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
Leif there was a maximum in each of the last centuries. However, the long run big picture from your 266-year data indicate that the magnitude and duration of the last century maximum was higher than the usual variation. Is that so hard to accept?
What is the best information telling us about the long run annual average SSN in solar activity? You criticized Usoskin’s work where he claimed the solar output peaked at a 3,000 year high. How does your long run annual average SSN compare to his? I didn’t catch this earlier if you said, but when do you think the daily data will be released? Also, do you plan to take the GSN series back to before the Maunder Minimum (a somewhat rhetorical question.)
Off the top of your head, what is the long MM non-existent SSN count period going to do to that long-term annual average I spoke of – will it go from 56.2 as it is now for the 266-year period, to below 50? If it’s near 50, the GSN 1936-2003 annual average will still be about 45% higher than pre-1936.
Pamela Gray says:
August 23, 2014 at 6:37 pm
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.
————————————————
Pamela, from your first link….”To date, it is still not well established how much solar
energy is absorbed within the Earth’s atmosphere. This
has been mainly due to insufficient information on solar
energy reaching the ground, whereas the net fluxes at the
TOA are well determined from satellite observations…..”
———–
I saw nothing to change this. I saw no indication of the WL reaching the oceans, let alone a residence time estimate of said energy. The entire body of charts for TOA and surface was from seven sites in Germany, extrapolated I suppose to global climate grids, with little info on the types of clouds studied during the periods of study. I have no idea where one would find the recorded WL for each solar cycle. Pamela, I am curious about this comment of yours, “Meaning you may over-calculate the amount of insolation that hits the ocean surface during the periods you are interested in.”
Well yes if I assumed clear sky. However I do not assume that for the four most active solar cycles, or the four least active. What I am looking for is the difference between these cycles, and to know the difference in particular between the surface insolation entering the oceans.
What some have indicated is there may be an observable correlation of greater cloud cover in the tropics and semi tropics during low solar years due to jet stream movements. (Mechanism matters not if it is observed, as the reduced insolation result would be an amplified, beyond the straight solar insolation variation.) The solar insolation received alone may be far more then you assume. Why? Due to the fact that sunlight penetrates up to 800′ in the tropics, and the residence time of disparate WL of solar spectrum is difficult to find. However, the longer the residence time, the more said energy can accumulate, up to every day for thousands of days for some ocean received insolation.
So three potential amplifications to the direct solar variation. One; cloud location, and two; total clouds, and three, the residence time of the insolation received. I think we do not have the information for at least two of these, and likely we do not have the solar WL variation for 90 years worth of solar cycles to even get a TOA energy difference well calculated.
Yet I will certainly check your second link, and thanks Pamela for all your contributions.
August 23, 2014 at 9:34 pm
Leif there was a maximum in each of the last centuries. However, the long run big picture from your 266-year data indicate that the magnitude and duration of the last century maximum was higher than the usual variation. Is that so hard to accept?
Yes, because it is not true if we extend the record to 1700: http://www.leif.org/research/Unofficial-New-GSN-Caution.png
What is the best information telling us about the long run annual average SSN in solar activity?
What I just showed you.
You criticized Usoskin’s work where he claimed the solar output peaked at a 3,000 year high. How does your long run annual average SSN compare to his?
He actually claims a 10,000 year high. But it is hard to see because of the poor time-resolution of his graph, but here is one try:
http://www.leif.org/research/Grand-Maximum-NOT.png
I didn’t catch this earlier if you said, but when do you think the daily data will be released?
Spring 2015. But the daily data [or hourly data, or 5-minute data, or …] are not important for climate [being 30-year means] and won’t change anything.
Also, do you plan to take the GSN series back to before the Maunder Minimum (a somewhat rhetorical question.)
We cannot, but we can recalibrate the cosmic ray record [this is in the works] to match better the sunspot record we actually have.
Off the top of your head, what is the long MM non-existent SSN count period going to do to that long-term annual average I spoke of – will it go from 56.2 as it is now for the 266-year period, to below 50? If it’s near 50, the GSN 1936-2003 annual average will still be about 45% higher than pre-1936.
