Study: Northern Lights may disappear – shrinking protective bubble to put Earth at risk of solar blasts

From the University of Reading:

Britain may lose the magic of the Northern Lights by the middle of the century due to major shifts in solar activity, scientists have discovered.

Space scientists at the University of Reading conclude that plummeting solar activity will shrink the overall size of the sun’s ‘atmosphere’ by a third and weaken its protective influence on the Earth.

This could make the Earth more vulnerable to technology-destroying solar blasts and cancer-causing cosmic radiation, as well as making the aurora less common away from the north and south polar regions for 50 years or more.

Dr Mathew Owens, from the University of Reading’s Meteorology department, led the research. He said: “The magnetic activity of the sun ebbs and flows in predictable cycles, but there is also evidence that it is due to plummet, possibly by the largest amount for 300 years.

“If so, the Northern Lights phenomenon would become a natural show exclusive to the polar regions, due to a lack of solar wind forces that often make it visible at lower latitudes.

“As the sun becomes less active, sunspots and coronal ejections will become less frequent. However, if a mass ejection did hit the Earth, it could be even more damaging to the electronic devices on which society is now so dependent.”

The study, ‘Global solar wind variations over the last four centuries’, published in Scientific Reports, shows how sunspot records can be used to reconstruct what happened the last time the Earth experienced such a dramatic dip in solar activity more than three centuries ago. Combined with updated models and contemporary reports, the researchers were able to predict what could happen during a similar event, likely to occur in the next few decades.

‘PROTECTIVE BUBBLE’

The scientists believe the coming ‘grand minimum’ could be similar to the Maunder Minimum of the 17thcentury, when sun spot activity almost stopped – another symptom of a less active sun.

Solar wind, made up of electrically charged particles from the sun, travels at around a million miles per hour.

A reduction in solar wind would see the heliosphere – the ‘bubble’ around the solar system maintained by particles emitted by the sun – shrink significantly.

This protective bubble helps shield the Earth from harmful radiation from outer space, but has weakened since the 1950s.

“If the decline in sunspots continues at this rate, we could see these changes occurring as early as the next few decades.” – Professor Mike Lockwood FRS, University of Reading

The scientists predict a rapid reduction in the bubble’s size by around the middle of the 21st century. The Earth’s own magnetic field deflects some of this radiation, but areas close to the north and south poles are more vulnerable where the Earth’s magnetic field is weakest.

Co-author Professor Mike Lockwood FRS, University of Reading, said: “If the decline in sunspots continues at this rate, and data from the past suggests that it will, we could see these changes occurring as early as the next few decades.

“The Maunder Minimum in solar activity of the 17th century is sometimes mistakenly thought to be the cause of the so-called Little Ice Age, when winter temperatures in Europe, and elsewhere in the world, were lower than average.

“But the Little Ice Age began before the Maunder Minimum and ended after it, and our previous work with the Met Office has shown that  the coming solar minimum will do little to offset the far more significant global heating effects of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Full reference: (open source)

M.J. Owens, M. Lockwood, P. Riley (2017). ‘Global solar wind variations over the last four centuries’. Scientific Reports. DOI: 10.1038/srep41548

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard


Abstract:

The most recent “grand minimum” of solar activity, the Maunder minimum (MM, 1650–1710), is of great interest both for understanding the solar dynamo and providing insight into possible future heliospheric conditions. Here, we use nearly 30 years of output from a data-constrained magnetohydrodynamic model of the solar corona to calibrate heliospheric reconstructions based solely on sunspot observations. Using these empirical relations, we produce the first quantitative estimate of global solar wind variations over the last 400 years. Relative to the modern era, the MM shows a factor 2 reduction in near-Earth heliospheric magnetic field strength and solar wind speed, and up to a factor 4 increase in solar wind Mach number. Thus solar wind energy input into the Earth’s magnetosphere was reduced, resulting in a more Jupiter-like system, in agreement with the dearth of auroral reports from the time. The global heliosphere was both smaller and more symmetric under MM conditions, which has implications for the interpretation of cosmogenic radionuclide data and resulting total solar irradiance estimates during grand minima.

