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
I am curious Leif. Which aa index did Lean lean too in this TSI reconstruction paper referenced in the pmip3 model? Yours or Lockwoods? From the date of this article, it is obvious you have been on this SSN issue like a tick on a dog for a long time.
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/625/1/522/
Pam says
But they do have Shindell’s reconstruction of TSI driven ozone changes.
Henry says
Nothing new there for me, but you knew that.
It is not only [more] ozone being formed TOA, by the sun’s [very slight] increase of the most harmful radiation (UV-C) since 1995. It is also peroxides and nitrogenous oxides being formed TOA. This causes an increase in back radiation, eventually resulting in [somewhat] less energy into the oceans.
Climate change 101.
[eventually]
Pamela Gray says:
August 24, 2014 at 11:35 am
I am curious Leif. Which aa index did Lean lean too in this TSI reconstruction paper referenced in the pmip3 model? Yours or Lockwoods?
I pointed out to Lockwood that aa was too low before 1957. He at first would not accept that as it made his claim of ‘a doubling of the sun’s field’ invalid, see http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
Eventually, Lockwood caved in [he always does in the end] and accepted that aa should be corrected. Even to the point where he now tries to take credit for the correction [some people have no shame]. So his and my aa should not be too different [there is a small difference because he didn’t do the correction quite correctly, but that is but a minor issue].
But, I don’t think Lean used aa at all, so perhaps the details about aa’s calibration are not so important. The issue with Lean is whether there is a ‘background’ and if so [I think not], how to calculate it.
I here hedging creeping into your narrative HenryP. Sort of mirrors the CO2 folks.
here, hear, there, their, they’re. Damn it. Brain knows how to spell. Fingers do not.
two, to, too… Endless English language silliness.
too = demasiado in Spanish
to = hacia in Spanish
Is it demasiado much hacia ask that we have different English spellings for different meanings?????? Huh?????
Where is that head banging on computer keyboard till it’s all bloodied clip? I could sure use it. And all I’ve had is regular coffee. Don’t have any liquid Irish to put in it this morning.
Pam says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/weakest-solar-wind-of-the-space-age-and-the-current-mini-solar-maximum/#comment-1716561
Henry@Pam
A random sample of mine of 10 weather stations in Alaska showed an average decline of 0.55K/decade since 1998. That is almost 1K from 1998-2014.
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
Antarctica is already freezing up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/antarctic-sea-ice-has-been-above-average-for-1000-straight-days/
Seems to me we are cooling from the top [latitudes] down. Makes you think, does it not. Must be something to do with what is happening TOA, perhaps?
Otherwise, what is your explanation for all of that?
Pamela Gray says:
August 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Where is that head banging on computer keyboard till it’s all bloodied clip? I could sure use it. And all I’ve had is regular coffee. Don’t have any liquid Irish to put in it this morning.
http://www.leif.org/research/Frustration.gif
Yup. Tick on a dog. I was a puppy back then. And now I have boxed red mixed in with my real red. Cuz grey and red looks like salt and paprika. Again, thanks for your presence hear Leif. Such an interesting time to be hear on Earth and Leif certainly livens it up as well as raises the level of education.
(LOL!)
Ohhh! You meant that in the aa index previous to 1957 aa was too low in Lockwood’s work. Not that you said it in 1957. Now that is funny!! Speaks to why I don’t get most jokes either. At least until the next day.
Pamela Gray says:
August 24, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Ohhh! You meant that in the aa index previous to 1957 aa was too low in Lockwood’s work. Not that you said it in 1957.
Said it in 2002: http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Doubling.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Determination%20IMF,%20SW,%20EUV,%201890-2003.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2014 at 11:10 am
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].”
I wasn’t planning on using H&S; your new GSN is what I had in mind, partly to avoid unnecessary abuse from you. The rest of your comment at 11:10am [in brackets] is therefore irrelevant. I am certainly not trying to overstate my case by knowly using outdated data. Your previous comment about the photospheric field data I found being invalid has not yet been backed up with a better updated version by you, so is there an updated one that I missed or other data that supports your claim?
