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
And I should add Bob in there. He’s the elephant handler.
Hoser, you have not been in my classroom. I don’t mind inquisitive active boys. But I sure as hell expect thinking reasonable questions.
Back in 2005, the ionosphere shrank far more deeply than they were expecting. Still hasn’t recovered. Climate effects: we don’t know.
BTW, reduced solar UV only accounts for 30% of the drop, so there is definately something going on that we do not understand.
Mosher says
” 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 ”
in a holier than thou manner and yet has no compulsions on throwing accusations about a 16 year old teenage girl without substantiating it with any citations or links in another blog.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/19/institutionalizing-dissent/#comment-619597
Pot, kettle, black.
Larry says
so there is definitely something going on that we do not understand.
Henry says
as I said I do have a theory
I figure that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
I had now already found three exact confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the more energetic particles coming from the sun. It appears (to me) that as the solar polar fields are weakening,
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
more of these particles are able to escape from the sun to form more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides at the TOA. In turn, these substances deflect more sunlight to space when there is more of it. So, ironically, when the sun is brighter, earth will get cooler. This is a defense system that earth has in place to protect us from harmful UV (C).
Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output.
The next switch I expect to happen in 2016. I hope it does come, as otherwise I am not sure where we will end up?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
Note the results in the last table.
Yet another example of why the whole debate is crying out for the application of Okham’s Razer: The Sun is by far the most important “energy” source for Earth. What it does is going to have impacts, on climate and other dynamic systems. The nature of those impacts and the mechanisms by which they are “felt” may not be understood, and to delve into these in order to understand them better is clearly “good science”, but to elevate any (to borrow from Prof Svalgard) “pet theory” to the level of a proven hypothesis is simple “nonsense”. It’s the Sun stupid!
Kevin, you have just done what you rail against by saying “It’s the Sun stupid!” That is also a pet theory.
Pamela Gray says:
August 22, 2014 at 5:47 pm
And you decide, of course, what is reasonable. Everybody knows the Sun is in a crystal sphere rotating around the Earth.
Hoser says
Everybody knows the Sun is in a crystal sphere rotating around the Earth.
Henry says
I am sure Pam knows it is the other way around?
Anyway, FYI, all here, there is a relationship between the hyperbolic decline /parabolic incline of the solar polar field strengths
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/weakest-solar-wind-of-the-space-age-and-the-current-mini-solar-maximum/#comment-1715663
and the parabolic decline for the deceleration of warming
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
It is as solid as a rock.
Point is that when more that 3 co-incidences together occur together it forms a pattern…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
HenryP you know that your data series has not been peer reviewed or duplicated. Therefore I consider your research to be at high risk of being both invalid and unreliable. Post the station names. How many times does one have to make this request before you do it? If you want your work to be considered, you must post indentifiable data such that your research methods and results can be tested, using the data sources you used. Don’t bother telling me to randomly pick my own data set. That is not duplication.
My point is dumb questions and mistakes can lead to breakthroughs. I hope we never stop asking dumb questions.
Yet there are so many here who have not picked up a good, vetted, research based book on the Sun. So don’t give me an appeal to the notion that dumb questions are good. Do your homework first so questions are thoughtful.
Maybe it is time once again for Leif to post a resource list on good books describing solar processes. He did that for me years ago. There have been a couple new ones published since then.
Pamela Gray says:
August 23, 2014 at 10:38 am
Maybe it is time once again for Leif to post a resource list on good books describing solar processes. He did that for me years ago.
The best of the new ones are http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/heliophysics
They are, unfortunately, expensive, but you may be able to find used ones [or paperback versions]
“Heliophysics is a fast-developing discipline that integrates studies of the Sun’s variability, the surrounding heliosphere, and the environment and climate of planets. Over the past few centuries, our understanding of how the Sun drives space weather and climate on the Earth and other planets has advanced dramatically. This set brings together three books edited by Carolus Schrijver and George Siscoe, which together provide a complete guide to heliophysics – covering the full range of sub-disciplines that constitute this field. Supplemented by online teaching materials, the volumes can be used as textbooks for graduate courses or as a foundational reference resource for researchers in fields from astrophysics and plasma physics to planetary and atmospheric science. The set price is currently not available longer available, but the three individual volumes may be purchased separately: Heliophysics: Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos (Volume I) Heliophysics: Space Storms and Radiation: Causes and Effects (Volume II) Heliophysics: Evolving Solar Activity and the Climates of Space and Earth (Volume III)”
also http://www.vsp.ucar.edu/Heliophysics/science-resources-textbooks.shtml
Pamela Gray
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/weakest-solar-wind-of-the-space-age-and-the-current-mini-solar-maximum/#comment-1715810
@Pam
Again I have to challenge you on that. I just took a sample of 54 weather stations and, after applying certain statistics, I achieved the reported result. In statistics you can only duplicate things if you were to take a different sample [than mine]. You are not supposed to take the same sample as I did.
