Where have all the sunspots gone?
13 02 2008
I’m writing this after doing an exhaustive search to see what sort of solar activity has occurred lately, and I find there is little to report. With the exception of the briefly increased solar wind from a coronal hole, there is almost no significant solar activity.
The sun has gone quiet. Really quiet.
It is normal for our sun to have quiet periods between solar cycles, but we’ve seen months and months of next to nothing, and the start of Solar cycle 24 seems to have materialized (as first reported here) then abruptly disappeared. The reverse polarity sunspot that signaled the start of cycle 24 on January 4th, dissolved within two days after that.
Of course we’ve known that the sunspot cycle has gone low, which is also to be expected for this period of the cycle. Note that NOAA still has two undecided scenarios for cycle 24 Lower that normal, or higher than normal, as indicated on the graph below:
But the real news is just how quiet the suns magnetic field has been in the past couple of years. From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve graphed it below:
click for a larger image
What is most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels.
This looks much like a “step function” that I see on GISS surface temperature graphs when a station has been relocated to a cooler measurement environment. In the case of the sun, it appears this indicates that something abruptly “switched off” in the inner workings of the solar dynamo. Note that in the prior months, the magnetic index was ramping up a bit with more activity, then it simply dropped and stayed mostly flat.
We saw a single reversed polarity high latitude sunspot on January 4th, 2008, which would signal the start of a new cycle 24, which was originally predicted to have started last March and expected to peak in 2012. So far the sun doesn’t seem to have restarted its normal upwards climb.
If you have ever studied how the magnetic dynamo of the sun is so incredibly full of entropy, yet has cycles, you’ll understand how it can change states. The sun’s magnetic field is a like a series of twisted and looped rubber bands, mostly because the sun is a fluid gas, which rotates at different rates between the poles and the equator. Since the suns magnetic field is pulled along with the gas, all these twists, bumps, and burps occur in the process as the magnetic field lines get twisted like taffy. You can see more about it in the Babcock model.
I’ve alway’s likened a sunspot to what happens with a rubber band on a toy balsa wood plane. You keep twisting the propeller beyond the normal tightness to get that extra second of thrust and you see the rubber band start to pop out knots. Those knots are like sunspots bursting out of twisted magnetic field lines.
The Babcock model says that the differential rotation of the Sun winds up the magnetic fields of it’s layers during a solar cycle. The magnetic fields will then eventually tangle up to such a degree that they will eventually cause a magnetic break down and the fields will have to struggle to reorganize themselves by bursting up from the surface layers of the Sun. This will cause magnetic North-South pair boundaries (spots) in the photosphere trapping gaseous material that will cool slightly. Thus, when we see sunspots, we are seeing these areas of magnetic field breakdown.
Sunspots are cross connected eruptions of the magnetic field lines, shown in red above. Sometimes they break, spewing tremendous amounts of gas and particles into space. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CME’s) are some examples of this process. Sometimes they snap back like rubber bands. The number of sunspots at solar max is a direct indicator of the activity level of the solar dynamo.
Given the current quietness of the sun and it’s magnetic field, combined with the late start to cycle 24 with even possibly a false start, it appears that the sun has slowed it’s internal dynamo to a similar level such as was seen during the Dalton Minimum. One of the things about the Dalton Minimum was that it started with a skipped solar cycle, which also coincided with a very long solar cycle 4 from 1784-1799. The longer our current cycle 23 lasts before we see a true ramp up of cycle 24, the greater chance it seems then that cycle 24 will be a low one.
No wonder there is so much talk recently about global cooling. I certainly hope that’s wrong, because a Dalton type solar minimum would be very bad for our world economy and agriculture. NASA GISS published a release back in 2003 that agrees with the commonly accepted idea that long period trends in solar activity do affect our climate by changing the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).
Some say it is no coincidence that 2008 has seen a drop in global temperature as indicated by several respected temperature indexes compared to 2007, and that our sun is also quiet and still not kick starting its internal magentic dynamo.
Could all that CO2 that AL and others speak of have such an effect on the sun? WOW.
Anthony:
The first false start to cycle 24 was back in 2006. I do not have the citation at hand, but a ‘reversed’ field spot appeared for a short time back then, predating the Jan. 4 spot by 18 months or so. As you might imagine, the discussion of the sunspot cycles is just as hot (pardon the pun) a topic in Amateur Radio discussions as it is on the GW blogs. Mentions of the Maunder Minimum crop up often, as do occasional mentions of Dalton, and the question of where have our spots gone? dominates the topics.
REPLY: Yes I recall that now, but the consensus was that one was a fluke. But the one on Jan 4th may be a fluke also. My awareness of the situation is helped by the fact that I’m a Amatuer Radio Operator myself. 73’s
Wow, that’s decisive isnt it. I could have made that prediction, and I cost a lot less than NOAA.
Hi Anthony, great write up. I am convinced that we are looking at the return of a Dalton Minimum pattern and started blog it over a year ago at The Dalton Minimum Returns. I was unaware of the sudden drop in the GAPI in October 2005, and will investigate some more. It was my interest in amateur radio that sparked my interest in sun spots and their rise and fall indicating a connection to climate change. 73’s KF6TAR
REPLY: Russ’ site is worth a visit, I recommend it.
The 2006 occurance was not a Sunspot. Only the magnetograph caught the reverse polarity event. This means that the surface presence of the magnetic disturbance was not strong enough to cause a sunspot. All those who deemed and predicted that cycle 24 would be very active were hoping for this to be the beginning. Regardless the Sun has a mind of its own. Our solar heater shines down on the Earth and laughs at all those who call themselves wise and all those who are ultimately stupid. This means Al Gore, John McCain, Joe Leiberman, Kyoto et. al.
Our political hacks are so caught up with warming that they are going to be the cause of famine, disease and death in the forthcoming Dalton-Maunder-Sporer minimum. If the solar physicists and other intellegent people who look at the Sun as the source and moderator of climate on Earth are correct then we should be preparing for failed crops, no heating oil, little rain, bitterly cold winters and rampant disease from unhealthy people.
