David Archibald
We are well into the Solar Cycle 24/25 minimum but 24 may not have ended yet. A solar cycle isn’t over until the heliospheric current sheet has flattened. And that could be as late as March 2021. Solar cycle amplitude does matter with respect to climate and the amplitude of Solar Cycle 25, from projecting trends from the last three cycles, looks like being about 80 in 2027.
Figure 1: F10.7 flux 2014 to 2019
The F10.7 flux has been flat for a couple of years now. What is interesting is that a low of 63.4 was recorded on 21st October, which may be a low for the instrumental record. Since then the F10.7 has been in a narrow range from 68 to 70.
Figure 2: Heliospheric current sheet tilt angle 1976 to 2019
The solar cycle isn’t over until the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has flattened and as at Carrington rotation 2224, the tilt angle was still a few degrees from having flattened. If the date of flattening is constrained by the slope of the decline from the cycle peak then the latest date for flattening is March 2021.
Figure 3: Ap Index 1980 – 2019
This figure shows the break in the Ap Index in 2006 at the end of the Modern Warm Period to the New Cold Period. It also shows the relationship between month of heliospheric current sheet flattening (red arrows) and the month of minimum as determined by the low in sunspot activity (green arrows) which is far more subjective.
Figure 4: Aligned heliospheric current sheet tilt angle by month of minimum
Solar Cycle 23 was stronger for longer while Solar Cycle 24 is largely tracking 21 and 22, suggesting the end may be soon.
Figure 5: Solar hemispheric sunspot area and F10.7 flux 1985 – 2019
This figure is included to show that solar activity, as measured by the F10.7 flux, is directly proportional to the sum of the sunspot areas of the solar northern and southern hemispheres. Sunspot number is proportional to F10.7 flux but is a less precise measure.
Figure 6: Sunspot area by solar hemisphere 1985 to 2019
In this figure the hemispheric sunspot areas are plotted individually instead of cumulatively. What is readily apparent is that each hemisphere has been driven by its own trend in activity – the peaks of both cycles all line up. Which begs the question of what will happen if those trends in activity continue? In Solar Cycle 24 the peak of northern hemispheric activity occurred three years before that of the southern hemisphere. If that repeats in Solar Cycle 25 with the amplitude of each hemisphere constrained by the blue trend lines, then the northern hemisphere would peak in 2024 with an amplitude of 200 millionths of the solar hemispheric area and the southern hemisphere would peak in 2027 with an amplitude of 600 millionths of the solar hemispheric area. For the whole solar cycle, the peak amplitude would be in 2027 with a smoothed sunspot number of 80, down a third from Solar Cycle 24.
Figure 7: Sunspot area by hemisphere 1874 to 1924
This figure is included to show that trends in hemispheric sunspot activity can hold for nearly four solar cycles as shown by the southern solar hemisphere (red line) from the late 19th century.
Figure 8: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 to 2019
This is the main part of where the rubber meets the road in terms of the effect of solar activity on climate. Weaker solar activity, as is predicted for Solar Cycle 25, means that more galactic cosmic rays make it into the inner planets of the solar system instead of being pushed away by the Sun’s magnetic flux carried on the solar wind. The shower of neutrons in the lower atmosphere increases and provides more nucleation sites for cloud droplets. The increased cloud cover reflects more sunlight and the Earth cools. The peak in neutron flux may be as late as 2022.
Figure 9: North Dakota December 3, 2019
The economic consequences of a cooling Earth are shown in this figure of part of a satellite photo of a rural area of North Dakota taken on December 3, 2019. White is snow and the brown rectangles are unharvested corn. In NASA’s words:
“a wet fall, combined with corn plants that contained too much moisture, provoked famers to leave the corn in the fields this year. Snow on corn stocks can clog harvesting equipment. But the bigger concern is the moisture content. It is more economically prudent for a farmer to wait and let the corn dry on the stalks—harvesting it in February or early March—than it is to harvest it now and have to dry it in storage facilities.”
