Guest essay by David Archibald
Two useful things we would like to know are the length of Solar Cycle 24 and the amplitude of Solar Cycle 25. Figure 1 below shows the NOAA version of Solar Cycle 24 progression with the 23/24 transition copied onto the end of their projection. This crude method (we don’t have another) suggests that the 24/25 transition will be at the end of 2021 which would make Solar Cycle 24 twelve years long. Solar physicists have generally given up forecasting Solar Cycle 25 amplitude. The only extant forecast is Livingstone and Penn’s forecast of an amplitude of seven. In the bigger picture, almost a decade after Schatten and Tobiska forecast a return to a Maunder Minimum-like level of activity, another solar physicist, Mark Giampapa of the National Solar Observatory in Tuscon, Arizona, is of the opinion that “we are heading into a Maunder Minimum” that could last until 2080.
Figure 1: Solar Cycle 24 Progression
Figure 2: Interplanetary Magnetic Field
While in recent days the surface of the Sun became almost blank of sunspots, some solar activity parameters have taken off. The interplanetary magnetic field reached a peak higher than it reached during Solar Cycle 20.
Figure 3: Solar Wind Flow Pressure
Similarly, solar wind flow pressure is now higher than it was during most of Solar Cycle 23.
Figure 4: Oulu Neutron Count
Neutron count generally takes a year to respond to the solar wind flow pressure and the interplanetary magnetic field so we may not have seen the lows in neutron count for this solar cycle. That may be in mid-2016. Solar Cycle 24 may be going stronger for longer, to borrow a term from the financial community.
Figure 5: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle
All we can say at the moment from this figure is that Solar Cycle 24 seems to have had a broader top than any of the previous three cycles.
Figure 6: Sum of Solar Polar Field Strengths
The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum when the sum of the polar field strengths falls to near zero. Sunspot activity showed a double top for Solar Cycle 24 and this is supported by Figure 6 which shows that the Sun had about a year at solar maximum.
Figure 7: North America Ex-Greenland Monthly Snow Cover
Onset of an ice age requires snow to survive through the summer and cool the earth due to its higher albedo. Despite the recent cold winters, we have yet to see summer snow survival get back to the levels of the 1970s cooling period.
Figure 8: Lebanon, New Hampshire Average Monthly Temperatures 2000 – 2015
As a followup to this post on the cold start to the year in Maine, this figure shows average monthly temperature for Lebanon, New Hampshire just to the west of Maine. The years 2000-2014 are used as the reference period as this is the period of the pause and people’s most recent personal reference point. The year 2015 to date is shown as the dark blue smoothed line. February 2015 was 12.1°F colder than the average for the fifteen year of 2000-2014 with an average of 11.6°F. This is the second coldest February back to 1900 with the coldest being 1934 at 8.1°F.
The biggest dispersion in average monthly temperatures is in January and then it tightens up such that the spread in June is only 3°F. The temperature for April was back in the pack though 1.3°F cooler than the average of the prior 15 years. All that can be said is that it will be interesting to see how it goes.
David Archibald, a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Are you trying to tell me that a coronal mass ejection or a filimentary ejection five times the size of the Earth colliding with the earths magnetosphere and inducing a current into the polar regions creating the aurora has very little to do with weather patterns on earth and that it is less energy than what a hurricane produces.
yes, by far. NASA says that “during its life cycle a hurricane can expend as much energy as 10,000 nuclear bombs!” And we’re just talking about average hurricanes here, not Katrina.
If that is the case, then color me sceptical.
One can drag a horse to water, but not make him drink…
When the watering hole has been spiked with koolaid I can understand why the horse would not want to drink. It seems science has become to specialized/compartmentilized to see the light beyond the lamppost.
Ignorance is one thing [and perfectly excusable: we can’t all know everything], but willful [as in your case] is an abomination.
The left hand does not know the right hand even exist!
But you do! Good for you, but that does not the mustard for me. Refusing to believe something in the face of scientific evidence is not skepticism, it is the height of credulity.
We know that solar eruptions can cause geomagnetic storms that effect large portions of earth at a time. A hurricane is only regional and even possibly influenced by solar phenomena. A hurricanes power may seem impressive to mans power, but the Suns power, due to an ejection, dwarfs that to infinity.
No, not at all. Geomagnetic storms are rare too. You are correct that the Sun’s power [that is: plain sunlight] dwarfs man’s power [but not to infinity, of course], but the Earth intercept only a tiny, tiny part of that, less than one billionth. And the energy in the solar eruptions that hit the earth is about one millionths of that in the ordinary sunlight falling on the Earth during the eruption. So, the effect of all the things you mentioned don’t amount to much compared to the energy already present in the climate system.
So, the effect of all the things you mentioned don’t amount to much compared to the energy already present in the climate system.