Oh my! Can we do anything? Could we use more solar powered cars? Or maybe fewer solar cells? Maybe we could stop burning oil and coal! That’ll spark the sun right up.
Maybe we should start a Solar Trading scheme, were there are a certain number of credits available and people or industries that use more than their fair share can simply buy someone else’s share. Yeah. That’ll change everything.
Maybe we need to start dropping nuclear waste into the sun. Would that help? Or hurt? Maybe we could start dropping AGW alarmists in! Even if that doesn’t spark things up, it would still be a lot of fun
I forgot where I read it recently, but the statement towards understanding what influences our climate was simply put as, the Earth is within the climate zone of our Sun. I find that quite powerful but amazing how many overlook this.
Also I read back more than a decade ago, that there is a thermal lag affect here on Earth based on solar activity which affects our weather, no different than the temperature lag affect we see when daily high temperature occurs a few hours after the Sun peaks in the sky, or a few weeks each winter and summer after the Sun is closest or fartherst from us in our hemisphere.
Is this correct? If so, should we expect a general cool-down to continue so long as solar activity continues on the trend?
Great reading here - glad I found this the other day.
Great post, Anthony. You are on fire! Like Russ I’d not seen the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph with the step before, fabulous. Another radio aficionado, Jan Alvestad, has a great blog for following the data, dxlc. There will certainly be a lot of blood on the floor at NASA over the AWOL cycle 24.
Excellent entry Anthony. It continues to mystify me how so many people refuse to belive the sun is in charge of our planet’s climate system. I believe they will be proven very wrong in the next decade or so.
It’s been a year since NASA released their predictions on #24. Is there any updated predictions based on how quiet the sun has been up to this point? What is the predicted final length of #23? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not believe there have been any high latitude sunspots associated with #24 since the one small reversed one last month. Yes/no?
I too think we’re looking as a Dalton Minimum scenario. With a negative PDO phase….oh my. Add a major volcanic eruption (which, BTW, we haven’t had one for a while, so we’re due) and, well, I think it may be very very difficult to feed 7 billion people.
As you say, we live in very interesting times….
BTW, the genius of (now deceased) Theodore Landscheidt continues to amaze me. He flat out nailed, decades ago, the decline in solar activity after 1990, a less intense #23, and a steep decline into a Dalton-type minimum activity. Genius…
I found an interesting site about a possible explanation of the solar cycles. A prediction that we are facing a Dalton min is also made with 89 % probablity. True or not, but nonetheless interesting reading.
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#intro
I live in Western Europe. So far we’ve had a warm winter. We’ve been saved by the warm Golf Stream. But I believe that will not last long very long.
What I understand and believe is that we have to wait 2 more years before we enter Cycle 24. That will make 4 years with low solar activity compared to the normal 1 year of low activity. There is a 3 year lag time before we start to feel the full affect here on Earth.
This should lower the Earth’s temperature by 1.5 Centigrade, by 2015-2020. During the last hundred years it have been risen by 0.6-0.7 Centigrade.
The only good thing about this cold snap is all the pseudo scientists that will get fired.
Hi,
Leif Svalgaard thinks it will start this summer (200
and have a Rmax of 75. He also states that it could also be what he calls a Grand Minimum, but he just doesn’t know. I think it will start next summer (2009) and have 60 to 65 spots. Here is his link, everything you wanted to know but afraid to ask
http://www.leif.org/research/
His thread on CA
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comments
Golf Stream. Is *that* where all my golf balls end up?
It is hard for me to fathom how the Global Warming Alarmists ignore the obvious. I am far from being well knowledged on the scientific aspects of global temperatures, but it has always been obvious to me that the sun is our primary source of ‘heat’, duh.
What scares me most are the seemingly educated scientists (government funded IPCC types) and supposedly thoughtful politicians who so easily accept the Kyoto Protocol precepts. My take on this is a way to tax and spend on a global basis under any pretext necessary to accomplish this.
This type of reporting when combined with other writings on this subjects are quite educational for the layman, such as myself. It is unfortunate that this type of forum is not broadcast to the general public via the mainstream media. Then those citizens that get their knowledge between Oprah Winfrey and Survivor episodes may start activating areas of their gray matter previously unused.
Thank you for your excellent article. And the excellent comments as well.
Unfortunately Per, the Warmists will merely change tact. They already have been largely successful in changing the lexicon from global warming to climate change. They’ve already been blaming this year’s cold weather extremes on climate change, again due to human CO2.
Besides, when they are called on the decline in temperatures likely to follow, they will not miss a beat in saying that no credible scientists ever said temperatures would continue to rise. There is neither any shame, nor honor, among this crowd. All they want is their political outcomes no matter how they are obtained.
Anthony,
If we believe Svensmark the Sun’s magnetic field has doubled since 1900 so, it’d be really interesting to see the graph on the Sun’s magnetic field strength stretched out to include the full historical data, back to mid-1800’s? If Svensmark is right, the strength and extension of the solar magnetic umbrella is one of the main drivers in warming cycles but, given that the solar flaring activity is decreasing but, the solar magnet field is particularly strong relative to 1900, there may easily be a confluence of multiple factors driving the earth to be slightly out of sync with the historical minimums you’re showing.
It’d give true perspective to the current situation and it wouldn’t be too hard to get and use the rest of the data since they’ve been collected by the British for 150 years and should be available to the public.
I’d hate to think that thoughtful commentary like yours fails to show the full time-series associated with this phenomena, it’s not necessary and like Edward Tufte exhorts, let the evidence speak for itself, something that I feel confident that it will support your viewpoint.
They have already gone on record as saying the cooling in Antarctica not only was predicted, but does not in any way contradict their models.
Seriously: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold
I’ve never understood why, when asked what might have an impact on global temperatures, a) evil Western capitalism or b) a gigantic ball of fire hundreds of times larger than our planet itself, people choose “a”. Hasn’t anyone noticed the simple fact that when the sun goes down at night, the temperature drops 30+ degrees immediately? Is that just from all those mean CO2 plants shutting down for the evening?