From the conclusions section of the paper:

Firstly, we consider the terrestrial implications. Space weather is primarily the result of rapid changes in the space environment, rather than annual variations reconstructed in this study. Nevertheless, the equilibrium state of the terrestrial magnetospheric system is expected to be very different under MM than modern conditions. This, in turn, will mean a different response to a space weather driver, such as a fast coronal mass ejection. Future work will use a global MHD model of the coupled magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere system to quantitatively investigate this. But even without a numerical model it is possible to draw some qualitative conclusions. The lower PDYN during the MM would increase the average stand-off distance of the dayside magnetopause43. The width of the far magnetospheric tail, however, is controlled by the solar wind static pressure, PSTA = npkTSW + B2/(2μo). As the higher np and TP have a larger effect on PSTA than the reduction in B, the tail would, on average, be somewhat thinner during the MM than in modern times. Thus the magnetosphere would have presented a smaller cross-sectional area to the solar wind, reducing the electric field placed across it by the solar wind and the total solar wind energy that it intersects. A reduction in VSW and B would mean a reduction in the solar wind electric field, which in turn would combine with the smaller diameter of the magnetosphere to reduce the trans-polar cap potential and polar cap area44. Thus the Earth’s magnetosphere would have been somewhat more Jupiter-like, with the part driven by solar wind-driven convection smaller in extent, and the part driven by internal dynamics and co-rotation larger in volume. In addition to an expected reduction in both recurrent and non-recurrent geomagnetic storms during the MM, the expected poleward motion of the nominal auroral oval position may further help explain the dearth of auroral reports from that period for all but the most northerly locations15. Beyond the magnetopause, the enhanced MA suggests that the bow shock strength would be enhanced, resulting in more efficient energetic particle acceleration, while the bow shock stand-off distance would be increased on average, resulting in a thicker magnetosheath45.

Secondly, we consider the implications for the global heliosphere. Again, a future study will use the reconstructed solar wind parameters with a MHD model of the global heliosphere, but here we consider the first-order implications. Most obviously, a drop in PDYN will result in an overall smaller heliosphere, though the contribution of pick-up ions to the total solar wind momentum budget46 means the PDYN decrease at large heliocentric distances will be lower than the factor 2 between modern and MM 1-AU values. Any calculation of the heliopause distance under grand solar minima conditions will also need to account for the change in pick-up ion acceleration under the MM reduction in B, particularly out of the ecliptic plane. The shape of the heliosphere is also likely change under MM conditions. For the modern era, PDYN has been ~2–3 higher at the poles than the solar equator47, which results in latitudinal asymmetry in the heliopause stand-off distance and termination shock location48. During much of the MM, however, PDYNbecomes almost uniform with latitude for a greater period of time, suggesting a more spherical heliosphere and termination shock.

In turn, there will also be a number of implications for cosmic ray intensity in near-Earth space, with potential knock-on effects for long-term heliospheric reconstructions on the basis of cosmogenic radionuclide records in ice cores and tree trunks23,49,50. The relative abundance of radioisotopes such as 10Be and 14C can be used to determine the effective shielding of heliosphere from the interstellar cosmic ray spectrum, referred to as the heliospheric modulation potential. Interpreting the modulation potential in terms of heliospheric parameters, such as OSF, necessitates a number of assumptions about the size of the heliosphere, the solar wind speed and the scaling of cosmic ray scattering centers with the HMF intensity20. During grand minima, all of these properties will change, to some degree. As already discussed, we expect a smaller heliosphere, with lower and more symmetric solar wind speeds. The lack of latitudinal solar wind speed structure suggests reduced corotating interaction region formation and hence reduced cosmic ray scattering (even for the same OSF). Furthermore, we note that enhanced VA during the MM would increase the termination shock strength and may affect the efficiency of anomalous cosmic ray acceleration46. While the effect of changing size/shape of the heliosphere is expected to be small on GeV (and greater) energy particles which are largely responsible for cosmogenic isotope production, and hence radionuclide reconstructions of the heliosphere and total solar irradiance51, it needs to be fully quantified via a galactic cosmic ray transport model and a cosmogenic isotope production model.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
225 Comments
Pamela Gray
February 3, 2017 6:17 am

