From the new paper by McComas et al.
The last solar minimum, which extended into 2009, was especially deep and prolonged. Since then, sunspot activity has gone through a very small peak while the heliospheric current sheet achieved large tilt angles similar to prior solar maxima.
The solar wind fluid properties and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) have declined through the prolonged solar minimum and continued to be low through the current mini solar maximum.
Compared to values typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, the following proton parameters are lower on average from 2009 through day 79 of 2013: solar wind speed and beta (~11%), temperature (~40%), thermal pressure (~55%), mass flux (~34%), momentum flux or dynamic pressure (~41%), energy flux (~48%), IMF magnitude (~31%), and radial component of the IMF (~38%).
These results have important implications for the solar wind’s interaction with planetary magnetospheres and the heliosphere’s interaction with the local interstellar medium, with the proton dynamic pressure remaining near the lowest values observed in the space age: ~1.4 nPa, compared to ~2.4 nPa typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. The combination of lower magnetic flux emergence from the Sun (carried out in the solar wind as the IMF) and associated low power in the solar wind points to the causal relationship between them.
Our results indicate that the low solar wind output is driven by an internal trend in the Sun that is longer than the ~11 yr solar cycle, and they suggest that this current weak solar maximum is driven by the same trend.
Source of paper abstract:
Weakest Solar Wind of the Space Age and the Current “Mini” Solar Maximum
D. J. McComas et al. 2013 ApJ 779 2
Indeed Leif: “There seems to be a cottage industry to declare that things are unusual, strange, never-seen-before. They are not [but it is good for continued funding to claim that they are].”
That’s the bread and butter of the CAGW publishing and fear mongering industry.
Have there been any attempts to determine the amount of atmospheric voltage stress and plot changes over time, map distribution, and look for periodic behavior or matchups to solar wind or solar magnetic values? If atmospheric voltage stress varies, the threshold enegry a given storm needs to contribute with charge distribution for lightning may vary too – perhaps lightning frequency trends could be checked or serve as a proxy. Any data out there?
What is of crucial relevance to weather, and thus “climate” in the longer term, is the geomagnetic response to solar activity, because this is what tells us how much the Earth really receives from the sun in terms of solar wind. It is not the sunspots that matter, although they are, if somewhat inaccurately, the indicators of solar activity generally. The drop in solar wind parameters by 55% (thermal pressure), 40% (temperature), 34% (mass flux) is huge, suggesting perhaps not so much the doldrums of the current inactivity, but the immense peak that preceded it. Little wonder we had a warm period in the last two decades of the 20th century. And little wonder the world stopped warming in the 21st.
Henry said
By around 2040 we will be back to where we were in 2000, exactly, more less….
henry@beng
sorry
that should be
By around 2040 we will be back to where we were in 1972, exactly, more or less….
The problem with mainstream solar physics is that the wrong model of the Sun is being used. The belief is that the Sun is almost entirely hydrogen and helium. Oliver Manuel provides solid evidence that the Sun has an iron core (and possibly a neutron core), but not a light helium core. This results in miscalculations when investigating the effect of solar barycenter movement relative to the Sun’s core.
The excessively long transit of the solar barycenter over the surface of the Sun during the past 12 years has significantly reduced the flow of magnetic fluids within the Sun. This, in turn, has significantly reduced the magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun resulting in the extreme quiet phase we are witnessing, today.
Analyzing the barycenter transits, we can see there will continue to be a very quiet period of solar activity through the next cycle. It will be even more quiet than the present cycle, if not totally quiet.
Considering that the recent past wobble of the Sun’s core was maintained by harmonic forces developed over decades, we can expect it will be several more decades before solar activity can resume to 1990s levels.
The resulting weaker magnetic field strength of the Sun due to declining solar wind will allow more cosmic radiation to reach Earth, which will increase cloud cover and further reduce already weakened solar irradiance. The physics are there, the question is where are the physicists?
MAK when Leif can’t answer he ignores. Especially when it is against his pet theory 😀
***
moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP says:
August 22, 2014 at 6:56 am
beng, I hope that helps you.
***
Yes, it helped demonstrate my point. All I see from what you linked are temp curves, curve-fitting exercises & implied suppositions.