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare.
Here is some exceptionally interesting data regarding the fall off in overall solar intensity and the 677.98 nanometer irradiance is very far down (almost 2w/m2) over the last solar minimum.
Very darned interesting…
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/community/topic/1575-solar-minimum-per-sorce-sim/
Heres some similar data I posted earlier notice the correlation with sunspots
angech
In your comment above, concerning the graph I presented:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XwvXfhkL5XcRBbsT09CybDsVNI_d7s-m/view
you wrote:
“In all 3 recognised global data sets it shows global temperatures have falling trends since 2016.”
Since 2016!!! Oh dear, oh Noes! That horrifying.
1. Is it for me a wonderful thing, angech, to observe that
– when a Warmista points on 40 years of warming, s/he gets immediately replied by Coolistas ‘8000 years ago, it was much warmer’,
but also that
– the same Coolistas suddenly can insist on ‘falling trends’ since little three years.
What an amazing, delightful contrast!
2. You speak about ‘since 2016’. Aha.
What did you say in 2001, little three years after the 1997/98 El Nino, which was way stronger than that of 2015/16? Did the temperatures not fall too at that time?
They did. And they did (or seemed to do) quite similar as they do (or seem to do) now.
But inbetween, a little piece of warming happened. Not much! But enough to let a temperature series give the impression that right now, nothing is any more comparable to the period 21 years ago. Nonsense!
I think since a while that the best way is to compare, using the UAH temperature series, the two El Nino events such that they both start at zero (we can do that by subtracting in the periods to be compared, the first anomaly from all subsequent ones).
Let us compare, in the UAH time series, the periods Jan 1997 till Nov 2001 and Jan 2015 till Nov 2019:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y1zmzMt_1gD5jxCOH13UVYvbocYulbNz/view
After the highest anomaly in the UAH record since beginning in Dec 1978, it is quite normal to observe falling trends. But when comparing the two El Nino situations I ask you:
What is in these falling trends so different from what happened after 1997/98?
Do not both periods show a rebound after their relative peak?
Moreover, while the difference between the highest peak in 1998 and the lowest subsequent drop was 0.99 °C, the difference between the (relatively higher) 2016 peak and its lowest subsequent drop was only 0.72 °C.
*
Interestingly, you can observe a quite similar situation at the surface.
To show this, I selected the ‘coolest’ temperature series, namely that of the Japanese Met Agency: it reports global anomalies wrt 1981-2010 quite similar to those of UAH in the lower troposphere:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BEj60d0jVS51gDbSzBMhNvuP_14I3Wey/view
Trend for 1979-2019: 0.14 °C / decade, com pared with UAH6.0 LT: 0.13 °C.
Now let us look at the two El Nino periods, as we did for UAH:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B1fmSRnfC_TIRUYI6eQs2JeSFRHxhXqL/view
You could easily continue the game with the undetrended AMO…
*
Conclusion: may I propose to wait for a little year or two, and then to resume the comparison?
Merry Xmas
J.-P. D. in the (a bit too warm) Germany. I enjoy! I don’t need snow any more…
Happy Xmas Bindidon.
Thank you for you graph showing the cooling trend in all 3 major global data sets since 2016.
Which supported AM ‘s observation that some cooling had happed recently.
And deflated Loydo’s snark.
Trends are simply changes in direction over time periods.
People are entitled to observe a trend change, as Allen did and comment on it.
–
Your comments that 3 years is too short a time for a trend, that forty years is perfect and that 8000 years is too long and confuses two different concepts, definition and relevance.
A trend can be observable over any time period.
A trend has relevance only when associated with a meaningful idea or concept. it can help give a prediction or a possibility or a probability to past current and future events.
So.
Three years has very low relevance but you cannot complain about the mention of a trend.
40 years has some slight relevance, you can mention the trend but it still indicates low probability.
