Weakest Solar Cycle In More Than A Century
The sun is almost completely blank. The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. The sun’s X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 24 hours. Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. –Paul Dorian, Vencore Weather, 30 April 2015
Overview
The sun is almost completely blank. The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. The sun’s X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 24 hours. Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and the current nearly blank sun may signal the end of the solar maximum phase. Solar cycle 24 began after an unusually deep solar minimum that lasted from 2007 to 2009 which included more spotless days on the sun compared to any minimum in almost a century.
Solar maximum
The smoothed sunspot number (plot below) for solar cycle 24 reached a peak of 81.9 in April 2014 and it is looking increasingly likely that this spike will be considered to be the solar maximum for this cycle. This second peak in the cycle surpassed the level of an earlier peak that reached 66.9 in February 2012. Many solar cycles are double peaked; however, this is the first one in which the second peak in sunspot number was larger than the first peak. Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles in the previous 23 that have had a lower number of sunspots during its maximum phase.
[Sunspot numbers for the prior solar cycle (#23) and the current solar cycle (#24) with its two peaks highlighted; courtesy Hathaway, NASA/ARC]
Consequences of a weak solar cycle
First, the weak solar cycle has resulted in rather benign “space weather” in recent times with generally weaker-than-normal geomagnetic storms. By all Earth-based measures of geomagnetic and geoeffective solar activity, this cycle has been extremely quiet. However, while a weak solar cycle does suggest strong solar storms will occur less often than during stronger and more active cycles, it does not rule them out entirely. In fact, the famous “superstorm” Carrington Event of 1859 occurred during a weak solar cycle (#10) [http://vencoreweather.com/2014/09/02/300-pm-the-carrington-event-of-1859-a-solar-superstorm-that-took-places-155-years-ago/]. In addition, there is some evidence that most large events such as strong solar flares and significant geomagnetic storms tend to occur in the declining phase of the solar cycle. In other words, there is still a chance for significant solar activity in the months and years ahead.
Second, it is pretty well understood that solar activity has a direct impact on temperatures at very high altitudes in a part of the Earth’s atmosphere called the thermosphere. This is the biggest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere which lies directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation and are highly dependent on solar activity.
Finally, if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere – and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830 (below). Both of these historical periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many scientists as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.
[400 years of sunspots with “minimum” periods highlighted; map courtesy wikipedia]
Here are the latest value for NOAA’s Space weather prediction Center, they are for March 2015. I expect an update this coming week. Note that the Ap index made a big jum in March, I expect the new values for April to be much lower.
More at the WUWT solar Reference Page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
There are a lot of people who simply do not understand (Or don’t wont to/not interested in) the size these spots can be, or the size of the sun or the distance from it to earth and how long light takes to get to earth. In a chat with a friend some years back now, I showed an image of the sun with spots on it. I said “Here. Look at this. See that spot there? That is larger than the diameter of the earth!”. I was promtly told I was talking out of a hole in the back of my head.
Patrick, I feel your pain.
Imagine if you tried to tell them that that black spot is actually brighter than a blowtorch?
That it only looks black because the surrounding areas are so much brighter.
But, even though I know that the sun is a million miles wide, and the earth is only 8,000, it is still hard to grasp mentally.
I mean the scale of it is just so far outside anything we have close hand experience with. I drive a lot. A whole lot. But I am not sure if I have driven a million miles in my whole life. I know the sun is about 93,000,000 miles away, and that light travels at 186,000 a second, and takes nine minutes or so to make that trip. But I also know that light moves fast enough to go all the way around the earth 7 times in one second. I have to say the scale of even the earth boggles my mind when I start to think about what might be in the volume of the crust just within the top five miles or so. And although I have known the speed of light since I was a kid, I cannot say I can actually comprehend it in any real sense. A plane landing that goes over my house is going ten times faster than I drive my car, and a rifle bullet goes several times time faster than that. But the speed of a orbiting shuttle at 16,000 MPH or so, is getting a little fast to really imagine. I have seen satellites up in the sky right at sunrise, and it is really freaky. The speed of light is simply insane. No way to picture it. We can say it, calculate it, but see it? Think about it in everyday terms? Nope.
93,000,000 miles? Unfathomable in everyday comparisons.
My whole life I have told people factual things that they said flat out to me was not true. I dated a girl several years back, that when I pointed up at Venus rising over the ocean…she looked at me and told me that she is not stupid, why am I saying that, she knows that that is a star! No amount of informing her was changing her mind, either. (Last date with her. My friend, who was walking with us at the time, commented later that she was as dumb as a bag of rocks, but I pointed out she was merely completed uneducated.)
Just like a large proportion of the electorate are what as known as “low information voters”, so too is the average Fred or Myrtle Q. Anybody astonishingly unaware of even a modicum of the knowledge that people who have actually studied and learned natural sciences or engineering take for granted.
