While we’ve known about this for quite some time at WUWT, going back to August 2013, the story is now starting to make the rounds in the MSM.
And, NASA has created a cool visualization of the event. Video follows. From the NASA video description:
This visualization shows the position of the sun’s magnetic fields from January 1997 to December 2013. The field lines swarm with activity: The magenta lines show where the sun’s overall field is negative and the green lines show where it is positive. A region with more electrons is negative, the region with less is labeled positive. Additional gray lines represent areas of local magnetic variation.
The entire sun’s magnetic polarity, flips approximately every 11 years — though sometimes it takes quite a bit longer — and defines what’s known as the solar cycle. The visualization shows how in 1997, the sun shows the positive polarity on the top, and the negative polarity on the bottom. Over the next 12 years, each set of lines is seen to creep toward the opposite pole eventually showing a complete flip. By the end of the movie, each set of lines are working their way back to show a positive polarity on the top to complete the full 22 year magnetic solar cycle.
At the height of each magnetic flip, the sun goes through periods of more solar activity, during which there are more sunspots, and more eruptive events such as solar flares and coronal mass ejections, or CMEs. The point in time with the most sunspots is called solar maximum.
Credit: NASA/GSFC/PFSS
The WUWT solar reference page has this revealing plot from Dr. Leif Svalgaard:
Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present
Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source
Lo siento, Senor Lento. LOL, I thought your name was de Italiano, no Espanol. Gracias para el correccion (sp?).
Janice: You thought correctly the first time. You see, I am an anomaly. Long story… and way off topic. My family’s heritage is 100% Italian, mostly from Sicily. That said, I chose to learn Spanish in high school (instead of the other offering French). I was raised in the Boston area and out of the two languages, I saw French as useless, and Spanish as the up and coming one to know. I took a few semesters in college (for my humanities requirement) and then taught it as a temporary full time sub for a high school in between finishing my EE and Management undergrad degrees.
Bob Weber says:
January 3, 2014 at 9:35 am
Not surprising considering the effective TSI measurement area is so small as to miss the vast amount of charged particles within reach of Earth’s magnetosphere when the particles are Earth directed.
No, these particles do strike the measurement area. The proton density of the solar wind is 5 per cc, rising to 100 during a geomagnetic storm. Since the solar wind moves at 400 km/sec [or more] the volume entering the TSI measurement cavity [area 0.5 cm^2] every second is 400,000 * 0.5 = 200,000 cc containing 1,000,000 protons, plenty for measuring. It is sad that you cannot yourself have seen that as you had the data, but such is perhaps the blindness stemming from what you wish to believe.
What happens to all the solar wind kinetic energy that gets concentrated into the poles?
The total power impinging on the globe is minute, typically 10 to 100 GigaWatt. Compare that to 175,000,000 GigaWatt that we get from TSI.
This isn’t even the whole picture, because we can’t ignore the influence of the moon on the atmosphere.
Right, we get 0.0136 W/m2 of solar radiation reflected off the Moon [1/100,000 of TSI]…and not to forget the 0.00001 W/m2 generated by lunar tides.
The bridge I’m offering is not figurative, but one of understanding.
Having the right perspective helps that understanding.
lsvalgaard says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm
+++++++++
Fantastic information and perspective doctor Svalgaard.
lsvalgaard says:
January 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm
No, these particles do strike the measurement area. The proton density of the solar wind is 5 per cc, rising to 100 during a geomagnetic storm. Since the solar wind moves at 400 km/sec [or more] the volume entering the TSI measurement cavity [area 0.5 cm^2] every second is 400,000 * 0.5 = 200,000 cc containing 1,000,000 protons, plenty for measuring.
Haste is waste. The correct calculation is 400,000,00 cm * 0.5 cm^2 = 20,000,000 cm^3, so 100 million protons striking the device every second. Plenty.
lsvalgaard says:
January 3, 2014 at 3:55 pm
++++++++++
Proof that we are not the only ones corrected by the doctor…
Dr. thanx. I’m talking about UPTICKs not background solar wind periods in relationship to weather.
