Ir has been a couple of months since WUWT has checked in on the progress of solar cycle 24. Right now, the sun is in “cue ball” mode, with no large visible sunspots as seen below in the most recent Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) photo:
Since there is a new analysis out at Pierre Gosselin’s website by Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, I thought it would be a good time to do an update. They write:
[The sun was] rather quiet in January. The determined solar sunspot number (SSN) was 56.6, which is 71% of the mean this far into the period, calculated using the 23 previously measured solar cycles.
The earlier peak occurring at month number 35 (fall 2011) signaled the time of the SSN maximum at the sun’s northern hemisphere. The later peaks occurring at about month no. 68 (mid 2014) are the SSN maximum for the sun’s southern hemisphere.
They also have a prediction, read about it here. Full report (in German) here.
As you can see from the plots in Figure 1, the current level of activity of solar cycle 24 seems close to that of solar cycle number 5, which occurred beginning in May 1798 and ending in December 1810 (thus falling within the Dalton Minimum). The maximum smoothed sunspot number (monthly number of sunspots averaged over a twelve-month period) observed during the solar cycle was 49.2, in February 1805 (the second lowest of any cycle to date, as a result of being part of the Dalton Minimum), and the minimum was zero.(ref: Wikipedia)
Below is what the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has offered this month. Sunspot count continues below the red prediction line. 10.7 cm radio flux is about at the prediction level, and the Ap geomagnetic index continues to rise, suggesting that the solar magnetic dynamo might be a bit more active, but that activity isn’t translating into increased sunspots or radio flux.
Sunspot Number Progression
F10.7cm Radio Flux Progression
AP Progression
As always, there’s more at the WUWT Solar Reference Page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Solar cycle 24 activity is the lowest in nearly 200 years and was particularly low in January 2016.
Despite this we saw the warmest January on record for both surface and satellite data sets.
What does this tell us about the effects of solar cycles on global climate?
Oceans releasing many years’ worth of stored heater > reduced activity from the sun?
There is a level of lag (multi-decade) when you factor in oceans, so we can’t say much, I think.
If the warming is the result of oceans releasing stored heat then you’d expect to see a concurrent reduction in ocean heat content, right?
The opposite is the case though. Sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content are also increasing and are at record high levels.
How can oceans release heat without cooling?
“The opposite is the case though. Sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content are also increasing and are at record high levels.”
nonsense.
1) The heat capacity of the oceans is thousands of times greater than the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Having the oceans warm the atmosphere by a few tenths of a degree would cause a drop in ocean temperature of a few ten thousandths of a degree. IE, too little to measure.
2) We don’t know the temperature of the oceans to within 5C in the first place.
DWR54,
But is it really? The argo floats data was showing ocean cooling, so the data handlers removed all the ones showing cooling from the calculations because that just couldn’t be allowed. The models all show that the oceans should be warming from the longwave radiation reflecting from all that awful CO2. Of course they forgot that longwave only penetrates the surface interface of the water just increasing evaporation. Since they don’t have the mechanism right, nothing that follows can be treated with any credibility.
It tells us that warm years happen during solar maximums, they always do, there was no surprise, there was still a lot of solar activity and enough to effect heavily doctored data, but as many people have mentioned this enso warm spike is energy leaving the atmosphere and it will not be there as we head into a long solar minimum, so there are still no surprises happening…
This isn’t a solar maximum.
Dwr544… this is currently solar cycle 24, it is a peak of activity where a maximum number of sunspots occur, this is a weak solar maximum and activity is declining toward a solar minimum where there few to no sunspots and minimum solar activity and the polarities will be at the suns geographic poles, is that clear enough for you to understand, it is a bit tricky 🙂
Would you please stop embarrassing yourself?
That was directed at DW, sorry for any confusion.
“Solar cycle 24 activity is the lowest in nearly 200 years and was particularly low in January 2016.
Despite this we saw the warmest January on record for both surface and satellite data sets.
What does this tell us about the effects of solar cycles on global climate?”
Not much if we don’t look at any data prior to January, nor if we don’t understand the solar data from January.
