NASA Headline: Deep Solar Minimum

NASA Science News, Dr. Tony Philips

The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year’s 90 days (87%).

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

“This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

see caption

Above: The sunspot cycle from 1995 to the present. The jagged curve traces actual sunspot counts. Smooth curves are fits to the data and one forecaster’s predictions of future activity. Credit: David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC. [more]

Quiet suns come along every 11 years or so. It’s a natural part of the sunspot cycle, discovered by German astronomer Heinrich Schwabe in the mid-1800s. Sunspots are planet-sized islands of magnetism on the surface of the sun; they are sources of solar flares, coronal mass ejections and intense UV radiation. Plotting sunspot counts, Schwabe saw that peaks of solar activity were always followed by valleys of relative calm-a clockwork pattern that has held true for more than 200 years: plot.

The current solar minimum is part of that pattern. In fact, it’s right on time. “We’re due for a bit of quiet-and here it is,” says Pesnell.

But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following records:

A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s-the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.

A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” Satellites in low Earth orbit experience less atmospheric drag, extending their operational lifetimes. That’s the good news. Unfortunately, space junk also remains longer in Earth orbit, increasing hazards to spacecraft and satellites.

see caption

Above: Space-age measurements of the total solar irradiance (brightness summed across all wavelengths). This plot, which comes from researcher C. Fröhlich, was shown by Dean Pesnell at the Fall 2008 AGU meeting during a lecture entitled “What is Solar Minimum and Why Should We Care?”

A 55-year low in solar radio emissions: After World War II, astronomers began keeping records of the sun’s brightness at radio wavelengths. Records of 10.7 cm flux extend back all the way to the early 1950s. Radio telescopes are now recording the dimmest “radio sun” since 1955: plot. Some researchers believe that the lessening of radio emissions is an indication of weakness in the sun’s global magnetic field. No one is certain, however, because the source of these long-monitored radio emissions is not fully understood.

All these lows have sparked a debate about whether the ongoing minimum is “weird”, “extreme” or just an overdue “market correction” following a string of unusually intense solar maxima.

“Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.”

Deep calm was fairly common a hundred years ago. The solar minima of 1901 and 1913, for instance, were even longer than the one we’re experiencing now. To match those minima in terms of depth and longevity, the current minimum will have to last at least another year.

see captionIn a way, the calm is exciting, says Pesnell. “For the first time in history, we’re getting to see what a deep solar minimum is really like.” A fleet of spacecraft including the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), the twin STEREO probes, the five THEMIS probes, ACE, Wind, TRACE, AIM, TIMED, Geotail and others are studying the sun and its effects on Earth 24/7 using technology that didn’t exist 100 years ago. Their measurements of solar wind, cosmic rays, irradiance and magnetic fields show that solar minimum is much more interesting and profound than anyone expected.

Above: An artist’s concept of NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory. Bristling with advanced sensors, “SDO” is slated to launch later this year–perfect timing to study the ongoing solar minimum. [more]

Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of top solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be. Pesnell has surveyed the scientific literature and prepared a “piano plot” showing the range of predictions. The great uncertainty stems from one simple fact: No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.

Pesnell believes sunspot counts will pick up again soon, “possibly by the end of the year,” to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.

But like other forecasters, he knows he could be wrong. Bull or bear? Stay tuned for updates.

h/t’s to Pearland Aggie and Joe D’Aleo

About these ads

300 thoughts on “NASA Headline: Deep Solar Minimum

  1. “To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913″

    Using the same limit of sensitivity that was used 100-150 years ago, I think we are way above that in term of % of days with no sunspots.

    Speaking of sunspots, there has been this huge magnetic “anomaly” on the sun for several days now, and never it got into a visible sunspot stage. It seems that the sun might sink even lower after this burst of magnetic activity for the last few days.


  2. These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but…

    So they can understand and can predict Earth’s climate, but the Sun? Not so much. It’s a good thing the one doesn’t affect the other!

    Speaking of global warming–and this is a completely unrelated aside–just how much warmer are we these days?

  3. Question with regards to this point:

    “To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days”

    Would some of those micro-spots that were counted in 2008 have been included given the 1913 technology?

    If so, it is possible that we actually had less solar activity.

  4. I thought cycle 24 was over? and if so what will cycle 25 be?More of the same.I’m sure hathaway thinks this is not out of the normal cycle .Just move the goal post .

  5. Interesting article but nothing really new to readers of this blog.

    I had to note when the article threw this piece in “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming” when talking about irradiance which was then later followed by “The great uncertainty (about how long the cycle will last) stems from one simple fact: No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.”

    But this snippet suggests an interesting correlation with late 20th Century warming .. “”Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.””

    I was then looking for the line that “no one fully understands the sunspot cycle’s effects on world climate, but some have speculated a quiet sun could lead to cooling.” I couldn’t see it. Does anyone know where it went?

  6. They talk about the lack of sun spots but they dont mention that this solar cycle is the longest since the 1790s which predated the Dalton Minimum, a very cold period.

    It is incredible to think that with several hundred years of data that shows the direct correlation between changing solar activity and global temperatures that more scientists do not give credit to the sun for causing the warming of the 1980s-1990s and the subsequent cooling of the past decade.

    With the oceans now entering a cooling phase, and the sun with such low activity, watch out, it is going to get cooler and already is.

  7. So: the Sun has had 5 intense cycles of waxing and waning.

    Wouldn’t you need a good night’s sleep after a night of passion like that?

  8. How can they state this is not enough to stop Global Warming….they are incapable of scientific analysis without repeating the mantra.
    We have’nt had a BBQ in three years and have just experienced a very cold winter…and the previous one was not exactly tropical with major ice formations returning to the Arctic and good skiing all over.
    But it is “still warming”.
    Is this calculated by empicial data based science…..or James Hansen’s computer?

  9. This jumps out at me:
    “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years”

    That’s news to me. ie the same 50 years of unprecedented warming which is unequivocally due to ghg emissions according to the IPCC? I guess the signature is wrong. Then again, add a little aerosol cooling in the dips et voila.

  10. Obviously, it’s just saving itself for the big world ending blow up in 2012 predicted by the Mayan Calendar (or lack thereof).

  11. As discussed, I am getting NO traction with this idea, but I keep repeating it if only for the Comedy of Repetition:

    The Gore Minimum.

    There, I said it.
    And while you’re at it, Albert, keep that Nobel handy. Another couple of really bad winters (or say a DC blizzard on the Cherry Blossoms), and they might want it back. I’m cereal.

    Anybody want to speculate what it would mean. climatologically, if the folks in Colorado are correct and we’re spotless for say a decade? Just wondering.

    Good news is that thanks to technical advances in “tight shale” production, natural gas is now hovering around $4 per thousand cubic feet (roughly equvalent to $24/barrel oil), so the US is likely in good shape for plenty of clean-burning fuel.

    The Bad News is that if this Spotlessness goes on for a while, we might want to be burning something a little less clean (ie spew-up some particulates and aerosols) to warm-up the planet. Buy Coal.

  12. Sorry to be so pedantic but again Mr David Archibald was right. I would follow his advice n this matter from now on LOL…

  13. It would be interesting to look at the “randomness” and extreme scientific positions held about the sun currently as the author acknowledged with the beginning of global warming consensus in the late 80s. How much randomness occurs in directed versus nondirected scientific opinion? It is interesting the author felt compelled to say the sun’s current state would not impact global warming-or felt the need to qualify this statement in any way (time/duration impact etc) It perhaps reveals the depth of “sensitivity” to saying anything that may be construed as contrary to the current AGW scientific paradigm.

  14. David Ball (14:15:27) :

    Shouldn’t the phrase be “correlation is sometimes causation”? Just sayin’,…

    Certainly a more elegant way of saying it- the scientists in me tries to at least appear unbiased

  15. Question with regards to this point:

    “To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days”

    Would some of those micro-spots that were counted in 2008 have been included given the 1913 technology?

    If so, it is possible that we actually had less solar activity.

    I still say that MUST BE DONE!! this is our one shot to pull out technology from that day and test the theory… if we do not we will be doomed to lose it.. compare results and prove..

    I do not have the financial resources to do it or I would.. I keep hoping eventually people will stop asking and somebody will do it :)

  16. Let’s see Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years

    and it’s gotten a teensy-weensy bit hotter. However, although we have to go back 100 years to find similar minimas

    These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming

    Of course! “There is no reason to PANIC, ladies and gentlemen; that is not an elephant in the room.”

  17. “sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center”

    PLEASE! David Hathaway may well have a PHD in solar physics, but is hardly any more of an expert on sunspots than me. Dr Hathaway seems to crave the spotlight, and sometimes that way bites one in the backside. He would be better off spending his free time studying the sun instead of proofreading his constantly incorrect predcitions. Being wrong 20 straight times about the sun since 2006 should cause his “expert” label to be removed. Honestly, he should be embarrassed with himself.

  18. vg (14:13:24) :

    Sorry to be so pedantic but again Mr David Archibald was right. I would follow his advice n this matter from now on LOL…

    For me that is why his book is showing up in the next few days. Too bad I will probably have the only copy in Nebraska.

  19. hareynolds @ 14:11:33

    I second The Gore Minimum tag. He can ad it on his mantlepiece collection, alondsied his Oscar and Nobel Prize.

    It will have much more value though, for ever in the future providing an ironic warning to all charletaines and Elmer Gantries.

    Can we also nominate Hansen, or Mann, for an Ignobel Prize?

  20. Per Tucker (14:40:25)

    Being wrong never impeded Paul Ehrlich’s career- in fact for Ehrlich- prize money could be correlated with the number of times one is shamelessly wrong.
    Sun spots are one thing- Ehrlich said we are all supposed to be dead. Nor did it impede the career of his coauthor on doom prediction- John Holdren our current Science Advisor

  21. SlicerDicer @ 14:32:16

    Leif has a colleague who is attempting to do just that, I believe. Perhaps he could post on progress and ask for financial support.

    A thousand $10 donations go a long way.

  22. “To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days”

    Wasn’t it around about 1913 when the early 20th century warming began.