Ditto for such things as the workings of machinery, whether it be cars, televisions, pumps and motors, appliances, or whatever.
Electrical stuff, simple or complicated…the average person is not only unable to tell you much about how it works, or how to fix anything, but is afraid to even try.
I was very young when I realized that almost everyone I knew had no idea how to take something apart and put it back together. Maybe 7 or 8.
But what was most amazing was that by then I was reading books and magazines which explained stuff, and saw that a lot of people could read books and not be able to remember it a few weeks later, or integrate one set of facts into another. I had an aunt who was a librarian, and she gave me a series of books called “The How And Why Wonder Books” when I was 8 or 9. I read the one called Nuclear Energy the first night, and learned all about the binding energy curve, the difference between fission and fusion, how a nuclear chain reaction occurs, how reactors work and are controlled, etc. I knew more that first night than most people I have ever met since, outside of a physics classroom.
I am not sure,to this day, why it is that some people, when they are kids, can, for example, take the wheels off of a car, examine and disassemble the brake mechanism, see how it is put together and how it works, and put it all back together again. While with many other people, even if you sat them down and showed them how to do it step by step, bolt by bolt, and did it slowly and repeated it a few times…they could never do it themselves. And would never try.
Ask a hundred random people “what are the three major plant nutrients?”, or “why is it you can disconnect the battery from a car after you start it and it will keep running?”, or “what do radio waves and x-rays have in common?”, or “how can a weather forecaster look at a weather map and tell you which way the wind will be blowing tomorrow?”, or “any random question about a basic fact in physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, etc?”, and most, I think, cannot answer correctly.
But the ones who know the answer to one of these has a good chance of knowing them all.
Many people seem to actually think that the ability to grows plants without killing them has to do with some mysterious thing called a “green thumb”, or that auto mechanics must know some secret incantation that must be performed prior to or after all the unbolting and bolting back together, or decided at some point in their lives that some stuff was complicated and certain subjects were “hard”, and left it at that, rarely if ever to pay serious attention to trying to learn about them again.
Just as a for instance, when I was in college, I spent my weekends building a plant nursery for my father, and to make some money I would fill up a truck with plants, drive to a busy street corner in a big city, and just stand there selling plants all day. Talked to everyone, hundreds of people a day: Doctors, lawyers, little old ladies, other students, you name it. And after a while I realized it was best to try quiz people a little about the conditions they had in mind, and tell them how to take care of the plants they were buying, lest they come back with a dead plant, all irate and alarming new customers. I quickly found out you had to just give most people the simplest advice possible. Telling someone to “keep soil evenly moist” just confused them. People would give a huge plant a cup of water a week and wonder why it died. I found out some people thought, if I told them “bright to medium light” they could put a plant in the back corner of a room away from any windows, because “there was some light”. I found most people could not comprehend that even a bright artificially lit room is orders of magnitude less light than even a north window, and a sunny window is many times less light than under a shade tree outside.
Have to give people very specific instructions “put it next to your brightest window and give it half a gallon of water a week (or whatever the case was)”. But even this was a little too wordy for many. “But the floor will get wet if I give it that much!” “That is why I sell these convenient clear plastic saucers ma’am”. “Are you sure the roots won’t rot. Some one told me roots can rot.” “This plant is native to a rain forest, do not let the soil dry out”.
I really should have written a book about those days. Every day I had so many new stories. It is amazing to talk to everyone walking down the street in a city.
Over several years, I found out a great deal about the average amount of basic scientific knowledge people walking down the street have.
What kills me is that not only do so many people not know stuff, but they are not curious about finding out. Unless they have some economic interest in doing so. But even then it is not for sure.
Not that people are stupid, necessarily, they just do not have very much specific or detailed knowledge of many subjects.
There are of course a lot of people around that have a fair grasp of many general concepts in variety of fields. And a lot more than have some knowledge, but are not sure about what they know, and “know” a lot of things that are false.
Then there are millions of people who are very knowledgeable, are doctors, engineers, technicians, scientists and teachers.
Some people know how to ask questions that are pertinent, will pay close attention when told about something they do not know, and are very curious about finding out as much as they can about various things.
“Menicholas
May 3, 2015 at 3:44 am”
WOW! I think we are distant brothers. I was ridiculed and laughed at at skool when I was 8 years old for stating my favourite TV show at that time was the Sky at Night by Patrick Moore. Not Tom and Jerry, not Woody Wood Pecker etc etc… And drawing a “doodle” during “story time” of a solar flare…called up to front of class to explain!
What I find distressing is that all of this information is available right now, in libraries! Totally untouched by the “internet”, so far!
Thanks Menicholas. I find it difficult to talk to people about “stuff”. I think I have imparted some of my curiosity about how things work on two out of three of my kids which is quite good. And my wife, who thinks she doesn’t know much, but in reality also knows most of your answers, which is why I love her.
