Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Science => Topic started by: Alexander555 on February 11, 2018, 12:05:32 PM

Title: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on February 11, 2018, 12:05:32 PM
FishOutofWater
ASIF Citizen
Posts: 308
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #187 on: Today at 04:34:42 PM »
Quote
The effect of a prolonged solar minimum would be modest - tenths of a degree C. It could affect weather patterns, however, as ocean heat would be redistributed in response to the slightly shifted regional radiation balance.

There was a regional "little ice age" that primarily affected Europe. It was mainly caused by northern hemisphere volcanoes. The Maunder minimum in sunspots had an modest impact. Southern hemisphere temperatures dropped slightly.

A deep and long solar minimum would cause a modest drop in forcing that would be significantly less than the increase in forcing caused by increasing levels of GHGs.

I'm writing this from memory based on reading many research papers and discussions.
Report to moderator     Logged


I think we can call the levels of GHGs a long term trend. And that solar cycle is a constant short term trend. In general it will change nothing in the long term as long nothing changes at the sun. It just moves up and down along that long term trend. But still that 0,3 degree difference is not a small thing. In some way it's a little amazing to see these record low extents at this point. That could mean something stronger is kicking in. I read we keep building up record amounts of GHGs, we continue to destroy forests. So probably something stronger is kicking in. That makes it interesting to see what extent is going to do in the next 2 or 3 years. If it stays flat or continues to go down it would be bad news for the arctic.

My knowledge is rather fragmented, that puts me easily on the hook for a stupid question. But some people say that stupid questions don't exist. I keep that in mind, even among specialists. That overlapsing from the solar cycle and the ENSO, is there some kind of correlation ?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Gray-Wolf on February 11, 2018, 01:17:32 PM
Anyone involved in highlighting the dangers of AGW will have been battling with folk 'waiting for the next maunder type minimum' as a cure to AGW.

As is noted above the impacts of this are tiny compared to the forces that are both driving and supporting warming.

The albedo flip over the summer Arctic provides far more 'new energy' than the amount of incoming energy we are set to lose? he cleaning of the atmosphere above the Pacific will , likewise, liberate more energy ( at the surface ) than we lose to low solar?

Our problem might come from the conditions low sunspot numbers drive in the atmosphere? Low solar leads to more high pressure around the northern hemisphere and high pressure leads to settled , sunny weather in the continents, this drives drought and so any extended drop in sunspot numbers could lead to extended droughts across inner continents?( not to mention temp hikes?)
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on February 11, 2018, 02:24:57 PM
Alexander,
the latest kerfuffle about the Maunder Minimum has come from a new study by Physicist Dan Lubin, from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. It is just one study, perhaps others disagree.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/220814/20180211/the-sun-will-be-cooler-by-2050-will-this-end-earths-problem-with-climate-change.htm

The Sun Will Be Cooler By 2050: Will This End Climate Change?

They start by saying that the ultraviolet radiation of the sun will be reduced by an additional 7 percent beyond the lowest point of the 11-year solar cycle during a grand minimum, and ..

Quote
Because sunlight will be reduced during this period, global temperatures are expected to drop. The phenomenon appears to offer a natural solution to climate change, which experts fear could lead to a rise in sea level, flooding, and extinction of species.

But read on...

Not A Natural Solution To Climate Change
Quote
Lubin and colleagues said that while the solar phenomenon will somehow slow global warming, it will not stop the current trend of human-induced climate change.

They explained that the cooling effect of the grand solar minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect linked to the increasing amount of planet-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Elesewhere I saw that the author said, that other climate forcing - e.g. permafrost - methane, could totally overwhelm any possible effect from reduced UV from the Sun.

But then we have our gutter press:-
The Daily Express
The headline:-
‘Mini ice age’ to HIT EARTH as sun to be ‘UNUSUALLY COOL’ by 2050

But even they have to admit it is could only be slowing of the inevitable.

When you see headlines - look beyond them. Meanwhile the insolation season in the Arctic is about to start at the fringes of the ice cap. There are as at 8 Feb 2 million km2 of open ocean at the edge of the Arctic ice cap where in the 1980's there was ice - that is a lot of ocean absorbing most of the sun's radiation instead of reflecting most back into space. CO2 emissions are estimated to have risen 2% in 2017, US emissions are expected to rise in 2018. With world economic growth expected at 3.9% in 2018, world emissions will probably rise. The list is endless.

I confidently expect the earth to be collecting heat (in the oceans) at an accelerating rate for a good few years yet.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Bernard on February 11, 2018, 03:29:03 PM
This kind of "studies" just makes me cry, and the way their results are presented as hard science previsions (The Sun will be cooler by 2050) cry even louder. (For the record, I've been involved in the 80's in the collecting of sunspot numbers data by amateur astronomers.)

We've been observing the Sun for less than 300 years. This is a fraction of the Sun's lifespan, less than 1 in 100,000,000. To compare, it amounts to observing the heartbeats of a man during about  30 seconds. We have no clue whatsoever so far to explain the solar cycles irregularities in both amplitude and length, beyond handwaving ones such as "they are chaotic". Which they certainly are. Extrapolations based on statistics from about 25 cycles can lead to any kind of prediction, with no physical basis whatsoever, just crunching numbers.
See http://sidc.oma.be/silso/yearlyssnplot for the 300 years series, bearing in mind that observations of sunspots before 1750 are partial and difficult to compare with current data.
See also https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04117 for the kind of models currently used for trying to predict future solar activity, with much more cautious conclusions.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on February 11, 2018, 04:28:15 PM
Good on you, Bernard,

I was hoping someone would come along and flatten this distraction at least in the ASIF- a sunspot in a teacup.

But you won't be able to stop it in the wider world. The Trumps, the Moncktons and the Pruitts of this world will seize on anything going the rounds, e.g. ---

<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on February 11, 2018, 08:17:08 PM
If i had to chose between the earth cooler by 2050 or the arctic ice free for a short periode by 2025. Than i would chose for the 2th.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on February 11, 2018, 08:35:05 PM
This kind of "studies" just makes me cry, and the way their results are presented as hard science previsions (The Sun will be cooler by 2050) cry even louder. (For the record, I've been involved in the 80's in the collecting of sunspot numbers data by amateur astronomers.)

We've been observing the Sun for less than 300 years. This is a fraction of the Sun's lifespan, less than 1 in 100,000,000. To compare, it amounts to observing the heartbeats of a man during about  30 seconds. We have no clue whatsoever so far to explain the solar cycles irregularities in both amplitude and length, beyond handwaving ones such as "they are chaotic". Which they certainly are. Extrapolations based on statistics from about 25 cycles can lead to any kind of prediction, with no physical basis whatsoever, just crunching numbers.
See http://sidc.oma.be/silso/yearlyssnplot for the 300 years series, bearing in mind that observations of sunspots before 1750 are partial and difficult to compare with current data.
See also https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04117 for the kind of models currently used for trying to predict future solar activity, with much more cautious conclusions.

It's a little strange that they don't say why it would happen. That would have been the most importand part of the study. That's basically the only thing we need to know. And i would think that you need to know exactly how the sun functions, to give that answer.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: FishOutofWater on February 12, 2018, 03:49:59 AM
Some regional cooling in and around the Bering sea is expected during a pronounced solar min. Not what we're seeing now. An increase in Bering sea ice is expected.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034015/meta
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on February 12, 2018, 12:52:51 PM
This kind of "studies" just makes me cry, and the way their results are presented as hard science previsions (The Sun will be cooler by 2050) cry even louder. (For the record, I've been involved in the 80's in the collecting of sunspot numbers data by amateur astronomers.)

We've been observing the Sun for less than 300 years. This is a fraction of the Sun's lifespan, less than 1 in 100,000,000. To compare, it amounts to observing the heartbeats of a man during about  30 seconds. We have no clue whatsoever so far to explain the solar cycles irregularities in both amplitude and length, beyond handwaving ones such as "they are chaotic". Which they certainly are. Extrapolations based on statistics from about 25 cycles can lead to any kind of prediction, with no physical basis whatsoever, just crunching numbers.
See http://sidc.oma.be/silso/yearlyssnplot for the 300 years series, bearing in mind that observations of sunspots before 1750 are partial and difficult to compare with current data.
See also https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04117 for the kind of models currently used for trying to predict future solar activity, with much more cautious conclusions.

It's a little stange that they don't say why it would happen. That would have been the most importand part of the study. That's basically the only thing we need to know. And i would think that you need to know exactly how the sun functions, to give that answer.

Quoting my replies from the other thread, Alexander.

If my interpretation is good. Than it sounds like we are going to lose some more ice in the future.
We will loose more ice, but not because of the sun.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/#TSI_data_record (http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/#TSI_data_record)
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)

A couple of years back there were discussions about a new little ice age spurred by deniers. But we have effctively disarmed ice ages for many thousands of years to come. Unless something truly drastic happens.
And
I have seen the link now, they are talking about a small difference. That means it can add a little.
First, I never called you a denier, just tried to keep it short because this is OT here.

From the second link I posted and the top link:
Solar Influences on Climate
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Solar%20Influences%20on%20Climate-2009RG000282.pdf (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Solar%20Influences%20on%20Climate-2009RG000282.pdf)
Section 6.4 Climate Change
Quote
A value of 0.24 W m−2 solar radiative forcing difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is currently considered to be more appropriate.