  23. Hi hareynolds,

    In an earlier discussion, if I remember right, I found out that the most popular name for the minimum would be the “Landscheidt Minimum,” not the “Gore Minimum.” However, if the minimum causes a new cold period, there was a lot of support for calling the cold period the “Gore Cold Period” or the “Hansen Cold Period.” And, if there is social unrest from the cold period, there was support for calling the social disturbance the “Gore Pessimum” or the “Hansen Pessimum.”

    Jeff Wiita

  24. to call it the Gore Minimum would be almost like canonizing the charlatan!

    I think it should be the Archibald Minimum :)

  25. one thing that seems to be lost in the TSI discussion…it looks like the baseline for this minimum is lower than the previous two by a fair amount. interesting….

  26. Just because Hathaway has been wrong in his predictions he needen’t be trashed. In science you advance a hypothethis based upon what is known and extrapolating to testable predictions. When nature, far more often than not, confounds your predictions you come up with a new model that attempts to explain the data. It takes stones to post predictions publicly. Only if a scientist clings to a clearly falsified hypothethis should he/she be castigated.

  27. Clearly man-made phenomena. I mean, what else could it be? Count me as the first ASM (Anthropogenic Solar Minimum) alarmist.

  28. Jeff Wiita (15:03:30)
    “However, if the minimum causes a new cold period, there was a lot of support for calling the cold period the “Gore Cold Period” or the “Hansen Cold Period.” ”

    What about the Little Gore Ice Age? (or the Gore Little Ice Age?)

  29. The people at NASA are stuck in their global warming paradigm, they are blind to any facts that contradict their paradigm. Ten years from now we will be able to taunt and ridicule them. That is of course if any of us have survived the twin horrors of an anti-capitalist government and a little ice age. Have a good day. :-)

  30. Jeff Wiita (15:03:30) :

    ““Gore Pessimum” or the “Hansen Pessimum.””

    I am sure it will soon be the Gore-Hansen Pendullum, because Climate Change also includes Global Cooling, or whatever the universe throws at us that will make the climate change. They will always be right, just swigning from one side and the other of the issue. We may call them, the Great Swingers.

  31. from the Archibald paper…

    Archibald (2006) predicted that climate during the forthcoming Solar Cycles 24
    and 25 would be significantly cold. As at late 2008, the progression of the current
    23/24 solar minimum indicates that a severe cool period is now inevitable, similar
    to that of the Dalton Minimum
    . A decline in average annual temperature of 2.2° C
    is here predicted for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24. The result will
    be an equator-ward shift in continental climatic conditions in the mid-latitudes of
    the order of 300 km, with consequent severe effects on world agricultural
    productivity.

    talk about putting predictions out for everyone to see…..also:

    Based on our understanding of the interaction of solar and terrestrial processes, the
    following projections are made for a number of climate-related physical processes:
    1. Month of Solar Cycle 23/24 minimum: July, 2009
    2. Year of Solar Cycle 24 maximum: 2016
    3. Amplitude of Solar Cycle 24: 45
    4. Temperature Decline Solar Cycle 24: 2.2° C
    5. Oulu Neutron Count Monthly Peak: 6,900
    6. Month of Oulu Neutron Count Peak: July, 2010
    7. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level: Relatively flat 2010 – 2030

  32. Michael: “Speaking of global warming–and this is a completely unrelated aside–just how much warmer are we these days?’

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1998/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2001/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/trend

    What’s interesting is how the great southern oceans are leading the cooling, which is consistent with Svensmark’s theories. Looking at the cosmic ray data, if Svensmark is right we’re going to be cooling for some time to come if the 24 maximum is lower than 19 which it looks more and more like it will be. Then comes cycle 25 with the potential for even less activity. Thank god I like skiing!

  33. JamesG (14:02:44) :
    This jumps out at me:
    “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.” That’s news to me. ie the same 50 years of unprecedented warming which is unequivocally due to ghg emissions according to the IPCC? I guess the signature is wrong.

    Robert Wood (14:38:46) :
    Let’s see. Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years and it’s gotten a teensy-weensy bit hotter. However, although we have to go back 100 years to find similar minima

    .

    This was noticed 5 years ago by the Max Planck Institute, and they went back 8000 years. Here’s the 2004 article from Aviation Week:

    .

  34. A serious question for all the smart folks out there….assuming the Archibald prediction or some variant of 2.2C cooling happens, has anyone see any data on the practical implications of such an event? I mean, will we still need our air conditioners here in Houston in August and should we expect ice every winter? I’ve never seen a prediction of how such cooling might affect, say for the sake of argument, the continental U.S.

  35. Does anyone see a peculiar disconnect here?

    First, Dr. Hathaway released an article contending the sun was behaving most abnormally (a couple or three years ago) in which he observed that the “big conveyor belt had shut down”.

    Then, more recently, Hathaway released a series of assurances that there was nothing unusual about the sun’s most recent behavior during the minimum and assuring us that cycle # 24 was poised to take off any day.

    Then, NASA released a proposal to study the current minimum in which it used descriptions such as “extraordinary”, “lowest ever recorded”, “near record levels”, etc.

    Now we hear from these same people that, “The current solar minimum is part of that pattern. In fact, it’s right on time.”

    Over the years, I have learned that when I see and hear series of contradictory messages coming out of some bureaucratic organization on some big issue of the day, it means that someone of authority within the organization is struggling (partly unsuccessfully) to maintain control of the organizational agenda. There is a power struggle underway.

    Smack in the middle of this latest release lies an answer to what the core of that unraveling agenda may be. Out of nowhere and completely out of context plops the following message: “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects.” I also notice that Dr. Hathaway, the usually cited NASA expert on sun matters is not the author of this latest release.

    I believe we can safely conclude that Dr. Hansen is starting to experience some difficulty in forcing reputable scientists within NASA to “carry his water”.

  36. philw1776 (15:23:24) :

    “Just because Hathaway has been wrong in his predictions he needen’t be trashed. In science you advance a hypothethis based upon what is known and extrapolating to testable predictions. When nature, far more often than not, confounds your predictions you come up with a new model that attempts to explain the data. It takes stones to post predictions publicly. Only if a scientist clings to a clearly falsified hypothethis should he/she be castigated.”

    Okay, I’ll play. Hathaway’s hypothesis and prediction are clearly incorrect. One doesn’t need to wait until the end of SC24 to know this. Hathaway’s lack of openness in admitting he is incorrect shows a distinct lack of stones, don’t you think? It takes no stones or predictive power whatsoever to move the goalposts of your prediction each quarter as if you’ve had an epiphany. I castigate Hathaway for exactly the reason you say allows one to castigate him. For clinging to knowingly false hypothesis’ and predictions.

  37. This is awfully interesting…from Roger Pielke, Jr.

    The Thune Amendment

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-thune-amendment-5096

    The ability of Congressional legislation on cap and trade to result in actual emissions reductions was dealt a serious blow yesterday. An Amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) on the Budget Resolution and its text is as follows:

    To amend the deficit-neutral reserve fund for climate change legislation to require that such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices.

    What is this? Climate change legislation cannot increase electricity or gasoline prices? The entire purpose of cap and trade is in fact to increase the costs of carbon-emitting sources of energy, which dominate US energy consumption. The Thune Amendment thus undercuts the entire purpose of cap and trade.

    What was the vote on the Thune Amendment? 89-8 in favor of the Amendment, 48 Democrats and 41 Republicans. Only 8 members of the Senate were willing to go on record saying that they support the purpose of a cap and trade bill, to make carbon-emitting energy more expensive. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voted for the Thune Amendment had this to say:

    Any kind of cap-and-trade system that comes forward will not raise energy and gas prices.

  38. NASA is comical at best…..wow, what an amazing announcment. Why don’t they add in that they totally missed it, instead of it’s normal. Let’s face it, most of the Government is ran by total liars now.

    Government Motors
    USPS
    AIG

    All losing billions of taxpayer dollars

  39. Claude Harvey (15:47:35) :

    Smack in the middle of this latest release lies an answer to what the core of that unraveling agenda may be. Out of nowhere and completely out of context plops the following message: “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects.” I also notice that Dr. Hathaway, the usually cited NASA expert on sun matters is not the author of this latest release.

    I believe we can safely conclude that Dr. Hansen is starting to experience some difficulty in forcing reputable scientists within NASA to “carry his water”.

    Your analysis sounds “spot on” to me. I also noticed that particular sentence and the way it encodes the assumptions under which the organization is, unfortunately, still operating.

  40. Just doing a little cherry picking….

    For the first time in history, we’re getting to see what a deep solar minimum is really like.
    Whose history?

    We’re due for a bit of quiet-and here it is,” says Pesnell.
    A ” Prediction Flipflop”?

    These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming

    Perish any other thoughts immediately!

    Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of top solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be.

    But don’t apply this rationale to climate change modeling.

    Pesnell believes sunspot counts will pick up again soon, “possibly by the end of the year

    But but but …. didn’t he just they can’t predict? Science can be so damned confusing to a layperson….

  41. Regarding sunspot number determinations, this number (also called the Wolf number) is based on counting sunspots and their areas, and is generally thought to be reliable back into the 18th century. The smaller dark regions seen today (“microspots” as one commenter above called them) are not sunspots and are not included in the sunspot number determinations. As a result, statements such as “This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century.” are accurate, because today’s sunspot number is directly comparable to those of 100 years ago (and at least 150 before that).

  42. pmoffitt (14:49:05) sez: “Sun spots are one thing- Ehrlich said we are all supposed to be dead. Nor did it impede the career of his coauthor on doom prediction- John Holdren our current Science Advisor”

    Tell me more. I sure didn’t see that in the LA Times. I’m totally surprised. Next you’ll tell me he paid all his income taxes! Naah.

    Skeptic Tank (15:26:38) sez: “Clearly man-made phenomena. I mean, what else could it be? Count me as the first ASM (Anthropogenic Solar Minimum) alarmist.”

    Yes, indeed. We have failed of late to dance the ancient Mayan Macarena to propitiate the Sun God. Now he is warning us of our sins by readying volcanoes for the virgins we must sacrifice. (But I understand he’ll settle for a politician with a really big…uh…posterior. It’s quite an honor, actually. Bigger than a Nobel prize. Bigger than a CrackerJack prize, even!)

