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
Whoa! It’s changed from cooling to flat since when? Since 33 minutes, yeah, there’s a number.
Sorry for the cheap shot, Leif. The dybbuk made me do it.
==================
kim says:
December 16, 2013 at 9:08 am
Sorry for the cheap shot, Leif.
II guess you have to follow Stephen’s lead…
The stratosphere’s not warming, folks, for how long not even kim knows.
==========
Last year at this time northern stratospheric temps were well below average, before a sudden stratospheric warming. This year they are even lower. Will we get the SSW?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/30mb9065.gif
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-temperature-lower-stratosphere
The above link shows the cessation of stratospheric cooling which occurred from about 1994 onwards as solar cycle 23 declined towards low cycle 24.
If the stratosphere resumes cooling whilst the sun remains quiet then I would accept that as a problem for my hypothesis.
More likely a continuing quiet sun should soon come through as a trend towards stratospheric warming.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 16, 2013 at 10:42 am
If the stratosphere resumes cooling whilst the sun remains quiet then I would accept that as a problem for my hypothesis.
From your link:
“Global average temperatures in the lower stratosphere for 2012 were below the 1981–2010 average”.
Short term ups and downs do not count.
My link shows cooling from 1958 to 1994 interrupted only by volcanic eruptions.
During that period all the cycles were more active than the historical average.
Cycle 20 was slightly weaker and you can see a slowdown in the rate of stratospheric cooling at that time.
From 1994 to date there has been no significant cooling. If anything the trend has been a slight drift back up but that depends on which measurement set one adopts.
There has certainly been no resumption of the pre 1994 rate of stratospheric cooling.
Kim & Pochas say:
(re SSW)
……….
It is as clear as a bottle of Kamchatka vodka ( I am told it is one of the best selling vodkas in America).
It is lot to do with Kamchatka’s volcanoes.
Here are some links for those interested in the sudden stratospheric warming (winter event, when the sun is low on the horizon)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH.htm
(note that frequently active volcanoes often pump lot of hot gasses before eruption) Here is what NASA says for last winter
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=80226
Now check out these four volcanoes (Shiveluch, Bezymianny, Tolbachik, and Kizimen) at this link
http://www.activolcans.info/volcan-XYZ.html
replace XYZ with the these names in turn:
Kizimen
Bezymianny
Shiveluch
Tolbachik
Nicego, nothing, nichts, zilch in the last month or so, but if volcanoes start ‘eructation’ (belching) in next few weeks the SSW will be there.
NOTE: SSW is extremely rare event in the Antarctic (there is only one atmospheric active volcano Mount Erebus, but most of time asleep, any activity has to coincide with 3-4 winter months), hence SSW is unlikely to do with the solar activity.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 16, 2013 at 11:27 am
Short term ups and downs do not count.
From your link:
“From 1979 to 1996, satellite and radiosonde measurements show that temperatures in the lower stratosphere declined, although that trend was interrupted by episodes of warming due to the El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruptions. For most of the last two decades, there has been little trend, but no sign of a reversal. “
“no sign of a reversal. ”
Not yet, which I conceded but it does depend on which interpretation one adopts.
However, to falsify my hypothesis one needs a resumption of cooling to match the pre 1994 rate and there s no sign of that.
For example, the purple line does show signs of a reversal.as does the blue line to a lesser extent.
vukcevic: Possible, but unlikely to this extent:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
As it can be seen, more accurate data (closer to present time) closer is the correlation.
I would hate to have to make a decision based on evidence to date. How “unlikely” depends on the conditions for which the probability is calculated, and I don’t think we have enough information to accept any of those calculations.
Not to say you are wrong.
I want to thank Leif Svalgaard for his post and many informative replies to commenters, and also to thank those commenters who have provided links to other data.
If one were to plot the average ap(aa) index and or sunspot activity versus global average surface temperature the correlation is quite strong.