Word to the wise. Using research from various decades leaves you vulnerable to inadvertently referencing an outdated hypothesis. Because the hypothesis no longer has merit does not mean it will be erased from the journals. It is up to the presenter to remain current on the research in order to avoid such mistakes, unless of course the person has gone fishing for an article that supports his or her’s proposal and be damned with current knowledge.

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 3, 2017 7:50 am

The last two paragraphs are nonsense. Lockwood and his student must be the only astronomers who believe that the Maunder minimum had nothing to do with the litle ice age. But then again, Lockwood is a GW believer. Unfortunately for him CO2 is not a climate driver and will therefore not more than compensate for the next solar minimum.

John
February 3, 2017 7:59 am

It’s happened before, it will happen again.

Resourceguy
February 3, 2017 11:04 am

It does not take much change or combination of factor impacts to create problems in the real world.
http://heatst.com/world/severe-vegetable-shortage-deprives-europeans-of-spinach-broccoli/

February 3, 2017 1:14 pm

Average length of sunspot cycles during the last 200 years is about 10.7 years.
W. Gleissberg In his letter (1945) Evidence for a long solar cycle writes:
” One long cycle is equal to 7 eleven-year cycles”, which would make the Gleissberg’s cycle about 75 years long.
Spectral power distribution for the GISP2 Ice Core 1000 Year long (1000 – 1993 AD) Ar-N2 Isotope Temperature Reconstruction (data from ncdc.noaa)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GISP2.gif
has the strongest component at exactly 75 years.
However, as stated in another publication, some 25 years later Galesburg appears to change his mind.
Was the original Galesburg solar cycle just an accidental coincidence, or is the Greenland temperature variability with its critical relation to global trends directly related to now ‘nearly forgotten’ 7 x SSN cycles periodicity?
More research required (send the money).

February 3, 2017 2:06 pm

Galesburg ? !
where did that come from? russian hackers?
It should be: Gleissberg & Gleissberg

February 3, 2017 4:32 pm

Solar activity reconstructions match quite well with temperature reconstructions and sea level reconstructions. CO2 however doesn’t.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/594402.png

Reply to  Javier
February 3, 2017 5:28 pm

No, solar activity does not match the climate record at all. Especially not the recent record.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 3, 2017 8:52 pm

Frankly, Leif, it should be expected that the recent climatic record should be very certain. But regretfully that is not the case. One has to ask which record, because different records show different things. Many of the adjustments set the new version outside the 90% confidence range of the previous version, which means that the confidence range is bogus. Satellites and surface records are quite different, and both are different from some proxy records. I don’t think we can say reliably how much warmer are the 2010’s with respect to the 1930’s. So I wouldn’t make a world about the lack of match between recent records and solar activity. Specially if we can infer an important role for the past 10,000 years. It is unlikely that the role of solar activity on climate has changed recently.

Reply to  Javier
February 3, 2017 9:51 pm

One has to ask which record, because different records show different thing
So lots of ways to cherry-pick the ones you like best. I think in the current parlance they are called ‘alternative facts’.
That there is even discussion and dissent about this simply shows that there is no good evidence of the sun being a major driver of recent climate change. It may be sobering for you to read http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf describing the situation 40 years ago.
No progress has been made.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2017 2:00 pm