  43. Some years ago, I finally realized that the media was lying to me. They were using cherry picked “data” (news stories), half truths, and opinion disguised as news to form my beliefs of the world.

    I know little about the sun except that too much sunlight can be painful. So, I enjoy articles like the above. But when I get to the gratuitous “global warming” statement it gives me pause. Is the author a buffoon or a poltroon? Can I trust anything else in the article? It is as reassuring as if the article’s conclusion stated that the “Great Sun-God Ra was resting”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra

    We enlightened elite all know that the Sun-God is really Helios. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios

    Steamboat Jack

  44. Dave The Engineer @ 15:35:22)

    Dave, NASA are not stuck in their paradigm. They are stuck in the paradigm of politicians who provide their funding.

  45. This is a very important post. While they had to qualify it with the “not enough to change the course of global warming”, it is quite clear that the scientific community is beginning to take a serious looks at the climate effects of a deep solar minimum. I

    The discussion of the limitations of the solar models and thus the implied limitations of climate models. The added comment that UV irradiance is up to 6% less. The discussions of weaker solar wind pressure. Each of these comments is a volley to breech Hansen’s fortress.

    This is yet another reason why Gore and Hansen are so desperate to enact policy changes before the whole “house of cards” falls.

    Hansen’s empire is crumbling. You will see a “piling-on” by all of the scientists who have been wronged or silenced by Hansen once it becomes clear that he is no longer credible and no longer a threat to their careers. I bet this will happen within one years time. Been there, seen it.

  46. “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects.”

    Doesn’t that statement admit that it WILL have an effect on the course of global warming? Are they referring to the recent cooling, then?
    Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. What really IS causing the recent cooling?

  47. Nice to see recognition from NASA of what we have all been speculating about for…what…at least 18 months now?

    In other breaking news – NASA computer modelling suggests that the sky might get dark at night.

  48. Gore does not deserve to have anything named after him. The Nobel Peace Prize can be thought of as an anomaly, something that can only happen when a group develops dementia — they can no longer think and they have lost their memory. Peace? Let him and his carbon-trading corporations’ existences sink lower than all of our earnings, savings, investments, and retirement pensions.

  49. Almost totally missed the bus, did we? I suspect it might have been the global warming fog that obscured their vision over at NASA.

  50. “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming …”

    The writers are obviously confirming that the global cooling trend of the last 10 years will continue unabated.

  51. Pearland Aggie (15:47:12) :
    Your comment “I’ve never seen a prediction of how such cooling might affect, say for the sake of argument, the continental U.S.”

    You haven’t seen such predictions because the States and Federal government have been busy making projections of the effects of warming. There is a list of these documents and a critique of each here:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/state_climate_profiles.html

    When so much money is being thrown at you to examine what will happen with X degrees of warming, why would you even consider thinking about cooling? And do it on your own time and with no budget. Besides, doing so can get you fired!

  52. Regarding the comment by:
    philw1776 (15:23:24) :
    Just because Hathaway has been wrong in his predictions he needen’t be trashed. In science you advance a hypothethis based upon what is known and extrapolating to testable predictions. […]

    I will add this; Dr. Hathaway is constrained in making his predictions by the simple fact that they are NASA’s best estimate of the impact of solar storms on satellites whose life expectancy will be well within Solar Cycle 24. If he errs on the wrong side, well, a bunch of taxpayer money potentially goes down the silicon-lined drain.

    I must say, however, we live in interesting times. I would love to hear what Dr. Hathaway has to say off the record.

  53. It’s interesting that both Dikpati and Hathaway originally predicted a solar cycle 24 of near record magnitude. The difference between them was that Hathaway predicted a much earlier beginning and top. Dikpati had the opportunity to have her prediction be correct as late as September of last year. But we are now at least 6 month past that start point, and therefore at least half of her prediction is bound to be wrong. This is significant because we were told that Dikpati’s model had show 98% accuracy on historical data. It tells us that modeling the past and modeling the future are very different. To model the past you only have to tweak parameters until you get your desired fit. But you have no way of knowing that your tweaking gave you a better approximation of reality, or if it simply gave you a better fit for your historical data. One can imagine that a complex model can have multiple groups of tweaks that could all produce a good fit.

    People do this in the investing game. They program different trading strategies into a computer and then run historical market data through those trading strategies. They tune their strategies until they get superb returns out of the historical data. But when they then turn and use those same trading strategies to invest in the market, they invariably fail. The important lesson here is that a curve fit is not really an exposing of reality – it is simply a curve fit.

    I wonder if Dikpati now maintains her original prediction of the SS 24 magnitude.

  54. Low Vapor Glow
    Infinite Sadness
    Becomes Ultimate Wisdom
    Flow Nature’s Flow
    Venerable Father
    Deliver Us From This Darkness

  55. Where’s Leif? This doesn’t look like a minor standard event at all.

    The interesting thing about the 6% UV is that without even looking at curves this energy is absorbed completely. I work in optics and there are not many materials transparent to UV. This high energy light is coming in and staying.

    This also could indicate a substantial cooling in the surface/subsurface layers of the sun. I can say that because the Plank black body spectral emission curve as determined by temp doesn’t need to shift much to create a shift in the high frequency UV output spectra.

    Another great post. Thanks Anthony, I keep learning.

  56. Sun fades in some way
    Enter tragedy
    Some where there’s some way
    Like all you ever dreamed

    Sun fading
    Sun fading

  57. Pearland Aggie (15:47:12) :

    I made an estimate of the effect on US agricultural productivity in December that can be found on Icecap: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/fyingtheUSAgriculturalProductivityResponsetoSolarCycle24.doc

    It is entitled “Quantifying the US Agricultural Productivity Response to Solar Cycle 24″. My estimate is that US agricultural production will decline 20%, taking it out of the export market. Most of this is caused by losing weeks at both ends of the growing season. Places like the Canadian wheatbelt will also be affected by unseasonal frosts.

    The important thing is solar cycle length (Happy birthday Solar Cycle 23 – now thirteen years old this month). Friis-Christensen found a correlation between solar cycle amplitude and temperature, but a stronger correlation between solar cycle length and temperature over the following solar cycle. Butler and Johnson proved that for the individual station record of Armagh. I have also demonstrated it for the individual records of the CET, de Bilt and three US stations. There isn’t much scatter on the graphs. The coming cooling is inevitable.

    By the way, I am amazed that I was able to do original research in this field considering that following up the Butler and Johnson paper would have been an easy way for any climate academic to boost his publication record.

  58. Solar minimum is promoting poetry creation:
    evanmjones´and, more humbly, me:

    Round and round I go,
    the barycenter longing to find and rest,
    because the farthest I go
    the more furious I become
    changing Ninos into Ninas
    prairies into barren fields
    and climate prophets into farting cows

    The Sun

  59. What’s this?

    A WUWT Sunspot article… and no “A-Watt Affect” sunspots popping up like pesky whack-a-mole moles?

    Sir, you’re credibility may be taking a hit ;)

    REPLY: The article is less than 4 hours old, and I didn’t write it. The mojo is weak.- Anthony

  60. Not a single mention by NASA’s “solar scientists” on the well established correlation between solar activity and climate.

    Hathaway actually mentions that: “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.” But no comment on the possible climate effects.

    Author Tony Phillips claims that: “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming.” Fails to note that IPCC models only include irradiance effects of solar variability and omit solar magnetic effects, despite the well known correlation with climate. The implication: global warming that has actually been due to solar activity has been misattributed to CO2. With the sun going cold, we are going to get cold, and CO2 will hardly do anything to mitigate it.

    How can these jerks call themselves solar scientists when they aren’t willing to stand up for solar effects, instead deferring to the IPCC on their own supposed field of expertise?

    To cap it off, Hathaway’s prediction graph STILL has solar cycle 24 ramping up tomorrow. Even his colleagues ignore him, with Pesnell saying that sunspots counts will pick up, “possibly by the end of the year.”

  61. hareynolds (14:11:33) :

    As discussed, I am getting NO traction with this idea, but I keep repeating it if only for the Comedy of Repetition:

    The Gore Minimum.

    I applaud your proposal and I absolutely believe that Gore’s name should be attached to what might well become a sunspot anomaly that results significant, historic cooling. In an effort to assist in the “traction” department. I propose a solution to the legitimately expressed worries over “canonizing” the man in the process.

    Name the solar minimum “The Gore Maximum”. That will lead future historians on every reference to the event to explain to freezing generations the source of that contradictory handle; “The ‘minimum’ was named the ‘maximum’ in sarcastic reference to a charlatan of the period who convinced large portions of the general population and highest circles in government of the preposterous proposition that a 1/4 inch, man made CO2 tail was wagging a 100-yard-long atmospheric dog. In defense of the general level of intelligence of the non-scientific population of that time it should be noted that large numbers of their scientific “experts” failed them in a rush of excitement, fame and fortune which attended the largest financial and political ‘honeypot issue’ to ever arrive on the scene in the entire history of mankind up to that time.”

  62. “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming …”

    That is pretty much standard “boilerplate” language that MUST get inserted into anything that shows a possibility of cooling so that the author/organization is not fired or lose their funding. So it is ok to say things have cooled a quarter of a degree the past 10 years as long as you insert the obligatory “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming” in order to maintain your proper level of political correctness and funding. If you do not include it, you are labeled a “skeptic” and as a AGW heretic, you are excommunicated from the funding community.

  63. Well … I read a good bit .. and noticed .. nobody brought up Landschiedt. He predicted this years ago.

    Maybe the GODS at NASA may want to take a closer look at his methods and theories. There just may be some truth to them.

  64. A while back (something to the tune of a year ago) the depth of this solar minimum interested me quite a bit so I did some Internet research. At that time, the official “forecast” for solar cycle 24 was schizo – literally. They presented two mutually exclusive scenarios of what the cycle maximum would be and when it would occur. What struck me the most was that each forecast was based on a competing mathematical model constructed using past sunspot cycle information. I came away from the description of the models with the inference that each model fit well with the historical data, yet they yielded significantly different results. I also thought at the time that this was a perfect case study as to why you can’t infer the predictive capacity of climate models simply because you could mathematically fit them to the historical data that is used to construct the models.

