Guest essay by David Archibald
This essay provides a series of graphs that describe the current state of the sun in context with its history.
Figure 1: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2014
Cosmic rays are pushed away, to some extent, from the inner planets of the solar system by the Sun’s magnetic field carried in the solar wind.
Cosmic rays are mostly protons and alpha particles with some electrons and the nuclei of heavier elements. The highest energy cosmic rays have energies comparable to the energy of a 90 kmph baseball. As they hit oxygen and nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere, they cause a shower of neutrons. The neutron count from this source follows the solar cycle with about a one year lag, reflecting the time it takes for the solar wind to reach the heliopause. There is a connection with climate in that the atoms hit by the neutrons provide seed points for cloud formation.
A good proportion of the atmosphere is saturated with water above the cloud formation threshold but doesn’t form clouds due to lack of seed points to start the process of droplet formation. This is well illustrated by the satellite photos of clouds forming from ship tracks. Open ocean absorbs 95% of incident solar energy while clouds reflect 40%, so an increase in cloud cover will have a cooling effect. This effect accounts for a portion of climate variation with solar activity. The low in neutron count for this cycle appears to be in, consistent with solar maximum being in early 2013.
Figure 2: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2014
The solar wind flow pressure is now at a monthly high for Solar Cycle 24.
Figure 3: Ap Index 1932 – 2014
The Ap Index is a measure of geomagnetic activity from eight stations around the planet and reflects disturbances in the horizontal component of the Earth’s magnetic field. Activity for the current solar cycle has peaked at about the floor activity for the prior solar cycles back to early 1930s.
Figure 4: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle
As measured by the heliospheric tilt angle, Solar Cycle 24 maximum was 19 months ago in March 2013.
Figure 5: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2014
The F10.7 flux is a measure of the Sun’s emissions at 2800 MHz (10.7 cm) and correlates with sunspot number. It is a cleaner measure than sunspot number in that it is not subject to observer bias and the record can’t be adjusted on a whim. It has a floor at 64. Based on the correlation with sea level, a F10.7 flux above 100 is warming and below that is cooling. It has been consistently above that level since August 2011.
Figure 6: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2014
The interplanetary magnetic field has hit a new high for this solar cycle.
Figure 7: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1 – 2014
This figure shows the data from Figure 6 combined with the reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) for the last 2000 years by Steinhilber et al (data courtesy of Dr Gargett). It shows that the IMF is currently about the average for that period. The IMF has a lot further to fall to get to the levels of the major minima. We have all lived through the highest level of solar activity for 8,000 years and it was very pleasant. It will be real treat to live through a major minimum as well.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014)
GCRs are a trace constituent of the atmosphere.
In the data there is zero relationship between GCRs and cloud cover at ALL pressure levels.
Zip. nada. nothing.
Has something in common with CO2.
yes GCR has something in common with C02, both are three characters long GCR, C02
the biggest difference is that one of these is KNOWN to change the radiative properties of the atmosphere, the other does not.
1. C02 is known to change the opacity of the atmosphere.
2. GCR are not known to change the opacity.
If one looks at the data one can see a correlation between GCR /level of solar activity especially when solar variability is at extremes when it was very active last century to very quiet like it was during the Maunder Minimum and Dalton.
The problem however for so many is they don’t understand that other things are happening to cause GIVEN solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects to result in different GIVEN climate outcomes. I will list some of them in the next post.
Nevertheless at times of extremes the climate will warm when the sun is active and cool when the sun is inactive.
There is yet any data to show this not to be the case.
As this decade goes by the solar/climate connection will become much clearer. As I have said many factors can obscure this connection when the sun is not in either an extreme active state or an extreme inactive state.
This is why so many get confused when it comes to the solar/climate connection and convince themselves that it does not exist. They are looking for climate silver bullets and not understanding the complexity of the climatic system.
Let me try again here is my previous post with some additions explaining what I mean.
I want to add this, thresholds, lag times, the initial state of the climate(how close to glacial/interglacial conditions climate is( ice dynamic/state of thermohaline circulation phase or AMOC), land/ocean arrangements(altitude of land), earth magnetic field strength , phase of Milankovitch Cycles ,random terrestrial events ,concentrations of galactic cosmic rays within 5 to 10 light years of earth due to super nova or lack of for example, the fact that the climate is non linear is why many times the solar/climate correlation becomes obscured, and why GIVEN solar variability(with associated primary and secondary effects) will not result in the same GIVEN climate response.
What is needed is for the sun to enter extreme quiet conditions or active conditions to give a more clear cut solar/climate connection which I outlined in my previous post.
…. or perhaps there isn’t a connection. The simplest explanation is often the right one.
Yep – there’s all sorts of excuses that can be used.
Salvatore, the earth’s temperature response to the current weak levels of solar activity has been negligible – actually it’s probably been non-existent since the current ‘pause’ is more likely due to ocean cycles. It’s highly unlikely that there is some magic threshold number that kickstarts warming or cooling.
Are you waiting for the polar vortex, whether you live in the tropics?
JOHN my criteria if these are meant after all of these years of sub-solar activity and the temperatures do not trend down I will admit to being wrong no excuses. So far the criteria has not been meant. Look at today’s readings for an example.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar
Your criteria are much too vague to determine anything. For example, you mention the cosmic ray flux, but where is that to be measured, And are ALL the criteria to be met? of just some of them [the ones that happen to be met]. In short: your criteria are useless as stated.
Dr. Svalgaard,
It appears that you object most to using the term “Grand Maximum”. Would you accept that the 20th. century had a high solar activity than the 19th. century without using the word “Grand”?