Javier, you articulate a point I have pondered for awhile: How do researchers reconcile prior study results, based on older surface temperature records (and paleo-data),with heavily adjusted current records? I assume results could vary considerably. The science is settled?
Climate modelers have a similar problem: Having tuned their models to the “hot” late 20th Century, how do they reflect the 21st Century slowdown without destroying prior hindcasting? Adjusting aerosols, water vapor, clouds, etc. will simply solidify the idea that the models are essentially sophisticated speculation/guesses.
Dr. Judith Curry pointed out that IPCC climate models are not fit for the purposes of changing our society, economy and energy systems, as progressives are wont.
IPCC climate models are bunk.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 3, 2017 9:55 pm

Specially if we can infer an important role for the past 10,000 years. It is unlikely that the role of solar activity on climate has changed recently
Conversely: if there is no evidence for the past several centuries it is unlikely that the role of solar activity on climate was any different for the past 10,000 years.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 1:27 am

The early CET annual data are estimates rather than accurate instrumental records. In recent decades with proliferation of central heating installations (UHI) and elimination of coal home heating (1956 clean air act) and the intense de-industrialisation (atmospheric particles), the CET data reflects not only the fundamental natural variability but also number of the anthropogenic factors of this densely populated, once highly industrialised area
Having in mind all of the above, still there is a relatively good association of the CET to the solar activity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-GSN2.gif
It should be added that in the second half of 18th century there were two or three large Iceland’s volcanic eruptions, which due to the proximity to the CET area might have had disproportionate influence on the temperatures.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 2:30 am

No progress has been made.

That is a matter of opinion, obviously. We do have several interesting hypotheses on how the Sun could affect climate other than TSI changes. These hypotheses are testable. To me the most interesting one is the one outlined by Joanna Haigh 20 years ago.
Haigh, J. D. (1996). The impact of solar variability on climate. Science, 272(5264), 981.
“A general circulation model that simulated changes in solar irradiance and stratospheric ozone was used to investigate the response of the atmosphere to the 11-year solar activity cycle. At solar maximum, a warming of the summer stratosphere was found to strengthen easterly winds, which penetrated into the equatorial upper troposphere, causing poleward shifts in the positions of the subtropical westerly jets, broadening of the tropical Hadley circulations, and poleward shifts of the storm tracks. These effects are similar to, although generally smaller in magnitude than, those observed in nature. A simulation in which only solar irradiance was changed showed a much weaker response.”
The effect of solar activity on stratospheric temperatures has been demonstrated. And the expansion of the Hadley cells during global warming is an observed phenomenon to which the Greenhouse Gas hypothesis has no explanation.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 2:46 am

Conversely: if there is no evidence for the past several centuries it is unlikely that the role of solar activity on climate was any different for the past 10,000 years.

There is plenty of evidence. One only has to read the paleoclimatology articles that study the periods of low solar activity as determined by the cosmogenic isotopes record.
Plenty of bibliography to start looking at the evidence at:
Impact of the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle on climate and human societies
And simply look at the correlation between temperatures and past solar activity.
http://i.imgur.com/chz2WcX.png

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 3:51 am

There is no doubt that there is an intermittent association of the temperature as expressed in the ‘global’ or the hemispheric data with solar activity/TSI; however this doesn’t mean that the cause-effect can be conclusively demonstrated.
There is a huge disparity in the energy content in the stratosphere and the lower troposphere, not to mention energy content in the top tens of meters of the world oceans.
In the energy domain, figuratively speaking, is the waving of the stratosphere’s ‘tail’ capable of swaying the ‘elephant’ of the lower troposphere and the world’s oceans surface?
I seriously doubt it.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 2:34 pm

Dave Fair,

How do researchers reconcile prior study results, based on older surface temperature records (and paleo-data),with heavily adjusted current records?

