Guest essay by David Archibald
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Figure 5: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2016
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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
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.
http://climate4you.com/images/TSI%20LASP%20Since2003.gif
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?
http://climate4you.com/images/SIDC%20DailySunspotNumberSince1900.gif
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.
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDh_gHDvkk
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.
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
The interstellar neutrals are not influenced by the Sun’s magnetic field and also do not influence the field.
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.
Not only inside of 1 AU. Inside of 0.05 AU. Very close to the sun,and barely part of the solar wind [yet].
Why is our sun considered a variable star ??
Because it varies, albeit very little, but with modern sensors we can pickup the that tiny variation.