Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead

Via the GWPF: Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately.

The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.

New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks

To most of us the sun seems unchanging. But if you observe its surface, it is seething with vast explosions and ejections. This activity has its origin in intense magnetic fields generated by swirling currents in the sun’s outer layer – scientists call it the solar dynamo.

It produces the well-known 11-year solar cycle which can be seen as sunspots come and go on the sun’s surface.

But models of the solar dynamo have only been partially successful in predicting the solar cycle – and that might be because a vital component is missing.

After studying full-disc images of the sun’s magnetic field, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University and colleagues, discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.

The interaction between these two magnetic waves either amplifies solar activity or damps it down. Professor Zharkova’s observations suggest we are due for a prolonged period of low solar activity.

Professor Valentina Zharkova: 

We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum. 

What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small. 

She suggests it could be a repeat of the so-called Maunder Minimum – a period in the 17th century with little solar activity that may have influenced a cooling on Earth.

Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled. The rivers are frozen. There are winters and no summers, and so on. 

So we only hope because these Maunder Minima will be shorter, the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century was about 65 years, the Maunder Minimum which we expect will be lasting not longer than 30-35 years. 

Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.

This is promising research – a new insight into our sun with predictions as to its future behavior, yet Professor Zharkova relates than some climatologists resented her discovery.

Professor Valentina Zharkova:  

Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release. The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.’ We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us. So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results. So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to.

Professor Zharkova’s work may have significantly improved our ability to forecast solar activity. If we do enter a new Maunder Minimum, then we are bound to discover new things about our sun and its influences on our climate.

3.5 2 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

689 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HenryP
August 14, 2016 9:25 am

CO2 is life says
BTW, CO2 being opaque to those Near IR wavelengths would be expected to cool the earth, not warm it
henry says
that is not BTW
that is my point?

HenryP
August 14, 2016 9:52 am
August 14, 2016 12:25 pm

It appears some people – climate scientists too! – would rather see Zharkova’s paper disappear than discuss it. While there are things that can be criticized in the paper, trying to suppress it is not the way to go.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-extremists-try-to-silence-science-again/ says in part:

Global warming advocates like to pretend they are open-minded, all about science. But let someone else’s science get in the way of their “consensus,” and you find out how little they really believe in science.

“They were trying to actually silence us,” said Zharkova. “Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release.”

Reply to  Ric Werme
August 14, 2016 12:49 pm

It should not be suppressed because of the climate implications, but it must be debunked as it is deeply flawed and disagrees with solar observations. The debunking should have taken place already at the peer-review stage.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 15, 2016 7:59 am

It should not be suppressed because of the climate implications, but it must be debunked as it is deeply flawed and disagrees with solar observations.

But that is the problem. Those that seek to suppress it have no clue on the science. And those that have the capacity to debunk it, are not in the pal review. Hence we see the ignorant trying to suppress it, and the knowledgeable debunking it AFTER publication.
And that is the problem with Climate science.

Bindidon
Reply to  Ric Werme
August 14, 2016 1:46 pm

And this
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-extremists-try-to-silence-science-again/
is in your mind a valuable source of information for the context of this thread?
Aha.

Reply to  Bindidon
August 14, 2016 1:57 pm

A paper should not be suppressed or opposed for ‘political’ reasons, but when your link says “solar activity, based on models that closely fit past trends” it is wrong. There is no ‘close fit’, rather blatant disagreements with observations, and for THAT reason the paper should be rejected.

Salvatore Del Prete
Reply to  Ric Werme
August 15, 2016 5:26 am

The fit between prolonged solar activity either active or inactive versus the global temperature record is very strong.

Bindidon
August 14, 2016 1:25 pm

co2islife on August 14, 2016 at 9:03 am
I just had a look at your charts! Oh dear, dated 1959 resp. 1951 !
Are you really still alive, co2islife? It seems here to me that somebody is writing us from the grave…
To your information: there is a wonderful web site
http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
which informs you about today’s knowledge concerning absorption / emission for various atmospheric gases. It is data originating from the HITRAN2012 database.
As an example: a comparison of H2O and CO2 in the range 13-18µ (that one you mentioned above):
1. H2O
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160814/4pxd6kb8.png
2. CO2
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160814/qfbqg45v.png
3. Of course: as you can imagine, neither O2 nor N2 have any line within this range.

Reply to  Bindidon
August 14, 2016 5:50 pm

Not sure what your point is. I’ve mentioned countless times that CO2 absorbs between 13µ and 18µ with a peak of 15µ. Use Spectral Calc to identify the black body temp of that range. It is -50°C and -110°C, peak of -80°C. Anyway, what is your point? The charts I referenced basically say the same thing as SpectralCalc.