You persist in your silly numerology. The fact is that there have been periods [I already showed you one] with sunspot number averages comparable to your cherry picked interval 1936-2003. Bottom line: solar activity is not the main driver of climate on time scales of centuries.
Pamela, the Brown cloud link was interesting. The direct affect of regular clouds was likewise interesting, showing a heavy cloud reduction of up to 85%, potentially reducing 1000 W/M2 to 150.
But again I wish to highlight the fact that the reduction cannot be compared on simply a watts per sq. M basis, as the residence time of the solar spectrum affected is critical to understanding how much energy is actually lost. The 150 watts per sq. m reaching the ocean in such conditions is likely LWIR, with most of the SW absorbed in the clouds. This penetrates very little, and has a short residence time within the oceans, meaning the reduction in energy received is far more then the 85% indicated. The longer the condition lasts, the greater the ration of the reduction becomes.
David A says:
August 23, 2014 at 10:17 pm
But again I wish to highlight the fact that the reduction cannot be compared on simply a watts per sq. M basis, as the residence time of the solar spectrum affected is critical to understanding how much energy is actually lost.
Your comment is typical of the hand waving that goes on. If you are such an expert with such an understanding of the issue, why don’t you show us the total energy budget according to your ‘understanding’?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2014 at 9:34 pm
Now, why did this plot not show:
http://www.leif.org/research/Unofficial-New-GSN-Caution.png
Leif, there is no doubt there were also other high solar periods other the most recent one, and each of those can be evaluated in kind.
The dates I use, 1936-2003, were selected logically. The highest running average going back from the present lands us in 1936. The end date is the year before the average fell off, after the peak of SC23, in 2003. That’s logical, not cherry-picked, especially if we want to see IF there was a modern maximum, since you claimed there wasn’t. Being a skeptic, I had to see for myself.
I believe in independent verification. Trust but verify. – It’s OK, I handled it – FAIRLY too.
You say “Bottom line: solar activity is not the main driver of climate on time scales of centuries.”
You say that without any backing evidence or qualifications. I’m not being critical for the sake of being critical here, but you give no reason why I should believe that assertion.
What I have done is ANALYSIS, not numerology. You apparently will not accept anyone else’s views on anything that flies in the face of your stated beliefs, despite the strong evidence to the contrary that your own data provides. What do you expect people to do, reduce the solar sunspot record down to a single number, 56.2, the annual 266-year average, and call it the solar constant?
We analyze the solar output the same way we do any other set of averages, like in baseball, to parse out the hitting streaks versus the strikeout slumps (high SSN periods vs low SSN periods). There is nothing wrong with the technique. There is nothing wrong with the interpretation.
Temperature and precipitation data are given similar analyses to find the heat waves/cold spells, droughts/floods – magnitudes and durations. What makes the new GSN immune from such scrutiny? What is silly is how you’re reacting to the news that there was a solar Modern Maximum.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2014 at 10:23 pm
David A says:
August 23, 2014 at 10:17 pm
But again I wish to highlight the fact that the reduction cannot be compared on simply a watts per sq. M basis, as the residence time of the solar spectrum affected is critical to understanding how much energy is actually lost.
==============
Your comment is typical of the hand waving that goes on. If you are such an expert with such an understanding of the issue, why don’t you show us the total energy budget according to your ‘understanding’?
—————————————————–
Wow Leif, if you reread my two or three posts almost in succession you will see I am simply making the point that we do not know, but the amplification may be greater the assumed.
It is simple logic.
If an area under heavy cloud cover persists for three days, that is 36 hours of lets say (just illustrating a point so the real numbers of course vary) 150 watts per m, verses clear sky of 1000 watts per m. However for those three days most of the LWIR 150 watts per sq m insolation mainly accelerated evaporation at the surface, and then went into the atmosphere to radiate away. During those same 36 hours under clear sky conditions 1000 watts per sq M entered the oceans, but much of that energy stayed in the oceans, some of it penetrating to 800′. Much of that energy accumulated for all three days, meaning the ratio of about 6 watts clear sky to one watt cloud cover, is even further magnified, and that ratio continues to increase the longer the condition persists.