Remember, the current cycle (24) is not as low as during the Maunder minimum, not even Dalton, it's similar to those around 1900. As of December 2017 the strength and trend of the southern polar field hints at a cycle 25 with a magnitude slightly stronger than that of cycle 24.

The prediction of cycle 24 (the current) that I'm aware of (please add or correct if some of you out there know more) that has been correct, is made by following the development of the solar polar field strength, throughout a solar sunspot cycle. It can then (if correct) be used to predict the magnitude of the next cycle and the peak of the current cycle. That's why I keep one eye open to see if their prediction of cycle 25 will be correct and somewhat higher than cycle 24. That would then be the opposite to the model posted by Bernard above.

Here's an older presentation by Leif Svalgaard, Stanford University:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparing-HMI-WSO-Polar-Fields.pdf (http://www.leif.org/research/Comparing-HMI-WSO-Polar-Fields.pdf)
Quote
We have argued that the ‘poloidal’ field in the years leading up to solar minimum is
a good proxy for the size of the next cycle (SNmax ≈ DM [WSO scale μT]). The
successful prediction of Cycle 24 seems to bear that out, as well as the observed
corroboration from previous cycles. As a measure of the poloidal field we used the
average ‘Dipole Moment’, i.e. the difference, DM, between the fields at the North
pole and the South pole. The 20nHz filtered WSO DM matches well the HMI DM
on the WSO scale (linear correlation at right) using the same 30-day window as
WSO. So, we can extend WSO using HMI into the future as needed. This is good!
Plenty more of his stuff: http://www.leif.org/research/ (http://www.leif.org/research/)
Edit; the current cycle is similar to cycle 14:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_14

Also a recent and highly popular (not... 88 views by now) lecture with him. He's not easy to listen to but it touches many of the problems associated with sun spot observations in the past.

https://youtu.be/N0smVOGycog

Adding one of my own poor images, from the Venus transit in 2012. I was watching it with my oldest daughter and wasn't focusing on the sunspots, but there are still some, 11 or so, visble.
My own easiest summary? The sun has been very stable for a very long time, but it's still interesting. :)
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Gray-Wolf on February 12, 2018, 01:10:50 PM
We already have deniers crying 'foul' because our modern observing notes spots that could not have been viewed over the Maunder minimum?  As such we will not see any 'maunder like minimum' as we will note spots and not a blank sun.
Then we have the major volcanics over the period of the M.M. and the impacts high particulate contents of the atmosphere meant for observation ( and also global temps as we found out recently with the run of small eruptions leading to a slowdown in temp gains?).

Personally i am more concerned will the aiding of Northern blocking over periods of low sunspot numbers and the impacts this may drive on our AGW forced atmosphere?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on February 12, 2018, 01:49:27 PM
Svalgaard ends his lecture with; We solar physicists are not the most vocal. He earlier believed that bad science will eventually die by itself. But he changed his mind because bad science takes a really long time to die. That's why he added that saying in the first frame: Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent is understood to consent.

Adding a screen shot from that lecture.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on February 12, 2018, 02:25:35 PM
The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from recent reconstructions and climate simulations.
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2017/01/swsc170014.pdf (https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2017/01/swsc170014.pdf)

Quote
Abstract – The Maunderminimum (MM) was a period of extremely low solar activity from approximately AD 1650 to 1715. In the solar physics literature, the MM is sometimes associated with a period of cooler global temperatures, referred to as the Little Ice Age (LIA), and thus taken as compelling evidence of a large, direct solar influence on climate. In this study, we bring together existing simulation and observational studies, particularly the most recent solar activity and paleoclimate reconstructions, to examine this relation. Using northern hemisphere surface air temperature reconstructions, the LIA can be most readily defined as an approximately 480year period spanning AD 1440–1920, although not all of this period was notably cold. While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use.

Adding Fig3 at high res.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Bernard on February 13, 2018, 02:32:51 PM
For those questions, better ask folks being involved for ages in collect and analysis of solar activity data, namely SILSO at Royal Observatory of Brussels.
Their forecast section http://sidc.oma.be/silso/forecasts compares different models, but they cautiously limit them to one year ahead, no more.
Bottom line : The more you know about it, the more cautious you are about predictions.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Bernard on February 13, 2018, 02:46:48 PM
We already have deniers crying 'foul' because our modern observing notes spots that could not have been viewed over the Maunder minimum?  As such we will not see any 'maunder like minimum' as we will note spots and not a blank sun.
The consolidated sunspot number is calibrated based on a network of stations including amateur using small refractors, to avoid as far as possible the bias of "seeing too many spots", and have modern data compared with ancient ones. Note that solar astronomy is peculiar in the sense that the difficulty is not the faintness and apparent small size of objects to observe (like in deep sky astronomy), but the excess of light, and state of the atmosphere (more turbulent in daylight). A spotless sun is spotless in all instruments, from a simple 60mm refractor to dedicated telescopes. And large spots are visible to the filtered naked eye (w/o magnification) or even w/o filter at sunset.
There have been several studies based on historical reports of naked eye sunspots observations, see e.g., http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL014782/full
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on February 13, 2018, 03:14:35 PM
For those questions, better ask folks being involved for ages in collect and analysis of solar activity data, namely SILSO at Royal Observatory of Brussels.
Their forecast section http://sidc.oma.be/silso/forecasts compares different models, but they cautiously limit them to one year ahead, no more.
Bottom line : The more you know about it, the more cautious you are about predictions.
Maybe I don't understand your point but I think there were over a hundred different predictions made for cycle 24 and they used sunspot data from SILSO and polar magnetic field data from Wilcox (Stanford). What is there to be cautious about in trying to make longer predictions?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Bernard on February 13, 2018, 04:19:40 PM
For those questions, better ask folks being involved for ages in collect and analysis of solar activity data, namely SILSO at Royal Observatory of Brussels.
Their forecast section http://sidc.oma.be/silso/forecasts compares different models, but they cautiously limit them to one year ahead, no more.
Bottom line : The more you know about it, the more cautious you are about predictions.
Maybe I don't understand your point but I think there were over a hundred different predictions made for cycle 24 and they used sunspot data from SILSO and polar magnetic field data from Wilcox (Stanford). What is there to be cautious about in trying to make longer predictions?
Yes indeed, there are a lot of predictions, as said. My point was just that SILSO itself does not venture in long-term predictions, and that such predictions are based more on extrapolation of numbers than on any underlying physical model explaining the variations of the cycle in both strength and length (AFAIK). This is what should be clear in presenting such predictions.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: DavidR on March 30, 2018, 12:06:26 AM
Good on you, Bernard,

I was hoping someone would come along and flatten this distraction at least in the ASIF- a sunspot in a teacup.

But you won't be able to stop it in the wider world. The Trumps, the Moncktons and the Pruitts of this world will seize on anything going the rounds, e.g. ---

<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>
That website does seem to have something of an 'Agenda'.
<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>

One could go as far as saying it appears to be a FAKE NEWS outlet.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on March 30, 2018, 02:07:59 PM
Good on you, Bernard,

I was hoping someone would come along and flatten this distraction at least in the ASIF- a sunspot in a teacup.

But you won't be able to stop it in the wider world. The Trumps, the Moncktons and the Pruitts of this world will seize on anything going the rounds, e.g. ---

<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>
That website does seem to have something of an 'Agenda'.
<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>

One could go as far as saying it appears to be a FAKE NEWS outlet.

Most website do have something of an 'Agenda.'  Unbiased reporting seems to have gone by the wayside.  Probably best to read many differing views to arrive at the best summary.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Coffee Drinker on April 02, 2018, 03:38:29 AM
Good on you, Bernard,

I was hoping someone would come along and flatten this distraction at least in the ASIF- a sunspot in a teacup.

But you won't be able to stop it in the wider world. The Trumps, the Moncktons and the Pruitts of this world will seize on anything going the rounds, e.g. ---

<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>
That website does seem to have something of an 'Agenda'.
<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>

One could go as far as saying it appears to be a FAKE NEWS outlet.

Most website do have something of an 'Agenda.'  Unbiased reporting seems to have gone by the wayside.  Probably best to read many differing views to arrive at the best summary.

If it was only websites. But agenda and bias seems to be creeping into primary scientific research as well. No good times for science IMO.

And the joke we call peer review needs a major overhaul. Best is to only "believe" science of people you know and can trust. Talking to them at conferences an ask revealing questions is one way to go.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: FishOutofWater on April 02, 2018, 03:52:49 PM
Bias has crept into biomedical research because of the money to be made in big pharma. Economics has never been able to become a science because the poor and the middle class do not employ economists.

However, the physical sciences have not been prone to corruption because the career of a physical scientist suffers when there's an obvious agenda. Obviously there have been aging scientists who have extended their careers by selling out to big tobacco and fossil fuel front groups, but physical science research is still independent. Individuals have always had their biases but scientists fight it out over the science, not the money.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on April 28, 2018, 12:55:06 PM
https://watchers.news/2018/04/27/swpc-solar-cycle-24-declining-more-quickly-than-forecast/
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on May 02, 2018, 08:46:50 PM
Zero sunspots.

http://sunspotwatch.com
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 03, 2018, 01:23:14 AM
Bias has crept into biomedical research because of the money to be made in big pharma. Economics has never been able to become a science because the poor and the middle class do not employ economists.