REPLY to: Joe in San Diego
The only reason this plot goes back to 1991 is that it comes from satellite data, so no prior data from this data set exists. However, there is a surface based magnetic measurement done by (I think) the UK Royal Naval Observatory, with a parallel measurement done in Australia, which I recall goes back to the 1850’s as compass/navigation aid.
I’ll see if this 2005 drop shows up in that if I can find the raw data to plot. If anyone knows where to find it, please advise.
[...] II: Beside supporting the theory of the Nobel Peace Prize curse, this is actually something to be concerned about. No wonder there is so much talk recently about global cooling. I certainly hope that’s wrong, [...]
Keep up the good work. It is refreshing to see someone else promoting
facts and the truth. Don’t let up!
The main premise of the magnetic field theory is that it controls cosmic rays which in turn affect cloud nucleation. Low magnetic field = more cosmic rays = more cloud cover = lower global temperature.
Since we have gone well over a year now with low solar activity and, according to the graph above, lower magnetic field, is that any global cloud cover data that we can correlate with?
MattN: Could not agree more on Dr. Landscheidt. Even though he may have been a largely self-taught Heliophysicist he had phenomenal instincts unlike some academicians, e.g, Leif Svalgaard, who are his steadfast detractors.
Ran across a paper by Tsagas(2006) that might point to the second derivative zeroes in solar angular momentum due to barycentric orbit causing a relativistic perturbration by means of the Lorentz force. The transit through the gravitaional well would induce a repulsive force at right angles to the field, i.e., the polar axis, suffcient to stop the gravitational collapse of a black hole.
The field’s hystereisis would rigidly oppose the imposed deformation due to the transit. DeJager, Versteegh(2004) criticised Landscheidt’s proposal believing it to imply a tidal force as the cause (a change in direction of the angular momentum), but the Dr. did not specifiy the source. I believe the Dr. will be found correct and has more surprises in store.
Golf Stream. Is *that* where all my golf balls end up?
LOL, Matt. The ones in the stream are pretty easy to retrieve; the ones in the pond and the woods, not so much.
Great post, Anthony.
Like many of the others, I also believe we are entering a prolonged period of lowered solar activity with will have adverse (read colder) effects on climate. However, the sharp step-function drop in the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index that started in October 2005 just doesn’t look natural.
As a Systems Engineer, when I see something like this my first reaction is “bad data”. It’s a hunch but usually correct. Anthony alluded to this sentiment when he compared the plot to that of a relocated temperature station. I’ll try to do some digging into the data provenance. If its real, the implications could be huge.
REPLY: Jeff, I thought that initially too, and I looked at the source of the Ap data and found this in SWPAC’s header for the dataset they published:
Source Ap: GeoForschungsZentrum, Postdam, Germany
Prior to January 1997, Institut fur Geophysik, Gottingen, Germany
So it didn’t seem like a data source on instrument switch, that I could find. Partial collapse of the geomagnetic fields is a real possibility too.
Jeff,
This might help: http://www.dxlc.com/solar/
Try contacting Jan.
The only good thing about this cold snap is all the pseudo scientists that will get fired.
No they won’t. They will say GW was a 90% likelihood and a >10% anomaly occurred. Then they will apply for bonuses for their deep insight. Which they will receive.
“All they want is their political outcomes no matter how they are obtained.”
I cannot prove nor disprove that. But I cannot help noting that the ONLY element in this entire debate that has not changed is that it is imperative to curtail economic growth. And that is the ONE thing to which I am unalterably opposed.
If there IS a serious warming problem and it IS anthropogenic, the only way mankind will have any hope of dealing with it effectively is via yet-to-come advanced technology and a greater abumdance of wealth than we probably have.
Yes, the Zhukov approach is not the most subtle method, but it is by far the most likely to be effective if needed and will be hugely beneficial even if it is not needed. Zuk was, after all, highly sucessful. A sort of reverse-Pascal argument.
If there is a problem we need wealth and tech to deal with it. Anti-growth could doom us in the name of saving us.
“Unfortunately Per, the Warmists will merely change tack. ”
Yes.
The hypostasized proof (which avoids the inconvenience of falsifiability) is a primary tool of those who advance the AGW-as-primary theory. That and the pseudo-proof (which does much the same thing). It all amounts to the argument that Everything = X, and that X is proven by X itself.
Meanwhile: “Cycle 24 where aaaaaaaare you?”
“So it didn’t seem like a data source on instrument switch, that I could find. Partial collapse of the geomagnetic fields is a real possibility too.”
Surely, an honest-to-God SOLAR scientist should be able to help us here….
I think that the real danger here is our absolute lack of forethought and preparedness for a period of cooling. If there actually was going to be warming, it seems that it would result in a period of agricultural abundance. Warm climatological conditions are good for most things human. Cooling, on the other hand, will result in a period of hardship.
There is relatively little that needs to be done to respond to warming. Cooling will require a rethinking of crop management or we may see world food shortages and the political and social instability that follows a short step behind. We are selling our economy on the idea of turning our arable land to the task of fuel production, in an effort to reduce the use of petroleum, in the hopes of reducing greenhouse gasses, in the belief that this will stabilize our climate. I do not see anything positive coming out of our current policies.
I wish that there were more discussion in the media about this topic. We need to educate people on the real possibilities of climate change….not the popular ones.
Anthony, the magnetic measure you are talking about measured across these two sites in the ‘aa’ Index and is available here:
http://isgi.cetp.ipsl.fr/homepag1.htm
Wow, it’s just like that Twilight Zone episode, The Midnight Sun . She dreamt the Earth was getting too hot, but it was really getting too cold.
The poles of fear, the extremes of how the Earth might conceivably be doomed. Minor exercise in the care and feeding of a nightmare, respectfully submitted by all the thermometer-watchers in the Twilight Zone.
Anthony, the following excerpt is from the NASA GISS press release you linked to in the next to last paragraph of your post. Am I reading it wrong, or does it not contradict the main premise of the Alarmists that there is virtually no scientific evidence that the warming of the last century can be attributed to anything other than man-made increases in CO2? Although they do appear to have given themselves an out by noting that “if the trend” (which they say exists) does really for sure, actually exist, then………….. talk about parsing words to cover your bases.
