Quasi-annual variations may hold clues to space weather
A number of NASA instruments captured detailed images of this coronal mass ejection on Aug. 31, 2012. Although CMEs can damage sensitive technological systems, this one just struck a glancing blow to Earth’s atmosphere. New research that quasi-annual variations in solar activity, which may help experts better forecast these powerful events.
Credit Image by NASA
BOULDER -The Sun undergoes a type of seasonal variability with its activity waxing and waning over the course of nearly two years, according to a new study by a team of researchers led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). This behavior affects the peaks and valleys in the approximately 11-year solar cycle, sometimes amplifying and sometimes weakening the solar storms that can buffet Earth’s atmosphere.
The quasi-annual variations appear to be driven by changes in the bands of strong magnetic fields in each solar hemisphere. These bands also help shape the approximately 11-year solar cycle that is part of a longer cycle that lasts about 22 years.
“What we’re looking at here is a massive driver of solar storms,” said Scott McIntosh, lead author of the new study and director of NCAR’s High Altitude Observatory. “By better understanding how these activity bands form in the Sun and cause seasonal instabilities, there’s the potential to greatly improve forecasts of space weather events.”
The overlapping bands are fueled by the rotation of the Sun’s deep interior, according to observations by the research team. As the bands move within the Sun’s northern and southern hemispheres, activity rises to a peak over a period of about 11 months and then begins to wane.
The quasi-annual variations can be likened to regions on Earth that have two seasons, such as a rainy season and a dry season, McIntosh said.
The study, published this week in Nature Communications, can help lead to better predictions of massive geomagnetic storms in Earth’s outer atmosphere that sometimes disrupt satellite operations, communications, power grids, and other technologies.
The research was funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR’s sponsor.
A “jet stream” in the Sun
The new study is one of a series of papers by the research team that examines the influence of the magnetic bands on several interrelated cycles of solar magnetism. In a paper last year in Astrophysical Journal, the authors characterized the approximately 11-year sunspot cycle in terms of two overlapping parallel bands of opposite magnetic polarity that slowly migrate over almost 22 years from high solar latitudes toward the equator, where they meet and terminate.
McIntosh and his co-authors detected the twisted, ring-shaped bands by drawing on a host of NASA satellites and ground-based observatories that gather information on the structure of the Sun and the nature of solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). These observations revealed the bands in the form of fluctuations in the density of magnetic fuel that rose from the solar interior through a transition region known as the tachocline and on to the surface, where they correlated with changes in flares and CMEs.
In the new paper, the authors conclude that the migrating bands produce seasonal variations in solar activity that are as strong as the more familiar 11-year counterpart. These quasi-annual variations take place separately in both the northern and southern hemispheres.
“Much like Earth’s jet stream, whose warps and waves have had severe impact on our regional weather patterns in the past couple of winters, the bands on the Sun have very slow-moving waves that can expand and warp it too,” said co-author Robert Leamon, a scientist at Montana State University. “Sometimes this results in magnetic fields leaking from one band to the other. In other cases, the warp drags magnetic fields from deep in the solar interior, near the tachocline, and pushes them toward the surface.”
The surges of magnetic fuel from the Sun’s interior catastrophically destabilize the corona, the Sun’s outermost atmosphere. They are the driving force behind the most destructive solar storms.
“These surges or ‘whomps’ as we have dubbed them, are responsible for over 95 percent of the large flares and CMEs–the ones that are really devastating,” McIntosh said.
The quasi-annual variability can also help explain a cold-war era puzzle: why do powerful solar flares and CMEs often peak a year or more after the maximum number of sunspots? This lag is known as the Gnevyshev Gap, after the Soviet scientist who first reported it in the 1940s. The answer appears to be that seasonal changes may cause an upswing in solar disturbances long after the peak in the solar cycle.
Researchers can turn to advanced computer simulations and more detailed observations to learn more about the profound influence of the bands on solar activity. McIntosh said this could be assisted by a proposed network of satellites observing the Sun, much as the global networks of satellites around Earth have helped advance terrestrial weather models since the 1960s.
“If you understand what the patterns of solar activity are telling you, you’ll know whether we’re in the stormy phase or the quiet phase in each hemisphere,” McIntosh said. “If we can combine these pieces of information, forecast skill goes through the roof.”
###
About the article
Title: The solar magnetic activity band interaction and instabilities that shape quasi-periodic variability
Authors: Scott W. McIntosh, Robert J. Leamon, Larisza D. Krista, Alan M. Title, Hugh S. Hudson, Pete Riley, Jerald W. Harder, Greg Kopp, Martin Snow, Thomas N. Woods, Justin C. Kasper, Michael L. Stevens, and Roger K. Ulrich
Publication: Nature Communications
“If we can combine these pieces of information, forecast skill goes through the roof.”
Are any forecasts made or examples provided to demonstrate forecast skill?
Don’t expect a response to your question!
File under “It is the sun stupid”
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven,
So the quasi-annual variation is the “season”? and the quasi-annual variation is 11 months-ish?
I am simply dumbfounded. All this time I was under the distinct impression that the science was settled and nothing new was ever going to discovered about the sun. What I found most interesting was :”the authors conclude that the migrating bands produce seasonal variations in solar activity that are as strong as the more familiar 11-year counterpart. “. Well, that is something indeed. I wonder. I wonder if this affects us?
Its so far away! How could the sun affect us!
And small too. I can cover it with my thumb.
Nor is there any CO2 on the sun, so how could it possibly influence climate?!
Of course there must be CO2 molecules in the outer atmosphere of the sun, since there are carbon and oxygen atoms as well. And guess what? That must be obviously the reason why the poor sun does suffer under this catastrophic solar warming in its atmosphere !!!!! … 😉
Already, this thread is debunking the ‘Science is settled’ story from some menn (sic) [No names, no pack drill – or CYA].
But there we go – it’s a political project. from the get-go.
Evidence – ha!
Emperor Barmy OBarack plus several Euros – Millipede junior, Ed Nnonentity the departing Energy (&Climate Change [Can you believe?]) Secretary of State, plus – I doubt not – various other Euro-grandees. I note Germany is building coal-fired power stations – so the lights stay on. Excellent.
Auto, apropos of not very much . . . .
I don’t even see the point of publishing this article. What possible connection could there be between the sun and global warming and climate change?
If they could predict an increased probability of cme s hitting the Earth in say six months time, what effect would that have in the way that we handle them? None whatsoever would be my guess.
There doesn’t seem to be very much new here. Dr. Svalgaard can you help me out?
April 6, CME Forecast
These solar storms – are they caused by an excess of CO2?
Duh, and it’s worse then we thought!
I was going to ask that!!
As everyone knows it’s a wonder gas that has many and various effects not all of them obvious to those outside the UN/GOVmagic circle.
Still it was an interesting read with real science.
James Bull
It has been known for a very long time that solar activity comes in random ‘episodes’ of a bit less than a year in length. The classical example is cycle 14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.gif
The current cycle exhibits the similar pattern, although less distinct. Unfortunately, the episodes are not really periodic so are hard [impossible?] to predict. The paper is an example of the usual hype surrounding such ‘discoveries’
Here is the Figure: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Cycle-14.png
WordPress alas won’t show it, so click on the links.
