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
William Astley says:
December 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm
You could be right but there’s no funding money, prizes or headlines for that sort of talk at the moment. On the other hand, if you are correct there will be some high rollers ducking for cover down the track. No one knows for sure as there is little point in comparing the ever changing historical temperatures anomalies presented by GISS to the historical SC chart.
William Astley says:
“If it is a fact that the planet resists forcing changes, then there is a massive periodic forcing change which causes abrupt climate change…”
The Vostok cores do not show the same rapid changes as Greenland, it needs a regional explanation, like the Fram Strait blocking with sea ice. Also Greenland seems to be maintaining a higher temperature relative to Vostok than it did 120Kyr ago:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Epica-vostok-grip-140kyr.png
cba says:
December 14, 2013 at 9:28 am
What went into the selection of of cycle 14 as the example of what cycle 24 appears to be like?
Cycle 14 was simply the latest such low cycle, and we have good data for it.
***
William Astley says:
December 14, 2013 at 11:16 am
The silly suggestion – it is not even a hypothesis as there is no mechanism to explain how ‘ice-sheet dynamics’ can simultaneously affect both hemispheres was disproved 20 years ago.
***
A silly suggestion is that 1 w/m2 (less than 0.1%) variance during solar cycles is a mechanism to explain anything — especially when it cycles back & forth. And as Ulric Lyons already pointed out, Antarctic ice-cores show much less variance than Greenland cores.
re: Fred Berple’s statement re a child’s swinging motion. The energy necessary to begin a swinging motion (and to sustain it as well as make it go higher) is easily calculated and quite predictable from the known physical properties of the swingset and the position of the child (as well as the properties of the child) at rest and as the child shifts the center of gravity. The two main realms of importance in the calculations would be pendulum mechanics and center of gravity shift. In other words, the energy needed to produce a pendulum motion of a child on a swingset can be calculated. The child, via displacing the center of gravity, is entirely capable of producing the kind of energy (from potential to kinetic), sustaining it, and building it. An important point is that a pendulum has resonant frequencies that can also be calculated based on the physical properties of the pendulum (Fred, you should know this), requiring relatively smaller amounts of energy to bring about a swinging motion at those frequencies. Lifting a child vertically involves entirely different physics-based calculations. Your comparison post makes no sense to your point, which I assume to be that of amplification of tiny variables into a powerful climate trend driver.
Cycle 14 has more and larger peaks and valleys than cycle 24. Therefore, IMHO, cycle 24 seems to be more similar to cycle 12. See http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/Comp_24_12_14.pdf.
The maximum smoothed sunspot number of cycle 24 is until now 66.9, the max SSN of cycle 14 was 64.2, and max SSN of cycle 12 was 74.6. These values do not be part of my argument.
As was told by Leif during the press conference, solar activity seems to show a cycle of about 100 years. This is very intriguing. The most important is that scientists will learn a lot from this weak cycle! Each solar cycle is different.
”
‘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.”
Isn’t it the job of scientists to actively attempt to disprove own hypotheses?
thisisnotgoodtogo says:
December 15, 2013 at 11:03 am
” Anything else is vacuous handwaving.”
Isn’t it the job of scientists to actively attempt to disprove own hypotheses?
Stephen Wilde is no scientist and his hand waving is hardly falsifiable…
Carla says:
December 14, 2013 at 9:27 am
Could we take that out distance to like lets say Pluto. Or.. Voyager 1, like shrinking out of the heliosphere….distant effects will be greater though…
A hundred times further out the pressure is 10,000 times smaller yet. BTW, I was a co-discoverer of the ‘Wilcox-effect’ and am of the opinion today that the effect was spurious, i.e not real.
“Stephen Wilde is no scientist and his hand waving is hardly falsifiable…”
That depends on how one defines a scientist.
As regards falsifiability I have challenged Leif and others many times by listing specific observations that would falsify my hypothesis.
So far none of them have happened and in the meantime there have been unexpected data findings that support my hypothesis.
“I was a co-discoverer of the ‘Wilcox-effect’ and am of the opinion today that the effect was spurious, i.e not real.”
I’m impressed that your work disproved it
Stephen, please post all the observations that do not support your hypothesis. It is your responsibility, not Leif’s.
Solar variability can be clearly seen in the 10Be record, obviously the Beryllium-10 is mostly produce by cosmic ray spallation, and is distributed by weather patterns and the relationship between the surface temperatures of ice as the concentration of Beryllium-10 gets deposited.
So why is it, during all these random chaotic stages after the Beryllium-10 is produced does the Beryllium-10 record still hold with solar activity?
