Guest essay by David Archibald
One of the most accurate ways of predicting the amplitude of the next solar cycle is to derive it from the strength of the solar polar fields at solar minimum. And you don’t have to wait for solar minimum. An accurate assessment can be made four years before minimum, which is where we are at the moment. This graphic shows the last 40 years of solar polar field strength data:
Figure 1: Solar Polar Field Strength 1976 – 2016 (source Wilcox Solar Observatory)
And this graph shows that data averaged and all converted to a positive sign:
Figure 2: Solar Minima relative to Solar Polar Field Strength 1976 – 2016
It is evident from Figure 2 that solar polar field strength has an early peak and then relaxes by an average of 12 units to solar minimum before falling away. The recent peak value was 53 in 2016. Therefore the field strength is likely to be 40 at the 24/25 solar minimum. How that value translates to peak amplitude of Solar Cycle 25 is shown in the following graphic:
Figure 3: Deriving peak amplitude of the following cycle
A monthly smoothed maximum sunspot number of 62 is derived for Solar Cycle 25. This would probably be around 2025. This is almost down to Dalton Minimum levels.
In terms of other interesting aspects of solar behaviour, the F10.7 flux has settled into a narrow range:
Figure 4: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016
The F10.7 has been in a narrow range over the last two months and is now only just above the immutable floor of activity of 64, though it may be three years to solar minimum.
Figure 5: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2016
The neutron flux caused by galactic cosmic rays is at a rate equivalent to that three years prior to the 23/24 solar minimum. Skies should be getting cloudier according to Svensmark’s theory which will ameliorate the Earth’s “fever.”.
My prediction for the peak sunspot number of Cycle 25 is a monthly count of 62.
David Archibald’s next book is American Gripen: The Solution To The F-35 Nightmare.
This will probalbly lead to another thread on the effect of solar cycles on climate.
Queue the peleton…
Will be interesting to see how the global temps respond over the next couple of years. Thanks for the update.
My guess is up. Way way up.
It’s only a matter of time before they have to put the ‘fix’ in on those pesky satellite temperatures so they can finally match the models and get that global CO2 cap/tax in place. What happened at RSS was a bad harbinger of things to come.
RSS are already modifying their satellite temps toward the model predictions, as I understand
RSS and UAH temp series have had multiple adjustments…
And adjustments are bad, right?
I see Griff has finally gotten over his terminal case of embarrassment. Too bad he didn’t learn anything from it.
For once Griff, stop lying about what others have said. No one ever said that adjustments per se were bad.
What is bad are adjustments for which no justification is given and the methods behind them remain secret.
I would ask if you understand the difference, but we both know you are paid to not understand.
Well, temps rose during the period 2008 to 2015 when solar output, already low, was dropping…
That’s only true if you make the mistake of treating El Nino as climate instead of weather.
But then, any lie to support your religion is your style.
Griff, you are not qualified to speak or instruct on this subject. You cannot even read a chart.
Go back to lurking.
So the sun is dim, but the temp keeps rising?
As old Prof Julius Sumner Miller would say – “why is it so?”
“but the temp keeps rising?”
No they don’t.
Apart for the recent El Nino transient, which was an ocean COOLING event, there has been no warming this century.
I actually concede that the planet has incrementally been warming. It’s what to expect in an interglacial phase.
Manmade CO2 contribution to rising temps? Meh.
The National Geographic magazine begs to differ…
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure_files/image012.jpg
Unfortunately it started during the 1920’s before they knew how to adjust data properly…
There’s a bigger, more readable version of that National Geographic graph near the end of the article, here:
http://sealevel.info/NatGeo_1976-11_whats_happening_to_our_climate/
How would you like to have studied for many years, got your PhD and your reward is to work at the Oz BoM where you spend your days for the rest of your life tweaking and falsifying data to satisfy the priests of the Climate Cult? What a pathetic job!
Dear Mick,
I would suggest you read the previous article on Watts Up With That, titled “Homogenization of Temperature Data” I think that answers your question quite well
I follow Jennifer Marohasy’s investigations assiduously, and agree with her conclusions about the perfidy of the BoM.
The climategate emails laid bare just what “tricks” the chiefs there were prepared to pull in order to obscure and obfuscate open access to met records.
Likely the same effect that causes the Shortest day of the year, the winter solstice (today) NOT to be the coldest day of the year and that also causes the warmest day of the year several weeks after the longest day of the year
Jan 20. Usually considered to be climate mid winter
The 1st day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere is determined by the overhead or zenith position of the Sun being at its farthest latitude south of the equator in the Southern Hemisphere.
December 21st is therefore the day of the year that the Northern Hemisphere receives the least amount of Solar irradiance (heat energy), which makes it the shortest day of the year and also the 1st day of Winter in the Northern Hemisphere.
But just because the Northern Hemisphere’s month of December receives the least amount of Solar irradiance of any month during the year doesn’t mean that it also the coldest month of the year …… because it certainly is not the coldest month.
The coldest part of the Northern Hemisphere wintertime normally occurs between mid-January and mid-February, …… which is like 30 to 45 days after the Solar irradiance of the NH began increasing.
And likewise, June 21st is therefore the day of the year that the Northern Hemisphere receives the most amount of Solar irradiance (heat energy), which makes it the longest day of the year and also the 1st day of Summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
But just because the Northern Hemisphere’s month of June receives the most amount of Solar irradiance of any month during the year doesn’t mean that it also the hottest month of the year …… because it certainly is not the hottestest month.
The hottest part of the Northern Hemisphere summertime normally occurs between mid-July and mid-August, …… which is like 30 to 45 days after the Solar irradiance of the NH began decreasing.
Anyone care to explain that seeming abnormal “delay” in/of thermal activity?
Thermal inertia.
“Anyone care to explain that seeming abnormal “delay” in/of thermal activity?”
Actually it is pretty simple. For the NH, as daylight hours get longer after the vernal equinox the balance of energy in vs energy out increases. While it peaks at the summer solstice, the reality is that there is still more energy in than energy out each day until the autumnal equinox so heating still continues through September. That is why the oceans are warmest in Sep and the peak ice melt in the Arctic is in Sep. Visa versa for cooling from the autumnal equinox to the vernal equinox.
Tom in Florida – December 22, 2016 at 7:27 pm
Tom, me thinks that was pretty much an exactly right answer …… and t’was the answer that I sure was hoping someone would respond with.
And Tom, we shouldn’t be overlooking the fact that your above comment is also “Visa versa” for the seasonal changes in the Southern Hemisphere. Therefore, the cooling of the SH ocean waters still continues through September, …… and like you stated above, ….. the reason why the SH oceans are coolest in Sep.
And Tom, the next scientific fact to be considered is that the surface area of the Southern Hemisphere is 80.9% water, …… whereas the surface area of the Northern Hemisphere is only 60.7% water, ……. which means there is a 20.2% greater water surface area in the Southern Hemisphere …… that is subjected to “seasonal warming & cooling temperatures” ….. and …. ”seasonal ingassing & outgassing CO2” (as per Henry’s Law)
And that is EXACTLY what one sees via the Keeling Curve Graph, to wit:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
Mike Lewis
1930s were hotter than today.
But you wouldn’t know that from the cooked data.
From Climate Audit:
The 1930s are getting Colder:
https://climateaudit.org/2007/02/15/ushcn-versions/
This is skullduggery of the highest order. They are talking in tenths of degrees here and how you would know that 1934 should have been 54 .54 when all along we thought it was 54.91. Wow and 1999 just picked up an incredible.08 of a degree.
Incredible indeed. Gee I hope Trump Trumps these jerks.
The oceans make the last move.
With the temporary exception of the recent El Nino, the temperatures haven’t risen for almost 20 years.
Notch Theory?
I know there are solar cycles as described in this post, and I know there are solar clImate models. But I don’t think the next couple of decades can link the two convincingly, because multiple lines of evidence point to a ~65 year full cycle of natural climate variation driven by oceans (PDO, AMO, …) that happens to be a bit into a net down/cold phase like from ~1945-1975. Correlation if it occurs is not causation.
William Herschel noticed a correlation between wheat prices and sunspots and people have been trying use sunspots to predict the climate ever since. 🙂
commieBob December 21, 2016 at 1:41 pm
Trying unsuccessfully to use sunspots, as unsuccessfully as Herschel.
w.
For some reason that reminds me of: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story”.
Check out http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0312244
Not paywalled.
Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
Lev A. Pustilnik, Gregory Yom Din
(Submitted on 9 Dec 2003)
The database of Prof. Rogers (1887), which includes wheat prices in England in the Middle Ages, was used to search for a possible influence of solar activity on the wheat market. We present a conceptual model of possible modes for sensitivity of wheat prices to weather conditions, caused by solar cycle variations, and compare expected price fluctuations with price variations recorded in medieval England.
We compared statistical properties of the intervals between wheat price bursts during years 1249-1703 with statistical properties of the intervals between minimums of solar cycles during years 1700-2000. We show that statistical properties of these two samples are similar, both for characteristics of the distributions and for histograms of the distributions. We analyze a direct link between wheat prices and solar activity in the 17th Century, for which wheat prices and solar activity data (derived from 10Be isotope) are available. We show that for all 10 time moments of the solar activity minimums the observed prices were higher than prices for the correspondent time moments of maximal solar activity (100% sign correlation, on a significance level < 0.2%). We consider these results as a direct evidence of the causal connection between wheat prices bursts and solar activity.
I’m curious to see what happens to ocean heat content as a result of the solar decline. The effective time lag (ocean heat content warming the atmosphere) may be beyond my lifetime (+- 30 years) but maybe there will be a compelling theory introduced before then that will link the two. Since water has a much greater heat capacity than air, I’m inclined to believe the oceans play a much larger role in our weather/climate than that pesky CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.
Even James Hansen admits that you are correct.
Rud,
The 100-year solar cycle is very clear and has also a very clear effect on temperatures. However the present minimum is the least pronounced of the last four, and therefore its effect on temperatures will be the lowest. But you can kiss goodbye to global warming for the next couple of decades.
http://i.imgur.com/j2hbCiv.png
There is a stunning trend evident here, and it is becoming the harbinger of a climate pattern that will have severe consequences.
