Sun Behaving Oddly

[BethesdaWX]

I've noticed a few odd things regarding solar cycle 24, and wondering if anyone has Ideas on why.

-Masses of Unipolar Sunspots producing CME's (the higher solar wind asociated with such CME's), but the total sunspot number is decreasing yet again, and remains low. Unipolar Clusters have been the dominant sunspot activity, and actually have not dropped all that low.

-Dropping 10.7 flux asociated with sunspots. (not the fact that its dropping, but why)

-Umbral Intensity continues to increase for the past 20 years.

I'm a bit ticked off at the relatively higher amount of CMEs, because that applies directly into my thoughts on the cooling later on, and am curious as to why unipolar clusters producing CMEs have been so predominant since the uptick in solar, if anyone has anything to add, it'd be great.

[aslkahuna]

Not too sure the CMEs are from unipolar spots but could be that they are due to Disappearing Filaments (eruptive prominences) which are the most common cause of CMEs. DSF's are often not even associated with any active regions. Solar flux is going down because the active regions are no longer as "hot" as they were earlier-to be expected since we just passed through the peak of an imbedded short period activity cycle and should see a lull soon. Unipolar spots (particualrly Hα) may be spots of singular polarity but that does not mean that the plage associated with the active region is single polarity need to always monitor the magnetograms in this instance.

[aslkahuna]

BTW we have just gone back up on the flux as we have a new hot region. Should also mention that there is a type of flare called a Hyder Flare which is a flare that occurs in an area with no spots. Hyder Flares can also cause CMEs.

Steve

[BethesdaWX]

Is there an easy way for an amatuer like me to decipher the plage polarity of unipolar clusters? I've "studied" the sun probably more than anything else in my High School Career, learning from local scientists, and am curious. Its just seemed as if The Clusters since the uptick in solar since FEB have produced copious CME's, have observed them, but I do not know enough about the internal processes themselves to understand the causation.

And Yes I saw the Uptick in the Solar Flux this morning. Magnetism Going Wild looks like?

[Jesse]

Is there an easy way for an amatuer like me to decipher the plage polarity of unipolar clusters? I've "studied" the sun probably more than anything else in my High School Career, learning from local scientists, and am curious. Its just seemed as if The Clusters since the uptick in solar since FEB have produced copious CME's, have observed them, but I do not know enough about the internal processes themselves to understand the causation.

And Yes I saw the Uptick in the Solar Flux this morning. Magnetism Going Wild looks like?

What are your theories on CMEs and their relation to global climate?

[Clifford]

I noticed that we seemed to be pretty heavy with Northern Hemisphere activity in the sun for a while.

The minimum of the F10.7 Radio Flux of about 81.8 on 5/25 seemed to be lower than one might expect at this point in the solar cycle progression. Activity has been picking up since last Wednesday morning, but most significantly since about Friday with some massive new sunspots showing up in the South.

Looking at the Wilcox Solar Polar Field Strength data,

http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html

It appears as if the South (I think) is progressing slower than one might expect, although it is hard to determine due to the cyclical nature of the data. I'll try to post an updated chart shortly.

There seem to be a couple of indications of the solar cycle progression.

1: Weakening and reversal of the polar fields as noted by the Wilcox Solar Observatory (and others).

2: Gradual shift to more equatorial sunspots (see in the butterfly diagrams).

Here is a chunk of the NASA butterfly chart.

http://solarscience....spotCycle.shtml

What is interesting is that the Southern Hemisphere seemed to have more sunspots late in Cycle 23, and fewer early in Cycle 24. Perhaps they just average out.

The South does seem to be progressing slower than the North, but that could just be a sampling bias.

One question I've been wondering for a while is whether the solar magnetic polarity actually must flip every decade. Or, what would happen if the polarity did not actually flip.

[BethesdaWX]

What are your theories on CMEs and their relation to global climate?