Sorry about the off-topic comment, but I was wondering what the global average temperature curves look like when you throwout the peaks of 98/99.
The heat that entered the climate then quickly left, suggesting that the greenhouse effect wasn’t very effective in trapping much, if any, of it. Can we set up a filter sytem that only looks at the bottom point of fluctuations in global average temperature? I’d really like to see what that looks like since it should give us a good upper-bound on the amount of warming that could possibly be attibuted to changes in the greenhouse effect.
But how does the lack of sunspots factor into solar forcing of our climate? That’s the real question…. Sunspots are *cool* regions on the sun… and as far as I’ve been able to find out, solar forcing in our atmosphere only changes by about 0.1 W/m2 between solar maximum and solar minimum (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm). So it would have changed very little in the last 2-3 years. In any case, this is significantly lower than the about 0.4 W/m2 due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Also, as far as I’ve been able to tell, climatologists are still very unsure about connections between the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 AD) and the Little Ice Age in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age).
REPLY: Sunspots aren’t the driver, but are a proxy indicator for solar activity. If Svensmark is correct, the solar magnetic field modulates the number f cosmic rays incidenatl on the earths upper atmosphere, resulting in cloud condensation nuclei changes, resulting in cloud cover changes, which affect TSI at the surface.
Time series of the Earth’s albdeo can be found
Here:
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/
Oh, more food for thought: The effects of CRF are often dismissed because volcanic activity released particulate matter and aerosols during recent luls in solar activity. We know that CRF is associated with ionization that produces clouds, what we haven’t investigate yet is whether similar interaction may result in increased aerosol formation and possibly increased volcanic activity. After all, we do know that ions are precursers to aerosols.
MODERATOR NOTE: CRF is “Cosmic Ray Flux”
Hi,
I quote Leif Svalgaard:
Although my earlier comment was humor, I have to say that I actually take this very seriously. I also was unaware of the drop in October 2005, and I find it fascinating… and a bit frightening.
The way the AGW industry has set themselves up, they’ll probably pat themselves on the back for any cooling, and will convince many people that their sacrifices and hard work are the cause. Of course, the fact that their most dire warming predictions magically line up with the expected results of Cycle 24 has to be complete coincidence, right? How is that going to work when it doesn’t happen?
What a brilliant time for us to be converting food crops to fuel…
[...] In January I posted thread on solar cycle 24 starting. It now appears that this could have been a false alarm. There seem to be some very strange happenings on the sun. "Given the current quietness of [...]
Does anyone know what Jasper Kirkby, of CERN and CLOUD, presented in a paper to the Royal Scientific Academy of Sweden, yesterday?
=========================
No, what kim?
Excellent post, Anthony.
If we do see continued climate cooling and it starts to impact agricultural production then we will return to the regular famines that have dissapeared over the last 30 years.
The problem will be that the ideology of global warming is so entrenched that steps mitigate food supply problems won’t be taken because this would be an admission that the steps taken to mitigate GW were wrong, and as a result food supply problems will be worse than they would be otherwise.
For example, India is currently developing more heat tolerant strains of wheat in preparation for the anticipated warming. But this has been a winter of record cold across the wheat growing areas of northern India.
http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=fullnews&id=19139
The temps over the next few weeks will determine how good the wheat harvest is. If the cold weather continues, we will see the impact on food supply in a couple of months.
This quote from a couple of days ago,
“We will be able to achieve the expected production level of wheat but this will be subject to the temperatures in February and March,” Farm Secretary P.K. Mishra told Reuters in an interview.
http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-31273820080107
Gore et al care less about AGW than about resource control. They will just switch tack if we go into a colder regime and state that we must save resources to prevent people from dying from cold and starvation. Of course they will be the ones with their great knowledge and foresight to make the decisions of how those resources will be allocated. Remember the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”? Gore will use that as an example of why he is still right. Damn the science or facts.
Kim, it looks like a review of the historical data, etc. Re: What we already know.
I don’t think they have done any experimenting yet.
Andrew, I’m in the dark, too. I know he presented, and there is a brief abstract in the announcement of the presentation, but I also presume he has the latest from the CLOUD studies.
=====================
Anthony, many thanks for a simple yet comprehensive explanation of the Sun’s rubber-band-like magnetic fields. As an avid balsa-wood-plane flyer about, oh, a half-century ago, I instantly ‘got’ the sense of how a magnetically-paired sunspot would break out of the sphere. I’d never had that understanding before. Keep up the good work.
REPLY: My pleasure, being on TV explaining how the weather works has helped me here.
I suppose the Vice Chairman of GM has a pretty strong opinion of global warming:
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2008-02/gm-vice-chairman-calls-global-warming-total-crock-st
This is much worse than I had been led to believe. Humans and their naughty industrializations have not only destroyed the earth, but now we learn that they have even slowed down the sun! The U.N. must be given authority to tax everyone on earth before it is too late. And students should not be forced to pay back their college loans if they are studying the crises of global warming.
Let me get this straight. CO2 is a heat sink (traps heat) so that any radiant heat that reaches the earth surface is trapped and can’t escape the surface. Now if this is true the CO2 does not cause heat but just acts as an insulator to a point of saturation at which time it reaches it’s maximum amount of trapping. If I understand this correctly CO2 doesnt make any heat just acts as a trap. Now the Sun is the source of the radiation that causes the heat and the amount of radiation from the sun fluctuates from time to time called cycles. These cycles are not always equal. Now during a minimum the sun magnetic field collapses and allows more cosmic rays to penetrate to the surface of the earth causing more clouds. I have noticed by looking at clouds that the top where the sun contacts them looks white and I would assume reflects some portion of the radiation thus reducing the amount of radiation reaching the surface of the earth there by reducing the heating effect of the sun on the surface. I would also think that the higher the tops of the clouds are the more effective would be the cooling effect due to being above the majority of the heat trapping CO2.
I think if the above is correct that we very well might be going into a cooling time. I think I will start to preserve my own home grown food stocks to prepare.
I only hope that I haven’t confused myself trying to express my thoughts.