In years to come, the “Global Warming” mantra proponents will be seen as we now view 18th-century blood letters. I could say more, lots more, but readers of this weblog can fill in the rest quite nicely!
I couldn’t agree more. I have been attempting to convince the wonderful socialist government in Alberta, Canada, that their “Climate Action” plans are a complete waste of the taxpayers money. I liken the current
Global Warming” paranoia to the “witch hunt of our generation”.
And all I get in response is:
1. Dead silence (usually);
2. Canned response on how they are saving the planet (see witch hunt above).
The neutron count looks like an inverse of temperature. Complete with the sudden drop 0.5 C and an increase in neutron count.
So does this mean that I should not buy more sun screen?
… depends on location –
More if closer to earth’s poles because of the increased radiation due to the reduced magnetosphere of the sun protecting us.
Less at lower latitudes since more clouds.
I understand the the Polar Ocean Challenge last summer took a lot of sunscreen on their Arctic expedition before they got stuck in the ice trying to observe global warming and needed it for fuel to stay warm waiting for icebreakers to rescue them, same could theoretically apply closer to tropics as emergency fuel. From a historical perspective,there was a lot of coal burning where John Dalton lived and he did not have a need for any sunscreen due to soot. Walter and Annie Maunder spent much of their time at night in the Greenwich Royal Observatory and also had little use for sunscreen,
Hey, that reminds me; what happened to that gimp, Alex Bellini, who was going to live on an iceberg? Anyone know?
I remember similar claims being made about a decade ago when it was apparent that Solar Cycle 24 was going to be much weaker than previous cycles. David Archibald, himself, produced ‘papers’ in which he predicted a 2 deg temperature decline over the course of SC24.
If you’re confident of a cooler climate in the next decade or so then I suggest you contact James Annan about making a bet on this eventuality. He should have a bit of money to play with after he collects his winnings from the 2 Russian scientists who foolishly bet him that, because of the downturn in solar activity, 2012-2017 would be cooler than 1998-2003.
I love the fact you remember what I was doing a decade ago to protect Western Civilisation from the evil greenies and you take the effort to remind everyone of that fact. So I have may have been wrong in a case of degree but I got the direction right and if I helped stop one self-loathing fool from closing a coal-fired power station, then my efforts were not in vain. I expect Scott Pruitt to commission a report on climate science which will say there is nothing to worry about from CO2, as there isn’t. Then the whole business about consensus and established science will be on the other foot. For my part, I have gone on to geostrategic issues and defense matters. Instead of doing solar and climate science as a hobby, my main hobby now is terminating major defense projects that have gone bad, starting with the F-35.
Ah, the F-35 has only cost about $400 billion or so. What’s a few hundred billion more among friends. 🙂
I got the direction right
Not at all. 2016 and 2015 were the warmest in a long time.
I helped stop one self-loathing fool from closing a coal-fired power station, then my efforts were not in vain.
So, your argument was: since CO2 is such a strong GHG and the Sun is getting so much colder, we need all the coal-fired power stations we can get to belch out as much CO2 as possible to offset the deadly cooling the Sun will cause.
Right? I see no other [reasonable] way of interpreting your boast.
Dr Svalgaard, now you are verballing. We all know that the heatiness of C02 falls away rapidly from 20 ppm, at 400 ppm it is very slight to the point of being inconsequential. When we dig up all the rocks we can burn, and burn them, that will only be another 200 ppm and 0.2 degrees C. Lost in the noise of the system. I will put up another post on this whole topic to help you understand. In the meantime, the extra aerial fertilizer from the CO2 is the best form of aid to the Third World. We should all remember the good we are doing.
You are avoiding the issue by babbling.
Let me recapitulate for you:
1) you are proud that you have prevented the closure of coal-fired power plants
2) they produce CO2, so you are proud you have contributed to less CO2 being produced
3) you were predicting extreme cooling
4) you are proud you prevented that cooling by causing more CO2 to be produced
5) or: you were just being incoherent and we shouldn’t pay any attention to your utterances
Now, which of those 5 are true and which are false?
Dr Svalgaard, Why do you need incoherent babbling when you are producing plenty yourself. Coal-fired plants produce CO2 as you say, so if you keep one going then more CO2 is produced, not less. Perhaps all your hate of CO2 over the last ten years and more has been misplaced because of a basic misunderstanding.
Indeed, point 2) was mistyped. Should have been
2) they produce CO2, so you are proud you have contributed to more CO2 being produced
But you still evaded a straight answer to my comment. Try now.
Nah, I’ve got bored.
@ John Finn
December 21, 2016 at 1:38 pm: Hold your horses there- SC24 is still going, untainted T data is dropping….. and there should be plenty of SC24 left yet.
More good news. When Scott Pruitt kills the global warming religion, what is going to fill the vacuum so created in lefty brains? Something will. Whatever it is, it could be more malevolent that global warming. Such a matter should not be left to chance. So I have taken it upon myself do formulate a new religion for the likes of John Finn. To that end I have acquired a copy of “The Golden Bough” by John Frazer. First published in 1890, it is a comparative study of belief systems including all the pre-Christian pagan ones. Hopefully there will be enough bits and pieces from ancient animist practices for a new and harmless belief system to be put together.
I have postulated, as you do here, that there will need to be The Next Big Thing (TNBT). The biggest mistake in the Global Warming scam was that there was actual data from actual phenomenon that could be measured and experienced. Predictions to be made, against which results could be compared. This simply won’t do. The TNBT will need to be something that can be used as a boogeyman, but impossible to measure without being special in some way, as in a palm reader or other carnival psychic type. The first person who thinks up a good one can rule the world. God is already taken, as is Nibiru.
DA does not know whereof he speaks.
The best estimate of the polar fields is from the HMI magnetograph on our satellite SDO:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Polar-Fields.png updated yesterday [see also: http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/ ]. The real North polar field is still increasing.
The Wilcox observations have an annual variation and the North pole is now disappearing behind the solar limb so the field is artificially too low [as happens every year]. The South pole has stabilized and the annual variation is now clearly defined:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
A similar difference between hemispheres also happened in 2003, when the North pole showed the annual variation while the South did not. We should wait until next year to see where the North polar fields end up, as described in http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Cycle 25 will probably be a bit stronger than SC24. Perhaps SSN = 125.
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Polar-Fields.png
Damn WordPress;
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Polar-Fields-now.png
Damn WordPress
I could not have said it more clearly.
I wonder how many will argue with you about this.
Hi Leif. Happy holidays to you and yours.
Cheers.
Bob
And one cannot update a plot. So let me change the name a bit:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-Since-2003.png
This is a severe flaw in WordPress.
One more freaking time:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-2003-2016.png
To take the difference between North and South only makes sense when both fields have stabilized. So let’s wait until late next year to make a firm prediction. But so far, SC25 does not look weaker than SC24, probably a bit stronger.
Yes, Anthony has commented on this a number of times
“But so far, SC25 does not look weaker than SC24, probably a bit stronger.” If that is so, would you like to elaborate on how that strengthiness is manifesting itself?
There is a lot of positive flux at lower latitudes still waiting to make it to the pole, so the North polar field will increase significantly resulting in a larger dipole moment and hence a larger cycle. Of course, this is still guesswork, but at least well-founded guesswork.
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Synoptic-View-2016.png
Isvalgaard, as much as it runs counter to what I think, you might be right. So I’m not arguing. I’m just going to watch. This solar cycle may not be what some of us were expecting. You’ve made your case, at least to me. I think we can learn a lot from this upcoming solar cycle.
As for remaining north polar magnetic flux that Leif points out, a SC24′ (prime), like the postulated SC4′ that led into the Dalton needs to be considered. Not saying that what it is, but it needs consideration.
That small patch of blue won’t make it to the pole in time, or have much effect when it gets there.
The movement of flux can be modeled successfully which shows that indeed the North pole will strengthen, as it has over the past several months. You see, there is a difference between science and your wishful thinking.
Thanks for the prediction.
Some more material for you:
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-Solar-Cycles.pdf
If the umbral magnetic field decays below 2000 gauss by 2020 that will make SSN metrics unreliable. F10.7 will still tell whats happening underneath the photosphere. Too much emphasis on SSN.
BTW: Science mag has good (open access I think) expose on a paper that will come out in January as to mechanics of why the solar skin spins more slowly than the convection layer beneath.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/sun-s-surface-spins-more-slowly-rest-star-may-be-why
Cool stuff.
When you’re a carpenter, you hammer nails.
When your a sunspot counter, you count spots.
It’s what you do.
The Sunspot Number is not the best metric. The Group number is:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf
Nicely put. I’ll set out my lawn chair and wait.
Happy holidays, Leif.
“My prediction for the peak sunspot number of Cycle 25 is a monthly count of 62.”
That could use some added context. I gather this is a valid monthly count chart for the last 250 years:
http://spaceodyssey.dmns.org/media/13471/sunspot-number.png
So you are predicting cycle 25 will be lowest since the early 1800’s.
A bold prediction indeed. If so, it will be very interesting to see what the climate impacts are.
I know I read some hypothesis around 5 years ago that Svalbard as an example followed solar activity, but delayed around 12 years. It was the length of the solar cycle that I recall being well correlated with Svalbard temps. Since the current cycle has been so small, does that also mean it will be short? Same for cycle 25.
I gather this is a valid monthly count chart for the last 250 years
It is not. This is:
http://www.sidc.be/images/wolfaml.png
So Leif…
using your graphic, and your prediction of 125 for ss25.. It seems that other than ss24, it will be the weakest Solar cycle since 1900?
SC14 was lower still. So, since 1900 we shall have three very low cycles: SC14, SC24, and perhaps SC25.
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycles1_24.png
Anyone else hear there is a wave of gamma radiation from a magnetar due to pass through on December 25th, much like the one that passed by on Dec 27th, 2004? That even took place one day after the major Sumatra earthquake.
I ask because there is no predictive ability in knowing when galactic or cosmic waves will hit us right?
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/570863/starquake-magnetar-earth-boxing-day-earthquakes-tsunamis
Is this what you’re thinking of? 🙂
Ok that’s what I thought, no one knows when these waves will pass with current knowledge.