However, the physical sciences have not been prone to corruption because the career of a physical scientist suffers when there's an obvious agenda. Obviously there have been aging scientists who have extended their careers by selling out to big tobacco and fossil fuel front groups, but physical science research is still independent. Individuals have always had their biases but scientists fight it out over the science, not the money.

Economics has never claimed to be a hard science. It is a social science, the study of human behavior.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on May 03, 2018, 11:40:59 AM
Can somebody tell something about the dynamics behind these sunspots. Because they are pretty amazing things. They have a structure in the shape of a hurricane, small at the basis and wide at the top. And it's like 2000 degree C less warm at the surface of a solarspot. So that structure prevends the heat from entering. And the ones you see on picture, they have  a size of a couple time the size of the earth. With in mant cases big erruptions near these solarspots. So probably these things are related, the shape, the temperature, the erruptions, the effects on earth....
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sebastian Jones on May 03, 2018, 04:28:10 PM
Can somebody tell something about the dynamics behind these sunspots. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot)
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Bernard on May 03, 2018, 06:29:44 PM
Zero sunspots.
http://sunspotwatch.com

At the risk of repeating myself, I recommend http://sidc.oma.be/silso/ as the most reliable source regarding solar activity data and previsions.
Days w/o sunspots are just normal in the current phase of solar cycle. Indeed the current activity is a bit below model predictions, but it's too early to tell if it means the minimum will be lower than expected or if it's happening sooner. Nothing totally out of the charts anyway.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Brigantine on July 24, 2018, 12:58:48 AM
I'm looking at the solar X-ray output (http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/goes-xray-flux.gif), and was wondering...

Is everything ok with the GOES satellites? Especially GOES 15 (https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Operations/GOES/15/index.html). A1 just seems implausibly low.

Does anyone know anything in particular about this?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on November 10, 2018, 06:32:32 AM
Cross posting this here:
oops, just posted under the orbital irradiance video above

Solar total and spectral irradiance reconstruction over the last 9000 years

https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03464

"The concentrations of the cosmogenic isotopes 14C and 10Be in natural archives have been converted to decadally averaged sunspot numbers through a chain of physics-based models."

"Over the last 9000 years, the reconstructed secular variability in TSI is of the order of 0.11%, or 1.5 W/m2."

Adding Fig 7.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2384.0;attach=111266;image)
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Pmt111500 on November 10, 2018, 01:31:10 PM
Thanks Sleepy for picking that out of the pdf, a short excursion to history doesn't reveal any direct evidence of low solar output during 850-750bce or 530-450bce. The earlier falls on the third intermediate period of Egypt with occasional civil wars and the later is when the classic Peloponnese Wars amongst ancient Greeks were fought, but of course there are wars to pick on almost every period since these were recorded by the winning side.

Oops the latter period is wrong per the graph.  :o :-[
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: johnm33 on November 11, 2018, 12:31:05 PM
This is well worth a listen, Valentina Zharkova, who's curiosity led her to study the suns cycles in her spare time. I may like this because it reflects my favourite model of the sun, one with alternating charge layers, and also as a questioner points out the 'harmonics' of planetary motions seem aligned with solar variation. What had never occured to me is harmonic resonance/interference between wave motion in the double layers [she doesn't mention there charge] and their effect on not just the suns radience but on the magnetic sheilding the sun provides.

<snip, no links to climate risk denier websites, thanks; N.>

She's no fan of ours,
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on November 16, 2018, 02:41:20 PM
A small collection of papers. Zharkova critique in No 3.
1. Frost fairs, sunspots and the Little Ice Age
2. The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from
recent reconstructions and climate simulations (posted in #11 above with Fig3)
3. Comment on the paper by Popova et al. “On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles”
4. Predicting space climate change
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on November 16, 2018, 08:25:23 PM
A small collection of papers. Zharkova critique in No 3.
1. Frost fairs, sunspots and the Little Ice Age
2. The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from
recent reconstructions and climate simulations (posted in #11 above with Fig3)
3. Comment on the paper by Popova et al. “On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles”
4. Predicting space climate change

A nice collection, Sleepy.
But nothing seems to stop this Maunder minimum myth
I like this from the lockwood paper
Quote
Thames freeze years are slightly more frequent before the Maunder minimum began and
also considerably more common 65 years after it ended. The association of the solar Maunder  minimum and the Little Ice Age (LIA) is also not supported by proper inspection and ignores the role of other factors such as volcanoes. Together these mean that, although the LIA covers both the Spörer and Maunder solar minima, it also persisted and deepened during the active solar
period between these two minima.


The latest science indicates that low solar activity could indeed increase the frequency of cold
winters in Europe, but that it is a phenomenon that is restricted to winter and is just one of a complex mix of factors.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on November 16, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
Thanks, and I agree, nothing seems to stop people from closing their ears.

Not 9000 years of reconstruction like the one posted above.
"Over the last 9000 years, the reconstructed secular variability in TSI is of the order of 0.11%, or 1.5 W/m2."

Not even if the scientists themselves are very clear about the effects, remember posting this almost four years ago on a Swedish blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510)
What did everyone not hear? Exactly the attached snippet with Mike Lockwood.
-Poof, vanished, didn't exist, he never said that, nope. Gone. Won't listen. The sun is shutting down and we will enter a new ice age, despite emitting enough GHG's into the atomsphere that will cancel the next real ice age. No, really, we must be entering a new ice age.-

Excerpt from another recent paper by Hathaway and Upton, also attached below.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04868 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04868)
Quote
Here we ran 10 simulations using the active regions from solar cycle 14, varying both Joy’s tilt and the convective pattern (see HU2016 for the details). The results of all of these simulations are shown in Figure 3. The average of all 10 realizations gives an axial dipole strength at the start of 2020 of +1.56 ±0.05 G. WSO gave an axial dipole strength of -1.61 G at the start of Cycle 24, +3.21 G at the start of Cycle 23, and -4.40 G at the start of Cycle 22. This suggests that Cycle 25 will be a another small cycle, with an amplitude slightly smaller than (∼ 95-97%) the size of Cycle 24. This would make Solar Cycle 25 the smallest cycle in the last 100 years. This indicates that the weak cycle 24 is not an isolated weak cycle, but rather the onset of the modern Gleissburg minimum [Gleissberg, 1939], which will include Cycle 25 — at present this is akin to the last Gleissburg minimum (SC12, SC13, & SC14) which occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Unfortunately, we will need to wait another 10-15 years before we will know if the Sun will go into a deeper minimum state (e.g. the Dalton or Maunder minima, or somewhere in between) or if it will recover as it did following the last Gleissberg minimum.
My bold above.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on November 18, 2018, 12:59:56 PM
With the above in memory, let's look at the article posted in the freezing season thread:
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/ (https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/)

Here's the real news:
Quote
The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” explains Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

When the thermosphere cools, it shrinks, literally decreasing the radius of Earth’s atmosphere. This shrinkage decreases aerodynamic drag on satellites in low-Earth orbit, extending their lifetimes. That’s the good news. The bad news is, it also delays the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.
My bold. Adding the images:
(https://spaceweatherarchive.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/layers.jpg?w=676)
(https://spaceweatherarchive.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/tci.png?w=676)

What else causes cooling of our upper atmosphere? GHG's, which also affect our satellites.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JA020886 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JA020886)
Quote
The primary cause of upper atmosphere cooling is increase in CO2, but changes in other greenhouse gases also play a role, including methane (CH4), ozone (O3), and possibly water vapor (H2O). These are important in the stratosphere and mesosphere [e.g., Garcia et al. 2007; Akmaev et al., 2006; Lübken et al., 2013] but have little effect in the thermosphere because they are photodissociated above the mesopause.

We know how AGW works but I'll also add this by Santer et al (attached below as well).
Human influence on the seasonal cycle of tropospheric temperature
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaas8806 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaas8806)
Quote
We find here that for annual mean TMT, the estimated S/N ratios exceed 4.4 for temperature changes over the 38-year satellite record. This translates to odds of roughly 5 in 1 million of obtaining the annual mean S/N ratios by natural variabilityalone.

I won't bet against that.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: johnm33 on November 28, 2018, 01:28:43 AM
It's been quite interesting delving in to this. First off I can't find any determinative physics that causes a cooling event, but it looks like a window of opportunity for a switch to a different climate regime opens soon and stays open for 10-20 years. The question is are we primed? Curously enough on balance I think it looks like a rapid warming event is about to unfold which will free the CAA release the fresh waters of Beaufort and allow a rapid turnover of water in the arctic . That may well look like a cooling event, especially in Europe and ne America.
I certainly don't see history as a done deal and was rather hoping that a better grasp of these cycles may finaaly provide some anchor points, doesn't look likely.
Anyone curious about the cycles should look for Miles Mathis' 2014 prediction of cycle 25 starting this year[18] whatever's said about him an accurate prediction about something presumed to be stochastic must be worth considering.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: litesong on December 07, 2018, 04:28:26 PM
Anyone involved in highlighting the dangers of AGW will have been battling with folk 'waiting for the next maunder type minimum' as a cure to AGW.
Not much of a battle. AGW deniers' reliance on continuous solar downturns is temporary hope their shaky building doesn't collapse while deniers remain within. Average solar energy has increased for billions of years & for billions more will continue upward.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: oren on December 08, 2018, 10:59:28 AM
The good news: once we are in the mininum, the denier logic no longer applies. From then on the solar cycle may either have no effect, or exacerbate warming.
Title: Re: Solar cycle and an El Nino prediction
Post by: morganism on December 09, 2018, 09:52:33 PM
Termination of Solar Cycles and Correlated Tropospheric Variability

https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02692

" Using direct observation and proxies of solar activity going back six decades we can, with high statistical significance, demonstrate an apparent correlation between the solar cycle terminations and the largest swings of Earths oceanic indices--a previously overlooked correspondence. Forecasting the Sun's global behavior places the next solar termination in early 2020 and we thus anticipate a strong El Niño in 2019, and a strong La Niña in 2020; should such a major oceanic swing follow, our challenge becomes: when does correlation become causation and how does the process work? "
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Archimid on December 09, 2018, 10:26:26 PM
My bet? It is not caused by the solar cycle, at least not by the current one. It is merely correlated. It is caused by the million of years worth of very small but very regular 11 year solar cycles. It terrifies me to think that CO2 is overwhelming the echo of that cycle and giving it a new shape.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Wherestheice on December 10, 2018, 12:09:30 AM
Repeat after me....