SORCE TSI for January averaged 1361.2892 W/m^2/day. What does that mean to you? (That was a general question for everyone – not picking on DWR54.)
Does anyone here know how high TSI has to be and for how long for the earth to warm? or conversely, cool under low TSI? I asked and answered those questions while researching and developing my solar supersensitivity-accumulation model, work I did July 2014 to August 2015.
The answer means TSI is now just about to slip below the cooling line, and it will stay there most of the time until the next solar cycle rises to its maximum. We have a double whammy now with the La Nina occurring whilst the sun isn’t active enough to warm, so it’s going to get colder this year, and 2016 will not be a record temperature year as a result.
Today’s SSTs and OHC are the result of today’s TSI, but moreso of accumulated energy from high TSI stored in the ocean during the past, so trying to infer that today’s temps should only be proportionate to today’s TSI would be a mistake, and therefore missing the main story.
The recent El Nino started in earnest in March 2015, one month after the smoothed TSI peak for SC24 in February. Without the TSI spike last year, the 2014 El Nino would’ve fizzled into nothing, not blown up into a stronger ENSO as it did in 2015. It’s not a coincidence that 2014-15 were warm years while TSI was high. SORCE TSI rankings by year (2013 & 2014 with incomplete SORCE data)
Year TSI
2015 1361.4321
2014 1361.3966
2013 1361.3587
2016 1361.2854
2012 1361.2413
2011 1361.0752
2003 1361.0292
2004 1360.9192
2010 1360.8027
2005 1360.7518
2006 1360.6735
2007 1360.5710
2009 1360.5565
2008 1360.5382
http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Ekoppg/TSI/TSI_SORCE.jpg
Recent reconstructions are most certainly imperfect, but they’re all we have. The first one below fills in the missing SORCE data going back to 2000. Interesting articles on how the composites were stitched together at http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science_information.php?page=TSIdata, and https://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant.
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/images/TSIdata-plot.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Kopp-et-al-New-TSI.png
I think the actual frequency distribution is as important as the number. If it is blue shifted, it will penetrate oceans much more deeply than if it were red shifted. So the same raw TSI number could have very different impacts on the Earth temperature system. Higher frequency gets stored in the system for much longer than lower frequencies. So the old saw about a watt being a watt is all wet when the medium doing the absorbing has a varied response to frequency.
We see this in optics labs where our materials are very wavelength dependent. A glass that works great on our visible lasers becomes a really bad mirror to the CO2 laser in the IR spectrum. (Can wind up melting the glass under the right wrong circumstances.) Meanwhile the windows we use for IR look pretty opaque to the naked eye many times.
How are reconciling the 1997 NOAA record with today’s as being the warmest? Additionally, even if solar activity is not a factor or is a huge coincidence, then AGW is definitely not a valid theory, the current temperature is below the lowest modeled forecast. So much so that I can say since 1998 temps have been falling. At this point it is just a matter of time to see. Global cooling is a concern, warming isnt. We haven’t had a decade like the 1970’s. Food rationing was on the table before back to back super harvests in the US ushered in by warmer weather. And that wasn’t a major downturn. What do you think this author of this article is saying? And which do you think I think is the most likely, AGW or solar activity? It’s hard to ignore that if you think with reason that temps have fallen by 1.5 C and that solar activity has fallen that there isn’t some connection. Remember there has been no reduction in the output of co2, in fact year over year increases of over a billion metric tons.
Inertia.
it tells us solar activity is a leading indicator just like Co2 is a lagging indicator (in the context of historic global temperatures.)
the real climate change a cooling sun. ice age? of course by the time it gets really going gore and obama and most of us will be in the ground when the great sheet of ice grinds us up! climate hustle mon full display!
I suggest we send Algore and Obozo in a rocket to the Sun to research this.
After reading the comments, I was thinking they should have had this debate BEFORE they concluded the earth was heating up because of man, and taxing CO2 would save the planet.