Here is one very simple question one would ask about the solar-cycle/UV suppositions, knowing that overall TSI (which includes UV) varies by ~1.5 w/m2 during solar cycles (any supposition that it previously varied more than that is just that — there are no direct measurements before satellites, only vague & climate-influenced proxies):
How many w/m2 of UV cyclic variance actually reach the surface (isn’t absorbed by the atmosphere/ozone) where it can affect surface temps? My off-the-cuff guess would be a mere fraction of a w/m2.
When I see a firm number like that, then discussion can begin. And then the next question would be (if the answer to the above question showed any significance): where is the evidence of any long-term trends of UV (or TSI for that matter) beyond the usual ~11yr solar-cycle (rhetorical perhaps because Dr S has already shown the best estimates on the topic)?
Regardless if whether you “believe” the sun significantly influences these relatively insignificant changes in Earth’s climate [the small variances of temperature inferred during the Holocene] or not it’s apparent to me that the proper scientific response should be “I don’t know” or “there’s not enough data yet.” On one side you have the coincidence of the solar proxy record and temperature proxy record generally correlating with each other. On the other side you have no quantitative proof. It will be exciting to see this natural experiment unfold over the next few decades. Or, perhaps it won’t, if it turns out that the agreement between the proxy data is no coincidence at all.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-paper-finds-high-correlation.html
This link shows a high correlation between the global temperature rise last century with solar high solar activity.
In addition this article is spot on in demonstrating solar variability is indeed taking place over the last 200 years. There have been very quiet periods such as the Dalton, the 1890-1910 period and the post 2005-present period interspersed with very active periods.
Which is the point. the fact that if you take a long stretch of years limits solar variability is absurd. Anything will tend toward averaging out if taken over a long enough period of time. It is what happens within that time that matters..
In addition this prolonged solar minimum has just got started and the impacts it is GOING to have on the climate will become more and more evident as we proceed through this decade.
Already the atmosphere has responded by becoming more meridional and the global temperature rise has come to a halt.
My comment for the day.
“GCR’s entering the upper thin layers of the atmosphere induce a shower of charged decay particles as they keep decaying and colliding with gas atoms and move down into the lower atmosphere, thus creating charged condensation nuclei for water droplet to condense and form clouds.”
err, no.
if you look at the most precise data we have on clouds at every pressure level you will find
no relationship between GCR and cloud formation.
let’s put it this way. the puzzle of clouds remains. GCR adds nothing to unravelling the mystery.
“Further, he has been honest with what he does with solar physics, which is a lot more than can be said for many earth climate atmospheric scientists remain quiet, while the sophistry from Mann, et al spews forth.”
M Simon is a fan of david Evans. you know the guy who doesnt share his code.
Hmm a while back one reader found an error in Evans work..
no update on that from Evans yet.. hmm I need to re check that blog.. maybe he has posted
an update
beng says
All I see from what you linked are temp curves, curve-fitting exercises & implied suppositions
henry says
there is no “curve fitting”
The implied backward and forward projection is only for illustration.
What I did is take a sample [following a specified sampling technique] and applied some statistics.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
The high correlation for the relationships found is significant on any statistical test…
(note the the third graph on the bottom of all the tables)
Why don’t you repeat my test, preferably taking a different sample [of 50 odd weather stations]?
Serious question. Is anyone quantifying the conductive transfer of heat from the sun to upper earth atmosphere via solar wind? Low solar wind = less conductive heat with no real change in radiative emissions.
Pamela Gray says:
August 22, 2014 at 6:27 am
“If I were to build a climate scientist, he/she would have a solid bedrock in old fashioned meteorology, a masters in planetary fluid/gas mechanics, and then would go on to weld that knowledge with a PhD in a field titled oceanic/atmospheric climate dynamics. These scientists study the elephants producing all that manure in the room.”
I agree,
I find little synoptic weather analysis in WUWT, I am showing some from:
NOAA-NWS OPC – Unified Surface Analysis, at http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/
At http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/UA/entire_UA.gif
they have a simplified meteorological chart with the current position of the ITCZ and the Monsoon Trough. Updated every 6 hours.
Unmentionable says: August 22, 2014 at 6:09 am
……….
I do agree, even strong correlation may not be result of a direct causation.
Regardless of what is the type of events considered, climate change, or highly speculative as the LOD or tectonics in the far reaches of the N. Atlantic, even if solar activity is a factor, it may not the strongest, but just one of many.
N. Atlantic tectonics correlation, in the first instance, may be as good as data employed, in this case collected and processed by myself, without weighting, period since 1880 looks more interesting.