For what I have read from quite extensive bibliographic reading, many researches deal with it the easy way by dividing the temporal range according to the Before Present (1950) scale so they have to deal only with pre-anthropogenic climate. Those that study recent climate only use BP climate to support very specific points.
But there are clear inconsistencies that nobody wants to deal with. From Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene start CO2 increase was only 75 ppm, and some researches defend an important role for CO2 in deglaciation, however between 6000 BP and 1600 AD, CO2 increased by 25 ppm (one third of deglaciation change), while temperatures consistently fell as the Neoglacial period took place. This is indefensible, yet it is defended.
Then models that reproduce 20th century warming, fail to reproduce Holocene climate. They are still defended as correct.
See the very interesting article:
Liu, Zhengyu, et al. “The Holocene temperature conundrum.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111.34 (2014): E3501-E3505.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/E3501.full

Reply to  Javier
February 3, 2017 5:38 pm

Owens refers to this data set [CET I believe]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Owens-No-Little-Ice-Age.png

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 1:28 am

re CET: see comment above

AndyG55
Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 1:32 am

I read somewhere that many of the CET sites are compromised by UHI effects.

Pamela Gray
February 4, 2017 8:06 am

Much can be inferred about energy change needed to drive long term climate patterns up or down. Just scrubbing out temperature inversions takes tremendous energy, meaning that the strength of an oncoming pressure system has to be greater than the system keeping a temperature inversion in place. Now multiply that pressure system interaction by 100’s of years. These are the things that weather is made of that then becomes the statistical derivative called climate change. Tiny changes in w/m2 from solar or ppm gas molecules cannot be the cause. These variation just are not great enough to drive changes in weather patterns that are the bedrock, the only bedrock, of climate change. Weather is a very large and energetically powerful entity, equivalent to the oceans in strength and resistance to change. It boggles the mind that most of both sides of this debate continue to focus on minutia (tiny fractional amounts of energy change available in solar or CO2 variations), in spite of the much more significant energy requirements necessary to change weather patterns.

Carla
February 4, 2017 11:34 am

From the abstract above.
“”Relative to the modern era, the MM shows a factor 2 reduction in near-Earth heliospheric magnetic field strength and solar wind speed, and up to a factor 4 increase in solar wind Mach number. Thus solar wind energy input into the Earth’s magnetosphere was reduced, resulting in a more Jupiter-like system, in agreement with the dearth of auroral reports from the time.””
When they say ‘dearth of auroral reports,’ do they mean northern european countries only?
Maybe we can ask Pres. Trump, to ask his Russian friends, to inquire of the science community, if they have scoured their history for they auroral reports? Or are theirs included and what of the southern hemisphere?
And…
Could someone help us to understand the following statement?
“”the MM shows a factor 2 reduction in near-Earth heliospheric magnetic field strength and solar wind speed, and up to a factor 4 increase in solar wind Mach number””

Reply to  Carla
February 4, 2017 12:01 pm

Could someone help us to understand the following statement?
“”the MM shows a factor 2 reduction in near-Earth heliospheric magnetic field strength and solar wind speed, and up to a factor 4 increase in solar wind Mach number””

Their model [which I think is faulty] shows a factor 2 reduction. That does not mean that there actually was such a reduction. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
The Mach number depends on the magnetic field strength B [inversely], so if B is wrong, so will be the Mach number. Modern data shows that the Mach number is constant [=12.5] at every solar minimum, so was likely also so during the MM.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 12:15 pm

Spacecraft data 1964-2016 shows that as the sunspot number decreases to zero, the Mach number increases to 12.5 from about 8. No increase by a factor of four from high solar activity [SSN ~ 250] to no activity [SSN ~ 0].

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 12:40 pm

The sunspot-Mach number plot is very interesting. Though there’s likely a big difference in heliospheric conditions resulting from zero sunspots for 27 days and zero sunspots for 27 years.

Reply to  Mathew Owens
February 4, 2017 12:57 pm

in 2008-2009 there were 527 spotless days. Very much MM conditions.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 1:00 pm

No, that’s a deep solar minimum. Having a “solar maximum” with zero sunspots is very different.

