Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo
Royal Astronomical Society, 9 Jul 2015

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations. Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.

“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called ‘principal component analysis’ of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”

Hmmm, this seems to somewhat reinforce what was claimed above:

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
Nature Magazine, Published 23 June 2015

https://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html

Excerpt from the abstract:

...the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end. Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.

Here's the "cunning plan" as Baldrick would say if the above is true:

Methane is around 30 times worse or, in this case, better of a greenhouse gas than CO2, better because it would require less of it. Livestock worldwide produce about 28% of all greenhouse gas emissions annually via methane laden farts and belches. To compensate for lower solar activity we could:

1. Change livestock feed to increase methane emissions by just the right amount or
2. Convince more Chinese to drink beer and eat hard boiled eggs or
3. Launch a whole lot more rockets.

One thing to be clear about, when Zharkova talks about "solar activity dropping by 60%", she's talking about sunspot activity, not solar output. Sunspots are on an 11-year cycle and can easily fluctuate by more than 60% in that time. Solar output is extremely stable and does not fluctuate by more than .1%. Also the researcher Zharkova does not make a connection between the Maunder minimum of sunspot activity and the so-called little ice age --- the author of the article is the only one who suggests a connection between the two --- and that supposed connection has been debunked.

The article is interesting research about sunspot cycles and the sun's internal magnetic dynamos that drive them, but it really doesn't say anything about the sun's effect's on climate change, which are minimal.

So the sun has an arrhythmia, too.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

One thing to be clear about, when Zharkova talks about "solar activity dropping by 60%", she's talking about sunspot activity, not solar output. Sunspots are on an 11-year cycle and can easily fluctuate by more than 60% in that time. Solar output is extremely stable and does not fluctuate by more than .1%. Also the researcher Zharkova does not make a connection between the Maunder minimum of sunspot activity and the so-called little ice age --- the author of the article is the only one who suggests a connection between the two --- and that supposed connection has been debunked.

The article is interesting research about sunspot cycles and the sun's internal magnetic dynamos that drive them, but it really doesn't say anything about the sun's effect's on climate change, which are minimal.

Click to expand...

Darn, no hope for future coolness then.

This story got misreported all over the media, with a lot of news stories mistakenly suggesting this discovery meant we would have a mini ice age. As I said above, the study says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about an ice-age or climate change. It was really bugging me to see more and more stories come out and make the same bogus connection.

Finally, here is a very good article about how this whole event was a complete failure of science communications: https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant-failure-science-communication

I have always found it interesting how those who support global warming are so quick to discount solar activity.

From Wikipedia,
"Evidence for recent climatic change
Pits in south polar ice cap, MGS 1999, NASA

There have been regional changes around the south pole (Planum Australe) over the past few Martian years. In 1999 the Mars Global Surveyor photographed pits in the layer of frozen carbon dioxide at the Martian south pole. Because of their striking shape and orientation these pits have become known as swiss cheese features. In 2001 the craft photographed the same pits again and found that they had grown larger, retreating about 3 meters in one Martian year.[107] These features are caused by the sublimation of the dry ice layer, thereby exposing the inert water ice layer. More recent observations indicate that the ice at Mars' south pole is continuing to sublimate.[108] The pits in the ice continue to grow by about 3 meters per Martian year. Malin states that conditions on Mars are not currently conducive to the formation of new ice. A NASA press release has suggested that this indicates a "climate change in progress"[109] on Mars. In a summary of observations with the Mars Orbiter Camera, researchers speculated that some dry ice may have been deposited between the Mariner 9 and the Mars Global Surveyor mission. Based on the current rate of loss, the deposits of today may be gone in a hundred years.[106]

Elsewhere on the planet, low latitude areas have more water ice than they should have given current climatic conditions.[110][111][112] Mars Odyssey "is giving us indications of recent global climate change in Mars," said Jeffrey Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in non-peer reviewed published work in 2003."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars

Maybe too many cow farts on Mars...

Shade said:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

Click to expand...

See! With all the V8's we have here in the US, we've produced so many green house emissions, they've spilled over all the way to Mars!!

<whisper>The really scary part is that there are way too many here on this planet who would drink that kool-aid without batting an eye!</whisper>

Doug

.

