Monster minimum or short solar cycle?
Guest essay by David Archibald
This recent post was on the fact that the Sun’s EUV emissions had fallen to solar minimum-like levels well ahead of solar minimum. The implication was that the Solar Cycle 24/25 minimum was either going to be very deep and prolonged, or that Solar Cycle 24 would be very short, which in turn would be strange for a weak cycle.
The indicator of the EUV flux is the Lyman alpha index. To recap, this chart shows the index over the last three cycles, starting from solar minimum:
Figure 1: Lyman alpha index Solar Cycles 22,23,24
Figure 1 shows that Solar Cycle 24 has reached solar minimum-like levels three years ahead of minimum, if Solar Cycle was going to be 12 years long. What happens at solar minimum is that the proportion of EUV as part of Total Solar Irradiance falls. For the 23/24 minimum, the extent of the fall was a surprise, with the density of the thermosphere shrinking 30%. The following figure plots up the ratio of the F10.7 flux, less its activity floor at 64, and the Lyman alpha index, less a presumed average floor of activity of 3.5:
Figure 2: F10.7 Flux/Lyman alpha ratio 1980 – 2017
The peak associated with the 23/24 minimum that surprised atmospheric researchers is quite evident. Also evident is a smaller peak associated with the 22/23 minimum. Nothing much seemed to happen prior to that. How that plots up with the F10.7 flux, and thus the solar cycles, is shown in the following figure:
Figure 3: F10.7 Flux/Lyman alpha ratio 1980 – 2017
As Figure 1 showed, the departure of the Lyman alpha index to minimum-like levels seemed early. But just how early is it if everything else is normal? That is shown in the following graphic:
Figure 4: F10.7 Flux/Lyman alpha ratio aligned on solar maximum
Figure 4 aligns the F10.7 Flux./Lyman alpha ratio on solar maximum for solar cycles 21 to 24 to two years beyond solar minimum, with the maxima being:
- Solar Cycle 21 December 1979
- Solar Cycle 22 November 1989
- Solar Cycle 23 November 2001
- Solar Cycle 24 April 2014
Based on the normal cycle tail from solar maximum, Solar Cycle 24 might have another three and a half years to go. So what is going to be: a monstrous minimum with a shrunken thermosphere and all the climatic effects associated with that, or a strangely short cycle?
We know when a solar cycle is over when the heliospheric current sheet flattens. The current state of the heliospheric current sheet is shown in the following figure:
Figure 5: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2017
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle is 10° off the apparent floor of 3° but, based on the prior solar cycles, could still take a few years to get there. If Solar Cycle 24 does turn out to be short, then there is one person who predicted that: Ed Fix. Ed Fix, a retired B52 pilot in Ohio, sent me his planet-based solar model in 2009. He was inspired to created the model because the oscillation of the solar cycle reminded him of the ideal spring in mechanics. This is how the model plots up (red) and the historic sunspot record in green:
Figure 6: Ed Fix’s solar activity model
The model has the Solar Cycle 24/25 minimum in 2017. Solar Cycle 25 is predicted to be weak and short also. If events of the next year or so prove Ed Fix’s model to be correct, then it will be as significant as the results of any of the expeditions to observe solar phenomena over the last three centuries, but we get to watch in real time.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle is 10° off the apparent floor of 3° but, based on the prior solar cycles, could still take a few years to get there.”
By which time it will be 2020, which is when Ed Fix says SC25 maximum will be, a mere six years after the maximum of SC24. Most unlikely.
Hello Ed Fix
Like your model
Thanks
These cycles may contain a lot of uncertainty perhaps even in the form of non-linear dynamics known to exist in almost all natural phenomena.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2767274
+1000
Hello, Cha-am Jamal
Thanks for the shout. See replies further up for a link to the full paper and calculations, as well as a little more information and/or clarification to what David posted.
This is really fluxed up.
We know that there was another flux that that went up to a “space age high” and never went back down again.
But whats up with this?
And the current sheet, does it bobble bi-annually, whether it is on its way up, or on the way down?
Talk about your wavy current sheet, wow.