Reply to  Mathew Owens
February 4, 2017 1:24 pm

No, it just means that the same [well-known] conditions at sunspot minimum prevailed also at maximum. And your own plots do show ‘some’ activity at maxima. The Mach number is determined by conditions at and very near the sun and not by ‘heliospheric conditions’.

afonzarelli
Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 4, 2017 1:35 pm

“in 2008-2009 there were 527 spotless days. Very much MM conditions.”
AND, it got very cold… Any correlation between the two & are we likely to see a repeat this time around? (yes, no, maybe so?)

Reply to  Carla
February 4, 2017 12:45 pm

Hi there
Russian science ‘started’ with the rule of Peter the Great, who came to power towards the end of Maunder Minimum. However, there are Hungarian records going back to 1550s. In 120 out of subsequent 400 years some 240 events were recorded, which is not many but considering that the clear sky with an aurora well above average strength are required to be visible in Hungary at latitude at 47N.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HAr.gif

Carla
February 4, 2017 4:17 pm

Personally Dr. S., I think conclusions below, sum up the current solar cycle progression very well.
Last question, if I may Dr. S.?
If the amount of north pole ward flux available for the next cycle got cancelled out by flux of opposite polarity, from where would you expect more flux to be available from? What flux was available got cancelled, no?
UNUSUAL POLAR CONDITIONS IN SOLAR CYCLE 24 AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR CYCLE 25
Nat Gopalswamy1, Seiji Yashiro1,2, and Sachiko Akiyama1,2
Published 2016 May 19
5. Conclusions
The main conclusions of this paper are as follows:
1. The north polar region of the Sun had an unusually long stretch of near-zero magnetic
field strength for more than three years. This was caused by surges of both polarities
towards the north pole that prevented the buildup of the polar field until the end of 2015.
The alternating surges caused the undulating pattern in the polar microwave brightness
enhancement.
2. The continued occurrence of high-latitude prominence eruptions, the lack of microwave
brightness enhancement, and the absence of polar coronal holes are consistent with the
prolonged zero-filed condition in the north.
3. The end of zero-field condition is indicated by the steady increase in microwave
brightness enhancement above the quiet-Sun level and the cessation of high latitude
prominence eruptions.
4. In the southern hemisphere, most of the surges were of opposite polarity to that of the
incumbent flux, so the reversal was completed in the middle of 2014. Because of the last
intense surge, the south polar magnetic field rapidly increased as indicated by both
SOLIS magnetic field data and microwave brightness enhancement.
5. We identified multiple rush to the poles episodes from PE locations. The PEs occurred at
the boundary between poleward surges of opposite polarity. The high-latitude PEs
occurred along the boundary separating the incumbent polar flux and the insurgent flux
of opposite polarity.
6. There is a clear change in the north-south asymmetry of polarity reversal. For the past
several cycles, north was reversing first. In cycle 24, the reversal was more than a year
ahead in the southern hemisphere. The arrival of zero-field condition, however, was first
in the north.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1605/1605.02217.pdf

Reply to  Carla
February 4, 2017 10:30 pm

Personally Dr. S., I think conclusions below, sum up the current solar cycle progression very well.
But are rather useless as they are purely descriptive. What I would call ‘butterfly collecting’. You learn nothing of general value that you can use for other cycles, for prediction or for learning about the physics of generation of solar cycles.
If the amount of north pole ward flux available for the next cycle got cancelled out by flux of opposite polarity, from where would you expect more flux to be available from? What flux was available got cancelled, no?
There is always enough new polarity from decaying active regions to generate the next cycle. If there even once were not, the cycle would stop forever. Since we after several billions of years and hundreds of millions of cycles still have a cycle, complete cancellation never happened and so is not likely to happen in any foreseeable future that we need to worry about.

Carla
Reply to  lsvalgaard
February 5, 2017 7:38 am

Thank you Dr. S., for the replies.
From the link below, (thanks for the update of) you can see in Figure 1, that the northern polar magnetic field strength is only half the strength of the south.
In Figure 2, you can see that for 2016 there is more negative flux between 0-20 degrees N. Lat. than there is positive flux. That means that the positive flux was still being cancelled out by the more plentiful negative flux and unable to reach the N. Pole, no? Why is there still more negative flux?
http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/
With this info, runs my imagination, seeing LOTS more compression of the heliosphere over its NORTHERN Extent. This has been weak for several years now. And one of our Voyager space craft sees more action than the other?