But when they are not around, I get lonely. Now days I get my information from sites like this. Readily accessible.
Menicholas, it’s not the knowing that’s the problem, it’s the knowing so much that ’tain’t so that’s the problem
No, they are stupid Menicholas. Just point out that 50% of the population is below average intelligence and the lower half will argue with you. (Median is appox equal to mean for IQ). Simply explain that it is the reason that 50% of road accidents are caused by the other bloke.
I am humbled by such lofty young folks. The only thing I was doing when I was 7 was playing in every mud puddle I could find and climbing cupboards to find chocolate bars Grandma kept for hunting season. And if it twernt for muddy handprints on the cupboard doors and a chocolate smile I woulda gotten away with it.
Doing kids’ stuff – mud puddles – cookie jars – and all else…
is the way kids lay the cognitive foundations for problem solving as adults. Such ‘play’ interrupted too early by shoehorning kids into school desks can stifle creativity later in life, (particularly for males.)
“Pamela Gray
May 3, 2015 at 3:56 pm”
Oh yes, I hear ya! Me too…(damn those muddy hand prints)…
Pamela, do not get me wrong…I was the mud puddle king of twenty-second street. In fact, my nickname (my other one, besides Nick) was Dirty-dirt. My dad made up a song and everything. It was said I could become spontaneously dirty faster than Pigpen himself.
I had a pair of shoes called desert boots that I loved so much, and refused to throw out, even when there was a danger of them absorbing onto my feet, that they had to come in my room and find where I hid them, while I was sleeping, to throw them away.
And I too remember clambering over shelves and cupboards, in search of hidden treasures of rare treats.
my mom was a health food nut before anyone ever heard of it. Nary a bag of chips ever crossed the threshold of that house.
I remember one time I came across a cookbook, and looked through t just out of curiosity. I was astonished to see that there were the directions, laid out in plain language, for making all manner of treats…cookies, cakes (!) and what have you. There ware almost never any hidden chocolates, except for semi-sweat morsels, but there was always plenty of what had been considered by me to be useless junk…flour, sugar, various extracts and powders. That day I discovered that cook books had valuable information in them, was the last time I ever searched. The cat was out of the bag, and from then on I was the bake-master extraordinaire of the ‘hood.
I can recall the amazement f all my older brothers and sisters the first time…about an hour after finding that book, that I pulled a cake out of the oven! They absolutely could not fathom how I had done it. nor could my mom. It too a little longer to figure out how to make a chocolate cake using unsweetened chocolate…but not much longer…maybe a week.
By them my mom realized she best just show me all the little tricks.
I do not remember if I was in the habit of washing up before cooking. Probably not. I was honestly oblivious to dirt.
The baking probably started around second grade. I was barely big enough to turn the handle on an egg beater (remember those?)
I had to stand on a chair to put stuff in a mixing bowl. But I did it. I knew how to read, and what 3/4 of a cup was, and how to turn on an oven to a particular temperature, and how to time something. Although I do recall being very impatient, and more than one cake was more like pudding in the middle when we all started to devour it.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/94/a7/79/94a7791039eef8f932c206912df78892.jpg
noaaprogrammer,
I went to an experimental school called a Learning Center. No desks, few structured classes. Went and played in the math lab, built stuff in the work shop, read in the library, raised animals in the animal room, arts and crafts room. It was great. I was never shoehorned. I read all the time because I wanted to, and rode my bike every dafter school…was the leader of a bike gang, swim team in the summer, all different sports all year long in the street. Back in those days, after school… kids were told to go play in the street…and that is what we did. In the actual streets.
@ur momisugly Patrick May 2, 2015 at 11:38 pm
And I say to you, Patrick, ….. “Here. Look at this.
The Scale of the Universe
http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
After it “loads up”, use the “scroll wheel” on your Mouse to wander “back n’ forth” thru the universe
That is quite cool!
Selling plants off a truck at U. of P.
?oh=983849ad9f97670202d4b3f49f0744f9&oe=55D85F8E
Take a look over at Spaceweather.com. NASA has just noticed that when the Nepal quake struck that it led to a disturbance more than 60 kms above sea level. Is this indicative of the potential connection between Gleissberg and GM events leading to a greater potentiality for large quakes and volcanic eruptions? They are saying that this could be showing that the ionosphere is sensitive to a large quake, but what if they have that backwards? Look at what they are showing. The change in the ionosphere and the quake in Nepal occur simultaneously. This could certainly be solar effects being the trigger that shifted the ionosphere on it,s way through to the Earth, and thus becoming the trigger for the quake.
And the link…http://spaceweather.com/
Wind and evaporator at the time of the last magnetic storm.
Dr Kongpop U Yen has been writing papers studying the correlation between solar radiation influx and tropical storm formation and intensification. He’s also co-authoring a paper with the Suspicious Observers guys on the correlation between solar radiation influx and earthquakes. Though that paper focuses solely on M8+ earthquakes at the moment.