How would we know of a lightspeed event before it arrives? Albert is laughing somewhere.
Crying and sobbing is more likely ….
Leif,
Undoubtedly that is the better assessment of Einstein. I stand corrected.
Entanglement
Rish,
That’s spooky….
RWturner :watch the first 38 min where he explains the 2004 plasma wave caused the major Sumatra earthquake
.Oct 6, 2009
Dr Paul LaViolette is the measured counterpart to Patrick Geryl, whose interview we have released simultaneously. A brilliant and maverick astrophysicist, Paul is best known for his research into a new theory of matter he calls Subquantum Kinetics – based on systems theory, which he studied for his PhD thesis – and for his carefully argued hypothesis, first formulated in 1983, that our galactic center periodically emits devastating waves he termed superwaves.
Galactic superwaves are intense cosmic ray particle bombardments that originate from the center of our Galaxy, and that last for periods of up to a few thousand years. Paul explains that astronomical and geological evidence indicates that the last major superwave impacted our solar system around 12,000 to 16,000 years ago, and produced abrupt changes of the Earth’s climate.
Paul explains that less intense superwaves, which recur with considerable frequency, could also pose a threat. He cites evidence that the galactic center has erupted as many as ten times in the last 2,000 years, the most recent event occurring about 700 years ago. While these low intensity events could have passed unnoticed in earlier centuries, today they could be extremely hazardous. The EMP [electromagnetic pulse] accompanying such a superwave could knock out electrical power grids and communication networks on a global scale. Consequently, argues Paul, study of this phenomenon deserves a very high priority, and he founded The Starburst Foundation to do this.
Of some considerable interest is the testimony from our insider source Jake Simpson, who told us in October 2008 that there was a ‘wave’ coming – but that it would not arrive here for quite a few years: possibly around 2017-2020. When asked how he knew, his response was that highly advanced and classified superluminal [faster-then-light] craft had been out to “take a look”, and had then returned to report back with the information. Jake told us that the effect could either be cataclysmic, or “just a puff of wind”… and that exactly what would happen, and when, was simply not known.
RWturner , watch the first 38 min of this highly interesting and brilliant interview where Dr Laviolette links connection with climate change/ global cooling and the superwave /gravity wave/ gamma rays , he explains the 2004 Sumatra earthquake.
Dr Paul LaViolette is the measured counterpart to Patrick Geryl, whose interview we have released simultaneously. A brilliant and maverick astrophysicist, Paul is best known for his research into a new theory of matter he calls Subquantum Kinetics – based on systems theory, which he studied for his PhD thesis – and for his carefully argued hypothesis, first formulated in 1983, that our galactic center periodically emits devastating waves he termed superwaves.
Galactic superwaves are intense cosmic ray particle bombardments that originate from the center of our Galaxy, and that last for periods of up to a few thousand years. Paul explains that astronomical and geological evidence indicates that the last major superwave impacted our solar system around 12,000 to 16,000 years ago, and produced abrupt changes of the Earth’s climate.
The land animal extinction episode which occurred during this interval was the worst in several million years, and Paul estimates that approximately one or two superwaves strong enough to trigger an ice age are presently on their way to us from their birthplace at the galactic core… 23,000 light years away. Paul states that there is a real chance that one such event could arrive within the next few decades. Importantly – because they travel at the speed of light – we would not see them coming.
Paul explains that less intense superwaves, which recur with considerable frequency, could also pose a threat. He cites evidence that the galactic center has erupted as many as ten times in the last 2,000 years, the most recent event occurring about 700 years ago. While these low intensity events could have passed unnoticed in earlier centuries, today they could be extremely hazardous. The EMP [electromagnetic pulse] accompanying such a superwave could knock out electrical power grids and communication networks on a global scale. Consequently, argues Paul, study of this phenomenon deserves a very high priority, and he founded The Starburst Foundation to do this.
Of some considerable interest is the testimony from our insider source Jake Simpson, who told us in October 2008 that there was a ‘wave’ coming – but that it would not arrive here for quite a few years: possibly around 2017-2020. When asked how he knew, his response was that highly advanced and classified superluminal [faster-then-light] craft had been out to “take a look”, and had then returned to report back with the information. Jake told us that the effect could either be cataclysmic, or “just a puff of wind”… and that exactly what would happen, and when, was simply not known.
Of interest also is the anonymous testimony from a senior Electrical Engineer, whose wife contacted us in April 2009 to report an anticipated major breakdown of national power supplies a few years from now. These reports – and others (such as that from Dan Sherman) – all weave together to form an unsettling picture. While we have said separately that we do not agree with Patrick Geryl’s conclusions, it does seem that the Earth, and the human race, may possibly be in for a bit of a rough ride… from a number of different causes.
Ooooooo-eeeeeeee-ooooooooo!
I need another polar bear to keep me warm in my igloo, it is a three bear night.
Throw another log on the fire and crack open the Ménage à Trois.
If you like Ménage à Trois you might enjoy Bogle Essential Red
… and read Jack London’s short story, “To Build a Fire.”
The planet is cooling. Record low temperatures in both hemispheres since June 2015. All predicted by many, many respectable scientist. If another maunder minimum occurs you should know that in the last event it is estimated that one third of all humans died of starvation (crop failure) and cold. (It played a major roll in the French revolution. “Let them eat cake” because there was no bread, because there was no wheat.)
I note that crop failures are now happening all over (easily googled).
The planet is warming. Record high temperatures in both hemispheres since June 2015. All predicted by many, many respectable scientist.
The last below average month was February 1985.
This is what will probably happen in the next few years regardless of sunspot activity.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/mohippo/media/image/p/p/decadal_forecast_february_2016.jpg
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
Climate is always changing. So what? The story that CO2 causes it is only smoke and mirrors plus professional/political intimidation.
So, converting the Arctic from a frozen desert into a temperate ocean in a couple of decades is a “story” that is unlikely to have a happy ending.
As usual, no valid physical uncertainty bars, Tony. That makes UKMet’s modeling work physically meaningless. Just like all the other climate modeling by the consensus.
The arctic is a temperate ocean? Are you high or merely stupid?
The arctic is a temperate ocean
That’s not what I wrote. Are you an ignoramus or just drunk?
Frank, I don’t think it is totally meaningless. If you don’t like theirs guess what are your expectations for the coming few years?
Tony,
By every metric of volume and global effect, the 97-98 ElNino was larger and more disruptive than the 15-16 event.
Where is it on that chart. That anomaly is so bastardized and adjusted, if you trust it, the you are stupid.
As a clue, The GCM modellers do not use the adjusted temps (that that graph uses). They know better. They know the data corruption going on. They use raw, unadjusted temps to initialize their model runs.
“Where is it on that chart.”
Um, in 1998. Seems I’m stupid if I don’t agree with you and Paul…and who could argue with that.
@ tony mcleod
December 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm: MetOffice! – oh Tony, how sad to see such a noble mind o’erthrown…..
That is night time warming when plants are sleeping, not day time warming when they’re arguing ignorantly on climate blogs.
Chris, somewhere in a deep dark basement someone already knows, .. if that happens. They’ve messed around with this so much, that I am uncertain. Once, however, I was reasonable certain that within a solar cycle or 2 of cycle 23, we would be in a cooling trend. How deep or how long were unknowns. It could be different degrees ranging from mild with not much happening to severe and lasting a while. Actually I was very surprised at the deep and long duration of the previous minima. I had dropped out of this debate principally because the solar forecast was suppose to be more of the same. I had to be notified that the sun changed. Whatever the data, I don’t think the sun changing is in doubt. In the current modern period, we are in uncharted territory.
The other possibility is that they truly believe the stories they are telling, which is extremely scary for us as a species. I’ve seen that with nuclear energy. And they wonder why there are so many regulations. There is nothing wrong with nuclear energy, it’s the humans running it.
Australia had a bumper wheat crop this year, 35% more than the prior year. …http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-06/abares-december-crop-report/8078938
In an ElNino year as well.
Crop failures? Australia is having near record harvests, storage and transport issues serving the volume and prices are not fantastic due to high crop levels elsewhere. Where are all these failures of global impact? even when easily googling I didnt see them?
Global wheat crop this season just ending. Just sayin’…
Correction:
Global record wheat crop this season just ending. Just sayin’…
I think you protest too much Brett.
With Trump in charge, the climate change science is of no further interest to the ordinary mortals, even the academics with their research budgets drying up will have to go back and do honest day of work.
Is it sun? Is it CO2?
No one cares any longer stu..d !
..I hope you’re right
After 8 years of liberal doom and gloom about everything…
…I have a feeling most of the good news from now on will be a self-fulfilling prophecy
I hope you’re right too, but for the first time in a loooong time, there’s legitimate cause for optimism.
I think the economic engine is about to be fired up like it hasn’t in my lifetime.
Is it the number or the size of sunspots that is important ? let’s say 2 really big ones have more impact on earth than 40 small ones.
Would a Carrington-class Solar Superstorm have a cooling or warming effect ? Is it a coincidence that the Little Ice Age ended in the same time period ?
Would a Carrington-class Solar Superstorm have a cooling or warming effect
Such a storm is too transient and short-lived to have any lasting climate effect
And so what would kickstart the move into an ice age, even a little one?
A very large volcanic eruption, perhaps.
Saw an article that said Campi Flegrei was starting to wake up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4054208/Is-SUPERVOLCANO-Naples-blow-Campi-Flegrei-crater-shows-signs-reawakening.html
Michael,
A tilt angle of the Earth’s axis approaching 24deg would be my bet for building a Laurentide ice sheet.
The incremental reduction in Earth’s axis obliquity aided by the next cluster of Grand Solar Minima in about 2000 years. We are getting there.
http://i.imgur.com/1n9EY8W.png
I must have missed something. I was expecting the amplitude prediction for solar cycle 25? 62? as in graphical form, anyone can pull a number out of our ass and be close, I’ll go with 74.
More like 125, IMO.
One problem is the DA probably prefer the obsolete sunspot scale of Version 1.