February 5, 2017 5:38 am

Currently the earth’s magnetic field and the solar magnetic field are weakening thus far the climatic effects are very little but it is early in the game.
Thresholds are out there and in time if the trends continue they will be reached and at that time the climate will change in a notable way –colder.
The latest data for solar polar fields shows this period of solar activity is not normal it is different how different remains to be seen and how this effects the climate remains to be seen.
Solar parameters are starting to reach my criteria with the exceptions of solar wind speeds and AP index values but this should start to come in line as sunspot numbers continue to decline.
I am still confident that solar is the key climatic driver while the GHG effect is a result not the cause for the climate to change.
The test has started and we shall see how this all pans out.

February 5, 2017 5:43 am

Solar climate correlations are quite strong if one views the historical climatic record versus solar activity. I expect this time will be no different.

Carla
February 5, 2017 7:35 pm

The asymmetries in this solar cycle are telling a good story.
HEMISPHERIC ASYMMETRIES OF SOLAR PHOTOSPHERIC MAGNETISM: RADIATIVE, PARTICULATE, AND HELIOSPHERIC IMPACTS
Scott W. McIntosh1, Robert J. Leamon2, Joseph B. Gurman3, Jean-Philippe Olive4, Jonathan W. Cirtain5, David H. Hathaway5, Joan Burkepile1, Mark Miesch1, Robert S. Markel1, and Leonard Sitongia1
Published 2013 February 27
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/146#apj461526s2
Every 96 minutes MDI takes a synoptic map of the photospheric magnetic field. The example shown (Figure 3) was taken at 00:00 UT on 2008 April 10 when the Sun was very quiet (see, e.g., Figure 3(A)). The photosphere, in this case, appears as a mixed “salt and pepper” distribution of positive (white) and negative (black) magnetic field concentrations. The first impression of the signal from the disk center area is of a dominance of negative polarity magnetic field.
http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0004-637X/765/2/146/Full/apj461526f3_lr.jpg
During the 2009 solar minimum the equatorial region of the Sun was imbalanced, with a net negative field. That imbalance persisted for almost two years.
We should stress that our use of the term “imbalance,” or later use of the term “unipolar,” with reference to the distribution of the photospheric magnetic field, implies that the spatial magnetic field distribution is dominated by one polarity over a given scale length—polar coronal holes are an example of a prolonged (local) imbalance and unipolarity of the magnetic field. The use of these terms in no way indicates that the entire solar atmosphere is unipolar or imbalanced (implying a breakdown in the fundamental laws of physics) where local imbalances of one polarity are balanced by local concentrations of the other polarity that are not necessarily nearby.
3.2. Long-lived Unipolar Regions?
The implication of Figure 4 is that the equatorial region of the solar atmosphere is dominated by one single polarity of magnetic field through the 2009 solar minimum. If this is indeed the case then we should expect some impact of this on the global morphology of the Sun’s magnetic field. Consider Figure 5, which shows three visualizations of the coronal magnetic field topology near the 1997 and 2009 solar minima and in the first quarter of 2010 as approximated by the Potential Field Source-Surface (PFSS) model extrapolation of the LOS SOHO/MDI photospheric magnetic field (Schatten et al. 1969). Notice that the structure of the 1997 corona (left) is (approximately) symmetric about the solar equator
while the 2008 image (center; noting the polarity reversal of the northern and southern poles) shows that the open magnetic field of negative polarity spans nearly two-thirds of the off-limb corona. As solar cycle 24 begins in earnest (right) we see a coronal environment that has a high degree of north–south symmetry.
http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0004-637X/765/2/146/Full/apj461526f5_lr.jpg