The Sun in transition? Persistence of near-surface structural changes through Cycle 24
R. Howe, G. R. Davies, W. J. Chaplin, Y. Elsworth, S. Basu, S. J. Hale, W. H. Ball, R. W. Komm
(Submitted on 25 May 2017)
Introduction
…Some activity indicators dropped to remarkably low values
during the Cycle 23/24 minimum (e.g. the geomagnetic aa-index
and the ISN). Solar wind turbulence, as captured by measures of
interplanetary scintillation, had been declining since the early part
of Cycle 23. There have been results suggesting a decline – from
the Cycle 23/24 boundary through the rise of Cycle 24 – in the average
strength of magnetic fields in sunspots (Livingston et al. 2012;
see also Watson et al. 2014) and others pointing to a change in
the size distribution of spots between Cycles 22 and 23 (e.g., see
Clette & Lef`evre 2012; de Toma et al. 2013).
Helioseismic studies of the internal solar dynamics showed
that the characteristics of the meridional flow altered between
Cycles 23 and 24 (Hathaway & Rightmire 2010). Changes to the
meridional flow have potential consequences for flux-transport dynamo
models. Differences have also been seen in the east-west
zonal flows (e.g., Howe et al. 2013) and in the frequency shifts
of globally coherent p modes, which have been weaker than in
preceding cycles (e.g., see Basu et al. 2012; Salabert et al. 2015;
Tripathy et al. 2015; Howe et al. 2015).
Upton & Hathaway (2014) have suggested that it was actually
a weak Cycle 23 that was responsible for the following, extended
minimum and weak Cycle 24. Jiang et al. (2015) have proposed
that observed weak polar magnetic fields, and as a result the weak
Cycle 24, may have resulted from the emergence of low-latitude
flux having the opposite polarity to that expected (which then hindered growth of the polar fields). Predictions for Cycle 25 are now
beginning to appear (e.g., see Pesnell 2016).
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.09099.pdf
Musical Sun reduces range of magnetic activity
Last Updated on Tuesday, 04 July 2017 11:55
Published on Monday, 03 July 2017 23:01
“Recent activity maxima have actually been rather quiet and the last cycle had a long, extended minimum,” notes Elsworth. “It will be interesting to see if the minimum of this current cycle is extended in the manner of the previous one or if it will soon be back to the conditions of the past. However, if it is a normal minimum it will also be interesting to ask why the previous one was unusual.”
In work just published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the team shows that the interior of the Sun has changed in recent years, and that these changes persist in the current cycle. In combination with theoretical models, the observations suggest that the magnetic field distribution in the outer layers may have become a bit thinner. Other seismic data shows that the rotation rate of the Sun has also undergone some changes in the way the Sun rotates at different latitudes.
“Again, this is not how it used to be and the rotation rate has slowed a bit at latitudes around about 60 degrees. We are not quite sure what the consequences of this will be but it’s clear that we are in unusual times. However, we are beginning to detect some features belonging to the next cycle and we can suggest that the next minimum will be in about two years,” says Elsworth.
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/3008-musical-sun-reduces-range-of-magnetic-activity
The Sun in transition? Persistence of near-surface structural changes through Cycle 24
R. Howe, G. R. Davies, W. J. Chaplin, Y. Elsworth, S. Basu, S. J. Hale, W. H. Ball, R. W. Komm
(Submitted on 25 May 2017)
Discussion
…It is tempting to speculate whether these results, and the multitude
of other unusual signatures relating to Cycle 24, might be
indicative of a longer-lasting transition in solar activity behaviour,
and the operation of the solar dynamo.
The existence of the Maunder Minimum, and other similar
minima suggested by proxy data relevant to millennal timescales,
indicate that there have likely been periods when the action of the
dynamo has been altered significantly. We finish by speculating
whether these events might presage a radical transition suggested
by data on other stars. Results on activity cycle periods shown by
other stars hint at a change in cycle behaviour – a possible transition
from one type of dynamo action to another – at a surface
rotation period of around 20 days (B¨ohm-Vitense 2007). There is
also more recent intriguing evidence from asteroseismic results on
solar-type stars (van Saders et al. 2016; Metcalfe et al. 2016) that
shows that the spin-down behaviour of cool stars changes markedly
once they reach a critical epoch, with the corresponding surface rotation period depending on stellar mass. For solar-mass stars, the results suggest a change in behaviour at about the solar age (and
solar rotation period).
