Allan MacRae says: Thanks to Alberta Jacobs
2
1
vote
Article Rating
A Gleissberg Solar Minimum?
475 Comments
August 11, 2014 5:00 pm
LIef …
“It is a little bit more complicated than that. TSI basically correlates with the magnetic field at low latitudes [e.g. with the sunspot number] “
Leif … explain this to me, because above just doesn’t jibe well to me. While TSI basically correlates with the sun spot number as you say, yet the % change in sun spots is magnitudes higher than that of TSI, which is what .. 0.1% or something.
It seems to me that the value of the TSI being set up at some 1360-something makes it a poor proxy for what ever in the heck is going on with the sun magnetically. As I said, sun spots go from 0 at minimum to anywhere from 50-200 at maximum. Those are big changes. Solar Wind changes are large as well. The aa index changes are huge comparatively .. YET .. TSI, has only changed 0.4% over the entirety of the temp rise since the Maunder Min. and varies 0.1% from min to min.
Climate guys have replaced Sun Spot numbers with TSI, but, IMO, they aren’t interchangeable, even if they do correlate with some sort of factor. I mean, a 50% change in sun spot number over several cycles, when pluged into a mathmatical formula is going to have a heck of lot bigger influence on the final product than will a 0.1% TSI change. I’m not saying I buy the solar gig, but IF the solar wind, or the aa index or something like that interacts with Climate, it would seem impossible to detect that using just the TSI, which is only a measure of w/m.
August 11, 2014 5:15 pm
Dr. Deanster says:
August 11, 2014 at 5:00 pm
It seems to me that the value of the TSI being set up at some 1360-something makes it a poor proxy for what ever in the heck is going on with the sun magnetically. As I said, sun spots go from 0 at minimum to anywhere from 50-200 at maximum. Those are big changes. Solar Wind changes are large as well. The aa index changes are huge comparatively .. YET .. TSI, has only changed 0.4% over the entirety of the temp rise since the Maunder Min. and varies 0.1% from min to min.
The 1360-something comes from the nuclear furnace at the core of the Sun. The energy production there is very stable because the sun is so big. In addition to that, there are magnetic fields near the surface of the Sun. The phenomena caused by those vary with the sunspot number etc, but are still a very small part of the whole [the 0.1-0.2%]. In addition to the tiny, tiny magnetic changes, TSI changes some 70 W/m2 through the year due to the changing distance to the Sun. Here is an illustration of the changes: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png What you see is a full solar cycle [11 years] plotted such that all the January 1st,s are plotted on top of one another, all the Jan 2nd on top of each other, so all 365 days are plotted for each year. They look like a single curve because they all fall on top of one another [i.e.the Sun is very constant]. If you look VERY carefully you may see little wiggles now and then. They are major solar storms and give you a feeling for how insignificant hey actually are compared to the steady outpouring from the solar core.
August 11, 2014 5:24 pm
It is the cyclic variation in sunspots and faculae that changes TSI. Dark sunspots decrease the total solar irradiance (TSI), while the bright structures called faculae increase it. The balance is towards increased TSI at maximum and decreased TSI at minimum as these two TSI opposing structures battle it out on the way up and down the cycle.
Chime in Leif. This is clearly not at my pay scale. Not even close.
August 11, 2014 5:50 pm
Allan MacRae says: Thanks to Alberta Jacobs
The name is “Albert Jacobs”. The item comes from Albert Jacobs’ Climate Science Newsletter, issue CliSci # 176, second item at:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=771
This newsletter is emailed to the public about three times per month, then posted on the FriendsofScience.org website. This is one of three newsletter issued by the Friends of Science Society. http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=605
August 11, 2014 6:38 pm
Regarding Leif’s link: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png.
I bet if you plot “Global Temperature” versus month, there would barely be a signal, within an order of magnitude of the irradiance that the earth sees. The earth must respond slowly to delta irradiance! There must be a cumulative effect. Of course the north and south hemispheres are radically different.
August 11, 2014 7:21 pm
Leif’s “TSI through a year” graph is very impressive. What a succinct demonstration of the constancy of our sun!
(Yet, with something as immense and powerful – and close – as our sun, don’t the “tiny” variations represent an enormous delta in power? At least to this orbiting piece of rock we affectionately call home? I mean, if a billionaire’s stock portfolio changed by a mere single percent in an afternoon, it could represent more money made or lost than I will earn in my lifetime.)
August 11, 2014 9:07 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 5:15 pm
////////////////////////
I do not disagree with what you said, but you completely ignored Dr Deanster’s question. Since you very obviously know more about the sun than anyone else on this blog, it would be interesting to read your views on the point that he is postulating.
Should there be no warming, or indeed should there be some cooling, over the course of the next 15 to 20 years, and if the solar cycle(s) exhibit a low sunspot count, do you rule out that the sun may have played a role in the continuance of the pause (or cooling) on the basis that TSI will have remained ‘constant’ during that period? (when I say ‘constant’ I mean stayed within the the very small and usual variations that you have so often evidenced). .
August 11, 2014 9:23 pm
Richard, I would be more interested in what amount of energy is needed to make a change in temperature trend. All temperature trends are based on weather, and weather systems are rather hard to change. They eat energy. What amount of solar change would there need to be in order to affect weather patterns? Think pushing the jet stream out of its present location and into another location. It would take a lot of energy to move something like that. Try moving a blocking high. Not easy. Imagine heating the oceans more than they are normally heated. That would take a LOT of energy. I don’t see change in any solar parameter having that kind of energy. Heck, the change in TSI from max in min isn’t enough so you have have to go beyond that. Can you imagine the panic in the streets to see a change greater than a sun full of spots or a sun rather blank? It would be news.