Yeah WordPress doesn’t like .png files for some reason, convert it to a .jpg and it will work.
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Cycle-14.jpg
I can track most of those episodes. They occur from when the Earth-Venus bisector is towards Uranus, on either side of the Sun, and from 1907 they switch over to from when the Earth-Venus bisector is towards Saturn. I apply exactly the same principle to deterministic long range weather forecasts.
Could that be part of what forms a grand minimum? Every other Gleissberg cycle turns into a grand minimum from this influence?
No the minima occur roughly every ten solar cycles, I get a long term average of ~108.3 years with my model, which I will put up a video of soon. These short episodes happen through all cycles.
So what the pseudo-science has to say about it:
I wrote an article about 5-6 years ago, anticipating and providing some proof for the quasi-annual variations in the sunspot cycles:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarsubcycle.pdf
Got severely admonished by the Stanford solar supremo, nothing new about that.
vukcevic, Here is the way it works:
There are no new discoveries. No new science to be done.
When you do new work, you get admonished by the tired old monoliths for being stupid or irrational.
Then time passes….Other people secretly acknowledge the concepts, it is chatted about at high brow physics gatherings…Then somebody essential repeat your work, somebody who is part of the “in crowd”. A little fanfare come with the “new” findings.
People start to talk about it openly and then the self same monoliths declare it old news….
Now you can reach back 20 years.. it doesn’t matter… you were irrational then so the work done now trumps your work then, even though at the same time it is supposedly old news but nobody told you that 20 years ago when they were telling you that you were irrational.
1) Nothing is new
2) Everything was already known, even if it was dismissed at the time before.
3) It is new when “people” decide it is new.
4) you don’t do anything new
5) when you do new things, they are insane, not new.
Does that help?
Mr. Westhaver
Thanks
“Science progresses one death at a time.” – attributed to several famous scientists
Here are two images
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/2Img.jpg
top one as I used in my article in 2007
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarsubcycle.pdf
and bottom one from today’s article
I mentioned my article in WUWT post in 2008 here
The problem is that your ‘explanation’ of a well-known observation [see e.g. the cycle 14 graph just provided] is nonsense [as your other stuff].
Yes sir. Quite so.
lsvalgaard wrote, “The problem is that your ‘explanation’ of a well-known observation [see e.g. the cycle 14 graph just provided] is nonsense [as your other stuff].”
I’m curious about why you believe his explanation is nonsense. Note, the “subcycle” hypothesis was new to me but now seems obvious.
The following observation, from page 2 of the paper seems reasonable: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarsubcycle.pdf “Detected subcycle appears not to be an actual cycle made of sunspot groups, it is a modulating cycle. This means that if there is an ordinary 11 year cycle in its progress then subcycle may modulate its amplitude. When subcycle is ‘negative’ it suppress amplitude of the main cycle, while when subcycle is high it has no effect. It follows that subcycle is most obvious when 11 year cycle is strong while if main cycle is at its minimum then subcycle may not be detectable.”
Second, your claim is:
“It has been known for a very long time that solar activity comes in random ‘episodes’ of a bit less than a year in length. The classical example is cycle 14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.gif
The current cycle exhibits the similar pattern, although less distinct. Unfortunately, the episodes are not really periodic so are hard [impossible?] to predict. The paper is an example of the usual hype surrounding such ‘discoveries’”
The claim from vukcevic is that the period is, “the Jupiter synodic period (398.88 days = 1.092822 years) “
Leif, why do you always have to be so rude? We don’t need that kind of talk here on WUWT…it’s more suited to the alarmist blogs…let’s try and be a bit more civil here. OK, we all know that you disagree with Vukcevic…that’s fine but try and be polite please. Let’s try and be different from those blogs and maintain a better standard.
Rather that get involved in a ding-dong with Dr. S, I’ll talk to my self.
Do these extra cycles matter to us down on the tera firma?
In a way they do.
Only yesterday I commented @ Dr. S.
“recently I came across rather strange phenomenon: the Earth has two kinds of year: astronomic and geomagnetic, and they are of different length !”
What is all that about?
Have you ever wondered why Willis E. couldn’t find solid evidence of 11 year cycle in the climate events ?
It may be because geomagnetic (combined Earth and solar) events are interlaced within astronomic year but since the two ‘years’ are of different length and go in and out of phase, annual signal is lost.
There are climate events that physics says they should be closely related, but comparing annual values, no correlation can be established.
Why?
Some are mostly affected by TSI and run on astronomic year, while some are also sensitive to the geomagnetic influence, thus they will not correlate. When length of one ‘year’ is scaled to the other, high correlation is achieved.
England and Ireland are within direct AMO influence, but their winter temperatures run in out of phase with the AMO, because AMO has strong geomagnetic component as implied in my yesterday’s post here.
Can you think of any? Svensmark’s clouds, Parana or Nile rivers water flow?
For two major events that I have in mind, the AMO and NAO, I may write an article soon.
Perhaps as Mr Westhaver said obove someone will discover it in 10 of 15 years time, when we here in the N. Europe are shivering from freezing and much colder winters.
In 15 years from now, some ole abrupt codger will proclaim it already long since known, and not insane, and give you no credit for postulating it in the first place, because alas, today you are insane. Re… Willis E,’s inability to resolve an 11 year signal in the terrestrial climate noise my have more to do with a S-C-A-F-E-T-T-A related tug of war. But, I am speculating.
Science Subversions by ‘Spurious’ Correlations
is my middle name
It is not just the AMO that influences the climate of England and Ireland. The various atmospheric indexes ranging for the AO,NAO,PNA , etc all play a role. This is but one of many examples.
“These surges or ‘whomps’ as we have dubbed them, are responsible for over 95 percent of the large flares and CMEs–the ones that are really devastating,” McIntosh said.
Devastating to what???
Us! – via the electrical infrastructure on which our civilisation hangs.
“Any society is three square meals away from breaking down.”
Who knows, when the actual paper is unavailable from NCAR, Nature Communications, or the Astrophysical Journal, as of five minutes ago. Why make a press release w/o it?
If anyone can find the paper please provide a link.
Is this what you are looking for?
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150407/ncomms7491/full/ncomms7491.html
Yes. Thanx Alan.
VelocityViewServlet : Error processing a template for path ‘/vrender’
Invocation of method ‘getArticlePrice’ in class npg.ncode.velocity.toolbox.PricingInfoTool threw exception java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: GC overhead limit exceeded at /view/includes/global.article-subscription.fhtml[line 3, column 41]
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: GC overhead limit exceeded
Cryptic
Try going direct, missing out the WEB Wally crapola.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150407/ncomms7491/pdf/ncomms7491.pdf
Gosh! They mean the sun has something to do with the weather, Maybe even climate. And here, I thought it was CO2.
