Gerry Pease sends the following:
I believe this may turn out to be an important analysis, with significant consequences for Earth’s environment just five years from now.
An analysis of heliospheric magnetic field flux based on sunspot number from 1749 to today and prediction for the coming solar minimum
Molly L. Goelzer,1,2 Charles W. Smith,1 Nathan A. Schwadron,1 and K. G. McCracken3Received 4 September 2013; revised 25 October 2013; accepted 24 November 2013; published 20 December 2013.”[1]
It is now well established that many bulk properties of the solar wind rise and fall with the solar cycle, and the heliospheric magnetic field (HMF) intensity is no exception.The HMF intensity is seen to be maximum around the time of solar maximum, lowest during solar minimum, and lower still during the recent protracted solar minimum 2006–2009. One explanation of this behavior can be found in the theory of Schwadron et al. (2010) that argues magnetic flux is injected into interplanetary space by coronal mass ejection eruptions and removed by reconnection in the low solar atmosphere.
This produces an HMF intensity that is correlated with sunspot number, and the rapid injection of flux followed by the slow removal by reconnection results in a hysteresis effect that is readily evident in the observations. Here for the first time we apply this theory to the sunspot record going back to 1749 and compare favorably our predictions to the results derived from 10Be observations. We also make a prediction for the coming solar minimum based on results from the Dalton Minimum.” “[25]…Because the HMF has not fully recovered to previous solar minimum values that are typical of the space age years, reconnection and the associated flux shedding will drive the HMF to lower values than were seen in the recent protracted solar minimum of 2006–2009. The total field intensity at 1AU is likely to be in the range 2.5 to 3.4 nT while the Parker component(the part of the field that follows the Parker spiral direction)will probably get as low as 1 nT.”!
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
🙂
The paper :
http://www.leif.org/EOS/jgra50733.pdf
Leif replay on re-construction of the heliospheric magnetic eld [HMF]
Click to access Goelzer-Comment.pdf
1 ntesla ?
“….Houston, We Have a Problem ….”
There is a good chance that a low solar activity will result in a cooling of the Earth. As usual in the climastrology, there is very little real knowledge.
Thanks Gerry Pease for the piece from “Molly L. Goelzer,1,2 Charles W. Smith,1 Nathan A. Schwadron,1 and K. G. McCracken3 Received 4 September 2013; revised 25 October 2013; accepted 24 November 2013; published 20 December 2013.”[1]”.
These are top notch folks! Their presentations at the AGU Solar Minimum Conference were excellent and they are all open-minded folks. One of the purposes of the conference was to give a multi-discipline platform in order to promote discussion since there are so many aspects to what is happening with the Sun.
Before going, my hat is off to all of the authors but I must say that Ken McCracken is quite a resource at +80 years and still running a ranch and raising cattle!
Note Leif’s pathetic appeal to consensus!
Leif’s appeal to consensus is based on his ongoing appeal to flatten the entire sunspot record. In this case, however, his flattened sunspot record only extends back to 1835, yet he claims that his results from using this record invalidate the results of the 2013 paper, “An analysis of heliospheric magnetic field flux based on sunspot number from 1749 to today and prediction for the coming solar minimum,” in which the years immediately following 1805 were used to help extrapolate data from 1997 to 2013 all the way to 2022.
Leif has has lots of data showing TSI may be invariant, but my questions revolve around the last Ice Age. If memory serves the SPECMAP project showed that tropical ocean temps were near or possibly warmer than today. This is good news for those who propose a steady TSI.
However I have recently learned that the tropical freeze line in the Andes was 1 kilometre lower than now.
How did that happen? We know at solar max the atmosphere expands, so is this lower freeze line evidence of atmospheric contraction and possibly a corresponding reduction in TSI? Is it possible to extrapolate how much less TSI would produce such atmospheric contraction. If Ice Age TSI was a lot lower the invariant TSI theory needs revision.
In
http://leif.org/research/HMF-1835-2014-and-the-Sun.pdf, slide 26,
Leif states “The main sources of the equatorial components of the Sun’s large-scale magnetic field are large active regions. If these emerge at random longitudes, their net equatorial dipole moment will scale as the square root of their number. Thus their contribution to the average HMF strength will tend to increase as SSN^1/2 (see: Wang and Sheeley [2003]; Wang et al. [2005]).”
