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
John Whitman – Absolutely!
Bob Weber says:
August 24, 2014 at 9:13 am
Leif, I’m glad the raw data is publically available. Where is it?
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/group/
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.
The low temperatures 1810-1820 were mostly due to volcanoes.
The global warming we experienced during the Modern Maximum
You mean the rising temperatures the last 30 years were due to the falling solar activity during that period.
Comparing the change in TOA W/m2 with the change in insolation driven by volcanic activity as a cause for cooling during the 1810-20 decade, I would immediately disregard solar variability calculated change in TOA W/m2. Not enough decrease in TSI to invoke such a temperature plunge. However, stratospheric and tropospheric veiling definitely has the cojones to cool temperatures. Directly and measurably. In fact it is so well studied that calculation based aerosol models can quickly and accurately model that observed temperature change.
For those interested, here are the components of pmip3, a general circulation model used to make scenario runs for various climate simulations (usually by changing CO2 input). These can also be run without changing CO2 values (which is really just a set of increasing fudged greenhouse values that results in a huge output difference) for those who do not think the tiny fraction of CO2 increase contributed by human activity makes a difference.
Enjoy.
https://wiki.lsce.ipsl.fr/pmip3/doku.php/pmip3:design:lm:final
Leif, you will find the pmip3 model of interest. None of the TSI reconstructions that figure into its design are accurate. In addition, these reconstructions are then used for the ozone reconstructions, so the error propagates through the model. And from the list of TSI reconstruction investigators, they would also now agree their work is no longer accurate.
If TSI errors have been propagated through other components of these models, thus compounding the output, I wonder what the modeling communities are saying to each other around the water cooler. To be a fly on the wall.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2014 at 9:13 am
I said, “While we have reason to think SC25 will be a low cycle, as the polar field data suggest now”
You said, “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 physical reason being the plasma source at the solar poles is MIA for the next cycle, as you should be aware. See http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/4_hill_shearBelowSurface.png
From http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/ “Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun’s surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism. New jet streams typically form at about 50 degrees latitude (as in 1999 on this plot) and are associated with the following solar cycle 11 years later. New jet streams associated with a future 2018-2020 solar maximum were expected to form by 2008 but are not present even now, indicating a delayed or missing Cycle 25.”
You say “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.”
It is included in the modern maximum total. To see it’s effect on SST, look here: http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif
Until I can find and use your new GSN daily data going back to 1749, the best and most accurate accumulation model I can make is based on HadSST3 and F10.7cm radio flux, as daily data is required for a sufficiently “fine” resolution. So if you’re the least bit interested in seeing how your GSN data demonstrates the solar accumulation effect over a longer time span than the F10.7 history, please pony up with the new GSN daily data link!
Pamela Gray says:
August 24, 2014 at 10:18 am
Leif, you will find the pmip3 model of interest.
link?
Thank you Leif for the link.
Bob Weber says:
August 24, 2014 at 10:22 am
From http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/ “Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun’s surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism. New jet streams typically form at about 50 degrees latitude (as in 1999 on this plot) and are associated with the following solar cycle 11 years later. New jet streams associated with a future 2018-2020 solar maximum were expected to form by 2008 but are not present even now, indicating a delayed or missing Cycle 25.”
Their conclusion was based on setting a color threshold incorrectly, and is invalid. The streams are there and have been duly observed. Amazing how some people will lock on to random claims as long as they support their pet ‘theory’ without investigating further. There is no way to predict the next cycle until the new polar fields are established 2 to 3 years from now, and certainly not from mere extrapolation of the old polar fields.
data demonstrates the solar accumulation effect over a longer time span than the F10.7 history,
seems to me to be nonsense to require daily data to investigate what happens on longer time spans.
From: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/5/185/2012/gmd-5-185-2012.html
“It is clear from Fig. 4 that the inclusion of the Shapiro et al. (2011) results makes the potential envelope of solar radia- tive forcing much larger than previously (cf. Fig. 9 in v1.0), which will undoubtedly lead to a greater response in model temperatures.”
The word of the day: Oops.
Sorry Leif, my comment with the link was in moderation. I knew it would show up eventually.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2014 at 9:31 am
I said, “The global warming we experienced during the Modern Maximum…”
You say “You mean the rising temperatures the last 30 years were due to the falling solar activity during that period.”
Let’s not kid ourselves, the last three cycles after #20 were high cycles. You will understand what I mean once you see the accumulation model. Remember there is thermal inertia in the Earth systems. Even though SSNs dropped off after 1791, the temps remained high until 1802 before plummenting -1.9 degree until 1810, indicating a nine-year thermal lag in the 1791-1802 period.
Now that I have your daily data, I can go further back in time with my model, provided I can trust the temperature series data further back from the satellite era.
But since my woodshed still needs filling, it’ll probably be a few weeks before that model work is done and written up for presentation and evaluation.
@Bob
an 88 year Gleissberg cycle has been identified by various sources and resources.
I am not going to quote again.
According to my results
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
1995 was the middle of that cycle, from whence global cooling started, theoretically at least.
You can easily calculate that from the first formula [on maxima] that I gave there.
Note that you can draw bi-nomials up and down
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
seemingly coming to its lowest point around 2016.