Bindidon
Reply to  CO2isLife
August 16, 2016 3:28 pm

No Sah they don’t: H2O looks in your charts as if it would have by far more absorbtion/emission lines than CO2. Here you see the difference.

co2islife
Reply to  Bindidon
August 15, 2016 5:23 am

BTW, using the Log Scale on the Y-Axis is a bit distorting don’t you think? Here is the real picture of H20 vs CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest2018674812.png

Bindidon
Reply to  co2islife
August 16, 2016 3:30 pm

No Sah the log output is correct when you want to compare the stuff line by line.

Gabro
August 14, 2016 2:50 pm

“Unprecedented” snowfalls this year in the Venezuelan Andes reminded me of this paper from 2006, which found clear evidence from lake sediments of the effect on climate there of solar minima, AD 1250 to 1810:
Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/8937.full

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 14, 2016 2:57 pm

https://iceagenow.info/venezuela-snow-ever-seen-national-park/
Also comes as refugees from socialism in Venezuela stream into Colombia in search of food.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 16, 2016 10:50 am

Also, please note NOAA again manipulating data:

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 16, 2016 11:53 am

I see that Javier has cited this study among the others in which he constructed a graph showing the coincidence of solar activity with climatic observations.

Tenuc
August 15, 2016 1:25 am

For those interested in the detail of this paper, a pre-print is available here,,,
Principal component analysis of background and sunspot magnetic field
variations during solar cycles 21–23 (V. V. Zharkova, S J. Shepherd and S.I.Zharkov)
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/424/4/2943.full.pdf
Enjoy…

Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 5:30 am

AGW is a scam and has caused much harm to the science of climate by gearing the studies to co2 versus the climate rather then solar/geomagnetic effects which is what is behind the reasons why the climate changes.
These factors conspire in driving the terrestrial items that control the climate to move away and toward thresholds which in turn have various effects upon the climate when these terrestrial items are pushed to extremes.
Terrestrial items
Global cloud coverage
Global sea ice coverage
Global snow coverage
ENSO /Sea surface temperatures globally
Volcanic Activity
AO/AAO

co2islife
August 15, 2016 5:48 am

I’ve made the comment that the CO2 signature would best be discovered over the poles because the lack of H20 would isolate its impact. Here is how Spectral Calc demonstrates that concept.
Tropical Atmosphere: Plenty of H20
http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest72552371.png
Polar Winter: Very Little H20
http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest914397185.png
It turns out that even with very little atmospheric H20, it still dwarfs the impact of CO2.

Bindidon
Reply to  co2islife
August 16, 2016 4:02 pm

No Sah wrong approach.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160817/x8ako26l.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160817/7rqxbjh9.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160816/q3p237de.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160816/bcsk5u7g.png
H2O simply stops dwarfing above 10 km.
Thus above 10 km CO2 absorbs all you give it, and below 10 km it absorbs all what H2O doesn’t intercept. That’s a lot, see the Spectralcalc plot 50 cm above.
10 km, that’s exactly 15 °C Earth’s average surface temp – 10 * 6.5 °C / km = -50 °C i.e. about 13µ.
A. On the one hand: above 10 km, CO2 saves us off burning by evacuating all heat to space H2O isn’t able to.
B. On the other hand: below 10 km, CO2 emits in all directions all what H2O doesn’t intercept and warms there the atmosphere little bit by little bit, what leads to… more H2O raising into it.
Ant that is the problem I guess…

co2islife
Reply to  Bindidon
August 17, 2016 3:42 pm

Bindidon says

No Sah wrong approach.

Nope, right approach. We are worried about the area where surface temperatures are gathered, not 10km up.

H2O simply stops dwarfing above 10 km.

Yep, but what thermometer is up 10 km? What glacier is up 10 km? What difference does warmer temperatures higher up mean to the surface temperatures? Nothing.

Thus above 10 km CO2 absorbs all you give it, and below 10 km it absorbs all what H2O doesn’t intercept. That’s a lot, see the Spectralcalc plot 50 cm above.

Wrong, wrong wrong, H2O absorbs across the IR spectrum, not at just 13 to 18µ Temperature falls in linear fashion up 10km and then “kink” to the tropopause, CO2 remains 400 ppm all the way up. The “kinked” portion is due to CO2, but it acts as a floor. Temperatures fall from 260°K to 220°K as H2O precipitates out of the air. Only once H2O is gone does the CO2 signature appear, and it allows another 10°K drop from 10 to 20 km up. Note the huge change in slope of the temperature when H2O is present, and then the small slope when just CO2 is involved. Once again, CO2 doesn’t contribute until H2O is gone, and when it does contribute, it is at the very very very cold end of the temperature range, consistent with the 13 to 18µ IR.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/atmosphere_browser/plots/guest788223161.png

10 km, that’s exactly 15 °C Earth’s average surface temp – 10 * 6.5 °C / km = -50 °C i.e. about 13µ.

