Solar Update March 2016

Guest essay by David Archibald

latest_512_HMIIC-march-28-2016

Solar Dynamics Observatory HMI Continuum -today. One large sunspot rotating around soon to be aimed at Earth, let’s hope it doesn’t release a huge flare

There are a couple of interesting features of the state of the Sun at the moment. Firstly the Oulu Neutron Count has had a rapid reversal in the last few months:

clip_image002

Figure 1: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2016

The neutron count is looking like the rapid reversal during Solar Cycle 19 which was the start of the 1970s Cooling Period. While we are probably still at least three years to solar minimum, it is approaching the values of minima prior to the last minimum.

clip_image004

Figure 2: Ap Index 1932 – 2016

The peak neutron count during the 23/24 solar minimum was well above the levels of prior minima. That corresponds with the spike down of the Ap Index in late 2009 below what appeared to be a floor of activity.

clip_image006

Figure 3: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016

The F10.7 flux appeared to be in a disciplined downtrend during most of 2015. Since August the downtrend slope has remained the same but the range has halved.

clip_image008

Figure 4: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle

All that can said from this is that we are still a long way from the heliospheric current sheet being flattened which is the best sign of solar minimum.

clip_image010

Figure 5: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2016

clip_image012

Figure 6: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2016

The IMF and the solar wind flow pressure have run up while the F10.7 flux has turned down.

clip_image014

Figure 7: Hemispheric Sunspot Area 1985 – 2016

The sunspot peak has been later and larger in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere over the last three solar cycles.

clip_image016

Figure 8: Hemispheric Sunspot Area and F10.7 Flux 1985 – 2016

This graph has taken the data from Figure 7 with the sunspot area data plotted cumulatively with the F10.7 flux added. It shows the good correlation between sunspot area and F10.7 flux, which is the best indicator of the level of solar activity.

clip_image018

Figure 9: Solar Polar Magnetic Field Strength by Hemisphere 1976 – 2016

The second interesting thing about the state of the Sun is that the asymmetry evident in Figures 7 and 8 looks like it could increase much further based on the divergence between the north and south solar polar magnetic field strengths.

clip_image020

Figure 10: F10.7 Flux and Oulu Neutron Count

Or perhaps this is just as interesting. Up until 2006, the inverted Oulu neutron count followed the F10.7 flux closely with a lag. They departed in 2006 and now the Oulu neutron count is about 500 counts per minute higher than it had been, relative to the lagged F1-.7 flux.


More at the WUWT Solar Reference Page

 

161 thoughts on “Solar Update March 2016

  1. The neutron count is looking like the rapid reversal during Solar Cycle 19 which was the start of the 1970s Cooling Period. While we are probably still at least three years to solar minimum, it is approaching the values of minima prior to the last minimum.

    It is well-established that every second minimum has a lower count [and well-understood why], e.g.

    http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-nm/SRU%20Neutron%20Monitors%20Monthly%20Graphs.pdf

    so, one would not expect the count to approach values at the last minimum.
    Also, you can see that Oulu is not representative of the actual count.

    Other than that, the sun is having ‘business as usual’. Nothing out of the ordinary.

      • lsvalgaard – Do you find it interesting that two of the dips in your posted graph coincide with El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991? Has anyone in your field ever proposed a correlation or a connection? I’m not proposing one, but find it an interesting coincidence. Thanks

      • @ Travis, I find that interesting as well. So I went on the net to check on the relatively sharp dip in 2004, (volcanic eruptions 2004) there were a number of large ones, one in Japan, one in Indonesia and one on Kamchatca Peninsula, interesting info. ( and I guess I am one of those worms leif talks about).

      • “Travis: coincidence.”
        Well then you just haven’t properly worked the statistics or modeling yet……..

      • Travis, good eye!

        I found your two examples and their likely cause(s) in 2014.

        I identified those events in 2014 by noticing the events in the Oulu neutron plot too, and found through researching solar data that solar driven electrically-induced telluric currents were most likely responsible for the ’82 and ’91 volcanic events that happened during the sun’s highest output power since SC19.

        Those findings help demonstrate the earth’s super sensitivity to solar energetic impulses, both radiation and particle, and I’m anxious to reveal all the details in my upcoming solar-supersensitivity accumulation paper, and in a separate paper on volcanic and geomagnetic activity.

        It was going to be a big surprise. ;)

      • The above article attributes the current volcanic activity to length of day changes and wait for it…
        Climate Change.

    • The neutron count is looking like the rapid reversal during Solar Cycle 19 which was the start of the 1970s Cooling Period.
      And count on David to be sloppy, as usual. He should have said Cycle 20, not 19. And he omitted to say that the last two cycles are the Global Warming Period:

      • Your snotty reply does not bring you any cookies. One may hope that you are less sloppy in the other things you do…
        The proper response would be to correct your errors.

      • “The 2000’s warming period” LOL.

        That is what usually recognised as the hiatus or ‘pause’. The “warming period” went from 1975-1998.

      • Archibald called the pause in the 1970s a ‘cooling period’, so I’m just consistent with his terminology, wouldn’t you say? It confuses people when you change terminology in the middle of the game.

      • Perhaps your confusion would be diminished if we rephrase the terms to say that the “the 1970s were a cooler period” and “the 2000s were a warmer period”. Hope this helps.

      • I am not a fan of semantics, and we all know that the temperature data set is unreliable and what were 10 or so years ago showed a cooling trend, now suggest that the trend was more akin to a pause rather than a period of cooling, but that said, I thought that the cooling period was post 1940s to early 1970s.