Everybody should begin to use the new official scale, to avoid confusion:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/home
If I use the “new official scale”, I’d be in line with 125, this seems like a pretty high estimate, in context it’s a conservative estate, Interesting…
The facts are, the suns polar reversal has slowed down, cycle 25 in theory should have less sunspots, unless the speed and timing of the polarity reversal as it slows down, can produce a large amount of sunspot activity ten/eleven years from now, as always when the polarities are reversing across the equator, but lets say, the poles will move and reverse slower, and that the ‘solar circuit’ will not produce an el nino, not for another 22 years at this stage, we are left with only one fact, the suns polarity reversal causes various levels of sunspot activity when it reverses, the suns polarity, at times does not reverse.
What if the suns polarities didn’t reverse, I’m not saying they will not for cycle 25, this is the case I believe for other periods in the past. What if the suns poles remained at the geographical north and south respectively, would there be any sunspots recorded? My guess is there would be nothing notable, maybe a few along 30 degrees or so for a limited amount of time,
How long can the suns polarities remain at its geographic poles? How long before having no sunspot activity does earth respond to this?
If xrays and UV drop of the scale due to no sunspot activity alone, some thought will need to be explore this area.
the suns polar reversal has slowed down
On the contrary, it had progressed as usual, and is now complete and a new polar field is building. As far as we can observe the new fields are not weaker than the old ones before the reversal, and possibly will be stronger as the field is still growing in the North.
The rest of your comment does not make any sense to me [at least].
A line of thought I have been pursing… to help you understand this Lief, I’m describing the polar reversal over many solar cycles and not just SC24, any thoughts on this are appreciated?
Thought/inquiry 🙂
*pursuing, My spelling really takes a nosedive after a long day when I rely on a spell checker, apologies Lief.
Will be needed to explore this area!
1: I believe as several solar scientists have stated that so far, at the present time, it looks like 25 will be a little stronger than 24 was. 2: as for heating or cooling, I believe that has less to do with solar radiation that it does from secondary effects of the magnetic field strength (GCRs reaching the inner solar system). 3: It has not had its impact felt yet because there seems to be about a 10 year lag in the climate response that is not currently understood.
If the increase in GCR counts does have a significant impact on climate with at 10 year lag, we should be seeing clear evidence of it very soon that would be able to directly test the hypothesis. One complicating problem is that we just experienced a rather strong El Nino condition that boosts atmospheric temperatures as ocean dumps heat to air. Since the peak of that event in the spring of 2016 we have seen a rather rapid fall in global atmospheric temperatures. While this drop will likely not be enough, soon enough, to avoid a record for 2016, it does appear that 2017 will be a cool year and as we are not having a “La Nina” condition required to recharge the Western Pacific Warm Pool, it is likely to remain cool for a while.
I’ve been watching SuspiciousObservers channel on utoob for quite a while now. Isn’t the ejecta from sunspots, or the lack of them of late, included in any effect? As he has so often commented, sunspots aren’t ejecting our way anywhere near what they used to. Or some such.
Not that anyone has been able to show, no. There is SOME change in total solar irradiation but it is not enough to account for the change we see in climate that seems to track with GCR rates (with a lag of about 10 years). The change in cloud cover that has been observed during periods of high neutron counts would be enough to account for the change in climate so we are in a period where this hypothesis can be directly tested. So Svensmark’s hypothesis is testable.
And has failed the test, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
“it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”
I will disagree that there is no link with cosmic rays and clouds because there is very robust experimental and observational evidence that there is. The issue is whether it is enough of an impact to cause the change in climate that we see that very closely tracks with it.
I will disagree that there is no link with cosmic rays and clouds because there is very robust experimental and observational evidence that there is.
The point is that, unfortunately, there isn’t.
“it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur
Is this not La Nina?
Nope. “La Nada” the NINO3.4 index has to go below a -0.5 anomaly. It hasn’t.
That plot shows a long swathe of below -0.5 anomally. Large areas are ca. -1.0.
SUSTAINED below -0.5 http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Thanks, I’m grateful for the answer..
Cheers
Note Michael that the phenomenon of El Nino / La Nina was initially noted by changes in fish catches well before people thought climate was a science. The climate ‘scientists’ then agreed that the geographic box Nino 3.4 was the only thing that mattered and defined the El Nino and La Nina solely on a metric for that box for a particular number of months; this is regardless of the fish catch which was the original metric. So vast swathes of the Pacific can go cold or warm with various unnoticed meteorological effects while the world climate ‘scientists’ stare fixedly at the SSTs in the Nino 3.4 ‘box’. So this cold Pacific is no-true-Nina regardless of its impact on current weather. Thus all comparison with previous ENSO events based on fish catch metrics are invention.
Although Sun spot numbers SC24 are much lower than for SC23, the solar radiation data at the SORCE web site shows that solar radiation for SC24 peaked well above SC23. This begs the question, “are we finally seeing the influence of the Jovian planets in the radiation data?” or, is the NASA algorithm that is used to calculate the top of Atmosphere figure removing the evidence of the Jovian planets influence on the Sun and Solar System’s rotation around the barycentre. SORCE has been recording data for over 13 years now so should provide a great opportunity for further research.
No such luck 🙂
But there is good evidence that the SORCE TSI measurements are not quite correct, perhaps suffering from over-correction of sensor degradation:
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf
so solar radiation in SC24 is, indeed, lower than in SC23. Slide 59 of my link:
http://www.leif.org/research/SORCE-TIM-Over-correction.png
Thanks, I had not previously seen the presentation at your link
Not sure how to rectify David prediction of 62 when we surpassed that already.
That was a _prediction_ for Cycle 25 which has not started yet.
100% cloud cover today. But then that is simply a nice cherry plentiful this time of year.
Leif,
Robertvd above queried whether size or number of sunspots was more important as to potential ultimate consequences and I have not seen an answer? It is something I have also wondered about say surface area involved or some other measure other than simply number irrespective of size. Seems you may have addressed this before but I do not recall.
The total area of the sunspots vary closely the same as their number, so should have the same influence if any. Very large spots are rare, so have really no lasting influence.
The following chart from NOAA shows the predicted F10.7 at the very right to be 65, and the downward slope is still pretty steep.http://legacy-www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/f10.gif
I understand the debate over sunspot activity and global temps is ongoing, but it will be VERY interesting to see what happens to global temps over the next 5~7 years when sunspot activity continues to collapse, and if SC25 (starting in 2021) turns out to be as weak as the 1790~1820 Dalton Minimum…
Regardless, the PDO/AMO 30-yr cool cycles will both be in effect from 2019, so by 2022, the disparity between CMIP5 model ensemble global warming mean vs. satellite/radiosonde global mean should well exceed 3~4 standard deviations for 25 years, which is more than sufficient disparity and duration to toss CAGW in the trash…
Trump’s administration will eventually hold Senate hearings and order an independent scientific audit of the “YUUGE” disparity between CMIP5 model projections, GISTEMP, HADCRUT4 and Satellite/Radiosonde global datasets and will implement changes to US policy based on these scientific findings.
It’ll be VERY interesting to see what this graph looks like in 2022:
Leftists will not be pleased… Which, in and of itself, is a very strange reaction… One would expect jubilation knowing CAGW is a disconfirmed hypothesis… but, alas…
Regardless, the PDO/AMO 30-yr cool cycles will both be in effect from 2019, so by 2022, the disparity between CMIP5 model ensemble global warming mean vs. satellite/radiosonde global mean should well exceed 3~4 standard deviations for 25 years, which is more than sufficient disparity and duration to toss CAGW in the trash…
Yes SAMURAI, however if there is a continued rise in temps and continued loss of global ice then that, for reasonable people, would put a lot of other postulations to bed.
In the Netherlands we have a ice skating event in a nothern provence of the country. This is a 200+ km skating event on natural frozen water and only happens once in a few years when the ice is think enough. I compared this to the solar cycles and found that in the lower solar activity years we have a chance on the event. I have put blue dots at the actual event and a red one when it was very close. Now I know this is totally unscientific but I thougt it was interesting.
http://imgur.com/a/8ALap
Normally correlation is not causation, but repeated correlations? The jury is still out on this one, but two years from now I would be sharpening my skates!!!
A dust cloud between earth and sun de-blobbed the Pacific Blob. What is next the dismantling of CAGW?
What stands out to me is how much weaker the sun is at this stage of cycle 24 then was predicted. All the solar metrics are below what was forecasted at this point in the solar cycle. With the minimum for this cycle still way off until 2019 this might mean solar flux levels sub 80 for a long time to come.
Then again like the climate never bet the ranch on any one prediction. There are still many unknowns out there despite advances.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Solar running much lower then projected.
Not really as the red line on the NOAA graph is not correct to begin with. It is based on the maximum value of 90 which should have been 80.
If that is the case why have they not adjusted it?
NOAA has something against adjusting 🙂 Except temperatures, of course. But if you want to see the latest prediction, look here:
They do not have this cycle hitting bottom until 2019 and 2020 which means years of solar quiet which has not been the case since the Dalton Minimum. Even the 2008-2010 solar lull was only 2 years long.
So what it looks like is maybe 3 to 4 years of sub 80 solar flux readings which I do not think has happened since the Dalton solar minimum ended.
If SC25 is a bit stronger than SC24, the cycle will not be extraordinary. So when you say “it looks like…” you have nothing to base that on except wishful thinking.
Cyclical prediction shows that solar activity should be lower than average for the next couple of decades, but higher than average from 2035 to 2090. Everything else being equal, we should see no global warming, and perhaps slight cooling for the 2020-30’s with a return to global warming for the second half of the 21st century. Ocean oscillations and volcanic eruptions might affect this outlook.
http://i.imgur.com/j2hbCiv.png
Javier, this solar cycle estimate based on past solar cycles has been done to death, so to speak,. it is wrong on so many levels.
You have no clear understanding of the mechanics behind this sun spot record, so why should you be trusted with forecasting it!
“G4” is a farce… The time-line is wrong, pulling random statistical patterns from your butt does not work.
This crap right here, in your graph is the same nonsense I have seen in other data, what next? are you going to conform solar observations to your forecast?
The doted line in the graph above shows a dishonest bias, I wonder what it agrees with! Hmmm, take it away my eyes are burning with the stench!!!