I thought I said “… is so small as to miss the vast amount of charged particles within reach of Earth’s magnetosphere when the particles are Earth directed”, which I figured someone with your brains would understand to mean exactly what was meant: that the TSI measurement volume (a singular sample) or calculation does not cover the entire volume (length, breadth, depth) of the magnetosphere, because that little measurement box doesn’t see out to the vast edges of specific earth-directed proton and electrons flows that are generated from flare-generated CMEs, filament eruptions, high-speed coronal hole flows, nor do any satellites have the ability to measure the density everywhere. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear enough for you.
Therefore, unless you know better, it appears that the TSI calculation can’t calculate the whole quantity, volume, or power of particle flow, of which a not insignificant portion is channeled into the poles during UPTICKS (vs average background). Are there other satellites and methods for polar measures?
Do you know for sure that sudden stratospheric warmings are not caused by particle inflows from these UPTICKs? What do you suppose is the effect of 10-100 Gigawatts of power coming into thin cold polar atmospheres? Is that power an estimate or is it measured? Is that power insignificant except for auroras?
You said: “It is sad that you cannot yourself have seen that as you had the data, but such is perhaps the blindness stemming from what you wish to believe.”
That was uncalled for; I’ve monitored proton density and speed daily for years and witnessed what happens here after these UPTICKs. I’m not talking about average conditions whatsoever.
You said: “Now, the solar wind is so tenuous that the warming is unmeasurable.” OK, so all those millions of protons that you calculated for me basically cause, as you said, ‘warming that is unmeasurable’. That was my first point, and it’s nice we finally agree on something.
You are going to very surprised what I’ve found out about photons, protons, and electrons, and geomagnetic activity, the weather, and what it does to people. Since I’m sure you don’t have a clue at what I mean, I’ll give you something to think about while you getting ready to put me down again.
Hurricane Katrina (8/23/05 to 8/29/05): M2, M5 flares 8/22; M2 8/23; M4 8/25; M1 8/28; protons go up 8/22, Kp=9 on 8/24/05. Need more?
Japan Tsunami (3/11/11): 10 M flares 3/7-3/9; X3 3/9; protons elevate 3/8-3/11; Kp climbs to 7.
Moore, OK Tornado (5/20/13): 4 X-flares 5/13-5/15; M2 5/17; protons elevate; Kp=6.
That’s all for now. The list of examples is so long, so revealing; why didn’t you find this out?
One more thing Leif, I care about people staying alive and well. So does Piers Corbyn. His forecast for the end of the year 2013 included every single extreme weather activity we’ve seen in all the right places all of December, setting up for record-setting cold temperatures now in January. Cold is a killer. Extreme weather is a killer. If one person’s life is saved due to people having a practical knowledge of electric and magnetic weather effects caused by UPTICKs in earth-directed solar activity (flare events), then putting up with your disbelief will have been worth it. You ought to think about this until you see my video.
Repeat after me: it’s photons, protons, and electrons that power extreme weather, not CO2.
Dr. Svalgaard — Mr. Weber tells you what you “ought to” do. I think you “ought to” ignore him. He will NEVER get it. Amazing. Even after my simple explanation above his of how your comments do not equal believing CO2 drives the earth’s climate. Yeah, it is NONE of my business, but, I hope you won’t dignify his prideful nonsense with a response.
*******************
Mario, thank you, you Sicilian — Spanish speaking — Boston-Californian anomaly, you, for the clarification. Grazie and gracias and ….. merci (heh, heh). lol, given some of the pseudo-science comments above (not meaning yours or Dr. Svalgaard’s), what would NOT be on topic?
#(:))
Bob Weber says:
January 3, 2014 at 5:24 pm
I’m talking about UPTICKs not background solar wind periods in relationship to weather.
During UPTICKS even more protons are there to be measured improving the data.
that the TSI measurement volume (a singular sample) or calculation does not cover the entire volume (length, breadth, depth) of the magnetosphere, because that little measurement box doesn’t see out to the vast edges of specific earth-directed proton and electrons flows that are generated from flare-generated CMEs, filament eruptions, high-speed coronal hole flows, nor do any satellites have the ability to measure the density everywhere. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear enough for you.