The sun is not causing current warming
The sun is not causing current warming
The sun is not causing current warming
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Human Habitat Index on December 10, 2018, 12:27:20 AM
Repeat after me....

The sun is not causing current warming
The sun is not causing current warming
The sun is not causing current warming

Which planet is closer to the sun, Mercury or Venus ?

Which one is hotter ?
Title: Re: Solar cycle and an El Nino prediction
Post by: crandles on December 10, 2018, 12:35:00 AM
Termination of Solar Cycles and Correlated Tropospheric Variability
https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02692

Rather begs the question of why it is on arxiv.org ? If it was important / interesting, &/ likely valid, would it be somewhere else?

My bet would be there are so many ways of analysing relationship, if you go looking in enough ways, you can find a correlation that you can write up in a way to suggest there is a strong correlation.

Table B.1. Temporal shifts applied to EUV BP Terminator dates to align to step changes in
GCR record. See Figs. 5 and 6.

seems to be saying they shifted the dates by -100 days in one cycle +100 days in another cycle and +30 days in a third. If I am interpreting that correctly, which I may well not be, sounds like it provides lots of scope to make the data fit?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on December 10, 2018, 06:19:23 AM
It was up at AGU last year;
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMSH42A..05L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMSH42A..05L)
and WUWT posted about it this summer since they love to explore such ponderings.  ::)

Let's revisit after 2020.
Quote
Finally, in the absence of sensitivity to solar-driven CRF variations in current coupled climate models, we have a year or so to wait to see if this indicator pans out. However, should the coming terminator be followed by such an ENSO swing then we must seriously consider the capability of coupled global terrestrial modeling efforts to capture “step-function” events, and assess how complex the Sun-Earth connection is, with particular attention to the relationship between incoming cosmic rays and clouds/ precipitation over our oceans.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: johnm33 on December 10, 2018, 11:21:09 AM
Most of the people researching this are painfully aware of how short of data they are they're just not prepared to wait around for a couple of centuries. Here's another paper, claims 25 has begun. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329519943_The_Adjusted_Solar_Flux_the_Start_of_Solar_Cycle_25
  Still haven't come across any compelling physics which leads to cooling, but there does seem to be an increase of volcanic/earthquake activity associated with em disturbances coincident with solar low, also historically, during the LIA there were many more accounts of meteor storms than at other times, could that be related to the change in the suns magnetic field that ties in to increased galactic cosmic ray penetration?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: johnm33 on December 15, 2018, 07:58:39 PM
This paper suggests that the alignment of Jupiter/Saturn with the the galaxies center alters the electro-magnetic field of the solar system https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lfd5hO-DthvyDY5Gz2WoaWY8ribtCQWPiQbDJkXSrV4/edit
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on December 15, 2018, 10:19:50 PM
That was a guest post at WUWT in 2015.
Rudolf Wolf also had a go at that idea in 1859 but eventually gave up because it didn't produce satisfactory results. It keeps popping up every now and then.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: johnm33 on December 19, 2018, 11:32:46 AM
Just possibly here's a physical explanation for a change in weather systems caused by the increase in gcr. and changes in the suns em field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_pADlZI_EA&feature=youtu.be  skip to 29:30 and give it four minutes to see if your interested. Eugene Bagashov explains a possible cause for increasing size of anti/cyclones and the possible effect on the jet stream and consequently weather systems.
In a previous presentation he outlined the possible magnetic connection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUotufVwvlQ&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: kassy on December 19, 2018, 03:08:01 PM
Or start at 31:12 because the part before that is the last part of something else.

One question: what is the time scale of currents? And what is the time scale of cyclones/anti cyclones?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: johnm33 on December 19, 2018, 05:14:58 PM
Or start at 31:12 because the part before that is the last part of something else.

One question: what is the time scale of currents? And what is the time scale of cyclones/anti cyclones?
They're barely more predictable than earthquakes so far as i can see, and the main difference may be the increase of ionised particles in the atmosphere caused by galactic cosmic rays. It's just a hypothesis so more of a heads up than information. We'll see.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on December 19, 2018, 10:02:34 PM
There's always a rear view mirror when it comes to pseudoscience and deniers, just in case someone should think that suspicious0bservers and Ben Davidson is a trustworthy information source. John Coleman has passed away but his twitter account is still working. Just posting a picture from there.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Neven on December 19, 2018, 10:16:07 PM
Yes, be careful not too wade too deep into the solar stuff, and end up in climate risk denier territory.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on December 21, 2018, 10:33:59 AM
'Tis the solstice.

Winter Solstice 2018 will be at 22:23 hrs Greenwich mean Time (GMT) on Friday, 21 December.

This is the solar cycle that interests me most, apart from the butterfly wings image of the sunspot cycles.

Imagine it is pre-history, and you do not know if this year the sun will start to rise higher in the sky again. Perhaps this time it will get lower and lower in the sky until......

Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: TerryM on December 21, 2018, 01:21:56 PM
'Tis the solstice.

Winter Solstice 2018 will be at 22:23 hrs Greenwich mean Time (GMT) on Friday, 21 December.

This is the solar cycle that interests me most, apart from the butterfly wings image of the sunspot cycles.

Imagine it is pre-history, and you do not know if this year the sun will start to rise higher in the sky again. Perhaps this time it will get lower and lower in the sky until......
We probably should pop an extra virgin in the volcano just to be sure. ???
Terry
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on December 21, 2018, 02:38:34 PM
Not interested in the dark side of this earth cycle at all, my 5360Wp PV's has produced 0.06kWh so far today and that's pretty much it, it's getting dark(er). A little snow on them for once...
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on December 21, 2018, 04:00:59 PM
Not interested in the dark side of this earth cycle at all, my 5360Wp PV's has produced 0.06kWh so far today and that's pretty much it, it's getting dark(er). A little snow on them for once...
Earth Cycle !?

We are in pre-history and you are telling the assembled throng it is not the sun rising and falling at various times of the year but movement of the earth around the sun and inclination of the earth's axis wot's doing it.

The Priest decides, to general acclamation, forget the virgin, it is you that's being thrown into the volcano. Insulting the Sun God is dangerous.

Come to think of it, there are plenty of evangelical churches today where a similar outcome would be likely.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Sleepy on December 21, 2018, 09:05:33 PM
Yet another study using development of the solar polar field strength claims a similar or slightly stronger cycle 25. Open access, just adding Fig 4.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07690-0 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07690-0)
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: vox_mundi on January 23, 2019, 05:12:31 PM
Debunking the Solar-Cycle/North Atlantic Winter Weather Connection
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-debunking-solar-cyclenorth-atlantic-winter-weather.html

Quote
... in a research paper published in Nature Geoscience Monday, Gabriel Chiodo, Jessica Oehrlein and Lorenzo Polvani, scientists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the School of Engineering at Columbia University and other colleagues present evidence that there is no definite connection between the solar cycle and the NAO.

The research essentially debunks what was considered a "demonstrated link" between the 11-year sun cycle and winter weather over the northern hemisphere and found it is actually, for the most part, a coincidental alignment. With the use of sophisticated computer modeling and extended observations, the new research shows that before 1960 evidence of any correlation simply vanishes.

"What we're saying is, the theory was basically a mirage," said Polvani.

(https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41561-018-0293-3/MediaObjects/41561_2018_293_Fig1_HTML.png)

Gabriel Chiodo et al. Insignificant influence of the 11-year solar cycle on the North Atlantic Oscillation (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0293-3), Nature Geoscience (2019).
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on May 03, 2019, 10:30:04 AM
Zero sunspots. http://www.sidc.be/silso/home
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: vox_mundi on May 28, 2019, 07:27:45 PM
The Sun Follows the Rhythm of the Planets
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/hd-tsf052719.php

Study Corroborates Influence of Planetary Tidal Forces On Solar Activity
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-corroborates-planetary-tidal-solar.html

One of the big questions in solar physics is why the Sun's activity follows a regular cycle of 11 years. Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), an independent German research institute, now present new findings, indicating that the tidal forces of Venus, Earth and Jupiter influence the solar magnetic field, thus governing the solar cycle. The team of researchers present their findings in the journal Solar Physics

As with the gravitational pull of the Moon causing tides on Earth, planets are able to displace the hot plasma on the sun's surface. Tidal forces are strongest when there is maximum Venus-Earth-Jupiter alignment; a constellation that occurs every 11.07 years. But the effect is too weak to significantly perturb the flow in the solar interior, which is why the temporal coincidence was long neglected. However, the HZDR researchers then found evidence of a potential indirect mechanism that may be able to influence the solar magnetic field via tidal forces: oscillations in the Tayler instability, a physical effect that, from a certain current, can change the behavior of a conductive liquid or of a plasma. Building on this concept, the scientists developed their first model in 2016; they have since advanced this model in their new study to present a more realistic scenario.