Well they're not "my" theories specifically, but I'll explain the theory and its mechanisms in detail...you'll have to read alot of rambling though (below)

But as of today, global temps have basically followed what we'd expect out of the Solar Magnetic Causation almost to a tee, and I can explain that below.

I'll also go through the Misconceptions and (yes) Manipulations used to try and discredit the theory.

Sun's Coronal Magnetic Field almost Doubled since 1920, Peaking Between 1980-2005 when slightly smoothed (has to be to find the Mean), before it fell off a cliff after 2007. There was another Active period from the 1930's through the late 1950's, and a weaker period fom the mid 1960s through the late 1970's. These correlate very well to Global Temperatures when the PDO is included...but why?

This is the AA index through year 2006 (In Pink). The Sunspot cycle is in Blue. Notice despite the Decrease in Sunspots, the AA index peak from the the 1980's thru the mid 2000's and increase did not drop until 2007...and when it dropped, it dropped to record low levels. But why haven't we seen the effect? Reasoning there comes later

The Solar Magnetic Flux/Wind Controls the Amount of Galactic Cosmic Rays that make it into the lower atmosphere, and Thus how Much Low Level Cloud Cover Predominates over the Globe. Only a 2% decrease in Global Cloud Cover equates to 1.2W/m^2 of increased SW Radiation & resulting heat into the lower atmosphere, predominately the Surface...and an 0.5W/m^2 overall net radiative change incoming & outgoing...A 5% decrease in GCC (Glocal cloud Cover) Equates to 3W/m^2 of Increased Heat Energy into the lower Atmosphere.

http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html

Galactic Cosmic Rays, Long Term, are theorized to affect Global Cloud Cover. The Mechanism has been Proven and replicated, as GCR's when applied to polar magnetic charges create "aerosols (Molecular Clusters of Water Vapor and Acids), which are the Building Blocks for CCNs (Cloud Condensation Nuclei). Over Long periods of Time, excessively high or low GCR counts relative to "equilibrium" possibly effect the amount of GCC at lower levels. The Effect of GCR's on the Climate is Immediate, but how significant the effect is, and how the effect builds up and affects the equilibrium of the climate system Over Time...thats the question, but the measurable impact is likely not immediate. We have evidence of this happening in the Past regarding GCR counts, but I'll get to that later.

You can see Low Galactic Cosmic Rays Correlation Temperature

Before I get into proxy evidence, some IPCC fun.

For A reference, the IPCC does not implement changes in Global Cloud Cover driven by Solar Activity into their models, but rather how clouds will affect CO2 warming, (since they attribute basically all the warming seen after 1950 to CO2 and not Natural Factors)....So...they IPCC only cites a total of 1.6W/m^2 of total energy increase into the Atmosphere since 1790..Including the release of GHGes. So Changes in Global Cloud Cover by a Measely 5% Blow away any (assumed) CO2 warming since 1950...

To the IPCC, the only factor that Controls Global Temperature are CO2/GHG levels, with small Contributions from Volcanoes and TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). That can be disproven Easily through the Use of Ice core Proxies. Ice cores also contain a Valuable Isotopes produced/effected by Galactic Cosmic Rays, and global temprature, GCR Isotopes are called BE^10 (Berillium)...temperatures are measured through DO18 ISotopes.....so we can test BOTH theories and see which of them match up best with Global Temperature.

First, here are Global Temperatures From the Greenland Ice Core, using DO18 Isotopes, basically its evaporation rates of Global Water Vapor from the Tropics falling as precip (snow) in the Arctic, and there is an "imprint" on the molecular clusters dependant on evaporation rate. Their molecular building blocks are spread around the globe, and are affected in structure/density by Global Temperature...The ice cores trap these records, preserving them deep in the Ice. They offer a high resolution based and fairly accurate method to determine temperature trends back before we measured them. The Summit of Greenland (where these ice cores were drawn from) is a Good Place to take measurements, as ice has predominated there for about 3 million years. Keep in Mind, the RED Line Indicated todays temperature rise after the Proxy Data ends (in 1855), while the CO2 Proxy ends in 1755. You can see that Temperatures before Human Influence have not followed CO2 concentrations.