Nevertheless, your claim that I did not post the station’s name / position is not true. I reported the exact latitude of each station in the tables.
For example, here are my original results [before linear regression] for NY JFK
http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/New_York_Kennedy_International_Airport/744860.htm
Note that it reports the exact latitude of 40.65
Going back to my tables
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
I am sure you will find the latitude that I reported in my tables for NY JFK was indeed 40.65
Therefore, you should be able to identify each station that I used, if you really wanted to duplicate my own random sample.
Again, I say that that in itself would be a silly exercise unless you [just] wanted to prove that I am a dishonest person.
If you want to duplicate my results [by taking a different sample] you must remember to employ the same sampling technique that I used.
Dr. Svalgaard
Any comments on this paper (unfortunately it is behind pay wall)
The 1.3-year variation in solar wind speed and geomagnetic activity
K. Mursula, B. Zieger 2000
We show that the 1.3-year variation is a quasi-periodicity which occurs during even solar cycles. On the other hand, during odd cycles, we find a somewhat longer periodicity with a period varying from 1.5-1.7 years. Both of these periodicities are expected to be due to the evolution of coronal holes. Therefore, the observed difference in period implies a difference in the evolution of coronal holes during even and odd cycles.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117799006080
Discussions of a currently weaker solar wind in a weaker cycle following a long duration step change increase in solar sunspot activity from 1936 to 2003, called the Modern Maximum, indicate a slow but logical progression is underway in our understanding of the sun-climate connection.
What is good about it is we’re all focused now on Earth’s temperature state wrt the Sun’s output.
We get our heat and light from the Sun’s radiant output. The Sun warms us more when solar activity in sunspots is higher, as radiant and magnetic flux both track sunspot numbers well.
Using http://www.leif.org/research/Revised-Group-Numbers.xls, we study 1749-2014, and find:
There WAS a Modern Maximum. After a very long 187 year period with an average annual GSN of 50.8 between 1749 and 1935, the next 68 years exhibited a 44.7% higher annual average of 73.5, 1936-2003.
The Modern Maximum was a long, outstanding step change in solar activity!
As for the Dalton minimum:
After 1791, for 36 years, the annual GSN averaged 27.9, right through the Dalton minimum. If we compare those high-low periods to the post-Modern Maximum era, we see that during the 11 years after the culmination of the Modern Maximum in 2003, the annual GSN has averaged 40.6, still 45.5% higher than the 36-year Dalton minimum period annual average.
We have a ways to go to reach the depths of the Dalton minimum, but as SC24 winds down and if SC25 is also weak, or even weaker, we could reach Dalton-minimum average solar conditions, and from that, we will probably also experience a significant temperature dropoff.
In less than a decade, there was a -1.9C change during the Dalton minimum, 1802 to 1810 (using http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_complete.txt). SSN=0 for 1810.
The 68-years from 1936 to 2003 defined the Modern Maximum, when the average annual sunspot number (GSN) was 73.5, 22.7 higher, or 44.7% higher, than the prior 187-year average of 50.8.
The 1936-2003 Modern Maximum annual average GSN was 30.8% higher than the 266-year GSN annual average of 56.2. “Grand” or not, it was an extended period of significantly higher solar activity.
The most recent four-year annual average for the GSN is 73.9, just above the 68-year Modern Maximum average, which indicates why the cooling we are experiencing is not so severe YET (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/23/cold-summer-us-daily-record-minimum-outnumbering-record-maximums-3-to-1-in-the-last-30-days/ ).
Wait a few more years as SSN drops and stays low into the minimum and into SC25, and even the most ardent solar de*iers will see the light. By then I predict the argument will turn into “you first” – “no, you first” – “no, ladies first” – “no, age before beauty”… as Pamela and Leif decide who will be the last one on the solar bandwagon….
beng says:
August 22, 2014 at 5:52 am
***
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2014 at 11:11 pm
Calculate for me how large you think that effect is and we can discuss the matter.
***
Yup. All the suppositions on varying “UV”, on and on endlessly, never have any hard numbers. Ever. Until numbers are shown, none of the suppositions can be taken seriously because there’s nothing to discuss.