In the hot plasma of the sun, the Tayler instability perturbs the flux and the magnetic field, itself reacting very sensitively to tiny forces. A small thrust of energy is enough for the perturbations to oscillate between right-handed and left-handed helicity (the projection of the spin onto the direction of momentum). The momentum required for this may be induced by planetary tidal forces every eleven years—ultimately also setting the rhythm at which the magnetic field reverses the polarity of the sun.

... the scientists systematically compared historical observations of solar activity from the last thousand years with planetary constellations, statistically proving that the two phenomena are linked. "There is an astonishingly high level of concordance: what we see is complete parallelism with the planets over the course of 90 cycles," said Frank Stefani, lead author of the study. "Everything points to a clocked process."

Besides influencing the 11-year cycle, planetary tidal forces may also have other effects on the sun. For example, it is also conceivable that they change the stratification of the plasma in the transition region between the interior radiative zone and the outer convection zone of the sun (the tachocline) in such a way that the magnetic flux can be conducted more easily. Under those conditions, the magnitude of activity cycles could also be changed, as was once the case with the Maunder Minimum, when there was a strong decline in solar activity for a longer phase.

In the long term, a more precise model of the solar dynamo would help scientists to quantify climate-relevant processes such as space weather more effectively, and perhaps even to improve climate predictions one day.

(https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11207-019-1447-1/MediaObjects/11207_2019_1447_Fig1_HTML.png)

F. Stefani et al. A Model of a Tidally Synchronized Solar Dynamo (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11207-019-1447-1), Solar Physics (2019)

Quote
... we focus on the 11.07-years alignment periodicity of the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, whose persistent synchronization with the solar dynamo is briefly touched upon. The typically emerging dynamo modes are dipolar fields, oscillating with a 22.14-years period or pulsating with a 11.07-years period, but also quadrupolar fields with corresponding periodicities. ...  Phase coherent transitions between dipoles and quadrupoles, which are reminiscent of the observed behavior during the Maunder minimum, can easily be triggered by long-term variations of dynamo parameters, but may also occur spontaneously even for fixed parameters. Further interesting features of the model are the typical second intensity peak and the intermittent appearance of reversed helicities in both hemispheres.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: b_lumenkraft on May 28, 2019, 07:36:42 PM
Fascinating!  :o

BTW, Vox Mundi, thanks a lot for a constant stream of very interesting links!
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: johnm33 on May 28, 2019, 11:21:11 PM
Fascinating!  :o

BTW, Vox Mundi, thanks a lot for a constant stream of very interesting links!
+1
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 29, 2019, 12:10:45 AM
I always wondered, "Why 11 years?"

This news reminds me of a song I grew up with.  An expanded (and different) version is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlR3a95uI-0

What I remember:
Twinkle twinkle little star
I don't wonder what you are
Teacher told us yesterday
How you come and go away
And that you are a great big mass
Of all sorts of burning gas
Teacher told us that she recons
Light goes millions of miles a second
So if a great big water spout
Should some day come put you out
We would never know your fate
'Til long after that date
Twinkle twinkle little star
I don't wonder what you are

I'm pretty sure I forgot some verses.  The internet didn't help.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: b_lumenkraft on May 29, 2019, 07:33:34 AM
Quote
Should some day come put you out

Growing up with Max und Moritz, i see similarities in morbidity...
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: johnm33 on May 29, 2019, 09:49:02 AM
"space weather" (http://www.enterprisemission.com/jnelson2.html) ignore the source read Nelsons work.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on May 30, 2019, 06:31:15 PM
I hope the Eddy Minimum (as it will probably be called) holds off one more solar cycle, so that the Parker Solar Probe can study Solar Cycle 25.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: DrTskoul on July 30, 2019, 10:44:44 AM
And then we hav ed "gems" like this

Science
Solar minimum warning: Mini ice age could last until 2055 - shock warning (https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1159227/weather-forecast-long-range-solar-minimum-maximum-ice-age-space-weather-news/amp)
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on December 25, 2019, 05:25:42 PM
The start of a new cycle ? https://watchers.news/2019/12/24/first-multi-spot-group-of-solar-cycle-25-active-region-2753-numbered/
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on December 25, 2019, 11:10:20 PM
What!? No Maunder minimum?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: vox_mundi on February 24, 2020, 06:33:56 PM
Solar Storms May Leave Gray Whales Blind and Stranded
https://today.duke.edu/2020/02/solar-storms-could-scramble-whales-navigational-sense
https://phys.org/news/2020-02-solar-storms-gray-whales-stranded.html

A new study reported in the journal Current Biology on February 24 offers some of the first evidence that gray whales might depend on a magnetic sense to find their way through the ocean. This evidence comes from the discovery that whales are more likely to strand on days when there are more sunspots.

... What's especially unique about the new study, according to the researchers, is that they were able to explore how a solar storm might cause whales to strand themselves.

"Is it that the solar storms are pushing the magnetic field around and giving the whales incorrect information—for example, the whale thinks it is on 4th Street, but it is actually on 8th?" asks Jesse Granger of Duke University. "Or is it that the solar storms are messing up the receptor itself—the whale thinks it is on 4th Street, but has just gone blind?

"We show that the mechanism behind the relationship between solar storms and gray whales, if it is an effect on a magnetic sensor, is likely caused by disruption to the sense itself, not inaccurate information. So, to put this back into the earlier metaphor, the big secondary finding of this paper is that it is possible that the reason the whales are stranding so much more often when there are solar storms is because they have gone blind, rather than that their internal GPS is giving them false information."

Granger and her colleagues studied 186 live strandings of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). The data showed those strandings occurred significantly more often on days with high sunspot counts than on randomly chosen days. On days with a high sunspot count, the chance of a stranding more than doubled.

Further study showed that strandings happened more often on days with a high solar radio flux index, as measured from Earth, than on randomly chosen days. On days with high RF noise, the likelihood of strandings was more than four times greater than on randomly selected days.

Much to Granger's surprise, they found no significant increase in strandings on days with large deviations in the magnetic field. Altogether, the findings suggest that the increased incidence of strandings on days with more sunspots is explained by a disruption of whales' magnetoreceptive sensor, rather than distortion of the geomagnetic field itself.

(https://www.sfexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/16716882_web1_190506-sfe-deadwhale-006.jpg)

Current Biology, Granger et al.: "Gray whales strand more often on days with increased levels of atmospheric radio-frequency noise"
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Gumbercules on April 10, 2020, 03:01:16 AM
We already have deniers crying 'foul' because our modern observing notes spots that could not have been viewed over the Maunder minimum?  As such we will not see any 'maunder like minimum' as we will note spots and not a blank sun.
Then we have the major volcanics over the period of the M.M. and the impacts high particulate contents of the atmosphere meant for observation ( and also global temps as we found out recently with the run of small eruptions leading to a slowdown in temp gains?).

Personally i am more concerned will the aiding of Northern blocking over periods of low sunspot numbers and the impacts this may drive on our AGW forced atmosphere?

I was going to start a new post asking about sunspots, because I'm occasionally an amateur astronomer and it's disappointing to look at the sun and not see anything other than granules.

But the sun has been remarkably clear for a prolonged time. Surely this has an effect on Earth's climate. Everyone says it's minimal, but that seems silly. The sun clearly has the final vote over the climate of the inner planets, though it can only do so much/little so long as it doesn't vary significantly (See Venus vs. Mercury).

Regarding what you said, our modern abilities mean we can spot smaller spots. This means we will not have a Maunder Minimum? Sorry, that's the opposite of the truth. What it does mean is if we have a Maunder Minimum, it will actually likely be more severe, because we CAN spot smaller spots. So the actual Maunder Minimum certainly had more spots than were noted, while if we note no spots, it means there are actually no spots. But even if there are not no spots, we can still have fewer sunspots than during the actual Maunder Minimum given that we now have better data. So your point seems completely backwards. Sure, it's harder for us to document no spots, but not harder for us to reach a similarly prolonged solar minimum output. 

By the way, the current sunspot count is zero, even with our better technology.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 10, 2020, 09:54:32 AM
The Maunder Monimum was probably just like this one.
Sunspots only change solar luminosity by a fraction of a percent.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: kassy on April 10, 2020, 05:19:53 PM
Then there is this:

The Maunder Minimum, also known as the "prolonged sunspot minimum", is the name used for the period around 1645 to 1715

The Maunder Minimum occurred with a much longer period of lower-than-average European temperatures which is likely to have been primarily caused by volcanic activity.

and

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[2] Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[3] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[4][5][6] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[7] to about 1850.[8][9][10]

The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

So that happened at the same time but it was not the sunspots causing the LIA.

My favorite theory is that the deaths in the America´s caused it. The amount of lives lost was staggering as were the changes in landscape. This was what probably triggered the LIA.

Bit more on that:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2555.0.html
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Gumbercules on April 10, 2020, 08:28:13 PM
The Maunder Monimum was probably just like this one.
Sunspots only change solar luminosity by a fraction of a percent.