Yes, Siamiam, the Sun has actually got something to do with weather/climate. Piers Corbyn will be laughing his pants off……..:-)
As an aside, with thirteen authors for the piece that’s not many words to go round per author? ;o))
Yes, that’s something I’ve always wondered about these multi-author (often widely geographically spread) papers. WTF do they all do? Take it in turns to write the next word as in a party game?
Naw, they cut deals to mutually inflate their citation and pubs count. $$
Clearly, you have never participated in a multi-author paper. A variety of contributions may be required for the complete paper – usually (or sometimes) one author (usually the first) does the actual “writing” while other authors contribute other components (data, graphs, software or other components – perhaps even writing some content, or an appendix)
Nature works in cycles. Our limited powers of observation in the spatial and temporal phenomena dimensions blinds us and our evolved powers of survival-related intuition sees linear trends.
“The Sun undergoes a type of seasonal variability with its activity waxing and waning over the course of nearly two years..”
Oh Lord. We are going to have the numerologists coming out of the woodwork like termites again.
You watch, the tidal effects will stir up these storminesses and the storminesses will have such a long lasting and pervasive effect that all earthly climate change can be explained.
=================================
Maybe if they get to credit themselves with these “discoveries” they will also (re)discover that each of the rest of the “myths” they purport on the warmist blogs also has a function in climate mechanics. Then CO2 will be brought into it’s correct perspective and dethroned as the omnipotent driver of mother Gaia’s future.
season on earth is controlled by the sun, and on the sun? what are the seasons of the sun? are there rainy and winter?
From what I understand of the artical the seasons are: strongly twisted magnetic, and not-so strongly twisted magnetic.
This current cycle is the first cycle that is clearly in the prolonged solar minimum cycle which is different from all of the solar cycles since the Dalton Solar Minimum. This cycle unlike others since the Dalton Solar Minimum started when the sun was in the midst of an extreme solar lull (which no one predicted) only to have a very extended weak solar maximum period but resulting in very few geomagnetic events here on the earth , to the way the solar polar fields are now evolving which is different from previous cycles, to at this current point in time seemingly fading away at a quite rapid rate.
so now for quite long,
The models are wrong.
So what caused the pause in the warming?
Look to the sun,
The way oceans run,
And the clouds, in complexity forming!
Co2 is too small
To stop temperature fall
When the sun and oceans together,
Begin to cause cold,
Like the cycles of old.
Which deity only remembers.
So if I do some harm
By just keeping warm,
You’ll have to kindly forgive me.
I see my solution
is carbon pollution!
This world will most likely outlive me.
The cause of the pause was the cause before the pause
Thanks, Anthony.
Nothing about the Sun is boring, research is exiting.
Exit stage left?
I dislike the term “season”. It’s not an appropriate analogy.
Cycle would have been better.
I called it solar subcycle in 2007
Subcycle implies an interdependence between the two cycles. At this point it’s still possible that the two are completely independent.
Indeed you are correct on both counts.
According to my hypothesis sunspot cycles (magnetic field and electric current events, the second one hardly ever mentioned) are caused by electric currents and magnetic fields feedbacks between sun and nearby planets with strong magnetic fields. Those are Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, by far the most influential is Jupiter.. J/S synodic period drives 11 year cycle ( link ), while the less influential J/E synodic period ( link) drives sub-cycle.
If I am correct (that is a giant IF) the main driver has two detractors, one minor inside and one major outside its orbit, and in such a case the sub-cycle would be an appropriate name.
If anyone has a better idea which can be demonstrated I am ready to listen.
The sun is increasingly a variable star.
Unfortunately, I find some things here a bit strange. We have a “band” of magnetic fields to the north and to the south and some times the “magnetic fields leak from one band to the other.” Leaks? And they found these bands by observing changes in the density of the “magnetic fuels?” And some how these bands “warp” magnetic fields from the interior of the Sun and push them to the surface? Is this really science I am reading? It does seem to go hand in hand with calling something “whomps” I would guess, but I can only surmise that all this wondrous information came from deciding what “stuff” does and modeling it on the computer to prove it, one “whomp” at a time, so to speak.
Since magnetic fields are produced by moving electrons, it is the flowing of the plasma that the magnetic field follows, when they say leak that means a quantity of plasma has moved and the magnetic field created by the moving electrons in the plasma follows it….
The plasma science of main stream weather and astronomy leaves a little bit to be desired…
Since magnetic fields are produced by moving electrons, it is the flowing of the plasma
The plasma is electrically neutral: the electrons and the protons move together, thus no electric current to produce the magnetic field. To separate electrons and protons you need a magnetic field: no magnetic field, no currents…
They don’t say! Next experts will be telling us that the Sun affects weather here on Earth, but not climate……..oh wait a minute they already have done!
I clicked on wrong a ‘reply’ it should go here
I think that the QBO is a direct consequence (2x 13 months, subject to variability of + or – 2-3 months) . See my post further above
“To separate electrons and protons you need a magnetic field: no magnetic field, no currents…”
-lsvalgaard
Incorrect, the separation requires a differential in electric potentials.
If streams of plasma are flowing in the presence of magnetic fields (sol has a magnetosphere of course),
then the plasma streams are electric currents. basic physics…
But…but…every peer reviewed article I have read, including one on synthesized plasma streams, demonstrate that a plasma stream is neutral and do not have electrically charged currents. Are you saying that a plasma stream has an electric charge to it? Provide links to such research.
A free volume of plasma is quote “quasi-“, meaning ‘on average’ there are present an approximately equal number of ‘charge carriers’. The same could be said for copper, another very good conductor.
By definition, plasmas are an Ionized fluid, [hence the tremendous charge transfer capacity of lightning bolts].
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/463509/plasma
The important solar difference is that the plasma streams are strongly confined by the solar magnetic fields (plural).
https://books.google.com/books?id=wt2CBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=conducting+plasma+filaments&source=bl&ots=QK94YdpupT&sig=e_a5ONirno9luuAk6c2-RzZ5MC4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FF8lVb3tJcXLsAXX4oMQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=conducting%20plasma%20filaments&f=false
That was meant to be “quasi-neutral”
In a neutral plasma there is no differential in electric potentials. If there were any its would short out immediately because the plasma is an excellent ]super] conductor.
Evokes the ENSO cycles here on earth. Now you see them, now you don’t.
I think that the QBO is a direct consequence (2x 13 months, subject to variability of + -2-3 months) . See my post further above above
“These observations revealed the bands in the form of fluctuations in the density of magnetic fuel that rose from the solar interior through a transition region known as the tachocline and on to the surface, where they correlated with changes in flares and CMEs”
I love the “magnetic fuel” part…… Totally ignoring the prime mover of electricity…. You cant have a magnetic field without a moving electron….
Nothing news under the sun.
I guess NCAR needs to keep up on pubs count for annual review also. Volume is the new metric benchmark.
lol this cause that .. take the whole solar system each and every planet has some effect on every other ..they all have an effect on the sun and the sun has an effect on them .. stop trying to explain one thing at a time you have to explain it all together .. our weather is not down to one thing but the whole solar system but us being human just can’t see it yet because we can’t see big pictures
100 %
Twinkle twinkle little Sol…
Hay, Oats,
Fingers floats.