        So whilst this all could be coincident, I would want to see what was happening during the period 1940s onwards if someone is seeking to suggest that what is happening now is a foreteller of forthcoming cooling.

      • That has no bearing on what he is saying! although coming from a solar physicist that dismisses the idea that the suns poles rotate and revolve is not surprising ;)

      • Well, if you don’t know anything, anything is possible. But if one is the world’s foremost expert on the solar polar fields you would know from observations that the solar polar fields wax and wan, but don’t ‘rotate’ [in the sense you mean] from hemisphere to hemisphere.

      • let’s go with that opinion that I don’t know anything, and let’s make believe that the suns poles do not revolve and rotate around it’s hemispheres, you would like me to believe that the solar reversal destroys the suns polarities as in poles, it certainly does not, the suns poles short each other out at solar maximum when they reach the suns equator.
        From “hemisphere to hemisphere” is the reversal, odd that you dismiss revolving and rotating poles as a primary note, as the poles are the primary driver on a simple basic level maybe you’re so intelligent and smart you haven’t noticed it yet?

      • you would like me to believe that the solar reversal destroys the suns polarities as in poles, it certainly does not, the suns poles short each other out at solar maximum when they reach the suns equator.
        What you believe and what the sun does does not seem to agree.

        You can see the magnetic polarities [yellow and blue] stream towards the poles and slowly eat away of the old fields already there and eventually reersing the old fields and build up new polar fields of the opposite polarity:

        This has been know for many decades, see e.g. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/Charles/Sun/Magnetic_Butterfly_wbg.jpg

        As they say: ‘hope this helps’.

      • I know exactly what I am observing, the sun has a polarity formed by how massive it is, a natural occurrence, its polarity will exist regardless of geographical orientation, our stars polarity moves in relation to its geographical location, I want to know why! don’t talk bull about a dynamo, if anything the suns poles drive this observed dynamo, the suns geographical equator being larger than the distance between its geographical poles is not a mechanism for a star to have a polarity reversal… I’m very surprised the idea is being taken seriously. go ahead an dismiss the facts as usual, call me whatever…

      • Where you can clearly see the magnetic fields from the decaying sunspots stream towards to poles [not towards the equator]. And see how the [say] yellow polarity slowly eats away [reconnects and neutralizes] the old polarity at the poles [not at the equator] to reverse the polarities at the poles. From those reversed polarities at the poles the spots are eventually formed, and the cycle repeats.

      • I can clearly see the magnetic fields and how the result is sunspots, discuss this point, the suns polarity never decays, it simply reverses, it shorts out, when it moves slower it shorts out less, when it remains at the geographical poles it will not short out at all.
        The suns polarities drive all activity, the difference is the factor, why these polarities are not at rest is interesting, again don’t give me this bull about a dynamo, it’s becoming an insult ;)

      • never decays, it simply reverses, it shorts out
        You are confused. The field cannot decay or ‘short out’, it can cancel if it meets field of opposite polarity [such as + moving into a – pole], and that is how the poles reverse. The new polar fields are then moving into the sun to be amplified to become the new fields from which sunspot are formed. The polar fields when strongest are 1000 times weaker than the sunspot fields, but when amplified 1000 times inside the sun it can erupt to the surface and form sunspots, repeating the cycle.

      • Oh dear god! Leif please put that book of nonsense down, and step away from it, the polarities are either – or + the polarities do not weaken or get destroyed at solar maximum, their local magnetic fields do obviously, there is no such thing as a “new polar field” the strength of the suns polarity is always the same, at solar maximum where they come into contact around the same part of the sun with the greatest distance they short out, they short out along the way to solar maximum and after, due to the massive changes in the polarity occurring in the composition of the sun itself, I believe it’s called a reaction… I heard that somewhere?

      • That you seem to have your own private theory about how the sun works is your problem. Usually, people who have that are incorrigible and one should just let them stew in their own fat. So stew along.

      • Blood sport, play nice, I have no ‘private theory’ stew in that fact. I can try to understand the complexities of some issues, maybe I will someday.

      • We have a pretty good understanding of how the Sun works and how the magnetic field changes. I have tried to explain that to you, but it seems that it clashes with what you prefer to think. So, we’ll have to let you alone with your thought.

    • Izzat alternate minimum neutron count a consequence of solar magnetic polar reversal but sans earth magnetic polar reversal, so an aiding/ opposing asymmetry ??

      G

      • Thanks,

        I knew that the sun’s field flipped every 11 years or so, so that a complete ‘ solar ‘ cycle was 22 years instead of 11, and that that would alter charged particle and GCRs trajectories.

        I just presumed that whatever effect earth’s magnetic field has on CR trajectories, would not be related to solar flipping.

        I’m not sure I get what the dotted curves are.

        G

      • G
        As you can see from that or other illustrations, the GCRs modulation by odd and even cycles has different shape of the amplitude vs time waveform, as measured here on Earth. As far as I understood it, that is dependant on the trajectory the GCRs take (red dotted line), in turn the function of the sun’s magnetic polarity.
        On these pages there are more graphic details explaining why that may be so
        http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/2k_Miyahara_SORCE_brief.pdf
        (if I got it wrong you are going to get me into trouble by asking awkward questions)

      • As usual, you got it wrong. The different cosmic ray ‘cycles’ have nothing to do with even-odd cycles. The cosmic ray cycles go from max to max, not from min to min, so straddles the boundaries between even and odd cycles.

      • correction “dependant on the trajectory the GCRs take , in turn the function of the sun’s magnetic polarity change (red dotted line)”.

