All things Solar

[Jesse]

There is no doubt that solar stuff is the frontier of climate science. We aren't even sure on the effects of multi-decadal variability influence on the solar cycles. We know the 11 year stuff with TSI that is repeated over and over again, but there is currently research ongoing about how multi-decadal solar mins and maxes might produce amplified effects on global climate. We just don't know enough yet about it to make any claims. Most of the very pro-AGW agurments will try and minimize previous temperature changes as to reduce the possible effects of solar WRT LIA. But even going before that we saw pretty large spikes in temperatures during the MWP. We don't have sunspot data back then, but its likely that most of these temp changes cannot be attributed to TSI.

The solar stuff has become more interesting as we learn more about it little by little.

Agreed.

And with the distinct possibility of the sun going into a Maunder type minimum now, the next few decades are essentially going to be a real-time laboratory for solar effects on earth's climate.

Aw, what am I saying? Nuts to discovery and progress. The science is settled!!!

Einstein should have thought of that before he went and meddled with Newton's sh*t. If it ain't broke don't fix it!

[Matt Rogers]

I haven't updated this for a while here, but based on my five-month running mean, we are still holding much closer to Cycle 5 than Cycle 23:

This is amazing stuff!

[Clifford]

Thanks for the update.

If you are right that the current cycle will resemble the Dalton Minimum (Cycle 5), then it would indicate that we are pretty close to a maximum now.

Of course, we did have a flurry of activity earlier in the year, and somewhat reduced activity now.

My notes earlier about the solar polar field strength indicates that we may be getting close to a solar maximum, but progress towards having equatorial sunspots (another indication of a solar maximum) seems to be slow.

[BethesdaWX]

Thanks for the update.

If you are right that the current cycle will resemble the Dalton Minimum (Cycle 5), then it would indicate that we are pretty close to a maximum now.

Of course, we did have a flurry of activity earlier in the year, and somewhat reduced activity now.

My notes earlier about the solar polar field strength indicates that we may be getting close to a solar maximum, but progress towards having equatorial sunspots (another indication of a solar maximum) seems to be slow.

Well the Maximums in weaker cycles are longer/more strung out than those of stronger cycles. And still no sign of the Belts for cycle 25...as of Monday.

[okie333]

Well the Maximums in weaker cycles are longer/more strung out than those of stronger cycles. And still no sign of the Belts for cycle 25...as of Monday.

Where did you get that information?

[LakeEffectKing]

BTW, I was just glancing back at some of the earlier predictions of Hathaway....and didn't realize just how early the SC 24 max was progged to be back in 2006...Going by that prediction, we would be 1 year past max peak!!

Another instance where nature's complex systems humble us......even the "experts"....

[Mencken_Fan]

While perusing my favorite website I came across something that may be of interest to readers here.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642047-new-calculations-suggest-more-than-one-in-ten-chance-of-colder-uk-winters

[The_Global_Warmer]

we are not even close to that prediction.

But predicting this is pretty complex.

[The_Global_Warmer]

While perusing my favorite website I came across something that may be of interest to readers here.

http://richarddawkin...lder-uk-winters

That is kind of ridiculous, not to say it doesn't have some value, I believe it does.

But they shouldn't use such a small analog size either.

For Winter selfish reasons I'd love for this to come true.

But we are probably better staying no more then 1c colder then we are the last 10 years.

[Matt Rogers]

Well the Maximums in weaker cycles are longer/more strung out than those of stronger cycles. And still no sign of the Belts for cycle 25...as of Monday.

Yeah, look how long that maximum persisted in cycle 5. Was shorter in cycle 6 though. This will be very interesting to watch.

[Matt Rogers]

BTW, I was just glancing back at some of the earlier predictions of Hathaway....and didn't realize just how early the SC 24 max was progged to be back in 2006...Going by that prediction, we would be 1 year past max peak!!

Another instance where nature's complex systems humble us......even the "experts"....

It's so funny. We can't sustain above 50, let alone 150!

[The_Global_Warmer]

How does this effect us?

[Bob Chill]

How does this effect us?