===========
I’m I the first to note that Mars has an orbital period of just under 2 years (686 days)?
And your point?
xyzzy11 commented
It’s near the beat frequency of the 2 year solar “quasi-annual variations”.
I really can’t say what exactly the influence of the Planets (and Galaxy) on the Sun is, and I do leave open there isn’t any, but there is a lot of possible modes of influence and so much about how the Sun and our Climate works that we don’t know, it’s IMO far to soon to say we know there is no influence.
I blame the sun’s seasonal changes on Global Warming . . .
It is SUVs wot dun it!
The IPCC has assured me that the output from the sun never varies. And since it is so constant it has no affect on climate. .. That’s what they told me. It’s right there in the holy writ.
A Finnish Center of Excellence, ReSolVe, that is funded by the Academy of Finland is “studying the long-term solar variability and its effects in near-Earth space, atmosphere and climate”:
http://www.spaceclimate.fi/resolve/
one of their publications (J. Geophys. Res) focuses on the “spatial distribution of Northern Hemisphere winter temperatures during different phases of the solar cycle”:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021343/abstract
They found “significant differences in the temperature patterns between the four cycle phases, which indicates a solar cycle modulation of winter surface temperatures. However, the clearest pattern of the temperature anomalies is not found during sunspot maximum or minimum, but during the declining phase, when the temperature pattern closely resembles the pattern found during positive NAO. Moreover, we find the same pattern during the low sunspot activity cycles of 100 years ago, suggesting that the pattern is largely independent of the overall level of solar activity.”
One of the scientists of that paper even suggest that the IPCC needs to reconsider the effects of the sun on earth’s climate and explain the current warm winter in Europe partly with strong solar wind:
http://www.oulu.fi/yliopisto/tutkimus/tutkimuksen-esittely/tutkimusartikkelit/aurinkotuuli-osasyy-lämpimään-talveen (only available in Finnish)
SC 24 at Max
Can you spot a sun-spot
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_4500.jpg
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
As I have said in this forum Livingston and Penn’s observation that magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly provides support for the assertion that the mechanism that produces the magnetic flux tubes that rise up to the surface of the sun has been interrupted.
The magnetic flux tubes form at the solar tachocline, the narrow interface between the solar convection zone and the solar radiative zone. As Eugene Parker calculated the magnetic flux tubes require a minimum field strength to avoid being torn apart by convection forces as magnetic flux tubes rise up through the convection zone.
As the magnetic flux tubes rise up through the convection zone the magnetic tubes expand and the magnetic field strength of the tubes reduces. The maximum field strength of a sunspot on the surface of the sun is roughly 1500 Gauss to 3000 Gauss.
Based on a linear extrapolation of the drop in field strength of sunspots on the surface of the sun Livingston and Penn predicted the sun would be anomalously spotless in 2015. Observational support for the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle mechanism has been interrupted as opposed to the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle is just ‘slowing down’, is the fact that large sunspots have been replaced by pores. As the process continued the magnetic flux tubes were torn apart and then was only a region of high magnetic field strength to show where the sunspot group would have formed. The sun is at the end of that process and it appears observationally that the sun will be anomalously spotless sometime in 2015.
In the paleo record there are immense abrupt astonishing large drops in planetary temperature that assert are caused by a once in roughly 8000 to 10,000 year change in the sun when the solar magnetic cycle restarts. The cooling of the earth is in stages and is delayed due to a complex mechanism that directly related a significant solar effect on the earth that has not as yet been discovered by specialists. There are multiple fundamental errors/misunderstandings concerning the sun and the stars. More on this subject when there is in your face evidence of cooling on the earth. There is now evidence of cooling both poles of the earth.
The solar large scale magnetic field is formed by the residue magnetic flux that is left on the surface by the sunspots as they expand on the solar surface. Coronal holes and the solar wind strip off magnetic flux from the surface of the sun. If there are new magnetic flux tubes forming to rise up to the surface of the sun then the solar large scale magnetic field will drop intensity to close to zero.
As this graph of the solar north and solar south large scale magnetic field strength against time indicates magnetic field strength of the solar large scale magnetic field is dropping to near zero. The solar northern hemisphere is roughly a year ahead of the solar southern hemisphere. The large scale magnetic field strength of the solar northern hemisphere is now oscillating around zero.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
If you are interested in watching the anomalous solar cycle 24 unfold real time, this site provides an interesting summary.
http://www.solen.info/solar/
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
Excellent information .
the assertion that the mechanism that produces the magnetic flux tubes that rise up to the surface of the sun has been interrupted
As usual, you are spouting nonsense. Having never defined what ‘interrupted’ means. The polar fields are the seed for the dynamo process that amplifies the field to produce the toroidal fields that are buoyant and thus rises to the surface. On the way up the field is always completely shredded into much thinner ‘strands’ which at the surface coalesce into the spots we observe. There is no undefined interruption of anything. At this moment the south polar fields are rather stron and growing. Even the north polar fields have finally reversed and are getting stronger. This means that there will be a definite cycle 25, with perhaps two-thirds the size of cycle 24 [although we need to wait another year or two to be sure of that number]. The notion that the recent past half of the 20th century has been the most active the last 10,000 years is simply false, see e.g. the top panel of Figure 1 of this recent paper [Usokin is one of the authors]: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-ApJ-2015.jpg
as usual WordPress is not playing by the rules. Let me try this
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-ApJ-2015.jpg
“The polar fields are the Seed for the Dynamo Process that amplifies the field to produce the toroidal fields that are buoyant and thus rises to the surface.”
A very New-Age description, that.
Would you care to transport us back a stage or two, and describe the origins of those “Polar Fields?
[Any a-priori assumption of an ‘internal dynamo’, at center of the sun, would of course require empirical proof,
otherwise it is just another “notion”].
Not here defending Vucevic’s assertion, merely requesting some proof of yours.
The polar fields are observed to move from decaying sunspots towards the poles. You can see that directly from Figures 3 and 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf. There is an observed ‘meridional’ circulation that is responsible for dragging the fields towards the poles. Since the fields do not pile up there indefinitely, they must be dragged into the Sun. It is not completely clear how deep they go, but most observations seem to suggest about a tenth of the solar radius [not the ‘center of the sun]. Simple application of the laws of induction show that the field is amplified. As this make them buoyant they will rise to the surface where observe them as sunspots, completing the cycle. There is a vast literature on this and there is no doubt about the existence of the dynamo. Most stars and even the Earth have such an internal dynamo creating magnetic fields. You can find more details here http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
It is up to you to educate yourself on this, not to me to ‘convince’ you or ‘prove’ anything.
“There is a vast literature on this and there is no doubt about the existence of the dynamo.”
Oh really ? Now “literature” constitutes empirical proof ?
Maybe it is up to the old-gaurd “peer” establishment to educate themselves on modern the plasma physics, the real phenomenon of a “plasma threshold” ,
and rigorous logic.
‘Empirical proof’ lies in the fact that the theory explains the observations. That is how the Scientific Method works. The ‘plasma’ nonsense is just that: nonsense. It is a bit demeaning that you have been taken in by that, but since you have already drunk that kool aid, there is little hope for you. But that is your problem, not mine.