Bill
Crosspatch,
I got a chuckle from this comment following the article about the Chevy Volt that you linked to:
BTW, you might remember me as “Retired Spook” at AJ’s. I got lured to this blog by a comment you made last spring.
Kim/Aaron,
Get Svensmark and Calder’s book “The Chilling Stars” and they describe the Cloud experiment (and it’s predecessor experiment - SKY) and put both into the theoretical framework of cosmic rays, the suns magnetic field (include the ‘bubble’ created by the solar wind and solar flares) and their influence on cloud formation and its cooling effects. I really think it’s a must-read if you want to understand and not just assert that these global warming advocates are way off base. The research is on-going and CLOUD is scheduled to come on-line in (I think) 2010. It’s a good read and not just hype.
Joe in San Diego: A good advice!
AW: I think NASA and Hansen don’t admit the comic ray cloud connection, at least not it’s full implications on the climate. TSI I think is defined as the solar irradiance in space (satellite measured), and therefor the cloud effect isn’t included. IPCC also means that many sunspots (when the sun is in its active phase) lower the impact from solar radiation, which is also true, but the main cooling effect when the sun is inactiv (and have no magnentic sunstorms to shield the earth from cosmic rays) is the increased and large cover of cooling clouds (clouds at low altitude, increasing the aldebo).
IPCC and Hansen tries to avoid the comsic ray cloud theory. I guess it’s because it’s too powerful and “CO2-harming”.
Btw a very good and nice-to-read descripton of the sun! Thx!!!
[...] Those are some pretty serious words from a pretty serious guy. Visit Anthony’s website to see all the graphs and charts and the technical stuff I won’t even pretend to understand. Watts Up With That? [...]
Magnus, that’s the point of my recommendation of the book, in addition to some fairly obvious problems with the CO2 theory of global warming Svensmark points out that there is a strange inverse relationship between temperatures in the Antarctic and core samples in Greenland (a proxy for the rest of the earth), an anomaly that is not conducive to accepting CO2 as a driver of global warming due to the uniform mixing of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Though there are naysayers of the cosmic ray/cloud cover connections to global temperature swings, many of Svensmark’s data sources and quoted research supporting his claim appear to support THAT certain clouds are a big factor in reflecting solar radiation and, therefore reducing temperatures (anyone in Seattle will attest to this fact, sunny days are warm… cloudy are cooler… the sun keeps shining for both types of days. )
His research experiment in, first SKY and (to come) CLOUD, are designed to more completely understand the cloud creation mechanism of cosmic rays…
A starting point of his research was that we know that cloud CHAMBERS have been in use for decades and that high energy particles (a substitute for cosmic rays) have always been known to create clouds.
What we don’t know enough of (and hence the reason for the CLOUD experiments) is how do cosmic rays affect a large system like our atmosphere when the only data they’ve seen to date have to do with a small, non-representative cloud chambers.
IPCC and the global warming crowd, according to Svensmark, considers clouds as effects but, Svensmark’s research leads him to consider them the CAUSE of global temperature swings and, the cloud theory explains the Antarctic anomaly; some of those swings have been more severe than most of us can imagine! Occum’s razor would tend to cut in favor of Svensmark more so than the GW crowd.
All things being equal, solar minimums (due to a reduced magnetic umbrella) lead to increased penetration of cosmic rays to the cloud formation layer of the atmosphere and cloud cover increases. Solar normals or maximums lead to an increased solar magnetic umbrella and hence fewer clouds and global temperature increases.
Sunspots are part of the story but it’s more interesting than just sunspots so, the book, “The Chilling Stars” is worth reading… almost better than a mystery novel for those that read these postings. Sunspots, the sun’s magnetic field strength and SME’s, cosmic rays, traveling through the universe… quite literally, the only thing simple about the global warming discussion are the minds of most of the ’scientists’ and other players that keep drowning out thoughtful discussion.
I once had a work associate who had the noisiest mind I’ve ever been around… every time he talked I felt like I was in a raging gale and I couldn’t think while he was talking! The only thing to do was to get out of the storm and find thoughtful people, contain the damage from the ’storm’ and then get to the business of real understanding. Svensmark is trying to do that, he’s worth reading. We can’t stop the ’storm’ but, when it blows over we might be able to pick up the things we were able to protect, the knowledge we’re able to acquire and get on to the business of living.
Sorry for the long diatribe!
Can anyone explain this?
“Could not agree more on Dr. Landscheidt. Even though he may have been a largely self-taught Heliophysicist he had phenomenal instincts unlike some academicians, e.g, Leif Svalgaard, who are his steadfast detractors.
Ran across a paper by Tsagas(2006) that might point to the second derivative zeroes in solar angular momentum due to barycentric orbit causing a relativistic perturbration by means of the Lorentz force. The transit through the gravitaional well would induce a repulsive force at right angles to the field, i.e., the polar axis, suffcient to stop the gravitational collapse of a black hole.
The field’s hystereisis would rigidly oppose the imposed deformation due to the transit. DeJager, Versteegh(2004) criticised Landscheidt’s proposal believing it to imply a tidal force as the cause (a change in direction of the angular momentum), but the Dr. did not specifiy the source. I believe the Dr. will be found correct and has more surprises in store.”
To Per Strandberg,
If Theodor Landscheidt’ s assertions in 1999, Extrema in Sunspot Cycle Linked to Sun’s Motion, are correct and the next “Sixteenth Part” (SP) of the 178.8 Year Solar Retrograde Motion (RSI) is to happen in 2012.5 then the minima of Cycle 23 should have already happened, however the delay means that the SP looks to be switching to the Solar Minima and that would mean that Cycle 23 should last until 2010.6 at the EARLIEST!. That makes for a 16 year Sunspot cycles. Nothing like that has happened since 1790! According to this paper of the deceased professor, GRHS, we are in for 4 to 5 very weak sunspot cycles. Not like the Dalton minima but like the Maunder Minima!
Excuse me that would be a 14 year SS Cycle, not 16 year.
[...] any rate, Mike W. sent me this link to a blog run by meteorologist Anthony Watts which gives a good overview of the coming cool period. [...]