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.09099.pdf
You used to show Cycle 5. 24 is more like 4 than 5. Cold weather could come, I agree. But we have low statistical confidence on what 25 will bring.
I think we are in for a cool down (half) cycle. But the science of solar cycles is full of uncertainty. No worse than climate change science, but no better.
SOLAR CYCLE VARIABILITY INDUCED BY TILT ANGLE SCATTER IN A BABCOCK–LEIGHTON SOLAR DYNAMO MODEL
BIDYA BINAY KARAK AND MARK MIESCH
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.08933.pdf
Draft version June 28, 2017
Abstract
We present results from a three-dimensional Babcock–Leighton dynamo model that is sustained by the explicit emergence and dispersal of bipolar magnetic regions (BMRs). On average, each BMR has a systematic tilt given by Joy’s law. Randomness and nonlinearity in the BMR emergence of our model produce variable magnetic cycles. However, when we allow for a random scatter in the tilt angle to mimic the observed departures from Joy’s law, we find more variability in the magnetic cycles. We find that the observed standard
deviation in Joy’s law of σδ = 15◦ produces a variability comparable to observed solar cycle variability of ∼
32%, as quantified by the sunspot number maxima between 1755–2008. We also find that tilt angle scatter can promote grand minima and grand maxima. The time spent in grand minima for σδ = 15◦
is somewhat less than that inferred for the Sun from cosmogenic isotopes (about 9% compared to 17%). However, when we double the tilt scatter to σδ = 30◦, the simulation statistics are comparable to the Sun (∼18% of the time in grand minima and ∼ 10% in grand maxima). Though the Babcock–Leighton mechanism is the only source of poloidal field, we find that our simulations always maintain magnetic cycles even at large fluctuations in the tilt angle. We also demonstrate that tilt quenching is a viable and efficient mechanism for dynamo saturation; a suppression of the tilt by only 1-2◦ is sufficient to limit the dynamo growth. Thus, any potential observational signatures of tilt quenching in the Sun may be subtle.
As far as I can see from the original paper Ed Fix’s model makes no sense either mathematically or
physically. In addition the data is then altered to agree with the model.
The original article is at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123859563100142
and the relevant equation is Eq. 3 which describes a mass on a spring with damping and a forcing
term. i.e. the acceleration a(t)= -k x(t) +b v(t)+ Fr(t)
this is the “integrated” incorrectly to give Eq (5)
x(t) = F_r*t^2 +v_0*t x_0
this equation is clearly wrong since the solutions for a mass on a spring are oscillatory while his equation
has a parabolic position dependence. Hence the model is fundamentally flawed since he appears to be
incapable of simple integration. Next he approximates this by some sort of weird finite difference and get
rid of the t^2 term by stating that t=1. Which again makes no sense in any mathematical or physical way.
Then he decides that he can reset his model to zero “resetting the initial condition” whenever his model
gives the wrong answer. And “the next manipulation was to reverse the polarity sign of all the sunspot data between 1810 and 1912” because it doesn’t agree with his model. So any agreement between his model
and reality is completely spurious and should not be taken seriously at all.
If Solar cycle magnetics unwind Earth’s orbit enough, we could start taking Mars orbit.
According to RSS trend temperature rise is the largest in the north. I remind you that the map is up to 2016 when there was strong El Ninio.
But in the south still cool.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt_v40/medium/global/MSU_AMSU_Channel_tlt_Trend_Map_v04_0_1979_2016.730_450.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inino34_daily_2014:2017.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r07_Greenland_Sea_ts_4km.png
This study was posted by Judith Curry in her weekly science review.
It shows that (surprise surprise!) European climate can be predicted a few years in advance from the heat content of the northerly extension of the gulf stream:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15875
From this there is already the prediction of at least half a decade of cooling European climate and Arctic sea ice growth. Both of these are predictable from the northern gulf stream heat, lagged by a few years.