No, the “Scientific Method” works because More than one “theory” can explain observations.
If plasma science makes no sense to you, that is your problem;
but one may still hold out some hope for you, should you choose to change your demeaning demeanor…
‘Plasma science’ is not science, but deception conducted by some very clever people. I’m sad for you that you fell for it.
“… deception conducted by some very clever people.”
A very telling post sir.
Have we also been deceived about landing on the moon and the twin towers ?
If you think so, who am I to tell you otherwise?
But out of curiosity [it is always fun to see people squirm a bit] you could tell us here how ‘modern plasma physics’ explains the sunspot cycle. I don’t want a bunch of links to the stuff. Use you own words, as I did.
I’m interested in the “clever people” comment, I’d love to hear about that.
And while I think understanding plasma in a tokamac is probably helpful in understanding the plasma in the Sun, understanding the Sun emergent behavior from it is like understanding the earth climate from the emission spectrum of Co2 is a lab test fixture. Not likely.
Contrary to the Climate Models that fail miserably in explaining the climate, the solar dynamo theory is quite successful in explaining the solar cycle, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Solar-Dynamo-Theory-Charbonneau.pdf or http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-forecast.pdf [written in 2007 before cycle 24 started…]
Coming from an electronics background, as I read through the EOS paper at the toroidal fields, I was imagining the currents flowing, so the toroidal and polar fields all have currents, and as you said say, they are going to want to short, but that creates more magnetic fields, and so on. But there was no mention of currents. What does the model of the currents say?
The Charbonneau paper looks good, thanks!
Hi micro
About ten years ago I attempted to work out an electric analogue of sunspot generation based on electric currents. This is result:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSCurrent.gif
Not everyone dismisses electric currents as the primary driver
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EP1.gif
Sunspots are solar hurricanes(????), I haven’t studied what Leif shared yet, but it seems that there have to be also be large flows of the plasma that are moving huge volumes that dwarf our ocean currents and tides.
Mega Ocean’s of the stuff, and electrical currents and magnetic fields that are aligned to the currents that are all pushing against each other.
I need to go read more about what we know of this stuff.
Vuk, you have cause and effect backwards. The magnetic field induces the currents. Your notion of what is the ‘primary driver’ is incorrect. The driver is the circulation of the neutral, but conducting, plasma across a magnetic field. That induces electric currents which are the ones that produce all the spectacular action we see. No circulation, no magnetic field = no electric currents, no effects.
lsvalgaard commented
I’m glad you posted this, as it gives me a chance to ask an expert on the subject a question I had thought of while reading one of the papers you linked,
Would not, there be a freely moving compressed fluid moving as if the Sun was one large ocean?
I’m setting aside the whole convection property, which could be the dominate flow.
Actually maybe a better question is, what is the density of the various outer layers of the Sun? We talking earth atm, “thick” air, “thin” fluid, and I presume all the way to some sort of very compressed material.
We treat the Sun as if it were a fluid. The density of the photosphere [that we see at the ‘surface’] is very low, something like ten thousand times thinner than the air we breathe, but increasing rapidly as we go inwards [because solar gravity is 27 times stronger than Earth’s – at the surfaces]
lsvalgaard commented
So a layer a couple or dozen earth atm thicknesses until you have something with some heft?
I would think that once you have all of that “fluid” moving around, as a plasma, that would be the start of the current that sparks the magnetic field, that pumps the fluid, or something like that right?
I guess at some point I’m thinking that the sheer mass of the fluid is strongly guiding the flows, so where are the hurricanes, the great eye’s, the tides (I’d asked you about this before, and you said they where not “high”, but very “short”, but I think it’s more about all of that fluid flowing, and moving charge generates magnetic fields), where are the “stripes” of jupiter and saturn (and I understand they would not necessarily be visible features), but at least under the surface of what we can see, they should be there.
The plasma is electrical neutral [equal amount of positive and negative charges] so just moving it along does not create magnetic or electric effects. But the presence of a magnetic field can separate oppositely charged particles [positive deflected one way, negative in the opposite direction], and then currents can flow as the plasma is a good conductor. This fact is a perennial problem for people: to sustain a current you must sustain charge separation and for that you need a magnetic field: moving a conductor across a magnetic field sets up an electric field, which if movable charges are around gives you an electric current. All ‘explosive’ effects are, of course, due to that current.
lsvalgaard commented
Chicken or an Egg???
If there is a magnetic field there has to be a current, correct (this is a key principle of electronics)?
And if there’s a current there has to be charge separation?
And there has to be lots of fluid flowing in all sorts of, I’m sure unexpected ways, but it seems to me that it would be as important as the magnetic field, if not more important.
The formalism used is MHD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics “The fundamental concept behind MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which in turn creates forces on the fluid and also changes the magnetic field itself.”
Magnetic fields in plasmas cannot easily die and do not require large-scale electric currents to flow. It is a bit like the chicken without the Egg. It is generally thought that magnetic fields are derived [by dynamo action] from other [weaker] magnetic fields, which raises the question: ‘where did the very FIRST magnetic fields come from.?’ This is still a somewhat unsolved problem, although some mechanisms have been proposed, see eg. http://www.leif.org/research/The-Origin-of-Magnetic-Fields.pdf
Has anyone taken a Sun sized blob of hot compressed hydrogen and spun it up and see what kind of fluid currents happen?
No, as that is hard to do [ ! ], but we don’t need to: we can directly observe the plasma movements in the Sun, both at the surface and at depth.
“No, as that is hard to do [ ! ], but we don’t need to: we can directly observe the plasma movements in the Sun, both at the surface and at depth.”
Anything non paywalled you can point me to?
BTW, thanks.
http://gong.nso.edu/info/helioseismology.html
Long, but good: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Plasma-Physics-of-the-Local-Cosmos.pdf
Here is a good explanation of MHD: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.5572.pdf
“Of the formal apparatus of vacuum electrodynamics, with its two EM vector fields, currents and charge densities, MHD can be described with only a single additional vector: the magnetic field. The ‘MHD approximation’ that makes this possible involves some assumptions:
1. The fluid approximation: local thermodynamic quantities can be meaningfully defined in the plasma, and variations in these quantities are slow compared with the time scale of the microscopic processes in the plasma.
2. In the plasma there is a local, instantaneous relation between electric field and current
density (an ‘Ohm’s law’).
3. The plasma is electrically neutral”
Long video but may be of interest to some
McIntosh and his co-authors detected the twisted, ring-shaped bands…
[normally called “toroidal currents”]
In a paper last year in Astrophysical Journal, the authors characterized the approximately 11-year sunspot cycle in terms of two overlapping parallel bands of opposite magnetic polarity that slowly migrate over almost 22 years from high solar latitudes toward the equator, where they Meet and Terminate.
Note that the migrating ‘bands’ already exhibit “opposite magnetic polarity”, meaning they have an electric precursor.