Edward: Carl Schmidt has a site, http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/, devoted to Landscheidt’s work.
Note to David A, Connolley has gone, but the melody of his effect on Wikipedia lingers on.
===================
Gary Gulrud
Thanks for the responses.
I have some questions related to understanding how the relativistic perturbration works within Landscheidt theories.
Theodor Landscheidt focused on the negitive extrema of dT/dt not the zero value. Does the relativistic perturbration by means of the Lorentz force at zero dT/dt result in a negitive extrema of dT/dt as the barycenter transits through the gravitaional well?
The field’s hystereisis would rigidly oppose the imposed deformation due to the transit?? Which field?
Historically, earth temperature is a product of solar output/sunspot cycles and CO2 is a trailing indicator. This is primarily due to offgassing from the warmer ocean. A tremendous amount of CO2 flows into and out of the oceans on a daily basis, far more than all the anthropomorphic CO2 production. When the oceans are cold, relatively speaking, they retain their CO2.
When the oceans warm due to greater solar output, CO2 is released. The global warming nonsense comes from confusing cause and effect. CO2 is now high due to the recent warm period, and not the other way around.
As the solar activity falls there will be increased cooling and increased retention of CO2 in the oceans. You may confidently await the fall of atmospheric CO2 as long as the cooling continues.
The global warming conspiracy is a socialist fraud, but we know that. All socialist schemes are criminal, and defy physical laws and common sense.
The energy equation desperately requires solution, but on economic grounds. Socialist fraud just confuses the issue and makes the solution more difficult.
Edward: I tried to improve my post with one at Carl’s site. Dr. Landscheidt’s interest in the torque I take to have been provisional, conjectural but you are correct the negative extrema where d2/dt = 0 is the point of departure, for whatever it might be worth.
[...] clipped from wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com [...]
Aren’t we in danger of distracting ourselves from the principle causes of global weather dynamics by arguing about 2nd order effects like hystereisis when, in fact, the possible 1st order effects like cloud cover, its variability and causes can possibly explain 70-80% of the temperature swings seen over 1000’s and hundreds of 1000’s years.
It seems to me that winning this or any other conflict requires a judicious choice of battles that give us both strategic and tactical advantages. Heaven knows, I’m can be as nerdy and anyone but quibbling about the 20-30% of the drivers of GW, while fun, only diverts attention and action on those key drivers that will (possibly) win the GW battle sooner.
Here’s how I see it, clouds are clearly important to how much solar energy is received (nobody would disagree that there’s a 10-30 degree difference on sunny vs. cloudy days), it’s reasonable to expect that global cloud cover, of the temperature affecting kind, can vary some percentage (say 20-30%) AND we have a CAUSAL mechanism for cloud formation (like cosmic rays) AND we have a mediating mechanism (like the solar magnetic umbrella then, strategically, it’d make sense to fight THAT battle, win it and watch the opposition collapse.
These other battles, while we might win them, are, I believe, gives the GW people a chance to use the “bumping the enemy” technique of fighting (slightly similar arguments designed to forestall killing blows.) We run the risk of arguing in the margins and losing the battle.
It seems me, though we all like the intellectual battle but, we should pick our battles carefully or we run the risk of having strategy and tactics used against us such that we lose the battle. Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory can give us enough of a strategic advantage in this battle that we can quickly strike a killing blow to the GW crowd, quickly and decisively.
Intellectual battles are fun but I think arguing about 2nd order effects plays into GW crowd’s hand… not the best idea at this time.
That said, Anthony’s work is exemplary but, to win this battle it seems to me that we need to put it in context of a winnable battle plan, it’s a start but, I believe it needs to be integrated into a more robust battle plan.
Again, sorry for the really long response.
If its true that we are facing a drop in solar output, arent we going to be very grateful for our blanket of methane/ co2 etc -and could we not allow some extra heat into our planetary system by regulating the amount of reflective emissions from aircraft that are currently causing ‘global dimming’? I suppose that would require the human race to grow up, stop arguing and start cooperating- a long shot but not impossible…
After all, ‘we humans’ could be an attempt ‘Gaia’ style (by the planet) to manage the global climate and avoid another pesky ice-age to the benefit of the entire biosphere!
But I haven’t seen any comments on last year’s Lockwood & Frohlich paper:
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
which concludes: “…over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”
Is there something wrong with their analysis?
The Sun on Vacation: Rise of the Gore-Hansen Minimum
Hopefully NOT coming soon to a snow drift near you. –.^
I found out today the Energy Information Adminstration is projecting an increase in cooling days this summer which will decrease peak electricity demand, bucking previous demand forecasts.
Electricity
Consumption. Summer 2008 cooling degree-days are projected to be about 10 percent lower than they were last year. Less demand for power to run air conditioners is therefore projected, lowering growth in residential electricity sales. Total electricity consumption is expected to grow by only 0.4 percent in 2008, then return to a growth rate of 1.6 percent in 2009 (U.S. Total Electricity Consumption). [eia http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html#Electricity_Markets ]
David:
Google “Reply to Lockwood and Frolich” and a PDF will come up. Svensmark and Christensen rebut there. Essentially, the correlation does not follow surface temperature, but does correlate to troposphere and near surface ocean tempertures. Raises doubts about the surface temp. readings. The also follow further on and remove the effects from El Nino, North Atlantic Oscillation and volcanic aerosols. They also talk about how the using the running mean of 8 - 13 years essentially carries forward or rather delays the pictorial representations of temperature changes.
Svenmark’s lack of a correlation with surface temperatures “raises doubts about the surface temp. readings.” That’s not a very scientific conclusion. Sure, it raised doubts assuming his theory is correct. Except it’s this very theory he’s trying to verify, so it equally raised doubts about his theory.
When I read their reply, on top of their previous work, they seem to be going to more and more complications to keep their theory alive. Not impressive.
So, assuming CO2 lags temperature, and assuming we’ve entered a period of cooling here in the last… 8 years, how soon should we see a decline in atmospheric CO2 content? It keeps going up, if you’ve noticed.
Solar Flux, reached a minimum in October and November 2007 at about 67.
