http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3a.gif

Most of the papers are just general background and do not specifically say that there was no 11-year cycle.

The point is that the 22yr cycle exists (supported by many), whether its dominant or not is not important. I stated originally ” there does look to be some evidence” and that is was only proxy as in your case, so we can put it to bed by both agreeing the evidence is weak on both sides and needs to be tested by modern equipment. Whether you and me will be around to do that is doubtful as this phenomenon was not recorded during the Dalton, and is more likely to occur in far stronger grand minima where it is hit by successive “phase catastrophe” or dynamo “shutdowns” or whatever you want to call it. The Sporer and Maunder clearly show a triple hit, the Dalton was a single hit followed later by a very weak episode at SC12 (a not so grand minimum), the upcoming grand minimum looks to be a single hit only.

Most of the papers are just general background and do not specifically say that there was no 11-year cycle.
And Usoskin [like you] misrepresents what the authors actually say.
For example, in referring to Miyahara:

“An analysis of this data (Miyahara et al., 2006a,b) reveals a similar pattern with the dominant 22-year cycle and suppressed 11-year cycle.”
If you actually read Miyahara’s paper [see her Figure 3 and 4] you will see that the strongest peak in the power spectrum is at 11 years, not 22, so no ‘dominant’ 22-year cycle.

He disagrees with me on many things.

And he is not the only one….as outlined in the list of papers he refers to.

Usoskin disagrees with you.

The Maunder minimum is a representative of grand minima in solar activity (e.g., Eddy, ), when sunspots have almost completely vanished from the solar surface, while the solar wind keeps blowing, although at a reduced pace (Cliver et al., 1998; Usoskin et al., ). There is some uncertainty in the definition of its duration; the “formal” duration is 1645 – 1715 (Eddy, 1976), while its deep phase with the absence of apparent sunspot cyclic activity is often considered as 1645 – 1700, with the low, but very clear, solar cycle of 1700 – 1712 being ascribed to a recovery or transition phase (Usoskin et al.). The Maunder minimum was amazingly well covered (more than 95% of days) by direct sunspot observations (Hoyt and Schatten, 1996), especially in its late phase (Ribes and Nesme-Ribes, ). On the other hand, sunspots appeared rarely (during ∼ 2% of the days) and seemingly sporadically, without an indication of the 11-year cycle (Usoskin and Mursula, 2003). This makes it almost impossible to apply standard methods of time-series analysis to sunspot data during the Maunder minimum (e.g., Frick et al., 1997)). Therefore, special methods such as the distribution of spotless days vs. days with sunspots (e.g., Harvey and White, 1999) or an analysis of sparsely-occurring events (Usoskin et al.,) should be applied in this case. Using these methods, Usoskin et al. have shown that sunspot occurrence during the Maunder minimum was gathered into two large clusters (1652 – 1662 and 1672 – 1689), with the mass centers of these clusters being in 1658 and 1679 – 1680. Together with the sunspot maxima before (1640) and after (1705) the deep Maunder minimum, this implies a dominant 22-year periodicity in sunspot activity throughout the Maunder minimum (Mursula et al., 2001), with a subdominant 11-year cycle emerging towards the end of the Maunder minimum (Ribes and Nesme-Ribes, 1993; Mendoza, 1997; Usoskin et al., ) and becoming dominant again after 1700. Similar behavior of a dominant 22-year cycle and a weak subdominant Schwabe cycle during the Maunder minimum has been found in other indirect solar proxy data: auroral occurrence (Křivský and Pejml, 1988; Schlamminger, 1990; Silverman, 1992) and 14C data (Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993; Kocharov et al., 1995; Peristykh and Damon, 1998; Miyahara et al. ). This is in general agreement with the concept of “immersion” of 11-year cycles during the Maunder minimum (Vitinsky et al.). This concept means that full cycles cannot be resolved and sunspot activity only appears as pulses around cycle-maximum times.

The time behavior of sunspot activity during the Maunder minimum yields the following general scenario (Vitinsky et al., 1986; Ribes and Nesme-Ribes, ; Sokoloff and Nesme-Ribes, 1994Jump To The Next Citation Point; Usoskin et al., 2000, 2001a; Miyahara et al.). Transition from the normal high activity to the deep minimum was sudden (within a few years) without any apparent precursor. A 22-year cycle was dominant in sunspot occurrence during the deep minimum (1645 – 1700), with the subdominant 11-year cycle, which became visible only in the late phase of the Maunder minimum. The 11-year Schwabe cycle started dominating solar activity after 1700. Recovery of sunspot activity from the deep minimum to normal activity was gradual, passing through a period of nearly-linear amplification of the 11-year cycle. It is interesting to note that such a qualitative evolution of a grand minimum is consistent with predictions of the stochastically-forced return map (Charbonneau, ).

Although the Maunder minimum is the only one with available direct sunspot observations, its predecessor, the Spörer minimum from 1450 – 1550, is covered by precise bi-annual measurements of 14C (Miyahara et al.). An analysis of this data (Miyahara et al., 2006a,b) reveals a similar pattern with the dominant 22-year cycle and suppressed 11-year cycle, thus supporting the idea that the above general scenario may be typical for a grand minimum.

A very important feature of sunspot activity during the Maunder minimum was its strong north-south asymmetry, as sunspots were only observed in the southern solar hemisphere during the end of the Maunder minimum (Ribes and Nesme-Ribes, 1993; Sokoloff and Nesme-Ribes, 1994). This observational fact has led to intensive theoretical efforts to explain a significant asymmetry of the sun’s surface magnetic field in the framework of the dynamo concept (see the review by Sokoloff, 2004, and references therein).

There is no evidence for the ‘phase catastrophe’.

There is evidence for and against a 22yr Schwabe cycle , it just depends which one you choose.

I think you misunderstand the phrase ‘phase catastrophe’. It should be used to describe the overall grand minimum action affecting the Sun. There is multiple causes in theory, one of which is a 22yr Schwabe cycle. “Phase catastrophe” can still occur without a 22yr Schwabe cycle.

The McCracken graph looks to have a 22 yr cycle in it ….But we can throw proxy reports at each other and not get anywhere, they are proxy reports. You have ones showing normal cycles, others show 22 yr cycles. You cant tell us exactly what happened during the Maunder with any absolute certainty with regard to the solar poles, so lets wait and see.

I suspect we will witness some unusual conditions at the poles in the next cycles, but perhaps not a 22yr Schwabe cycle. That might be reserved for grand minima that is triple punched by strong angular momentum….not like the single punch we are most likely heading into.