Once again, four out of five experts agree....the new McDonald's French Fries suck! :kill:

ThirstyBarbarian said:

This story got misreported all over the media, with a lot of news stories mistakenly suggesting this discovery meant we would have a mini ice age. As I said above, the study says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about an ice-age or climate change. It was really bugging me to see more and more stories come out and make the same bogus connection.

Finally, here is a very good article about how this whole event was a complete failure of science communications: https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant-failure-science-communication

Click to expand...

WHAT! Are you suggesting that the media is taking something out of context to create a story instead of reporting the facts...I am shocked!

ThirstyBarbarian said:

The article is interesting research about sunspot cycles and the sun's internal magnetic dynamos that drive them, but it really doesn't say anything about the sun's effect's on climate change, which are minimal.

Click to expand...

Thirsty, as you know, the sun is a giant ball of intensely burning gas roughly 93 million miles from our planet. In the morning and every morning that I can remember, the temperature got higher when the sun rose over the horizon. It's been rising over the horizon every day for 4.5 billion years, give or take a scientist, so how does it have "minimal" effect on Earth's climate?

tmacklin said:

Thirsty, as you know, the sun is a giant ball of intensely burning gas roughly 93 million miles from our planet. In the morning and every morning that I can remember, the temperature got higher when the sun rose over the horizon. It's been rising over the horizon every day for 4.5 billion years, give or take a scientist, so how does it have "minimal" effect on Earth's climate?

Click to expand...

I didn't say the sun has a minimal effect on Earth's climate. I said it has a minimal effect on climate CHANGE.

The sun is the energy source that drives Earth's climate, so it has a HUGE effect on the climate. But the sun's output is extremely stable. Changes in solar output are extremely small and have an extremely small effect on climate change.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

I didn't say the sun has a minimal effect on Earth's climate. I said it has a minimal effect on climate CHANGE.

The sun is the energy source that drives Earth's climate, so it has a HUGE effect on the climate. But the sun's output is extremely stable. Changes in solar output are extremely small and have an extremely small effect on climate change.

Click to expand...

Thirsty, if that is so how in the name of hell do you explain the five major ice ages? Climate change is a constant on this planet folks- has been going on forever- way before humans.

markkoelsch said:

Thirsty, if that is so how in the name of hell do you explain the five major ice ages? Climate change is a constant on this planet folks- has been going on forever- way before humans.

Click to expand...

Cow farts...

markkoelsch said:

Thirsty, if that is so how in the name of hell do you explain the five major ice ages? Climate change is a constant on this planet folks- has been going on forever- way before humans.

Click to expand...

I was answering a specific question about solar output. The sun's output is extremely stable and does not change significantly, except over very long time scales, like billions of years. Changes in the sun's output are not responsible for the climate change we are seeing now.

Now you are asking a completely different question about the 5 major ice ages in Earth's past --- those are the 5 extremely long periods (millions of years) of relatively cold global temperatures when relatively large portions of the earth were covered in ice, and those long ice ages were broken up into shorter periods of glaciation and interglacial periods (we are currently in one of those ice ages, in an interglacial period).

The 5 major ice ages were not caused by changes in the sun's output. One of the things that is believed to have caused some of these major climate shifts is changes to ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. Some of those changes were due to plate tectonics that have moved and rearranged the continents and the shapes of oceans, altering ocean currents. And also related to plate tectonics, some were due to the rise of mountain ranges that have altered wind currents. Other kinds of causes include perturbation of Earth's orbit around the sun, changes in the inclination of Earth's axis of spin, and precession of Earth's axis of spin. All of those change the amount, location and distribution of sunlight shining on the Earth. And all of them would cause much larger effects on Earth's climate than changes in sunspot activity or solar output, even over such huge timespans.

I agree that the Earth's climate is always changing, but it's not due to changes in the sun's output.

The nature of ice ages

Ice ages are times when the entire Earth experiences notably colder climatic conditions. During an ice age, the polar regions are cold, there are large differences in temperature from the equator to the pole, and large, continental-size glaciers can cover enormous regions of the Earth.