“Ocean oscillations….might affect this outlook”.
Nice little escape clause there. It means that as the temps continue to rise over the next five years in complete disregard to solar cycles you will be able to continue to claim it has nothing to do with anything humans are doing.
What are humans doing?
In fact, “temps” as you arrogantly put it are cooling off… go stuff yourself dick face, . Temperature is a temporary measurement,, ‘Tony McLeod’ aye? are you related to Conner? Where have I heard that fictional name before? if you’re going to start swinging swords There will be only one, it will not be your good simpleton self sir.
[And with this comment, you are PERMANENTLY BANNED from WUWT – Anthony]
It is not worth responding to that Sparks individual, but I can discuss your comment, Tony.
It is not an escape clause. It is an acknowledgement that climate integrates multiple signals and does not depend from a single one, be it CO2, solar or internal variation. As this article is about solar cycle prediction, that is what I have presented.
Possibilities are:
– My solar prediction is good enough and temperatures follow the expected solar-induced pattern. Great.
– My solar prediction is clearly wrong but temperatures follow the expected solar-induced pattern. Then I got the cycles wrong, but the causality still right.
– My solar prediction is clearly wrong and temperatures do not follow the expected solar-induced pattern. Then I am wrong on all accounts.
– My solar prediction is good enough but temperatures do not follow the expected solar-induced pattern. Then I got solar cycles right but solar effect is lower than I thought. Unless a volcanic eruption or ENSO variability can account for the disparity.
I don’t know what worries you. This prediction both of solar activity and temperatures has quite clear conditions for failure. If temperatures increase at the rate they did between 1976-1998 for the next 10 years I am clearly wrong. If they shown the lack of increase of 2003-2014 then either I am right or I have been lucky.
Science is that simple unless we are talking about the CO2 hypothesis, that it is unfalsifiable as it explains one thing and the opposite. that is obviously not science but belief.
If they shown the lack of increase of 2003-2014 then either I am right
No, as cyclomania is not science. To be right, you have to be right for a physical reason, i.e. a theory that explains the physics of why you are right.
Happy Holidays, Leif.
Calendars were developed millennia before there was any understanding of the physical reason. They successfully predicted the seasons and equinoxes. No physics requirement. Now you will tell me that calendar makers were wrong.
No, I tell you that the calendar makers were not scientists. They were right for the wrong reasons, e.g. that the whole universe revolved around the Earth. Or that the Sun god was riding on his chariot across the heavens and went to hide behind tall mountains in the North.
They did what could be done at the time. They produced valuable knowledge and successfully predicted seasons for farmers, and solar and lunar ephemerides for religious ceremonies. No doubt they were respected as the wiser at their time.
Today we have hundreds to thousands of scientists analyzing periodicities in their data by fast Fourier, wavelet or several other techniques. Even if they do not know the physical basis for the periodicities they find, their results are considered science by colleagues, referees, and journal editors, and they are sustained by their academic institutions and funding bodies.
So your opinion on this matter is only your personal opinion. Worth the proverbial two cents. We first identify the relevant cycles, demonstrate that they do happen and have the purported effect on climate, and then we will try to identify their physical causes if our knowledge is already sufficient for that. It is impossible to know if we have sufficient knowledge to explain our observations. Alfred Wegener collected a plethora of evidence on the continental drift, and he was right, however science was delayed for 20 years because people like you demanded a physical mechanism that could not be provided until sea bed drilling was available.
They produced valuable knowledge and successfully predicted seasons for farmers, and solar and lunar ephemerides for religious ceremonies.
Their beliefs were indeed religious and so are beliefs in cycles. Believing in something without knowing why [or in spite of knowledge] is akin to religion.
Alfred Wegener collected a plethora of evidence on the continental drift,
Cycles are not ‘evidence’, especially if they have no physical backing. Wegener’s theory was based on a lot of physical evidence. Your cycles are not. Mere correlation is not evidence:
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
But I do realize that no amount of actual evidence [of which we have plenty] against your cyclomania can sway you away from it. Some people would rather go the stake for their beliefs.
Again, your two cents only. The scientific literature is full of studies on cycles, because they reflect the reality that a lot of things work according to cycles, from women hormones to glaciations. Of many we know why but for others we don’t and that doesn’t make them any less real.
You like to talk about things as if you were the one deciding them. Some sort of scientific Pope. Sorry, Leif, you don’t decide what constitutes evidence and what not. Again the scientific community does that, and the scientific literature is full of evidence about cycles.
I understand that you don’t like cycles, and that you have a poor opinion of them and the people who study them. I am fine with that but you shouldn’t talk from a position of superiority as it is strictly your opinion and nothing else. It actually reflects the astrophysicists failure to find a mechanism for the solar variability cycles that paleoclymatologists are observing. Perhaps your strong reaction against cycles, that are a perfectly natural occurrence, reflects the desire to dissimulate the inability of astrophysicists to provide an explanation. It is clear that your knowledge is not as complete as you think it is. Everything that we know about cycles longer than 22 years hasn’t come from studying the Sun. Yours is an infant science with only a few decades of adequate observations. Your certainty against cycles is not based on knowledge. Your personal attacks against me reflect that. You should be above all that if you really knew what you were talking about.
Everything that we know about cycles longer than 22 years hasn’t come from studying the Sun. Yours is an infant science with only a few decades of adequate observations
The sunspot cycle [yes, there is such a thing] has been described as the longest running science experiment, now over 400 years running. The problem is not cycles per se, but the wish of cyclomaniacs to ascribe them to unknown physical causes where none are needed as stochastic variations are enough. But, as I said, cycles have for some people become a sort of religion far removed from science.
And with three complete oscillations of the centennial cycle, now with the fourth low taking place right on schedule. But you do not have an explanation for the centennial cycle. What do you do? You claim it doesn’t exist. We see that all the time. Whatever evidence doesn’t fit the hypothesis gets, ignored, discarded or adjusted. Now you just need to discredit or attack anybody pointing towards the evidence. You are just playing your role as gatekeeper. We have seen that very often in the CO2 wars not to recognize it.
But you do not have an explanation for the centennial cycle
The literature contains several attempts of an explanation [e.g. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/133d/14fff7ae841d244baaae67be1b24f7089b98.pdf ], none of them compelling and none generally accepted as valid. “One interesting note on the Gleissberg “cycle” is that it has been shown to have changed periods from 7.5 to 8.5 solar cycles over the last 200 years, which is perhaps a hint that this isn’t really a cycle so much as some sort of chance clustering of chaotic data.”
Tobias et al. (2006) and Bushby and Tobias (2007) note that even weak stochastic perturbations to the parameters of flux transport dynamos produce substantial changes to the activity cycles. They conclude that the solar dynamo is deterministically chaotic and thus inherently unpredictable.
Cyclomania without understanding of the process[es] is not science.
And what’s up with the lack of occurrence of meridional flow inside of the sun, which is responsible for the occurrence of cycle 25. at the end of 2010 is about to begin. But it didn’t happen . Currently we have at least 55 months of delay .LARGE SCALE FLOWS IN THE SOLAR INTERIOR H. M. Antia
They did begin. All is cool on that front.
lsvalgaard December 22, 2016 at 9:45 am
They did begin. All is cool on that front.
———————————————————
Something up thar is not flowing the same as it had been, just by looking …
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields_large.png
And on the heliospheric boundary front..
The AGU 2016 Voyager reports an interface that is not consistent or uniform across the interface.
Areas where the interstellar magnetic field drapes builds up and strengthens. In another nearby area where it drapes and weakens, then dissapates energy and density into interstellar space. Different dynamic regions occurring simultaneously along the nose.
In – out – and all around …
Something up thar is not flowing the same as it had been, just by looking
On the contrary, everything is going according to plan, nothin’ unusual.
For the heliopause: what happens there has no influence on what happens where we are.
Hi Doc
That needs to be taken with a bushel of salt. Ratio of 0.7 (your formula, before SSN recalibration) it took about 7 years to build SC24 to its max, but up to now there were barely 7 months in which to build the SC25max to the similar peak.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PFc.gif
Or have you abandon the Babcock-Leighton dynamo model.
It helps if one knows what one is talking about, and you do not. That ‘SC25’ peak is an artifact due to the fact that the north polar fields have not stabilized yet, so the annual variation due to the ‘tipping’ back and forth of the solar axis [as seen from Earth] does not cancel out. The North minus South difference is only meaningful after stabilization. You could see the same artifact back in 2003.
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-39.png
You can usually take my words as Gospel truth when it comes to the polar fields.
Ah, trying to get out of the hole, eh…
According to B-L model and your widely publicised 0.7 x formula, next cycle is built up from to sets of magnetic ‘remnants’ drifting to the poles. To get sufficient number of spots ‘reincarnated’(?!) and magnetically ‘amplified’ (?!) it takes period of time for this process to build-up the ‘seed’ volume for the next cycle.
For the SC24 it took 7 years (PF at100 x 0.7 =70) to get SC24max to about 70 (your long standing prediction from 2005, which came about, as far as we know, to be close enough.
Now you are saying that about 7 months (up to date, future will tell if that is going to be longer, and how much) is sufficient to produce similar volume and strength of the ‘reincarnation’ and magnetic ‘amplification’.
B-L physics if correct, is clear enough, but your application to the SC25max prediction doesn’t fit in, unless of course you abandon B-L model.
Now you are saying that about 7 months (up to date, future will tell if that is going to be longer, and how much) is sufficient
As I said: you do not know what you are talking about. And display your usual learning disability. Let me try again:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-39b.png
What you think is the recent ‘peak’ is an artifact due to the annual variation not not cancelling out because the North pole has not stabilized yet. The same happened back in 2003 as you should be able to see [but probably can’t]. One last time: what we see is just business as usual and the poles are still strengthening. The HMI data [where we have corrected for the foreshortening at the poles shows this clearly:
http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Polar-Fields-now.png
Vuk:
Perhaps a simpler way to make you understand the issue is this:
It took four years [2000 to 2004] for the polar fields in cycle 23 to increase from zero and reach stability which allows prediction. For cycle 24 it has taken three years so far and we are not yet there. Perhaps next year will get us to the top. In this respect SC24 is much like SC23, so everything is just progressing normally.