The solar wind structures are so vast that the spatial variation over the magnetosphere is small. This means that the sampling done by the TSI instrument is very representative. Just like the sampling done by a single satellite. By your assumption, the satellite measurements, that you have followed for years, would not be any good either, as they only sample a singular point in the vast magnetosphere.
Therefore, unless you know better, it appears that the TSI calculation can’t calculate the whole quantity, volume, or power of particle flow, of which a not insignificant portion is channeled into the poles during UPTICKS (vs average background). Are there other satellites and methods for polar measures?
By your argument no measurement would do as it would not cover the whole. But we do have measurements of the power input to the whole of the polar regions http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/
furthermore the whole Earth is our instrument and we have global indices for the power input
http://www.leif.org/research/POES%20Power%20and%20IHV.pdf
Do you know for sure that sudden stratospheric warmings are not caused by particle inflows from these UPTICKs?
Stratospheric warmings are observed to be caused by upward traveling waves from the troposphere.
What do you suppose is the effect of 10-100 Gigawatts of power coming into thin cold polar atmospheres? Is that power an estimate or is it measured? Is that power insignificant except for auroras?
It is measured: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/ and is completely insignificant for the weather [a million times smaller than the solar photon radiation]
That was uncalled for; I’ve monitored proton density and speed daily for years and witnessed what happens here after these UPTICKs. I’m not talking about average conditions whatsoever.
By your argument the satellites making the measurements that you watch are no better than those measuring TSI: they do not measure the ‘whole’.
You said: “Now, the solar wind is so tenuous that the warming is unmeasurable.” OK, so all those millions of protons that you calculated for me basically cause, as you said, ‘warming that is unmeasurable’. That was my first point, and it’s nice we finally agree on something.
If the warming is unmeasurable by the satellite it is, obviously, also unmeasurable by the Earth. So, we agree on that.
You are going to very surprised what I’ve found out about photons, protons, and electrons, and geomagnetic activity, the weather, and what it does to people. Since I’m sure you don’t have a clue at what I mean, I’ll give you something to think about while you getting ready to put me down again.
In 1976 I was the U.S. Envoy to the Soviet Union on possible solar effects on weather and climate http://www.leif.org/EOS/USSR-US-1976.pdf [section IV(B)8 page 427 and http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/261546a0-Olson-SSSR.pdf
While there I visited a lunatic asylum where the director claimed that the level of agitation of the inmates had a dramatic UPTICK every time an interplanetary sector boundary overtook the Earth. The director offered us his data on this so we could fill in data gaps in the satellite coverage. Nothing actually came of this, but at least some people thought that interplanetary conditions did things to people. Perhaps you have similar observations.
why didn’t you find this out?
Because it is totally spurious.
it’s photons that power weather, not CO2.
Janice Moore says:
January 3, 2014 at 6:39 pm
Dr. Svalgaard — Mr. Weber tells you what you “ought to” do. I think you “ought to” ignore him. He will NEVER get it. Amazing.
Most of our ‘usual suspects’ will never get it either, but it is my wont to at least try. Other readers may [and do] get something positive out of the exchanges and THAT has value.
Dr. Svalgaard says… (6:58pm, today)
Yes, you are correct. And that undaunted dedication is why I am correct to call you a truth-in-science Hero. And I just might say that yet again someday.
#(:))
btw, I hope your granddaughter’s first year at college is going well. If she was disappointed in her first quarter grades, I hope that she will take a little comfort from the fact that her experience is the norm (most college freshmen feel overwhelmed; it just takes a bit of time to get one’s bearings) and that most students’ grades improve significantly as time passes.
Well, Dr. Svalgaard, I just read your thoughtful response to Mr. Weber (6:53pm today). I’m glad you made it, for I learned a few things! Thank you (even though it was not directed at me).
Re: 1976 USSR “lunatic” asylums… there, no doubt, you would have found some of the Soviet Union’s finest (and perfectly sane) minds, too. Examples of such people (not necessarily in prison in 1976) Natan Sharansky… Elena Bonner and Andre Sakharov … Alexander Solzhenitsyn and on and on… . What a horrible place.