But we can always re-adjust the temps upwards to turn the cooling into warming and get NYT to print our graph on the front page. This will instantly change the minds of those who are dying in the cold and convince them that its actually extreme heat thats killing them.
carlb says:
My plan is to have my my ashes scattered over the surface of the ice sheet to lower the albedo. It will be my small part to reduce global cooling.
There will be public and media demands for an explanation as to why the planet is abruptly cooling. It is possible to wave away 18 years of no warming with heat is hiding in the ocean. Abrupt cooling will be a game changer.
The politicians will abandon the cult of CAGW when it becomes obvious that the entire IPCC science was incorrect. More than 75% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 was due to the warming of the oceans and increased deep core release of CH4, as opposed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Almost the entire warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes, as opposed to the rise in atmospheric CO2. Double trump. Humans did not cause the rise in atmospheric CO2 and the rise in atmospheric CO2 did not cause the warming.
The efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions achieved almost nothing and were a purposeless waste of money. Trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting ‘climate change’.
The problem which must be address is to this point unimaginable to the public and the politicians: Abrupt cooling and what will happen to the earth when the solar cycle restarts. Does anyone remember the 18 burn marks on two different continents at different latitudes that coincide in time with the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event?
The cult of CAGW are in denial they know something extraordinary is happening to the earth’s climate, it is starting to abruptly cool.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.2.8.2016.gif
http://news.yahoo.com/la-nina-expected-next-months-first-time-since-190913814.html
It is obvious based on observations that the solar cycle has been interrupted. There are cycles of abrupt climate change in the paleo record that correlate with abrupt changes to the sun. What is now happening to the sun is what causes a Heinrich event.
The solar cycle is not slowing down. The graph of the average field strength of a sunspot on the surface of the sun stopped dropping (plateaued due to a mathematical and physical reason) as the minimum field strength of a sunspot on the surface of the sun is around 1500 Gauss. The graph stopped dropping linearly dropping when the minimum field strength of a portion of the set of sunspots on the surface of the sun has below 1500 Gauss. At that point only sunspots with a field strength greater than 1500 Gauss are measured.
As the solar process unfolded, long lasting large sunspots (last up to a month) were replaced by tiny short lived pores (disappear in less than a week) as the magnetic field strength of the magnetic flux tubes that rise up from the tachocline to form sunspots on the surface of the sun decreased.
As the magnetic field strength of the magnetic flux tubes continued to decrease the magnetic flux tubes that rise up to the surface of the sun were torn apart by convection forces in the solar convection zone so what has left on the surface of the sun was a region of higher magnetic flux but no visible sunspot.
The Younger Dryas is the last Heinrich event. The Younger Dryas is the name for an abrupt cooling event that occurred 12,800 years ago, at which time the planet when from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 75% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade. The YD abrupt cooling period lasted for 1200 years. The YD event occurred when summer solar insolation at 65N was maximum which is one of more than a dozen different observations/analysis results that support the assertion that summer solar insolation at 65N is not the cause of the glacial/interglacial cycle or the cause of cyclic abrupt climate change.
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
There will be public and media demands for an explanation as to why the planet is abruptly cooling.
Except that it is not. What we should demand is an explanation for why it is not cooling.
And your ‘solar cycle interruption’ is just nonsense.
“What we should demand is an explanation for why it is not cooling”.
Isn’t the planet constantly cooling?
I haven’t seen any accumulation of heat evident in any temperature dataset, the fact that there are variety of fluctuations in every year (even at longer time-scales) in every record, shows in realistic terms that the earth is constantly cooling off…
No explanation needed!!
If there is less heat to cool off, shouldn’t there be a point where the rate of cooling will be equal to the rate of warming? hmm did someone mention ‘a pause’??
@ur momisugly William. .. I’ll only respond to the 1st part. There is something wrong with the co2 record. There are no negative numbers since the industrial Revolution began. In terms of quantity , the rate of rise per year, and the sink rate it confirms what you are saying. Additionally, it was pointed out by the IPCC that they could tell where the co2 came from by isotope ratios. The reasoning was that fossil fuels since being buried for so long was now isotope free than say burning from a forest fire. It is interesting to note that the greens in California ( see the gas leak) aren’t just concerned about the radon from that leak, ( and maybe from the proximity to a former nuclear production site that melted down in 1949) but from all fossil fuel burnings. Do note that the highest year on record for growth of co2 was 2.53 ppm in 1998. The production rate of co2 has increased every year since then. There are a lot of unasked and unanswered questions.