What you see is that the 13 to 18µ spike follows the air temperature. Never do you see the spike fall below the black body temperature for that altitude. What you are seeing is the signature that CO2 is present, not that it is causing any warming. CO2 traps IR with a temperature of -50 to -110°C. The CO2 spike never goes as low as 200°K.

A. On the one hand: above 10 km, CO2 saves us off burning by evacuating all heat to space H2O isn’t able to.

Once again, look at the altitude and temperature graph, the CO2 spike never falls below the black body for that temperature. If the temperature is 220°K at a certain altitude, the CO2 spike will stop at 220°K. That isn’t warming, that is simply the IR signature for that temperature. Note how the H20 and CO2 slopes are tremendously different, and CO2 doesn’t even come into play until H20 is gone extrapolate out the CO2 slope and you get 220°K.

B. On the other hand: below 10 km, CO2 emits in all directions all what H2O doesn’t intercept and warms there the atmosphere little bit by little bit, what leads to… more H2O raising into it.
Ant that is the problem I guess…

If the system worked like that you wouldn’t need CO2, H2O would simply feed upon itself, more H2O, more warmth, move H20, more warmth, CO2 isn’t needed. What you described is a run away, self feeding, self accelerating doomsday system that simply doesn’t exist. CO2 only absorbs a very very very small fraction of the IR spectrum relative to H20. H2O drops out at 10 km, and only then do you see the signature of CO2 acting as a floor. It prevents temperatures from falling below 220°K, which is consistent with its black body temperature for 13 thru 18µcomment image

co2islife
Reply to  co2islife
August 17, 2016 3:53 pm

Note, over the tropics there is no “kinked” CO2 signature, so you can’t even find the CO2 signature, and temperatures fall all the way to 200°K. 200°K is exacatly what you would expect 13 to 18µ to be absorbing.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/atmosphere_browser/plots/guest1744459138.png

co2islife
Reply to  co2islife
August 17, 2016 3:59 pm

BTW, look at the O3 concentration by altitude, part/most of that “kink” is due to growing O3 levels, so the CO2 signature is even weaker than it appears.comment image
The increase in O3 above the tropics doesn’t start until 20 km up, expaining where there is no CO2 signature over the tropics. The more you look, the weaker the case for CO2 becomes.
comment image

co2islife
August 15, 2016 7:28 am

Evidence of increased solar activity is seen throughout the solar system.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=28m29s

co2islife
August 15, 2016 8:11 am

No, the problem isn’t the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex’s unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.
With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there’s too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy. That’s why Zharkova and others are greeted with unscientific hostility.
Anyone who thinks this type of behavior is “science” is wrong. It’s not even right to call it “religion,” as some have, using that term as a pejorative. In fact, truly religious people actually question their faith. Only global warming’s legions of true believers don’t.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-extremists-try-to-silence-science-again/

Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 10:50 am

https://iceagenow.info/video-headed-ice-age-scientist/
PROFESSOR ZHARKOVA has no agenda which makes what she says meaningful.
Further she has a good chance of being correct.
As far as the climate of the earth this period of time is in no way unique.
The climate in the big picture is controlled by Milankovitch Cycles, Land Ocean arrangements, Solar Activity and the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the earth.
These factors then exert influences on the terrestrial items on the earth that determine the climate.
Terrestrial Items
Atmospheric Circulation
Sea Surface Temperatures
Global Cloud Coverage
Global Snow Coverage
Global Sea Ice Coverage
Enso
Volcanic Activity
All of this gives an x climate over x time. The historical climatic record supports this.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 11:01 am

PROFESSOR ZHARKOVA has no agenda which makes what she says meaningful.
Further she has a good chance of being correct.

She was wrong about the past and therefore no good chance to be right about the future:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1512-05516-Zharkova-Fail-by-Usoskin.pdf
“We show that the Zh15 model fails to reproduce the well-established features of the solar activity evolution during the last millennium. This means that the predictive part for the future is not reliable either.”

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 15, 2016 11:15 am

do you now then agree with me that cycle 25 will be more or less equal to cycle 23 and that cycle 26 will be more or less equal to cycle 22?

Reply to  HenryP
August 15, 2016 11:31 am

No, SC25 will be smaller than SC23, and SC26 cannot be predicted at this time.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 16, 2016 9:17 am

let us explore this somewhat more
dr., you say
No, SC25 will be smaller than SC23, and SC26 cannot be predicted at this time
henry says
at least it seems you do agree with me that cycle 25 will be bigger than cycle 24…
technically speaking, following the Gleissberg cycle, we had the same double pole switch in 2014 which also occurred in 1927. That means cycle 25 will be more or less equal to cycle 17.
do you agree with me on that one?

Reply to  HenryP
August 16, 2016 9:24 am

No, of course not. The Sun doesn’t have detailed memory of past cycles. We can only reliably predict a cycle some eight years before its maximum, by observing the polar fields that have accumulated during the past cycle by almost random movement of magnetic flux from lower latitudes to the poles.
Right now, the polar fields have stabilized to the point where we can begin to predict the maximum of SC5 [some 8 years away] .