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/old_reports/2007/november/20071118.html
Since then, it appears the Sun is on the slow march upwards toward Cycle 24. Its not time to panic yet.
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/
David:
Here’s a good rebuttal of Lockwood & Frolich: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=131
“PMOD…assumes that the published TSI satellite data are wrong and that they need several additional corrections.”
So basically, the olny way they can make the solar activity fit their hypothesis is to invent an adjustment to make it not correlate.
MattN,
So basically, the only way they can make the solar activity fit their hypothesis is to invent an adjustment to make it not correlate.
I doubt that L & F are the first (or last) to resort to such intellectual dishonesty. Unfortunately, it appears to happen on both sides of the discussion, which is sad for the many curious but unscientifically-minded people who simply want the truth. That’s what I love about this blog and people like you who post in a civil and informing way — no name calling, just simply pointing out “here’s a good rebuttal…..”. Thanks.
The thing so many involved in this debate/discussion tend to overlook is that it’s not a debate like how best to cook a turkey or which photo- editing software is the best; it’s about whether or not there’s a global problem that is of such a catastrophic nature that it requires immediate, drastic and incredibly expensive measures by humanity. Decisions like that need to be made based on something a little more concrete than a so-called “consensus” of scientists or an IPCC assessment that contains the words “might” and “maybe” in disproportionate numbers.
So, assuming CO2 lags temperature, and assuming we’ve entered a period of cooling here in the last… 8 years, how soon should we see a decline in atmospheric CO2 content? It keeps going up, if you’ve noticed.
David, if that really bothers you, here is a potential solution.
From what I’ve read about Svensmark and Christiansen, I think they would agree with you; it is an unproven theory. They are confident in it, but they understand theory needs to match empirical evidence. Hence they are beginning to study it in depth. The studies will be steps in determining the level of contribution it makes. Note: I’m not ready to jump on the cosmic ray is everything theory, just like I don’t believe CO2 is either. I’m confident it will turn out to be a significant contributing factor but to the level some people espouse, I’m not there. If I were to guess at a primary factor, the mass and specific heat of the oceans suggest they are the largest contributor to short relatively short term variances. Layman’s take though. I don’t profess to be on the cutting edge of studies. I just want to learn and Anthony does an excellent job of providing that opportunity. I was just pointing out their response.
The points you raise help confirm my sentiments. The study of our complex climate system is in its infancy. CO2 does continue to go up. Why? Excellent question. Are humans contributing to it? I would suspect so. Are humans contributing to it to the level espoused by the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore? I don’t think so. It’s too steady a climb for me to accept that. Joe D’Aleo did an excellent post here asking that very question. Raised a lot of issues. I can confidently say it isn’t settled.
In addition, CO2 seems to be going up and from a heat retention stand point, who cares? We’re adding more plant food. As Richard Lindzen says, we already achieved roughly 60 - 70% of the heat gains caused by a doubling of CO2. Again, my personal take on what we are seeing with this step down in the earth’s heat storage is the positive feedback, runaway temp. scenarios confidence level is becoming lower and lower. Would you not agree, if CO2 doubles and the runaway temp. scenarios are not realized, the chances of actually realizing it become extremely low? After all, if we add more beyond the 550 ppm, we don’t retain much additional heat. Where’s the spark to ignite the fire? There may be other reasons to argue for reducing the amount of plant food into the air, but I’m not considering those in this post.
Anyway, food for thought. If you want to ask me questions, I’m more than happy to respond. Just be prepared for the “I don’t know” response because I’m not afraid to admit my ignorance. If you take a negative, defensive stance, I’ll just ignore it.
THe above comment was addressed to David. The name didn’t make the copy and paste. Sorry about that.
Surface waters have only cooled lately, where the CO2 ingasses. I don’t think it is inconceivable we’ll see the CO2curve flatten or turn downward. Remember, human activity probably has warped the natural curve.
Minimum already? Not everyone agrees.
====================
John, why do you say slow march upward when it isn’t. And the panic won’t be in the skeptical crowd.
================
Truth be known, Old Sol is marching sideways, and snoring.
==============================
Mike wrote:
> CO2 does continue to go up. Why? Excellent
> question. Are humans contributing to it?
> I would suspect so. Are humans contributing
> to it to the level espoused by the IPCC and
> the likes of Al Gore? I don’t think so. It’s
> too steady a climb for me
> to accept that.
Too steady a climb? That’s the whole point. Look at the consumption of almost any fossil fuel resource on the planet — wood, oil, gas, coal, electricity production — they have all been going steadily up for decades. They are all known to produce CO2. So why do you doubt that the CO2 emission increase is primarily manmade?
> Would you not agree, if CO2 doubles and the runaway
> temp. scenarios are not realized, the chances of
> actually realizing it become extremely low?
*Runaway* temperatures? No. No one really knows at what point runaway temperatures — ie nonlinearity — enters the climate system. In any case, temperature lags CO2 in greenhouse scenarios, so it would be quite some time — second half of 21 century, perhaps — until we could conclude that. By then it will be far too late.
Stan Needham wrote:
> David, if that really bothers you, here is a potential solution.
Individual actions will not save the planet, because too few people will make them. We need a comprehensive cutback.
REPLY: And there’s no proof that a ‘comprehensive cutback” will have any effect either. It’s Pascals wager.
kim wrote:
> I don’t think it is inconceivable we’ll see the
> CO2curve flatten or turn downward.
Do you (or anyone) have a calculation or theory telling us about *when* this should happen?
so it would be quite some time — second half of 21 century, perhaps — until we could conclude that. By then it will be far too late.
Too late for what, David? Do you honestly think that the way we produce energy will not have evolved substantially well before the mid-point of this century? There is a lot of really cool stuff coming down the alternative energy pike right now.
And there’s no proof that a ‘comprehensive cutback” will have any effect either.
It will have an effect alright, Anthony. The effect will be a mass redistribution of wealth.
Kim, Leif Svalgaard posted on CA that he believes the rate of change of CO2 has decreased.