You can also see our current warm period is not unprecedented in the least bit, and actually occurs with regularity. CO2, TSI, and Volcanism cannot explain this, so we've mis-stepped somewhere.....we've over-simplified the climate system.

Now we have the Solar Proxies, uncluding BE^10 Proxies which provide in detail the amount of GCR's affecting the Lower Atmosphere..these Isotopes can only specifically form at a basic rate with Galactic Cosmic Rays.

BE^10 data only goes into the 1980's, but GCR levels Decreased until 1991, then bottom out but increased very slighty Until 2004, then began to sharply increase. But why no effect on Temperature Yet? Reasoning Coming Next.

First here is the BE^10 data,,, this only goes from 1400 to 1980 or so but you get the point.

Now, here are some Warmist Arguments used to attempt in Discrediting the Theory...but they all involve one simple error...Equilibrium of the Climate System...and its blatantly obvious that anyone coming up with the arguments below either does not understand how the climate system works...or they do undrstand how it works, but deny the physics of equilibrium unless it relates to CO2 (aka, a denier on the warmista side).

Here they are, and these arguments have been screamed all over this Forum by a certain few, and its kinda sad to read them over and over.

Bad Argument 1: TSI has been Declining Since 1980.

Bad Argument 2: Galactic Cosmic Rays have been Increasing since 1990 (thats a funny one)

Bad argument 3: The AA index is at record lows right now (another funny one)

Ok, for #1, TSI is a terrible way to correlate short term (10-20yrs) temperature changes/trends for several reasons

-TSI only covers the changes in emissivity from the Sun itself, not how it impacts mechanisms/feedbacks within the climate system..aka, how the climate system responds. This issue is also present with CO2 rise..how the cimate system responds, and whether or not it drives the Climate.

-Different aspects of TSI vary and affect the climate system in different ways, strengths, timeframes, etc (UVA & UVB rays vary significantly, Radio waves not as much, for example).

-Either way, equilibrium us not instant..... Its Just Like Boiling Water......... you turn the Flame on to warm the water, and even if you DECREASE the flame, the water will continue to warm until equilibrium and/opr the boiling point is reached... this is an issue needing to be looked at.

For #2

yes, Galactic Cosmic Rays have increased since 1990... but the point is a bunch of Crapola and worthless Shiat...with a bit of manipulation to boot. GCR's did reach a brief bottom in 1991, but they were overall very flat until 2004 and actually bottomed out then (in 2004) as well, before increasing. But the issue isn't whether GCR's increased, its whether GCC (global cloud cover) increased, and Oscillations such as the PDO, AMO, IOD, & the effect on ENSO also have impacts on GCC. Again not only from an Equilibrium Standpoint does this assertion fail (have no direct meaning), but from a spandpoint of freakin common sense on the timeframe of measurable effect from GCR's to Clouds... Its a lengthy Buildup/breakdown Process in clouds, again, in overall equilibrium to the amount of GCR's to lengthy resulting changes in GCC... I again resort to the Boiling Water Example. GCR's don't correlate to Temperature Directly, its their Modulation of GCC (global cloud cover) that will affect global temps and the resulting Global Temperature Change...so again, short term it is useless to compare these aspects/drivers to temperature...especially since they do not directly correlate.

See GCC/GCR data below

For #3

Again, same issues, tie in through #'s 1 and 2. Equilibrium and Direct Relation ot Global Temps has been Botched.

To Conclude this rampage of Mine, in order to FInd the Natural Cause for Global temp change... you need to look at the PDO, AMO, ENSO trends, All aspects of the Sun/GCC, and synoptic differences such as the NAO/AO, Global Snowcover/Ice, etc.