Their models came nowhere near predicting what we are experiencing now. How valid does that make them for the future? Not much.
On the contrary, our models of the solar cycle did an outstanding job predicting that the current cycle would be the lowest in at least 100 years.
No, the official sites like JPL and Goddard didn’t . Cycle 23 and 24 were suppose to look exactly like cycle 22 and 21. In fact I remember them talking about the magnetic field strength and diapoles being exceptionally strong leading to a very active cycle 23. Isvalgaard that is revising the past. They didn’t know and it was a surprise. I’m sure that if the sun hadn’t of gone quite the global warming debate would have been over. Did I know? , sort of, it could have been cycle 25 , 26 or longer. The sun has its own agenda and reacts to different things we haven’t figured out yet. Otherwise the pretty graphs of the forecast of cycle 23 would have looked a lot different.
I was on the OFFICIAL solar prediction panel in 2006-2008 and we ended up predicting a weak cycle 24, based on our paper http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
We do know how this works.
Anthony said “most recent Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) photo” shows no sunspots. That is because the recent photos are way out of focus. The intensity from the HMI experiment shows healthy sunspot activity:
http://spaceweather.com/images2016/11feb16/hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=otddd9qi6ultlaj7b16mhh53t1
The cycle is not dead at all.
What you are providing a link to above is an amalgam of different frequencies as it no longer possible to see sunspots in the standard single frequency. In the very recent past (last solar cycles) sunspots were clearly visible in the single frequency view. They are no longer visible in the single frequency view. You are ignoring that obvious observational change in addition to the fact that large long lasting sunspots have been replaced by tiny short lived sunspots which are called pores.
The silly solar gate propping up of the sunspot number by NOAA that is going on is pathetic and purposeless. I do not understand why NOAA is attempting to hide the obvious observational fact that sunspots are disappearing which is different than there are less sunspot groups and less sunspots on the surface of the sun. Propping up the sunspot number does not change what is happening to the sun.
As I have stated there are hundreds of astronomical observations and solar system observations that support the assertion that the sun and stars are significantly different than the standard model.
You are completely unaware of the observations (anomalies and paradoxes) in question which explains why you repeat an incorrect theory emphatically that is disproved by observations.
Obviously observations (am asserting there will be abrupt cooling of the planet and an announcement that the sun is in a weird state) will prove which one of us is correct. A scientist changes his or her mind when observations no longer support a theory. Science is not a debate where people pick sides and have an emotional attachment to one theory or another.
The solar cycle has been interrupted and the planet will abruptly cool. There is a physical reason related to the mechanisms and how the sun has changed and is changing that explains why there was a delay in cooling.
The observational fact that there has been an increase in jet stream speed is one of the observational signs that the cooling has started and is one of the cooling mechanisms. There is increased evaporation of cooling of the ocean when wind speed increases.
If you had read Svensmarks’ book Chilling Stars: Cosmic Climate Change which you have not you would understand the greatest amount of cooling is in the latitudes 40 to 60 which is where the cooling has started.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Chilling-Stars-Cosmic-Climate/dp/1840468661
They are no longer visible in the single frequency view
Total nonsense. Here is the view of the solar disk today in the single frequency of 6173Å :
http://spaceweather.com/images2016/11feb16/hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=1bf1qe3mc76obl3a81hb5j1sh3
A scientist changes his or her mind when observations no longer support a theory
But a pseudo-scientist like you never does that, right? I mean, if you understand everything perfectly from a holistic view [as you claim you do], changing your mind would not make sense.
I have asserted that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years is due to solar cycle changes. I have also asserted the solar cycle has been interrupted. If both assertions are correct the planet will abruptly cool.