      • To prove that it was a typo, or just clumsiness, or whatever other excuse you may dredge up: submit a comment now, where you declare:
        “I, Vuk…., declare herewith that there is no even-odd cycle difference in cosmic ray modulation as the cosmic ray cycles go from max to max and not from min to min, and therefore cannot be assigned even/odd designations. I promise not to try to mislead people about this in the future.”

      • Just a simple typo doc, two words “transition between” accidentally omitted.
        So the sentence should be: ” As you can see from that or other illustrations, the GCRs modulation by transition between odd and even cycles has different shape of the amplitude vs time waveform, as measured here on Earth.”
        Done.
        typing into web page directly is hazardous business, especially if one looks at the keyboard not the screen (as I do) and than hit the ‘Post Comment’ without reviewing the content.

        Do you have editing facility for the blog?
        As you can see your comment precedes my correction although your comment is posted half an hour after my correction.
        This happened on other occasions in past.
        In another thread you commented on two of my posts that never made it into the thread, actually you quoting from one of them, and completely reproducing the other.

      • the GCRs modulation by transition between odd and even cycles has different
        No typo. You have been claiming this for a long time.
        You simply do not know what you are talking about. Let me repeat: the is no even-odd difference in cosmic ray modulation.

      • Not for GCRs but there is difference for CMEs
        It’s NASA who said so, after all they landed man on the moon

        NASA: “For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It’s the perfect sequence for a really big event.”
        http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/

        mind you they got SC24 wrong in 2005, which I got spot on as early as 2003.
        But calling 1960-70s cooling period ‘pause’ and 2000’s pause enhanced ‘warming’ takes a biscuit.

      • Again, you don’t know what you are talking about. You keep regurgitating the same wrong things. There is a 22-year variation in CMEs geoeffectiveness. And as for the cosmic rays, it goes from max to max, not from min to min and hence has nothing to do with even-odd cycles. The reason for the 22-year variation has been known for almost 50 years, see e.g. Section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf

      • But calling 1960-70s cooling period ‘pause’ and 2000’s pause enhanced ‘warming’ takes a biscuit.

        Again, you do not know what you are talking about. The two time interval are precisely analogous:

      • In this comedy of errors one has to have an australopithecien sense of humour not to fall over laughing.
        Central Committee of the Democratic Socialist Peoples Republic, through commissar Svalgaard, on March 29, 2016 at 3:37 pm precisely, issues the following order:
        “I, Vuk(civic)…., declare herewith that there is no”….. doubt that I have made gross ideological transgression, and “I promise not to try to mislead people about this in the future.”

        Further more comrade Vuk ( whatever the rest of your name happen to be) in our evidence under ‘Vuk-Failing-36.png’ (see link to the above graph) we have noted your de-nial of our Infallible Leader’s correct interpretation of the past historical and the present events.
        (small print: non-compliance or further violation of the said regulations will lead to immediate forfeit of liberty)

      • lsvalgaard March 30, 2016 at 12:41 am
        “Again, you do not know what you are talking about. The two time interval are precisely analogous:”

        No they are not doc. Not in my book

      • Your book does not match what Archibald called the “1970s cooling period”. If the 2000s pause continues it will become even more like the pre-1976 period. The point is that the 2000s were significantly warmer than the 1970s in anybody’s ‘book’, in spite of the claimed cosmic ray intensity being higher [which some people claim (apparently now falsified) should lead to cooling.

        But what do you know? Not much it seems. As evidenced by your confusion about even-odd cycles and geomagnetic and cosmic ray variations.

    • Nutters. Perhaps the lower workaday dosage had already fried their brains as they must have known that one slip of the wrist meant an imminent yet prolonged and agonising death.

      • Just a few decades ago, attitudes re workplace safety were very different from now. Just look at the numbers of deaths in large construction projects in those days. And as for knowing the consequences, although they surely new that radiation could be deadly, I think that Daghlian and Slotin were the first two cases of death from acute radiation exposure anywhere other than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

        It sounds like Daghlian was just an unfortunate accident, consistent with the laxer safety standards of the day. “Nutter” may have some applicability to Slotin, who apparently enjoyed taking unnecessary risks.

        I think that the demon core is not even close to being the strangest story in the history of science of engineering. But each would have his own taste in that regard.

      • Consider that one can build a lab bench working model of the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor, which has been used industrially as a neutron source. I haven’t seen recommendations for shielding against neutron, gamma, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation. The UV is easy to protect against, the rest not so much. I’m thinking, aquarium tanks filled with water?

  2. Interesting, but what we could do with is some interpretation. What does this actually mean?

    What is the F10.7 flux?? What is the significance of the Neutron count?

    What can we read into these signals?

    • @Charles Pilton
      > What is the F10.7 flux??

      It is solar radiation, in the form of radio waves in the micro-wave spectrum, with a frequency of 2800 MHz, wavelength 10.7 cm. It was the Canadian solar physicist Arthur Covington, who first noted that this radiation is associated with sunspot activity, and in fact emanates from the sunspot regions of the sun.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Covington

      Solar flux, like sunspot counts, correlates with solar magnetic activity, but is more reliable than sunspot counts, in the sense that the data can be collected directly from electronic sensors, i.e. no “counting” required. Unfortunately the solar flux has only been recorded since 1947, but prior historical flux can be estimated from geomagnetic readings going back to the 19th century.