The ocean is the gatekeeper of climate, and it operates slowly with lags of anything from years to thousands of years. (Javier showed previously that obliquity forces interglacials with 6,500 years lag.)
This controlling role of the ocean, and its long lags, are the reason why evidence is so flimsy for prompt climate effects of either solar or CO2 or any other forcing-de-jour. Such prompt effects are illusory and non-existent. All influences on climate go through the ocean and wait in line for a long time.
Weather = atmosphere; climate = ocean.
Why is the F10.7 Flux/Lyman alpha ratio significant? It appears to just be a haphazard number to me unless there is some underlying physical process.
KTM
I started looking in my own backyard in 2010
here is a summary of results of my investigations, in case you never saw that:
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming it’. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
Arguing with me that 99% of all scientists disagree with me is useless. You cannot have an “election” about science.
My opinion on the sat’s that don’t show the same as my results is that the material used to measure are degenerated more quickly due to the current conditions of the sun. The terrestrial based datasets are all biased towards the NH. Nobody balanced the stations properly NH and SH to zero latitude like I did. In addition, to cancel the effect of longitude, I looked at the average change from the average in K/ year, over the periods indicated.
So, let me stick to my results. Must say: we are talking about minute changes e.g. as can be seen above, my results indicate that T min (global) is going down at an average rate of ca. 0.01K / annum
[my wife still laughs at me for finding such a small silly end result….]
Do you have any results for the last 17 years?
my graph was made in 2015
including the results of 2014
meaning it is there [except 2015 and 2016]
The relative decline in solar activity will occur after 2020 after the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn.
Yes, the 2020 Jupiter-Saturn conjunction is pretty big in astrological circles.
http://i2.wp.com/mauricefernandez.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2-Jupiter-Saturn.png
http://mauricefernandez.com/the-saturn-pluto-conjunction-and-the-transits-for-the-year-2020/
“If we contemplate the whole sequence of astrological events in the year 2020, with its dramatic planetary alignments, we can anticipate great intensity and changes on many levels. These events will likely have a destructive edge as a new world order is programmed — change is not always a smooth process. However, since all the year’s transits culminate in the Jupiter–Saturn conjunction in Aquarius, we will see new solutions and paradigms emerge.”
I wonder why we bother with science and demand evidence.
The gas giant is so big that its centre of mass with the Sun, or barycenter, actually lies 1.07 solar radii from the middle of the Sun — or 7 percent of a Sun-radius above the Sun’s surface. Both the Sun and Jupiter orbit around that point in space.
This not-to-scale gif from NASA illustrates the effect:
https://www.sciencealert.com/jupiter-is-so-freaking-massive-it-doesn-t-actually-orbit-the-sun
jupiter-is-so-freaking-massive-it-doesn-t-actually-orbit-the-sun
If you are standing on the Sun, you will find that Jupiter actually does orbit the Sun. If Jupiter’s orbit were circular [that would not materially alter the center of gravity] you would find that the distance to the sun would always be the same, i.e. Jupiter does orbit the sun perfectly. That the sun wobbles a bit does not change that.
Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
I. R. G. Wilson A C , B. D. Carter B and I. A. Waite B
+ Author Affiliations
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85-93 https://doi.org/10.1071/AS06018
Submitted: 13 June 2007 Accepted: 28 April 2008 Published: 26 June 2008
Abstract
We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun. However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling. Some researchers have proposed that it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun that controls both the duration and strength of the Solar cycle. We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/as/Fulltext/AS06018
We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre
Does not explain the phase change that is postulated to match the solar cycles [apart from all the other problems with the idea], so is basically falsified.
I use this opportunity to emphasize that the International Space Station does not orbit the Earth, but the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system. Right or wrong?
To better bet the farm and weather the ravages of political turmoil wrought by an emotional attachment to bogus numerology purporting to be mathematics perhaps 🙂 /cynical
https://solarcycles.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trading-the-sun.pdf
“Everyone’s assumption has been that the shape of the heliosphere was molded by the flow of interstellar material passing around it,” said Merav Opher, an astronomer at Boston University, who is lead author on the paper. “Scientists thought the solar wind flowing down the tail could easily pull the magnetic fields in the heliosphere along as it flowed by, creating this long tail. But it turns out the magnetic fields are strong enough to resist that pull – so instead they squeeze the solar wind and create these two jets.”
