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
It has been my observation since 1974 (year I was first interested in climate predictions) that there are a host of factors that effect our climate on this planet. CO2 is one of the least of the factors if it is even one of them at all. The sun, on the other hand, is the ball of fire that warms the planet. Any change in the output of the sun will effect us to some degree — the question is “how much?” — and therefore the sun bears watching at all times.
Now the alarmist climate “scientists” seem to claim that you could turn the sun off and CO2 would still warm the planet; but I am not so sure that I would like to see that experiment occur. I do think that a prolonged period of low solar activity will always lead to colder temperatures on this planet. Those who don’t think so make me wonder what they have been smoking.
If we see a major solar minimum and we also see colder temperatures globally; will some “scientists” finally see that the sun is one of the major factors if not the major factor? I do hope so. (of course, we need to record honest temperatures and not the bogus lies that pass for “data” these days)
In reply to: lsvalgaard says: December 13, 2013 at 8:13 pm
William Astley says:
December 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm
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
There is no evidence for that.
William:
Contrary to our comment, there is unequivocal observational and analytical evidence (past and current): 1) that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted and 2) that the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle will after we experience the Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling, cause a Heinrich event.
For example the Livingston and Penn observation that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. The observational change in sunspot size (reduction in size and increase in the number of small sunspots in a sunspot group) as the magnetic flux tubes that rise up from the solar tachocline to form sunspots on the surface of the sun are starting to be torn apart by the turbulent forces in the solar convection zone. The next stage in the progress of the solar physical event will be no sunspots and an abrupt reduction in the solar large scale magnetic field.
The Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events are cyclical (which requires cyclical very, very, strong forcing mechanism that can simultaneously cause significant warming and cooling at high latitude regions which is exactly what has occurred in the last 70 years, next step to warming is cooling due the abrupt change in the solar magnetic cycle) and there are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every event which indicates that solar magnetic cycle changes are causing happened in the past. Working back and forth (determining/developing a mechanism that can cause global climate changes, modulation of planetary clouds, abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field, and so on)and then in turn determine how the sun must have changed in the past to cause what occurred on the earth.
Observational evidence to support the above comments and the mechanisms would be observed cooling of high latitude regions of the planet and a spotless sun. Cooling of the high latitude regions has started and will continue and increase in magnitude if the mechanism is correct. There are almost no sunspots in the solar northern hemisphere. The solar southern hemisphere is roughly 14 months retarded in time from the solar northern hemisphere (which explains the double peak in sunspot number) and is repeating what was observed in the solar northern hemisphere in the past 14 months. Based on what has happened to the solar northern hemisphere and the sun will be spotless by quarter 4, 2014.
William Astley says:
December 14, 2013 at 4:26 am
Contrary to our comment, there is unequivocal observational and analytical evidence (past and current): 1) that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted
No evidence for that. And what is ‘interrupted’?
The other odd thing to come out of question and answer section was Marty Mlynczak’s answer to Seth Borenstein’s question about the affect on Earth’s temperature.
Although they admitted there appeared to be a correlation between the Maunder Minimum and low temperatures, they couldn’t think of any mechanism for a similar drop in temperatures happening now.
It shows that Solar Scientists also have little idea how the Climate system works.
John Finn says: December 14, 2013 at 3:55 am
Australia recently had it’s warmest October on record and it looks likely 2013 will be its warmest year.
Only by the massaging of the Temperature Record for the Climate Commission, try reading a bit of Australian History, especially when Europeans first migrated there.
Periods of heat when Animals and people were dying from heat stroke, even Birds falling out of the Sky, Dead from the Heat Stroke.
How much of that was there last year?
Try looking at the Satellite records for Australia.
Weighing in on the correlation/causation question, I suspect it depends on how much correlation there is. If the correlation is so strong, that we can foretell the future with almost complete fidelity, then there is good reason to suppose a cause exists, even though we may not understand the cause. As is the case for gravity.
Whether this is currently the case for things to do with climate, I don’t know, but it seems to me that there is a strong case for suggesting that if correlation exists, then the thing to do is to try and use that correlation to foretell the future. If this can be done, then there is good reason to suppose that a cause exists.
Of course, the opposite is true. If you have a hypothetical cause with the correlation, and this cause is incapable of foretelling the future, then there is good reason to suppose the cause is incorrect.
Grand minimum appears imminent in
our life time!
Dave says:
December 13, 2013 at 7:18 pm
“I still don’t know the answer to this question: Did the Maunder minimum cause cooler temperatures on earth? What evidence for or against? According to the panel, there is no correlation apparently.”
My thoughts exactly with Seth Borenstien getting exactly the answer he wanted. . Yet the link between los sunspot numbers and the LIA seemed to be skipped over. Maybe we’ve all go too carried away and there is no correlation between these events , indeed in some quarters the LIA was just a localised event,
Thanks, Dr S. Predictable are the usual “theorists” that seem to think they understand the sun more than the top solar researchers on the planet.
I guess one reason for that is the unfortunate, shoddy work by many climate researchers, tho.