      > What is the significance of the Neutron count?
      Neutron counters are ground-based detectors which detect secondary emission of neutrons from collision of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) with the Earth’s atmosphere. So it is a measure of cosmic ray activity. It turns out that cosmic rays are influenced by solar wind activity, which tend to inhibit cosmic rays. Increased solar wind causes a decrease in observed cosmic ray activity.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/15/cosmic-ray-flux-and-neutron-monitors-suggest-we-may-not-have-hit-solar-minimum-yet/

  3. Oulu Neutron count is somewhat strange. Looking at the figures , showa different values. The annual value shows a sudden increase to 5 % of CR. But if You look for the daily values it has been altering between – 2 and + 2 % for at least a year now. Even the values / hour is betweem – 2 % and 2 % . So , is this value realy relaiable ?? Just wondering .

  4. My reaction when I read the post was that I wondered what Isvagaard would comment. Answered before I got to the bottom of the current posts!

  5. No mention of TSI, so here it is. Is it true TSI has no impact on albedo/temperature/climate etc?

      • Partly because their model that computes TSI from the sunspot number uses the obsolete Hoyt & Schatten numbers. You will find that other people like the old numbers better, because they give an intuitive ‘explanation’ of global warming [“it’s the Sun, stupid”]. And also supports the funding of the people involved.

      • So what I hear is we don’t really know?…..

        Is it fair to say that if a known, real and verified change in TSI was regognized, it would impact the climate/temp/albedo etc.?

        I don’t, by any means, intend to be adversarial with my question. I just want to better understand our actual understanding of the fundamental basics of our energy engine.

      • 0.1 degree C is a fraction 0.00035 of the Earth’s temperature. The corresponding fractional change in TSI is four times this, or 0.0014 or 1.9 W/m2

      • No disrespect here but I do recall in the past that you posted the fact that, paraphrasing a bit, “…a 1% change in TSI has little effect on climate, so it must be something else…” I have tried to find that post here, but I don’t have much time at hand while looking for work, so I could be very wrong. Apologies in advance if so.

      • I don’t think I have said that, as a 1% change of TSI would change temperatures by 0.72 degrees C which is significant. You may remember a 0.1% change or a 1 W/m2 change.

      • “lsvalgaard March 29, 2016 at 9:53 pm”

        Yes, 0.1% in TSI between minima and maxima. Thank you!

      • I don’t think I have said that, as a 1% change of TSI would change temperatures by 0.72 degrees C which is significant. You may remember a 0.1% change or a 1 W/m2 change.

        Still think you are wrong as if 1% of TSI = 0.72 degrees K, then all TSI probably responsible for only 72 K of the Earth’s current temperature around 288 K. Even if we take the current 33 K due to greenhouse gases that is also wrong because it doesn’t include energy from the oceans. Where does the rest come from with a shortfall of at least 183 K? The current planet should then average 105 K (-168 degrees C) at most and would support no life.

        I would argue 1% of TSI is much more accurate at around 2.6 k. It is very easy to see the inconsistencies between these. Hence, 0.1% change represents 0.26 c and would roughly take the current climate back to the 1970’s. We don’t see this change from one cycle to the next immediately because it doesn’t last long enough for it to take place.

      • Still think you are wrong as if 1% of TSI = 0.72 degrees K, then all TSI probably responsible for only 72 K of the Earth’s current temperature around 288 K.
        The formula is dS/S = 4 dT/T for small changes dT, so 0.01 = 4 dT/288 or dT = 0.72 K

      • The formula is dS/S = 4 dT/T for small changes dT, so 0.01 = 4 dT/288 or dT = 0.72 K

        I know you mentioned for small changes, but the formula still makes no sense.

        dS (1361) / S (1361) / 4 = 0.25

        0.25 * 288 K = 72 K

        The forumla doesn’t make any sense because the percentage TSI in decimal form is divided by 4. All the formula does is reduced the temperature compared with TSI a further factor of 4.

        The true value 0.01, dT = 2.88

        dS (340.25) / S (340.25) = 1

        1 * 288 K = 288 K

        No matter what values you change it is impossible to do backwards calculation and get 288k for dT without factoring before percentage. Once you have a percentage it is the same for any corresponding values regarding the change in factor.

        Take albedo into account at 0.3 :-

        dS (238.18) / S (340.25) = 0.7

        0.7 * 288 K = 201.6 K.

      • dS (1361) / S (1361) / 4 = 0.25
        0.25 * 288 K = 72 K

        The change in TSI is 1% or 13.61, so the formula is dS(13.61)/S(1361)/4 = 0.0025
        and 0.0025*288 K = 0.72 K.
        The albedo is already taken into account because we use T = 288 K.

      • The albedo is already taken into account because we use T = 288 K.

        Yes, of course my example got mixed up and should had showed something like below.

        Take albedo into account at 0.3 :-

        dS (442.43) / S (340.25) = 1.3

        1.3 * 288 K = 374.4 K.

        Without any albedo the planets temperature would be much hotter.

        The calculation below is still wrong because it shouldn’t have the divided by 4 in.

        “The change in TSI is 1% or 13.61, so the formula is dS(13.61)/S(1361)/4 = 0.0025
        and 0.0025*288 K = 0.72 K.”

        dS (13.61) / S (1361) = 0.01 and 0.01 * 288 K = 2.88 K

        dS (3.4) / S (340.25) = 0.01 and 0.01 * 288 K = 2.88 K

        dS (1361) / S (1361) / 4 = 0.25
        0.25 * 288 K = 72 K

        This shows that the factor of 4 is wrong because it is not required after a percentage. A planet the same as Earth with no star to suddenly having one, going from zero TSI to 1361 TSI, would only warm from ~zero K to 72K according to this.