Yeah I looked up some stuff and it appears it's on the order of 0.1% since we have had the ability to record it. On the other hand, stars change. And the sun will brighten, but only by about 1% every hundred million years. But it does mean in a billion years Earth will be uninhabitable unless we move the entire planet, which is actually possible.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on July 08, 2020, 01:03:00 PM
The solar forcing implemented in the new generation of CMIP6 models seem to forecast a Maunder minimum. Solar cycles declining all the way to 2100.

Figure from attached pdf page 9.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Stephan on July 09, 2020, 04:28:55 PM
On the first glimpse the difference between the old CMIP5 and the new CMIP6 model looks large. But then ... please check the y axis. It is so pumped up to see any difference at all. The largest difference of both models at around 2080 are just 0,085 % or 1.25 W/m². Hard to believe that this has a relevant input if you look at all the GHG in the atmosphere...
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: kassy on July 09, 2020, 04:39:35 PM
Also the CMIP6 data probably does not forecast it but uses it as an input.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: blumenkraft on July 09, 2020, 04:40:32 PM
General question: How do we feel about people who bring up the solar cycle? I mean, there is a clear CC-denial inherent with it, no?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: kassy on July 09, 2020, 05:00:38 PM
Or confusion.
Anyone that reads the whole thread can see it is not that important.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: The Walrus on July 09, 2020, 05:22:55 PM
Solar cycles have been debated extensively concerning their relation to past warming/cooling episodes.  The correlation is very good.  Whether the solar cycle can [partially] compensate for AGW in the short term is unknown.  During the Maunder minimum, solar output fell to ~1360.2 for about 70 years.  That graph does not project anything that low during this century.  Avoiding a topic just because it has some CC-denial attachment just denies its significance. 
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: kassy on July 10, 2020, 02:28:57 PM
Scroll up to #71 and read it?

Whether the solar cycle can [partially] compensate for AGW in the short term is unknown.

That is a total BS claim. Do read the wiki entries for the solar cycle and solar irradiance.
Then there is this:

Quote
Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research's Scientific Data, "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach."

The findings show that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago when the long-term average global temperature topped out at around 0.7°C warmer than the mid-19th century. Since then, accelerating greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to global average temperatures that are now surpassing 1°C above the mid-19th century.

Post #2 in
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3168.msg272854.html#new

1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).

It is either funny or sad that you post that below ´Anyone that reads the whole thread can see it is not that important.´
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: KiwiGriff on July 10, 2020, 10:26:41 PM
Potholer 54 covered this subject in his latest video.
As usual has links to the actual science.
0.2 to 0.3C cooling if we do enter a grand minimum. A grand minimum will only offset at most fifteen years of warming at our present rate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjgCaF9BGUo&t=1260s
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: The Walrus on July 10, 2020, 10:45:25 PM
Scroll up to #71 and read it?

Whether the solar cycle can [partially] compensate for AGW in the short term is unknown.

That is a total BS claim. Do read the wiki entries for the solar cycle and solar irradiance.
Then there is this:

Quote
Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research's Scientific Data, "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach."

The findings show that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago when the long-term average global temperature topped out at around 0.7°C warmer than the mid-19th century. Since then, accelerating greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to global average temperatures that are now surpassing 1°C above the mid-19th century.

Post #2 in
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3168.msg272854.html#new

1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).

It is either funny or sad that you post that below ´Anyone that reads the whole thread can see it is not that important.´

The only BS is comparing the short term to 6,500 years.  0.7C is not all the different from 1C in the short term.  The main claim regarding solar irradiance is that it results in colder higher latitude winters.  Exactly the same time frame that AGW has its greatest influence. 
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: KiwiGriff on July 10, 2020, 11:22:06 PM
You are not talking about the same things .
The long term progression in earths orbit are not the same as the short term effects of solar cycles.
 https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
The progression of the milannkovith cycles is the reason for the slow cooling trend in the last 6500 years not total solar irradiance. AGW has the opposite effect it warms the arctic as anyone reading this blog will know is happening perhaps three times faster than the rate the entire planet is warming at. 
You also seem to not know the difference between Transient climate response, Equilibrium climate sensitivity and Earth system sensitivity
The Short term warming trend is not equal to the full effects of our changes to the composition of the earths atmosphere.
If we could hold CO2  at the present level we will continue to warm for tens of thousands of years.
Our current 1.3C over pre industrial temperatures is only about 1/3 to 1/2 the warming we can expect in the next few hundred years or so from present levels of CO2.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/transient-and-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/#:~:text=The%20latter%20is%20often%20quantified,%2C%20doubling%20requires%2070%20years.)

One word sums your position up .
Denial.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: The Walrus on July 10, 2020, 11:31:05 PM
Exactly!  That is why trying to compare solar cycles over the next few decades to the progression over 6,500 years is ridiculous.  I think you are the one who does not seem to know the long term warming effects.  Equilibrium would occur in significantly less time than tens of thousands of years.  Just like the recent ‘hiatus’ solar changes could have a greater temperature effect than AGW. 
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: oren on July 10, 2020, 11:54:06 PM
The Nile ain't just a river in Africa, that's all I can say on the subject.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: The Walrus on July 11, 2020, 12:02:33 AM
Yes, some people just cannot accept that not everything results in warming.  The average has been increasing, but that does not mean that all aspects of that average are warming.  Some people just choose to deny those aspects that do not agree with their own beliefs about what the warming entails.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: kassy on July 11, 2020, 12:16:48 AM
The solar cycle change is way smaller then the change over those thousands of years which tells you it is not that important.

Also if the average increases and not all aspects are warming (which is natural) you still have the majority of input increasing the average etc. But it´s not some waxing and waning background cycle.

Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: The Walrus on July 11, 2020, 01:09:49 AM
Exactly!  Comparing changes over the next few decades to several thousand years is my entire point!  There is no comparison.  However, changes over the next few years or decades can be.  Hence, it can be important over the short term.  When averaged over millennia, they tend to even out, and are replaced by longer term changes, like Milankovitch cycles.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Rod on July 11, 2020, 04:12:18 AM
General question: How do we feel about people who bring up the solar cycle? I mean, there is a clear CC-denial inherent with it, no?

You are very correct. That Walrus guy is a denier, but he is not very good. If people want to engage him to make him look silly, I can understand.  It is kind of like a sport when the ice data is coming in slowly and we have nothing else to do.

He makes statements that are totally unfounded that deniers try to use to disrupt legitimate conversations about AGW.

The problem that he and other deniers have on ASIF is that our members are too smart to fall for that shit!

I look at these conversations as comical entertainment. But, I would also agree with you if you ban deniers to keep them from polluting our forums.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: The Walrus on July 11, 2020, 05:07:56 AM
Rod,
Your attempts at avoiding the subject by distraction is reminiscent of the sleazy lawyer who tries to smear the expert witness because he cannot refute his testimony.  If my statements are truly unfounded, then you should be able to present evidence in rebuttal, instead of mud-slinging.  You are correct in saying that the members here are too smart to fall for that xxx.  However it is yours that they are too smart to fall for.  We do not advance our position by denying the truth and banning those who present it.  Rather, we acknowledge the truth and try to put it the proper perspective.  When you deny the truth, you are no better than the true deniers, and just provide more ammunition for their fodder. 
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Rod on July 11, 2020, 05:23:49 AM
I love you too Walrus 😘 I hope you have a great weekend!
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: El Cid on July 11, 2020, 07:58:33 AM
Let's talk science then.

You say that a Maunder minimum would reduce radiative forcing by 0,8 W/m2. IPCC says that human net radiative forcing has been cca 2,2 W/m2 since 1750 (going from 280 to 405 ppm Co2 and other effects added). This means that a Maunder minimum would have the same effect as reducing Co2 by 45ppm   because  0,8/2,2* (405-280) =45

As annual growth of Co2 is 2-2,5 ppm, then 45 ppm is equal to cca 20 years of emissions. So a Maunder minimum type of solar reduction would counterbalance 20 years worth of Co2 emissions.

Is the above correct?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: jens on July 11, 2020, 08:09:35 AM
General question: How do we feel about people who bring up the solar cycle? I mean, there is a clear CC-denial inherent with it, no?

Well, for deniers solar cycle is just a "hopium" to cling onto, because they are too afraid of death. "Well now we are getting some warm years, but then it will be cool again, so everything will be alright."

When talking to deniers, science or reason doesn't matter. You have to include an entirely different topic to look at - and that is facing the fact of mortality.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: blumenkraft on July 11, 2020, 09:31:48 AM
The average has been increasing, but that does not mean that all aspects of that average are warming

As potholer said in his video, this is just another version of 'it's snowing, so CC isn't real'.

Walrus, please, for the love of God, take my advice and drop the topic!
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: blumenkraft on July 11, 2020, 09:37:55 AM
Is the above correct?

Given what i just told Walrus, don't be sad if you don't get an answer, El Cid. ;)
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on July 11, 2020, 10:44:04 AM
...
1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).
...

As the Earth Energy Imbalance at TOA is less than 1 W/sq.m. this effect is quite substantial.