60 to a hundred years is starting to be useful but of course starts to lose relevance to us as we shuffle off the coil.
8000 years of data would be very helpful but of little use to the current concerns.
I strongly doubt that 2 years will resolve this issue.
–
However “ while the difference between the highest peak in 1998 and the lowest subsequent drop was 0.99 °C, the difference between the (relatively higher) 2016 peak and its lowest subsequent drop was only 0.72 °C.
Raises the issue of good faith in discussions.
–
We are talking about trends, remember.
The rate of fall for that 0.72C was much sharper , ie over a much shorter period of time than that of the 0.99C fall. .
–
In the long run the validity of AGW lies on increasing warming with CO2 and causing damage in doing so. A couple of years of cooling temperature will put a big dent in your argument. Much more than the gentle warming in a much too short 40 year span would do to mine.
Moreover, while the difference between the highest peak in 1998 and the lowest subsequent drop was 0.99 °C, the difference between the (relatively higher) 2016 peak and its lowest subsequent drop was only 0.72 °C.
angech
As I anticipated, you are so incredibly busy with communicating your meaning that you didn’t have time to inspect the two graphs in my comment above with the necessary attention.
Perfect. Typical characteristic of what I use to name ‘pseudoskepticism’…
I don’t care about warming or cooling.
Have a nice time
J.-P. D.
That’s funny bindidon you go out of your way to show warming and failed, if you dont care about warming or cooling what exactly are you doing here , your a warmest and I’m glad I burst your bubble .
I know its only a correlation but weaker cycles are generally longer. Just 10 years for the weakest cycle in a century is unlikely.
2 SC25 sunspot groups visible today!
The part I don’t understand in all of this is, IF small sunspot-related solar variations make a difference in the climate, why is it so difficult to find an ~11-year cycle in surface datasets (e.g. temperature, SST, cloudiness, precipitation, etc.)?
And before you say I haven’t looked, check out the list below of where I have looked …
w.
Congenital Cyclomania Redux 2013-07-23
Well, I wasn’t going to mention this paper, but it seems to be getting some play in the blogosphere. Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again, this time with a paper called “Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs”. He’s…
Cycles Without The Mania 2013-07-29
Are there cycles in the sun and its associated electromagnetic phenomena? Assuredly. What are the lengths of the cycles? Well, there’s the question. In the process of writing my recent post about cyclomania, I came across a very interesting paper entitled “Correlation Between the Sunspot Number, the Total Solar Irradiance,…
Sunspots and Sea Level 2014-01-21
I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here’s the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level: And here is the claim about the graph: Sea level change and solar activity A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig.…
Riding A Mathemagical Solarcycle 2014-01-22
Among the papers in the Copernicus Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics we find a paper from R. J. Salvador in which he says he has developed A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr. Setting aside the difficulties of verification of sunspot numbers for…
Sunny Spots Along the Parana River 2014-01-25
In a comment on a recent post, I was pointed to a study making the following surprising claim: Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana ́ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with…
Usoskin Et Al. Discover A New Class of Sunspots 2014-02-22
There’s a new post up by Usoskin et al. entitled “Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity”. To their credit, they’ve archived their data, it’s available here. Figure 1 shows their reconstructed decadal averages of sunspot numbers for the last three thousand years, from their paper: Figure 1. The results…
Solar Periodicity 2014-04-10
I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sun’s energy at a specified distance…
Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Beryllium 2014-04-13
In investigations of the past history of cosmic rays, the deposition rates (flux rates) of the beryllium isotope 10Be are often used as a proxy for the amount of cosmic rays. This is because 10Be is produced, inter alia, by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Being a congenitally inquisitive type…
The Tip of the Gleissberg 2014-05-17
A look at Gleissberg’s famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year “Gleissberg cycle” in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissberg’s original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.