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl20.gif
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
Max– I think you’re on to something here, Max.
in about 6 billion years, the sun will run out of hydrogen and will start burning helium to form evil CARBON!!!
At this stage, the sun will become a Red Giant, and its size will encompass Earth’s orbit, at which time Dr. Hansen’s projection of boiling seas will come true!
See! The alarmist were right! Carbon will destroy Earth eventually! They were just off a little on the timing…
” They were just off a little on the timing…”
And a little off on the mechanism also.
Silso has their current ssn graph up to May 1st…http://sidc.oma.be/silso/dayssnplot
Climate change is so powerful that it’s blanked out the Sun!
“Be afraid! Be very afraid!! Uh, and pay carbon taxes, thanks.” –UN
According to G.O.N.G. discoveries solar cycle 25 will delay actually about 4 years
“…..more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.”
We all know the sun spot activity has a better correlation than “Co2 Drives the climate” theory.
Well, has anybody been tracking “certain types of clouds” and has there been an increase in that “type” of cloud?
How fast will solar 24 cycle drop off? When will the sun be spotless? How long will the sun be spotless for? Will there be a cycle 25?
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
The solar magnetic large scale magnetic field has dropped cycle by cycle and is now the lowest ever measured in ‘recorded’ history. The strength of the solar cycle large scale magnetic field is based on recent history a precursor of the size of the next solar cycle. It is interesting that the solar northern hemisphere large scale magnetic field strength is oscillating around zero. How low can the solar large scale magnetic intensity go?
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
We have been told repeatedly that solar magnetic cycle 24 is not unusual, is not peculiar. Odd that other specialist do find that solar24 cycle is peculiar, unusual.
Why did solar heliosphere density drop by 40%?
There are cycles of warming and cooling (sometimes abrupt cooling) in the paleo climatic record that correlate with solar cycle changes. How much of the recent warming was due to solar cycle changes as opposed to the increase in atmospheric CO2?
What is interesting is the large set of theoretical questions concerning how and why the sun changes and how and the magnitude of the sun’s affect of the earth’s climate will be resolve by observations.
We are going to have a front row seat to watch how the sun will change and how the current change in the sun will affect the earth’s climate.
It is interesting that suddenly in 2012 there was record sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year (which is the first time in recorded history that this has happened) and shortly following that change there is now recovery of sea ice in the Arctic.
The peculiar solar cycle 24 – where do we stand?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
People in parts of the Northern Territory have experienced the coolest night of the year so far, with new record lows for April expected to be recorded in several places.
At 6:00am (CST) the temperature at Middle Point, 66 kilometres south-west of Darwin, was down to 13.1 Celsius, making it the coldest April temperature ever recorded at the site.
The temperature in Alice Springs was a chilly 1.7C overnight, making it the coolest night so far this year and fractionally above its coldest-ever recorded April temperature of 1.4C.
Bureau of Meteorology acting senior forecaster Billy Lynch said he expected it would have been an April record in several parts of the Top End overnight.
Flying around Australia, it is the greenest that I have seen in nearly 60 years. Normally dead country has green grass and tree shoots. And to my eyes it is a cumulative effect of several years duration. This is a huge country. The greenery is like that reported in the 1800’s.
And yes, it is getting colder. I am not looking forward to this winter. Next winter – living in the southern extreme of the tropics, I plan to have a small wood heater in my small house. I do not like the year on year cooling tend. It is making my joints freeze..
I for one would enjoy a cooler earth. I have to endure 6-8 months every year with an air conditioner. Perhaps a cooler climate would be a nice change. And no, I don’t expect much sympathy for my situation.
Peter
May 3, 2015 at 6:42 am
Flying around Australia, it is the greenest that I have seen in nearly 60 years. Normally dead country has green grass and tree shoots.
I bet my money on CO2 enrichment for this. Yes, I mean this bad bad dreadful thing.
Satellites have shown some 11% greening of the planet in the previous 3 decades, but somehow this does not make the news.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
Glad to hear Australia shows the same greening case. Also plants can better support droughts with more CO2.
At 220 ppm one had carbon starvation:
“Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California”
http://biblioteca.universia.net/ficha.do?id=912067
The irony is when one googles “CO2 plant food” one gets to SkS site with:
“It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, ‘skeptics’ make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.”
Not a single moment recognizing reality.
Their theoretical Co2hotmaggedon is bad computer modeling whereas CO2 enrichments is proven reality.
Where will stop the ice to the south?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
If a man lives about 100 years, this cycle, 24, for each of us is remarkable.
We have been told repeatedly that solar magnetic cycle 24 is not unusual, is not peculiar.
And one more time: your time horizon is too narrow. Cycles a century ago [and two centuries ago, and …] were as ‘peculiar’ and unusual. The sun has been there before http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011-The-Forgotten-Sun.pdf
“The sun has been there before”
But we who dwell in this narrow slice of time have not, and therein lies the real source of the problem.