I think you accidentally or intentionally talking cross purpose.
What I am saying and you have difficulty in comprehending is that in the order to see the SC25’s possible magnitude it is required few (3 to 5) years of a steady pole-ward drift of remnants from the current cycle. That has not happened up to this moment in time in order to justify equally strong SC25 prediction.
If the theory is valid it is unlikely to happen since currently there are not numerically sufficient number of sunspots to provide those remnants. Of course the SC24 may burst to life again to provide ‘many’ peaks as you use to tell us, but only two materialised so far, and they have long gone.
If polar fields strengthen in future as you keep saying they will, then they are not generated by drifting ‘bits’ of the old spots (the spots source has dried up), which would mean that current (B-L) theory is ‘null an void’.
Have a good Xmas.
your last comment appeared while I was typing mine; it looks you finally got there.
years of a steady pole-ward drift of remnants from the current cycle. That has not happened up to this moment
You still don’t get it. It has happened very nicely. The South pole started its steady drift in 2014.0 and reached stability in 2016.0. The North pole started in 2014.5 and is still climbing steadily just as it should. It will probably reach stability next year at a level a bit higher than where it is now:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Polar-Fields-now.png
it looks you finally got there
You mean, I got through to you. Got you off the silly 7 month claim, so that you now finally realize how correct I have been all along. It is indeed a first that you have understood anything.
This period in solar activity( 2016 -2020) has a good chance to be the least active 4 year solar period since the Dalton Minimum..
I don’t think so. 1900-1902 would probably have been less active, as SC25 does not look to be exceptionally weak: polar fields are already stronger than at the last minimum and still growing.
That is only 2 years and I thought 2008-2010 was weaker then 1900-1902 ?
Up to now what 4 year period has had the highest % of solar flux readings below 80?
I am trying to get a gage of this current weakness.
Thanks
That is only 2 years
1900-1901-1902 is three years.
We only have solar microwave flux measurements since 1947.
SSN for some low minima:
1901 4.6
1913 2.4
2008 4.2
thanks
Anthony, my comments are being withheld again… I suppose the first 10 years you didn’t like my opinion, Moderators grow up! can I have a list of moderators btw 🙂 thanks.
https://youtu.be/uNoJ9YHtqq0
lsvalgaard December 22, 2016 at 6:35 pm
Something up thar is not flowing the same as it had been, just by looking
On the contrary, everything is going according to plan, nothin’ unusual.
For the heliopause: what happens there has no influence on what happens where we are.
————————————————————–
Happy Christmas, Dr. S. and V.
On March 20, 2015 one of the most important and spectacular celestial events in Norway in our century takes place: A total solar eclipse On Spitsbergen. Due to the weather conditions in this time of the year Svalbard is beyond competition regarding expected visibility. On the North Pole the Sun will become totally eclipsed as it comes into view after 6 months of polar night. This happens only every 400 000 – 500 000 years! In the Norwegian mainland more than 90 % of the Sun will be eclipsed.
http://www.svalbard2015.no/pictures/highres/NASA_-_Total_Solar_Eclipse.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/1b/8e/651b8ee608da6e454d93184cd47a90c7.jpg
It would appear Dr. S., that one of the Voyagers is located where the Interstellar Magnetic Fields drapes and multiplies in strength. Just the opposite for the other Voyager.
As the sun plows through the Interstellar Magnetic Field there are pile up zones. What types of fluxes does the pile up produce?
Coining a new cycle.
The Interstellar Magnetic Field pile up regions and broken regions over solar cycle.
magnetic flux and galactic cosmic rays flux
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields_large.png
The solar wind is what piles up out there.when a 400 km/sec wind hits a 20 km/sec interstellar ‘wall’. The pile up is what helps modulate the galactic ray flux. Remember: the interstellar medium cannot influence the sun.
Thanks Dr. S..
Is interesting to consider how that region interacts, we are starting to to define it a bit more clearly.
Solar wind piles up and interstellar magnetic fields pile up. Sounds like dynamic zones. Zones of piled up interstellar magnetic fields that could be near 80-90 AU in length on a given side of the nose. With an adjoining escape zone of broken field lines, followed by another pile up zone and so on… around the heliospheric perimeter we go.
Changes in the interstellar magnetic field strength over a solar cycle in those regions of ISMF pile ups is also interesting.
Is there a period of time over solar cycle that the coronal and polar holes diminish?
Is there a period of time over solar cycle that the coronal and polar holes diminish?
The polar holes shrink and disappear for soem years around solar maximum. Low latitude coronal holes can be found at all phases of the solar cycle, but especially during the declining phase.
March 20, 2015 SDO/AIA
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2015/20mar15/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg
GEOMAGNETIC ACTIVITY: Minor (G1-class) geomagnetic storms are underway around the Arctic Circle. These are, essentially, reverberations from the March 17th CME strike amplified to storm-strength by a newly-arriving solar wind stream. High-latitude sky watchers should remain alert for auroras on March 20th.
http://www.svalbard2015.no/pictures/highres/NASA_-_Total_Solar_Eclipse.jpg
I have to ask, in 2016, how many days was Earth’s magnetic field impacted, under the influence of, high speed solar winds from coronal holes? Which coronal holes were sometimes rather large and persistent for days at a time?
Including today.
THE SOLAR WIND CONTINUES TO BLOW: For the fourth day in a row, Earth is inside a stream of solar wind blowing out of a large hole in the sun’s atmosphere. This is causing magnetic unrest and bright auroras around the poles. Wind speeds are expected to exceed 600 km/s for at least one more day, so Arctic sky watchers should remain alert for auroras on Dec. 25th.
Solar wind
speed: 689.8 km/sec
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2016/25dec16/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg
In the previous (2015) SDO image the NORTHERN polar coronal hole was not yet ..
how many days was Earth’s magnetic field impacted, under the influence of, high speed solar winds from coronal holes?
Typically there are two high-sped streams from two coronal holes per solar rotation each lasting about week, so about half of the time the Earth would be in a stream.
Here is a typical rotation [right now]:
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2016%2c11%2c29
Not much of a break from the Galactic Cosmic Ray fluxes, for the solar cycle 24 …
Even though some of the coronal hole wind speeds can reach up to 700 km/sec…
http://www.nmdb.eu/nest/data/upload/chart.png
Not much of a break from the Galactic Cosmic Ray fluxes, for the solar cycle 24
Just as the usual variation for a low cycle. Nothing special or alarming there.
lsvalgaard December 25, 2016 at 1:46 pm
The solar wind is what piles up out there.when a 400 km/sec wind hits a 20 km/sec interstellar ‘wall’. The pile up is what helps modulate the galactic ray flux.
Remember: the interstellar medium cannot influence the sun.
—————————————————————–
I will try and remember the above.
If you try and remember the below.
That the reconnection, interaction, co-rotating regions at the heliosphere boundary, dwarf the sun itself, with respect to the size scale of aforesaid regions.
Thank you for all your responses Dr. S. Have a great day.
That the reconnection, interaction, co-rotating regions at the heliosphere boundary, dwarf the sun itself, with respect to the size scale of aforesaid regions.
Which is completely irrelevant as far as the sun itself is concerned, just as peeing in the Atlantic Ocean does not influence the flow of the Mississippi river past San Louis…
So nothing for me to ‘remember’, but well lots for you to learn.
lsvalgaard December 26, 2016 at 9:48 am
That the reconnection, interaction, co-rotating regions at the heliosphere boundary, dwarf the sun itself, with respect to the size scale of aforesaid regions.
Which is completely irrelevant as far as the sun itself is concerned, just as peeing in the Atlantic Ocean does not influence the flow of the Mississippi river past San Louis…
So nothing for me to ‘remember’, but well lots for you to learn.
————————————————————-
And so..
The analogy works both ways Dr. S.
Our little star on galactic size scales comes to mind here.
Our little sun, burning through the galaxy is but a ‘drop in the bucket,’ of the universe.
We all have much to learn about aforesaid super sized reconnection, interaction, co-rotating regions of interstellar space and what efffects they are having on little stars and dwarfs and such…
The analogy works both ways Dr. S.
No, it does not. The solar wind protects us against all that interstellar stuff.
The prediction from this article is stating, “a deep Solar Minimum in 2019-2020.”
I’m seeing a sort of pendulum of ISMF swinging back and forth across the heliosphere. Not so much of a pile of fields on the nose directly, but along the sides adjacent to the nose….
Nov. 15, 2016:
Tony Phillips
The sun has looked remarkably blank lately, with few dark cores interrupting the featureless solar disk. This is a sign that Solar Minimum is coming. Indeed, sunspot counts have just reached their lowest level since 2011. With respect to the sunspot cycle, you are here:
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif
The solar cycle is like a pendulum, swinging back and forth between periods of high and low sunspot number every 11 years. These data from NOAA show that the pendulum is swinging toward low sunspot numbers even faster than expected. (The red line is the forecast; black dots are actual measurements.). Given the current progression, forecasters expect the cycle to bottom out with a deep Solar Minimum in 2019-2020.
Solar Minimum is widely misunderstood. Many people think it brings a period of dull quiet. In fact, space weather changes in interesting ways. For instance, as the extreme ultraviolet output of the sun decreases, the upper atmosphere of Earth cools and collapses. This allows space junk to accumulate around our planet. Also, the heliosphere shrinks, bringing interstellar space closer to Earth; galactic cosmic rays penetrate the inner solar system and our atmosphere with relative ease. (More on this below.) Meanwhile, geomagnetic storms and auroras will continue–caused mainly by solar wind streams instead of CMEs. Indeed, Solar Minimum is coming, but it won’t be dull…….
http://news.spaceweather.com/sunspot-cycle-at-lowest-level-in-5-years/
Also, the heliosphere shrinks, bringing interstellar space closer to Earth
It doesn’t matter if the heliosphere extends form 90 AU to 110 AU. As long as we are inside it, the actual size of the heliosphere is irrelevant.