NZWilly at 8:54…
Were you thinking of this?…. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/07/science/sci-solar7
[snip – you’ve been warned before -mod]
***
William Astley says:
December 14, 2013 at 4:26 am
The Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events are cyclical (which requires cyclical very, very, strong forcing mechanism that can simultaneously cause significant warming and cooling at high latitude regions which is exactly what has occurred in the last 70 years, next step to warming is cooling due the abrupt change in the solar magnetic cycle) and there are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every event which indicates that solar magnetic cycle changes are causing happened in the past.
***
Unnecessary to invoke solar “explanations” for D/O events. Ice-sheet dynamics (particularly at the restriction between Greenland & Iceland which can clog the Fram Straight) are sufficient:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf
“John Finn says:
December 14, 2013 at 3:55 am
Australia recently had it’s warmest October on record and it looks likely 2013 will be its warmest year.”
Rubbish! Check out the BoM.
Dont real scientists calculate energy in # of Hiroshima atomic bombs.
How can this study be taken seriously?
Question:
“Now that the billion dollar effort at climate modeling is a palpable failure, what now?”
Answer:
“We don’t know.”
Question for Leif: The press release toward the bottom says this:
“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.”
Do you know of any mechanism, including hypothetical, by which less total pressure might translate into a change in temperatures on Earth?
Tedi says:
“It may just be my eyes, but each cycle seems more chaotic at its peak – if that is so, why ?It may just be my eyes, but each cycle seems more chaotic at its peak – if that is so, why ?”
*Very* interesting observation. Someone needs to run this data and find out if your eyes are correct.
Jim Cripwell says:
December 14, 2013 at 5:19 am
If the correlation is so strong, that we can foretell the future with almost complete fidelity, then there is good reason to suppose a cause exists, even though we may not understand the cause. As is the case for gravity.
=============
Agree 100%. Get the forecast right before worrying about the cause, because in an infinite universe you cannot separate the chicken from the egg, or the CO2 from the temperature.
Where climate science (and modern science in general) went off the rails was to assume that knowing cause and effect would allow you to make successful prediction. this is the flaw in the ointment. you can know the cause with 100% certainty and still not be able to calculate the effect.
Take an event A that causes for B and C. Often you cannot predict B or C from A, due to computational complexity. This is very common in time series analysis, where round off errors quickly overwhelm the accuracy of the result.
However, since B and C have a common cause, there may be a simple computational relationship between B and C that can be exploited to predict one from the other, even though there is no cause and effect relationship.
So for example, one can use the shadow of the rock at Stonehenge to predict the seasons, without the rocks at Stonehenge being the cause of the seasons. One can use the position of the planets in the heavens to predict the tides, without the position of the planets being the cause of the tides.
John says:
December 14, 2013 at 7:50 am
Do you know of any mechanism, including hypothetical, by which less total pressure might translate into a change in temperatures on Earth?
No, because that pressure is exceedingly minute. In the corona, the pressure is less than that under the foot of spider crawling across your palm and at the Earth that pressure has decreased ten thousand times.
There are various less powerful events that mathematically have the potential to wriggle a temperature reading (solar, anthropogenic CO2, etc). However, the real drivers of visible (in other words not mathematically small change but large scale visible change we can see happen on a temperature sensor) temperature change will have reasonable energy chops to cause that degree of visible wriggle. Searching in the orifice of a gnat’s ass and calling what you find there a visible, measurable temperature trend driver is silly. Yet many here do it. Remember, watts per square meter is the measure that levels the temperature trend driving playing field and allows real drivers temperature trends up or down to rise to the surface of reasonable speculation. I for one just can’t find a variable solar mechanism with that kind of watts per square meter muscle to drive a temperature trend measured at our planet’s surface.
Gopalswamy : 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.
NASA: Solar coronal mass ejections CMEs in the even-numbered solar cycles tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such CMEs open a breach and
load the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm .
This is exactly what is expected: Magnetic reconnection (magnetic cloud – magnetosphere) results in an almost instantaneous release of the energy contained in the CME’s magnetic field, subsequently causing a drop in the magnetic pressure.
Do we have any direct evidence of this effect or terragenic response , which may or may not influence climate?
I think we do, there is as much as one millisecond (1 ms) change in the LOD (length of the day change) variability between peaks of even and odd numbered cycles:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
There is a growing list of scientists which are positing that climate change is somehow linked to the rate of geo-rotation
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html
I do not expect Dr. Svalgaard to agree with any of the above.
Rather OT, but it is about stars, and interesting:
http://www.universetoday.com/107141/when-is-a-star-not-a-star/
Does this mean there is no time lag between “a weak sun” and lower global temperatures? Or is the assumption that during the weak sun, snow in Cairo (not seen in 112 years) is the same as CO2 causes warming and “1998 was the hottest year on record” (i.e. unrelated)?
Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU) says:
December 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm
Press Release says:
“The weak activity of cycle 24 is thought to be due to the weak polar magnetic field in cycle 23.”
=========
Warm temperatures today more often than not follow warm temperatures yesterday. Did yesterday’s warm temperatures cause today’s? Or were the warm temperatures today and yesterday both caused by the same (hidden) event, with the lag between yesterday and today giving the (false) impression of cause and effect?
Victor Borge explains the solar magnetosphere.