      • This shows that the factor of 4 is wrong because it is not required after a percentage.
        Yes it is. The formula is dS/S = 4 dT/T.
        The ratios dS/S and dT/T are the same whether you use absolute values dS(13.61)/S(1361) or percentages dS(1%)/S(100%) and dT(0.72)/T(288) or dT(0.25%(/T(100%)

      • Formula shoud be below :-

        dT/T = dS/4
        ____
        S/4

        You are using this dT/T = dS/S/4

        Dividing a pecentage is a different ratio to dividing two different values the same.

        dT/288 K = 13.61 TSI / 4
        __________ = 0.01 Ratio
        1361 TSI / 4

        dT/288 K = 13.61 TSI / 1361 TSI / 4 = 0.0025 Ratio

        The ratio difference factor is 4, therefore the latter is also 4 times smaller then should be.

        In the top formula 4 cancels out leaving dS/S = dT/T not dS/S = 4 dT/T.

        dS and S below represent the TSI values already reduced by a factor of 4.

        dS (3.4) / S (340.25) = 0.01 and 0.01 * 288 K = 2.88 K

        Absolute values or percentages used are the same, but it doesn’t change the factor 4 being wrong.

        dT % / 100% K = 1% TSI / 4
        __________ = 0.01 Ratio
        100% TSI / 4

        dT % / /100% K = 1% TSI / 100% TSI / 4 = 0.0025 Ratio

      • You are using this dT/T = dS/S/4
        Dividing a pecentage is a different ratio to dividing two different values the same.

        Derivation of the formula:
        Stefan-Boltzman law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
        S = a T^4
        Differentiate: dS = a (4 T^3 dT).
        Divide by S and by aT^4: dS/S = a 4 T^3 dT / a T^4 = 4 dT/T
        if dS=13.61 W/m2 and S=1361 W/m2 we have
        dS(13.61)/S(1361) = 4 dT/T or
        0.01 = 4 dT/T, which with T=288 K gives dT = 0.01/4*288= 0.72 K

        With percentages:
        dS(1%)/S(100%) = 4 dT(?%)/T(100%)
        or dT(?%)=0.01 / 4 * T(100%)= 0.0025 *T(100%)
        With T(100%) = 288K we get dT(?%)=0.72K

  6. For some unknown reason, the comments on this thread so far remind me of Mark Twain.

    “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. ” – Mark Twain

    • Twain was requoted by Reagan. Applies to the warmists.
      Solar effects on climate need serious research. Just re-purpose the GHG money and we could learn much valuable info. The sun is likely the largest influence on global climate. Ocean currents may drive weather and even regional climate but ol’ sol is the big boy on global climate.

      • That little white circle that is only in the sky half a day can influence the Earth?
        Aaaw, g’won!

      • I agree, John. Shame too many so-called experts don’t take the Sun seriously. Makes you wonder how expert they really are…

  7. And count on Leif to be sloppy, as usual. He say that: “the last two cycles are the Global Warming Period”.
    What he should have said is that: “over the last two cycles since since the year 2000, there has been a pause in rise of global temperatures.”

  8. Leif,

    Most every time I have seen someone write anything about the sun I see you leaving critical comments about their post. Why not do your own post? Wouldn’t it be better to tell us things that are right rather than tell us what is wrong? I think that would be a more positive approach.

    Cheers,
    William

  9. “…the 1970s Cooling Period”

    Was a multi-year La Nina, and a positive NAO/AO regime that increased cooling of the AMO and Arctic, and with the cold AMO driving increased rainfall across dry continental interiors, causing further surface cooling. Plus changes in atmospheric water vapour altitude. Forced by the very strong solar wind conditions through the mid 1970’s.

  10. I think Leif has a pretty rational take on global warming, from what I’ve read on his site. But I have read enough of his comments to the solar theory threads to detect an emotional pattern. And I think I’ve been in his shoes: extremely knowledgeable about a topic, enough to see a clear mistake/misrepresentation, and dismayed as you watch what you know is a wrong idea take hold way beyond the scope that the evidence, if any, warrants. It can get to you and bug you that so many are missing important information and lead you to being the first to leave a comment and to respond knowledgeably and politely (though sometimes bluntly) to any honest query and write lengthy and well referenced papers that you post at your website.

    I have no idea who is correct in this because the physics are beyond me other than pattern recognition in the graphs we are shown of various solar parameters. But the discussion and interplay are great to watch. I really think Leif has gotten under David A’s skin.

    Yet both men are sharpened by the exchanges, even if unequally, so fight on for truth and enlightment good sirs!

  11. Solar activity in the 1970s cool period seems to me as too high to explain the cooling, since it is merely a minor dip in the decades of the Modern Maximum. I think the 1970s cool period was mostly the minimum of a roughly 64 year period oceanic oscillation or set of oceanic oscillations, including AMO and/or multi-year-smoothed ENSO.

    Notably this roughly 64 year cycle, which shows up well in HadCRUT3, had an upswing from the early-mid 1970s to around 2004-2005. I think the main problem with IPCC-considered global climate forecast models is that they are tuned to not consider this natural cycle as a cause of some of the warming from the early-mid 1970s to 2004-2005. Guess what the global temperature trend did since then according to global temperature indices that don’t use “Karlized” ERSSTv4. HadCRUT3 smoothed by a few years peaked then (and was discontinued in 2014).

    • The 1970s cool period needs to be higher solar to explain the cooling, see my post above. Up to late 1976 was a period of sustained faster/hotter solar wind with little drop in density compared to more recent fast solar wind periods. That would have driven the positive NAO/AO regime that increased La Nina and forced the AMO colder. The reverse happened from 1995, with weaker solar wind increasing negative NAO/AO, driving a warm AMO.

