Current crisis on the Sun

[Greatcloud]

Getting cooler read why:

http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

UAH: Global Temperature Dives in May

3 06 2008
Confirming what many of us have already noted from the anecdotal evidence coming in of a much cooler than normal May, such as late spring snows as far south as Arizona, extended skiing in Colorado, and delays in snow cover melting, (here and here), the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) published their satellite derived Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit data set of the Lower Troposphere for May 2008.
It is significantly colder globally, colder even than the significant drop to -0.046°C seen in January 2008.
The global ∆T from April to May 2008 was -.195°C
UAH
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.094
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.180
Compared to the May 2007 value of 0.199°C we find a 12 month ∆T is -.379°C.
But even more impressive is the change since the last big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594°C, giving a 16 month ∆T of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon “global warming signal” of the last 100 years.

Click for a larger image
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data
I’m betting that RSS (expected soon) will also be below the zero anomaly line, since it tends to agree well with UAH. HadCRUT will likely show a significant drop, I’m going to make a SWAG and say it will end up around 0.05 to -0.15°C. GISS; I’m not going to try a SWAG, as it could be anything. Of course anomalies can change to positive on the next El Nino, but this one seems to be deepening.
Update 06/05/08: Per MattN’s suggestion, changed link above for snow melt to news stories from previous link to National Snow and Ice Center

 

[[serious]]

while what you've shown is little more than static, we already know that there are some short term cooling forces starting up that will keep the temperature stable for the next 10 years or so. Not solar by the way, but ocean currents. I made a post on it a few months back:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7218483

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[Greatcloud]

while what you've shown is little more than static, we already know that there are some short term cooling forces starting up that will keep the temperature stable for the next 10 years or so. Not solar by the way, but ocean currents. I made a post on it a few months back:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7218483

The name of this thread is "Current crisis on the sun" please keep your comments on that topic.

There is no way of telling if the sun or the multidecadanel ocean currents are the cause of cool stable temperatures. I would like to see further research .

 

[[serious]]

The name of this thread is "Current crisis on the sun" please keep your comments on that topic.

There is no way of telling if the sun or the multidecadanel ocean currents are the cause of cool stable temperatures. I would like to see further research .

NOAA has a good overview: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/d2m_shift/index.php

I believe this is the article they are talking about: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

Also worth a read: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

The wiki article has good info on it though the section on predictions of switches hasn't yet been updated to reflect the new research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation

Now, as far as solar forcing, we've got a fair amount of inconclusive research as to exactly how much of a role it plays but it currently appears that direct solar forcing is about an order of magnitude lower than the effects of Co2 in current climate trends. (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm)

While a more subtle mechanism for solar influences can't be ruled out, to date no such proposed mechanism has stood up to further testing.

Addressing sunspots specifically, the correlation has not been well established despite over 100 years of study. Regardless, even assuming proposed correlations are accurate, the effects are dwarfed by the correlation to CO2.

furthermore, even if we assume the 11 year sunspot cycle is of the same scale as CO2 forcing, it's cyclical and would only provide a rather short respite from the long term warming trend.

 

[billwald]

No point to worrying about things you can't do anything about so no crisis,

 

[Greatcloud]

You can prepare for a hard winter and get the homeless people off the streets, and many other things of that nature.

":^)

For Serious

Also this look at the CO2 line compared to the temperature line.

 

[Naraoia]

If 100 ppm of increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] caused a half degree rise in global mean temperature in the past century then why exactly should I notice any increase on this graph, where

(1) CO[sub]2[/sub] rises only by ~20 ppm,

(2) assuming a linear effect for the sake of simplicity, the corresponding increase in mean temperature would be half a division on the vertical axis

(3) noise/nonlinear variation is clearly large enough to hide any signal of that magnitude from the naked eye?

BTW, you can't "compare" temperature to CO[sub]2[/sub] because they are not on comparable scales. I could very easily make a similar graph to show that CO[sub]2[/sub] has barely risen in the past ten years. It takes as little as putting the lower end of the axis at, say, 300 ppm instead of 355.

Oh, and another point/question (though I know you won't answer it): what is zero on the temperature scale? Is it a century's average? Is it the average for the past fifty years? Twenty? In any case, compare the number of positive and negative anomalies... (which actually can be compared)

 

[Chalnoth]

You can prepare for a hard winter and get the homeless people off the streets, and many other things of that nature.

":^)

For Serious

Also this look at the CO2 line compared to the temperature line.

This lesson in misleading graphs brought to you by....Greatcloud!

Try bothering to compare, say, the entire temperature record from 1900 on, or the past 40-60 years or so.

 

[Greatcloud]

The graphs are what they are and are intended to show.

Here is an interesting article on the sun.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006184638.htm

 

[Chalnoth]

The graphs are what they are and are intended to show.

Exactly! They're intended to be misleading!

Here is an interesting article on the sun.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006184638.htm

Interesting, but it still remains unclear as to what this means for solar irradiance (if anything). And furthermore, given the greenhouse problem we're now facing, a drop in solar irradiance would, at best, provide us with a temporary reprieve.