What Leif says in the above (and others ) is the fatal flaw for those who do not accept solar/climate relationships.
Also their bogus theory that the upper atmosphere because it is thin somehow does not translate to an effect in the lower atmosphere. Another fatal flaw.
Evidence suggest otherwise, as shown by the atmospheric circulation responses to solar activity and cloud responses to strong CME events..
Evidence suggest otherwise, as shown by the atmospheric circulation responses to solar activity and cloud responses to strong CME events..
There is no evidence of any of that.
Did the Carrington event actually occur? If so, how many nuclear bombs did that equat to?
It did occur, http://www.leif.org/research/1859%20Storm%20-%20Extreme%20Space%20Weather.pdf
A large geomagnetic storm [10^15 Joule] is comparable to 10 Hiroshima bombs, or the energy released in a hurricane every second.
How much plasma is ejected out of the sun( on average) that hits earth compared to TSI average?
Less than one hundred-thousandths, 0.00001
The solar wind hits the magnetosphere [which is much bigger than the Earth, but only a small fraction impacts the Earth.
Here are some good comparisons of the energy in various events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29
5×1019 J energy released in 1-day by an average hurricane in producing rain (400 times greater than the wind energy)[144]
I estimated the rain dump on the US by an average hurricane(don’t remember which one) was 1/4-1/3 the volume of Lake Erie.
Maybe that’s the reason for the hurricane, to release that sudden surge of energy from the Sun?
No, not directly. but sunlight [TSI] heats the Earth and ultimate is the source of the energy of hurricanes.
I don’t believe that. Because the only thing anybody talks about is TSI or Sunspot numbers. This to me sounds ludicrous! Let’s just forget about TSI and sunspots for a second. TSI is determined to be fairly constant. Sunspots fluctuate. So what! The thing that matters the most is whether Suns ejected is sent our way or not, that is what matters the most. We are talking about greater than Earth sized ejections of pure energy coming from the Sun and smashing into our planet. It happens a lot! To pretend it doesn’t have an effect on Earths system sounds unbelievable.
The solar ejecta are extremely tenuous: 5 protons per cubic centimeter [and it not pure energy]. The air you breathe has 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per cubic centimeter. The impact of the solar ejecta on the the Earth corresponds to one good-sized turkey per second.
Haste is waste. The large number should be 30,000,000,000,000,000,000
Are you serious? Tenuous? I would say that galactic cosmic ray might be considered tenuous but to say solar phenomena is tenuous makes me wonder what the hell you are studying?
Perhaps you could expend some energy reading this:
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/wind_character.html
“At the orbit of the Earth, the solar wind has an average density of about 6 ions/cm3. This is not very dense at all! Take a look at this picture for comparison with Earth’s atmosphere. So even though the solar wind moves incredibly fast (normally in the range from 300 to 600 km/s), it wouldn’t even ruffle your hair if you were to stand directly in the midst of a solar wind breeze…”
So let me get this straight. You are saying that a gigantic cloud of energy five times the size of Earth has little to no impact on what happens here on earth?
Yes. But you must be more precise. There is an impact in the upper atmosphere, which is about a billion times thinner that the air you breathe, but that is about it. It has been very difficult to establish whether there is any impact on weather and climate, although people have been looking for 400 years. Now, there are thousands of paper that CLAIM they have found such influence, but none of them compelling enough to be taken seriously.
Well you should be the first to try it!
How certain are you? You seem to be regurgitating what you have been taught. It seems to me that we are rotating around our star which is our solar system which is rotating around the Galaxy( Milky Way) which is rotating around what? The universe? Who knows what possibilities may occur. There’s nobody that can predict what may happen. Let’s just enjoy life the best we can. [snip] all this nonsense!
If it can effect our electical transmission grid than I suspect it can effect our weather!
“If it can effect our electical transmission grid than I suspect it can effect our weather!”
The energy required to affect 19th century telegraphs isn’t going to be a lot of energy, it was electromagnetic energy coupling to a really long antenna. Which probably had no surge protection. I believe it would impact satellites, but they are much more sensitive than telegraphic equipment, and with a lot less shielding.
The transmission grid is influenced by currents induced in them by another electric currents a hundred miles up in the air. The induction works because the grid consists of good electric conductors. The air is not a good conductor so is not influenced.
Tell that to lightning. It didn’t get the memo.
Lightning requires an electric field exceeding the dielectric strength of air which is 3 million Volt per meter. Thunderstorms generate electric fields that large, so we get a lightning discharge. The Electric fields generated by the interaction with the solar wind is of the order 0.01 Volt per meter so cannot produce lightning. It seems you did not get the memo.
Dr Matt Owens of Reading University has done research into the causes of lightning, and it seems as if the Sun plays a role in generating lighting by bending the Earth’s mag field. Why am I not surprised?