No expert here but the implications are that SC24 will be relatively weak compared to previous cycles. That combined with a pretty pronounced minimum in the second half of the first decade of the 2000's would imply that we could be entering a period of cooler climate globally over the next 10 years.

[Clifford]

Here is another comparative graph for the F10.7 Radio Flux comparing 1965 (cycle 20) to 2010 (cycle 24).

I added the 30 day minimum curve to the graph to aid with the comparisons. It makes the graph a bit cluttered, so I may not include the line on all future graphs.

We had a big spike in activity early this year. However, for the last couple of months, 2011 has been following very closely to 1966, hitting virtually the same minim activities.

At this point I would consider 2011 and 1966 as remaining very close.

However, for the pair of solar cycles 23/24. the progression of cycles 23/24 is much lower, and slower than for 19/20.

A lot will depend on when we will actually hit the maximum activity.

[BethesdaWX]

Are you sure your graph is in sync Clif? We're at the solar Maximum right now I believe, the graph you presented appears a bit off kilter.

[Clifford]

Are you sure your graph is in sync Cliff? We're at the solar Maximum right now I believe, the graph you presented appears a bit off kilter.

I've never been convinced that I've had the alignment right for the solar cycles. Note the comment on blips in the inset. But... I figured that it was best to keep it at one place, rather than moving it around all the time.

And this way, it should be pretty unequivocal when we drop below the value in the 60's.

I don't think we are at a solar maximum yet. There are a couple of indicators. One is when the average Solar Polar Field Strength flips between North and South. I don't think we are quite there yet. Earlier I had estimated that this might happen around Jan 1, 2012, but it might also be in line with other estimates around 2013. I have posted graphs. Data is only updated every 10 days or so, so I'll update again when there is some interesting new information.

The other indicator may be a bit stronger.

The "Butterfly Diagram"

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

It has to do with the number of equatorial sunspots.

We still have some time before we start to see the appearance of significant numbers of equatorial sunspots and active regions. And, thus we aren't at the maximum yet.

It is possible the X-Class flare we had a few months ago and the surrounding activity will be similar to peak activity. We won't know for some time.

[Clifford]

Whew,

After a month of being down, the University of Colorado has once again started publishing their TSI data.

http://lasp.colorado...ta/tsi_data.htm

Here is my updated TSI chart. Keep in mind that the University of Colorado Data Set begins in 2003, well after the solar maximum in 2001.

In February/March 2011, we started having an increase in solar activity. And the TSI that had been flat for about a year started increasing again.

As the solar activity (sunspots, solar flares, F10.7, X-Ray, etc) started dropping in May and June, the TSI did not have a corresponding drop.

We also have lacked any strong solar flares during the last couple of months which are related to a short-term decrease in TSI, thus a lower than expected variability in solar output. Personally, I think this low flare activity is related to the recent increase in temperature.

[DMADKAT]

I haven't updated this for a while here, but based on my five-month running mean, we are still holding much closer to Cycle 5 than Cycle 23:

This is amazing stuff!

I just wish we had good weather records of the Dalton period like the national weather records of the modern period. I have noticed that when the sun is quiet, the weather patterns are more slow to move resulting in more blocking . Still weather results in colder winters as well as hotter summers. Believe me, I'm watching this sun thing very closely. Its like boiling water on a stove. Turn heat up ,water starts to move, turn heat down , water calms down. It seems that alot of extreme weather occurs at low solar cycles, hot and cold.

[BethesdaWX]

Well that certainly seems to be the case, past few summers have been brutal, as have the winters. It seems the solar wind/magnetic flux gives the best correlation to wx/ climate in the long run & their extremes, especially to the NAO aspect, we didn't see the solar wind drop off until late 2009, which seems to coincide with the NAO patterns in the past couple of yrs.

The indirect influence of the solar wind/ magnetic flux on the climate in the long run could be potentially immense. NASA seems to have taken heavier interest in the solar wind recently, which I'd been waiting for.