Ever since the Pre-Cambrian (600 million years ago), ice ages have occurred at widely spaced intervals of geologic time&#8212;approximately 200 million years&#8212;lasting for millions, or even tens of millions of years. For the Cenozoic period, which began about 70 million years ago and continues today, evidence derived from marine sediments provide a detailed, and fairly continuous, record for climate change. This record indicates decreasing deep-water temperature, along with the build-up of continental ice sheets. Much of this deep-water cooling occurred in three major steps about 36, 15 and 3 million years ago&#8212;the most recent of which continues today.

During the present ice age, glaciers have advanced and retreated over 20 times, often blanketing North America with ice. Our climate today is actually a warm interval between these many periods of glaciation. The most recent period of glaciation, which many people think of as the "Ice Age," was at its height approximately 20,000 years ago.

Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

Shade said:

The nature of ice ages

Ice ages are times when the entire Earth experiences notably colder climatic conditions. During an ice age, the polar regions are cold, there are large differences in temperature from the equator to the pole, and large, continental-size glaciers can cover enormous regions of the Earth.

Ever since the Pre-Cambrian (600 million years ago), ice ages have occurred at widely spaced intervals of geologic time&#8212;approximately 200 million years&#8212;lasting for millions, or even tens of millions of years. For the Cenozoic period, which began about 70 million years ago and continues today, evidence derived from marine sediments provide a detailed, and fairly continuous, record for climate change. This record indicates decreasing deep-water temperature, along with the build-up of continental ice sheets. Much of this deep-water cooling occurred in three major steps about 36, 15 and 3 million years ago&#8212;the most recent of which continues today.

During the present ice age, glaciers have advanced and retreated over 20 times, often blanketing North America with ice. Our climate today is actually a warm interval between these many periods of glaciation. The most recent period of glaciation, which many people think of as the "Ice Age," was at its height approximately 20,000 years ago.

Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

Click to expand...

I'm saying that the effects on Earth's climate of changes in the sun's output are dwarfed by these other factors. The sun's output does change over time, and I'm sure those tiny changes do have a small effect on Earth's climate. But it's a small effect compared to everything else.

It seems like we are wandering off pretty far from the point of this thread. The original post was about a poorly written article about how sunspot activity would decrease in coming decades (that's interesting), and then it made the incorrect suggestion that this might trigger a mini ice age. My response was that the sun's output is much more stable than the sun's sunspot activity, the sun's changes in output are small, and the effects of changes in the sun's output on Earth's climate change are minimal. I didnt say zero. And my point is in the context of the thread --- clarifying that sunspot activity decreasing by 60% does not mean solar output is going down by 60%, and this discovery about sunspots does not mean a mini ice age is coming.

What do you think? Does this discovery about the sunspot cycle mean we are heading into an ice age?

I think I've finally stumbled onto the answer. Climate change is the result of scientific consensus. c:

ThirstyBarbarian said:

I'm saying that the effects on Earth's climate of changes in the sun's output are dwarfed by these other factors.

Click to expand...

Nova seems to think the sun's output is a significant factor.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

It seems like we are wandering off pretty far from the point of this thread. The original post was about a poorly written article about how sunspot activity would decrease in coming decades (that's interesting), and then it made the incorrect suggestion that this might trigger a mini ice age. My response was that the sun's output is much more stable than the sun's sunspot activity, the sun's changes in output are small, and the effects of changes in the sun's output on Earth's climate change are minimal. I didn't say zero.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think the Sunspot minimum is linked to lower solar output and will likely will trigger an
other "Little Ice Age". I also think, the concept of global warming caused by man is a hoax
of bad science.

Seems that one article, by a reputable source PBS and Nova; lists solar output as first on the
list of things that effect climate, such as glaciation; and recent history, the "little ice age" and
the Maunder Minimum correlate well. I would say that sun spot activity and solar output, by
the empirical evidence do seem to correlate well.

I think if the predictions of very low to no sun spots could push the climate in to another little
ice age and with a cooling planet, the oceans will cool and absorb more C02. So CO2 level
may drop as well. Cold liquids hold more dissolved gas than warm liquids do.

Here is a NASA on the subject.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php

Now my question and only time will prove it out is if the sun spot minimum activity going to
continue into the next few decades or not?

I am enjoying this rational debate. Good Show!

Shade said:

Seems that one article, by a reputable source PBS and Nova; lists solar output as first on the
list of things that effect climate, such as glaciation; and recent history, the "little ice age" and
the Maunder Minimum correlate well. I would say that sun spot activity and solar output, by
the empirical evidence do seem to correlate well.