Opher and her colleagues found the jets and determined the new shape when they adjusted simulations of the heliosphere based on observations collected from NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft, which recently moved outside of the heliosphere into interstellar space. As the first man-made object outside of our solar system, Voyager provided our only glimpse so far of the interstellar medium and it provided one giant surprise: The magnetic fields out there were aligned pretty much the same as the ones in here, though it had long been expected they would be oriented in a different direction.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/two-solar-wind-jets-found-in-the-heliosphere
You guys are all missing the most obvious issue: what effect will this have on farming and on the food you put on your plate?
Solar cycles affect weather far ahead of changes in climate cycles. Weather is the immediate short-term effect, climate is the longer term effect. The solar input is what drives weather on our little planet, everything from excessive snow-melt to excessive rain and flooding, bitter cold but dry winters (little to no snow), hurricanes/tropical storms, etc. It’s a complex system that does NOT have one answer for everything.
The question we should all be asking is how much will this obviously weaker than normal return to solar activity affect rain and snow totals, both of which have a direct impact on food supplies?
Here’s an example: two years of heavy rains, nearly nonstop, with flooding, will not only make it nearly impossible for any farmer to get out and plow and plant croplands, but will also make the growing/ripening season shorter for grains and will damage those crops. If you think you don’t use grain products, go look at what’s in your cupboard and fridge. That’s only one example.
This is a ‘model’ of sunspot magnetic cycle (hemisphere’s polarity change, not to be confused with polar fields magnetic cycle, two cycles run with 90 degree phase difference) published in January 2004.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSC.gif
23.724 =2 x 11.862 Jupiter orbital period and 19.859 J-S synodic period. One odd thing about it is that there is phase change every 100 or so years at the sunspot’s centenary minima.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/DipallR.gif
One odd thing about it is that there is phase change every 100 or so years at the sunspot’s centenary minima.
And that shows that the model is incorrect, because we know [from geomagnetic data] that the sun’s magnetic cycle did not have a phase change at any point since the 1840s.
Leif
your graph shows that the solar polar magnetic forces were the weakest ca. 2014
as predicted by me from the Gleisberg solar cycle
weakest in 86.5 years…..
http://oi63.tinypic.com/2ef6xvo.jpg
your graph shows that the solar polar magnetic forces were the weakest ca. 2014
So, they were as they went to zero, but they do that every solar maximum, i.e. about every 11 years.
Leif
I am saying
– there is a Gleisberg SC, 86.5 years, as predicted from my very own results – and the minimum solar polar field strengths was reached at SC 24 max, 2014
– you are saying
that during SC 25 the solar polar magnetic field strengths are going be lower than in SC 24,
following the very logic of your graph….
following the very logic of your graph
Except that the Sun does not know that and does what it wants. We can only watch. And at this point it looks that SC25 is going to be a bit stronger than SC24 because the polar fields are becoming stronger than they were back in 2007-2009.
so
like I told you before
put a mirror at that graph at 2014 and look what will happen in the next 44 years…
it is easy if you studied the actual daily data from 54 weather stations…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/11/monster-solar-minimum-approaching/#comment-2549301
Unfortunately, the Sun does not have a mirror and does not know about your marvelous discoveries. The Sun is now where it was about a century ago, but does not seem to have a memory about what it is supposed to do next.
you finally get it!
the sun is changing its behavior because of….
You tell me…And tell the sun. It doesn’t know.
And not on a 88 [sorry 86.5, or is it 86.51?] cycle.
Explain to all of us why you agree that 2014 was a turning point?
I just wonder if it would be at all possible
To take the ice broken off from the antarctic on a ship to cape town where we have the worst drought in 100 years….
It would be fresh water for us….
funny
shame
now you have to admit one way or another that 2014 was a turning point…
hahah
2014 was a turning point
As is every solar max. Lots of turning points.
Dr. Svalgaard:“…..because we know [from geomagnetic data] that the sun’s magnetic cycle did not have a phase change at any point since the 1840s.”