The above discussion comes no where near first-causes of solar-orb accretion/coalescence; let alone the rotation of a sun, its magnetic fields and magnetosphere,
or even the origins a so-called “dynamo”.
Many questions are begged here, and certainly this particular article/comments should not be considered as a complete explanation of sun spot cycles or even logical solar physics.
“Vanity is like gravity, a local affair”. – cas
http://earthsky.org/space/scientists-report-seasonal-variability-on-sun
Electric currents in the Sun are generated by moving electrically neutral plasma across existing magnetic fields. There are no ‘electric precursors’.
? So your mysterious ‘internal dynamo’ doesn’t generate electricity.
What does it generate ? Tachoclines ??
“What did you learn from my link, if anything?”
Will have to get back to you on that.
The take-away from your link is “These three components have all been developed separately and future endeavors to combine them may allow us an unparalleled view into the internal structure of sunspots”. Thus a whole-hearted endorsement of helioseismology. Applying their technique will lead to even more discoveries.
AH!!!! I think I am beginning to understand how a plasma cutter works! It uses a thermal plasma.
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~xfiles/plasma/07/lect07/Collisions_conductivity.pdf
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Types_of_plasma
This is better than any movie! Pass the popcorn!
Pamela Gray
Like a MIG welder, the plasma in a plasma torch only transfers the (original) electrical heat energy from the electrode at the end of the torch through the air gap to the base metal. On impact, the plasma melts the metal (and – when welding, the filler metal). In welding, you pass the torch-heated area to a new area to melt that base metal and continue the joint, while the new joint cools from a liquid droplets of steel to a single puddle to a final solid. In plasma cutting, it is the high-pressure air flowing around the torch electrode that literally “blows the melted steel” away from the puddle, leaves a gap (gouge) as the final cut.
In contrast, oxygen-acetylene torch cutting uses a oxygen-rich acetylene mix to heat the base metal to a red-orange glowing spot. Once it is that hot, a massive additional flow of pure oxygen is blown out through the middle of the torch head that (literally) catches the iron on fire, which adds enough addtional heat to the steel to melt it. the newly melted metal right around the original hot spot would re-solify and slowly cool down, but even more “extra oxygen” is used . Once melted, the flow of this “extra” high-pressure oxygen blows the melted steel away from the joint, leaving a relatively narrow kerf as the “cut”.
It is this massive flow of burning steel and the melted liquid steel being blown away from the joint creates the classic “arcs and sparks” seen in the movies like Flashdance.
But never get real welders disgusting movie welders. http://weldingweb.com/archive/index.php/t-19094.html
This may or not may not be germane to this discussion but I love old Army films that explain how things happen to trainees. This one is rather more technical than the “keep your pants zipped up” topics mandatory for all those entering the service.
Someone should turn Eureqa loose on this.
“Thus a whole-hearted endorsement of helioseismology”
-ls
Helioseismology
“” However, on the Sun, the wave speeds (km/s) are comparable to the time scales of some convective motions, such that the propagation velocities of acoustic waves between two surface points are dependent not only on the temperature and density of the intermediate material, but also on the velocity with which it is convecting. Wave speeds are further modified by the spatially and temporally variable magnetic fields that are characteristic of plasmas such as the Sun, and seismic perturbations inside sunspots (e.g., Braun and Birch, 2008) may be produced by both thermal and magnetic effects.
Inferring the magnetic field strength using measurements of propagation times of seismic waves is particularly challenging because heliomagnetism generates seismic anisotropy between field-parallel and field-perpendicular wave paths, and thus, wave paths that intersect at 90◦ are required to study it, which likely have encountered different inhomogeneities along their mostly non-intersecting paths. At the same time, numerical modeling tells us that magnetic effects are non-trivial and sensitivity kernels that do not realistically account for them will lead to the simulation of incorrect wave travel times (Crouch et al., 2011; Braun et al., 2012).
Thus, the need to include magnetic and convection effects makes complete numerical modeling of wave propagation much more challenging, both theoretically and computationally. Inclusion of magnetic effects in numerical models is a very recent development (Hanasoge et al., 2011; Crouch et al., 2011), but convective mass transfers have not yet been realistically incorporated.
A second problem in helioseismology is the stochastic and continuous nature of the acoustic sources, leading to the need to cross-correlate pairs of traces to extract a coherent signal. In order to converge at the desired Green function, and to enhance the signal-to- noise ratio, a large amount of data must be averaged. On the Sun, the rapid temporal evolution (hours to weeks) of the target structures prohibits extensive temporal averaging.
To compensate, data are typically averaged over a patch or annulus of neighboring pixels. This spatial data-averaging would likely cancel out any improvements in the resolution of images that could be obtained in waveform tomography.
Additionally, waveform amplitude analysis is hampered by the fact that the amplitudes of cross-correlated waveforms are influenced by the distribution of the acoustic sources (Cobden et al., 2010), which in turn is unknown.
A promising solution to these problems may lie in the adjoint method of Tromp et al. (2010) for computing sensitivity kernels for cross-correlation observations. In this case the misfit functional can be any feature of the cross-correlated signal (travel times, waveforms, etc.). Applying this method to the Sun, a small number of “master pixels” are selected to be cross-correlated with any number of other pixels; computation of sensitivity kernels requires only three numerical simulations per master pixel. This method relies
December 26, 2014
Waveform tomography in geophysics and helioseismology 377
on temporal averaging of cross-correlation time series rather than spatial averaging, thus avoiding the loss of resolution associated with spatial averaging, and it can accommodate non-uniform source distributions.
It remains to be tested how successfully it can be applied to time-limited solar structures. “”
http://www.geo.uu.nl/~seismain/pdf/cambr_univp_p365-377.pdf
Hardly a ringing endorsement, or are these some of those “very clever deceivers’, that had you spooked earlier ?
I agree that their specific methods are hardly worth much [as it has not been tested], but their final words:
“These three components have all been developed separately and future endeavors to combine them may allow us an unparalleled view into the internal structure of sunspots”. definitely point out that helioseismology in here to stay [and may even be improved]. It is also clear that they are just peddling their own model, which we don’t need as it has not produced any results.
What really matters in whole of this debate is relationship of the solar sunspot (essentially magnetic) activity and the climate’s natural variability.
The strongest component of the natural variability in global temperatures is to be found in the N. Atlantic’s Sea Surface change, better known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations of for short the AMO, which is de-trended SST.
What is the most surprising is that the Earth’s outer core where its magnetic field is generated, oscillates at the same rate as the sunspot cycles ! an effect discovered by M. Vukcevic in the data calculated by Jackson(ETHZ) and Bloxham(Harvard University).
The effect of these oscillations appears to be directly reflected in the AMO
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SUN-AMOa.gif
more info HERE
Calculations by Jackson et al are complex : “The zonal toroidal t_1^0 and t_3^0 components of a fully time-dependent geostrophic flow constructed under the frozen flux hypothesis are used to estimate the core angular momentum (CAM) using the hypothesis of Jault Gire and LeMouel (1988).”
(References to be mentioned when data are used: Jackson A., 1997. Time-Depency of geostrophic core surface motions, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 103, pp 293-311.)