I hope you are going to write an autobiography — you have many unique insights and eyewitness observations and stories to tell! If you need a volunteer ghost writer assistant just ask A-th-y for my e mail address. Oh don’t laugh so loudly — I am actually a pretty good writer in the eyes of some (no, not just my mother, lol).
Bob Weber says:
January 3, 2014 at 5:24 pm
Japan Tsunami (3/11/11): 10 M flares 3/7-3/9; X3 3/9; protons elevate 3/8-3/11; Kp climbs to 7.
Is an example of the spurious coincidence. The implications seems to be that the geomagnetic storm [Kp 7] caused or triggered the earthquake that caused the tsunami. One way to verify such claims is the use the start of the storm [a so-called ‘sudden storm commencement’ – an SSC] as a ‘key-time’ and count how many earthquakes occur on the day where there is an SSC, and on the day before, the day after, after after that, etc. Thousands of SSCs are known so the statistics is very good: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png
As you can see there are not more strong earthquakes on or near the day of SSCs than on any other day. This is the kind of analysis you ought to do before making any claims.
Well! This was an interesting video… but a much more interesting discussion that followed in the extended exchange of comments. Thank you Bob Weber, Mario Lento, Carla, Janice Moore, Keith Minto, Malagabay, geran, and especially Dr. Svalgaard. I have a much better understanding of how (and where!) TSI is measured…. and why Dr. Svalgaard maintains it is a true measure of the suns ability to heat a ‘sensor’ or the earth.
Thank you all, for your combined contributions to this ones small efforts at solar enlightenment!
MtK
Well! That was an interesting video…. but a much more interesting series of dialogs in the extended comments! Thank you Keith Minto, Mario Lento, Bob Weber, Dominic Manginell, Vucevik, Carla, Janice Moore, Malagabay, geran, and especially Dr. Svalgaard! I have a much better understanding of how (and where!) TSI is measured…. and why Dr. Svalgaard maintains that it is an honest measure of the suns ability to heat a sensor suite… or the earth.
Thank You All, for helping this ones slow journey along the path to solar enlightenment!
MtK
Janice:
Socialist rant, phonetically transliterated in English characters per my memory.
Hineh ma tov uma na’im
Shevet achim gam yachad.
How nice it is to live together in a Kibbutz.
Or literal translation
– How good and pleasant it is
For brothers & sisters to sit together
I can sing and play this on my guitar, but I am not a socialist. Though I do volunteer and donate to people who appreciate. And willingly pay taxes so I do not go to jail.
Dr. Svalgaard, those are among the many implications of electric weather.
Did you not think the Russians had good reason to talk about their observations of people under their close watch? Do you not realize this human reaction has been observed throughout history worldwide? I observed someone I know turn from a decent man into a monster in the days following the X17 flare of Oct 2003 (Kp=9). Thereafter I made a habit of paying particular attention to reactions in others and myself following proton events and during the full moon, when the atmosphere is filled with positive ions. This phenonenom has been very well documented worldwide. Positive atmospheric ions make me sleepy and cranky!
On satellites. let’s all keep in mind that small sample sizes extrapolated into full-blown ideas are what has gotten climate scientists in trouble. I really am not quibbling about technical satellite mesurements per se, but the interpretation of large events gone virtually unseen by most.
As for the SSCs you mentioned, what I realized is that it takes days for the protons to build-up in the magnetosphere, and days for that energy to discharge into the earth biosphere, through many channels. That is why this has been so elusive, I think. The protons and electrons accumulated in the magnetosphere from solar flare events have to go somewhere in seeking equilibrium with their environment. I think some events bypass the poles altogether, and look like they could be direct discharges from near-space to the earth.
I am not alone here in understanding the outside forcing of weather and climate.