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 16, 2016 10:45 am

so, what you are saying is that where many scientists and many researches confirm the persistence of the 86-87 year Gleissberg cycle, you remain adamant that there is no natural process that dominates that cycle originating from the sun ?
you cannot even predict one cycle ahead of the next one, i.e cycle 26?
I am not even a dr. or prof. or whatever but now I think you are just dumb…
you must just use the tools that you created yourself….

Reply to  HenryP
August 16, 2016 10:51 am

so, what you are saying is that where many scientists and many researches confirm the persistence of the 86-87 year Gleissberg cycle, you remain adamant that there is no natural process that dominates that cycle originating from the sun ?
The Sun tells us that the last 400 years there has not been a 86-yr Gleissberg cycle, rather a 100-120 year ‘quasi-cycle’:
http://www.leif.org/research/OSF-GCR-GN.png
you cannot even predict one cycle ahead of the next one, i.e cycle 26?
Nobody can, or rather everybody can, but with no reasons to be right.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 16, 2016 11:00 am

comment image
you cannot figure out for yourself how this [your own] graph goes further for the next 43 years?

Reply to  HenryP
August 16, 2016 11:10 am

Nobody, not even the Sun, can. If somebody claims he can, he is trying to fool you.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 16, 2016 12:47 pm

3000 years ago the Egyptians could figure it out, just by observing the flooding of the Nile. I have results from Alaska to NZ and everywhere I can find the GB pattern/footprint. Initially I thought from certain reports
e.g http://iie.fing.edu.uy/simsee/biblioteca/CICLO_SOLAR_PeristykhDamon03-Gleissbergin14C.pdf
that the GB was 88 years,
instead of 86.5 years,
hence I was out by 1.5 years here, choosing the [future] turning point
{2016 instead of 2014}
[example of just one of my investigations concluded in 2013]
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg
I just feel sorry for anyone here [like you] who apparently cannot work it out….
it shows me the current level of ‘climate science’ …..
clearly, there is no man made climate change,comment image
the amount of “climate change” I measured is exactly equal to the GB cycle.

Reply to  HenryP
August 16, 2016 1:22 pm

hence I was out by 1.5 years here, choosing the [future] turning point {2016 instead of 2014}
To show us how good you are, plot your curves on top of the sunspot record, e.g. the one I showed you [or you can download it yourself] and show us how well your 86.5-year wave matches the actual observations back to 1610.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 17, 2016 6:25 am

nah, I am not going to do that
I don’t trust T going back further than 50 years for certain reasons and I don’t trust SSN going back further than 100 years for certain reasons.
I do trust the records of the Nile though and William Arnold reported in 1985:
A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
1990 was 1995 as established by myself
< the Nile water will now be rising again, increasing going to a maximum in 2040

Reply to  HenryP
August 17, 2016 7:02 am

Well, I’m going to do it for you. The sunspot record is good at least back to 1750, and that is all we need.
Here is the result:
http://www.leif.org/research/HenryP-GN.png
Your curve is the red one.
As you can see, there is no relation with solar activity at the period 86.5 years.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 17, 2016 9:23 am

like you say
NO relationship
I must say it is hard to be humble if you are perfect in every way…
but I was out by the 1.5 years
but that was not my fault.
like I said…
this proves that we {I} can explain all current climate change by the Gleissberg cycle
I must also say that I cannot reason out why you cannot figure out [estimate] the strengths of SC 25 and 26
I gather you are at least as clever as I am

Reply to  HenryP
August 17, 2016 9:36 am

like you say NO relationship
Good that you admit to have seen the light.
I must also say that I cannot reason out why you cannot figure out [estimate] the strengths of SC 25 and 26
Sounds like you admit failure in understanding reality. Nobody can estimate the strength of SC26 at this moment. For SC25 we are beginning to see the polar fields evolve to the point where an estimate can be given [slightly stronger than SC24].

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 17, 2016 11:00 am

I must say that I have some trouble trying to understand the reality that you seem to want to hide. Clearly we agree that SC 25 will be slightly stronger than SC 24 and, following the curves, SC 26 slightly stronger than SC 25, etc
and so life goes on
even beyond our lives
unless there is something that will cause an imbalance [of gravity] in our current solar system….

Reply to  HenryP
August 17, 2016 11:06 am

I must say that I have some trouble trying to understand the reality that you seem to want to hide. Clearly we agree that SC 25 will be slightly stronger than SC 24 and, following the curves, SC 26 slightly stronger than SC 25
The Sun does not know about your curves, and as I already showed your curve is not correlated with solar activity in the first place. Do I need to show it again?