I can not find a period of time when solar activity was low for a prolonged period of time and the global average temperatures increased overall although ups and downs occurred within the trend, while vice versa I can not find a period of time when solar activity was high for a prolonged period of time and the average global temperatures decreased, although up and downs occurred within the trend.
Some recent examples are the Maunder Minimum (1640-1700), Dalton Minimum(1790-1830), Medieval Warm Period(around 1000-1200 ad), Modern Solar Maximum last century.
Not to forget the start of the Little Ice Age around 1300 ad associated with the Wolff and Spor Solar Minimums.
Solar minimum events and approximate dates
Event
Start
End
Homeric minimum [8] 950BC 800BC
Oort minimum (see Medieval Warm Period) 1040 1080
Medieval maximum (see Medieval Warm Period) 1100 1250
Wolf minimum 1280 1350
Spörer Minimum 1450 1550
Maunder Minimum 1645 1715
Dalton Minimum 1790 1820
Modern Maximum 1900 present
Matthew R Marler says:
December 16, 2013 at 12:12 pm
I don’t think we have enough information to accept any of those calculations.
Not to say you are wrong..
Mr . Marler
you would be on much safer ground if you said I was, but thanks for the note anyway. My contributins are based on the best available data I can get hold off, any calculations are done by Excel, based on simple filtering, trigonometric functions equivalents etc, so I assume that the actual numbers should be ok.
As far as the background physics is concerned it is only a guesswork, and as such it is sure to be dismissed rather than given any credence. I am happy if readers consider it as numerical curiosity, mirroring reality it is an extremely long shot which may never hit the target.
Ps. If your post got stuck in the mod’s-bin, I am to blame, possibly because posting an anti-IPCC cartoon with a sarcastic comment which was not denoted as such
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/15/friday-funny-9/#comment-1476041
(the cartoon http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IPCC-GT1995-2011.htm )
“kim says:
December 16, 2013 at 9:08 am
Sorry for the cheap shot, Leif.
II guess you have to follow Stephen’s lead…”
Does right side up look upside down after looking through telescopes ?
Thank you for your work and honesty.
I find Mr Von Rompuy’s speach to the chilling. Global government, no way!
lsvalgaard says:
December 15, 2013 at 6:37 pm
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…
————
With respect to the “Wilcox effect,” am wondering why Dr. S. finds it spurious.
Is it because it does not take into account existing wave circulations as the primary drivers?
Like atmospheric waves and vortices produced from rotation, (coriolis effects) or Solar and Lunar tides which also produce atmospheric waves and vortices structure? Or, gravity waves..
So here it is again..(but my brain is stuck on Ultra relativistic electron precipitation ).
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…
And this which has some high speed relativistic electrons..
Effects on winter circulation of short and long term solar wind changes
Limin Zhoua, Brian Tinsleyb, Jing Huanga
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005802
Available online 21 September 2013
“””The spatial distribution of the correlations of geopotential height changes in the troposphere and stratosphere with the SWS; the geo-effective electric field (SWS∗Bz); and the solar 10.7 cm flux suggests that solar wind inputs connected to the troposphere via the global electric circuit, together with solar ultraviolet irradiance acting on the stratosphere, affect regional atmospheric dynamics.””””
Day-to-day changes in the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations correlate with solar wind speed and relativistic electron precipitation.
Interannual changes are similarly correlated.
A connection via the global atmospheric electric circuit and cloud microphysical changes is suggested.””
And coriolis effects are changed when rotation rate changes, which is related to high speed solar winds causing more drag on the Earth and slowing it down.
Back to the Radiation belts loss of ultra relativistic electrons and its affects on atmospheric circulations.
Carla says:
December 22, 2013 at 7:46 am
With respect to the “Wilcox effect,” am wondering why Dr. S. finds it spurious.
Because with more data it became weaker. Even this latest paper only claims a 95% significance level. Now, it is always good that researchers later re-visits old claims, so perhaps the effect is not completely dead yet, but IMHO it does not look very much alive either.
Thank you Dr. S. but 95% eh. If you will, could you encapsulate “Wilcox effect” for us?