    Tweaking a model to fit past data may be a complicated mathematical exercise, but doing so does not require any actual knowledge of the underlying system. While what you think you know about the system may impede you in fitting the data if you refrain from adjusting parameters to be inconsistent with your starting assumptions, but you can’t conclude that the ability to fit the data while maintaining consistency with those assumptions validates the assumptions themselves. It just means that the model hasn’t falsified the set of assumptions, no more no less. It’s easily plausible that another set of radically different assumption could fit the data just as well, if not better.

    Anyway, to complete the thought, in the hindsight of recent sunspot history I think both models boffed it. Imagine that.

  65. Agreed Alec.

    Per this article, and the nervous, reactive, ostrich-head-in-sand tone, how much longer can some of these individuals be continued to be thought of as credible in the light of the current potentially serious situation we have on our hands?

    It is astounding that, on top of all the other “bureaucraSPEAK” in this article, how does Dr. Phillips even have the gall to make the remark: “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming.”

    HUH? I’m sorry but how ******* stupid does he think we are??

    Oh….right….some people are stupid enough to fall for such rhetoric.

    In light of the magnitude of this situation, and the gravity of its potential impact on civilization, it is REPREHNSIBLE that such mildly-informative, but quasi-censored “journalism” would be allowed to come out of the world’s leading science organization [such as it is!].

    [FIRE James Hansen!] Sorry…..Turretts Syndrome here. ;)

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  66. As I sit in the middle of a winter storm warning in NE Oregon-I see a correlation here….

  67. Deanster (19:09:28) :

    Well … I read a good bit .. and noticed .. nobody brought up Landschiedt. He predicted this years ago.

    Maybe the GODS at NASA may want to take a closer look at his methods and theories. There just may be some truth to them.
    Between Landschiedt, Svensmark, and Archibald, I have been recomending people get good winter coats because global warming is over.

  68. Kurt wrote: “I also thought at the time that this was a perfect case study as to why you can’t infer the predictive capacity of climate models simply because you could mathematically fit them to the historical data that is used to construct the models.”

    Well said and thanks for your post….

  69. MattB wrote: “There just may be some truth to them.
    Between Landschiedt, Svensmark, and Archibald, I have been recomending people get good winter coats because global warming is over.”

    Agreed…these guys don’t get enough airtime that they should. Listen to what they have to say.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  70. If I were a warmist and I read this stuff I’d say “ahah! This minimum is masking the warming and when it ends we’re toast!” I am very confident that this approach will deal with any inconvenient global cooling long enough for the warmists’ agenda to be realised… whatever that is in reality. The fact is that this minimum is bad news for skeptics as it supplies a decent argument for the lack of warming over the last decade – an argument that may even turn out to be right. Some people here forget the nobody understands the Earth’s climate well enough to be able to describe exactly how much “climate change” is the result of the increased levels of CO2 or how much climate change will result from increased levels of CO2. “They” believe CO2 is the primary driver of the global warming of the last century or so and we believe that it isn’t but nobody knows. Well, someone might, but they can’t demonstrate it to everyone’s satisfaction yet.

  71. The problem I have with naming a solar cycle after Al Gore is, first, I think the term “Gorical” fits very well, does what you want, and is already out there on the Web. Adding a new title/concept to him will only dilute the Gorical thing. Second, there ought to be a relevant and descriptive name, although I have no candidates. Who gets to decide anyway? I guess you can decide on something, use it a lot, and see if it sticks.

  72. And take away those ridiculous specks that barely lasted a day and the percentages go up even further.

  73. Paul Jose documented the 179 year cycle we are experiencing in his paper. Jose, Paul D. Sun’s Motion and Sunspots (1965)The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 70, Number 3, April 1965; P. 193-200)

    Yes, that is 1965 folks. However Revelle had the anti-industrial theory to flog around the cocktail circuit. A theory that was proven incorrect by Niels Bohr at the turn of the century. A theory advanced by a mediocre mouth piece whom we should not name this phenomena after.

    Then in 1999, Theodor Landscheidt with his love of cycles picked up on Paul Jose’s theme with the paper, Landscheidt, T. Extrema in Sunspot Cycle Linked to Sun’s motion. – Solar Physics 189, 413 – 424, 1999.

    Later Lanscheidt proposed it was the Barycenter of the Solar System driving the variation, especially medium term, of the solar cycle. For this I agree that this should be called the Landscheidt Minimum.

    Geoff Sharp shows with Landscheidt’s hypothesis and a calculation of the angular momentum the solar system places on the Sun that the Jose cycle is actually 172 years and can explain pretty well all the medium term variation including the warming in the late 20th century and the Little Ice Age during the Renaissance … and the Dalton Minimum in between. You can find his work at …

    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/01/21/11000-year-c14-graph-lines-up-perfectly-with-angular-momentum-graph/

    There are others like Archibald who use other techniques (statistical/historical) bypassing the Barcentric Tide Theory of the Solar System but for me that only solidifies the hypothesis. There are also those that concentrate on the gravitational effect of Jupiter alone and others who fine tune the effect including smaller objects to look at shorter term variation. I guess like many things, there were parallel lines of enquiry coming to the same conclusion … it’s the Sun and Planets Stupid.

    My little piece which I hope to update soon after updating numerous times because of the recent advances in public knowledge can be found at …

    http://www.itsonlysteam.com/articles/landscheidt_minimum_part2.html

    When I’m not busy saving the world running a coal fired power plant, I will update with updated discussion on Solar Irradiance.

  74. For the sake of its impact with the non-scientific public, the name should be Gore Minimum. It should be a name that sticks like glue to those who pushed AGW when it really was an excuse to expand government, raise taxes and destroy liberty and choice. I would even suggest that such a PR opportunity only comes alone once in a lifetime. it is on the same order as Nixon saying he was not a crook.

  75. David Archibald,

    I’ve been trying to find a copy of your book Solar Cycle 24 and I was surprised to discover that it doesn’t seem to be available from Amazon. What’s the easiest way to pick up a copy?

  76. JamesG (14:02:44) :

    This jumps out at me:
    “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years”

    That’s news to me. ie the same 50 years of unprecedented warming which is unequivocally due to ghg emissions according to the IPCC? I guess the signature is wrong. Then again, add a little aerosol cooling in the dips et voila.

    I’ve been saying this for at least 10 years. In 1998, and the years leading up to it, we had some record setting aurora. So much so that we were seeing them in northern California (an extremely rare event), of course since then auroral activity has dwindled to nothing, as Solar Cycle 23 has ramped down, and cycle 24 is yet to show.

    Correlation is not evidence of causation, but it certainly gives you a place to start looking.

    cheers,
    Robert

  77. “the name should be Gore Minimum.”

    I disagree. What we should do is name the extremely active cycles as the Gore Maximum to point out that the warming he got everyone all excited about might be due to a series of very strong solar cycles.

    Maybe we should call it The “DOH!” Minimum

  78. Apparently it takes about 10,000 to 170,000 years for the photons that are created at the center of the sun to reach the surface. So, what ever we are witnessing now happened a long time ago in the core.

  79. Can you folks check my arithmetic?:

    Over the course of a year, the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is roughly 1,300 watts per square meter. Does this equate to nearly 663,000,000,000,000 watts of energy, each year, per square meter? Can this influence climate more than a gas like CO2 that is .000366 (?) parts of the atmosphere? Or, after having a glass of wine, am I off by about 10 decimal points?

  80. len (19:46:46) :
    Paul Jose documented the 179 year cycle we are experiencing in his paper. Jose, Paul D. Sun’s Motion and Sunspots (1965)

    We showed over in

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/#comments

    that the Sun’s angular momentum around the solar system barycenter is precisely balanced by the Planets’ angular momentum and that there is no spin-orbit coupling to make the Sun be influenced by its motion around the said barycenter. So, we can prune that branch off the decision tree.

  81. We’ll be the first humans to witness a nova up close and personal. Ok, couldn’t resist. ;-)

  82. John F. Hultquist (19:39:56) :
    The problem I have with naming a solar cycle after Al Gore…
    1st, it is not certain that we’ll have a Grand minimum coming. If we do, I think the ‘Eddy’ minimum is more appropriate.

  83. Alec Rawls (18:40:16) :
    Not a single mention by NASA’s “solar scientists” on the well established correlation between solar activity and climate.

    There is no such ‘well established’ correlation. Careful analysis shows that any solar effect is small [less than 10% of the variation of the past century].

  84. If we continue to study the sun with more and more advanced astronomical instruments, the sunspot count with have a downward spiral trend count. In order to maintain a baseline count, we should also study the sun with the same instruments as the scientist used in circa 1900. That will allow a steady state comparison.

  85. James Allison (16:24:22) :

    Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of top solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be.

    But don’t apply this rationale to climate change modeling.

    But but but …. didn’t he just they can’t predict? Science can be so damned confusing to a layperson….

    James – isn’t the solution obvious. They need to hire some of the many expert Climate Modellers around, then they will be able to accurately predict the Suns behaviour out to 2100.

    After all, the Sun can’t be more complex than the Earth’s Atmosphere.

  86. “To cap it off, Hathaway’s prediction graph STILL has solar cycle 24 ramping up tomorrow. Even his colleagues ignore him, with Pesnell saying that sunspots counts will pick up, “possibly by the end of the year.””…Alec Rawls 18.40.16

    Yes ,that bothers me too.
    That 23 min is scrapping along the bottom in time and demolishing that Bell,pushing the ‘uplift’ of 24 steeper and steeper.
    It’s the distortion you get trying to get the real numbers to fit a prediction.

  87. Pearland Aggie (15:07:58) :
    one thing that seems to be lost in the TSI discussion…it looks like the baseline for this minimum is lower than the previous two by a fair amount. interesting….

    that is most likely due to a drift of the instrument and is probably not for real.

    MDR (16:28:57) :
    As a result, statements such as “This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century.” are accurate, because today’s sunspot number is directly comparable to those of 100 years ago (and at least 150 before that).