Dear Dr. Svalgaard – off topic somewhat, but what is your view of Valentina Zharkova et. al.’s principal component analysis method for predicting future solar cycles? I read several mainstream articles a few months ago that referenced her research, so I took a look at her paper. The authors predict a phase shift during SC 26 that “will result in significantly reduced amplitudes of the summary curve and, thus, in the strongly reduced solar activity in Cycle 26, or the next Maunder Minimum lasting in 3 cycles 25 -27.”
I appreciate any light you can shed on the matter.
Regards,
William
William December 27, 2016 at 12:42 pm
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/
“”””lsvalgaard August 9, 2016 at 10:11 am
Looks like a rehash of last year’s. Now as then, the ‘theory’ is thoroughly debunked:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1512-05516-Zharkova-Fail-by-Usoskin.pdf
A two-wave dynamo model was recently proposed by Zharkova et al. (2015, Zh15 henceforth), which aims at long-term predictions of solar activity for millennia ahead and backwards. Here we confront the backward predictions for the last 800 years with known variability of solar activity, using both direct sunspot observations since 1610 and reconstructions based on cosmogenic nuclide data. 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
Simply plotting the ‘theoretical’ values against observations how how wrong they are:
http://www.leif.org/research/Zharkova-2015-Double-Dynamo-Fail.png
They e.g. have the timing wrong, e.g. saying that the Dalton Minimum was around AD 1750, while it should have been around 1815.””””
Since they are so clearly wrong, why do you bother bringing it up?
Reminds me of a conjurer from the 1970s, Uri Geller, who claimed to be able to bend spoons by mind control. Even after blind tests showed that he had cheated in at least half of the cases, true believers kept saying that ‘but in the other 50% it was the real thing’.
I don’t think this is completely inaccurate and may provide some information as to what is happening up thar on Ol’ Sol. That it doesn’t, precisely, to the letter, hindcast, doesn’t mean we should through this baby out with the bath water.
Two principal components of solar magnetic field variations and prediction of solar activity on multi-millennium timescale
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016cosp…41E2176Z
Zharkova, Valentina; Popova, Helen; Zharkov, Sergei; Shepherd, Simon
Abstract
We present principal components analysis (PCA) of temporal magnetic field variations over the solar cycles 21-24 and their classification with symbolic regression analysis using Hamiltonian method. PCA reveals 4 pairs of magnetic waves with a significant variance and the two principal components with the highest eigen values covering about 40% of this variance. The PC waves are found to have close frequencies while travelling from the opposite hemispheres with an increasing phase shift. Extrapolation of these PCs through their summary curve backward for 5000 years reveals a repeated number of ~350-400 year grand cycles superimposed on 22 year-cycles with the features showing a remarkable resemblance to sunspot activity reported in the past including Maunder, Dalton and Wolf minima, as well as the modern, medieval and roman warmth periods. The summary curve calculated forward for the next millennium predicts further three grand cycles with the closest grand minimum (Maunder minimum) occurring in the forthcoming cycles 25-27 when the two magnetic field waves approach the phase shift of 11 years. We also note a super-grand cycle of about 2000 years which reveal the 5 repeated grand cycles of 350 years with the similar patterns. We discuss a role of other 3 pairs of magnetic waves in shaping the solar activity and compare our predicted curve with the previous predictions of the solar activity on a long timescale based on the terrestrial proxies. These grand cycle variations are probed by Parker’s two layer dynamo model with meridional circulation revealing two dynamo waves generated with close frequencies. Their interaction leads to beating effects responsible for the grand cycles (300-350 years) and super-grand cycles of 2000 years superimposed on standard 22 year cycles. This approach opens a new era in investigation and prediction of solar activity on long-term timescales.
That it doesn’t, precisely, to the letter, hindcast, doesn’t mean we should through this baby out with the bath water.
Yes we should, as that should be the fate of any theory with failed predictions [especially hindcasts].
As with any thing that doesn’t work out that well doesn’t mean we can’t learn from it. Or figure out something else. It’s a lot easier if someone teaches you Pythagoras theorm than to figure it out your self. ..
doesn’t mean we can’t learn from it. Or figure out something else
Yes, one learns from failures. Hopefully, the scientists involved will do that.
lsvalgaard December 31, 2016 at 8:07 pm
———————————————————
Out of “Chaos,” Dr. S.
The 11 year solar cycle is NOT exactly 11 years. The 22 year magnetic solar cycle is NOT exactly 22 years. The solar hemispheric differential in sunspot preference is NOT exact either.
Out of “Chaos.”
The interstellar background and magnetic fields are not homogeneous over the time scales as once thought, either.
The sliding of “Piled-UP,” Interstellar Magnetic Fields (ISMF), down the flanks of the Heliosphere bubble, may take “100-120 years” to complete.
Which makes this statement from the above abstract, very interesting to me.
“The PC waves are found to have close frequencies while travelling from the opposite hemispheres with an increasing phase shift.”
Happy New Year and thank you for the responses…………………………………………………………..
The interstellar background and magnetic fields are not homogeneous over the time scales as once thought, either.
There is good evidence that they are [cosmic ray sky is very uniform]. What is not homogeneous is the spatial scale created by the solar wind. Everything is driven from the inside, not the outside.
“The PC waves are found to have close frequencies while travelling from the opposite hemispheres with an increasing phase shift.”
Since the theory is a complete failure, such statements have little value or interest.
lsvalgaard January 1, 2017 at 7:46 am
The interstellar background and magnetic fields are not homogeneous over the time scales as once thought, either.
There is good evidence that they are [cosmic ray sky is very uniform]. What is not homogeneous is the spatial scale created by the solar wind. Everything is driven from the inside, not the outside.
__________________________________
We are working on this aspect Dr. S. We have an even newer map than the ones depicted below.
The maps have been referred to as being over processed.
..””One of the challenges in interpreting the CMB data is that it’s very heavily processed. Some skeptics argue it’s too processed, “”..
A Cold Cosmic Mystery Solved:
Astronomers discover what might be the largest known structure in the universe that leaves its imprint on cosmic microwave background radiation.
Synopsis: A very large cold spot that has been a mystery for over a decade can now be explained.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/ColdSpot/
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/ColdSpot/20x10_200.jpg
The Cold Spot area resides in the constellation Eridanus in the southern galactic hemisphere. The insets show the environment of this anomalous patch of the sky as mapped by Szapudi’s team using PS1 and WISE data and as observed in the cosmic microwave background temperature data taken by the Planck satellite. The angular diameter of the vast supervoid aligned with the Cold Spot, which exceeds 30 degrees, is marked by the white circles. Graphics by Gergő Kránicz. Image credit: ESA Planck Collaboration.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with solar activity or current interstellar conditions, but rather what the universe looked like billions of years ago.
Here is what the intensity of cosmic rays looks alike across the sky:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/science/galaxy_cr.gif
Your map has a lot of grey area Dr. S. lol would that be negative or positive?
It means that there is no measurable variation at all across the sky. No matter in what direction you look, the cosmic ray intensity is always the same, showing that the interstellar medium is so homogeneous that it washes out any intrinsic variation the galactic cosmic rays might have.
http://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/institute/news_archives/news1101_planck/fig5.jpg
Fig. 5: These nine images show temperature maps of the whole sky as measured by Planck through its nine frequency channels, after the signal due to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has been removed. The dominant feature in all maps is evidently the diffuse emission from the Milky Way, which differs over the wide spectral range probed by Planck. In the case of the highest frequencies probed by Planck, above 100 GHz, these are the first full-sky high-resolution maps ever recorded.
Image: ESA / Planck Collaboration
Pricilla Frisch et al. think we might be near the edge of the Loop I super bubble. Would you like a lookey see?
A MYSTERIOUS RING OF MICROWAVES
06/06/2016 4:00 pm
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/06/A_mysterious_ring_of_microwaves
Fifty years ago, astronomers discovered a mystery. They called it Loop I. Today, we still have not fully resolved the mystery of how this giant celestial structure formed but we do now have the best image of it, thanks to ESA’s Planck satellite.
Loop I is a nearly circular formation that covers one third of the sky. In reality, it is probably a spherical ‘bubble’ that stretches to more than 100º across, making it wider than 200 full Moons. Its absolute size, however, is extremely uncertain because astronomers do not know how close it is to us: estimates to the centre of the bubble vary from 400 light-years to 25 000 light-years.
What they do know is that the structure shows up in many different wavelengths, from radio waves to gamma rays. Planck sees Loop I in microwaves. This image’s colours reflect the polarisation – the direction in which the microwaves are oscillating.
….The most popular interpretation places Loop I close to us. If this is correct, it could be related to the ‘Scorpius–Centaurus OB Association’, a region of high-mass star formation that has been active for over 10 million years. Loop I could well be a supernova remnant, a giant bubble hollowed out by the explosion of stars in the OB association.
It is likely that the stars responsible for Loop I have long since dispersed, so what we see is the ‘smoke’ rather than the ‘fire’ of the explosions…..
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2016/06/a_mysterious_ring_of_microwaves/16022238-1-eng-GB/A_mysterious_ring_of_microwaves_node_full_image_2.jpg
again, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with solar activity or the variation of cosmic rays across the sky.
lsvalgaard January 1, 2017 at 1:55 pm
again, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with solar activity or the variation of cosmic rays across the sky.
—————————————————
Below, is the distrubution/arrival direction into the heliosphere of GCR/CR.
Note the dates Dr. S. this would have been the last minimum.
Hopefully we get another survey at minimum with solar polarity change for this coming cycle.
Large-Scale Anisotropy In Cosmic Ray Arrival Direction
with Rasha Abbasi and Juan Carlos Díaz-Vélez
…”””The IceCube map shown above was determined using the data collecetd by IceCube-22 string configuration. The data were collected from June 2007 to March 2008 (226 livetime days), and they consist of 4.3•109 events with a median cosmic ray energy of about 20 TeV. The median angular resolution of the cosmic muon events is about 3° (not to be confused with the angular resulution IceCube can reach in the reconstruction of neutrino-induced events).”””…
http://icecube.wisc.edu/~desiati/activity/anisotropy/large/relint.png
The figure above (from Abbasi R. et al., ApJ Letters, 718, L194, 2010) shows the first observation of the anisotropy in arrival direction of multi-TeV cosmic rays in the southern hemisphere. The map (in equatorial coordinates) shows the relative intensity of cosmic rays arrival directions. The colors show that the arrival direction distribution is anisotropic and it is visibly the continuation of a similar observation in the northern hemisphere (in the figure from Tibet-III Air Shower Array, Amenomori M. et al., Science 314, 439, 2006, map courtesy of Kazuoki Munakata).