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 17, 2016 11:22 am

you might be interested to hear my theory as to what causes the global cooling and global warming on earth

Reply to  HenryP
August 17, 2016 11:27 am

Actually, I’m not terribly interested as you seem to base it on a solar variation that did not happen as you describe it.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 17, 2016 11:34 am

if you average cycle 18 and 19, my curve makes a perfect fit to yours and, like I said, I don’t trust your SSN before 1900

Reply to  HenryP
August 17, 2016 11:43 am

If you average cycle 18 and 19, my curve makes a perfect fit to yours and, like I said, I don’t trust your SSN before 1900
First: If pigs had wings, they could fly. I see no reason for ‘averaging’ when you can simply compare them as they are. Second: I carefully fitted your curve to the data, so no wonder it fits. Third: I trust the sunspot numbers as they are simply direct observations [with photographs since the 1860s]. So, you think people could not photograph correctly, or not count the spots on the photos. You have no basis for claiming that they couldn’t.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 17, 2016 12:19 pm

there is good reason [for me] to average the data for those two cycles as we had the double [solar] pole switch in 1971…
my data is good
it follows the solar activity
and I even know why….
your SSN data before 1900 is all suspect because we had different strengths of telescopes and the eyes looking….this is all recorded history, somebody even did try corrections in [1927? Wolff?]
I cannot help you further.

Reply to  HenryP
August 17, 2016 12:39 pm

your SSN data before 1900 is all suspect because we had different strengths of telescopes and the eyes looking….this is all recorded history, somebody even did try corrections in [1927? Wolff?]
The telescopes of then still exists and are used to verify the SSNs. The eyes are what evolved hundreds of thousands years ago, and have not changed.
I cannot help you further
Obviously..

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 17, 2016 12:45 pm

obviously you have perfect eyes….
when did people start wearing glasses to compensate for farsightedness and nearsightedness?

Reply to  HenryP
August 17, 2016 12:54 pm

obviously you have perfect eyes….
The telescopes taking the photographs of the Sun had…
when did people start wearing glasses to compensate for farsightedness and nearsightedness?
Irrelevant, but for your information the year was 1286. Here is a painting from about 1430:
http://www.leif.org/research/Glasses-1430.png

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 17, 2016 1:14 pm

we also know from the relevant datacomment image
that the double pole switch also occurred ca. 1927
\
that means we should also average that SC with the following SC and that gives me an absolute perfect fit for my curve
[which actually was on maxima in Alaska]
amazing, is it not?
thanks for doing that fit for me,
but nah,
I knew that before 1900 you cannot trust anything,
really.
If you don’t see that
we must agree to disagree
see you again at the next thread
– that would be interesting for me to read-

Reply to  HenryP
August 17, 2016 1:18 pm

we also know from the relevant data that the double pole switch also occurred ca. 1927
The polar field data only goes back to 1966, so we know nothing about 1927 from that data.

Salvatore Del Prete
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 15, 2016 11:21 am

As said before the data will tell the story.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 11:37 am

it will be the Sun’s story. Not your story or my story. So your statement is really not very useful on the level with: “I might win the lottery, time will tell”.

co2islife
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 15, 2016 1:54 pm

She was wrong about the past and therefore no good chance to be right about the future:

Funny, by that logic 100% of the IPCC Models would rule out CO2 as the cause. I love this selective application of standards. If having a bad model rules out being correct in the future, IPCC needs to go back to step 1.

Carla
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 15, 2016 7:13 pm

lsvalgaard August 15, 2016 at 11:01 am
…She was wrong about the past and therefore no good chance to be right about the future:…
________________________________
It is a wonder that any of the gazillion graphs I’ve seen of late can match up historically at all with other historical graphs. Saw what you had going on upthread with Ulrich, dates are close but not exactly the same.
But .. that’s good for my pet theory, pet, pet..
The sun is a variable star, it lives in a variable background, variable background is in a variable galaxy all this influences the planets which all have their own variabilities.
Had to let my new job absorb and use all my brain time. We went live today and 20 new drivers rolled out for the new account. My day started out smooth and ended up choppy. Got a nice country route.
Gotta get my brain back into the hobby..
Variability Dr. S., our sun is variable. The most extreme cases of variability within the solar systems past are related to the most dense interstellar regions of the solar galactic journey. The background is not homogeneous thru out and we may just be learning now what the smaller scale changes in the nearby interstellar background are. Might be hard to find little interstellar cloudletts after Ol Sol traversed them, ya know?
Would be a hoot if some of those dense cloudletts (small interstellar clouds) had local historical periodicities that coincide with Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf etc.
Try this on for size:
Cloudlett 330 AU in size and it takes the sun 66 years to traverse. The mean free path of a thermal population of LIC atoms is 330 AU. Add the falling into and rising out of said dense cloudlett in solar cycles time and you get a rough 100 years.
You don’t even need precision for this kind of periodicity in solar variability, lol.