  12. This is clearly due to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Solar Hypoactivity. The only hope for humanity is loads of CASH poured into green coffers. Ka’ching!

    • Good one I can’t even say it , keep tripping over the tongue . Ever thought about a career change with words like these you could be a politician .

  13. Thanks very much for that link video Vukcervic….very interesting!
    Some positive feed-back for you for a change! LOL!

  14. richard verney March 29, 2016 at 2:02 am
    “I would want to see what was happening during the period 1940s onwards if someone is seeking to suggest that what is happening now is a foreteller of forthcoming cooling.”

    Here is one possible indicator

    please note progressive delay in the N. Atlantic’s SST. Certain scientists, as frequently stated, expect always ‘an eye for an eye’ in correlations in both amplitude and timing. Nature has its own way of doing things, it doesn’t much care for niceties of R^2, p values or other statistical gobbledygook.

    • Ps. Graph was done some time ago, needs updating, 2014 (AMO scale) relationship looks very similar to what it was around 1952-3 (AMO scale). If so than the AMO may stay warm for another 4-5 years before 1960-70s type plunge.

  15. Figure 9: Solar Polar Magnetic Field Strength by Hemisphere 1976 – 2016

    Seeing a couple of ‘Southern’ Solar Hemisphere peaks matched precisely with ‘Northern’ plateaus or dips with good concurrence else-where, leads me to wonder whether the Sun is rebelling against the very idea of an equator.

    Perhaps we should remove the equator from the Sun. Maybe it is on too tight. Wouldn’t want to piss off the Sun.

  16. This article might please the WUWT regular Dr. Norman Page (see here – millennial cycle )

    Evidence of destructive millennial superflares from the sun
    “An international research team led by Christoffer Karoff from Aarhus University, Denmark, has now provided alarming answers to some of these questions, which have been published in Nature Communications.”

    I don’t think Dr. S needs to rush immediately back to his motherland to sort out these wayward scientists, it’s not as scary as it sounds.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-evidence-destructive-millennial-superflares-sun.html

  17. Colder periods appear to correlate with periods of lower than average solar activity. This correlation extends through the entire Holocene. Although almost all known severe cold periods during the Holocene coincide with a period of low solar activity, the opposite is not true and some periods of lower than average solar activity fail to produce a colder period indicating that the Sun’s variability is not the only factor affecting temperatures.

      • Morberg et al. reconstruction ends in 1979 and I am not very fond of sticking instrumental measurements on top of proxies. In any case I am discussing the evidence of a possible relationship between cold periods and lower solar activity. As there hasn’t been any cold period since 1979, I hardly see how that could affect the argument.

      • That’s a totally different issue. What the evidence shows is a possible relationship between cold periods and low solar activity. Nothing more, nothing less. This relationship appears to hold for over 11,000 years.

        A clear consequence is that 2075-2125 has a higher chance of showing a cooling. People often assume that global warming is going to continue for the entire 21st century. That might not be the case.

  18. Some commentators on this blog will never allow themselves a luxury of knowing the reality that sun is the primary driver providing energy for most of the climate events (there is some doubt about volcanoes and tsunamis).
    Atmosphere warms an cools very quickly thus it is unlikely to initiate the long term changes, that is the role of the world oceans, slowly absorbing, releasing and transporting available energy around the globe.
    This sun-oceans relationship plainly is not a linear (1:1) or totally devoid of any delay, or if there is a delay it has to be a constant number curved in granite rock.

    Of course doubting Thomases will tell you ‘it can’t be’ ‘pseudoscience’ and so on.
    You might ask what about early 1960s?
    Well, that is a bit of an anomaly, we know that even the mighty Pacific in 1962 was forced by some event to break out of its natural cycle and reverse its direction (see here
    Don’t accept it?
    Fine with me, anyway it’s not my job to tell anyone what to think.

    • Why would solar variability drive AMO instead of PDO? Most of the solar energy enters the Earth climatic system through the tropical Pacific ocean. And if solar variability correlates with AMO, it cannot correlate with PDO, SAM or any other oceanic oscillation.

      • PDO and the AMO are not same kind of oscillation and can’t be directly compared.
        Mr. Tisdale has on many occasions pointed on this common misunderstanding.

      • As the PDO is an index of SST I fail to see how what you say is relevant. I am not comparing directly AMO and PDO. What I am asking is what would be the rationale for solar variability to control SST in the Atlantic and not in the Pacific. If the answer is none then what you are looking at is a spurious correlation.

        Marcia Wyatts “Stadium wave” hypothesis does a good job of explaining the teleconnections between different oceans that could be behind these oceanic oscillations. The Sun is obviously providing the energy, but it does not make sense to make an argument that solar variability needs to be synchronized with one of the oscillations.

      • Hi Javier
        PDO describes certain combination of circumstances including the sea level pressures.
        Definition of the PDO from the NCDC-NOAA is:
        When SSTs are anomalously cool in the interior North Pacific and warm along the (American ?) Pacific Coast, and when sea level pressures are below average, over the North Pacific, the PDO has a positive value

        This is not same as just the N. Pacific SST is warm, as the case is with the AMO, just strait forward warm or cool SST.

        “When the climate anomaly patterns are reversed, with warm SST anomalies in the interior and cool SST anomalies along the North American coast, or above average sea level pressures over the North Pacific, the PDO has a negative value.”
        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/

  19. lsvalgaard
    March 29, 2016 at 4:21pm
    And here is an updated charrt

    =============================================
    Thanks Dr. S.