How long is warming? 50 years? Back in the seventies, some scientists proclaim a new ice age.
How fast will solar 24 cycle drop off?
When will the sun be spotless? How long will the sun be spotless for?
Will there be a cycle 25? Hint, the large scale solar magnetic field strength is dropping like a stone.
Why did the solar heliosphere density drop by 40%?
The Forgotten and ignored sun will move to center stage, if and when the planet significantly cools.
Your questions are ill-posed.
How fast will solar 24 cycle drop off?
As any other weak cycle, SC24 still has at least 5 years to go
When will the sun be spotless? How long will the sun be spotless for?
Could be any day now, but only for a day or so. This is normal for weak cycles.
At the next minimum, the Sun might be spotless for several hundred days as is the norm for weak cycles.
Will there be a cycle 25? Hint, the large scale solar magnetic field strength is dropping like a stone.
Absolutely, we can already see it build. The solar polar fields are again increasing. We don’t know yet to what value, but a [very] risky extrapolation suggests that the next cycle will be 2/3 of the present one [the predictor is given by the green line: the ‘dipole moment = the difference between north and south (also shown at the right):
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Why did the solar heliosphere density drop by 40%?
It did at the last minimum [as the magnetic field dropped]. Now the density is back to normal [5 protons/cm^3]
Leif, are you aware that http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png is similar to a page that is displayed at WUWT’s Solar reference page. However, it uses URL http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png which you no longer update.
Can you either resume updating that image or should we ask Anthony to get the reference page updated?
update the reference page, of course
I actually do update the polar field plots.
Here is Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
and here is WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
The page that is no longer updated is
TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
The link should be
TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png
lsvalgaard
May 3, 2015 at 9:47 am
Over the weekend Istarted to wonder about the magnetic fields from the other 5 operating planetary dynamo’s, and how the magnetic fields will potentially merge and buck with solar magnetic fields.
While the planetary fields might be overwhelmed by the internal solar fields, they can be “magnets” for solar fields.
One might think some of these fields might be split off sunspot fields, which should then show up as quites sides of the sun, where other sides could be more active, pending how the planets fields are configured at any one time.
Now, we don’t have a lot data on the back side, but what do we know about what’s going on on the back side of the Sun? Are there times when one side of the Sun is active and another isn’t?
And thank you for your efforts here.
We actually have satellites looking at the backside of the sun. We can also see through the sun to discover what is on the backside, and finally, if we just wait a week or two, we get to see what was on the backside as the the sun rotates that onto the front.
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/beacon/beacon_farside.shtml
It is very doubtful, though, that the planets have anything to do with solar activity.
Also interesting is http://notrickszone.com/2015/04/12/solar-cycle-24-continues-to-be-quietest-in-almost-200-years-suns-polar-fields-weakest-since-1900/.
– The current cycle is the quietest since solar cycle no. 7, which occurred around 1830. When it comes to the question of why, the polar magnetic fields of the sun are decisive.
– The authors led by Andrés Muñoz-Jaramillo used the observations of solar flares made since 1900 as a proxy for the sun’s polar fields. (…) Here it is clear to see that in the second year past the cycle peak, the polar fields have never been so weak. Consider that the strength of the sun’s polar fields during the solar sunspot minimum is a decisive indicator for the activity of the next solar cycle. A very recent paper by Robert Cameron and Manfred Schüssler confirms this.
How long before the first ‘proof’ that global warming causes a decrease in sun spots , given there is ‘nothing ‘ miracle CO2 cannot do it must surely be just a question of time.
Well, if CO2 can “hitch a ride” on the sun-earth connection, then it would be acting like a big CO2 fire extinguisher and directing itself to the active regions (via it’s uncanny ability for finding energy to re-radiate).
The sun becomes “double-gazed”, so to speak. Considering the humongous emissions from all of us we might just extinguish it, but methane also goes along for the ride and burns hot enough to provide “the missing heat”.
(do I need sarcometric certification?)
Hmm… that reads like an Obama speech.
It’s the Sun wot
wondone it!The IPCC and the White House just announced that the absence of sunspots is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
[Do I need to say sarc/off?]
Brrrrr! Invest in long underwear.
@jbird, No, invest in companies that make “Long Johns” or start your own. Something like, Gore’s “undercovers”? or maybe “Gore’s under the covers” (ups)?
A good website that is updated daily and which shows the recent drop in solar activity (and much more):
http://www.solen.info/solar/
Recently, a Nasa funded radiation study was highlighted in the WSJ.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/study-deep-space-radiation-could-damage-astronauts-brains-1430503356
Here are the key excerpts:
If the sun’s magnetosphere and solar wind become diminished for 30-60 years by a Maunder-like minimum, that could really complicate or make impossible manned missions beyond LEO.