In science theories are proven correct or incorrect by falsifiable predictions compared to observations.
Leif has asserted that the sun cannot significantly change and that solar changes have almost no affect on the earth’s temperature. (I am curious if there will be a significant change in TSI when as the solar cycle interruption proceeds, see below.)
Leif do you have an explanation for the Solar Convection Zone Paradox? Have you though about it?
Solar Convection Zone Paradox
Recent helioseismology analysis has determined that motion in the solar convection zone is a hundred times smaller than expected based on the standard solar model.
The paradox is why is motion in the solar convection zone a hundred times less than modeled? If the physics of convection is not changed/correct, as the energy output of the sun is known.
The implications of this finding is there is a non convection mechanism which in turn logically requires a non fusion reaction (the only method for the fusion reaction to transfer energy is radiation which takes millions of years to move through the radiative zone and then the radiation transfers energy by convection motion through the convection zone to the surface of the sun) that is transferring energy from the core of the sun to the surface of the sun.
The finding that convection motion in the solar convection zone is a hundred times slower than expected is one of the hundreds of astronomical observations (There are at least a dozen or so in our solar system in addition to the very recent solar convection paradox such as the variance of comet coma for first pass comets: Why do new comets (those approaching the sun for the first time) loss two to three magnitudes in average brightness, while old comets show little evidence for further brightness decreases? Why do comets display large comas at very great distance from the Sun where the solar vaporization is expected to be small?) standard model.
The logical implications of the finding that motion in the solar convection zone is a hundred times slower than modeled (accepting the result and assuming the physics of convection is correct so the convection motion would be 100 times faster if the primary/only method of heat transfer was convection), is energy is being transfer from the solar core to the solar surface by a non convection mechanism.
This new mechanism would enable a specific reaction change (non fusion reaction, the reaction that is creating the coronal holes and the solar wind) in the solar core to cause an almost immediate change in solar irradiance which is interesting. I am curious if TSI will change when the sun is in the new state.
http://www.mpg.de/5913479/convection_sun_surface
Leif do you have an explanation for the Solar Convection Zone Paradox? Have you though about it?
I am the great expert on all things solar and you cannot find anything valid about the Sun that I’m not familiar with.The wording in the paper is very misleading for the uninitiated. What was found was that the Rossby number: the ratio of convective velocity to the speed of rotation is low and that convection is thus strongly influenced by the Coriolis force. This is a problem for some numerical models of the convection, which just shows that those need to be improved. This is not the same as to say that the ‘standard model’ must be rejected. The standard model is extremely successful.
I have asserted that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years is due to solar cycle changes. I have also asserted the solar cycle has been interrupted
Assertions like that are not science, but wishful thinking.
AS IF it matters. CO2 is the driving force behind globull warming. The sun just provides a little light..
Looking good from here
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/f_211_193_171_1024.jpg
And no Astley “interruption” here …
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/DipallR.gif
Matthew 24:29
You mean the sun has an impact on our climate change? Someone should tell Al GOre. Funny how no one from the climate change fan club seems to think that the sun has any affect.
200 years? … and those records are where ???
The records from 1749-1799 are today stored in the library of the Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam,
Germany, and are in very good condition. Arlt (2008) has recently photographed the drawings.
See e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Recount-of-Staudach.pdf
Later records are similarly photographed and have been published long ago.