Hale’s polarity (Hale 1908) is known since 1908 and has been consistently reversing every sunspot cycle for a century since. I don’t know of a method that could have established the polarity for previous two centenary cycles.
SC25 & 26 by all accounts may initiate a new centenary cycle and will show if the Hale polarity is reversed or not. I will not be surprised by either result, but it wouldn’t defy logic if the polarity fails to reverse at the start of either of the next two cycles, after all there are always ‘rogue’ polarity spots at beginning of every cycle.
Physical mechanism ‘explaining’ the Hale’s polarity reversal is based hypothesis that is not possible to verify.
I don’t know of a method that could have established the polarity for previous two centenary cycles.
That you don’t know it, does not mean that it does not exist. The method is explained in Section 9 of
http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
An application back to the 1840s is here
http://www.leif.org/EOS/95GL03086.pdf
This is not in doubt, but is a well-established phenomenon
Thanks for references. Your article from 77 I remember reading some years ago, but forgotten most of details, but clearly remember Fig.23, will read again.
The machinations evident here is similar to the tortured Mann data. We fillet Mannian methods coming from the other side so we must fillet similar tactics from this side. If simple observation between two entities does not show robust correlation, torturing the data till it does steps outside the necessary limits of research put in place lest we return to belief in snake oil salesmen.
Looks like Leif has given up trying to counter this crack-pottery, I don’t blame him.
basically, yes. Not worth comments.
Comments such as your one above re phase change are however very helpful.
Tony, you are being a disingenuous troll here. You disagree with this man’s thought processes and , yet, here you are patting him on the back like Trump patting Putin! (“way to go vlad, i owe you one”) BTW, TSI varies 0.1%, not your 0.001%. Even svalgaard admits to a .1C increase in temperature due to this. What he is in d’nial of are the feedbacks associated with the increase which you apparently aren’t. (so, in reality, you couldn’t be in disagreement with svalgaard any more than you are)…
What about the 0.1C decrease when the cycle goes to the minimum? it is a cycle after all and averages out as a big fat zero. Feed-backs the same, unless you are arguing some sort of runaway effect, that mysteriously happened in tune with increasing anthro CO2….. the logic of which is that it will never stop.
Toneb, .1C would be the result with detrended data. That would say nothing about the trend from feedbacks with an average increase of .05C over the length of the cycle. (one could also argue that the .1C number is actually higher than that)…
Higher solar activity correlates with warming trends:
http://m.imgur.com/yvrMXFy?r
TSI could now be very nearly repeating the 2006-2009 TSI pattern:
I expect a near repeat of the 2005-2008 HadSST3 drop from low TSI going into this minimum:
http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif
This temperature drop will depend on the length of time this low TSI lasts, ie the cycle length.
The decrease in solar activity hinder the creation of a strong El Niño because of changes in circulation.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/anim/wkxzteq_anm.gif
I am surprised that the decline in the Earth’s magnetic field hasn’t gotten more attention. If recent data showing a 10% per decade decline is evidence that we are moving toward a pole reversal, I would think the potential impacts on climate would be widely discussed. I seldom see it mentioned.
Here you go: http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/reversals.html
The most threatened by climate change is North and South America.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/magnetic_field_changes/14582173-1-eng-GB/Magnetic_field_changes_node_full_image_2.jpg
Hemispheric difference in the change of the geomagnetic intensity is due to the asymmetry (lopsidedness) of the inner core, it melts on one side and crystallises on the other; this enhances/impedes outer core circulation where magnetic field is generated .
Due to the inner core’s differential rotation the effect of hemispheric magnetic intensity time gradient slowly drifts westward.
Strangely but physically not analogues, as far as I know, the sun’s magnetic field is also lopsided, and the anomaly is drifting longitudinally. Few years back (prompted by work of much younger Dr. Svalgaard) from the available data I constructed this diagram:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/nSSLong.gif
which I believe is still unique
which I believe is still unique
Not at all. This had been discussed for over a century. Starting with Maunder. A recent discussion is here
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU-2016-Fall-SH31B-2548.pdf
and here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gough-Is-the-Sun-a-Magnet.pdf
It says:
“Few years back (prompted by work of much younger Dr. Svalgaard) from the available data I constructed this diagram: which I believe is still unique”
In the plain English it says ‘diagram is unique’, your references show nothing of a kind.