I just wish we had good weather records of the Dalton period like the national weather records of the modern period. I have noticed that when the sun is quiet, the weather patterns are more slow to move resulting in more blocking . Still weather results in colder winters as well as hotter summers. Believe me, I'm watching this sun thing very closely. Its like boiling water on a stove. Turn heat up ,water starts to move, turn heat down , water calms down. It seems that alot of extreme weather occurs at low solar cycles, hot and cold.

[DMADKAT]

Well that certainly seems to be the case, past few summers have been brutal, as have the winters. It seems the solar wind/magnetic flux gives the best correlation to wx/ climate in the long run & their extremes, especially to the NAO aspect, we didn't see the solar wind drop off until late 2009, which seems to coincide with the NAO patterns in the past couple of yrs.

The indirect influence of the solar wind/ magnetic flux on the climate in the long run could be potentially immense. NASA seems to have taken heavier interest in the solar wind recently, which I'd been waiting for.

This solar minimum I think is really going to teach us alot about our planets climate puzzle. Next ,we must ask our selves what causes this pulse in the sun. The eleven year cycle seems to have some kind of beat with jupiters 12 year orbit, but what about grand cycles of 186 years or other numbers. Landscheidt's theory suggest maybe grand alignments of uranus ,neptune on one side of sun and saturn on other side induce a long constant tug of war effect on the sun to where it is not being tugged around as much. Therefore it is in a quiet state . These planets being slow orbiters as they are take awhile to separate. So the effect may last two solar cycles like in the Dalton minimum which was around 186 or so years ago. There is alot to learn here. Could this give astrology some merit. Maybe our ancestors were indeed on to something. THIS IS REALLY GOT MY INTEREST BIG TIME!

[BethesdaWX]

I'm not very knowledgable on the astrometeorological stuff, so I cannot comment there, but the Sun does a polar flip every 11yrs or so which is figured to run with the solar cycles. The multiple decade/century solar minimums/maximums are what correlate to climate in the longer run, or at least have done so., moreso related to changes in the climate system, not changes in solar output. The modern max was the highest period of solar activity in the past 2-3 thousand years, maybe even in the past. 8 thousand in some reconstructions. Even more impressive was the increasing speed of the solar wind in the past 80yrs or so, before dropping off in 2009.

In this circumstance the 2015-2020 timeframe should be watched closely.

[WeatherRusty]

What a load of unsubstantiated speculation in this thread.

[BethesdaWX]

What a load of unsubstantiated speculation in this thread.

Clouds effect on climate is less unsubstantiated than CO2's effect, at least power wise.. And how can this sort of speculation be unsubstantiated when the physics & evidence are almost obvious? How can speculation in this instance ever be "unsubstantiated? I am well aware of the properties and mechanisms within the CO2 theory, a 1.6W/m^2 RF change since 1850, yes, we all understand that. But you seem to think that, despite data revealing 4-4.5W/m^2 more OLR overall present since the step change in 1998, that the 1.6W/m^2 increase due to CO2 is the only change in existance. That has already been disproven, it comes down to what is causing the prime alteration, and then how to model it.

Examples, Per 1% change in low clouds, you get a 0.6W/m^2 RF change, and it is foolish to assume that low clouds cannot trend by several percentiles within a multiple decadal period. If clouds trend/manifest at even a 3% differential over am extended timeframe, CO2's RF is then remdered inferior, or at least more-so. Also look at stratospheric Ozpne depletion, allowing more UV rays into the climate system, even the slightest change in UV rays equates to large energy change, the biggest effect in the oceans, throughout. No one denies that.

If 4-4.5W/m^2 more OLR present overall the past decade is not enough to give you a perspective on climate sensitivity, don't you dare even think about calling anyone a "denier" again.

You try to come off as objective, but you by far hold the biggest double standard on this forum. It is somehow unsubstantiated and unacceptable to even consider forcings unrelated to AGW, even if they hinge on the same basic physics that CO2 happens to. Yet, voodoo claims on an AGW-tornado relationship is somehow completely acceptable/substantiated? If anything is unsubstantiated here, it is your above post, viewpoint, and time wasting banter.

[DMADKAT]

What a load of unsubstantiated speculation in this thread.