Thus, a partial (weak) correlation (which may be as good as data available, which in may be an indication of its effect, or alternatively just as likely to be a coincidence.
Spinoza may have bin just too much of a rationalist : “Nothing in nature is by coincidence……..something appears to be coincidence only because of our lack of knowledge.”
Khwarizmi says: August 22, 2014 at 3:13 am
………….
Hi, as I was scrawling down the thread and was about to post the above, I noticed your comment, will look into your link and will be back later on.
David Thomson says
The resulting weaker magnetic field strength of the Sun due to declining solar wind will allow more cosmic radiation to reach Earth, which will increase cloud cover and further reduce already weakened solar irradiance. The physics are there, the question is where are the physicists?
Henry says
There is definitely a correlation between global cooling and declining solar magnetic field strengths. I am not sure why.
what I do know is that we are cooling from the top latitudes down
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/antarctic-sea-ice-has-been-above-average-for-1000-straight-days/
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.
Hence my prediction of the return of the drought times 1930’s and 1950’s on the great plains of America.
What must we do?
You tell me.
Do ozone is very attentive to change of the radiation? Let’s think.
“Ozone (O3) forms a layer in the stratosphere, 15-40 km above earth surface. If the ozone in the atmosphere from ground level to a height of 60 km could be assembled at the earth’s surface, it would comprise a layer of gas only about 3 mm thick.”
David Thomson,
“Oliver Manuel provides solid evidence that the Sun has an iron core (and possibly a neutron core), but not a light helium core.”
Wouldn’t the presence of iron show up as spectral emission bands? Also, not sure what a neutron core is supposed to be.
Vince, “Wouldn’t the presence of iron show up as spectral emission bands?”
If light from the Sun was radiating from the core, yes, we would expect to see a strong iron spectral emission bands. However, Manuel shows how the Sun is layered and the spectrum analysis strongly supports his theories:
http://amateurspectroscopy.com/color-spectra-of-chemical-elements.htm
“Also, not sure what a neutron core is supposed to be.”
That would be a structural mass of neutrons, which can only be maintained under the pressures and temperatures of star cores. When the star blows its outer layers off, the neutron core remains as a so-called neutron star.
The Republic of Panama has a land area: 74,340 sq km and the World land 148,940,000 sq km.
http://world.bymap.org/LandArea.html
That’s 0.05 percent.
Total surface area of earth: 510,072,000 sq km = That’s 0.015 percent
Yet the theory is when half the country raised up from 200 meters below sea level to at sea level, the glacial cycles went from every +40,000 years to +100,000 years.
Be carefull of the argument “It’s too small of a change.”
Good thing to remember when seeing some study of ancient ocean flow models. “Did they get all the Panama’s right in the model.”
[snip – Henry, pick ONE name and stick with it please – Anthony]
@anthon_y
I did not change a name.
My name is moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP
I promise not to change it again
Henry are you trying for the longest name on the blog? You could start a new trend and the names will take up more bandwidth than the posts 🙂
David Thomson says:
August 22, 2014 at 8:00 am
“Oliver Manuel provides ……………”
Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a very long time.
Henry said
There is definitely a correlation between global cooling and declining solar magnetic field strengths. I am not sure why…..
henry says
…but I do have a theory
Village Idiot (August 22, 2014 at 4:20 am) “Coolista alarmists must be rubbing their tiny hands with glee…….Problem: The climate won’t dance to the music.”
It must be very frustrating to see the predicted warming going down in smoke, or whatever the latest theory for lack of warming is. But don’t despair, warming will be back with a vengeance in this new super duper El Nino, or from positive feedback from the massive Arctic ice loss, or millions of fiery methane belches or humongous forest fires or some unprecedented bad, hot or changey phenomenon that is unimaginably worse than those really soon any day now. Don’t worry VI, you’ll be sweating bullets before you know it, don’t forget to come back and taunt us.
Leif puts out water tanks everywhere. Obvious water tanks. With cold hard data. Horses come walking in thirsty as all get out. Horses refuse to drink.
Mouse hunters walk into a room. Are shown elephants. Not the puny Asian elephant. The big hunkin ass African elephants. Mouse hunters are convinced that said manure in the room is caused by a mouse scurrying around in the room even though big ass elephants are standing there pooping.
A tragic comedy of the likes of Shakespeare.