    And it is not at all a surprise. Back in 2004 we predicted tht the coming cycle 24 would be the smallest in a 100 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
    including that the solar wind magnetic field would be low: “the interplanetary magnetic fields that the Ulysses space probe will measure during its next polar passes in 2007–2008 are therefore expected to be significantly lower than during the 1994–1995 polar passes”
    So we have been there before and solar physicists are not completely in the dark when it comes to predictions based on solid physics.

    Tilo Reber (17:49:42) :
    It’s interesting that both Dikpati and Hathaway originally predicted a solar cycle 24 of near record magnitude. [...]
    I wonder if Dikpati now maintains her original prediction of the SS 24 magnitude.

    As far as I know, she does.

  88. My continued debate with ClimateProgess.org…who influences the Congress in testimonies presented her as “free use” copyright.

    You may want to snip this Anthony, et al:

    —–Original Message—–
    From: mikestrong@XXXXXXX .com
    Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 05:03 PM
    To: ‘Joe Romm’ (Climateprogress.org)
    Subject: You win! Uncle! Ouch!

    Joe,
    It has been fun in the exchanges with you. You think you are correct and I think I am correct [about AGW]. And my car looks better than your car. My house is built better than your house. I can prove it!

    I don’t know what “type” I am [skeptic versus liberal]. I think I mentioned before…I will still continue to drive a small car. I believe in recycling as I do it like a religion, with my kids. My entire house has CFL lighting. I hate Rush Limbaugh and never watch FOX news. I had no respect for Bush as President and I voted for Obama. I am a liberal of the first order…except when it comes to the IPCC, Hansen and the fear mongering Al Gore who makes money off of it. So what “type” am I ?

    I just happen to believe that what is going on is pure Mother Nature and not unlike the cycles in the last the last millennium including the little ice age and the warm periods in the 400s. And I do believe solar influence is a thousand times more the cause of these cycles than CO2 or other gases and climate change is not AWG-induced, even if it is happening. I got sun-burned the other day from snow skiing but no ill effects I could detect from the CO2 I was exhaling when breathing hard. Over the course of a year the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is roughly 1,300 watts per square meter. Wow! Do you really think that nearly 663,000,000,000,000 watts of energy of the sun each year is not the most significant influence on climate here versus a gas like CO2 that is .000366 parts of the atmosphere? Hmmm. Yep, I am a believer in the solar cycle (sun spot) argument for climate influence.

    um…just for fun, can I send you $100 bucks as a bet, and assuming I make it (stay alive) for five years…can we see what the “consensus” of the IPCC, the politicians and Gore is, in say, the year 2014.

    One thing that our jousting the past few days has taught me is that we both seem to be very tenacious.

    And, as I mentioned earlier, there are so many, many messed up things in the world and people starving and dying, right now, today from all sorts of things, that AWG just seems so minor compared to the millions killed in Cambodia after the Vietnam war, all the dying folks in Africa, right now, etc.

    Let’s all move to higher ground when New York and Disneyworld are under water!

    Mike

  89. Ien wrote: “There are others like Archibald who use other techniques (statistical/historical) bypassing the Barcentric Tide Theory of the Solar System but for me that only solidifies the hypothesis. There are also those that concentrate on the gravitational effect of Jupiter alone and others who fine tune the effect including smaller objects to look at shorter term variation. I guess like many things, there were parallel lines of enquiry coming to the same conclusion … it’s the Sun and Planets Stupid.”

    Thanks for that post. Very informative.

    Leif wrote: Leif Svalgaard (20:46:07) :
    Jeff Id (17:55:56) :
    “Where’s Leif? This doesn’t look like a minor standard event at all.
    Traveling. I have a day-job too.”

    Was wondering where you were Dr. S. Glad you had a safe trip. Precious cargo.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  90. Hoi Polloi (13:25:09) :

    “The sun might be flaming out?”

    I have pondered the same thoughts. But we’ve had ice ages before so maybe just another phase in the cycle.

  91. Mike Strong (20:28:30)

    1300 watts per year is 1300 watt-years, or 365*24= 8760 hours x 1.3
    = 11,388 Kilowatt Hours. You could run your hair dryer continuously on this kind of power.

  92. Leif Svalgaard (20:40:00) : “Eddy Minimum”

    I knew there was a good name out there – just not what it would be.
    Good idea. I suggest we start using this.

    “Eddy Minimum” “Eddy Minimum” “Eddy Minimum”

  93. Unfortunately for some the Babcock-Leighton model is just not working. It time to pack it away and start afresh or seriously try to find the real driver involved and incorporate it into the dynamo. This ad hock “have a basketful of options” ready to suit any future outcome is not good enough.

  94. Case for the “Eddy Minimum”

    The Maunder Minimum
    John A. Eddy

    Science 18 June 1976:
    Vol. 192. no. 4245, pp. 1189 – 1202
    DOI: 10.1126/science.192.4245.1189

    I do not have access to Science articles but it is on-line for those who do. A picture of the cover is shown here:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol192/issue4245/index.dtl

    With this description: Danish astronomer Olaus Röaut;mer sweeps the sky with a meridian telescope in 1689, in the middle of a 70-year span of anomalous solar behavior.

  95. So Hathaway says that the last 50 years have seen higher cycles. But if you look at the graph they have in thier story, cycle 3 rivals cycle 19.
    What is unusual is the nature of these spots. Fading, specks, etc.
    The spots that we do see are pathetic.
    Even more strange and a bigger story to grab public attention are the pictograms that are appearing daily in the MDI Magnetograms.
    If you really want to stir things up, get that on the news.
    I absolutely guarantee 100% talk of the town.
    The other day we had Pi.
    Today we have a heiroglyph of a ship on the Nile.
    Handwriting on the Sun.
    Take it away, Anthony. Stir it for all it’s worth.

  96. For now, it’s the Eddy Deep Solar Minimum.
    It just keeps on doing things that defy.

    pwl (20:37:05) :

    But is it supposed to be this quiet?

    It’s gonna blow! Run for the hills! ;-)

    Perhaps we now have a clue as to why the Cave Men were in the caves.
    It wasn’t exactly a picnic outside.

  97. Yes, I couldn’t agree more. It should definitely be the GORE minimum. It will be a direct tie to how badly science can fail when dictated by policy makers and driven by consensus. The non-scientific community will have a difficult time viewing scientists with more respect than our financial experts of today.

  98. But the minimum nomenclature ultimately bearing whosever name should give credit to the one that best predicted it: Jose or Landschiedt.

    Gore’s name does not deserve any airtime.

    Except…maybe in the term “Global Goring”

  99. Eddy spent a long time seeking out the proof that the Maunder and Dalton Minimums didn’t happen, but ended up concluding that they did.
    Gore has simply been spoon fed by Mr. Ice Age is Coming of the 70’s who has found something new to scare folks with.
    Mr. Gore has his effect and his Prize, and that’s all he’s going to get.
    So, how’s about a poll?
    Who should we name this Minimum after?
    Gore or Eddy?

  100. No it should not be called the Gore Minimum! It should be named after real scientists who didnt let global warming guide their research results. It should be given a name of a credible scientist, I know there are still some out there. Eddy sounds fine to me.. but do not inflate that .. bleep.. by using his name on an event that may or may not go down in history and be taught to our children. It is better that when they view his movie it will be treated with the same respect as reefer madness and other scare movies.

  101. Geoff Sharp (21:13:08) :
    Unfortunately for some the Babcock-Leighton model is just not working.
    Based on what? It looks to me that it is working just fine [at least my version of it :-) ]

  102. Solar minimum is promoting poetry creation:
    evanmjones´and, more humbly, me:

    I do that sometimes, but my MO in the solar threads is quoting rock lyrics.

  103. Pearland Aggie (15:47:12) :

    A serious question for all the smart folks out there….assuming the Archibald prediction or some variant of 2.2C cooling happens, has anyone see any data on the practical implications of such an event? I mean, will we still need our air conditioners here in Houston in August and should we expect ice every winter? I’ve never seen a prediction of how such cooling might affect, say for the sake of argument, the continental U.S.

    for farmers it is a chilling tail for sure!!!!!
    There is a disconnect between going to the store and buying food and the one in the dirt growing it, then the ones preparing it and then shelving the boxes and cans to be bought .
    God help us all.

  104. Ray (20:16:34) :

    Apparently it takes about 10,000 to 170,000 years for the photons that are created at the center of the sun to reach the surface.
    True, for photons coming out of the core.

    So, what ever we are witnessing now happened a long time ago in the core.

    Wrong. We are seeing the convective part of the sun top layers. There is more to the sun than the core.

    Photons from the center of the earth take an equally huge time to reach the surface. What we see at the surface has little to do with that.

    It is not like the heavenly sphere, where we now see what has been happening with the stars light years ago. The difference is there is mostly empty space up to our heavenly sphere projection.

  105. Hi their from New Zealand . The month of March here was one of the sunest on record , but the a.v.g air temps were down 0.6c on a.v.g. All that sunshine and we not getting the heat.

  106. Speaking of global warming–and this is a completely unrelated aside–just how much warmer are we these days?

    ~~~~~~~~~
    In Seattle, March was was colder than February. It was also the coldest March since 1976. But of course, that’s “just weather”. (the same weather that prompted cries of a new ice age 30 years ago.)

  107. Roddy Baird (19:34:41) :

    If I were a warmist and I read this stuff I’d say “ahah! This minimum is masking the warming and when it ends we’re toast!” I am very confident that this approach will deal with any inconvenient global cooling long enough for the warmists’ agenda to be realised

    ~~~~~

    The hole in that theory is the public has the attention span of a toddler. Gore, Hansen and their cronies will still be crying AGW, but their audience will have moved on – to looking for ways to stay warm and fed.

  108. The windstorms have returned to No. Calif. They ran on for months last year, and they’re back. They are also a lot colder. Perhaps for those who live near the tropics, there is no change.
    Aside from farmers, most people are too urbanized and heavily dependent on the grid for thier winter heating. They are not perpared for severe cold like they were 100 yrs ago.
    Thier clothing is likewise lacking. It’s just not in the memories of thier lifetimes.