Click to expand...

Except for the little detail that the little ice age started a few decades before the Maunder Minimum and that the difference in forcing from sunspot minimum to maximum is only about 0.2 degrees F. (Less than the change in temperature over the last 100 years and an order of magnitude less than the expected change.)

Then there is the problem that the little ice age was pretty much a European rather than a global thing.

A prolonged sunspot minimum will not save us from our own foolishness.

I can't help but wonder if Man and his activities were completely eliminated from the equation, would Earth's climate vary, i.e., change? And if it did, who would know?

I must go feed my catfish.

UhClem said:

Except for the little detail that the little ice age started a few decades before the Maunder Minimum and that the difference in forcing from sunspot minimum to maximum is only about 0.2 degrees F. (Less than the change in temperature over the last 100 years and an order of magnitude less than the expected change.)

Click to expand...

I will agree that they do not correlate exactly, and there is still a lot we do not understand
about our Sun, and its complexities. The fact that the Maunder Minimum and the little ice
age do occur so close in start and stopping, I cannot just negate it as happenstance.

UhClem said:

Then there is the problem that the little ice age was pretty much a European rather than a global thing.

Click to expand...

That is not really true there is significant evidence of a global cooling.

Yeah it is Wikipedia, but it is well referenced and has a break out by region. With both
contemporary data as well as historic data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Hey Thirsty,

Did you sleep in a Holiday Inn...

Shade said:

I The fact that the Maunder Minimum and the little ice
age do occur so close in start and stopping, I cannot just negate it as happenstance.

Click to expand...

Since you cited Wiki:

The Maunder Minimum roughly coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced colder than average temperatures. Whether there is a causal relationship, however, is still controversial, as no convincing mechanism for the solar activity to produce cold temperatures has been proposed,[10] and the current best hypothesis for the cause of the Little Ice Age is that is was the result of volcanic action.[11][12] The onset of the Little Ice Age also occurred well before the beginning of the Maunder minimum.[11]

Click to expand...

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

UhClem said:

Since you cited Wiki:

Click to expand...

I agree that they do not match perfectly, but I still think there is a relationship. Is it complex,
heck yes. Is there more than just the sun involved most definitely, however the sun is the
single largest supplier of energy to our planet. Even fossil fuels are basically ancient trapped
sun light. Even a few watts per square meter of change over years and decades can have a
measureable effect on temperature.

I will use a pendulum as a model. in air, over time a pendulum will slowly loose speed and
eventually stop, this would be due to air friction. Think of the drag from air as the dark side
of the earth cooling at night as it rotates. Now if the suns energy radiation was perfectly
constant, the amount of radiation reaching our planet collectively each day is basically unchanged
(changing only slightly on an annual cycle due to our elliptic orbit) the global average temperature
would be constant as the loss of heat each night would be constant and the heat absorbed
each day would be constant. So back to the pendulum, every swing of the pendulum you
would give it a slight nudge, equal to the loss from drag, and you will come to an equilibrium.
But lets say you nudge slightly less, then the swing would drop a little until it comes to a new
but lower equilibrium. Then some time later you nudge a bit more than the original amount
and the swing will reach a new higher level. Even small changes over many cycles can have
a measureable and significant effect.

Only time will prove that our species did or did not contribute to global warming, at which time it may be too late, if not already. Sadly even if our species lives long enough to realize this, there will likely be the naysayers, or conspiracy theorists as there are with the moon landings or 911, because that just seems to be human nature.

My personal belief, not based on science but rather common sense, is that I would find it hard to believe that we as a species could exploit the resources to the degree that we have as well as develop things like nuclear and hydrogen bombs and some how none of this would have an appreciable effect on our planet. This is simply a preposterous notion to me, which defies reason and logic, and further demonstrates that we are a narcissistic species.

This article has some very clear graphics demonstrating the observed changes in global climate against the observed changes in all the potential climate change factors (including solar output - relevant to this thread):
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

For the wider climate change discussion - this article has an in depth argument about energy production, usage, probable climate impact and results from that climate impact (and then moves on to Tesla):
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html

mpitfield - my Grandmother used to say: "There are none so blind as those that will not see"