The Effect of Gleissberg’s “Secular Smoothing” 2014-05-19
ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been “secularly smoothed” using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, there…
It’s The Evidence, Stupid! 2014-05-24
I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz: It’s the sun, stupid. And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s…
Sunspots and Sea Surface Temperature 2014-06-06
I thought I was done with sunspots … but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in”. In this case Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if I’d seen the paper from Nir…
Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima 2014-06-23
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I…
Changes in Total Solar Irradiance 2014-10-25
Total solar irradiance, also called “TSI”, is the total amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It is measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an…
Splicing Clouds 2014-11-01
So once again, I have donned my Don Quijote armor and continued my quest for a ~11-year sunspot-related solar signal in some surface weather dataset. My plan for the quest has been simple. It is based on the fact that all of the phenomena commonly credited with affecting the temperature,…
Volcanoes and Sunspots 2015-02-09
I keep reading how sunspots are supposed to affect volcanoes. In the comments to my last post, Tides, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes, someone approvingly quoted a volcano researcher who had looked at eleven eruptions of a particular type and stated: …. Nine of the 11 events occurred during the solar inactive phase…
Early Sunspots and Volcanoes 2015-02-10
Well, as often happens I started out in one direction and then I got sidetractored … I wanted to respond to Michele Casati’s claim in the comments of my last post. His claim was that if we include the Maunder Minimum in the 1600’s, it’s clear that volcanoes with a…
Sunspots and Norwegian Child Mortality 2015-03-07
In January there was a study published by The Royal Society entitled “Solar activity at birth predicted infant survival and women’s fertility in historical Norway”, available here. It claimed that in Norway in the 1700s and 1800s the solar activity at birth affected a child’s survival chances. As you might imagine, this…
The New Sunspot Data And Satellite Sea Levels 2015-08-13
[UPDATE:”Upon reading Dr. Shaviv’s reply to this post, I have withdrawn any mention of “deceptive” from this post. This term was over the top, as it ascribed motive to the authors. I have replaced the term with “misleading”. This is more accurate…
My Thanks Apologies And Reply To Dr Nir Shaviv 2015-08-17
Dr. Nir Shaviv has kindly replied in the comments to my previous post. There, he says: Nir Shaviv” August 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm There is very little truth about any of the points raised by Eschenbach in this article. In particular, his analysis excludes the fact that the o…
Is The Signal Detectable 2015-08-19
[UPDATE] In the comments, Nick Stokes pointed out that although I thought that Dr. Shaviv’s harmonic solar component was a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 centimetres, it is actually a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 millime…
The Missing 11 Year Signal 2015-08-19
Dr. Nir Shaviv and others strongly believe that there is an ~ 11-year solar signal visible in the sea level height data. I don’t think such a signal is visible. So I decided to look for it another way, one I’d not seen used before. One of the more sensitive …
23 New Papers 2015-09-22
Over at Pierre Gosselin’s site, NoTricksZone, he’s trumpeting the fact that there are a bunch of new papers showing a solar effect on the climate. The headline is Already 23 Papers Supporting Sun As Major Climate Factor In 2015 “Burgeoning Evidence No Longer Dismissible!…
The Cosmic Problem With Rays 2016-10-17
Normal carbon has six neutrons and six protons, for an atomic weight of twelve. However, there is a slightly different form of carbon which has two extra neutrons. That form of carbon, called carbon-14 or ’14C’, has an atomic weight of fourteen. It is known to be formed by the …
In the splicing clouds article you linked too , I think konrad defended his position very well, I also think it’s no coincidence that you regergatate your previous articles at this time , the general theme seems to be not many people agree with you, even though you clearly know what your talking about. If you cant prove something which seems to be your point then you cant disprove it.
B d Clark December 24, 2019 at 12:16 pm
B d, I stated a number of times in those articles that no, they do not prove that the sunspot-related solar variations don’t affect the surface climate. You can never prove a negative about the existence of something. All that my research can do is show where I’ve looked and found nothing.