I never claimed to be an expert You do, but I maintain until you answer the questions I asked, then observed correlations are legitimate to speculate on as there are three clear avenues of greatly leveraging the direct insolation. 1. Residence time of disparate solar spectrum penetrating the oceans. 2., Amount of cloud cover. 3., Cloud cover location; the more tropical, the greater the impact.
It is ok to say we do not know. but your assertion of no solar affect simply by minimizing the direct TOA insolation variation on a simple Watts per M sq. basis is, I.M.V. premature.
I am hand waving nothing. I think the data does not exist to know. The more about ERB I have read, the more convinced I am that we do not know. Climate is a land of dozens of teeter totters, all moving up and down at disparate, and even changing rhythms. Sometimes a few line up, on rare occasions many may reach the top or bottom at the same time. Isolating the impact of any one forcing or feedback is very difficult.
if we want to see IF there was a modern maximum, since you claimed there wasn’t.
Of course there is a modern maximum, and I am at a loss why you say that I claim there wasn’t; so get this: there WAS a modern maximum, as there were other maxima in other centuries that were comparable to the modern maximum in size and length. What you are trying to say is that there were no other maxima. What Usoskin is claiming is that the Modern Maximum was a Grand maximum greatly exceeding all other maxima in the past 10,000 years. Both he and you are wrong. Since there were other maxima which did not coincide with ‘global warmings’, such warming is not driven by the maxima. As simple as that.
David A says:
August 23, 2014 at 11:23 pm
Wow Leif, if you reread my two or three posts almost in succession you will see I am simply making the point that we do not know, but the amplification may be greater the assumed.
Here is the difference between us: I make no claims about what we do not know. You, on the other hand, make such claims about things we do not know, things that ‘may be’, speculating about shaky correlations that in my mind are less than compelling, or even interesting. I guess I am just a bit less gullible than you. A bit less willing to accept as worthwhile science that which we don’t know.
Leif, I simply pointed out what we do not know, and more importantly some specific areas that may improve our knowledge. (We both agree that currently we do not have those answers)
I also illustrated some logical ways that solar insolation may be magnified by other factors. I referenced 0 specific correlations, but simply asserted the difficulty in separating any one influence on climate. Gullible could not be applied as I neither accepted or rejected anybody’s assertions (including yours) with regard to the immature science of understanding climate.
Leif, what claim did I make?
Bob Weber says:
August 23, 2014 at 10:59 pm
What I have done is ANALYSIS, not numerology.
What you have done is analysis like this: logic [not cherry picking] dictates that the period 1726-1791 was a significant solar maximum driving climate back then because the average GSN was 68.6 for that prolonged maximum versus only 50.7 for all the other years since 1700, an excess of 35%. And the period 1828-1872 was a significant solar maximum driving climate back then because the average GSN was 66.3 for that prolonged maximum versus only 52.3 for all the other years since 1700, an excess of 27%.
David A says:
August 24, 2014 at 12:47 am
Leif, what claim did I make?
among others:
“amplification may be greater than assumed”
“The solar insolation received alone may be far more then you assume”
The Null-hypothesis must be that there is no effect. People who claim otherwise must provide evidence and show that an effect is energetically possible or at least plausible. I don’t need to do the inverse.
“amplification may be greater than assumed”
“The solar insolation received alone may be far more then you assume”
———————————–
Context my man. The second comment was in response to Pamela saying it may be far less, with no correlation or reason to show that, and there is some correlation to loopy jet streams in low solar cycles.
The first was a “maybe”, followed by a request for numbers, of which there is no data, and there is no null hypothesis with regard to solar affects on climate. The scientific position is we don’t know, lets explore the possibilities.
So tell me, take the highest cycles and the lowest, say low from about1879 to 1935, and high from 1935 to about 1986, and tell me how much additional SW energy entered the oceans during those peak years, which were followed by three more stronger then average cycles. Furthermore tell me the average residence time of that energy vs the residence time of the weak cycles. Furthermore tell me the total cloud cover for those periods, and the average cloud latitude change, if any. Now combine all that and tell me how much extra energy was received into the earth’s atmospheric, land, and ocean system.