 

[Greatcloud]

Never the less we are headed into a Maunder minimum which could cause great cooling,even in the summer.

 

[Chalnoth]

Never the less we are headed into a Maunder minimum which could cause great cooling,even in the summer.

How do you know what the sun is going to do over the next decades? How do you know that sun spot activity is related to temperatures here on Earth? Furthermore, how do you know that the effect will be larger than the effect due to greenhouse gases?

 

[Greatcloud]

I have read about the coming solar crisis ;we are at a 50 year low in TSI. The sun has gone dormant, when are the high number of sunspots going to start, certain scientists say they won't. Here is what it may look like according to some scientists. :

According to anecdotal evidence it was very cold 1600-1700 the LIA this is what we are headed for so far.....................

 

[Chalnoth]

I have read about the coming solar crisis ;we are at a 50 year low in TSI.

And where is your evidence for this? Furthermore, given that we're still warming, it seems to me that this is a subdominant factor.

 

[Greatcloud]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm

Talks about a cold sun with a low output the sun is shutting down

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

talks about global cooling

 

[Chalnoth]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm

Talks about a cold sun with a low output

Of the solar wind. Which doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in solar thermal input to the Earth.

 

[Greatcloud]

More cosmic rays get in more clouds form. Solar wind is coolar.

Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low
09.23.2008

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]+ Play Audio[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] | + Download Audio | + Email to a friend | + Join mailing list [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sept. 23, 2008: In a briefing today at NASA headquarters, solar physicists announced that the solar wind is losing power.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s," says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. "This is the weakest it's been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]McComas is principal investigator for the SWOOPS solar wind sensor onboard the Ulysses spacecraft, which measured the decrease. Ulysses, launched in 1990, circles the sun in a unique orbit that carries it over both the sun's poles and equator, giving Ulysses a global view of solar wind activity:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Above: Global measurements of solar wind pressure by Ulysses. Green curves trace the solar wind in 1992-1998, while blue curves denote lower pressure winds in 2004-2008. [Larger image][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Curiously, the speed of the million mph solar wind hasn't decreased much—only 3%. The change in pressure comes mainly from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13% cooler and 20% less dense.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What we're seeing is a long term trend, a steady decrease in pressure that began sometime in the mid-1990s," explains Arik Posner, NASA's Ulysses Program Scientist in Washington DC. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How unusual is this event?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It's hard to say. We've only been monitoring solar wind since the early years of the Space Age—from the early 60s to the present," says Posner. "Over that period of time, it's unique. How the event stands out over centuries or millennia, however, is anybody's guess. We don't have data going back that far."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Flagging solar wind has repercussions across the entire solar system—beginning with the heliosphere.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The heliosphere is a bubble of magnetism springing from the sun and inflated to colossal proportions by the solar wind. Every planet from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is inside it. The heliosphere is our solar system's first line of defense against galactic cosmic rays. High-energy particles from black holes and supernovas try to enter the solar system, but most are deflected by the heliosphere's magnetic fields.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Right: The heliosphere. Click to view a larger image showing the rest of the bubble.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to," says McComas. "That means less shielding against cosmic rays."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In addition to weakened solar wind, "Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s," says Posner. "This reduces natural shielding even more."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These extra particles pose no threat to people on Earth's surface. Our thick atmosphere and planetary magnetic field provide additional layers of protection that keep us safe. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But any extra cosmic rays can have consequences. If the trend continues, astronauts on the Moon or en route to Mars would get a higher dose of space radiation. Robotic space probes and satellites in high Earth orbit face an increased risk of instrument malfunctions and reboots due to cosmic ray strikes. Also, there are controversial studies linking cosmic ray fluxes to cloudiness and climate change on Earth. That link may be tested in the years ahead.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Above: The temperature and density of electrons in the solar wind have dropped since the mid-1990s. [Larger image][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Some of most dramatic effects of the phenomenon may be felt by NASA's two Voyager spacecraft. After traveling outward for 30+ years, the two probes are now at the edge of the heliosphere. With the heliosphere shrinking, the Voyagers may soon find themselves on the outside looking in, thrust into interstellar space long before anyone expected. No spacecraft has ever been outside the heliosphere before and no one knows what the Voyagers may find there.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NASA is about to launch a new spacecraft named IBEX (short for Interstellar Boundary Explorer) that can monitor the dimensions of the heliosphere without actually traveling to the edge of the solar system. IBEX may actually be able to "see" the heliosphere shrinking and anticipate the Voyager's exit. Moreover, IBEX will reveal how our solar system's cosmic ray shield reacts to changes in solar wind.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The potential for discovery," says McComas, "is breathtaking."[/FONT]

 

[Chalnoth]

More cosmic rays get in more clouds form. Solar wind is coolar.

I am aware of this assertion. But it has no evidence to back it up.

 

[Greatcloud]

Look at the density and the temperature on the solar wind for 2007