From then onward, after the switch to increasing field strengths again, I predict a mirror image of that graph. So, we it will be cooling from 1995 and cooling until 2038, not counting any lags as observed from earth’s temperatures (ca. 5-7 years)
However small the change, it is amplified by less cloud formation at the higher latitudes and more clouds and more rain at the lower latitudes. That is just pure physics….. As reported earlier around 0.5-0.7 K up and down, during the cycle, is apparent from my results.
The net result is indeed around 0K counting over the whole of the cycle of ca. 88 years.
Even so, we must realize that the drought time similar to 1932-1939 will be upon us, from around 2021-2022 until 2029.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
Its upstream but I repost it:
Pamela Gray says:
August 24, 2014 at 10:13 am
[self snipped comment here for the shorter version]
Enjoy.
https://wiki.lsce.ipsl.fr/pmip3/doku.php/pmip3:design:lm:final
“Their conclusion was based on setting a color threshold incorrectly, and is invalid. The streams are there and have been duly observed. Amazing how some people will lock on to random claims as long as they support their pet ‘theory’ without investigating further. There is no way to predict the next cycle until the new polar fields are established 2 to 3 years from now, and certainly not from mere extrapolation of the old polar fields.”
Don’t blame me for this, I go with the best data I can find. If you have better photospheric data, by all means, point the way.
Pamela Gray says:
August 24, 2014 at 10:38 am
From: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/5/185/2012/gmd-5-185-2012.html
“It is clear from Fig. 4 that the inclusion of the Shapiro et al. (2011) results makes …
There is really no support for the Shapiro et al. [SEA] contention. As your link notes:
“there is magnetic field evidence that supports only a modest increase of solar activity over the 20th century (Svalgaard and Cliver, 2010; Lockwood and Owens, 2011).”
“seems to me to be nonsense to require daily data to investigate what happens on longer time spans.”
I am interested in accuracy with observed measured numbers as much as possible, and if the averaged values turn out similar results, so be it.
I also investigate what happens on very short time spans for heat waves and cold spells, which is not nonsense. As you know, any complete solar accumulation theory and model must account for all if not as many observations as possible. I’m still waiting for the CO2 crowd to show me anything credible that supports their theory and models, let alone a single observation of any kind related to higher CO2, other than increased plant foilage.
Leif, so I wonder why they even placed Shapiro’s reconstruction in the list of choices?
Bob Weber says:
August 24, 2014 at 10:40 am
Let’s not kid ourselves
Or, in your case, fool yourself..
Now that I have your daily data, I can go further back in time with my model, provided I can trust the temperature series data further back from the satellite era.
This is the raw data, not ‘my’ daily data. You can convert in a rough way to the new calibration by multiplying every value before 1885 by 1.50. This is very rough, but since it does not make much sense to use daily data, what does it matter that they are only very approximate.
HenryP I hope you’re wrong about the severity of droughts in 2021-22 to 2029, as we have enough problems in this world, but at this point I cannot discount the possibility of you being right on that.
Pamela Gray says:
August 24, 2014 at 10:51 am
Leif, so I wonder why they even placed Shapiro’s reconstruction in the list of choices?
Perhaps to show how ridiculous it is. Also, a certain amount of honesty dictates that you at least mention contraindications.
“This is the raw data, not ‘my’ daily data. You can convert in a rough way to the new calibration by multiplying every value before 1885 by 1.50. This is very rough, but since it does not make much sense to use daily data, what does it matter that they are only very approximate.”
It bothers me to use a multiplier in such a rough way. I probably won’t do that. This has gone on long enough for me today, as I’ve got other work to do. Enjoy the warmth while it lasts, winter’s coming!
My bad. Shaprio’s is not in the current choices (could be why it is not in this version of the model). However a quick look at the other reconstruction choices still show the now outdated century rise.
Bob Weber says:
August 24, 2014 at 11:02 am
It bothers me to use a multiplier in such a rough way. I probably won’t do that.
Using a single multiplier for each observer was the way Hoyt & Schatten constructed the GSN in the first place. If you don’t do as I suggest you are simply using their old obsolete reconstruction [which you probably would like anyway as it makes the Sun vary a lot more than it actually does, so instead of measly 44% you might get 100% or even more. That will go a long to support your ideas of a modern grand maximum and its effect].
But they do have Shindell’s reconstruction of TSI driven ozone changes. And it’s the only choice. He proposes that increasing irradiance (from reconstructions), must drive changes in ozone that must have measurable effects on climate. So I guess the oops is in his court.
From the abstract:
“Holocene climate proxies suggest substantial correlations between tropical meteorology and solar variations, but these have thus far not been explained. Using a coupled ocean-atmosphere-composition model forced by sustained multi-decadal irradiance increases, we show that greater tropical temperatures alter the hydrologic cycle, enhancing the climatological precipitation maxima in the tropics while drying the subtropical subsidence regions.”
From methods:
“We impose a full solar cycle perturbation (0.19 W/m2 instantaneous radiative forcing at the tropopause, equivalent to 1.1 W/m2 change in solar output) as a mid-range estimate. This is in good agreement with recent model-based estimates [Wang et al., 2005b]. Given the uncertainty in this forcing, we concentrate our comparison with observations on the spatial pattern of the response rather than its precise magnitude. The imposed irradiance changes included spectral variations based on modern observations, which show greatly enhanced variability at shorter wavelengths relative to the visible over a solar cycle.”
Cue the solar enthusiasts. Doubt they will catch the “But”.