I’ve roughly digitized the graph in the pdf link that you provided and integrated it (if you have link to the data, a better job could be done), and it appears the 20th. has about 21% greater activity than the 19th. century. (I have the Excel sheet and image file, but don’t know to put the links in this post.) The 18th. century is incomplete, but comparing the last four solar cycles of the 18th. and 20th. century, they were about equal with the 20th. a bit higher. If we were to made an estimate for the last five cycles for the 18th. century, it would appear even weaker when compared to the 20th. century. From a quick check of the literature, it appears the Maunder Minimum extended into the 18th. century, but you may have a different opinion on that. If it did extend that far, the 18th. century would be even weaker.
In all fairness to David Archibald, he did not use the word “Grand”, but he did say “the highest level of solar activity for 8,000 years” and provided a reference.
Here is the record back to 1700:
http://www.leif.org/research/New-GSN-since-1700.png
The thick black line is a 22-year running mean.
You can cut the record in pieces [‘cherry pick’ what you want to emphasize], but the fact remains that none of those three centuries stand out as particular GRAND. The issue is simply if it is true that recent solar activity is the highest in ‘8000 years’. It is not. This would be a qualitative issue, rather than simply a smallish quantitative one.
Leif, What’s going on with the period between 1799-1824? Are there any issues?
Activity was low. Exactly HOW low we don’t really know as the data is very sparse. Wolf’s original series had cycle that were about twice as big, but they were adjusted down by Wolfer in 1902. The uncertainty is large, but there is no doubt that activity was low.
Note the silence from Texas.
ha read better mosher
Dr. Svalgaard,
Thank you very much for the record back to 1700. It was very kind of you. As you say, none of those three centuries stand out as particularly GRAND.
Do you have the record in digital form? I would like to integrate it.
The difference of temperature between the centuries is not particularly grand either, maybe 1 deg. divided by 287 deg. K or about 0.35%.
A spreadsheet is here http://www.lief.org/research/Preliminary-Revised-GSN-and-B.xls
A am ot a fan of integrsting. By property of integration [after subtracting the mean] is that the results at both ends are the same, namely zero. Subtracting something else than the mean introduces a free parameter that you can play with and use to fit almost anything.
ttp://www.leif.org/research/Preliminary-Revised-GSN-and-B.xls
Strange glitch… This is the link.
http://www.leif.org/research/Preliminary-Revised-GSN-and-B.xls
perfect!
The link is to high blood pressure meds… by redirecting to http://www.lief.org/?f
This is strange
it seems you all figured it out 🙂
All this quibbling about weather the subjective dimension-less sunspot count for a particular cycle peaked at 100 or 115 or whatever is a waste of time. It is similar with F10.7 flux, just another plain number.
Numbers that count are those for solar magnetic field, not so much the change in intensity by 8 or 10%, but the magnetic field’s POLARITY SIGN and PHASE.
Why these matter?
The Earth’s magnetic field beside its long up/down trends has small variations which have distinct spectrum, drifting in and out of phase with the more stable solar oscillations, creating the well known ~9 and ~ 60 (currently 64) year variable climate cycles.
How does this affect the climate?
The effect: seasonal variation in the climate are much larger than any long term up/down decadal or centenary variability. Due to the ocean’s thermal capacity previous year has ALWAYS an input in the next and so forth.
What matters then is not absolute value of direct or integrated sunspot numbers, but the YEAR TO YEAR change in the combined geomagnetic (solar & earth generated) variability, where the mutual phase relationship is the critical factor.
Even if Dr. S made all cycles exactly the same, providing the minima timings are not changed it would make little difference, one reason that it appears that the lower temperatures are associated with the long cycles.
A new paper is on the way, hopefully in next month or two.
My criteria is a guide line that equates to severe minimum solar conditions that took place during the solar lull 2008-2010 and probably took place during the previous two prolonged solar minimums the Dalton and the Maunder Minimum. Those before also.
The climate during each of the two most recent solar prolonged minimums reacted by a global temperature trend drop and a more meridional atmospheric circulation, therefore based on past observation alone it makes sense to come up with some kind of solar climate guide lines for the present and have some kind of an expectation for the climate in response.
Conditions as far as solar activity and the climate back when the Little Ice followed the Medieval Warm Period being very comparable to today’s present situation.
If all of my criteria is met and the global temperature trend does not go down then my theory will be wrong , it can not be more straight forward then that. I have specific solar guide lines that I think if met given the present state of the climate will cause the global temperatures to trend down.
Two other points I want to make is one can see that solar activity last century was far more active then the recent Dalton Minimum, and what has taken place post 2005.
In addition trying to forecast future solar activity based on when the sun was in an overall active period when now the sun is in an overall inactive period is a guess at best.
I have been way off thinking a year or so ago that solar activity would be much lower today then it presently is.
If all of my criteria is met and the global temperature trend does not go down then my theory will be wrong
And if they are all met save one, then what?
I have been way off thinking a year or so ago that solar activity would be much lower today then it presently is
So your track record is not too good…
It is a guide line not something that is written in stone. At that time if it should come a further evaluation will have to take place, and perhaps revisions and adjustments will be made. This is something that will be evolving over time if it looks to be promising. I am in a wait and see mode.
As far as my track record it was off for this second maximum of this cycle but let us see how many persons come out with future sunspot numbers, ap index and solar flux for the years 2015 through 2020, and see what the consensus is and how correct that is.
So far I see silence on this issue.
You turn your ‘criteria’ into just a moving target to be adjusted at will and as needed and thus be useless.
And you seem to have forgotten my ‘prediction’ of the activity which you in your hubris said you would save in order to be able to debunk it.
Dr. Svalgaard,
Thank you very much for the spreadsheet. That was very kind of you.