Like I said, your assertion of no affect is not a null hypothesis. Natural variation is a null hypothesis. The causes of that variation are a field for study.
David A says:
August 24, 2014 at 2:01 am
So tell me, take the highest cycles and the lowest, say low from about1879 to 1935, and high from 1935 to about 1986, and tell me how much additional SW energy entered the oceans during those peak years, which were followed by three more stronger then average cycles.
We know how much more energy the sun produced [not much, less than 1/2000 of the average], all the rest is guesswork which I don’t do.
Like I said, your assertion of no affect is not a null hypothesis. Natural variation is a null hypothesis. The causes of that variation are a field for study.
You make the automatic assumption that the Sun is the cause.
I am disappointed to find [once again] that none of the bright [solar] sparks here were/are able to work that on a timescale of sorts [i.e. what is happening on the sun now] we are exactly where we were back in 1925 or 1926 and what consequences this will have for the future of the weather, especially for the great plains of America, which is currently the breadbasket of the world.
I made no assumption whatsoever. You stated, “The Null-hypothesis must be that there is no effect.
You may be right, and I never said different, except I find your assumption premature.
You are saying there was about 1/2 watt per sq.M difference for those periods?
I am disappointed to find [once again] that none of the bright [solar] sparks here were/are able to work out that on a timescale of sorts [i.e. what is happening now on the sun] we are exactly where we were back in 1925 or 1926 and what consequences this will have for the future of the weather, i.e. the change in climate, especially for the great plains of America, which is currently the [main] breadbasket for the world.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2014 at 11:33 pm
“What you are trying to say is that there were no other maxima. What Usoskin is claiming is that the Modern Maximum was a Grand maximum greatly exceeding all other maxima in the past 10,000 years. Both he and you are wrong. ”
First of all Leif, find a quote from me where I said there were no other maxima. If you can’t, which you won’t, because I never said that, then you are kinda putting words in my mouth. As for Usoskin, I wish he’d show up and defend his work once in a while.
“Since there were other maxima which did not coincide with ‘global warmings’, such warming is not driven by the maxima. As simple as that”
Without the daily solar data you used to generate your annual series, we cannot conclude what influence solar variation had on temperatures over shorter time periods. I think it is inappropriate for the daily data to be withheld until spring 2015. You should release that data now. If you need to make revisions to the dailies later, call them a “revision” in an updated data series. As it stands now, with all the easily provable government manipulations of temperature series, your continued withholding of the daily data could be considered “suspicious”.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2014 at 12:47 am
I see you’re getting the hang of it. Which is higher, 27%, 35%, or 45%? Which had the longest period? Multiply the excess amount by the duration and compare the results of those three calculations, and you will find the recent maximum to be the outstanding period, “grand” or not.
When you look at the solar influence on an accumulation basis, the short-term variations matter, the minimums matter, and the duration and magnitude of maximums and minimums matter to the temperature response in at least SST. You have not seen my accumulation model, so you could not know that.
What legitimate reason can there be to continue to withhold that daily data?
David A says:
August 24, 2014 at 7:08 am
You are saying there was about 1/2 watt per sq.M difference for those periods?
Yes, good for a temperature difference of 0.03 C.
Bob Weber says:
August 24, 2014 at 7:31 am
then you are kinda putting words in my mouth.
Not really, as you claim ‘your’ maximum stands out [is the only one that matters], which it doesn’t:
http://www.leif.org/research/Unofficial-New-GSN-Caution.png
Without the daily solar data you used to generate your annual series, we cannot conclude what influence solar variation had on temperatures over shorter time periods.
Climate is defined as the long-time average, so daily data are meaningless. Weather is not climate.
I think it is inappropriate for the daily data to be withheld until spring 2015.
How about hourly data? When will you ask for that? Even the Daily data of the sunspot number [and other solar indices] by definition is activity integrated over the visible disk, so is already a running 14-day average.