  109. This may be slightly off topic but it may be of interest to the nonconforming:

    On another thread, I mentioned link between global temperature and anomalies within the solar activity.
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
    It has been generally assumed that the temperature drop for the period 1950 – 1960 was due to the atmospheric nuclear testing. Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, came into force in 1963, resulting in a pick-up in the temperature rise, to be counteracted (in late 60’s ) by the solar activity anomaly, shown here:

    resulting in a low SC20 (which unusually for the previous 60 years rising trend) followed strongest ever recorded SC19.
    According to this truly “Deep Solar Minimum” should occur during 2020-2035 as anticipated here:

    There is also periodicity to N/S asymmetry in the solar activity, I found that there is change in the asymmetry at the same time when the major solar anomalies occur, but records are not long enough to prove much.

    The anomalies may be controlled by orbital planetary resonances, which may generate impulses at specific times as defined by equation:
    COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96] = 0
    resulting in the anomalies and change in the asymmetry within the solar cycles sequence and possibly linked to the global temperature trends.
    (Dr. S -I know you will say there is no such thing!)
    Two factors are rounded off: 118 = approx 4*S or 10*J ; 96 = approx J+U or even 8*J=94.9, whatever combination used, out of 4 possible, only significant change is the part of the Maunder minimum graph, but still very clearly identifiable. 118-96 = 22 years, one Hale cycle.

    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk

  110. Naming a predicted Solar Minimum after a failed presidential candidate smacks of “incognitive diffidence”. I went looking for a photograph to illustrate my contempt for the loathsome twerp and found one that immediately reminded me of the standard comedic putdown to drunk hecklers in British working mens’ clubs up north. ” Just because you’ve got hair around it, doesn’t mean you have to talk like a —-“.

    Apt, what?

  111. “Gore does not deserve to have anything named after him. ”

    Well, I could be fairly easily convinced to support something in the theme of “Ponzi scheme”….

  112. I agree Gore should not be honoured by appending his name to the forthcoming Solar Slump. What about calling it the ‘Inconvenient Minimum’?

  113. Tim Groves (19:57:34) :

    I did a print run of 2,000 in December and now I have about 100 left. To obtain a copy, I suggest you email me at david.archibald @ westnetc.om.au or use the contact form on my website at http://www.davidarchibald.info

  114. On another thread, I mentioned link between global temperature and anomalies within the solar activity.
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
    It has been generally assumed that the temperature drop for the period 1950 – 1960 was due to the atmospheric nuclear testing. Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, came into force in 1963, resulting in a pick-up in the temperature rise, to be counteracted (in late 60’s ) by the solar activity anomaly, shown here:

    resulting in a low SC20 (which unusually for the previous 60 years rising trend) followed strongest ever recorded SC19.
    According to this truly “Deep Solar Minimum” should occur during 2020-2035 as anticipated here:

    There is also periodicity to N/S asymmetry in the solar activity, I found that there is change in the asymmetry at the same time when the major solar anomalies occur, but records are not long enough to prove much.

    The anomalies may be controlled by orbital planetary resonances, which may generate impulses at specific times as defined by equation:
    COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96] = 0
    resulting in the anomalies and change in the asymmetry within the solar cycles sequence and possibly linked to the global temperature trends.
    (Dr. S -I know you will say there is no such thing!)
    Two factors are rounded off: 118 = approx 4*S or 10*J ; 96 = approx J+U or even 8*J=94.9, whatever combination used, out of 4 possible, only significant change is the part of the Maunder minimum graph, but still very clearly identifiable. 118-96 = 22 years, one Hale cycle.

    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk

  115. Ladies & Gentlemen:-)

    May suggest that this minimum, if indeed it is such a phenomena, be called the “Hansen Minimum”. This will enable historians many years from now to write about the “Hansen Minimum, which lead to the Gorey Little Ice Age that ravaged many communities world wide. Because, if it is a minimum of prolonged endurance, get the thermal underwear on as the Russian scientists are arguing.

    As to whether sunspots cause changes in the climate, well, it is true to say that correlation does not equal causation, unless you are a AGW believer, but correspondingly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! We just haven’t found it yet in a tangible form other than correlaion. However, it is very clear that we know very little about our planet, the sun, the stars, & how they interact with each other on the grand scale of things. Mankind has made wonderful advances in science, knowledge, tools, ever since that ape picked up that stick & whacked that rock for a home run, but we are after all, just an intelligent ape, & advancement through science is still problematic for the witchhunters, who prevail through fear & ignorance.

  116. Mike Strong (20:59:27) :

    Over the course of a year the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is roughly 1,300 watts per square meter. Wow!

    You have your units fouled up. Given a nearly constant Sun, there are 1,300 watts arriving over the course of a second. Or day, week, fortnight, month….

    This confusion leads to:

    Steve Burrows (21:05:28) :

    1300 watts per year is 1300 watt-years, or 365*24= 8760 hours x 1.3
    = 11,388 Kilowatt Hours. You could run your hair dryer continuously on this kind of power.

    No, watts per year is watts divided by time. That’s not what he said. 1,300 watts over the course of a year is as you compute, but is a completely unnecessary calculation. I have a hair dryer that draws 1875 watts, I wouldn’t be able to run it full speed at any time, even when the sun is overhead, certainly not at night.

  117. Leif Svalgaard (22:42:47) :

    Geoff Sharp (21:13:08) :
    Unfortunately for some the Babcock-Leighton model is just not working.
    Based on what? It looks to me that it is working just fine [at least my version of it :-) ]

    Some months ago, I started single-handed campaign against Babcock-Leighton theory being adequate for fully understanding of what is going on with the solar cycles. The theory may be accurate as to some fraction (1/1000 per L. Svalgaard) of magnetic field drifting to the poles. However, this statistically is not sufficient to generate next SC max.
    For doing so, I was nearly crucified by Dr. Svalgaard.
    Fortunately, Geoff Sharp gave me a valiant support (and still does), there were one or two more tenuous signs of support.
    The quoted statement by Dr. Svalgaard:
    It looks to me that it is working just fine [at least my version of it :-) ]
    I consider an important development in this matter.
    We cannot have a more than one version of a major theory, which asserts itself as bases of the current solar science.
    If Dr. Svalgaard has a version, which is different to the Hathaway-Dikpaty- etc, (which apparently is not working), I would hope he will publish (if he has not done already) his version so we may have something different to consider.

  118. Maybe a lot of things are influencing the so called climate change no matter if it is getting colder or warmer (blame it on volcanoes or CO2). I think nobody has all the answers and I don’t think we will have them in many many years to come… but let’s not dismiss the fact that there is a HUGE ball of fire in the sky that just might have something to do with our lives down here.
    Let’s concentrate on things we can do something about and will benefit all of us, like cleaner drinking water or getting rid of toxic waste in our soil or getting rid of toxic fumes… geez!
    All I can say is that I have had enough of snow for this winter.

  119. ‘Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.”
    I’m surprised no one picked up on this.
    ‘the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6% at extreme UV wavelengths’
    ‘Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” ‘
    Wasn’t part of the CO2 drives the climate theory state there should be a ‘Hot Spot” in the upper troposphere? Then the “goal post” changed to ‘the real evidence of CO2 Hot Spot was the atmosphere above the troposphere cooled’
    Well, GHG Modelers you got it wrong again.

  120. hareynolds (14:11:33) :

    “As discussed, I am getting NO traction with this idea, but I keep repeating it if only for the Comedy of Repetition:”

    “The Gore Minimum.”

    I’m with you, however I would suggest making it more official sounding (Latin-esque).

    Something like the AlGorian Solar Minimum

    Or Perhaps the Algorian/Millivanillian Solar Minimum (Give back the award ’cause you are a fraud.)

    ;>P

  121. David Archibald,
    Thanks for all the information. It was your paper in 2007 that got me thinking of the potential implications of warming versus cooling and how cooling could be a much more difficult survival situation. We have to technology to cope with warming (irrigation, synthetic fertilizers, genetic engineering, etc.), but it’s quite difficult to ensure the continuation of society if the agricultural underpinnings of that society dissolve in a cooling world.

    Thanks again for all the work and I sincerely and respectfully hope you’re wrong! The implications of correct predictions on your part are much more severe than the paltry warming we’ve experienced over the last century.

  122. How about reserving the name Gore for an annual award – given to the gravest abuse of science in any particular year? We could go back and start with an inaugural award for AIT. Any suggestions for the years since?

  123. It is history that will decide what changes in climate are called. I hope it gets to be called the Wattsupwiththat? Minimum.
    Because of the role this blog will play in preparing for a much colder age. It will also promote scepticism and asking questions which is a vital quality needed to get us through such a period.

    The reference to ‘market correction’ is criticism of prediction by curve fitting.

    Hathaway has as much chance of predicting sunspots as bankers have of making predictions about money. Except, that is, when it is part of their pension.

  124. NASA today……

    If it not for global warming, we would all be freezing to death right now…..I can see it now.

    NASA joins comedy channel

  125. “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming,”

    Correct, 1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly. While this is the distal cause of the lower temperature, they are right there needs to be amplifying elements to this effect to give us noticeable changes in environment.

    Has anyone in the AGW crowd researched the difference in a cloudy day compared to a day in direct sunlight?

  126. Robert Bateman, “So, how’s about a poll? Who should we name this Minimum after? Gore or Eddy?

    No poll. Gore is out. Do not even mention his name in the same breath with any aspect of science. Even if the science is about deadly cold, he does not deserve that respect.

  127. “So they can understand and can predict Earth’s climate, but the Sun? Not so much. It’s a good thing the one doesn’t affect the other!”

    Wish we could say it took real intellect beside the millions of our tax dollars to see this coming.

    On the contrary, it took concerted ignorance and hubris to miss it.

  128. “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but…” stated by the same people who predicted the end of the solar minimum would be in 2006. And that was a *concensus* of solar experts.

    I have a problem with the term “Gore Minimum”. It sounds too much like an honor than an insult. I favor those who would name it the Jose or Landschiedt Minimum, depending on who is more accurate, but ALSO refer to it as “The Gore Deficiency” or simply “Gore’s Deficiency”.

