I don’t know if this is a real measurement, and that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) measured by the SORCE project is real, or if we are seeing another sensor failure situation like what happened with NSIDC and the sea-ice measurements done by DMSP F17 satellite.
Yesterday this graph of TSI plotted by SORCE was brought to my attention by WUWT reader Stephen Shochat:
The value on April 11th was about 1360.45 watts/m² by far the lowest in three months
I emailed our resident solar physicist, Dr. Leif Svalgaard, but got no reply, he may be traveling or may have thought it not noteworthy. Today I checked the graph again, thinking perhaps a correction might have been made if there was a calibration or instrument error, there was none, and the TSI value decreased further, to about 1360.25 watts/m²
A look at the sun itself suggests it may simply be due to a very, very, large sunspot rotating through the Earth-View. My guess is we’ll see a rebound in TSI once it crosses the horizon. Occam’s Razor.
If nothing else, this demonstrates that sunspots can have quite a large, if only temporary, forcing on TSI and Earth’s received energy budget.
More at the WUWT solar reference page
There continues to be observational support for the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted
Since you have not defined what you mean by ‘interrupted’ [do you even know?] there is no basis for your assertion.
The Non-Conforming Cycle 24
http://www.leif.org/research/Non-Conforming-SC24.pdf
pg. 16
Cycle 24 is behaving differently from
previous cycles:
• CME frequency too high
• TSI too high
• Magnetic field too high [at least since 2014]
• We should repeat the analysis with HMI
————————————————————————————————————————
Could we add solar differential rotation is off too?
Polar regions rotating slower this cycle?
Changes in mid-latitude residual flow pattern? (years?)
Earth has been gradually speeding up its rotation rate in the last 2 1/2 solar declining phase cycles.
And the sun has been slowing down? hmm
Changes in pressures…..
The Non-Conforming Cycle 24
http://www.leif.org/research/Non-Conforming-SC24.pdf
pg. 16
• Magnetic field too high [at least since 2014]
———————————————————————————-
Doesn’t that still depend on which solar hemisphere you are looking at?
Or did you mean that the N. Hemi is so low by comparison to the other parameters and the strength of the S. Hemi?
Magnetic field too high? Excuse me.. Bi polarness too high maybe…
The sunspot looks like a stallion rearing up.
..Oh oh, is that the first of the ..” Four Horsemen ” ??
Here we are again, with recently acquired tech, observing changes we’ve never seen yet since we got our ‘new vision’. The next few years are going to be quite exciting for solar science as SC 25 arrives and can be studied in great detail. If the SN fizzles and the global temp drops, it will be heliospheric science that dominates climate study in the future.
Interesting, while jogging yesterday, I was hoping for a update of solar irradence. And more importantly Solar Cycles 24 and 25. Certainly a sharp global cooling ahead late this year and next what with a powerful La Niña. Dalton/Maunder minimum coming? We simply
still don’t know. And the chaos of any high end volcanic series. Interesting times. But I simply cannot reconcile any significant Global Warming in the near future.
“Certainly a sharp global cooling ahead late this year and next what with a powerful La Niña. Dalton/Maunder minimum coming?”
I’m too old to take chances. I moved south.
There is increased volcanic activity associated with grand solar minimums. This is due to the increase in muons destabilising silica rich calderas caused by the increase in galactic cosmic rays hitting Earth’s atmosphere. This occurs as a result of the decrease in the solar magnetic field during a grand minimum allows more GCRs to reach Earth. The increase in great earthquake activity during grand minimums is due to the relative increase in coronal holes because of the relative decrease in sunspots during such times. Currently this century there is an 5 times increased incidence of great earthquakes compared to the last 50 years of the 20th C.
Np doubt the warmists will blame the pause and soon the cooling trend on the volcanic activity.
Sun’s output is constant, and has no effect on climate. So says the IPCC.
We will see if it holds up. The graph I have shows the onset of a new LIA epoch at 1360 w/m^2. Which is 20 years earlier than forecast.
[snip, fake name, fake email, fake IP address – mod]
So what. I don’t need to be tried in a kangaroo court. And whatever, is the analysis right or wrong.? And as so many have asserted, that suppose we do go into a a major cooling trend, what kind of spin is CAGW going to put on that? Can I have them tried in criminal court?