Bob Weber says:
August 24, 2014 at 12:59 pm
I wasn’t planning on using H&S; your new GSN is what I had in mind
Multiply the old versin by 1.5 before 1885 and you should be reasonable shape. The error committed by doing this is probably not much bigger than the uncertainty in the daily data, anyway.
Your previous comment about the photospheric field data I found being invalid has not yet been backed up with a better updated version by you, so is there an updated one that I missed or other data that supports your claim?
You can usually accept at face value what I say about things like this, but if you must:
Howe, R., J. Christensen-Dalsgaar, F. Hill, R. Komm, T.P. Larson, M. Rempel, J. Schou, and M.J. Thompson, 2013: The high-latitude branch of the solar torsional oscillation in the rising phase of cycle 24. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 767, DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/767/1/L20
“Although the high-latitude part of the pattern appears to be absent in the new cycle when the flows are derived by subtracting a mean across a full solar cycle, it can be seen if we subtract the mean over a shorter period in the rising phase of each cycle, and these two mean rotation profiles differ significantly at high latitudes”.
HenryP, dribbling out station names is just juvenile. Stop it.
Changes in Alaska temperatures are an easy one. That polar vortex and the Jetstream have Alaska often in its crosshairs. Depending on part of the loop it’s in, it can turn hot or cold. And since these systems have oscillations (sometimes consistently and sometimes not), a trend can send solar enthusiasts down the path of panic only to get dumped on their ass as the oscillation heads the other way.
well some here, but perhaps not you Pam , might be interested to know the results of a more detailed analysis of the data from the Anchorage Airforce Base, data from here
http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Anchorage_Elmendorf_Air_Force_Base/702720.htm
especially the data for maximum temperatures (2nd column)
It has good data going back to 1942. Only data from 1971 and 1972 was missing which I estimated to be the average of 1970 and 1973. For 2002 and 2005 you can get most of the individual monthly data, if you click on it, and work out a total year average,
Just looking at the plot of max. temps against time, you can see that it has curves. A polynomial of the 4th order showed the bending points of around 1970 and 2000. However, things became really interesting when I looked at the rate of change in K/annum after the regressions, 1940-1972 and 1972-2014, 1980-2014 and 1990-2014 and 1998-2014. The results showed respectively cooling, -0.0384K/annum from 1942-1972, warming from 1972-2014 at 0.0554K/annum and 0.0520 from 1980-2014, warming of 0.0117 from 1990-2014 and cooling of -0.0796K/annum from 1998-2014.
You can set the speed of warming /cooling out against time, and again note with me that there seems to be some parabolic curve for the deceleration of warming, with Rsquare=0.96. If I substitute the last value of -0.0796K/annum with the average of -0.0550K/annum that I reported earlier for all 10 stations in Alaska that I looked at, you get Rsquare= 0.98 for the parabolic curve.
Now isn’t that interesting? Every place on earth seems to be on its own curve, depending on its own composition TOA.
My thinking [and hoping] is that there must be a way back up to warming again. We are all going to watch in anticipation and wonder what will happen on the sun 2015-2016. I do expect to hear some special report on it. God is great. He made this structure TOA so that we would not die if the sun gives off too much [high level ] energy. He even gave us the knowledge to work things out and to act upon our findings.
Let us not be ignorant about it:
A natural consequence of global cooling is a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. Whilst maximum temperatures will still be dropping, average temperature around the equator remains more or less unchanged, largely due to more condensation energy coming free.
Europe is in a somewhat fortunate position, but at the higher latitudes >[40], in the Americas, it will become progressively drier, from now onward, ultimately culminating in a big drought period similar to the dust bowl drought 1932-1939. My various calculations all bring me to believe that this main drought period on the Great Plains will be from 2021-2028. It looks like we have only 7 “fat” years left…..
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.
——————————————————————-
With out the potential amplification data for the other three, (and likely four) factors I alluded to, which you know does not exist, we do not know this.
Many PHD scientist have published correlation data with solar cycles. As I said before, the potential amplification factors in the very large heat sink of the worlds oceans, where energy cannot be destroyed, are very large.
Climate is complex and the many disparate factors that make up climate do not always cycle positive and negative together, so exact correlations should not be expected.