  129. First let me say I have learned so much from the dialogue on this page..
    Most importantly, is the common and understood relationship that exists between suns behavior and our weather…I literally giggle my ass off when, and its often, I press AgW accolytes and Hierophants alike, on the issue the warming they are soooooo scared of.. comes from the sun… and can they explain to me if the sun isnt the reason, what is…. this usally results in a slap fight.

  130. would someone loan me a carbon credit or two to pay for the energy used to post my previous comment…?

  131. “This was noticed 5 years ago by the Max Planck Institute, and they went back 8000 years. Here’s the 2004 article from Aviation Week:”

    How on Earth are they able to count the sun-spot number from 7300BC? i.e. before the start of recorded Human History?

  132. Just throwing this out there. O/T but it is a question I have been mulling over. What role does the huge amount of nitrogen play in our atmosphere? If this has been discussed, I missed the thread, apologies.

  133. “Speaking of global warming–and this is a completely unrelated aside–just how much warmer are we these days?”

    If you ask the folks at NASA or NOAA, 2009 is shaping up to be in the top 10 warmest years since records were kept.

  134. Hi Leif,

    So the UV bands have eased somewhat resulting in a thinner stratosphere. Would it be safe to assume this means the stratosphere is also cooler as a result?

    Just a reminder I’ve deferred to your research on the relative constancy of UV in normal cycles but this does seem to raise the question in my mind whether Drew Shindell’s research on UV-heating driving the Little Ice Age should be discounted after all.

    Just a refresher for the rest of the gang, Shindell’s 2001 studies examined whether declines in UV-C & UV-B would result in a cooling of the upper troposphere (interestingly Gavid Schmidt coauthored one of the papers) resulting in the inland effects typified by the Little Ice Age (LIA).

    My point being that what we’re seeing is not typical and entails an additional effect that could use more study. I’m going to claim agnosticism on the real effect of current UV heating of the stratosphere, just raising the point for discussion.

    Another thought occurred to me that there could be some unforeseen synergies resulting from sufficient changes in UV and cosmic ray ionization. UV heating declines, additional cosmic ray-driven rain cloud nuclei increase, larger net decrease in global temperatures perhaps even better explaining the LIA.

    The influence on long-term cosmic ray flux can’t be fully discounted, even critics of the theory who don’t see an effect during solar cycles concede that there would be an effect, just not a dominant one (Terry Sloan of U. of Lancaster relegates max CRF role to 23% of cloud cover flux during regular SC’s). http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/33642

    I believe Roy Spencer has commented that even a marginal difference in cloud cover (5% or less) would have a notable impact on climate (sorry, I lack a cite for that… anyone?).

    FYI for other readers:

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/iceage_20011207/index.html

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/12/011210164606.htm

    Note that Shindell’s co-author is Gavin Schmidt… :-)

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/5549/2149

  135. Leif Svalgaard has NOT been able to refute the oberservational evidence for
    for a spin-orbit coupling between the Sun’s orbital motion around the Solar System’s Barycentre and Sun’s equatorial rotational motion.

    Just sayimg something is true without actualy backing it up with supporting evidence does not make it true.

    The observational evidence is available for all to see in figure 8 on page 90
    (6th of 9 pages) of our paper at:

    http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf

    Simply dismissing the diagram because you don’t trust the measured velocities
    does not cut in the scientific world. You must show why these measurements
    are wrong. The data is freely available to anyone who wants to look at along with the best estimates of the errors involved.

    It is bad science to dismiss clear observational evidence simply because
    you don’t like what it is telling you.

  136. that the Sun’s angular momentum around the solar system barycenter is precisely balanced by the Planets’ angular momentum and that there is no spin-orbit coupling to make the Sun be influenced by its motion around the said barycenter. So, we can prune that branch off the decision tree. Nonsense. It is a multi-body chaotic orbital system interacting with a chaotic plasma ball whose internal angular momentum and plasma dynamics we do not yet pretend to understand enough to make the required linkages, except to know that it is chaotic in its outputs. The Jovian planets (J-S-U) form a demonstrable chaotic triad and the orbit of Mercury is the most variable in inclination and eccentricity showing (as one would expect) that the chaotic variaitons are most demonstable at the extrema of the orbital-mass system. The same variability is demonstrably true of identifiably independent dynamic sub-structural systems within the Sun — like plasma convection cells and their collective vortices, which seem to form things like sunspots and throw off mass ejections, in magnetic whorls. In other words the Sun as whole may or may not balance, but those substructures that drive the solar outputs are a highly dynamic “balance” all their own — and they aren’t “balanced” at all in any internal sense — they are constantly shedding ungodly amounts of mass and energy in highly variable quantities and periodicities.

    There is no such thing as “precisely balanced” in a system this complex — for there are no arbitrarily demonstrable “trivial” variations in chaotic systems, much less two coupled chaotic systems such as the Sun’s plasma-fusion circulation cycle and the orbital mechanics of the Sun and its satellites. What there is, though is a typical pattern of variation — with less typical patterns of excursion from those variations — .

  137. Typo alert, my bad: In my prior post:
    “…Drew Shindell’s research on UV-heating driving…”
    should read
    “…Drew Shindell’s research on a decrease in UV-heating…”

  138. I favor the “Landschiedt Minimum”.

    And, for infamy, the “Hansen-Gore Hysteria”. Or the “Hansen-Gore Scheme”.

  139. has anyone see any data on the practical implications of such an event?

    millions will starve

  140. Vukcevic: Perhaps you know what Ivanka Charvatova says:

    “The results indicate that `solar dynamo’ that was long sought in the solar
    interior, operates more likely from the outside, by means of the varying planetary configurations. As has been shown in Charvatova (1995a, b, c, 1997a), the solar motion could aid predictions also for terrestrial phenomena including climate.”

  141. ked (00:32:53) :
    In Seattle, March was was colder than February. It was also the coldest March since 1976. But of course, that’s “just weather”. (the same weather that prompted cries of a new ice age 30 years ago.)

    It has been generally assumed that the temperature drop for the period 1950 -1960 was due to the atmospheric nuclear testing. Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, came into force in 1963, resulting in a pick-up in the temperature rise, to be counteracted (in late 60’s ) by the solar activity anomaly, shown here:
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif

  142. Many have made comments on the statement that this does not effect global warming.

    I have an uncle that works for NASA. He has mentioned to me that authors have diffuculty getting papers published and grants awarded if they don’t state somewhere in the subject or their mission how it relates to man made climate change. This is the agenda they want to continue to promote and won’t fund it otherwise.

  143. Dr. Svalgaard,

    Can you confirm the reduction of 6% in extreme UV light which has been mentioned on this thread? Can anyone advise on what UV light hitting the top layer of the ocean does, or does less of, in this case?

  144. It has been generally assumed that the temperature drop for the period 1950 -1960 was due to the atmospheric nuclear testing.

    Which begs the question, if the human race is truly in danger due to AWG. Wouldn’t firing off a nuke to save humanity make sense?

  145. Hmmm…
    Let’s not get too excited yet, yes the sun is blank but look at how many plagues have been popping up (esp a recent large one), activity is on the ramp up it seems.
    BUT we cannot cry mini ice age yet! I disagree with certain people’s conclusions that the sun is irrelevant in the equation, of course it is, but due to the complexity of the system can we really say that there will be a Dalton minimum???
    It sounds very exciting but we must be careful to not let it escalate into sceptics’ hype or else if nothing happens by 2030 then we (the sceptics) will also have egg on our faces, …
    ‘You must be cautious of the enemy, but even more cautious of yourself.’…

    So let’s wait a year or so, and I think that in March 2010 WUWT should post an article describing whether the Archibald predictions have come true and perhaps remind the readers of what was predicted on both sides!

    ***** Also note how the back of the sun always seems to be bursting with flares and energy but when they rotate into view there are only plagues!!! It is almost as if nature is teasing Earth!!! Or perhaps the sun is SOHO camera shy O_o

  146. There is a lovely reference in an old dictionary (because I’m old) about Dickensian characters, Spenlow & Jorkins, the hard dealings of one partner (Spenlow) blamed on the kinder honest partner (Jorkins). We could see the birth of a new phrase to describe hoodwinking, falsifying evidence, blatant distortion of the truth, up to & including down right lying, it could be called to “Hansen”, or to “Gore”, or even one could say, ‘that sounds like a touch of “Hansen-Gore” to me!’, when they hear something incredulous &/or of dubious accuracy? Worth a try folks!

  147. Marko Lauhiala:
    “All I can say is that I have had enough of snow for this winter.”
    You have to wait until the first full moon of the spring equinox

  148. Adolfo Giurfa (06:28:50) :
    Vukcevic: Perhaps you know what Ivanka Charvatova says..

    Yes I have red some of her papers, the most resent
    The prominent 1.6-year periodicity in solar motion due to the inner planets

    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/83/28/PDF/angeo-25-1227-2007.pdf

    I looked into the Earth’s effect (more or less at the same time):

    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/28/98/80/PDF/Hypothesis.pdf

    I hope it was reciprocated, if not Ms. Charvatova herself, than someone else from Geophysical institute (Prague) ISP, visited my website on number of occasions.
    It appears that planets’ have an effect, it is only question of the mechanism involved. I as an electronic engineer believe in a form of electro-magnetic feedback or resonance, while of course may be also gravitational, tidal, angular momentum, torque or other mechanical effects involved.

  149. Sorry Adolfo
    That should be:
    Yes I have red some of her papers, most recent:
    The prominent 1.6-year periodicity in solar motion due to the inner planets

  150. How about a decrease of 1.4% in solar energy and increased volcanic activity accounting for the decreased temperatures globally.

  151. NoAstronomer (06:50:11) :

    “1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”

    Why not? (open question)
    Go find an eclipse of the Sun in the Fall , and make sure you bring your digital thermometer and take copious readings. Take readings the day before and the day after also.

  152. On the face of it, I agree we really don’t know if this is going to turn out like a short lived 1911-13 event, a Dalton or a Maunder.
    On the other hand, there is no real effort to try and figure it out prior to events catching up with us, where it counts.
    Politics has it’s ear captured by a polyscience movement that ensures that if the worst case were happening, nothing would ever get done to prepare.
    The attitude in the article treats all Grand Solar Minimum as if they were a spiffy Sci-Fi movie to take the kids to see.
    Alligator Petting Zoo.