Next, if you want to impress people with your vocabulary, learn to spell “regurgitate” …
Next, konrad did NOT “defend his position”. I asked him to quote whatever it was that he was babbling about. He didn’t do so, just continued to put up and knock down straw men regarding what he thinks I believe.
Finally, konrad said little about the subject, which is whether there is a significant ~ 11-year signal in the cloud dataset … probably because there isn’t one. The closest he came was this:
I have no idea what that had to do with clouds. In addition, the hourly, daily and monthly variations in solar input to any given ocean are clearly visible in the resulting changes in sea surface temperature. Nobody has ever explained to me what every surfer like myself knows, which is that changes in solar input easily change the ocean surface temperature on an hourly, daily, and monthly basis … but despite that, konrad and others claim that solar variations are somehow unable to do so on an ~11-year basis.
Do you have an answer to that one?
Best regards and Xmas wishes,
w.
I dont really care if I’m impressing or depressing anyone with my grammar and spelling ,a rather cheap shot on your part, the sun warms the sea sure ,but it mixes every 12 hrs due to tides, which then increases or decreases the overall temperature, a prolonged SC will have a measurable effect on the main climate moderater, that drives the climate .a direct effect from the sun.
B d Clark December 24, 2019 at 12:50 pm
Thanks, B d. Pointing out that you can’t spell is indeed a cheap shot, my apologies. But if you wish to be taken seriously, it’s also an important shot—if you haven’t mastered spelling, folks are much less likely to take your scientific claims seriously. And you should “really care” about that.
Next, actually, the ocean does NOT “mix every 12 hrs due to tides” anywhere but in a very thin band along the shores. For the overwhelming majority of the ocean, the tide has absolutely no mixing effect. The entire ocean (and the land underneath it) simply moves up and down without mixing. In mid-ocean, or anywhere away from land, which is almost all of the ocean, there’s no way to know from the ocean’s behavior that a tide even exists.
In addition, in general, there are two tides per day … and if the mixing occurred as you hypothesize, we wouldn’t see the regular sinusoidal swings of sea surface temperatures over a 24-hour period. But we do see them, and there is no indication of any “tidal mixing” in the SST data.
So I fear your tidal mixing theory has run aground on a reef of hard facts.
w.
PS—How do I know so much about the ocean? Well, I’m a surfer, a diver, a sailor, and a commercial fisherman. I’ve spent thousands of hours out of sight of land. Plus I’m naturally curious and studious, so I’ve spent heaps of time reading about ocean-related science. There’s a tale of one of my more curious sea voyages here if you’re interested, 145 days at sea. And at the end of a lifetime of doing that, despite not having any credentials (except for a Coast Guard skippers license and Openwater I, II, and Rescue Diving Scuba certs) I know more than a little about the briny blue …
Now I know your talking rubbish the oceans turn/mix every 12 hours there a heat sinc ,a radiative force that control climate over many decades, were do you think the solar radiation it picks up through the day goes,your analogy is false.your further claims that TSI are meaningless to 11 year cycles is also false you forget or omitting the cumulative effect of TSI over maxima and minima SC is huge , even the solar experts on this site agree on this, the debate is When consecutive SCs become a GSM 3 cycles appear to be the trigger, it’s not what you say in your case it’s what you dont say that matters, you belittle the effect of cosmic Ray’s and sun spots , yet these are climate drivers at present they correlate very well ,and correlate well with the transition of SC24 /25.
Your choice of date for your release of past articles is suspect, your lack of support in these previous articles is obvious , your another global warmest arent you.
B d, I fear your latest spittle-flecked rant has convinced me to let this interchange go. You haven’t provided anything but more passionate mis-spelled incoherent claims.
Science depends on EVIDENCE. You’ve given us exactly none
Pass.
My best wishes to you,
w.