I personally think that would be okay because the costs of a manned mission to Mars would drain too much money. Far more beneficial space exploration by robotic missions, astronomy here on earth and orbiting platforms (James Webb telescope follow on), and most other US govt funded research would get hit to pay for it.
Year on orbit in the period low solar activity is suicide mission. The increase will be a big galactic radiation. The energy of this radiation is calculated in gigaelektronowoltach (10 ^ 9 eV). Prior to this only protects the solar wind. Cosmonauts will be illuminated after year.
Two forms of radiation pose potential health risks to astronauts in deep space. One is galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), particles caused by supernova explosions and other high-energy events outside the solar system. The other is solar energetic particles (SEPs) associated with solar flares and coronal mass ejections from the sun.
Radiation exposure is measured in units of Sievert (Sv) or milliSievert (one one-thousandth Sv). Long-term population studies have shown exposure to radiation increases a person’s lifetime cancer risk. Exposure to a dose of 1 Sv, accumulated over time, is associated with a 5 percent increase in risk for developing fatal cancer.
NASA has established a 3 percent increased risk of fatal cancer as an acceptable career limit for its astronauts currently operating in low-Earth orbit. The RAD data showed the Curiosity rover was exposed to an average of 1.8 milliSieverts of GCR per day on its journey to Mars. Only about 5 percent of the radiation dose was associated with solar particles because of a relatively quiet solar cycle and the shielding provided by the spacecraft.
The RAD data will help inform current discussions in the United States medical community, which is working to establish exposure limits for deep-space explorers in the future.
“In terms of accumulated dose, it’s like getting a whole-body CT scan once every five or six days,” said Cary Zeitlin, a principal scientist at the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in San Antonio and lead author of the paper on the findings. “Understanding the radiation environment inside a spacecraft carrying humans to Mars or other deep space destinations is critical for planning future crewed missions.”
Current spacecraft shield much more effectively against SEPs than GCRs. To protect against the comparatively low energy of typical SEPs, astronauts might need to move into havens with extra shielding on a spacecraft or on the Martian surface, or employ other countermeasures. GCRs tend to be highly energetic, highly penetrating particles that are not stopped by the modest shielding provided by a typical spacecraft.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/may/HQ_13-165_MSL_Radiation_Findings.html
Abstract
As NASA prepares for the first manned spaceflight to Mars, questions have surfaced concerning the potential for increased risks associated with exposure to the spectrum of highly energetic nuclei that comprise galactic cosmic rays. Animal models have revealed an unexpected sensitivity of mature neurons in the brain to charged particles found in space. Astronaut autonomy during long-term space travel is particularly critical as is the need to properly manage planned and unanticipated events, activities that could be compromised by accumulating particle traversals through the brain. Using mice subjected to space-relevant fluences of charged particles, we show significant cortical- and hippocampal-based performance decrements 6 weeks after acute exposure. Animals manifesting cognitive decrements exhibited marked and persistent radiation-induced reductions in dendritic complexity and spine density along medial prefrontal cortical neurons known to mediate neurotransmission specifically interrogated by our behavioral tasks. Significant increases in postsynaptic density protein 95 (PSD-95) revealed major radiation-induced alterations in synaptic integrity. Impaired behavioral performance of individual animals correlated significantly with reduced spine density and trended with increased synaptic puncta, thereby providing quantitative measures of risk for developing cognitive decrements. Our data indicate an unexpected and unique susceptibility of the central nervous system to space radiation exposure, and argue that the underlying radiation sensitivity of delicate neuronal structure may well predispose astronauts to unintended mission-critical performance decrements and/or longer-term neurocognitive sequelae.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/4/e1400256
2. ICRP recommended annual limit for occupationally exposed radiation workers (including aircrew) is less than 20 mSv. If the predicted exposure is less than 1/3 of this limit, the safety signal color will be green – indicating minimal radiation exposure. If the predicted exposure is between 1/3-2/3 of the ICRP recommended limit, the safety signal color will be yellow – indicating that close tracking of individual radiation exposure is advised. If the predicted exposure is greater than 2/3 the recommended limit, the safety signal color will be red – indicating exposure to maximum recommended limit is possible.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/globeView.html
For an interesting look at radiation doses, see https://xkcd.com/radiation/
@joel, About the NASA study, (and thanks for the info)
Myself, because of an injury 15 years ago, had to go through multiple X-rays/ CAT scans and MR…. what were you saying?…. uhmmm I am puzzled by something and… whatwas that again? sorry i am not wondering anymore, … no curiosity I guess.
Oh I (NASA) gets it. Guys we need some funds for my next…. oh I forgot ( sarc off)
Any off the symptoms shown by these astronauts, jet pilots etc having to live in that environment could have been induced by things that they had to go through during training.
From what I have read about some of the tests they had to do in the 50’s and 60’s to become selected as astronauts were bloody inhuman. Centrifuges ( G-forces) is just one of them another was breathing pure 02, another was trying to survive in extreme conditions such as desert and arctic conditions etc..