A similar distribution is observed with the IceCube-40 string configuration (that collected data from March 2008 to May 2009).
http://icecube.wisc.edu/~desiati/activity/anisotropy/large/significance.png
The figure above (Simona Toscano, Segev BenZvi, Stefan Westerhoff) is the PRELIMINARY skymap of statistical significance of the cosmic rays arrival direction as observed by the IceCube-40 string configuration (15•109 events in 324 livetime days). In this case each declination band is normalized according to the actual distribution in declination, which peaks between -50° and -65° in declination.
http://icecube.wisc.edu/~desiati/activity/anisotropy/large/
Many Things New around Our Electric Sun
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Many_Things_New_Around_Our_Electric_Sun.php
On-going in situ measurements and sky mapping are revealing new and hidden structures in the magnetic plasma bubble around our Sun. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
……Hidden structures of the heliosphere unveiled
Beginning in the early 1960s, numerous spacecrafts and missions have been launched to study the Sun and the solar system [9, 10]. But the most amazing observations have come lately from NASA’s Voyagers launched 38 years ago and the IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) launched in 2008. They are overturning long-held assumptions of what the heliosphere is like and raising important new questions…………..
…The flux of TeV galactic cosmic rays varies as a function of look direction in the sky. The large-scale structure in the TeV GCR sky consists of two broad asymmetries with flux variations of ~0.2 %: a deficit of GCR flux at high galactic latitudes and an excess of flux in the heliotail direction. Small-scale TeV anisotropies (<~10 %) in cosmic-ray arrival direction possibly arise from cosmic-ray propagation in a turbulent magnetic field. Because TeV GCRs have radii of gyration ~700 AU (astronomical unit, the mean distance from the centre of Earth to the centre of the Sun, 1 AU = 149.6 million kilometres) in the LISM, the observed GCR asymmetries must originate in the immediate interstellar environment of the Sun.
Cosmic rays are largely guided by the interstellar magnetic field. In their model, a small ratio of perpendicular to parallel diffusion of 0.3 % is assumed, given an interstellar flow nearly perpendicular to the magnetic field direction on the basis of IBEX observations. The LISM magnetic field is further modelled to be deflected around the heliosphere. A sky map is then constructed of cosmic ray flux as viewed from the Sun. The result of the simulation is broadly comparable with the observations (Figure 7).
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/graphics/Many_Things_New_Around_Our_Electric_Sun8.jpg
IBEX has also mapped the boundaries of the heliotail for ENAs [15]. There are two lobes of slower particles on the sides and fast particles above and below, with the entire structure twisted (Figure 8). This pattern is consistent with the fact that the Sun has been sending out mostly fast solar wind near its poles and slower wind near its equator for the past few years.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/graphics/Many_Things_New_Around_Our_Electric_Sun9.jpg
Heliosphere much smaller than previously thought
Another big surprise is that the heliotail is much shorter than previously thought. For decades, the heliosphere was believed to be shaped like a comet with a very long tail extending some 747 billion km, and a nose protected by a bow shock as it comes up against the interstellar magnetic field. The latest study, however, suggests that the heliosphere is dominated by two giant jets emanating from the Sun’s north and south poles and curving round in two relatively short tails toward the back, confined by interaction with the interstellar magnetic field [16]. The two jets are similar to other astrophysical jets seen in space, which are usually bipolar streams of matter ejected along the axis of rotation of bright compact bodies at the centre of certain galaxies, quasars and stars. This observation is also consistent with the IBEX ENA map of the heliotail (Fig. 8).
Thank You Anthony, for your hospitality and Happy New Year………………………………
You have everything completely backwards.
The cosmic rays you are referring to are the ultra-high Teraelectronvolt particles that are so energetic [and extremely rare] that hhere don’t even see the heliosphere [their gyro-radius is much larger than the heliosphere]. The changes in the size of the magnetosphere is controlled by the Sun, not the other way around. So, for the gazillionth time, your comments are irrelevant and have nothing to do with controlling solar activity. You are beginning to display the same learning disability as Vuk. It is sad that the general public is sinking into the swamp of science ignorance, especially when fueled by pseudo-science and cult adherence.
Sorry, DR S., went off on a tangent today.
This all started because of Plasma Depletion Layers and Piled Up ISMF’s.
How might that look, over a solar cycle?
2.1.5. Time-dependent Heliosphere Results
In Figure 3 we show cross sections of plasma density computed using our time-dependent, 3D MHD/kinetic code, taken during solar minimum (left) and solar maximum (right). Notice the features similar to Pogorelov et al. (2009a), such as the transition between fast and slow SW near ±35° at solar minimum and ±80° at solar maximum, the sectored fast and slow SW densities in the heliotail, and the fluctuations in plasma density propagating through the OHS. We will discuss the effects of these fluctuations on the simulated ribbon flux in Section 4.
http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0004-637X/804/1/5/Full/apj510437f3_lr.jpg
How do the IBEX fluxes measure up over part of a solar cycle now?
All-sky Maps of Flux Simulated from 2009.5 to 2013.5 are available, below is 2009-2013
Figure 11 shows the percent change in simulated flux for passband 5 (~2.73 keV). Similarly to 1.74 keV, the ribbon flux increases as the source of fast neutral SW opens up toward solar minimum. The largest increase in flux occurs near the simulated ribbon knot, which appears in our simulation near (340°, 35°) at this energy and time. Notice that this is lower in latitude than the observed knot, possibly due to our use of simplified SW profiles that determine the outward-propagating ENA speeds. Nevertheless, the knot increases in flux over this period of time, more so than the ribbon flux at negative latitudes. The average fast SW speed is near 2.7 keV; therefore, passband 5 is a good indicator for the evolution of the fast SW at mid- to high latitudes.
http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0004-637X/804/1/5/Full/apj510437f11_lr.jpg
As your link reminds you, the ENA is outward-propagating.
The outer heliosphere is controlled by the changing geometry and strength of the outward-propagating supersonic solar wind [as we pointed out 40 years ago] so has no influence whatsoever on what the Sun does and is hence irrelevant for the topic at hand: “solar cycle 24 prediction”.
On slides 22-23 of http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf you can see what the heliosphere look like during a solar cycle. If you can open it the powerpoint presentation http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.ppt shows you the movies on those slides.
On pg. 24 of the pdf there is a statement
” Cosmic ray counts are also influenced by the earth’s magnetic field. We can account for that ”
Is that direct or indirectly? One of the great things about fiber optics is you can run a magnetic field through it all day long and nothing will happen. Cosmic rays shouldn’t be influenced at all by magnetic fields. It’s further up on the spectrum.
The reason I’m asking this, is when I was looking at the solar cycles and co2 levels, from minima to minima in a solar cycle the co2 levels went with it and the cosmic ray activity. What was interesting was 1962/1963 cosmic ray activity and co2 levels (ppm/year) that didn’t follow the solar activity. That was one of the rare times co2 ppm/ yr didn’t follow exactly along with the temperature anomolies for the year.
Carla has made some interesting points. There are some other theories, like However, I think I agree with you on the sun not being influenced by incoming rays. I used to think I knew something about nuclear fusion. I may not know as much as I thought I did. I can’t balance the new information and this information. Yet..
Cosmic rays shouldn’t be influenced at all by magnetic fields.
Yes they should, because they are charged particles [mostly protons] and a charged particle gyrates around magnetic field lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroradius so the Earth’s magnetic field bends the cosmic rays such that some of them does not impact the Earth:
http://www.geomagsphere.org/index.php/test-link
Cosmic ‘rays’ are actually not ‘rays’, but particles.
The name ‘rays’ is kept for historical reasons as people did not know 100 years ago [when they were discovered] that they were nor rays.
Carla has made some interesting points
But they are completely irrelevant for the topic at hand.
That would mean that the light portion of the spectrum is in a notch, much like a filter. Since gravity affects light, it started me thinking about all the frequencies in the spectrum are affected by magnetic fields and gravitational ones. I was probably thinking about all frequencies in the spectrum as just that frequencies. I think I was thinking the particles themselves were in essence frequencies. Which gives me an insight as to how the link up between some particles and magnetism. They’d have to be out of phase by 90 degrees.
Since the magnetic field of the earth has declined, the effects should be apparent. In the course if I think about it, it is already being done. A side by side comparasion of a planet that has a magnetic field, ours, and one that doesn’t, Mars. ( a very sporadic one) or Venus.
That would be really important if we sent a manned mission to another planet. We’d have to generate a magnetic field for protection. By the way, if asked, the weight of the ship has to be exact down to the molecular mole. The metal should be bonded at the atomic level and not molecular. I can make it go, I don’t know how to stop it.
Thank you, and fear the tree.
Since gravity affects light, it started me thinking about all the frequencies in the spectrum are affected by magnetic fields
The cosmic rays are not part of the spectrum as they are not ‘rays’ but protons.
How could I have forgotten that 90% were protons? I probably put them in with the energy levels as cosmic particles are 1 MeV to 1000 TeV. The next group is alpha is 2 to 10 MeV.
Which raises other interesting questions I’ll take up another time. And the rest of the field is below… in ev terms…
Of all the graphs shown above, the most important graph is that on Page 615 of the National Geographic Magazine article quoted above…
http://sealevel.info/NatGeo_1976-11_whats_happening_to_our_climate/
…..which shows temperatures over the last 850,000 years. It clearly shows we are likely at the end of a short interglacial warming period which was actually warmer during Minoan times, Roman Times and Medieval times (including the time of Chingiis Khan) than now. Warming is not the monster….. cold is! Cold weather lessens moisture in the air, creates droughts, causes crop failures and famines. The greatest human expansions occurred during times of plenty….. in warm periods.
We are now facing increasingly cold winters leading to another ice age and need to prepare for THAT …NOT warming.