See http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20130804%20Solar%20Terrestrial%20Climate%20101.PDF
See http://f3.tiera.ru/2/P_Physics/PGp_Geophysics/Sidorenkov%20N.S.%20The%20Interaction%20Between%20Earth's%20Rotation%20and%20Geophysical%20Processes%20(Wiley,%202009)(ISBN%203527408754)(O)(319s)_PGp_.pdf by Nikolay S. Sidorenkov
If that link fails, try
http://www.turkoplus.net/e-book/146623-the-interaction-between-earths-rotation-and-geophysical-processes.html
The Weather Channel this morning is talking about an artic vortex being responsible for these record shattering bone chilling killer cold waves, just like Piers Corbyn predicted a month ago.
Dr. Svalgaard, what is your expert opinion as to what energy is powering that artic vortex?
What am I supposed to “get” anyway? Enlighten me if you’re so smart. Are you afraid of looking at evidence? My video depicts satellite-produced evidence for electric weather. You “ought” to see it first before flying off the handle with your dismissive attitude.
Need another clue?
Hurricane Sandy (10/22-10/31 2012): M5 10/20; M1 10/21; M4 10/22; X 10/23….
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman
Have a nice day there in peaceful sunny temperate California. Don’t let that electric weather get you guys down now.
lsvalgaard says:
January 2, 2014 at 6:32 pm
lsvalgaard says:
January 2, 2014 at 6:30 pm
Carla says:
January 2, 2014 at 6:23 pm
What I do know is that there has been a 40% reduction in solar outputs>/i>
No, you don’t know that, as it is not true. There is a subtlety hidden in the plural ‘solar outputs‘. Let the sun has several outputs: Output A being 1000, output B being 20, output C being 0.001 [for a total of 1020.001] there might have been a 40% reduction in output C to 0.0006 for a total of 1020.0006. Is that what you ‘know’? If so, then the total has not varied much indeed.
——————
Now that I see what ‘you’, are describing as “outputs,” I have a question.
If output C is as small as you say, why then does it have such a huge effect on Earth’s AP progression.
Just eyeballing the observed AP progression from 2000-2013 it appears to be 50% lower. This is a direct result of your output C 0.001? Now last cycle 23 the sun was already in declining phase. So, if we compared AP for cycle 22 to 24?
The heliotail region Earth is orbiting through seems a bit denser than usual this year.
Yeah, yeah Janice I am a faithful follower of brother John Leif Svalgaard.
Just a take off the lyrics of “Uneasy Rider,” Charlie Daniels Band
Funny little song.
Bob Weber says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:27 am
Do you not realize this human reaction has been observed throughout history worldwide?
No, as sector boundaries have not been observed ‘throughout history’
during the full moon, when the atmosphere is filled with positive ions.
The full moon does not fill the atmosphere with positive ions.
On satellites. let’s all keep in mind that small sample sizes extrapolated into full-blown ideas are what has gotten climate scientists in trouble.
This has nothing to do with the superb measurements by satellites. If those measurements are no good, then your conclusions from ‘watching them’ are no good either.
As for the SSCs you mentioned, what I realized is that it takes days for the protons to build-up in the magnetosphere
No, it does not. The injection into the magnetosphere is prompt [minutes, hours]. It takes days for the magnetosphere to relax to normal. That is why my superposed analysis extended until three months after the SSC
I am not alone here in understanding the outside forcing of weather and climate.
That others are wrong does not make you right.
Dr. Svalgaard, what is your expert opinion as to what energy is powering that artic vortex?
The question is somewhat ‘woolly’. The polar vortex is always there. It has quite a day-to-day variability caused by weather systems or large-scale waves that move upwards from the surface into the stratosphere. These waves are forced by large mountain areas combined with the sea-land temperature contrast especially during winter.
What am I supposed to “get” anyway?
You are supposed to “get” that there is a scientific method and that you [and Piers and the EU-cult] are not following it.
Carla says:
January 4, 2014 at 10:05 am
If output C is as small as you say, why then does it have such a huge effect on Earth’s AP progression.
Because the Ap-index is designed specifically to pick up those small variations, by detecting minute variations of the Earth’s magnetic field [Ap = 25 – at the peak of SC23 – is 1/1000 of the Earth’s magnetic field]. Compared to the energy in the solar output the Ap variation is not ‘Huge’, but tiny. Here is your problem, Carla: that you ignore explanations if how things work.