CO2/GHG emissions, Deforestation, Urbanizatrion, Land Use changes, all have an effect on Global Temperature, and likely have contributed to at least a small portion of our warming, that cannot be denied. It can aslo not be denied that we've warmed significantly since the end of the LIA.

The term "denier" can only be used to those who deny that we've warmed at all, because, as is the GCR theory, the AGW theory is also basic hypthothesis, and if "denying" a hypothesis draws out the word "denier", then there is something wrong.

[nzucker]

Wow, very nicely done, Bethesda...extremely detailed explanation of how cosmic rays may affect global cloud cover and thus the Earth's temperature. If we are indeed hitting the solar maximum as we speak, we should start to witness more changes in GCRs given the impotence of the current solar cycle. All of the skeptics' theories should be well tested in the next 30-50 years.

[BethesdaWX]

Thanks Nate

Indeed Sometime within the next ~15 years, but likely within 5-10yrs, if this theory is correct, we'll see a downturn in temperatures, and no further significant warming, (this assuming the sun remains relatively quiet overall Geomagnetically). If we don't see the downturn, I'm likely to lean more towards the Pro-Warmer Side.

But, the Theory also implies that once the Long term Max ends (it did in 2005), that we should see warming end. Coincidence, even with ENSO removed alone, the trend since 2005 using RSS is negative (UAH also shows no warming), some of that cooling is possibly due to the PDO drop, it has to be. The 2010 El Nino Has temporarily scewed the trend in some senses...the 2010 El Nino spike was large.... a west based Nino with a strong global signal, +AMO, +IOD, -NAO/-AO slow the Jet, PDO spikes positive...these factors seemed to have messed with things for about a yr afterwards. Notice the 2010-11 La Nina started Early and strong in July..very early, but the global temp didn't drop really until Late fall/winter, despite the early Start. The climate system finds a way to maintain balance, and I believe that after the Powerful El Nino of 2010, it Took a Longer Max of La Nina from July thru January (6 months!), to restore Temps/balance, it has never failed me before. Actually, the Dip in 2011 beat out the El Nino spike, even though the Nina was weaker. The Early Max of the La Nina was Surprising, to say the Least.

But anyway...back to the original point...

The longest possible Lag from BE^10 Isotopes witnessed to temperature by qualitative analysis is ~ 20yrs, so from 2005, that'd be around 2025, but again, specifics aren't important as the fact that if we do not see the measurable downturn, and a somewhat significant one... then the theory is Discredited. I'd expect to see a Significant downturn between 2015-2020, sometime in there.

So wait and see is the best route in my view...although finding alernative energy is also a must, it always is. Emissions are harming the climate in some ways, and our health has human being breathing in poor air quality. Lung cancer runs in my family, so that is important to me actually.

I do find it odd that instead of letting this "Big, Bad, Oil Funded" (lol really?) Theory play out (it will fail if its wrong)... Warmists do everything they can to trash the Idea... but do not use factual basis for doing so, and even resort to trashing character of scientists with PHD's like their own, even if they do not have a PHD themselves...

That makes me wonder if there is something about this theory that irks Warmistas...maybe because...it has worked out well so far?

[nzucker]

Indeed Sometime within the next ~15 years, but likely within 5-10yrs, if this theory is correct, we'll see a downturn in temperatures, and no further significant warming, (this assuming the sun remains relatively quiet overall Geomagnetically). If we don't see the downturn, I'm likely to lean more towards the Pro-Warmer Side.

But, the Theory also implies that once the Long term Max ends (it did in 2005), that we should see warming end. Coincidence, even with ENSO removed alone, the trend since 2005 using RSS is negative (UAH also shows no warming), some of that cooling is possibly due to the PDO drop, it has to be. The 2010 El Nino Has temporarily scewed the trend in some senses...the 2010 El Nino spike was large.... a west based Nino with a strong global signal, +AMO, +IOD, -NAO/-AO slow the Jet, PDO spikes positive...these factors seemed to have messed with things for about a yr afterwards. Notice the 2010-11 La Nina started Early and strong in July..very early, but the global temp didn't drop really until Late fall/winter, despite the early Start. The climate system finds a way to maintain balance, and I believe that after the Powerful El Nino of 2010, it Took a Longer Max of La Nina from July thru January (6 months!), to restore Temps/balance, it has never failed me before. Actually, the Dip in 2011 beat out the El Nino spike, even though the Nina was weaker. The Early Max of the La Nina was Surprising, to say the Least.