Leif also suggests there is a “floor” of ~4 nT for HMF B. This floor was observed to have been reached in 2009, and was possibly also reached in 1902.
In http://leif.org/research/Goelzer-Comment.pdf,
Leif shows what he calls the “consensus” HMF reconstruction (Svalgaard 2014 and Lockwood et al. 2014) and the Goelzer et al. 2013 HMf reconstruction, post 1840. Because of the adjustments Leif has made to the post-1840 SSN record before 1955, the Goelzer reconstruction is in good agreement with Leif’s reconstruction only after 1955. Leif concludes that the Goezler post-1805 reconstruction must therefore be invalid and not in agreement with his supposed “consensus.”
My recent paper
Scafetta, N., and R. C. Willson, 2014. ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite validation versus TSI proxy models. Astrophysics and Space Science (in press).
Click to access 10.1007s10509-013-1775-9.pdf
also make a prediction for the future 6 years based on the TSI patterns: see figure 15.
The paper contains evidences that the various flat-sun theories (Leif’s one is the flattest of all) do not find support in the TSI observations.
@Nicola Scafetta: [T]he entire Earth is absorbing more heat than expected, according to a study (abstract) published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That extra absorbed energy is so big that it measures about one-quarter of the entire heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide, said the study’s lead author, Ian Eisenman, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. The Arctic grew 8 per cent darker between 1979 and 2011, Eisenman found, measuring how much sunlight is reflected back into space. [h/t slashdot.org]
What is happening? less TSI or more absorption or both?
Chaeremon: bigger gaps in the ice cover. Now reversing.
@tallbloke: topping [pun intended].
Nicola?
Further reading reveals that Ice Age lapse rates in the tropics may have steepened from 5.5C per 1000 meters to 8C per 1000 meters. I am wondering if the steepened lapse rate would be a proxy for Ice Age solar activity. As mentioned earlier SPECMAP/CLIMAP showed tropical ocean temperatures to be the same as today, so that looks good for the steady sun hypothesis, but the tropical snow line dropped by 1 kilometre or so, and that seems to me to to point to decreased TSI. But by how much and what is/was the mechanism? That’s the stuff that keeps me thinking …
Thanks Nicola for the link to your paper – very interesting reading.
EJM: Could it be that the tropical ocean temp doesn’t decline during glacial periods because less heat escapes to space from the polar regions due to more extensive ice cover?
[…] Gerry Pease: Another prediction of low solar activity | Tallbloke's … […]
Is implying no cloud.
Tallbloke – not sure about the answer re: more ice. However, the good news that Richard Lindzen is miles ahead of me and wrote about it in 1993. The paper is here:
http://goo.gl/lPsNLO
Haven’t had a chance to give it a good read as I am on lunch, but it seems quite interesting.
I guess I should be more clear. Lindzen was also amazed at the fact that Tropical SST’s were the same as now and yet the mountain snow line was at least 1 kilometre lower than today. His paper tries to reconcile that. If memory serves the GCM’s cannot reproduce this effect and so there was much talk that the CLIMAP SST results had to be wrong.
Data is data. Theory needs to be rethunk.
Where was sea level?
Sea level during the last glacial was 120 meters lower than today. Tallbloke could have walked to Holland and apparently also to Spain.
Temperature variance, from the ice age values to Holocene values, in the GISP Core ” …dropped by a factor of five to ten…” according to William J. Burroughs. If you think the weather is wild now, you don’t want to experience full ice age wild weather. In any event, the climate is so much different than today, that I suspect, but can’t prove that the Milankovitch Theory does not explain everything. I suspect the main suspect rises in the east every day, and sets in the west. Nature is giving us clues, but we need to decipher them.
Extrapolating Willis’ thermostat hypothesis a bit, there is always far more than enough DSW striking atmosphere to heat the tropical oceans well above 30°C, but the emergent diurnal evaporation → thunderhead effect “caps” the effect at about that temperature (at current salinity levels). But the excess available to warm the globe and hold back ice caps is then a highly variable delta.