How does it work, I do not know, more research needed ! but do not, I repeat do not send any money, my research is financed by my weekly pocket money allowance.
Vuk,
Is there a significant correlation with those terrestrial/solar mag field oscillations, with Jupiter and/or Saturn synodic cycles ?
Principal component is the same in the sun’s poloidal magnetic fields, however there is a strong ‘spoiler’ at 16 year periodicity, see this link .
cycle 24 [although we need to wait another year or two to be sure of that number]. The notion that the recent past half of the 20th century has been the most active the last 10,000 years is simply false, see e.g. the top panel of Figure 1 of this recent paper [Usokin is one of the authors
Leif says which I disagree with 100%.
So you elect to be 100% wrong.
The data even your own does not support what you are trying to convey.
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications
These papers /studies are from Professor Lockwood who conclusions support more of the way of my way of thinking and many others.
Including that Lockwood fully supports my revised sunspot numbers, i.e. that the last half of the 20th century did NOT have the highest solar activity in the last 10,000 years. Activity was as high in the 18th and 19 centuries, as per Lockwood’s Figure from his latest paper:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-ApJ-2015.jpg
Glad to see you have come around.
No solar activity was at it’s highest during the period 1940-2000.
It reached levels just as high in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Compare with Usoskin’s version on slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf which shows the wrong claim that activity is the highest in the last 10 thousand years. Comparing with temperatures is invalid circular reasoning. Cherry picking which one of Lockwood’s claim you want to believe is just that: cherry picking. How about believing his latest claim?
Lockwood , has many views which are different.
Lockwood learns. Which is why his views are different. You can see an order affect to his papers. I would describe him as a reluctant learner but a learner nonetheless. Would that more people who read WUWT and those who we consider to be trolls were learners versus believers.
Pamela: Yes, Lockwood is learning. He is about 5 years behind us, but is catching up at a steady rate.
Salvatore Del Prete April 11, 2015 at 1:10 pm
Leif ,evidence and data as is being put forth in recent papers is not in support of your conclusions.
No, if you care to examine the data [which is the only evidence we have] you will see that recent papers [e.g. Lockwood’s] are slowly catching up with our reconstructions. This does not prevent some people to turn a blind eye to that and mumble about ‘time will tell’.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/336
New study on the Maunder Minimum supports more of my view.
I know I should have not sent that . Forgot about that. Sorry.
I thought it was good information however. Another point of view.
Thanks for allowing it to post. I feel the information is very relevant.
? So your mysterious ‘internal dynamo’ doesn’t generate electricity.
What does it generate ? Tachoclines ??
seasmith April 10, 2015 at 5:17 pm
? So your mysterious ‘internal dynamo’ doesn’t generate electricity.
What does it generate ?
It generates magnetic fields, and it is not mysterious.
Take the trouble to study http://www.leif.org/EOS/Plasma-Physics-of-the-Local-Cosmos.pdf
A magnatism generator ? Interesting…
Take the trouble to study this (realist assessment of the recently hyped Art of Helioseismology):
http://www.geo.uu.nl/~seismain/pdf/cambr_univp_p365-377.pdf
Helioseismology uses many of the techniques used in terrestrial seismology, plus has techniques of its own. As your link points out: “Full waveform tomography using the approach outlined in Sections 26.1–26.3 has not yet been applied to real solar data.”
Come back when it has.
What did you learn from my link, if anything? If you have problems with specific sections, I’ll be glad [as is my wont] to help out with further clarification and explanation. Don’t be shy.
Ω
-Illustration on page 16
FIGURE 2.2 Schematic illustrating the interplay of rotational and cyclonic-convective forces in the operation of the solar dynamo. Strong toroidal or azimuthal fields are generated from an existing poloidal field in the tachocline, a region of strong shear at the base of the convection zone. Cyclonic convection pushes a bulge in the azimuthal field and rotates it into the meridional plane. Image courtesy of E. Plotkin (American Institute of Physics). Reprinted, with permission, from E.N. Parker, The physics of the Sun and the gateway to the stars, Physics Today 53(6), 26-31, June 2000. Copyright 2000, American Institute of Physics.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Plasma-Physics-of-the-Local-Cosmos.pdf
This 1999 paper is your favorite model of a ‘Solar Dynamo’ ??
No, but it sets out many of the fundamental principles and was thus an important step.
What is your favorite model?
Well in this world, a “dynamo” typically generate electricity; they don’t generate magnetism.
Unlike statistics, the aim of physics is toward primary causes.
“Well in this world, a “dynamo” typically generate electricity; they don’t generate magnetism.
Unlike statistics, the aim of physics is toward primary causes.”
Here’s my thoughts on this from Leif ‘ s post yesterday, depending on the (iirc) permeability and susceptibility of the medium(characteristic impedance), I can imagine any ratio of e field to m field, just like you can with impedance matching transformers.
In the real world, the dynamo works by moving electrically neutral but conducting plasma across magnetic field lines generating electric currents with a magnetic field of their own, so the net result is a generated magnetic field. In this way, the dynamo is self-sustaining and the magnetic field is maintained indefinitely. The input is plasma movement and existing magnetic field and the result is a maintained magnetic field. The primary cause is circulation of the neutral plasma in an existing magnetic field.
Yes, that will work, leaving only the pesky little problem of “an existing magnetic field “.
(and poloidal rotation)
The interstellar gas from which the Sun and all stars are formed is pervaded by a magnetic field, so the new-born Sun will have a magnetic field. Nothing pesky there. Just empirical evidence.
Yes, all of space seems to be pervaded by magnetic flux (fields).
So continue on please, the polar Rotation of the Solar Orb ?
To continue your education I can refer you ro http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2009-1/download/lrsp-2009-1Color.pdf
Although it is not clear what you mean by ‘polar rotation’. We normally talk about equatorial acceleration aka differential rotation. Suffice it to say that said rotation is an observational fact.
“We normally talk about equatorial acceleration aka differential rotation. ”
One the things that pique my interest in this thread is that the smooth pulling of the equatorial region seems to be lacking all of the chaotic features all of the other large gas atm’s on the rest of the solar system, but could it all be happening under what we can see?
Would you not expect large corealis effects there as well?
We have measured [the same way as a traffic cop measures your driving speed] the internal rotation with precision half-way down to the core so we know what the rotation profile is that far down. The differential rotation is due to convection [in the outermost 2/3rd of the Sun. The convection carries a portion of the star’s angular momentum outward, thus redistributing the angular velocity and giving us the differential rotation.
Polar rotation- like a top, the pole is axis of rotation, momentum is along the equator.
Thus simply plain old normal rotation. See the link I gave. Be aware that the Sun does not rotate as a solid body. The solar rotation rate was originally very short [perhaps one day], but the formation of the planets has slowed the Sun down due to tension in the magnetic field lines connecting the circum-solar cloud [the solar wind was a thousand times stronger back then] and the Sun. The slow-down is still going on, but at a very much slower rate.
And BTW, the angular momentum [associated with the rotation] is along the axis of rotation, not along the equator.