The list is a lot longer. To me this is just another way for getting funding . I hope one day we will go to other planets etc but the logistics with todays tech? It is just not possible, we need a breakthrough at a really different level.
maybe the sun needs just some exercise:
@Dawt +++++ thanks for the laugh!
The Carrington Event occurred during a similar solar minimum, and so have mini ice ages, or at least, that’s what I’ve garnered from previous posts here.
An update on the geology of the Yellowstone hot spot posted here recently estimated the probability of a massive volcanic eruption from the caldera, comparable in size to three known previous ones (the last occurring 640,000 years ago), at one chance in 700,000 per year.
So I’m more than a little curious to know, what the estimates are of the likelyhood per year of:
a) another Carrington Event
b) another mini-ice age, or
c) another Carrington Event together with another ice age.
I can’t recall ever seeing any such estimates, which, to this layman, should be easier to make than something that happened last almost a million years ago.
I’m also wondering whether there has been any change in the attitude of the US Senate, which I have read has for several years now blocked the implementation of legislation passed by the House for shielding the US electrical grid against EMP. It seems to me that there has been media silence on this subject for about a year now too.
Various estimates place the Carrington event probability per year as 1%. Mini-ice-ages last centuries so a probability per year is a dubious quantity, but there are intriguing signs that solar eruptions may be much larger [but rarer] than what we have seen the last several centuries. There seems to have been an extreme event in the year 775 AD vastly exceeding anything we have seen during the space age: http://www.leif.org/research/Report-on-Extreme-Space-Weather-Events-2014.pdf
maybe similar to earthquake PDF, a power law distribution of severity?
Slide 19 of my link shows just that and suggests much larger flares are possible, as are observed on other sun-like stars [slide 18].
Thanks Leif!
A recent novel based on the effects of an EMP is well worth reading: “One Second After” by William Foestchen
@Bohdan, It is not so recent, the writer and others have been trying for years to get the US government to pay attention to this ( the novel was based on a rogue attack on the US by detonating nukes in the high atmosphere to create a artificial EMP and destroy the US). From what I know the US (and other govs) have hardened essential parts of their networks and military hardware.( Faraday cage type of protection). Our civilian electrical networks are completely vulnerable to this kind of attack but if the sun causes this there is nobody immune ..
Leif says:
“Slide 19 of my link shows just that and suggests much larger flares are possible, as are observed on other sun-like stars [slide 18].”
================
1) Do observations of other sun-like stars (could we just call them suns, to avoid confusing the unwashed masses ) have anything to do with the behavior of ours ?
2) Would our wealth (such as it is ) be better spent shielding our fragile electronic circuitry from the next CME, or by building wind turbines ?
a) No, the other suns are many light years away
b) Wind turbines only work when the wind blows. There is a European project suggesting to link the turbines from a great swath of land stretching from Iceland to Siberia to ensure that there is always wind somewhere. I don’t know the fate of this proposal. Hardening devices and networks against CMEs is a good idea anyway. I don’t know if will help much if we get a superflare 100 times more powerful than what we are used to.
We should at least be digitizing and decentralizing and shielding humanity’s data and the means of accessing and manipulating it (ie. make it easily powered, transported, and protected from other environmental damage).
Instead, access is being progressively monopolized, and EMP shielding is not even marketed at the consumer level anymore. I suspect, however, that the “richest 1%” have made the appropriate arrangements for their lifeboats…
That paragraph contains positions on solar influence on Earth Atmospheric System (EAS) dynamics that currently have significant contentions as yet unresolved.
I think that paragraph is extremely important. It means there needs to be a significant diversion (~50% diversion) of research focus and intellectual energy away from the myopic CO2 focus of the IPCC and towards effects of solar decadal and centennial activity on EAS decadal and centennial activity. I will let the relevant congressional members know that.
John
So with the oceans flipping in the decadol sense, and low solar, if there is not the drop in global temp the coming 2 decades then WE HAVE TO RE-ASSESS our position The test is upon us folks, at least the skeptic side realizes it and can face facts.
Joe have you seen Madhulika Guhathakurta and Tony Phillips paper: The Solar Cycle Turned Sideways-
https://www.vsp.ucar.edu/Heliophysics/pdf/Lika_sideways_SC.pdf ?
I would like to see your comment, as a follower.
I doubt 2 decades are enough to explain temperature variations, regardless of which current theory one adheres to. The systems, just considering oceanic/atmospheric intra- and inter-teleconnections would statistically require a much longer data collection period in order to draw robust correlations and causations.
It is a wickedly complex problem.
Pamela, I think you’re correct that it may take longer than two decades. But if we do have some sort of solar minimum, we will know more then we know now.
And if the Sun suddenly goes very quiet and it simultaneously turns much colder I think that would be powerful evidence all by itself.