Reply to  Carla
August 15, 2016 7:22 pm

The sun is a variable star, it lives in a variable background, variable background is in a variable galaxy all this influences the planets which all have their own variabilities
As the solar wind is supersonic, the variable galactic background cannot affect solar activity, just as a supersonic jet flying away from a thundercloud cannot hear the thunderclaps.

Carla
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 15, 2016 9:00 pm

lsvalgaard August 15, 2016 at 7:22 pm
…As the solar wind is supersonic, the variable galactic background cannot affect solar activity, just as a supersonic jet flying away from a thundercloud cannot hear the thunderclaps.
—————————————————-
Any time the background density increases, so does the density of re accelarated particles by the supersonic solar wind back into the heliosphere, through also the different charge exchange processes and corotating interaction regions (CIR’s). More Interstellar compression of the heliosphere brings about a quicker response time for propagating inward particles and dust.
I’ll see your supersonic solar wind and raise you more interstellar dust.
Good night

Reply to  Carla
August 15, 2016 9:41 pm

Any time the background density increases, so does the density of re accelarated particles by the supersonic solar wind back into the heliosphere
They are accelerated OUT of the heliosphere. Not into it.

Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 11:24 am

I think the data thus far is indicating very weak solar activity going forward with the minimum for this cycle probably 2 to 3 years away.
We have a long quite solar period ahead. The question is how quiet Dalton like or more severe.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 11:34 am

Since you don’t give any numbers for the cycles, your claim is too vague to evaluate. If we assume that the activity a century ago is indicative of what we might expect, the sun might be just as it was back then. Not terribly alarming.

Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 11:51 am

I gave the solar parameters many times which I think are needed.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 11:56 am

Since you don’t give for how long those numbers must prevail [5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months, 5 years, 50 years, …] the numbers are void of meaning.

Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 12:05 pm

I said sufficient duration of time.
That is why I have said watch the data and see how it evolves.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 12:08 pm

That is a circular argument. It only gains credibility if you define ahead of time what ‘sufficient’ is.

Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 12:11 pm

Okay sufficient would be like the 2008-2010 period of time but longer in duration.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 12:21 pm

How much longer? [5 minutes, 5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months, 5 years, 50 years,…]?

Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 12:40 pm

The sun will lead the way . I suspect it is in the process of happening now.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 1:00 pm

No specifics,just wishful thinking and void speculation. But I would not expect any better and you do not disappoint in this regard.

Salvatore Del Prete
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 17, 2016 8:22 am

I have had nothing but specifics with an x result from those specifics.

Salvatore Del Prete
August 15, 2016 1:19 pm

Time will tell.

Bindidon
August 16, 2016 4:09 pm

Thanks to Leif Svalgaard for all his explanations and… his patient and comprehensive approach to communication. I’m afraid I would fail in that.

Salvatore Del Prete
Reply to  Bindidon
August 17, 2016 8:19 am

Wishful thinking Bindidon on your part .
If you spent time looking at the historical climatic record you would first realize this period of time in climatic history is not unique and secondly, that all prolonged solar minimums have been associated with cooling to one degree or another, third ,you would realize the trend in global temperatures since the Holocene Optimum has been down with spikes of warmth, fourth, if you apply Milankovitch Cycles and superimpose solar activity upon this and further refine by superimposing volcanic activity and ENSO upon this the correlation between global temperature change and these items will be very strong, fifth if you evaluate CO2 concentration changes versus the climate you will find first that CO2 follows the climate and secondly there is a zero correlation to CO2 concentration changes leading the climate.
That is the reality as shown by the data , if you have data to counter it post it.

co2islife
August 17, 2016 6:27 pm

Someone please help me understand this graphic. CO2 absorbs between 13 and 18µ. That is consistent with a black body of temperature -50 to -110°C, average of -80°C. In other words activate a CO2 molecule and the vibrations are picked up as IR at 15µ with a temp of 220°K. Here is a graph of the earth at 220°K, emitting at CO2’s peak of 15µ.You can see, CO2 doesn’t trap any heat, in fact its spike falls outside the black body. The CO2 band hugs the 220 black body, while all other wavelengths fall inside the black body. Clearly all CO2 is convert IR at 15µ into a thermal signature. It never falls below the 220°K black body. How is that trapping any heat? The temperature at that level isn’t 220°K, it is in fact cooler. CO2’s band makes it look like it is actually warmer than it is. In fact, it isn’t trapping heat, it makes it look like it is emitting more heat than is actually there, in other words, CO2 looks to be cooling the atmosphere when you get below 220°K. Please help me understand this paradox.comment image

Reply to  co2islife
August 21, 2016 9:08 am

The CO2 is cooling the atmosphere, the 15 micron band includes emissions from stratospheric CO2 which is above 220K. The IR vibrations at 15 microns have nothing to do with a temperature of 220K, that wavelength is amply emitted by a BB at 300K, as shown in the graph above about 3X more than at 220K. You appear to misunderstand Wien’s Law.