So that’s you completely blown out, another warmest completely stumped on CRF ,you claimed never heard of CRF having any effect on volcanic action yet papers proved you wrong, you were looking for a fight tonight and you got one, not even a mention of the correlation of sunspots and tsi here il post it again for you
Your a global warmest who has been confusing the debate for years,you asked for proof I gave you proof ,you bow out on the excuse of bad spelling ,loydo puts up a better argument than you .
“loydo puts up a better argument than you”
Thank you B d, I’ll take that as a compliment. Just about everything you’ve written, including the above, is total hogwash, but thank you. Btw, I, being an actual so-called “warmist”, disagree with plenty of Willis’ conclusions, but as far as “putting them up” goes, he is way ahead of me.
I posted this below, B d, but it seems you missed it.
B d Clark December 23, 2019 at 3:19 pm
B d, I looked at volcanoes and sunspots and found no correlation of the kind that you claim. See here for the details.
If you disagree with my analysis of volcanoes and sunspots, please quote the section you think is wrong, and tell us why. Handwaving and personal attacks go nowhere.
w.
B d Clark December 24, 2019 at 2:47 pm
This is why it’s so hard to discuss things with you. I listed above no less that three separate posts of mine about volcanoes and sunspot-related solar variations. These variations, as I’ve also discussed in various places, include inter alia the TSI, the solar wind, and the CRF. All of these vary in sync with the sunspots.
So your claim above that I said that I’ve “never heard of CRF having any effect on volcanic action”, when I’ve written three separate posts on that very subject, is a joke. If you think I said that, point out where. And while you’re at it … please read my posts before you make an even greater spectacle of your failure to do your homework.
And the claim that I’m unaware that the TSI varies in sync with the sunspots is equally ludicrous. In fact, as Leif Svalgaard pointed out, you can calculate the TSI very closely using just the group sunspot number, with the relationship being:
TSI = 1360.43 + 0.24 * Group Sunspot Number ^ 0.7
So please, dial back on your fantasies of what I do and don’t know … I not only know that TSI varies in sync with sunspots, I know the formula to calculate one from the other, something which AFAICT you never heard of, much less know and have used in your research as I have …
I “asked for proof”? That’s another of your fantasies. If you truly believe that, point out where I said it.
Finally, you say you gave me “proof” of some unspecified thing … please point out where the proof is, and what it is the “proof” of …
I do, however, love your claim that I’m a “global warmest” …
w.
It’s fairly obvious to anyone reading this post,theres something wrong with you I’ve provided 3 papers for you ,that you have totally ignored , no discussion no acknowledgement, nothing, you just keep refering to your own rubbish from years ago. You write a lot of words that mean nothing.
Re the Norwegian child mortality, it was first done with US congressmen:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/05/24/an-extraterrestrial-link-sunspots-and-life-span/f9336f73-8100-42c1-bb77-6d35bcfeaa4c/
The research was funded by the bloke who developed cisplatin.
David Archibald predicted at the time of the last solar minimum that this latest one would herald enormous cooling. There was instead enormous warming. Why does David Archibald still have an audience?
His writing is exciting even when some of it is suspect. He gets carried away with low solar cycle = cooling in the near future predictions, doesn’t consider buffering effects in the atmosphere and ocean waters.
Most of the “enormous” (not true) warming are from nearly continuous El-Nino phases, with very little La-Nina effects since 2008, that is a long time, which means the ocean waters have been cooling down for years now, eventually will peter out…..
B d Clark December 23, 2019 at 3:19 pm Edit
B d, I looked at volcanoes and sunspots and found no correlation of the kind that you claim. See here for the details.
w.
Willis Eschenbach
Thanks Willis.
Merry Xmas
J.-P. Dehottay in Germany
https://globalnews.ca/news/6174324/harvest-from-hell-2-7-million-acres-of-canola-left-buried-under-snow-in-western-canada/
Hmm. Heliospheric current sheet.
You mean https://www.google.com/search?q=heliospheric+current+sheet&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&ctxr&ctxsl_trans=1&tlitetl=de&tlitetxt=heliospheric%20current%20sheet