And the list of articles concerning, “precipitating relativistic electrons,” grows. This article sounds like a “wet blanket,” effect, to me. Calling it an analog to the proton precipitation.
Overlaps your department Dr. S., so might like it too..
Ultrarelativistic electrons in the near cosmos and X-ray aurora in the middle polar atmosphere
G. F. Remenets1, M. I. Beloglazov2
Article first published online: 5 NOV 2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JA018822/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
[1] The rare phenomenon of ultrarelativistic electron precipitation into the middle polar atmosphere, prevalent under calm geophysical conditions, was established from ground-based radio wave measurements during the period of 1982–1992. Precipitating electrons with energy ∼ 100 MeV and sufficient density to generate X- and gamma-ray bremsstrahlung create a sporadic layer of ionization in the atmosphere under the regular D layer of the ionosphere. Very low frequency radio waves reflect from this sporadic layer with abnormal weakening and with an unusually low height of reflection. The layer has a horizontal linear scale of about several thousand kilometers, with a thickness in altitude of about 20–30 km, and persists for several hours. Due to this layer of electric conductivity, the effective height of this “ground-ionized atmosphere” waveguide diminishes in exceptional cases by 2–2.5 times. The auroras of X-ray bremsstrahlung have been detected by the reflection of radio waves with wavelengths of 30–20 km. This phenomenon may be termed “a polar cap absorption effect of the second kind” as an electron analog of proton precipitation………………………..
May I suggest that, you might want to take your own pointing device to the next AGU meeting. Life has enough surprises. smile, yer on candid camera.. flash from the past..
Carla says:
December 22, 2013 at 8:59 am
Thank you Dr. S. but 95% eh. If you will, could you encapsulate “Wilcox effect” for us?
The 95% level is usually not considered compelling. It is sort of the minimum level for even looking at something. The Wilcox VAI effect is the claim that the ‘storminess’ in winter has a minimum a day after passage of a sector boundary.
And the list of articles concerning, “precipitating relativistic electrons,” grows.
As these events are very rare, they are of little interest for the climate debate.
lsvalgaard says:
December 22, 2013 at 9:08 am
Carla says:
December 22, 2013 at 8:59 am
..The Wilcox VAI effect is the claim that the ‘storminess’ in winter has a minimum a day after passage of a sector boundary.
And the list of articles concerning, “precipitating relativistic electrons,” grows.
As these events are very rare, they are of little interest for the climate debate.
——-
Thank you, Dr. S., in that article the rare part is the “calm geophysical condition,” as opposed to ..
And it is very much of interest in the climate debate..
Have you seen?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/20/scientists-solve-a-decades-old-mystery-in-the-earths-upper-atmosphere/#more-99632
Carla says:
December 22, 2013 at 9:45 am
Thank you, Dr. S., in that article the rare part is the “calm geophysical condition,” as opposed to ..And it is very much of interest in the climate debate..
Your link says: “The rare phenomenon of ultrarelativistic electron precipitation into the middle polar atmosphere”. And those events are rare, period, and in particular under calm conditions [which are not rare in themselves], so are not of interest.
Yep you are correct.. in the way it is stated. my bad
It is interesting to see the different atmospheric heights that “energetic particles” including the electrons make it down to…
Figure 17
Dynamics of the Earth’s Radiation Belts and Innner Magnetosphere
Danny Summers, Ian R. Mann, Daniel N. Baker and Michael Schultz
2012
Page 32
SAMPEX: Long-Serving Radiation Belt Sentinel
Figure 17.
Ionization rates due to different types of precipitating energetic particles as a function of atmospheric altitude. The colored bands show where various particle types are most effective in stopping and ionizing atmospheric constituents.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bGwqFBnuWzIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=SAMPEX:+A+Long-Serving+Radiation+Belt+Sentinel&ots=3rfMMLeM5k&sig=LpN7rX-e-ov6hWv5kI8eqDv1bUo#v=onepage&q&f=true