Will the lower AP, affect surface generated monopole magnetic fields, a reduction of those fields? Will Earth be leaning towards, a more dipole magnetic field, are we already seeing this effect with slow down of magnetic north pole to a more longitudinal drift? Does this then affect where and how access through the magnetic field is penetrated during solar induced events? Which would affect locations of the particle precipitation from solar induced events.
Does anybody find this convincing:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/409/1/012239/pdf/1742-6596_409_1_012239.pdf
I do not.
Carla says:
January 4, 2014 at 11:15 am
Will the lower AP, affect surface generated monopole magnetic fields, a reduction of those fields?
The Ap events are transient and external and will not change the Earth’s field.
Will Earth be leaning towards, a more dipole magnetic field, are we already seeing this effect with slow down of magnetic north pole to a more longitudinal drift?
Apart from the irrelevant Ap transients, the Earth’s field, generated deep in the core, is actually slowly getting less dipolar [the dipole moment is decreasing].
Does this then affect where and how access through the magnetic field is penetrated during solar induced events?
A weaker magnetic field [it has decreased 10% the past 150 years] will allow a bit easier access for solar and cosmic ray particles.
Which would affect locations of the particle precipitation from solar induced events.
And expand the auroral zone a little bit, generally making geomagnetic activity at mid-latitude felt a bit more strongly. These changes are very slow and will take hundreds [if not thousands] of years to play out to any significant degree.
Dear Mac the Knight in Shining Armor,
I am pleased but shaking my head. Well, if my simple comments helped you, that’s great. Thank you for your generously telling me so. Re: some of the comments on this thread in general (including some of mine), LOL! Poor Dr. Svalgaard probably thinks he is back at that asylum, heh, heh.
Still smiling over your sweet Irish blarney on New Year’s Eve #(;)),
Janice
*************************************************
Oh, Mario,
I hope I did not offend you by my sloppy use of the English language above. Your eloquent and very witty comment at 11:14pm, yesterday, made an excellent point, but…. it also left me in a little bit of doubt as to whether my calling you “Sicilian — Spanish speaking…” was offensive to you. Please, please, forgive me if I offended you. Written communication is so prone to misunderstandings… .
Your WUWT pal,
Janice
Oh, Mario,
I hope I did not offend you by my sloppy use of the English language above. Your eloquent and very witty comment at 11:14pm, yesterday, made an excellent point, but…. it also left me in a little bit of doubt as to whether my calling you “Sicilian — Spanish speaking…” was offensive to you.
++++++++++
Hi Janice: No no… yo’re not offensive to me in the least dear Janice. But I read what I wrote again and can see what you mean. (regarding I’m not a socialist)… You wrote on in three of the Romance languages – and I decided to spew off some absolute nonsense in some tangential language. I used to sing that song a lot at Jewish Camp, and while at the JCC while I was a counselor and teacher from my late teens through college. Anyway – I never realized, until I got older, that the song celebrates the communistic lifestyle perhaps akin to “it takes a village”. So I did not want anyone here who recognized that sweet little song to think I was promoting some ideals.
You’re not offensive, just very strong and sensitive. You’re sensitivity lets me know that I should be vigilant when writing, so as to be careful of others’ feelings too.
🙂
lsvalgaard says:
January 4, 2014 at 11:48 am
_______________
Just tripped on this looking for something else..
From my reading, I thought that LOD (Length of Day) rose and fell over the solar cycle during rise and fall of sunspot cycle. But after seeing figure S3 (below) it looks more like it is inversely correlated with the rise and fall of the heliocurrent sheet?
thoughts..
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif
Page 21 Figure S3 1960-2011 LOD (ms)
Characterisation and implications of intradecadal variations
in length-of-day
R. Holme1 & O. de Viron2
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~holme/nature_sub.pdf
Someone has to do my laundry today..
Carla says:
January 4, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Just tripped on this looking for something else..
As the authors say: “This [the variation] argues against an origin from solar processes”.