    You know Dr. S., we have only recently discovered that the heliosphere is “dented.” (Voyagers spacecraft Dec. 2011)

    The prediction on page 33 of “Asymmetric Solar Polar Field Reversals,”
    says, …South will lead in cycle 25 or 26 and beyond. We shall see…

    Seems the following article is saying the same thing…

    DETERMINING THE NORTH–SOUTH DISPLACEMENT OF THE HELIOSPHERIC
    CURRENT SHEET FROM CORONAL STREAMER OBSERVATIONS
    E. Robbrecht1 and Y.-M. Wang2
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/135/meta

    And from spaceweather.com

    …Solar Minimum brings many interesting changes.

    1 For instance, the upper atmosphere of Earth collapses, allowing space junk to accumulate around our planet.
    2 The heliosphere shrinks, bringing interstellar space closer to Earth.
    3 And galactic cosmic rays penetrate the inner solar system with relative ease. Indeed, a cosmic ray surge is already underway.
    (Goodbye sunspots, hello deep-space radiation.)…

  20. To those who argue that solar activity has been the main driver of climate change in the past, I’d advise caution. It’s beginning to look as though the sun’s influence is at least being matched by some other factor. Solar activity has been in decline for about 25 years. We have had a pause in the global temperature rise but have seen no cooling.

    If warming picks up again the only possible conclusion for the “solarphiles” is that a relatively recent factor is having a greater influence on climate than the sun. I hope you can see what I am saying.

    • John, if it were as simple as a direct translation of solar activity into temperature change, even Dr. Svalgaard would be defending the solar effect. Solar variability is just one of the inputs of the climate system, but temperatures seem to respond to the integration of that and other signals that the oceans make. Land surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere appear to respond to AMO and PDO. Only significant deviations from average solar activity seem to have a significant cooling effect, and only on a decadal to multidecadal time frame due to oceanic delays.

      If the solar variability signal is as strong as paleo records suggest, we should expect a continuation of the pause, perhaps with a slight cooling until around 2040, followed by moderate warming perhaps reaching again record temperatures around 2050-80. At that point global warming should end due to reduced solar activity from the end of the de Vries cycle by 2090-2120 when global temperatures could drop by 0.2-0.5°C. Afterwards the Earth should continue its end of interglacial cooling pattern.

      • we should expect a continuation of the pause, perhaps with a slight cooling until around 2040,

        So you presumably accept that some other more influential factor is at play if we get further warming?

      • John Finn,

        We already know that the CO2=AGW conjecture has been falsified, by the greatest Authority there is: Planet Earth.

        Since that conjecture is falsified, what would you suppose would be the cause of any future warming?

      • dbstealey March 30, 2016 at 3:50 pm

        We already know that the CO2=AGW conjecture has been falsified, by the greatest Authority there is: Planet Earth.

        I don’t agree that the “CO2=AGW conjecture” has failed. I’m not sure why you think it has failed. The climate may not be as sensitive to CO2 as some believe but the evidence at the moment suggests that we can expect at least 1 degree increase in temperature across the globe in response to a doubling of CO2.

        If we don’t get cooling in the near future (and I don’t just mean a a short term La Nina dip) then it will strongly support a ghg effect.

      • I don’t agree that the “CO2=AGW conjecture” has failed.

        Then go argue with Planet Earth. Because she disagrees with you, and with every other ‘dangerous AGW’ climate alarmist.

        I’ve never disputed AGW. But I have always said that the effect is minuscule, and therefore AGW should be completely disregarded. The planet agrees — or rather, I agree with the planet. You don’t.

        And:

        If we don’t get cooling in the near future (and I don’t just mean a a short term La Nina dip) then it will strongly support a ghg effect.

        How does that follow?? Is it because you’re incapable of thinking of any other possible reason, so then it must be due to CO2?

        That’s how the alarmist crowd thinks. There has been about zero corellation between ∆CO2 and subsequent ∆temperature, but in your thoroughly unscientific, illogical and confirmation biased way, you presume that CO2 is still the big control knob of global T.

        If it were not for the immense waste of resources thrown away on that sort of stupid thinking, your side would just be an amusing clown car driving by. But you are a big problem, always pushing for a giant misallocation of resources. YOU are the problem; skeptics have the solution, but your mind is closed.

        You probably never heard of Popper or Feynman. But Prof. F noted something that every alarmist ignores: if observations disagree with your hypothesis… then your hypothesis is WRONG. It has been falsified. Direct, long term observations contradict your ‘DAGW’ hypothesis. Therefore, it is WRONG.

        But you can’t accept that. This is a science site. You’re in the wrong place.

    • Hi John. Following your argument.. What other influence on temps overcame the highest TSI last year since 2002? Without an effective replacement attribution for solar, your doubts are really unjustified.

      While it’s true that solar activity is less now than 25 years ago, the question you should be asking yourself is, was it enough solar activity to drive ‘warming’? How would you know? The other question you could ask yourself is what contribution to today’s temperatures comes from the ocean? Where did that energy come from to drive OHC and SSTs higher?

      • John don’t feel bad if you don’t have an answer – because there isn’t one!

        I’m still waiting for Dr. Svalgaard’s answer – it’s been months. I’ll probably never get a different, rational, and data-based answer from anyone of what else could’ve warmed us up since the 2008/09 solar minimum.

        Anyone challenging my statement should be ready with attribution data more potent than the sun. No one has yet to identify what might be a viable alternative in the last three months, because there isn’t any alternative to solar variation!

        It is most certainly not from C02.

      • Since solar activity the last four cycles have gone down [as per your graph], but temperatures have gone up, solar activity is hardly the cause of the warming.