But anyway...back to the original point...

The longest possible Lag from BE^10 Isotopes witnessed to temperature by qualitative analysis is ~ 20yrs, so from 2005, that'd be around 2025, but again, specifics aren't important as the fact that if we do not see the measurable downturn, and a somewhat significant one... then the theory is Discredited. I'd expect to see a Significant downturn between 2015-2020, sometime in there.

I don't know if it means absolutely no warming, since we know for a fact (and you've admitted) that CO2 causes warming as was originally demonstrated by Arrhenius' experiments in the 1860s, and later confirmed by the fact that satellite analysis shows that as compared to 1979, less energy is escaping the Earth at the wavelengths corresponding to carbon dioxide's absorption spectrum. An increase in low level cloud cover due to the spike in cosmic rays would probably mitigate the warming trend, as the drop in TSI already has with the lack of warming since 2005 and lower rate of .1C/decade since 1998 using an average of satellites and surface data. But I doubt it would be enough to stop the 100+ year trend entirely.

In any case, I would think the global temperature minimum compared to expectations should be around 2015-2020...-PDO/-AMO, low solar activity, end of the lag regarding global cloud cover/cosmic rays, and perhaps a multi-year Nina following the El Nino that will doubtless emerge for one of the next couple winters since we've been negative for a while. Having the cold PDO in concert with the cold AMO should really help lower global temperatures since most of the warm anomalies are coming from the Northern Hemisphere anyway.

[skierinvermont]

Two blatant errors/manipulation in BBs post.

First he uses a DO18 sample from Greenland to represent global temperatures over the last 10,000 years. Using one single piece of data to represent global temperatures is incredibly ironic coming from people who claim that the 10,000 thermometers spread around the globe isn't high enough resolution to measure global temperature. One location on Greenland is not a valid way to measure global temperatures. There are numerous studies which reconstruct global temperature and none of them look remotely similar to the single location from Greenland that BB posted.

Basically what BB (or whoever he was copying and pasting from) did was to select one location from dozens worldwide which happened to correlate with the GCR reconstruction. It's blatant manipulation. Blatant cherry-picking. It's just as bad as using a single thermometer from Atlanta, Georgia to claim the globe has cooled the last 100 years.

Here is what the actual science says:

The second manipulation is saying that the GCR decrease wouldn't affect global cloud cover by now. The proposed mechanism whereby GCRs increases global cloud cover via aerosols acts immediately.

Ever heard of cloud seeding?

Add aerosols to the atmosphere and cloud cover increases immediately. Given the record high level of GCRs the last 5 years, global cloud cover should have decreased and cooled the planet. There has been no effect thus far. The effect should be immediate within days or weeks, nevermind months, years (or decades as BB is suggesting). Some mechanisms take a long time to affect climate. GCRs are not one of them. The theoretical effect occurs almost immediately. Create aerosols, and you create clouds. Remove the aerosols, and the clouds dissapear.

Finally, there is simply no way that GCRs can create a significant amount of aerosols. The amount of aerosols created by humans spewing pollution into the atmosphere will dwarf any effect of GCRs.

The fact that GCRs have a minimal effect on climate has been proven over and over and over again in the peer-reviewed literature. But why listen to actual scientists when you can listen to an 18 YO kid with no relevant education or employment?

[ORH_wxman]

I just deleted the last several posts.

All of you are going to be suspended from the climate change forum if you cannot control your urges to derail every thread into a personal pissing contest about who can come up with the more passive aggressive jabs at eachother.