It was determined last July that our sun is descending into the next Solar Gand Minimum a natural cycle that occurs approximately every 350-450yrs, it’s been 400yrs since the last one and we are due! Every Grand Minimum is preceded by a warming period, thus the global warming scare that had nothing to do with C02 emissions and It’s easy to prove. When our planet was warming, as stated more than once in the above comments it stopped over 18yrs ago. NASA, NOAA, GISS,IPCC among others have been fudging data to keep the grant money flowing period! The IPCC only used the word “SOLAR” once in its last report, that is why not ONE OF THEIR MODELS HAVE BEEN CORRECT! ZERO, ZIP, NONE! Anyway, when earth warmed the weather also changed on every planet in our solar system. The ice caps on Mars melted, the winds on Venus increased by a third ect. Look it up for yourselves. Our C02 wasn’t affecting other planets so don’t even go there. More than anything else, solar activity drives our weather, they just won’t talk about it because it doesn’t fit their narrative of using fear to steal billions for the taxpayers! There is also another natural cycle that is affecting our weather, the earth started a magnetic reversal 10-15yrs ago. The last time that happened was almost 800,000yrs ago and it’s definitely having an affect on our planet. The fact is folks, it’s going to get cold, antarctic ice levels have just broken al time records again and the arctic had expanding quickly, the ice never even completely melted out of Hudson Bay this summer, and it started refreeze a month early. Our sun is going to sleep for a bit and their is a 99% certainty of that, look it up! Those who lie will continue to, this is the honest to god’s truth so start to prepare for it now. In 10-15yrs we’ll be ass deep in it!
Solar “Grand Minima” Threat Analysis
James A. Marusek
2009
[Snipped. Far too long. Please just post the link. -mod.]
Many things right, but also many things wrong [and out of date – 2009].
Isvalgaard: Can you list which things are right?
Thanks,
-Walt
Lordy. Link to the article so we don’t have to scroll down through a cut and paste filled with returns.
The unfortunate fact is that politics requires reassurances and scapegoats. The powerful must be just that, powerful. This goes to the need to be able to affect global temperatures. In the political model, the one thing they can control, or at least scapegoat, is CO2. For the simple minded, it works well. Show them a smokestack with some creepy background music. Then role out a program. Most of the tenured grant grifting researchers will fall in line and do what’s demanded of them. In fact, they will compete for the prizes available to the best fakery. It is obvious that the Sun brings us heat, after all it gets cold at night. This is a problem. The demigods can’t plausibly control the activity of the Sun. To claim the ability to do so would open them up to ridicule. In addition, the Sun is too big to ignore. So, it must be viewed as a constant. Those who assert otherwise are considered heretics and their careers are torched. Government people are consensus builders, not truth seekers. They will avoid and deny all anomalous, contradicting, outlining information until it bites them in the butt. Afterwards, they will react it their typically pompous, clumsy, self-promoting manner, getting little done, while consuming great resources. The current information flow seems to indicate that the butt biting will occur around 2030. In the meantime, we need to advocate the launching of a second Ulysses Satellite to track the activity of the heliosphere. This replacement for the previous probe would hopefully be larger, with a better battery pack and more fuel onboard, in order to give it a longer lifespan. And a permanent solar probe mission should be put in place, even if it requires international funding and monitoring. Given the high evolved complex social system we live in today, with its profound specialization and interdependencies due to the intensification of the division of labor, an unprepared for repeat of a Maunder Minimum event would have such cascading effects as to wipe out much of the human race.
Perhaps go outside and enjoy some “Sun” . The big picture here , is that we are only here for a short period of time. All of this time and effort put into something that truly will have no direct impact on your life personally. Always trying to “prove” something. How about enjoying what little life you may have left ……
So very true. People go about their lives – but if you told them how many days they had left, they would act so differently. It’s thought that over 100 billion people have lived and died on Earth. Yet not one single one of that number has lay on their deathbed, and with their last breath said, “I wished I had spent more time at work”.
Work less, enjoy more. You can’t change the world, so don’t waste time trying. Believe in nothing without evidence, but do believe in love at first sight. Strive to be healthy, but not too much. You get a very brief chance to flash your colours.
Thanks Clayton for reassuring me that there are a few people left that think for themselves instead of blindly believing what is spewed from the “Orwellian Box” in most peoples living room. I have been following this for awhile and all things related to a coming solar quiet are happening all over the planet. Lets hope it’s not a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, millions died, mostly from famine, that would probably equate to over a billion perishing today. We wouldn’t see nearly the loss of life if it were not for America’s biggest enemy (Our federal government) not allowing the media to inform the public so some at least could prepare, most would don’t have the attention span or ambition to pay attention or seek the truth. It seems this planet is doomed to continue to repeat the same mistakes over & over because people allow corrupt governments rewrite history and thus allowing it to repeat. Cheers!