  21. lsvalgaard

    March 29, 2016 at 8:42 pm

    The ‘dents’ in the heliosphere have no influence whatsoever on the Sun or the Earth as the solar wind is supersonic.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————

    Yes dents Dr. S.
    Pushed up in the nose of the heliosphere, squashed over the poles and one of the tail lobes is offset.

    under pressure Dr. S.

    Interesting that Ol’ Sol is switching from a Northern hemisphere leading of solar activity to a Southern hemisphere leading of activity at this time. I mean, that has got to be cool for you.

    Too bad that, we don’t yet know, if the nose dent fluctuates between Southern and Northern Hemisphere, or what the periodicity of that might be. They do still believe the dent is created by the interstellar magnetic field interaction with the heliosphere.

    But, we are not so sure if the Interstellar Wind Has Changed Direction, as was previously reported.

    One new study (below,) is thinking that solar cycle is changing the position of the solar gravitational focusing cone of interstellar neutrals through the solar system. On their way into Earth’s orbit where we encounter them in the upwind crescent and downwind focusing cone, you know the ones. Not mention Equinox’s.

    Got wonder how these streams interact with Heliospheric current sheet, with its inward and outward components….and its bumps, lumps and dents.

    Solar cycle variation of interstellar neutral He, Ne, O
    density and pick-up ions along the Earth’s orbit
    Justyna M. Sokol1⋆, Maciej Bzowski1, Marzena A. Kubiak1, and Eberhard Mobius2

    ABSTRACT
    We simulated the modulation of the interstellar neutral (ISN) He, Ne, and O density
    and pick-up ion (PUI) production rate and count rate along the Earth’s orbit over the
    solar cycle from 2002 to 2013 to verify if solar cycle-related effects may modify the
    inferred ecliptic longitude of the ISN inflow direction. We adopted the classical PUI
    model with isotropic distribution function and adiabatic cooling, modified by time-
    and heliolatitude-dependent ionization rates and non-zero injection speed of PUIs. We
    found that the ionization losses have a noticeable effect on the derivation of the ISN
    inflow longitude based on the Gaussian fit to the crescent and cone peak locations.
    We conclude that the non-zero radial velocity of the ISN flow and the energy range
    of the PUI distribution function that is accumulated are of importance for a precise
    reproduction of the PUI count rate along the Earth orbit. However, the temporal
    and latitudinal variations of the ionization in the heliosphere, and particularly their
    variation on the solar cycle time scale, may significantly modify the shape of PUI cone
    and crescent and also their peak positions from year to year and thus bias by a few
    degrees the derived longitude of the ISN gas inflow direction.

    Queen & David Bowie –
    Under Pressure

    This is ourselves
    Under pressure
    Under pressure
    Pressure

    • Interesting that Ol’ Sol is switching from a Northern hemisphere leading of solar activity to a Southern hemisphere leading of activity at this time. I mean, that has got to be cool for you.
      Not particularly, as this is a very usual occurrence; happens in every solar cycle [although which one is leading varies a bit].
      And the solar wind outward pressure completely overwhelms the inward pressure of the interstellar medium.

  22. lsvalgaard March 30, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    Not particularly, as this is a very usual occurrence; happens in every solar cycle [although which one is leading varies a bit].
    ———————————————————————————————————————————
    Asymmetric Solar Polar Field Reversals

    Page 33 Dr. S.

    “”70-100 Year ‘Gleissberg Cycle’ in Solar Activity Asymmetry?””

    ‘Prediction’ from this: South will lead in cycle 25 or 26 and beyond. We shall see…

    Maybe we shall some other shifting going on way out there….tooo

    Long May You Run… Dr. S.
    Neil Young

    • lsvalgaard

      March 30, 2016 at 6:23 pm

      Interesting that Ol’ Sol is switching from a Northern hemisphere leading of solar activity to a Southern hemisphere leading of activity at this time. I mean, that has got to be cool for you.
      Not particularly, as this is a very usual occurrence; happens in every solar cycle [although which one is leading varies a bit].
      And the solar wind outward pressure completely overwhelms the inward pressure of the interstellar medium.
      ———————————————————————————————————————————————–

      My ‘hobby brain’ has been thinking a lot about this asymmetry lately. Largely in part to due to running across some technical docs….

      Don’t have it yet assembled in my brain as yet, but contains these fundamental components:

      Interstellar neutrals (He, H, O, Ne, dust) that are gravitationally focused, (by the sun) up to 1 AU. This is where the upwind “crescent” is formed and near where these neutrals then flow around (Earth equinox locations) to the downwind side of the sun, forming what is called the focusing cone region. Focusing cone is a region Earth orbits in early Dec.

      The location of the heliospheric current sheets “neutral” boundary line, where the inward and outward plus polarity are separated into respective north or south hemispheres. (note 27day)

      Contribution of the inner planets to the bumps or waviness in the “neutral’ boundary line inside 1AU. (note 27 day) Current sheet is less coherent past 1AU?

      Consequences of the Heliospheric current sheet rotating over/thru “solar gravitationally focused,” neutral inflows as they stream around to the tail side of the sun. (note 27 day)

      Formation of Corotating Interaction Regions (CIRs), within boundaries of heliospheric current sheet and the reasons for there formation over 27 day periods. (multiple)

      Shifts from north of the solar equator to south of solar equator of the heliospheric current sheet boundary long term.

      I’ll be back.. just a couple notes

  23. One more quick note about those CIR’s

    Consequences of the inward propagation of CIR’s in coronal heating and and and the formation of active solar regions near the solar equator. These corotating interactive regions are located inside 1 AU.

    Oh boy now I can go vacuum.

Comments are closed.