I suspect as the Oceans cool this to be true
Thanks, Bob. I was wracking my brains. geology.geosciencesworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/33 has a paper showing CO2 rising and falling with temperature over the last 1200 years. Since there wasn’t a variable source of CO2 then, presumably, the temp change was more likely causal to the CO2 change, and the sun causal to the temp change by an as yet to be determined mechanism. I am speculating.
==========================
“I suspect as the Oceans cool this to be true”
The current skinny on this as I unsderstand it (Thanks to Fredinand) is that the ocean releases only 10 ppmv per 1 degree K of warming (the reverse effect also being true). Not a heck of a lot. Enough to make it 100 ppmv since the last mondo ice age. (Of course there is variance, diminishing returns, etc., but it’s mionr and I leave that up to the non-linear types.)
The Amateur postcard-version of Atmospheric Carbon accumulation:
The bottom line is that Industry is kicking out 6.3 Bil. Metric Tons Carbon intothe atmosphere, which spits out 3.2 BMTC of that (part of a much larger CO2 exchange crowd) into the other sinks (Land, Ocean) and c. 3.1BMTC gets added to the Atmosphere each year.
For perspective, there’s c. 730 to 760 BMTC in the Atmospheric sink, depending on whose figures you buy.)
“It will have an effect alright, Anthony. The effect will be a mass redistribution of wealth.”
Yes. And worse than that, it will result in an even greater mass destructon of both wealth and wealth creation.
If there is a problem (which I doubt, but will concede the possibility) we are going to need a heck of a lot of tech and a heck of a lot of wealth we don’t yet have in order to deal effectively. This is not a time to slam on the brakes. it is a time to drive through, with especial caution, yes, but WITHOUT slowing down.
It would be a crime against reason, humanity, and liberalism to curtail production.
Joe in San Diego: I agree totally with you, and my little comment there was for Antohny Watts (”AW:”).
The sunspot connection (which should be a magnetic sun wind connection, or?) is hugely important for not at least climate shifts in the interglacier periods, but it’s not the only and single cause.
I don’t consider CO2 to have more effect then a background effect of more than one or a few tenth of a degree, but pattern in the oceans and other things is also affecting at least short term (remember El Nino), and we must also believe that the Milankovitch cycles makes the world icy and put it in a state of higher aldebo (something like a positive feedback into another state/”state of balance”). The way into the coming ise age will be about en 0.5 degree C decline per millenium, and with some descent warmth periods and some little ice ages, both triggered by planetarian orbit cycles and the sun activity, where the latter is a strong and important factor!
-
But a big thing in the AGW hypothesis I think is at least wwo things. First how much antropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere that we humans has caused, and how much that is caused by warmer seas due to a warmer climate the last few hundred years? Second how much CO2 the oceans without harm can swallow.
I think/hope this AGW hype dies withot too much harm from political enforcements on the economics. I think there is plenty of oil left for us. Maybe three times as much than we’ve have burned until now. But now we have burned 1000 Gt CO2 (the atmosphere cnsists of 3000 GT CO2), so can the sea without problem swallow some extra 2000 Gt CO2? We shall never without any proof be alarmistic about an environment issue, but it would be fine to research this I think. The problem may be that immediately scintist will be alarmistic about “threats” to get more money… Again.
Correction: “the atmosphere holds 3000 Gt CO2″. (And of course we havn’t burned CO2.)
“Historically, earth temperature is a product of solar output/sunspot cycles and CO2 is a trailing indicator. This is primarily due to offgassing from the warmer ocean.”
I’ve been hearing that one can tell the amount of fossil fuel burn CO2 based on the relationship of two isotopes in CO2, # 12 and #13. Does anyone here have graph or data that shows this in *any* way? Can’t seem to locate this.
I’m asking because we’re talking about ocean sinks and so on. These must function like “last in first out.” Depending on how long CO2 is claimed to last — assume the oceans are warming, wouldn’t they release the CO2 they took up during the industrial revolution, the 40’s, and so on?
If so then the 12/13 ratio isn’t telling us the *current* rate of human contribution, but the SUM of human contribution for whatever the claimed half life of CO2 is supposed to be. Seems this could be important depending on what the ratios are and what the claim is.
Obviously I’m not the first to notice/ask, so does anyone here know where the relevant info is found? There’s probably a FAQ that answers silly queries like this one.
Thanks…
Mr Watts:
I am so impressed and proud of you for creating this great website.
All I want is intellectual honesty in this issue, and you are providing a great service. I rate you up there with Brian Lamb.
Now, “one” of my theories of GW and an increase in surface temp is what I would call the “WalMart” effect.
Ever been on a black, asphalt WalMart” parking lot, ANY time of the year?
Thanks
REPLY: Thank you. Scientists at the University of Arizona are doing an unintentional experiment on measuring the WalMart effect, see it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-24/
David:
Why do I doubt . . . ?
I say too steady because the growth in human CO2 output has been exponential. The number I recall off the top of my head, I read about 4-6 months ago, a tad over 1300% since 2003. With the rampant increase in output, I would think the increase would have accelerated beyond the 1.1 ppm per year recorded. Suggests to me there is a steady state, medium to long term influence which does not follow humans activity. When looking at the Mauna Loa charts, there seems to be a slight movement from linear to exponential, but that’s a visual on my part so take that for what it is. Ultimately, what humans put up is so small as compared to ol’ mother nature, you are probably correct in that it would be very hard to detect the exponential growth effect of human output.
Regarding the runaway scenarios, obviously I don’t believe it will happen. However, there is always the chance I’m wrong. What I am saying is since we are roughly 50% of the way to pretty much the maximum heat retention atmopheric CO2 can achieve, the chances of that hypothesis coming true are dropping. It is, afterall, a hypothesis, not supported anywhere in the earth’s climate history. Whether it was 60 billion years ago, or 800 years ago, (I believe the MWP was a world wide event, but it is inconsequential as to whether it was or not), or whenever, the earth has been warmer, has had more atmospheric CO2, life managed and it cooled down enough to get glaciers over where my house is today.
Anyway, it’s late and with 3 girls under 6, they don’t care if I was up until midnight. The allowed out of bed at 7 a.m. rule is strictly followed and I’m going to pay for this. I often have to beat them back to their room