———————————————————————————
Well Leif should be able to give a WM/2 TOA and surface insolation value for lets say the four lowest cycles in the 20th century, and the four highest soar cycles. This should give us how many total Hiroshima bombs of extra energy hit the TOA and surface during the four highest cycles vs the four lowest. (I think we can come up with a better metric) He should be able to break this down by solar WL, particularly at the surface. He should then be able to give the residence time of the excess energy entering the oceans during the four largest solar cycles, and thus calculate the total excess energy which entered the oceans during this period, vs the four lowest cycles. We should then be able to calculate cloud cover, both volume and latitude four these eight solar cycle periods, which may or may not greatly magnify the insolation into the oceans. A recent paper says it does.
When Leif does that then I will listen to his naysaying, until the it is fairly open season on correlation, as climate is very complex.
Bob Weber says: August 23, 2014 at 1:20 pm
Hi Bob, re link: http://www.leif.org/research/Revised-Group-Numbers.xls,
A good low pass filters tend to give a smoother output compared with running average, here ( http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NewGSN.gif ) superimposed on the Dr. S’s graph
David A, I would imagine any one of us could calculate the same thing. There are formulas out there for several pieces of your request. Do you have a calculator? The only thing you and all others will have a hard time doing is calculating for cloud effects. Meaning you may over-calculate the amount of insolation that hits the ocean surface during the periods you are interested in. However, if you use clear sky and cloud formulas you should be able to bracket high and low values.
do you want consecutive months or does it matter?
HenryP you truly do not understand duplicating YOUR research (if I come up with a different station set I am obviously not duplicating YOUR research). To duplicate your research I need YOUR pseudo-random method and names of stations (not just latitude) you chose. I need YOUR archived raw data from YOUR stations, and YOUR algorithms used to obtain YOUR results. If you again fail to publish this, I have to disregard your presentations and recommend that others do the same. You give us no choice.
Thank you MAVukcevic for your graph work. It can be deceiving to look at it, as the variations look “similar” and not all that dramatic, until you run the numbers as I did. Your smoothed line is of an already averaged quantity. The GSN curve (from the data file) are the annual averages plotted in time end-to-end, computed on daily data (that we haven’t seen yet!), which hides the often real up and down nature of solar variability over every solar rotation. With that in mind, once you have the daily data, you could run it through your low pass filter.
The USAF http://origin-www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/usaf-45-day-ap-and-f107cm-flux-forecast is indicating the range for F10.7 radio flux for the next 45 days to be between 100-145, lower than the 90-155 forecast range for parts of July. There was a dramatic energetic contrast on the solar disk for a while earlier this summer as it had a really active side followed by a virtually blank side, which has changed now to a more evenly balanced sun, north and south hemispheres, and both sides.
In July, when the SIDC SSN was 256, the solar flux was 201, and then the SSN dropped down to zero for a day during the solar “all-quiet” period that lasted for over a week, when F10.7 was 89.
As I have closely monitored US temps all year, I can testify that there was a direct solar influence as evidenced in temperature map data. When the SSN was high, it was hot, the Sun was hot here on the 45th parallel in Michigan. When the SSN was zero and low for quite over a week, it was cool and dreary. It wasn’t just in Michigan either. The Gulf States and West Coast missed the cooling effects for the most part due to the warm humid tropical winds coming in off of the Ocean.
Looking at US temps for this year, they are down, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/75-of-the-us-below-normal-temperature-over-the-past-11-months/
Michigan too, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/michigan-has-had-both-their-coldest-winter-and-summer-on-record-this-year/ and reports of cold weather from around the world keep coming in.
Time to sharpen the chainsaw.
vukcevic says:
August 23, 2014 at 1:07 pm
<i.Any comments on this paper (unfortunately it is behind pay wall)
first, it is old hat. Second, there are no such persistent periodicities, hnece no difference between even-odd cycles.
Bob Weber says:
August 23, 2014 at 1:20 pm
There WAS a Modern Maximum.
There was a maximum in every one of the three last centuries.
David A says:
August 23, 2014 at 1:45 pm
We should then be able to calculate cloud cover
No, we cannot, because 1) the loss-term is not known, 2) we cannot compute cloudiness.
The best you can do regarding clouds is to calculate clear sky and “all sky” (IE clouds) conditions, which is the process used in models.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1029%2F1999GL011144%2Fpdf&ei=wlX5U4mKD8rCigLWv4DoAw&usg=AFQjCNHdCgV_f6zeZvqfFiuOYdLG8GaDoA&bvm=bv.73612305,d.cGE
How now brown cow. Interesting tidbits on brown clouds. Because conditions are so varied across the globe, again I submit the best you can do is calculate the outside range. Which of course would bury any solar variation.
http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/clouds-and-pollution.htm