Before you all start blaming the other person, it takes two to tango. Take it to PM if you want to get personal.

[skierinvermont]

Thank you for cleaning that up.

The lead researchers who published the GISP2 data Bethesda posted have stated repeatedly it is not intended or suited as a global reconstruction.

Some skeptics ignore this and have decided to use it as a global reconstruction despite the fact that it flies in the face of dozens of other available peer-reviewed reconstructions and runs contrary to the stated purpose given by the author:

http://www.skeptical.../news.php?n=577

[BethesdaWX]

A few comments here, there are a few errors I'd like to point out.

But First off, thanks for pointing out one error I made regarding the Ice core proxy, I mis-interpeted the time-range limits for global use, which as you said, turns out to be closer to 100K overall, (longer term).

However, you are Contradicting yourself in other ways now.

-First off, we cannot measure GCC directly, thus the effect from GCR's is not measurable, so saying that the effect is "Minimal" has no Basis, and is likely incorrect. So you cannot ride my azz for making non-measurable data claims. If a peer reviewed study claims that GCRs have little effect..its not through measurement, (or it is short term processing). Either way, Short term Has never been in discussion.

We're not talking short term, because proxies prove that changes from GCR's to GCC are longer term fluctuations, not shorter term.

That aspect should be simple to grasp.

-Also, You are Correct, the effect is immediate...Thats what I stated above actually... but the size of the effect (as you said, likely small), takes time to change GCC by 2, 3, 4, 5% over time for that exact reason! Its not like GCR's bounce back, and then BOOM, clouds are high again, thats not how it works. In order to figure out how GCR has trended and affected GCC in the past, look at BE^10 proxies, and you can see the basic reasoning... it has happened before.

We know from radiative imbalance measurement that changes in GCC of 3% equates to all the increase in energy seen since 1790 (IPCC sites 1.6W/m^2), 3% GCC increase equates to 1.8W/m^2 of energy increase, and a net 0.5W/m^2 NET rediative change incoming and outgoing thru the entire troposphere (surface/LT and UT/MT). This is demonstrated.

So Long Term changes in clouds of 3-5% will impact global temps and equilibrium significantly, and are a possible explanation for much of the warming seen. The Earth has never been in equilibrium...thats the problem...it never has.

Global Ice was very low in the MWP, Less In the Arctic, Less in the Antarctic...Sea Levels were higher. I'm not saying that the MWP was warmer (it could have been)... thats not the point..but more of the fact that the Earth had to be in Imbalance for that to happen. Likely it was changes in GCC that created these changes.

Of course, IPCC predictions state that the Himilayan Glaciers, Arctic and Antarctic Glaciers will soon shrink to Levels below those of the MWP...and sea level rise will accelerate, so we'll see there.

So it obviously shouldn't matter if the MWP was warmer or cooler, because AGW should begin to accelerate very soon.

So:

1) Do you agree, that (So far), todays temperatures in the Greenland (basic arctic Core) Arctic are Not "unprecedented", and have been a normal occcurance up there throughout the Holocene? (as can be seen). Temperatures over the Arctic vary more than they would over the Greenland Ice sheet, and it being 2C warmer than today several times over are a key here.

Really thats all I need to know from you to draw my conclusion on your take. The Greenland Arctic Temperature (both poles actually) having varied 2C higher than todays...today's polar temps are not unprecedented, yet the global anomaly is somehow unprecedented? Sorry Dude, thats not how it works

4) There cannot be "regional" warm periods of 1-2C greater than the rest of the globe over 100-200yr periods...its a law of thermodynamics actually...its impossible, there is nothing that could cause that and maintain it parts of the NH. Large anomalies have always refected in the global mean when long term. Also a lack of SH proxies provides little evidence of southern Hemispheric deviations.

5) Your Graph on the Holocene Temperatures actually look OK to me in a general sense...but the point really has been that todays warmth over the globe has occured several times over in the holocene.

cheers bro