So, while it may take two decades, I think it is also true that we may know more, and knoe it much more quickly, if any dramatic cooling occurs.
On the subject of cooling in general, if the earth does cool by any significant amount for a period of years, say back to the levels of the 1980s or 70’s, could that be taken as the final nail in the CAGW coffin?
Can a claim of low natural variability, and high co2 sensitivity, stand up to actual cooling while co2 is increasing rapidly?
Joe, if you are waiting to “RE-ASSESS” if the GHE/AGW is a hoax, then you might be a “Lukewarmer”.
(With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.)
Oh, and you might be waiting a REALLY long time!
Strongly galactic radiation rises above 10 km away.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/dose.5km.png
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/dose.11km.png
Leif’s predictions
In reply to Leif’s predictions:
lsvalgaard May 3, 2015 at 9:47 am
The solar cycle has been interrupted. That statement, that assertion is not a guess. I know how to solve holistic multidisciplinary problems. There was in the case of this problem sufficient information to solve the problem.
The solar cycle is not going to gradually slowdown over the next 5 years. There will be a sharp and anomalously drop in sunspot groups/number.
Solar cycle 25 will be a special type of Maunder minimum.
Observations will prove which of us is correct.
I will explain in detail what is happening to the sun, what is going to happen to the sun, and how the changes to the sun will affect the earth, if and when there are in your face observations to support the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted and/or that the earth is anomalously cooling.
P.S. I have kept a copy of both our predictions. I am curious if it is possible for you to change your mind. I curious how the public and politicians will react to significant unequivocal cooling.
Regards,
William
The solar cycle has been interrupted.
There is no evidence of that or more precisely of anything dramatically unusual.
That statement, that assertion is not a guess
It is worse than that. It is not even wrong, as you have never defined or explained ‘interrupted’.
I could assert that the solar cycle has been XCVBNed and what would not be a guess either. It would be nonsense.
> Solar cycle 25 will be a special type of Maunder minimum.
Given that there has been only one Maunder Minimum, please explain how we can distinguish between an ordinary Maunder Minimum and a special Maunder Minimum. Also, how many special types are there?
I am pretty much with you on all you have conveyed.
Monthly and smoothed sunspot number:
http://sidc.oma.be/images/wolfmms.png
From http://sidc.oma.be/silso/monthlyssnplot
SDO/HMI Continuum Image:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.jpg
From http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/512/
The video show a compilation of protons interactions, electromagnetic shower and cosmic ray spallation in a Phywe PJ45 cloud chamber at 2877 m. The sequences come from 8 hours of recording with a HD camera. Dimension of the surface of the machine is 45×45 cm. There is no magnetic field in the chamber;
The cloud chamber was temporarily put in the Pic du Midi (French Observatory in the Pyrenees) in 2012 for the 100th anniversary of the discovery of cosmic ray.
As this altitude, there is about 10 times more neutron and proton than in sea level. Theses particles can interact with the matter and break some nucleus which release other protons and neutrons, alpha particles or deuteron. The density of ionisation in a trail is proportionnal to z²/v² where z is the charge of the particle and v it’s velocity. Thus, a proton with a low kinetic energy will make more ionization so the trail will be bigger than the trail of a high energy proton. A 5 MeV (0.1c) proton have a range of 34 cm in air, a 10 MeV one, 1.1 m.
The range of an alpha particle of 10 MeV in air is 10.4 cm.
Their is also higly energetic gamma ray (or energetic incoming electrons !), which can make electromagnetic shower (electrons and positon) in the matter (wall of the room, or wall of the machine which is made with 1 cm of glass). Single e+/e- comes from muon or Pi0 decay, or from the 3 interactions process of gamma in matter (photoelectric, compton and pair creation).
See the website http://www.cloudylabs.fr for more pictures and annotations about theses nuclear events. Feel free to give your thought about any interactions of the video.
That’s cool!
You can use a digital camera to record them as well.
http://content.science20.com/files/images/Dark_5.8_5.jpg
http://content.science20.com/files/images/Dark_-10_7a..jpg
http://content.science20.com/files/images/Dark_-10_7b..jpg
http://content.science20.com/files/images/Dark_11.3_2..jpg
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/cosmic_ray_detecting_thermometer-87672
Some of the events I recorded were near the max value the photodiode could hold, considering the short exposure time, and the full exposure for that pixel, some of these are very “bright”.
Ref: lsvalgaard May 3, 2015 at 1:31 pm
“The illiterates deserve to be educated. Trouble is, most of them don’t want to. One has the same problem raising children.”
Nah, just keep them pruned back and well watered.
My conclusion is this: strong galactic radiation (weak solar wind) strongly alter the chemistry of the atmosphere (and electrical properties) in the zone of the ozone. The closer the magnetic poles of the earth, the more.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1990&starttime=00%3A00&endday=03&endmonth=05&endyear=2015&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on