Owens also said that “Because of good quality records, the scientists confined their work to the UK. They believe that the same effect is playing out over the globe but with different results, so while lightning might increase over Britain, it may have decreased over Canada or Siberia.”
The data only covers the years 2001-2006 in the UK, so the statistics is poor.
Owens is also on record for claiming that there was no little ice age during the Maunder Minimum:
http://www.leif.org/research/Owens-No-Little-Ice-Age.png
Are you surprised? or not.
Or sprites
I’m actually in communication with Matt Owens, and I asked him whether he had indeed claimed that there was no LIA during the MM. As it turns out, he’s not claiming that there was not a period of prolonged cold during that time; it’s just that he prefers not to use the term ‘Little Ice Age’, as he finds it potentially misleading. As he said, it’s a a matter of semantics. As for the quality of his research – well, you would say that, wouldn’t you?
http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/10/mean-cosmic-radiation-over-past-8-years-highest-since-1958-current-solar-cycle-weakest-in-almost-two-centuries/#sthash.M13aSsci.dpbs
My point. I think we all are of the opinion that the sun is operating differently post 2005. The question is how differently which the opinions vary vastly.
No, we are “all of the opinion that the sun is operating differently post 2005”.
And different from what? 1992? 1932? 1900? 1800? 1788? …
As predicted SC24 is the weakest in a 100 years, but not really different from SC14.
We are NOT all of the opinion…
The upshot is there are so many different opinions out there that it makes for no opinion.
This is why I am going to wait.
My only observation so far is the sun is operating in a different manner now then it was post 2005.
Leif a question do you agree with the data presented in this article? Just the data not the conclusions.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/10/mean-cosmic-radiation-over-past-8-years-highest-since-1958-current-solar-cycle-weakest-in-almost-two-centuries/#sthash.M13aSsci.dpbs
There is nothing new or special about the data, nor the conclusion.
I know that. This is why I keep saying we have to see what happens going forward.
Evidence suggest otherwise, as shown by the atmospheric circulation responses to solar activity and cloud responses to strong CME events..
There is no evidence of any of that.
But there is evidence of this.
show it !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbush_decrease
Here it says it quite clear.
It says “Further peer-reviewed work found no connection between Forbush decreases and cloud properties”
http://www.floppingaces.net/most-wanted/polar-vortex-that-caused-record-cold-is-related-to-solar-activity-not-man-made-co2/
Which shows the uncertainty, but as I keep trying to convey there are to many potential solar/climate connections and the evidence is consistent although it varies to a degree but always the same general trend.
If the above were not true the discussions we are currently having would not be taking place.
If the above were not true the discussions we are currently having would not be taking place.
There are always people who believe things that are not true.
Some are saying his is how the sun presently is different then prior times.
Very briefly below do you agree?
TSI and SSN showing signs if a divergence.
Solar equatorial rotation slower then it was during solar cycle 23.
Magnetic strength of solar poles at this point in the solar cycle extremely low.
Polar solar flows needed to generate sunspots for solar cycle 25 not present as of now.
TSI and SSN showing signs if a divergence.
Only for a brief time, and the problem is probably with the SSN not being quite correct.
Solar equatorial rotation slower then it was during solar cycle 23.
No evidence of that
Magnetic strength of solar poles at this point in the solar cycle extremely low.
At every solar maximum the polar fields fall to zero
Polar solar flows needed to generate sunspots for solar cycle 25 not present as of now.
The meridional circulation is still present
thanks
cor tsi and ssn showing signs of divergence.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=thermosphere+and+lower+atm+coupling&form=DLRDF8&pc=MDDR&src=IE-SearchBox
Example of evidence for coupling . Leif there are so many studies.
My view is the chemistry of the upper atmosphere changes due to solar activity changes which translates to varied degrees to the entire atmosphere, and hence has an influence on the climate.
sure there are couplings between the upper layers, but they don’t influence the climate system measurably.
If they did, we would not have this discussion 🙂
You are keeping me on the fence as far as what future solar activity may or may not be, and or how different it may or may not be.
This is good because it brings things into a proper perspective.
You could very well be correct, while others are wrong or maybe not.
I will let the data dictate which view to believe as time goes on which is the only sensible approach.
That also means that you should not peddle your views until such time that the data have spoken, some twenty years from now…
To the contrary the answer to that question is unknown at present. No one knows with any certainty.
Salvatore, don’t waste your time debating with this guy, you might as well be talking to a brick wall!
.
I like to hear someone with opposite views (LEIF) if I feel they have the knowledge in the area they are talking about which he does.
I may not agree especially when it comes to solar /climate relationships with him but I still like his input.
I am never going to get personal in this ,but just try to stick to the scientific approach as much as possible.
Mr Hope could learn something from your well-considered response.