Oh come on now . in order to be a first and not another is you first have to examine all possibilities with an open mind in order to see and discover the whole picture. SPECULATION IS HOW THINGS GET DISCOVERED. Theres alot going on here all at the same time. Its a fun interest never the less.

[Clifford]

What a load of unsubstantiated speculation in this thread.

That is certainly a gross oversimplification.

I've been trying to provide up to date data and information about the current solar cycle.

There are a lot of observations and predictions that solar cycle 24 will be weak, as well as some predictions of a weak solar cycle 25, although it still seems early to call that one.

The big question is the true long-term variability of the sun which still seems to have a lot of speculation. The sun also seems to impact our environment in multiple ways that is not captured with just the average total solar irradiance.

The other question is whether past climate variation can be explained by Milankovitch cycles, or if solar variability plays a significant role in the climate variation. Or, perhaps a combination of the two. Certainly some of the climate variation in the last millennium is better explained by solar variation than Milankovitch cycles. Yet, 17^th century direct observation data is crude at best, and going back further requires problematic proxy data and data-splices.

Much of the climate arguments center around trying to predict the future climate. The next 10, 20, or 30 years will bring us a much greater understanding of the impact of solar variability, and ocean and climate cycles on the overall planetary climate (added to any anthropogenic contributions which extend beyond just CO₂).

[WeatherRusty]

Intrinsic solar variability will affect climate to about the same degree as it always has, that is very little in terms of major change. There is no historical evidence for this at all, but continue with your musings.

[Mencken_Fan]

This solar minimum I think is really going to teach us alot about our planets climate puzzle. Next ,we must ask our selves what causes this pulse in the sun. The eleven year cycle seems to have some kind of beat with jupiters 12 year orbit, but what about grand cycles of 186 years or other numbers. Landscheidt's theory suggest maybe grand alignments of uranus ,neptune on one side of sun and saturn on other side induce a long constant tug of war effect on the sun to where it is not being tugged around as much. Therefore it is in a quiet state . These planets being slow orbiters as they are take awhile to separate. So the effect may last two solar cycles like in the Dalton minimum which was around 186 or so years ago. There is alot to learn here. Could this give astrology some merit. Maybe our ancestors were indeed on to something. THIS IS REALLY GOT MY INTEREST BIG TIME!

The sun exerts gravitational influence on the planets...but the planets don't exert gravitational influence on the sun (not with any meaningful measurement.) Also, the planets exert near zero gravitational influence on Earth.

Yes, there is some interplanetary effect but it's awfully small. At its closest approach, Jupiter's gravitational effect on Earth is 1/100th that of the moon; and it's tidal effect is 6/1,000,000ths. The other planets are varying magnitudes of power weaker.

The Sun contains 99.85% of the Solar System's mass; Jupiter contains 00.10%, and the rest of the planets combined contain 00.05%. This explains why astrology is nonsense. (When a person is born, the gravitational effect of the people in the room have more influence than the planets.)

Planetary alignments occur from time to time but this is gravitationally meaningless.

[Sunny and Warm]

Intrinsic solar variability will affect climate to about the same degree as it always has, that is very little in terms of major change. There is no historical evidence for this at all, but continue with your musings.

You appear disquieted by the solar discussion, as I gather you should be .... I suppose if I went to the AGW church every day, I'd be concerned about the solar happenings as much as you are ...

[aslkahuna]

What a load of unsubstantiated speculation in this thread.

We are seeing things involving the Sun that we have not seen before (and remember modern observations of the Sun are only about 300 years old and personally I'm in my 5th cycle). Cerainly there is speculation and there should be as we try to figure out what this all means. Your statement therefore is provocative and naive.

Steve

[WeatherRusty]

You appear disquieted by the solar discussion, as I gather you should be .... I suppose if I went to the AGW church every day, I'd be concerned about the solar happenings as much as you are ...

To much speculation in the search for any plausible explanation for climate change other than what the science has concluded. On the science side, the forcing given by solar variation is very small, at best 0.25W/Meter squared.

For comparison a doubling of co2 gives 3.7W per. You can hold on to speculations involving unknowns and uncertainties, but that is not science.