Carla
August 17, 2016 6:47 pm

lsvalgaard August 15, 2016 at 9:41 pm
Any time the background density increases, so does the density of re accelarated particles by the supersonic solar wind back into the heliosphere
They are accelerated OUT of the heliosphere. Not into it.
________________________________
Dr. S., with all due respect, through charge exchange and corotating interaction regions (CIRs) particles due get reaccelerated back in. Not everything goes out. Gravitational Focusing Cone.
This is a clear case of, INNEY vs OUTY!
And then there is this, something new and something old.
Physicists confirm possible discovery of fifth force of nature
August 15, 2016
…The UCI work demonstrates that instead of being a dark photon, the particle may be a “protophobic X boson.” While the normal electric force acts on electrons and protons, this newfound boson interacts only with electrons and neutrons – and at an extremely limited range. Analysis co-author Timothy Tait, professor of physics & astronomy, said, “There’s no other boson that we’ve observed that has this same characteristic. Sometimes we also just call it the ‘X boson,’ where ‘X’ means unknown.”
Feng noted that further experiments are crucial. “The particle is not very heavy, and laboratories have had the energies required to make it since the ’50s and ’60s,” he said. “But the reason it’s been hard to find is that its interactions are very feeble. That said, because the new particle is so light, there are many experimental groups working in small labs around the world that can follow up the initial claims, now that they know where to look.”
Like many scientific breakthroughs, this one opens entirely new fields of inquiry.
One direction that intrigues Feng is the possibility that this potential fifth force might be joined to the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces as “manifestations of one grander, more fundamental force.”…
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicists-discovery-nature.html
Why do so many people think that our variable star should have precise cycles? Cyclomania?
Did I see you mention that the Northern Polar field is finally mounting in strength? Makes my pet theory (hobby) even more fun when the sun does this kinda stuff!

Reply to  Carla
August 17, 2016 7:04 pm

Dr. S., with all due respect, through charge exchange and corotating interaction regions (CIRs) particles due get reaccelerated back in. Not everything goes out. Gravitational Focusing Cone.
Once the atoms are ionized by charge exchange, they are immediately accelerated out by the solar wind. The Focusing Cone worsk for neutral particles, and the electric force is 10..000 [36 zeroes] stronger than the puny gravitational forces. Nothing ionized are moving inwards. I am tired of saying the same thing over and over.

Carla
August 17, 2016 7:31 pm

Well that puny gravitational force, produces an upwind crescent at 1AU and a downwind focusing cone. I believe it was the STEREO spacecraft providing data for that. And others….
Don’t want to bum you out, glad your here at the WUWT site. We need more of your kind.
Hopefully I can spend some time with this (below)..my homework assignment for the past month. That new job thing, suppressing me.
Multitasking New Horizons observed solar wind changes on journey to Pluto
April 5, 2016
In addition to its history-making encounter with Pluto last July, the New Horizons spacecraft also recorded significant changes in how the solar wind behaves far from the Sun.
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-multitasking-horizons-solar-journey-pluto.html#nRlv
NEW HORIZONS SOLAR WIND AROUND PLUTO (SWAP) OBSERVATIONS OF
THE SOLAR WIND FROM 11-33 AU
H. A. Elliott1, D. J. McComas1,2, P. Valek1,2, G. Nicolaou3, S. Weidner1, and G.Livadiotis1
Abstract
The Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP) instrument on NASA’s New Horizon Pluto
mission has collected solar wind observations en route from Earth to Pluto, and these
observations continue beyond Pluto. Few missions have explored the solar wind in the outer
heliosphere making this dataset a critical addition to the field. We created a forward model of
SWAP count rates, which includes a comprehensive instrument response function based on
laboratory and flight calibrations. By fitting the count rates with this model, the proton density
(n), speed (V), and temperature (T) parameters are determined. Comparisons between SWAP
parameters and both propagated 1 AU observations and prior Voyager 2 observations indicate
consistency in both the range and mean wind values. These comparisons as well as our additional
findings confirm that small and midsized solar wind structures are worn down with increasing
distance due to dynamic interaction of parcels of wind with different speed. For instance, the TV
relationship steepens, as the range in V is limited more than the range in T with distance. At
times the T-V correlation clearly breaks down beyond 20 AU, which may indicate wind
currently expanding and cooling may have an elevated T reflecting prior heating and
compression in the inner heliosphere. The power of wind parameters at shorter periodicities
decreases with distance as the longer periodicities strengthen. The solar rotation periodicity is
present in temperature beyond 20 AU indicating the observed parcel temperature may reflect not
only current heating or cooling, but also heating occurring closer to the Sun
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1601/1601.07156.pdf
Long May You Run, Dr. S.