The real problem isn’t global warming, it’s global cooling. If all the CAGW crowd has a way of mitigating the alleged harmful effects of warming is to stop producing co2, I shudder to think what kind of stupid solution they will come up for that. There hasn’t been one shred of thought given to what happens if…..
Perhaps e tu would like to be harassed by a bunch of brainless idiots. I asked one, I mean one question at Princeton, for a bunch of allegedly thoughtful people, I thought I was going to be lynched.
What caused the MWP and the LIA? It surely wasn’t an increase or decrease in co2, was it? Can you explain to me what happened then that isn’t happening during this current warm period? You know the answer I got, ” it was local and not world wide”. Well guess what? Subsequent drilling has confirmed both events were world wide. ( and many others as well). The question remains unanswered.
An interruption to the solar cycle is the sudden cession of the production of sunspots.
Happens in every sunspot cycle when the sun gets to minimum.
A solar minimum is a temporary, short duration (less than a year) cession of the production in sunspots.
A very long period 70 to 100 years during which the sun does not produce sunspots is different. The cosmogenic isotope record shows the sun periodically goes into a very low state.
Observations support the assertion that solar cycle 24 is the very rapid start of a deep solar minimum.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Miyahara_AG06.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
Comment:
Mods I can no longer see my comments (via Chrome, Firefox, or Explorer) in this thread. I would assume my comments were posted, as I see Lief’s laconic reply.
Observations support the assertion that solar cycle 24 is the very rapid start of a deep solar minimum.
No, observations support that cycle 25 will not be any smaller than cycle 24, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Comparing-HMI-WSO-Polar-Fields.pdf
I’ve been waiting and waiting for your prediction. And sure enough, it tickled my brain with eye candy.
Okay it is a bit early, but the “static solar” theme with no impact on climate is about to get tested alongside some other multi decade cycles in ocean temps and some short cycles too. One thing we know for sure is that a lot of confused finger pointing will ensure.
Leif,
Your prediction (that solar cycle 25 will be larger than solar cycle 24) is based on a relationship of the large scale magnetic field to next cycle activity which has found from observing the last four cycles. That relationship is no longer valid as the sun is now operating in special mode.
I find it curious that you are ignoring the piles and piles of observations that support the assertion that the sun is moving to a Maunder like deep minimum.
It is a fact that significant cooling and sometimes abrupt cooling correlates with solar deep minimums.
The cult of CAGW have doubled down, tripled down, and quadrupled down on CAGW. The mania, the amplification of group think was possible as there was warming.
There is no way out, no way to explain why the entire scientific basis of the IPCC reports was incorrect.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
According to Professor Lockwood
Everything Mike Lockwood knows about this I have taught and/or told him. Except, he misapplies the knowledge I have given him to protect his investment in old papers and viewpoints. For one, there is no Grand Modern Maximum.
Meh, you’d have to know the future to know that.
===============
Not at all. Lockwood’s claim is based on the past.
I’m not making Lockwood’s claim.
========================
Unclear what you mean by your drive-by comment.
What I’m saying is that we do not need the future to tell whether or not the last half of the 20th century was a Grand Maximum.
I should stick to my simple claim, but will explore. Sure maybe not TSI but we have a very poor handle on past variations of the more specific manifestations. Perhaps some manner in which those manifestations integrate the TSI might clarify a modern maximum not measured by simple TSI, even possibly, theoretically a modern minimum.
The millennial scale changes of earthly climate have not been elucidated. There are other possible motives for these changes, but, in its prime mover role, the sun commands the center of the stage.
I still wonder at the correlations and though the tidal forces are measured in millimeters, they are still massive forces. Van de Graaf generators can deploy a lot of energy in variable directions with a very small change in the ‘tidal force’ acting on it.
I’m still convinced that the ‘large, sparse, and primarily Southern hemispheric’ sunspots during the Maunder Minimum are an important, perhaps critical, clue to understanding the Sun’s effect on earthly climate, particularly the hemispheric asymmetry.
You admit that something is going on in the sun, new to our observations, not likely new to the sun.
You can’t know the future, but I would follow you into it sooner than I would follow most people.
=======================
I was referring to the past. On the other hand, given the solar polar fields, I do think I can predict the future [at least a decade out].
I love it when you dodge stuff; it is prudent and wise. Carry on.
Good stuff Willis has over there now, about oceans and sunspots. Not enough to dismiss speculation, though.
