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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Illusions..that are being fed and fueled by articles such as the one below.
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
You should be happy, that I don’t think that the solar cycle has anything to do with the alignment of Neptune and Uranus?
Which describes a protostar in the process of forming. Not at all similar to the solar situation.
And as the paper concludes “We find that a rotating, magnetically-dominated corona forms above and below the disk, and that it slowly expands outward, driven by the magnetic force” and “Close to the star the disk is stopped by the magnetic pressure of the magnetosphere.
Thus the magnetism of the star makes sure that the corona is driven outwards. This is called a ‘stellar wind’.
You should really try to understand the paper you dredge up, and not just automatically see a few words here and there seemingly feeding your illusion.
lsvalgaard August 18, 2016 at 8:07 pm
Which describes a protostar in the process of forming. Not at all similar to the solar situation.
_____________________________
Yes, I am guilty of skimming the article. But…so were you…
…However, there
are many stars which have dynamically important magnetic
fields. These include young, Classical T Tauri stars (hereafter
CTTSs; e.g., Bouvier et al. 2005), some types of white dwarfs,
and neutron stars in binary systems (e.g., Warner 2004; Van
der Klis 2000). In these stars, the magnetic field is strong
enough to stop the disk at radii larger than the radius of
the star. Many observational properties are determined by the
processes at the disk-magnetosphere boundary….
Got to get re organized here .. domestically.
You have a new article posted at your research site again, Dr. S. Hope I can get to it, before the weekend is gone.
But…so were you…
Not at all. This is my field. I’m very much aware of stellar magnetism.
there are many stars which have dynamically important magnetic fields. These include young, Classical T Tauri stars, some types of white dwarfs, and neutron stars in binary systems
None of these are sun-like and cannot be compared with the situation in the solar system. One more time:
Nothing that happens in the heliosphere can influence solar activity. The supersonic solar wind sweeps everything magnetic or charged out of the system.
Just seen in the science subset of a french newspaper:
http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/hiatt/Images/Sun_activity_correlation.gif
Exactly.
That result makes sense to you?
Absolutely. It shows [as is otherwise also evident] that solar activity is not the cause of recent warming.
Yes Henry it makes sense, and not only to me. What certainly makes less sense is to build a “theory” on the observation of a few weather stations.
54 stations = a few?
Yes Henry. For many people, even 7,280 GHCN stations are “a few”.
the problem with those data sets of 7200 + stations is that they are not properly balanced by lat. and long. and 70/30 @sea /inland
if you want to exclude longitude you must rather look at the rate of change in K/annum/annum
i.e. the acceleration / deceleration of warming
it shows a curve like that of a ball thrown by someone.
11 stations around you is already enough to tell you what is happening in your area
[no “warming” here]
You actually believe the temperature “data”?
no I don/t believe any of the official data sets
it is either faulty – due to the scorching sun –
or it has been fiddled with, to suit “the agenda’
Thanks. My question was for Bindi.
The science fictional series that he used is a blatant fraud.
Which data do you mean?
The utterly fictitious garbage upon which your graph is based.
No response needed to such garbage-like meaning.
I’ll never answer any of your ridiculous comments again.
If you actually have any real interest in what is garbage and what not, compare NCAR’s temperature series for before 1975, as published in 1977, with its coverage of the same interval now.
The “data” are nothing but man-made lies.
And compare post-1979 in satellite observations with the cooked books for “surface temperature” in GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT. Packs of lies.
And compare post-1979 in satellite observations with the cooked books for “surface temperature” in GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT. Packs of lies.
If you overlay the plot by the RSS satellite data [green], the match is reasonably good, so the ‘data’ is not so far off:
http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-vs-Solar-Activity.png
So, you might go sparingly on the vitriol…
You left off the other part of my statement, ie how the corrupt gatekeepers have cooked the pre-1977 books.
GASTA cooled dramatically from the 1940s to the 1970s, despite steadily increasing CO2. But the crooked, public trough-feeding bureaucrats at NASA, NOAA and HadCRUT every year flatten that deep dip. Same as their comrades in the BLS cook the economic data.
There is not vitriol enough in all of civilization to excoriate these criminals who have cost humanity millions of lives and trillions in treasure.
You left off the other part of my statement, ie how the corrupt gatekeepers have cooked the pre-1977 books.
You already knew [or claimed] that? Didn’t you?
Anyway, before 1977 the red and the blue curve are not too different, so you could still uphold the illusion that the temperature simply followed the energy we get from that big heat lamp in the sky. After 1977, they red and the blue curve do no longer track each other, so that comfortable explanation evidently has been contradicted by the data [satellite (green)].
It hasn’t been contradicted. Valid observations however show that the sun might not be the whole climatic story, just as the Carbonari have been forced increasingly to appeal the poorly understood “natural variability”.
The main point is that NASA, NOAA, the Met and HadCRU are not to be trusted. As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” And that goes double or triple for government experts, as opposed to those in industry.
Ike warned us:
https://www.aaas.org/news/after-50-years-eisenhower%E2%80%99s-warnings-against-scientific-elite-still-cause-consternation
It hasn’t been contradicted
Of course it has:
1) the red and the green curves agree, hence if the satellite data are any good, so is the red curve.
2) Since the red and the blue curves agree pretty well before 1977, we can state that the Sun could be an important element for the climate [does not mean it is, the agreement could just be coincidence].
3) since the blue and the red [and green] curves disagree very much after 1977, we can state that the Sun apparently is not</b. an important driver [at least not for the time when we have satellite data].
4) all of this could just be random coincidences and we have no idea what is going on.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2017/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2017/trend/plot/uah-land/from:1980
I am showing you the trend from 1980 where solar activity has peaked is going down and T is going up. Seems like +0.45 K i.e. 0.4/35 = 0.013K /annum
now my means results showed
0.013K/annum from 1980 [which is not a bad match?]
0.014 K/annum from 1990 [not so bad either]
-0.015K/annum from 2000 [ complete mismatch]
now if there were any man made global warming at all it show in my minima results, but it does not…..
there is no room for it my equation?
@Ulric
there is good to very good correlation between the positions of certain planets and
1) bending points on the GB sine wave
2) change of sign [from warming to cooling and vice versa]
3) my own data sets on Tmax, Tmin and Tmean
4) ozone concentration [Arosa, Suisse]
5) solar polar magnetic field strengths
6) the flooding of the Nile
7) Tmax. Alaska
I have myself puzzled on what the reason for this could be and I am thinking it must be to do with the mass of these planets and the speed by which they are moving which must give you a considerable centrifugal force that caused the 1927-1971-2014 double pole switches and pulls the electrical switch, to let the “heat go out on the other side” so to speak
the correlation is there,
like I said, at least 6 factors
but one could wonder if the relationship is causal, i.e.
do the positions of the planets have an influence on what happens on the sun or do they happen to be there exactly on those places because of what happens/happened on the sun?
speaking of puzzles…..
https://astronomynow.com/2016/08/08/kepler-finds-tabbys-star-is-mysteriously-dimming/