Reply to  Carla
August 17, 2016 7:55 pm

Well that puny gravitational force, produces an upwind crescent at 1AU and a downwind focusing cone
The upwind crescent is formed by solar wind acting on the ions, not by the gravitational influence. The focusing cone is formed by neutral atoms and will as they come closer to the sun be ionized and then immediately swept out of the solar system. Nothing reaches the sun that can influence solar activity. You are flinging about words and concepts you do not understand. nor using correctly.
Now, a century ago there where some people believing that matter falling into the sun was responsible for solar activity [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots.pdf ]. Today we [with the exception of you ] know better.

Carla
August 17, 2016 8:11 pm

Clears throat, ehhhh ehhhh errrr.
I do recommend that that you read the above article Dr. S.
Good night.

Reply to  Carla
August 17, 2016 8:20 pm

Of course the solar wind undergoes heating, compression and lots of dynamic effects in the inner heliosphere. All of those are well-known and are not in any way caused by what happens in the outer heliosphere. The observations at Pluto simply show that our understanding of the supersonic wind is good enough to give us a good picture of what to observe at Pluto.
For example: “These comparisons as well as our additional findings confirm that small and midsized solar wind structures are worn down with increasing distance due to dynamic interaction of parcels of wind with different speed” just as theory and past observations have shown.
.

Reply to  Carla
August 17, 2016 9:13 pm

Here you can see how the Focusing Cone works:
http://www.leif.org/research/He-Focusing-Cone.png
Neutral Helium atoms are bend by solar gravity into orbits [black dashed lines] that brings them closer to the Sun’s equator where the solar wind is denser and the corotating interaction regions are more prevalent. On their way the He atoms are ionized and then immediately grabbed by the expanding solar wind and swept out of the solar system. The Cone is not stuff coming in, but stuff going out.
I hope you can understand [and accept] the process.

Carla
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 17, 2016 9:22 pm

lsvalgaard August 17, 2016 at 9:13 pm
Here you can see how the Focusing Cone works:
_______________________________
Thanks Dr. S., good to see you are on this.
The Focusing Cone is on the ‘downwind’ side of the sun.
The ‘upwind’ Crescent is well on the UPWIND side of the sun. Also, having increased enhancements that Earth orbits in. Downwind cone in December. Upwind crescent varies of the summer months. As do the streams themselves, vary.
Tired, good night.

Reply to  Carla
August 17, 2016 10:27 pm

The upwind crescent [just as the Focusing Cone] is also swept out of the solar system. Nothing reaches the Sun. The upwind crescent consists of Pick-Up Ions [PUIs] and are thus charged and hence grabbed forcefully by the outward flowing solar wind and strongly swept out of the solar system. The process is exactly the same as for the Cone, except that the neutral atoms are headed straight for the Sun and don’t get deflected to get to the ‘backside’ [the downwind side]. Two maxima in the time series of the PUI count rate are expected during the year: one upwind (crescent), and the other one downwind (cone). The longitudes of the cone and crescent peaks are indicators of the direction of the interstellar gas flow in front of the heliosphere. The physics is the same: incoming stuff is ionized by the solar emissions and then immediately swept right back out of the heliosphere, thus not influencing solar activity. It as actually the other way around: solar activity changes the solar wind, so changes the PUI counts. It is amazing that you will not see this. It shows how strong self-imposed bias in favor of a given view [wrong in this case] can be.

Carla
August 18, 2016 7:30 pm

Why is the solar corona (atmosphere) hotter, hotter, than the solar surface?
A form of accretion, that reaches the outer atmosphere perhaps, Dr. S. ?
Magnetic reconnection takes on many different forms. As I know, you know.
Images/models on page 2 look just like our suns focusing cone.
MRI-driven Accretion onto Magnetized stars: Axisymmetric
MHD Simulations
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1089v1.pdf
M. M. Romanova,1?, G. V. Ustyugova,2y, A. V. Koldoba2, R. V. E. Lovelace 1;3
Comet Lovejoy revisisted for this occasion. Just to remind YOU that gets in and stuff gets out.
INNIE vs OUTIE
https://youtu.be/X2Yqp-veSpI?t=1m24s

Reply to  Carla
August 18, 2016 7:52 pm

Why is the solar corona (atmosphere) hotter, hotter, than the solar surface?
A form of accretion, that reaches the outer atmosphere perhaps, Dr. S. ?

No, because of upwards traveling waves that break in the ever thinner corona, just like a bullwhip cracks at the tip by waves traveling out from the hand holding the thick part.
Nothing coming in has any measurable effect on the Sun.
May I also remind you that the solar tail is offset by the Interstellar Magnetic Field pressures.
Again, nothing that happens way out there has any influence on solar activity because of the supersonic outward expanding solar wind.
You simply cannot let your illusions go, it seems.

Carla
August 18, 2016 7:42 pm

May I also remind you that the solar tail is offset by the Interstellar Magnetic Field pressures. Means Ol Sol’s magnetic field on the downwind tail side is also offset. Off set off set.

Verified by MonsterInsights