Since the data to determine multiple decadal heat flow into the oceans is not known, and neither the residence time of said energy, or the total amount received is known, and the heat flow exiting the oceans is likewise not known, then I prefer not to make such conclusions as you made here stating, “The null hypothesis is there is no effect.” I think you do not have the data to reach such a conclusion.
We simply do not know how these decadal solar patterns affect the multi decadal ocean cycles. We lack the data for energy in and the energy out. We do know that in a very large heat sink, todays small heat increase can accumulate for decades, as long as the small increase continues up to the residence time of each disparate W/L received. The 1/2 watt per sq. M .increase, above the preceding five low cycles, continued for three more cycles beyond the five high cycles.
It is premature to reject the many PHD researched solar papers pointing to possible amplifications of the small solar variance.
David A August 24, 2014 at 11:05 pm
It is premature to reject the many PHD researched solar papers pointing to possible amplifications of the small solar variance.
It is premature to believe that any of those are actually effective and have any effect at all.
I don’t mind that you bring creative design into the discussion. But it adds to your weak argument. Try again, this time with causes, not statistical wrangling. What you have “discovered” is weather pattern variations and trends. Now find the cause. Hint: It’s weather.
David A August 24, 2014 at 11:05 pm
It is premature to reject the many PHD researched solar papers pointing to possible amplifications of the small solar variance.
====================
It is premature to believe that any of those are actually effective and have any effect at all.
========================================
It is also premature to assume they do not.
Time and better observations will tell.
Energy is immortal. LWIR is here today, gone from the earth tomorrow. Todays solar increase is energy in the bank (ocean). Todays deposit added to yesterdays, daily for undetermined years depending on WL and ocean penetration and geographical location of said insolation. We still have much to learn about TOA solar variation impacts on weather as well.
@Pamela Grey:
Kevin, you have just done what you rail against by saying “It’s the Sun stupid!” That is also a pet theory…
PG, I think you’ve just missed the point of Ockham’s Razer entirely. Let’s try an analogy:
Assume you have a vacuum in which there is a lightbulb one can “turn” up and down so that lightbulb is emitting more or less “energy”. In the vacuum assume there is also ball. Assume it is noted the surface of said ball is warmer when or after the light is burning at its maximum intensity than when it is burning softly…
Now I fully appreciate that this is not a completely apt analogy because it is not the case that hot Sun and cool Sun equate to warmer and cooler Earth, but you surely see where I am going?
Whatever the incredible complexities of the Sun’s and the Earth’s “systems” (most not understood, and this is where the work of such admirable scientists as Prof Svalgaard is so important), until a viable theory proves the actual mechanisms by which the fluctuations in output of the light do (or which must be as likely in the case of Earth and Sun, do not) cause the surface temperature of the ball rise and fall, then all other things being equal the best explanation for fluctuation in those surface temperatures is the one requiring the fewest assumptions….
QED.
Pamela Gray says
What you have “discovered” is weather pattern variations and trends. Now find the cause. Hint: It’s weather.
Henry says
Yeah right, this must be coming from someone who does not [even] know the difference between the rate of warming and the deceleration of warming [in the correct SI units].
Seeing that the latter is on a time scale of sorts, it has to do with climate, not weather.
Hint: It’s Gleissberg.
Maybe you have been banging your head too much on Leif’s computer???
Kevin O
In the vacuum assume there is also ball.
Henry says
Actually, fact is that that ball has its own atmosphere.
That is a crucial bit of information, if you want to understand what I have been trying to convey in this thread.
Leif Svalgaard
“You mean the rising temperatures the last 30 years were due to the falling solar activity during that period.”
Perhaps they were due to some of the data being “corrected” as described in some of the other WUWT current posts.
@JimG
Around the beginning of the seventies we went from thermometers (mercury) to thermo-couples and we went from human observations (usually 4 x per day, averaged for the day) to automatic recording once a second, averaged for the day. Hence my tables shows data from 1973/1974.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
It would be best if people were only to go for [real] data from around the beginning of the 70’s,
and come to the same conclusions as I did
[from these data]