This was written by J. Hansen, known for not being a denier, 8 years ago:

"If other climate forcings were unchanged, increasing Earth's radiation to space by 0.5 W/m2 would require reducing CO2 by ~30 ppm to 360 ppm. However, given that the imbalance of 0.58±0.15 W/m2 was measured during a deep solar minimum, it is probably necessary to increase radiation to space by closer to 0.75 W/m2, which would require reducing CO2 to ~345 ppm, other forcings being unchanged. Thus the Earth's energy imbalance confirms an earlier estimate on other grounds that CO2 must be reduced to about 350 ppm or less to stabilize climate (Hansen et al., 2008)."

If we go into a Maunder minimum, as the CMIP6 forcings show, it will give us several decades more to implement renewables etc.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: El Cid on July 11, 2020, 01:56:31 PM
Is the above correct?

Given what i just told Walrus, don't be sad if you don't get an answer, El Cid. ;)

My question was rhetorical as I am almost sure that my calculations are correct (I came to the same ballpark estimates as Hansen BTW)...

but feel free to refute the numbers
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on July 12, 2020, 12:30:29 AM
Also the CMIP6 data probably does not forecast it but uses it as an input.

Correct.
"Abstract. This paper describes the recommended solar forcing dataset for CMIP6 and highlights changes with respect to CMIP5. The solar forcing is provided for radiative properties, namely total solar irradiance (TSI), solar spectral irradiance (SSI), and the F10.7 index as well as particle forcing, including geomagnetic indices Ap and Kp, and ionization rates to account for effects of solar protons, electrons, and galactic cosmic rays. This is the first time that a recommendation for solar-driven particle forcing has been provided for a CMIP exercise. The solar forcing datasets are provided at daily and monthly resolution separately for the CMIP6 preindustrial control, historical (1850–2014), and future (2015–2300) simulations. For the preindustrial control simulation, both constant and time-varying solar forcing components are provided, with the latter including variability on 11-year and shorter timescales but no long-term changes. For the future, we provide a realistic scenario of what solar behavior could be, as well as an additional extreme Maunder-minimum-like sensitivity scenario. This paper describes the forcing datasets and also provides detailed recommendations as to their implementation in current climate models."

References:

https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2247/2017/

https://solarisheppa.geomar.de/cmip6
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: wehappyfew on July 12, 2020, 05:10:32 PM
...
1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).
...

As the Earth Energy Imbalance at TOA is less than 1 W/sq.m. this effect is quite substantial.


Hefaistos,

You've made two simple errors in this statement.

1. TOA irradiance of ~1360 must be applied to the surface of the Earth, reducing the difference between Maunder Minimum and normal irradiance by a factor of 4. 1360 is the amount received on the sunlit side of a flat plate, the amount received by a sphere is 1/4 of that.

2. Albedo reduces the effect further.


The net reduction is therefore not 1361 - 1360.2 = 0.8

It is more like 240.5 - 240.35 = 0.15 W/m^2

Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on July 13, 2020, 10:15:26 AM
...
1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).
...

As the Earth Energy Imbalance at TOA is less than 1 W/sq.m. this effect is quite substantial.


Hefaistos,

You've made two simple errors in this statement.

1. TOA irradiance of ~1360 must be applied to the surface of the Earth, reducing the difference between Maunder Minimum and normal irradiance by a factor of 4. 1360 is the amount received on the sunlit side of a flat plate, the amount received by a sphere is 1/4 of that.

2. Albedo reduces the effect further.


The net reduction is therefore not 1361 - 1360.2 = 0.8

It is more like 240.5 - 240.35 = 0.15 W/m^2

The heating of the Earth is a result of the Earth Energy Imbalance at TOA. See attached chart from CERES.
93% of the heat uptake goes into the Ocean, and is measured as an increase in the ocean heat content, ohc.
The rest goes to the atmosphere.
What is measured at the surface is of course relevant for those that live there. But the surface temperatures are in essence just a secondary aspect in relation to EEI. The same with albedo.
This is what the 'ceres people' write:
"The planetary heat uptake accounts for the entire energy added to or removed from the climate system. It arguably provides a more fundamental measure of global warming than global mean surface temperature, which is influenced by other decadal processes internal to the climate at the air-sea interface."

Thus, I didn't make any error at all.

https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science/
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: blumenkraft on July 13, 2020, 10:24:13 AM
Hefaistos, your point is well received. The sun warms the earth. Heureka!
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: wehappyfew on July 13, 2020, 02:31:55 PM
Hefaistos,

Your comments do not address the errors I pointed out.

The amount of solar energy impinging upon each square meter of the Earth is ~1360 W/m^2 divided by 4, since the Earth is a sphere.

Until you acknowledge this fact, you will continue to calculate the impact of a Maunder Minimum incorrectly.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: anthropocene on July 13, 2020, 02:38:28 PM
Confirming what wehappyfew has just posted:

Hefastios;  You are confusing irradiance with forcing.

THIS IS SHOWN IN FIGURE 2 OF THE LINK WHICH YOU PROVIDED. On the left-hand side is amplitude of solar irradiance (eye-balling the graph about 1.6 watts/m^2   and on the right hand side is the forcing: 0.25 watts/m^2). Hansen et al have done the conversion for you. It says " Left scale is the energy passing through an area perpendicular to Sun-Earth line. Averaged over Earth's surface the absorbed solar energy is ~240 W/m2, so the amplitude of solar variability is a forcing of ~0.25 W/m2."

 Either you are not understanding what is presented, not reading it all or wilfully cherry-picking quotes from scientific papers to make it look like they support what you say.  (Not for the first time either).

Also Figure 3 provides the GHG forcing (approx. 3 watts/m^2). So approx 12 times the amplitude  of a (unusually large?) solar cycle.

As you say yourself - OHC and surface temperatures are almost irrelevant side-effects ( ;-) ) of what happens at the TOA interface. So why do you complicate the discussion with these points? It could be taken as an attempt at a gish-gallop.

Either accept the points made by wehappyfew (and Hansen et al) or provide evidence to refute it and support your point.
 

 
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on July 14, 2020, 10:30:57 AM
Hefaistos,

Your comments do not address the errors I pointed out.

The amount of solar energy impinging upon each square meter of the Earth is ~1360 W/m^2 divided by 4, since the Earth is a sphere.

Until you acknowledge this fact, you will continue to calculate the impact of a Maunder Minimum incorrectly.

Yes, of course, I was only mentioning the changes in solar irradiance. As you say, WHF, the incoming absorbed solar energy per unit surface area is S(1-a)/4
where a is albedo. On average, albedo is assumed to be around 0.3

The solar constant varies a bit over time, to get even numbers let's have it at S = 1360 W/m^2
The solar radiation at the TOA averaged over the whole surface of the earth = 340 W/m^2
The solar radiation absorbed by the earth’s climate system around 240 W/m^2 (depending on albedo).
The approximate radiation from the earth’s climate system at TOA also equals 240W/m^2 if we have energy balance (steady state). (which we don't, as the EEI is around 1 W/m^2 .

The solar 'constant' (S) varies a bit over time with the 11 year cycle, as seen in the CMIP6 forcing chart, its amplitude is about 1 W/m^2 during strong solar cycles, whereas only half of that during weak cycles.

Secondly, if we take the above figure for the Maunder minimum, it means a change in S with around -0.8 W/m^2 in S as a long term trend change.
At surface, with constant albedo it then adds about -0.14 W/m^2 in as a long term trend change in forcing.
I attach a chart with satellite measurements during 1978-1999. The absolute irradiation levels are much higher in those readings, but for some reason (why?) they have been aligned at the lower level of around 1361. (Also Hansen use the higher values)
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: kassy on July 14, 2020, 03:20:23 PM
At surface, with constant albedo

But actually we do not have a constant albedo. There is a year over year decline of ice cover in the mountains, landscape changes in Siberia, declining arctic sea ice and those changes alone will override it.

Also if you think the solar cycle helps us now that means we are in deeper trouble then we thought because of time scales.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: The Walrus on July 14, 2020, 09:10:03 PM
At surface, with constant albedo

But actually we do not have a constant albedo. There is a year over year decline of ice cover in the mountains, landscape changes in Siberia, declining arctic sea ice and those changes alone will override it.

The decline of which you speak amounts to ~0.2% of the total surface of the Earth.  Granted the change in albedo over that portion is rather large.  How much difference does changing cloud cover constitute?  What about the decrease in forest cover from ~40% to 30% since the dawn of industrialization?  Urban areas have roughly doubled to ~3% of the surface, which their contributing albedo changes. 

Incidentally, research has shown that the albedo has been remarkably constant over time:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on July 16, 2020, 10:30:11 PM
This is a recent paper estimating TSI, albedo, and OLR

"Measurement of the Earth Radiation Budget at the Top of the Atmosphere—A Review"
by Steven Dewitte and Nicolas Clerbaux,
 Remote Sens. 2017, 9(11), 1143;

"TSI measurements with good stability have been available since 1984. They reveal a variation of the TSI in phase with the 11-year sunspot cycle, with an amplitude of the order of 1 W/m2
. The currently-ending solar cycle 24 has a low amplitude compared to the preceding ones.
The TIM TSI instruments have a different viewing geometry as compared to the classical TSI instruments, which results in a lower absolute value of the measured TSI. Reconciling the classical DIARAD/SOVIM and the new TIM/TCTE instrument, the TSI level at solar minimum is estimated to be 1362.0 +/− 0.9 W/m2
.
The ERB measurements have sufficient stability to track the temporal variability of the EEI driving climate change, but they can not measure its absolute value with sufficient accuracy. Combining the ERB measurements with independent estimates of the EEI from OHC, we obtain the most likely values of the OLR of 238.0 W/m2
and of the RSF of 101.6 W/m2—corresponding to an albedo of 29.8%
—for the period 2000–2005."

https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9111143

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/9/11/1143/htm
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: morganism on August 19, 2020, 02:19:56 AM
NASA Researchers Track Slowly Splitting 'Dent' in Earth’s Magnetic Field

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-researchers-track-slowly-splitting-dent-in-earth-s-magnetic-field

" recent observations and forecasts show that the region is expanding westward and continuing to weaken in intensity. It is also splitting – recent data shows the anomaly’s valley, or region of minimum field strength, has split into two lobes, creating additional challenges for satellite missions.