“To continue your education I can refer you ro http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2009-1/download/lrsp-2009-1Color.pdf ”
-ls
Please sir, not another barage of helioseismic assumptions.
I wouldn’t pretend to know what drives our galaxy and ISM, but
for a local real-world model pertaining to your as yet unexplained “solar dynamo”,
you might consider some spherical form of ∞ Faraday Generator.
(and Occam’s razor)
Obviously, there are people [and you seem to be one of them] who are impervious to learning. So perhaps you might consider not wasting our time any further.
Your own data shows a maximum of solar activity from 1940-2000.
Now if one looks at past temperature data from various graphs and contrast it to this latest study showing the solar secular cycle one will see a good correlation between global temperature and the solar secular cycle.
The solar secular cycle trend from 1610-2010, and the absolute values of the solar secular cycle trend correlating with the global temperature trends (1610-2010), and absolute values of the global temperature.
The solar secular cycle trend also shows a distinct increase in solar activity from the period 1930-2005 period, versus the period from 1650-1930 in that the solar secular cycle through out that period of time never exceeds 125 ,in contrast to being above 125 from the 1930-2005 period of time, with a peak of 160!
In addition if one examines the data, at times when the solar secular trend breaks 100 on the down slide the global temperature trend is down although the global temperature value starting points may differ most likely due to other climate items superimposed upon the global temperature trend such as the state of the PDO,AMO or ENSO.
During the times when the solar secular trend broke 100 those being the period 1660 -1720 and 1780-1830 both corresponding to the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum ,the global temperature trend is in a definitive down trend. In addition even from the period 1880-1905 when the solar secular cycle approaches the 100 value, the global temperature trend is slightly down once again.
Then on the hand, when the solar secular cycle trend exceeds 125 from 1930 -2005 the temperature trend is up and shoots really up when the great climatic shift takes place in 1978 which is when the PDO ,shifted from it’s cold to warm phase.
. The data from the above shows quite clearly that when the solar secular cycle breaks 100 on the down slope look for a global temperature cooling trend to begin from what ever level the global absolute temperature is at, and when the solar secular cycle rises and breaks through 100 on the upside look for a global temperature trend to rise from what ever level the global absolute temperature is at.
A general rule I see if when the solar secular cycle exceeds 125 global temperatures trend up or are at a higher level and when it breaks 100 on the downside global temperatures trend down or are at a lower level.
If this latest solar information is correct and that is a big if ,but if it is correct, it shows the climate is more sensitive to primary ,and the secondary effects associated with solar variability.
In addition my low average value solar parameter criteria for cooling may be able to be adjusted up some , due to this latest information.
One last note, it looks like around year 2010 the solar secular cycle trend finally broke 100 n the down swing which would be the first time since 1830, when the solar secular cycle broke 100 on the up swing and had since stayed above that level until year 2010.
THE GRAPH SHOWING THE SOLAR SECULAR CYCLE IS ON PAGE 13 OF THE PDF I HAVE SENT . LOOK BELOW.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Maunder-Minimum-Not-So-Grand.pdf
Slide 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number-LWS.pdf shows the latest reconstruction of solar activity as agreed upon by most solar workers.
At the Sun-Climate Connection Conference in Kiel [ http://scc.geomar.de/frontend/index.php?page_id=592 ], we had a very positive feedback, in particular from Raimund Muscheler from the University of Lund. He has been studying 10Be in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, as well as 14C, and he concludes that the Antarctic ice cores and 14C both indicate an absence of trend since the last Maunder Minimum. Only the Greenland ice cores show a marked upward trend, but this may be due to an artificial feedback from climate change that only affects that region (change in ice deposition processes).
You mean that Earth takes what it gets from the Sun and changes it????????? Holy crap!!!!!!!
Lol.
Leif ,evidence and data as is being put forth in recent papers is not in support of your conclusions. Time will tell but for now it is wait and see for all including you.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/336
This paper does not agree with your conclusions and it has input from many sources.
Again it is wait and see.
If I’m not mistaken, the figure I showed of Lockwood’s idea of the sunspot number is from that very paper, so the many sources seem to agree that my reconstruction is correct [unless you postulate that the authors disagree among themselves]:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-ApJ-2015.jpg
Since the Figure is about the past, it is not a question about wait and see.
I did it again. I am not with it today.
We know. We know, It shows.
Salvatore Del Prete April 11, 2015 at 1:10 pm
Leif ,evidence and data as is being put forth in recent papers is not in support of your conclusions.
No, if you care to examine the data [which is the only evidence we have] you will see that recent papers [e.g. Lockwood’s] are slowly catching up with our reconstructions. This does not prevent some people to turn a blind eye to that and mumble about ‘time will tell’.
About Lockwood catching up, see slide 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf
Leif, I don’t know if you are correct or not Maybe your reconstructions will what to go with.
But that is the past and the future is more important.
I am not going to hold you to anything my past predictions have been terrible. I remember I said solar flux would be way under 100 by now. I was way off.
Still I am curious what kind of solar activity do you think may be coming our way for say the next two solar cycles, 25 and 26?
I am thinking quiet. Thanks
Clinging to the past, as you persist in doing, is going to make thinking about the future more difficult.
We can’t predict the solar cycle 25 yet, as the polar fields have not had enough time to build up. In a year or two we may begin to get a feeling for what is in store for us. Should I guess now, I would say the SC25 would be 2/3 of SC24, but with a large error bar. That your predictions were wrong is easy to understand as they were just hand waving wishful thinking with no physical contents.
About Lockwood catching up, see slide 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf
If you have time page 47 is of interest.
I wrote that page, but it is irrelevant as to whether there ever was a Grand Modern Maximum, so you are bringing up a straw man.
Leif, I appreciate the answer. I like the way you approach the subject of solar predicting . In this area I think your approach is sensible because you leave room for error which others often do not do, which to me is ridiculous.
lsvalgaard April 12, 2015 at 10:36 am
“To continue your education I can refer you ro http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2009-1/download/lrsp-2009-1Color.pdf ” -ls
Please sir, not another barage of helioseismic assumptions. I wouldn’t pretend to know what drives our galaxy and ISM, but for a local real-world model pertaining to your as yet unexplained “solar dynamo”, you might consider some spherical form of ∞ Faraday Generator. […]
“Obviously, there are people [and you seem to be one of them] who are impervious to learning. So perhaps you might consider not wasting our time any further.” -ls
It’s a simple concept really, but if you don’t understand, just gather up the gumption to say so.
It’s OK
I shan’t waste our time any further…
Do try to comprehend Occam’s Razor, is possible…
As Einstein said: “make it as simple as possible, but no simpler”.
Helioseismology is no more assumptions than finding oil setting of small explosions or getting a traffic ticket based on a cop’s Radar Doppler measurement of your car. Both helioseismology and dynamo processes throughout the Universe are well-understood and universally accepted by scientists. As to not wasting time anymore: good riddance.
Which is often stated ‘entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem’ (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity). So, if we a good theory already, there is no need for yet another one that is inferior and has no explanatory power, i.e. does not quantitatively predict or explain anything.
cya