or indeed the veracity—of this statement. Some (Broecker 1994, Bond & Lotti 1995) identify the Younger Dryas event as a Heinrich event, which would make it H0.
Australia recently had it’s warmest October on record and it looks likely 2013 will be its warmest year.
William Astley says:
December 14, 2013 at 3:47 am
The mechanism is direct and indirect solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover
There is no evidence of that causing Heinrich events.
The coolest periods on the planet have been:
–> 1890-1918 (Jan 1893 was the coldest month in the modern temperature record);
–> 1808-1816 (and the year without summer);
–> 1660-1699 (coldest part of the Little Ice Age).
How much of a coincidence is it that these are also the periods of lowest solar activity.
My biggest take away from this was the section by Marty Mlynczak, 1Trillion Kw more energy available to the Thermosphere CO2 to radiate away in 2002 than in 2012 (and it’s going to get even less), while the CO2 which COOLS the atmosphere is also increasing.
A Double whammy of cooling.
Per Joseph D’Aleo the first two of the century are twins. Some scientists are going overboard predicting a little ice age. The numbers don’t support that.
It will be a cooler century. Rush and Gore can make it to the grave in their Ocean front homes.