Why does climatic variability not effect the Beryllium-10 concentration in ice, it appears to me that melting and forming ice is following a similar pattern as solar activity.
The solar cycle averaged and inverted graph also looks to me like a temperature anomaly.
Here are my graphs of NGRIP Beryllium-10 concentration and SSN data.
SSN v Beryllium-10 concentration
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ssn-v-10be.gif
SSN v 10be concentration averaged over solar cycle length
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ssn-v-10be-solarcycle-avg.gif
SSN v 10be concentration averaged over solar cycle length inverted
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ssn-v-10be-solarcycle-avg2.gif
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 15, 2013 at 11:53 am
BTW, I was a co-discoverer of the ‘Wilcox-effect’ and am of the opinion today that the effect was spurious, i.e not real.
———
Newer studies, newer observations .. might want to take a browse..
For instance the article I posted above says,
“However, our analysis of the surface pressure anomaly field
provides new evidence supporting a direct relationship
with the ionospheric electric potential.”
or this one
The influence of solar wind on extratropical cyclones – Part 1:
Wilcox effect revisited
P. Prikryl1, V. Ruˇsin2, and M. Rybansk´y3
http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/1/2009/angeo-27-1-2009.pdf
…Prikryl et al. (2001, 2003) have suggested that auroral atmospheric
gravity waves (AGWs) are another candidate for
the “missing link” between the solar wind and tropospheric
weather. Auroral AGWs may release instabilities that lead
to tropospheric convection, convective clouds and storminess
(Prikryl et al., 2009).
Using the International Satellite
Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) D1 dataset, a statistically
significant response of high-level cloudiness to fast solar
wind from coronal holes is found (Prikryl et al., 2003,
2006, 2009). These results are consistent with the previous
finding of solar wind influence on mid-latitude tropospheric
circulation (Wilcox et al., 1973; Lundstedt, 1984).
In this paper, we use the improved meteorological reanalysis
data to verify the Wilcox effect and to extend the analysis
to the Southern Hemisphere. The results are corroborated
by a correlation with coronal holes, from which high-speed
solar wind streams flow. Also, the occurrence of severe extratropical
weather events and extratropical storm sea level
pressure deepenings is examined in the context of solar wind
disturbances to support the argument that auroral AGWs may
impact the extratropical cyclone activity after the arrival of
high-speed solar wind streams…
or this..
The dynamics of solar activity and anomalous weather of summer 2010: 2. Relationship with the active longitude zone; effects in the west and east
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0016793212010045
K. G. Ivanov, A. F. Kharshiladze
or not..
@ur momisugly the mod, can you explain to me why or what was offensive in my post and so was deleted, it was in jest, please E-mail me, you have my E-mail address.
The Sun is around 20,000,000°C – how does this change with sunspot activity?
Carla says:
December 15, 2013 at 2:34 pm
“Leif Svalgaard says:
December 15, 2013 at 11:53 am
BTW, I was a co-discoverer of the ‘Wilcox-effect’ and am of the opinion today that the effect was spurious, i.e not real.
———
Newer studies, newer observations .. might want to take a browse..”
The spurious is unspurioused.
The not real is not real
Myrrh says:
December 15, 2013 at 5:33 pm
The Sun is around 20,000,000°C – how does this change with sunspot activity?
The temperature at the center in about 15,000,000 K and does not change with solar activity.
Carla says:
December 15, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Newer studies, newer observations .. might want to take a browse..
If it was spurious then, it is spurious now…
Stephen Wilde says:
December 15, 2013 at 12:06 pm
“Stephen Wilde is no scientist and his hand waving is hardly falsifiable…”
That depends on how one defines a scientist.
I don’t think so.
there have been unexpected data findings that support my hypothesis.
Any data whatsoever have always supported you hypothesis…
“Stephen, please post all the observations that do not support your hypothesis. It is your responsibility, not Leif’s.”
I haven’t come across any yet because I built the hypothesis on the observations so that it is consistent with them.
I’m awaiting falsification but it hasn’t happened yet.
The types of observations that would falsify it have been set out by me several times before.
Examples:
i) Cooling stratosphere with a quiet sun or warming stratosphere with an active sun.
ii) More poleward / zonal jets with a quiet sun or more equatorward / meridional jets with an active sun.
iii) Anomalously negative AO and AAO with an active sun or anomalously positive AO and AAO with a quiet sun. I don’t count the minor variations across a single cycle for this purpose. One needs 3 or 4 cycles with a significant trend for the relationship to show up above chaotic variability. The recent extreme negative AO at the same time as the lowest solar activity in our lifetimes is unlikely to have been a coincidence.
iv) Increased global cloudiness with poleward / zonal jets or decreased global cloudiness with equatorward / meridional jets.
v) Upward temperature stepping from one positive PDO phase to the next whilst the sun is becoming less active (across multiple cycles) or downward temperature stepping from one negative PDO phase to the next when the sun is becoming more active (across multiple cycles)
There are lots of other observations that could falsify it but you get the picture.