“The observed SAA can be also interpreted as a consequence of weakening dominance of the dipole field in the region,” said Weijia Kuang, a geophysicist and mathematician in Goddard’s Geodesy and Geophysics Laboratory. “More specifically, a localized field with reversed polarity grows strongly in the SAA region, thus making the field intensity very weak, weaker than that of the surrounding regions.”
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: liefde on August 29, 2020, 03:20:35 PM
As the Earth Energy Imbalance at TOA is less than 1 W/sq.m. this effect is quite substantial.
Mike knows best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87bVdhNklXQ
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 29, 2020, 04:04:10 PM
New research suggests Solar Cycle 25 could be strongest in 50 years
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/community/topic/1775-new-research-suggests-solar-cycle-25-could-be-strongest-in-50-years/
Quote
Obviously, the thing that stands out the most is that they predict a massive cycle, similar to the solar cycles 19, 21 and 22, which were some of the strongest of the modern era of solar observations. The actual SSN they have predicted is 233, twice the size of the previous SC24 and about 50% stronger than the cycle before that one, SC23 (which peaked in around 2001).
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: The Walrus on August 31, 2020, 01:35:49 PM
Did you read the comments and the links to NOAA and SILSO?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 01, 2020, 12:53:11 AM
Walrus, we are at the tea reading stage of forecasting solar cycles. Anything could happen.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: The Walrus on September 01, 2020, 03:06:56 AM
Yes, and predictions range from low to high, pretty much the entire gamut.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: kassy on September 01, 2020, 01:14:38 PM
I suggest waiting for data from that cycle 25. 
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: The Walrus on September 01, 2020, 02:44:47 PM
That would be best.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 02, 2020, 12:43:59 PM
But we won't get that for about a decade.
In the meantime, I like to read tea leaves (I'm impatient). Always remembering how shaky their reliability is.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on September 05, 2020, 10:48:54 PM
That would be bad news. https://watchers.news/2020/09/02/zharkova-study-modern-grand-solar-minimum-2020-2053/
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on September 05, 2020, 11:21:21 PM
One has to give Valentina Zharkova credit - she does not give up & still manages to get stuff printed.

Her work on the solar cycle and her predictions for a new Maunder Minimum is not accepted as credible by most scientists that study the solar cycle as their profession.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: morganism on September 07, 2020, 07:42:07 PM
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3
On the correlation between solar activity and large earthquakes worldwide





We found clear correlation between proton density and the occurrence of large earthquakes (M > 5.6), with a time shift of one day. The significance of such correlation is very high, with probability to be wrong lower than 10–5. The correlation increases with the magnitude threshold of the seismic catalogue. A tentative model explaining such a correlation is also proposed, in terms of the reverse piezoelectric effect induced by the applied electric field related to the proton density.

we demonstrate that it can likely be due to the effect of solar wind, modulating the proton density and hence the electrical potential between the ionosphere and the Earth. Although a quantitative analysis of a particular, specific model for our observations is beyond the scope of this paper, we believe that a possible, likely physical mechanism explaining our statistical observations, is the stress/strain pulse caused by reverse piezoelectric effects. Such pulses would be generated by large electrical discharges channeled in the large faults, due to their high conductivity because of fractured and water saturated fault gauge. The widespread observations of several macroscopic electro-magnetic effects before, or however associated to large earthquakes, support our qualitative model to explain the observed, highly statistically significant, proton density-earthquakes correlation. It is important to note that our hypothesis only implies that the proton density would act as a further, small trigger to cause the fracture on already critically charged faults, thus producing the observed large scale earthquake correlation. Such a small perturbation would add to the main factor producing worldwide seismicity, which is tectonic stress.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: morganism on September 07, 2020, 07:57:23 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_tube

When do solar erupting hot magnetic flux ropes form?
A. Nindos, S. Patsourakos, A. Vourlidas, X. Cheng, J. Zhang
We investigate the formation times of eruptive magnetic flux ropes relative to the onset of solar eruptions, which is important for constraining models of coronal mass ejection (CME) initiation. We inspected uninterrupted sequences of 131 Å images that spanned more than eight hours and were obtained by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) on board the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) to identify the formation times of hot flux ropes that erupted in CMEs from locations close to the limb. The appearance of the flux ropes as well as their evolution toward eruptions were determined using morphological criteria. Two-thirds (20/30) of the flux ropes were formed well before the onset of the eruption (from 51 minutes to more than eight hours), and their formation was associated with the occurrence of a confined flare. We also found four events with preexisting hot flux ropes whose formations occurred a matter of minutes (from three to 39) prior to the eruptions without any association with distinct confined flare activity. Six flux ropes were formed once the eruptions were underway. However, in three of them, prominence material could be seen in 131 Å images, which may indicate the presence of preexisting flux ropes that were not hot. The formation patterns of the last three groups of hot flux ropes did not show significant differences. For the whole population of events, the mean and median values of the time difference between the onset of the eruptive flare and the appearance of the hot flux rope were 151 and 98 minutes, respectively. Our results provide, on average, indirect support for CME models that involve preexisting flux ropes; on the other hand, for a third of the events, models in which the ejected flux rope is formed during the eruption appear more appropriate.
Comments:   A&A, in press
Subjects:   Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR)
Cite as:   arXiv:2008.04380 [astro-ph.SR]
    (or arXiv:2008.04380v1 [astro-ph.SR] for this version)
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on September 16, 2020, 07:47:53 AM
A nice, interactive page where you can follow the progression of SC25, from NOAA. Including the official forecast for the strength and duration of SC25.

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 16, 2020, 12:12:43 PM
Hope Solar Orbiter and Parker Solar Probe get good observations of this solar cycle, and that Aditya-L1 gets a shot at it.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: kassy on September 18, 2020, 05:19:34 PM
Sea ice Triggered the Little Ice Age, Finds a New Study
https://phys.org/news/2020-09-sea-ice-triggered-age.html

(https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2020/1-seaicetrigge.jpg)
The map shows Greenland and adjacent ocean currents. Colored circles show where some of the sediment cores used in the study were obtained from the seafloor. The small historical map from the beginning of the 20th century shows the distribution of Storis, or sea ice from the Arctic Ocean, which flows down the east coast of Greenland. The graphs show the reconstructed time series of changes in the occurrence of sea ice and polar waters in the past. The colors of the curves correspond to the locations on the map. The blue shading represents the period of increased sea ice in the 1300s.

A new study finds a trigger for the Little Ice Age that cooled Europe from the 1300s through mid-1800s, and supports surprising model results suggesting that under the right conditions sudden climate changes can occur spontaneously, without external forcing.

...

Martin W. Miles et al, Evidence for extreme export of Arctic sea ice leading the abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age, Science Advances (2020)
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/38/eaba4320

Click on the link for the full text.

Also see post #71 up above for more hints that solar activity is not related to the events.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on September 21, 2020, 09:27:54 AM
Lets assume that Valentina is right, that we enter a longer periode of lower solar activity. What would the impact be on rainfall ?
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on September 21, 2020, 01:41:06 PM
Lets assume that Valentina is right, that we enter a longer periode of lower solar activity. What would the impact be on rainfall ?

Whether Valentina is right or not in her somewhat speculative forecasts I don't know.

What I know, is that there seems to be a positive relationship between solar TSI and cloudiness. Thus, less TSI in a solar minimum (like now) means less clouds and presumably less rain. That's the global averages.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: Alexander555 on September 21, 2020, 09:46:26 PM
Yes it is speculative. But that 11 year cycle is pretty constant. And Valentina is talking about that 350 to 400 year cycle, that comes to an end somewhere now. And why would that not be constant ? Something is driving that 11 year cycle up and down, again and again and again.....Last cycle already had low numbers of sunspots. And now we have already many days with no sunspots at all. Something that don't happens that much. So the sun is not very active at all. I agree that there could be less rainfall if these low numbers would continue. Warm air can hold more moisture, so if it cools a little. But probably that will take many years, for the oceans to adjust.  And the same time we have been building mega cities and cutting down rainforests. That's probably the rain we will get less, compared with 20 or 30 years ago. I have a feeling we are going to hear more about it in the next years. Global warming vs solar cooling.
Title: Re: Solar cycle
Post by: FishOutofWater on September 25, 2020, 10:00:44 PM
Interesting article about rapid sea ice transport leading to a cool period. That may not nix the volcanism theory if volcanic events could have brought on a stronger polar vortex by initiating polar cooling.

Back to the solar cycle. NASA has a new post about cycle 25 which is forecast to be just about the same as the last cycle.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/what-will-solar-cycle-25-look-like-sun-prediction-model