Eh, vuk, the school yard bully’s at it again…
Researchers usually assume that the magnetic field is effectively frozen into the liquid under the surface of the core-mantle boundary (approximately 3000 km below the Earths surface). This means the magnetic field is advected by the flowing liquid (i.e. drifts along with it) over short timescales (< 10 years, say). In reality, the actual interaction between the liquid in the outer core and the magnetic field is far more complex and is currently poorly understood in detail. However, if the simplifying assumption is made that any observed change in the spatial pattern of the magnetic field is due to fluid flow, we can mathematically invert the changes in the magnetic field we measure at and close to the surface of the planet to infer the pattern of fluid flow at the top of the outer core.
Using several years of magnetic field observations from observatories and satellites can help us build up a picture of what the large-scale flow patterns in the core look like (this is known as a steady flow model). Figure 1 (top) shows an image of the changes of the magnetic field and the flow patterns that could cause this on the core-mantle boundary (continents shown for reference). In the Atlantic hemisphere, the flow tends to be relatively fast, while in the Pacific hemisphere it is slow or non-existent. The change of the magnetic field variation and hence the accelerated flow is about ten times smaller (bottom). This map also shows strong changes in the Indian Ocean, suggesting this is a location of relatively rapid acceleration.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/research/modelling/SVpredictions.html
What is Swarm?
Swarm is the fifth Earth Explorer mission approved in ESA’s Living Planet Programme, and was successfully launched on 22 November 2013.
The objective of the Swarm mission is to provide the best-ever survey of the geomagnetic field and its temporal evolution as well as the electric field in the atmosphere using a constellation of 3 identical satellites carrying sophisticated magnetometers and electric field instruments.
https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/missions/esa-operational-eo-missions/swarm;jsessionid=5C5CB2F4996DA238E1076CCC951AE817.jvm2
In the plain English it says ‘diagram is unique’, your references show nothing of a kind.
I(f course your diagram is unique unless you stole it somewhere [you must think the readership are morons]. What is not unique is the information it presumably was intended to convey, namely that the sun is magnetically lopsided, as my references so nicely show.
Doc, you made me laugh, the fact that you or your solar colleagues failed to construct one is your problem, else if you did do it would have been here in a flash.
“unless you stole it somewhere “
… ah, that old Danish proverb comes to mind….
It has been long time (mid 1800s) since my great, great grandfather led his gang across the border rustling Ottoman’s cattle. Since the house was bombarded few times by Turkish canons, pot marks are still there in one meter thick stone walls, the family refocused on running somewhat more honest business, producing good quality wine, and rather small quantity of the most excellent crystal clear brandy, which was served by the old president to his most distinguished guests including one Nikita Khrushchev and the word is to the queen Elisabeth, not exactly ladies drink, but I’m sure the old sea veteran Philip the Greek wouldn’t have missed a chance of a tipple or two.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/T&E.jpg
the fact that you or your solar colleagues failed to construct one is your problem
The diagram is just a way of showing what Maunder said a century ago. Because the Sun is rotating, the diagram just shows a time sequence wrapped around the Sun. The physics is that there is longitudinal structure in the Sun’s magnetism, as Wilcox and Gonzales suggested in 1971 [and Gough in 2017]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Wilcox-Gonzales-Dipole.png
Nothing unique about that.
Repeating an idea I’ve held for some time. There are 180 years in a Jose cycle. During the first 60 years of a Jose cycle the Schwabe cycles are exactly 10 years long. If the preferred length of a Schwabe cycle is 10 years, then there should be 18 Schwabe cycles in a Jose cycle. But, counting observed cycles, there are only 16. Is there a missing Hale cycle in every Jose cycle? IIRC, a paper by Usoskin suggests that there is no missing Hale cycle, only a period of very low solar activity such that the missing Hale cycle is not observed, even though magnetic activity continues.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.4720v1.pdf