What legitimate reason can there be to continue to withhold that daily data?
The group data is determined from the yearly data, because the sparse early data does not make it possible to compare one observer with another [to determine the calibration factor between them] on a daily basis [because they most often did not observe on the same days]. Then the daily data will be determined from sparse, scattered daily observations from many observers using the calibration factors calculated from the yearly data. This process is simply not done yet [doing things right takes time]. So, we don’t have the final daily data yet, only the yearly data. There is no ‘withholding’ of anything. The raw data is publically available, so anybody can replicate our work.
HenryP, we may be, as you say, in a similar period to 1925-6, or we may be in a period like post 1791, only time will tell. It is a bit early to be comparing our current situation with past extended solar drop-off periods, with any real high degree of confidence. While we have reason to think SC25 will be a low cycle, as the polar field data suggest now, we do have some time to go yet to see “how low” it could get, objectively, and for how long.
The sun could surprise us and deliver a higher cycle after this weak cycle. It happened before, twice, between 1880 and the early 1930s, when three lower activity cycles alternated with two higher cycles.
From whenever this SC24 starts it’s downhill slide to the minimum, until the next time the annual average sunspot number climbs nearly as high or higher than it is right now for a number of years, will determine the length of cooling. The depth of the cooling depends on initial conditions, and as of now, we’re just barely cooling after a decades long warm-up, where we’re now riding just off the peak of a long-term heat wave euphemistically called “global warming”.
Definitely interesting times we live in!
I suggest there is a virtually 100% consensus related to the climate research situation of the past ~2 decades or longer; a consensus which is comprised of both IPCC centric supporters of the CAGW hypothesis and skeptical scientists critical of the CAGW hypothesis.
I suggest the consensus is that there has been an immense level of research funding that was focused on the CAGW hypothesis when compared to the amount of research funding focused the effects on the Earth Atmosphere System (EAS) caused by both the Sun (and the space between the Sun and EAS).
If commenters here are saying something like show me the research finding that the Sun (and the space between the Sun and EAS) is the cause of multi-century scale EAS variations in surface temps then I think one should consider significant re-distribution of funding for future climate focused research toward increased knowledge of the Sun (and Space between) to Earth interaction.
John
Leif, I’m glad the raw data is publically available. Where is it?
“Climate is defined as the long-time average, so daily data are meaningless. Weather is not climate.” Correct. However, all climate stats are ultimately derived from observations and measurements of the DAILY conditions. The long-term averages in climate and solar activity are derived from daily data. That makes daily data vitally important, not meaningless.
Comparing the 65 years from 1726-1791, at an average of 68.6, to the 44 years from 1828-1872, at an average of 66.3, to the recent 68 years from 1936-2003 at an average of 73.5, we get the following results:
The first period had 89% of the last period’s activity, and the middle period had 58% of the last period’s activity. While the first period is close in magnitude and duration to the last period, the modern maximum, I want to point out a very important thing:
Right after the first period ended, after 1791, the SSN dropped to zero by 1810, and the temperatures dropped by -1.9 degrees by 1810, wiping out much of the accumulated solar energy gains during that previous 65-year high SSN period. When the SSN went up again so did the temperatures. From that alone, I’d say the Earth’s weather and climate are highly super-sensitive to solar variation.
The global warming we experienced during the Modern Maximum will be wiped out by an extended solar downturn, IMO, should that downturn be deep enough and long enough. Once you finally see my accumulation model, you’ll see how that works.
Bob Weber says:
August 24, 2014 at 8:44 am
While we have reason to think SC25 will be a low cycle, as the polar field data suggest now
It is invalid simply to extrapolate the curve. Unless there is a physical reason why the next cycle should be lower, we don’t know.
The sun could surprise us and deliver a higher cycle after this weak cycle. It happened before, twice, between 1880 and the early 1930s, when three lower activity cycles alternated with two higher cycles.
You are forgetting the most famous such case, namely the low cycle 20 followed by the high cycle 21 and itself following the high cycle 19, completely breaking up your ‘Modern Maximum’ into smaller pieces.