Editor
August 11, 2014 9:27 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 5:15 pm
Here is an illustration of the changes: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png What you see is a full solar cycle [11 years] plotted such that all the January 1st,s are plotted on top of one another, all the Jan 2nd on top of each other, so all 365 days are plotted for each year. They look like a single curve because they all fall on top of one another [i.e.the Sun is very constant].
But I understand from an earlier reply you made was that Top Of Atmosphere radiation over the day-of-year could be expressed in Excel terms by:
TOA =TSI*(1+0.0342*(COS(2*3.141*((H1-3)/365))))
Where TSI = 1362 for recent years. H1 = day of year.
Am I incorrect, or just not accurate enough?
Is there a better formula: The plot hits a low of 1320 at the end of July, and a high of 1420 watts/sec on the first week of January, neither of which matches the plot.
August 11, 2014 9:39 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/07/jli-final-forecasts-for-2014/#comment-1585141
I cannot make short term predictions of weather / temperature.
I can only make long term predictions – about 15- 20 years or more. 🙂
I wrote an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002, which included this prediction of global cooling:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
When I wrote this in 2002, SC 24 was predicted to be strong, and we now know it is quite weak.
I still think my 2002 global cooling prediction will materialize, although I wonder if this cooling will start a bit sooner than 2020.
Good people, if you must worry about something, worry about global cooling.
Bundle up!
Regards, Allan
____________________________________________________________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/07/jli-final-forecasts-for-2014/#comment-1585378
To be clear, the serious work on the 2020-2030 global cooling forecast came from Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson of Carleton University.
I was writing an article for the Calgary Herald and phoned Tim and said: “Tim, you and I both believe climate change is natural and cyclical, correct?” Tim immediately agreed. So I said “OK, when is it going to get colder?” He then said, with a pause of just a few seconds, “2020 to 2030”. I asked why, and he explained that he based his answer on his research into the Gleissberg Cycle, which is about 90 years long. I asked Tim if the ~60 year PDO cycle might be a better fit, but he preferred the Gleissberg.
If the PDO governs, then global cooling has probably already begun, but it will take a few more years to be sure.
I am increasingly convinced that CO2 is utterly irrelevant as a driver of global temperature. Wait ten years and this will be the new conventional wisdom in climate science. Some people will say they knew it all along… 🙂
Regards to all, Allan
_________________________________________________________________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/23/study-volcanoes-contribute-to-recent-warming-hiatus/#comment-1575178
From a previous post – note the coldest CET in the Dalton was 1814, one year BEFORE Pinatubo.
______________
I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 back-to-back low Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/annual.gif
The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The Dalton Minimum had 2 back-to-back low SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815.
Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET).
Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well.
The warmest recent years for CET were 2002 to 2007 inclusive that averaged 10.55C.
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner.
Best regards, Allan
August 11, 2014 9:39 pm
richard verney says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:07 pm
I do not disagree with what you said, but you completely ignored Dr Deanster’s question
I didn’t see a question mark in his comment. What question do you see?
Should there be no warming, or indeed should there be some cooling, over the course of the next 15 to 20 years, and if the solar cycle(s) exhibit a low sunspot count, do you rule out that the sun may have played a role in the continuance of the pause
A low sunspot count should make a difference of something like 0.05C from that alone. I doubt that we can even measure that.
August 11, 2014 9:44 pm
RACookPE1978 says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm
Is there a better formula: The plot hits a low of 1320 at the end of July, and a high of 1420 watts/sec on the first week of January, neither of which matches the plot.
The low [as plotted] is on July 4th [not end of July] and the high on Jan. 3rd.
August 11, 2014 9:52 pm
RACookPE1978 says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm
But I understand from an earlier reply you made was that Top Of Atmosphere radiation over the day-of-year could be expressed in Excel terms by: TOA =TSI*(1+0.0342*(COS(2*3.141*((H1-3)/365))))
A bit too crude. The actual value of TSI as measured at Earth is in column 10 of
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
which is what is plotted.
In a recent paper “The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle and its Association with Extended Minima”, to be soon published in JGR/Space, Feynman and Ruzmaikin discuss how the recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMs in the 19th and 20th centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910.
Edited abstract:
Such extended minima also were evident in aurorae reported from 450 AD to 1450 AD. The paper argues that these minima are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGC), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at the Earth and throughout the Heliosphere. The occurrence of the recent XSM is consistent with the existence of the CGC as a quasi-periodic variation of the solar dynamo. Evidence of CGC’s is provided by the multi-century sunspot record, by the almost 150-year record of indexes of geomagnetic activity (1868-present), by 1,000 years of observations of aurorae (from 450 to 1450 AD) and millennial records of radionuclides in ice cores.
The “aa” index of geomagnetic activity carries information about the two components of the solar magnetic field (toroidal and poloidal), one driven by flares and CMEs (related to the toroidal field), the other driven by co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind (related to the poloidal field). These two components systematically vary in their intensity and relative phase giving us information about centennial changes of the sources of solar dynamo during the recent CGC over the last century. The dipole and quadrupole modes of the solar magnetic field changed in relative amplitude and phase; the quadrupole mode became more important as the XSM was approached. Some implications for the solar dynamo theory are discussed.
* Says The Hockey Schtick: If it is true that the current lull in solar activity is “consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles,” and the Gleissberg Cycle is a real solar cycle, the current Gleissberg minimum could last a few decades before solar activity begins to rise again.
* Solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue until about the middle of the 21st century and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.