“Any data whatsoever have always supported your hypothesis…”
Maybe its right ?
What have you got that doesn’t ?
Prikryl et al. (2001, 2003) have suggested that auroral atmospheric gravity waves (AGWs) are another candidate for the “missing link” between the solar wind and tropospheric weather.
Arctic area is unusually ‘sensitive’ to geomagnetic storms, the assertion is supported by geological data. Arctic area is critical to the N. Hemisphere’s temperature & climate changes (polar jet stream etc). Since the N.H is where most of historic data originate from, these changes are reflected to a great extent in the global data.
One of the most reliable aurora records comes from Denmark’s observers; these show that the geomagnetic storms have a strong solar magnetic cycle (twice SSN) component
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DanAur.htm
which is also very prominent in the global temperatures as shown above.
Everything that all researchers so far discovered , measured and calculated and drawn . using models and mathematics , is not nearly enough to learn the true causes of climate change on our planet and on other planets . Complete , up to now , the displayed image changes with the sun and its behavior are just indicators of a much consequence influential factors is the main cause climate change, and we have not yet noticed and deciphering . Why ? Because science does not want to deal with the ” simple ” thinking about the laws of nature , and what she considers just exactly what the evidence is very complicated mathematical apparatus and ” gracious ” model . The data obtained are only indicators of some hidden processes that take place in a much simpler way than the way of how science is looking for and wants to get the process going on. Maybe it’s impolite to say that I now have almost all the previous conclusions of the above questions, based on illogical assumptions set . In our country there is a saying : “Where there is a lot of grandmothers , children are sufferin from hernia ” . And the conclusions of previous studies , in most cases the same case . I do not insist that you believe , but I think there is a way to alleviate this phenomenon completely , only to have the technical and financial capabilities . I have an idea that I check , but I do not have the above conditions . So if anyone has an interest to make it happen , we can make the appropriate contractual obligations , which will be cheaper than if I show that my work is accurate . Then , you can estimate how much it will cost. I seriously working on it and I think the sunspot cycle of 11.2 years , the fastest and best way to resolve the enigma . This is not the first time that I offer ideas and cooperation. It will not bring down the world if it fails this time , but my work will not fail. ( Excuse my poor English , but it is better for the majority of what you know slightly )
Stephen Wilde says:
December 16, 2013 at 12:29 am
I’m awaiting falsification but it hasn’t happened yet.
The types of observations that would falsify it have been set out by me several times before.
i) Cooling stratosphere with a quiet sun or warming stratosphere with an active sun.
Since solar activity has been decreasing in recent decades and the stratosphere has been cooling, it would seem that even your first example of falsification has been met…
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/extremes-cold-snow-records-december-2013-20131207
“The first full week of December 2013 has been packed full of bitter cold, snowy and icy extremes. On the following pages, we walk through some of the most interesting facts about this wintry start to December beginning with the extreme cold.”
“On the morning of Dec. 7, Jordan, Mont. recorded a low temperature of -42 degrees. Not far behind was Havre, Mont. with a low of -39 degrees. Sunday morning, Harve, Mont. was the coldest spot in the nation with a low temperature of -37 degrees.”
“That same morning, Great Falls, Mont. dipped to -33 degrees, setting a record for the coldest temperature ever recorded so early in the season. The extreme cold led to power outages in southwestern portions of the city.”
Its it a coincidence?
“Since solar activity has been decreasing in recent decades and the stratosphere has been cooling, it would seem that even your first example of falsification has been met…”
Cycles 21, 22 and 23 were all active and the stratosphere cooled.
Since the end of cycle 23 with the arrival of quieter cycle 24 the stratosphere has stopped cooling and may now be warming.
No falsification there. Quite the opposite.
Question if the “sunspot area %” graph shown still includes the added Another text file contains daily sunspot areas (1.51 Mb). These derived data include the correction factor of 1.4 for data after 1976. Does this non-stated correction factor make the comparison with earlier cycles change?
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml – near the bottom.
stephen wilde says:
December 16, 2013 at 8:39 am
Cycles 21, 22 and 23 were all active and the stratosphere cooled…
Since the end of cycle 23 with the arrival of quieter cycle 24 the stratosphere has stopped cooling and may now be warming.
The cooling really began in the 1990s and the temperature has been flat since. No correlation with the cycles. But since you don’t quote any numbers nothing can be made of your vague statements.