================
My favourite quote of yours, Lief, is :’I did not create the Universe; I merely explain it’.
Do you even know what it means?
I find it curious that you are ignoring the piles and piles of observations that support the assertion that the sun is moving to a Maunder like deep minimum.
Unfortunately, those are just piles and have turned out to be wanting. E.g. the torsional oscillation is back , the previous reports that it had disappeared were premature.
Astley, as the saying says, ‘there are none so blind as those who will not see’. Life is too short to waste it trying to debate with someone like Lief.
Indeed, it is a lot easier and much more comforting to believe in self-invented nonsense. You too can take a page out of William’s playbook.
jeepers creepers can’t post now wattsupwiththat?
” jeepers creepers can’t post now wattsupwiththat?”
Oh you are posting, I’ve gotten 6 or 8 copies of the same post.
12 now 🙂
still wont let my post come in, can’t see anything inordinate that should prevent it.
and you don’t like it because?
good night
micro6500 April 20, 2016 at 7:16 pm
” jeepers creepers can’t post now wattsupwiththat?”
Oh you are posting, I’ve gotten 6 or 8 copies of the same post.
__________________________________________________
Not one here yet today.
Changes in solar rotation evidently is not of importance to you, during this unusual solar cycle? ehh?
We showed some time ago that in general “the more magnetic the Sun is, more rigid is its rotation”
http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
So, yes variations of solar rotation are of interest, but are consequences of the magnetic activity.
The technical terms for the cause is “An interplay between the Reynolds and the Maxwell stresses”.
. However, the poleward flow for cycle 25, which was expected to appear in 2008-2010, was not observed. Subsequent analysis showed that it is a very weak flow, and is masked by an apparent
change in the background solar differential rotation rate.
We will present the latest observations of the zonal flow as determined from global helioseismology, and will discuss the implications for the strength and timing of cycle 25.
lsvalgaard April 20, 2016 at 9:55 pm
I find it curious that you are ignoring the piles and piles of observations that support the assertion that the sun is moving to a Maunder like deep minimum.
Unfortunately, those are just piles and have turned out to be wanting. E.g. the torsional oscillation is back , the previous reports that it had disappeared were premature—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Torsional oscillation is back?
Tell us more…
I was just checking out the flux state and doesn’t look like cycle 25 will be as large? as cycle 24.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/all.gif
good day
You can usually rely on the expert’s opinion. Here we show that SC25 probably will not be smaller than SC24, perhaps even a bit stronger. http://www.leif.org/research/Comparing-HMI-WSO-Polar-Fields.pdf
Will check out the link Sat., thank you Dr. S.
Sun just keeps getting messier for me. Thought I had read that solar polar regions had slowed in rotation.
Now just found this recent study on solar differential rotation and the southern hemisphere rotates faster than the north. But in the 1980’s until the slow down of the 1990’s the North rotated faster.
Another asymmetry, oh boy having fun now…eeek
Solar surface rotation: N-S asymmetry and recent speed-up
L. Zhang1,2, K. Mursula1 and I. Usoskin1,3
3. Results
3.1. N-S asymmetry and recent speed-up of solar rotation
…The rotation rates of Ω17 in the two hemispheres obtained with X-ray flares depict little correlation from 1977 until before 2000. In the 1980s the north rotates faster than the south, but slows down in the 1990s even below the southern rate.
During this time, the southern rotation rate remains rather constant.
The rotation rate has been speeding up in both hemispheres since before 2000, with the southern hemisphere rotating faster than the north. The rotation evolution obtained for sunspots depicts a pattern that is notably similar to that of flares.
However, the recent rotation of the northern hemisphere according to sunspots is somewhat faster than that of to flares. Therefore, the hemispheric asymmetry in the rotation rate is weaker for sunspots.
This is probably caused by a few large and flare-productive active regions that rotate rather slowly in the northern hemisphere. Figure 2 depicts the N–S asymmetry ((N–S)/(N + S)) of the solar rotation at a latitude of 17° obtained for X-ray flares (open circles) and sunspots (filled circles). The evolution of the hemispheric asymmetry of solar rotation is quite similarly depicted by flares and sunspots: while the asymmetry was fairly constant and negative since the late 1990s, it was strongly positive in the 1980s and decreased rapidly from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/03/aa25169-14/aa25169-14.html