An increased Rossby waved jet stream could be result of the quiet Sun, it has been thus since 2010.
the effects on the upper level atmosphere are exponential imo to slight changes to TSI.
The lag to overall lower leveling downward temp. trend could show itself once things settle down in those regions.
Cycle 24 weak compared to priors with reduced TSI (which say given is not enough in W/sqm) but magnetic field of sun weakening in turn reduces the protecting/shielding the earth would lead to more high frequency cosmic radiation hitting earth (Svensmark, CERNS) more cloud seeding, more albido, colder temp (or hotter temps opposite for strong cycle 22), makes complete sense.
Now, what about earth’s magnetic field? Seems should have same effect. It has been decreasing (abet we have not had the atmosphere stripped off like Mars). Should not that have same effect, say 5% weakening now per century, abet longer run volatile, also for poles drift which would could theoretically effect albedo and northern lights, think about center on polar ice cap or off center, plus that would differ in N or S. Been 770,000 years since earth flipped which is a bit less than sun on a more constant approximate 11 year cycle.
Anyone care to take a shot at this, if the sun’s magnetic field fluctuating has a big impact on earth’s climate, would not the earth’s magnetic field changing have a similar effect? I hear all about sun, nothing about earth.
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/magnetism/MagIntensity.jpg
I cannot confirm nor deny this info but the fact is, Ma nature is not your friend and if this info holds true to fact and logic then mankind is getting a break on the alleged cause for the earth’s climate and local weather patterns……Maybe we can shoot for sovereignty and less communism so the UN will stop whining about global government….
The ‘takeaway’ from the current solar cycle apparent ‘decline’ is that if it continues on track, we will have a very different solar cycle ‘on file’ compared to the previous few (in the satellite era).
Obviously, I can’t speak for Leif, but I’d be reasonably confident many solar scientists are excited by the significant apparent differences in this cycle and is presumably looking forward to seeing if there are any subsequent effects in order to further our understanding? The previous solar cycles ‘ramped up’ in apparent activity (SSN’s) and this one is noticeably lower. What does it mean for the climate? I venture to say that we do not know yet but Nature has given us this directly observable variation – so let’s just observe and see what happens!
Yet somehow, humans are responsible for this and we have to pay to get this fixed!
“This alignment of gas planets happens every 179.60 years. This is why the Sun orbits the center of gravity and center of gravity of the solar system are reproduced sequentially with a period of 179.60 years. This must be the cause of the cycle Suess or Vries as the minimum of the solar cycle falls when the orbital angular momentum of the Sun varies rapidly or every time when solar activity and temperatures have weakened either at minimum Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton.
In the figure below there is the variation of the distance of the centroid-Sun, the speed of the sun around the centroid of the orbital acceleration of the sun around the centroid, the rate of change of the orbital angular momentum of the Sun. the number of Wolf sunspot and temperature anomalies in the northern hemisphere. Two spaced vertical dashes of approximately 43 years appear every 179 years. The gap between the two close enough vertical dashes is around 43 years or the period conjunction of Saturn and Uranus.
Each vertical dashes represent a rapid variation of the orbital angular momentum of the Sun occurs when the center of the Sun passes close to the center of gravity, resulting in variations in angle theta fast and therefore an angular velocity that can become very high. Either when Jupiter is the opposite of the four Jovian planets from the Sun, as was the case in 1632 and 1672, 1811, 1851, 1990 and soon in 2030.
As we can see, the two dashes returning every 179 years or when the law of GO is not followed and thus the odd cycle is less active than the preceding even cycle contrary to what it should be. Each of these vertical dashes couples are near a periods of solar activity and temperature of the northern hemisphere are low or declining.”
http://la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/barycentre2.png
http://la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/soleil2.htm#g-o
Nice work, ren.
Perhaps they should do some more research. There has been a single, one, spotless day since 2011.
Grand minimum.
Not a Maunder or a Dalton.
A Grand minimum.
It’s Bush’s fault.