  153. “If you ask the folks at NASA or NOAA, 2009 is shaping up to be in the top 10 warmest years since records were kept.”

    According to their flawed surface stations (see Anthony’s threads on How Not to Measure Temperature), their adjustments to their records, and their failure to adjust for the UHI effect.

  154. You guys are kind of on the right path with the Gore-Hansen Minimum name, but let’s give credit where credit is due.

    I will suggest that we refer to the now waning Modern Maximum as the Gore-Hansen-IPCC Modern Maximum, after the AGW Chicken Little movement that they based on it. It will take their misdeeds into history and make it difficult to deny or spin away.

    Give credit for the minimum to Landsheid, Eddy, or perhaps our host, Mr Watts, or at least someone on board with the sun vs AGW discussion.

    Regards,

    RJB

  155. Alex:

    BUT we cannot cry mini ice age yet!

    That would be premature indeed.

    First of all it took 2 successive solar grand minima (the Oort & Maunder) to show an impact on temperatures inland.

    Jan Janssens’ spotless days evolution chart speaks volumes in trend analysis & I’m sure we’d all like to see the spotless evolution trends for SC 1 – 9 as comparison but I don’t know if there is sufficient data.

    *IF* the stratosphere and upper troposphere are cooling (due to lower UV) *AND* cloud cover *is* greater than it would be otherwise (cosmic ray ionization) then the manifold effects from a longer slump in solar activities could be so pronounced as to offset actual global warming.

    That alone doesn’t exculpate CO2. A grand minimum of 20 – 30 years might only offset what potential warming increased GHG levels may in fact pose. If the data can demonstrate the energy budget differences then we might be able to demonstrate the relative offsets against GHG-driven warming.

    Some studies suggest the net decline in insolation/TSI comes to 0.01 degrC/decade. If that’s the current GHG signal then the sky’s not falling (melting). CO2’s not fully exculpated but there may be no looming catastrophe.

  156. NoAstronomer:

    Anyone feel free to correct this logic, but if 1.00 solar strength yields an average Earth temp of 287K, then a reduction to 0.986 solar strength could lead to a reduced temp of 283K. A drop of 4K on average would seem to be rather significant.

    I am certainly no climate scientist, so have at it.

  157. evanmjones (22:49:27) :

    I do that sometimes, but my MO in the solar threads is quoting rock lyrics.

    Here’s one I haven’t seen that seems particularly apropos:

    Brave Helios, wake up your steeds,
    Bring the warmth the countryside needs

    Or in the case of data obfuscation, and from the same lyrics:

    Cold-hearted orb that rules the night,
    Removes the colors from our sight,
    Red is grey and yellow white,
    But we decide which is right,
    And which is an illusion.

  158. Seeing the piano plot made by Pesnell, up to now, Marietta Maris is the “1st.runner up”:
    Abstract. We analyse the solar cycle (SC) 23 behavior. We also make a comparison with some previous cycles and present a few aspects concerning the forecasts made for SC 23 maximum.
    As regards the following cycle, in accordance to other early predictions, our empirical method, based on observing the are energy release during the descendant phase of the precedent SC, estimate that the amplitude of SC 24 will be low.

    But, if Livingston and Penn are right then there will be a peak of..invisible spots

  159. PFC (02:50:28) :

    “Gore does not deserve to have anything named after him. ”

    Well, I could be fairly easily convinced to support something in the theme of “Ponzi scheme”….

    I agree, Gore should be associated with dishonest representation of faux science facts to further a political or economic agenda.

    Perhaps the appropriate equivalent to “Ponzi Scheme” is the “Goracle hoax”.

    A “Goracle hoax” would be defined by several features.

    * It would be the intentional misrepresentation of fact to generate a large scale public perception of a false imminent threat to their well being.

    * This threat is then used to manipulate the masses through the media to accomplish goals that would otherwise be impossible.

    * signature features of a Goracle hoax would be:

    The use of dishonest facts based on junk science, where the desired outcome drives the investigations, rather than honest scientific investigation.

    Systematic use of grant funding awards to skew the science investigation to only support the intended result rather than to provide equal funding to all sides of the question.

    Creating cult like authority figures (Gore Hansen) who push the agenda through a personal aura of authority, rather than skill or data.

    Misuse of the peer review process to “freeze out” competing studies to the desired false threat, making it near impossible for sound science on the topic to publish in authoritative journals.

    Refusal to debate the perceived threat on its merits, and using unfalsifiable assertions, or character assassination to suppress skeptical views of the desired threat.

    I’m sure there are a few other features that would be applicable!

    Gore and Hansen should go down in history as worst case examples of bad science not given eternal life in the name of an astronomical event.

    Larry

  160. the bear (07:18:44) :

    It has been generally assumed that the temperature drop for the period 1950 -1960 was due to the atmospheric nuclear testing.

    Which begs the question, if the human race is truly in danger due to AWG. Wouldn’t firing off a nuke to save humanity make sense?

    About as much sense as “tackling climate change”, meaning, none at all.

  161. Simple solution here, obviously.

    Somebody ask Sting to sing King of Pain — “There’s a little black spot on the Sun today!”

  162. Robert Bateman (08:10:45) :

    NoAstronomer (06:50:11) :
    “1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
    Why not? (open question)
    Go find an eclipse of the Sun in the Fall , and make sure you bring your digital thermometer and take copious readings. Take readings the day before and the day after also.

    Mr. Bateman you are absolutely correct.
    If the Sun disappeared, than the temperature on the Earth would be between minus 270 and -273 while now is about say +20 degrees Celsius, total difference 290 degrees.
    If we assume simplest possible linear dependence, then 1.4% of 290 = 4.06degrees C.
    According AGW experts 4 degrees C up is a disaster scenario, it could be equally disastrous if it goes down 4 degrees C.

  163. Leif Svalgaard (20:40:00)
    “1st, it is not certain that we’ll have a Grand minimum coming. If we do, I think the ‘Eddy’ minimum is more appropriate.”

    John Eddy deserves a higher honor than Leif suggests:
    We should replace the term “Grand” with “Eddy” and speak of “Eddy Minima”.

    The next Eddy Minimum will be known as “Landscheidt Minimum”.

  164. Robert Bateman (08:17:50) :

    On the face of it, I agree we really don’t know if this is going to turn out like a short lived 1911-13 event, a Dalton or a Maunder.

    Let’s not forget Hathaway predicted solar cycle 25 to be very very low…

  165. G.R. Mead (06:22:54)
    “[...] chaotic triad [...]“

    Can you point us to any publications that address this?

    “What there is, though is a typical pattern of variation — with less typical patterns of excursion from those variations”

    Well put.

  166. These features of the sun can be interesting:

    1. Paul Stanko gave us a ranking of the spotless days: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/ . From his list, a take the following items:

    “#10) Solar Cycle 12, 1878-1889, 1028 spotless days
    #11) Solar Cycle 15, 1913-1923, 1019 spotless days
    #12) Solar Cycle 14, 1901-1913, 938 spotless days
    #13) Solar Cycle 13, 1889-1901, 736 spotless days
    #14) Solar Cycle 10, 1856-1867, 647 spotless days
    #15) Solar Cycle 1, 1755-1766, 638 spotless days
    #16) Solar Cycle 24, 2009-20??, 580 spotless days”
    The latest value for the number of spotless days, at the end of March 2009, (for SC24) was *585*.
    So, if the sun remains quiet, within a few months we can rival the numbers of Solar Cycle 10, 13, 14, … (period of the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the twentieth century).

    2. The lenght of the solar cycle
    On “http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html” you can read:

    “As can be seen, there is a big difference between solar cycles 10 to 15 and 16 to 23. The first group has a long delay (66 months) and many spotless days (almost 800 on the average), whereas the other group, containing the more recent cycles, has only 33 months between first spotless day and cycle minimum and not even half of the total number of spotless day of the first group (less than 400 days!). This makes a prediction for the start of SC24 very difficult. According to the second group, this minimum should occur late 2006 (March 2007 at the latest), but this has been excluded by the recent Wolfnumbers. On the other hand, if SC24 belongs in the category of the old cycles, then minimum would take place mid-2009 (March 2009 at the earliest). But then SC23 would have last over 13 years, making it one of the longest solar cycles over the last 250 years (SC04: 169 months). This still seems not very likely, in particular because SC24-groups have been outnumbering SC23-groups during the last few months.” (Last update, 2 January 2009)

    I wonder when the new solar cycle would begin. If the sun remains in a quiet mood for some hundred days, then we can rival the situtation of more than 200 years ago. You know this was the time of the Dalton minimum.

    Paul Stanko (21 March 2009):
    “1) Solar Cycle 4 was 164 months long (13.67 years)
    2) Solar Cycles 6 and 13 were tied at 157 months long (13.08 years)
    3) Solar Cycle 9 was 150 months long (12.50 years)
    4) Solar Cycle 23 is currently 145 months long (12.08 years)
    5) Solar Cycle 5 was 144 months long (12.00 years)”

    We are witnessing a very exciting period in history…

  167. the bear (07:18:44) :

    It has been generally assumed that the temperature drop for the period 1950 -1960 was due to the atmospheric nuclear testing.
    Which begs the question, if the human race is truly in danger due to AWG. Wouldn’t firing off a nuke to save humanity make sense?

    SC18, second strongest cycle of the 20th centaury was 1945-1955, and yet global temperature recorded largest fall over period of just few years, SC19 from 1955 to 1965 was strongest solar cycle ever recorded, and yet global temperature recorded only small rise, to be reversed as soon as cycle was over. Now, if global temperature is affected by solar activity, then period from 1945 to 1965 should have recorded steepest temperature rise of the 20th centaury.
    It was precisely reverse, drop 1945-1955 was comparable to that one achieved during early 1900s when solar activity fell.
    Why this would be? Upper atmosphere was loaded with radioactivity as result of the atmospheric nuclear tests, producing effect similar to that of cosmic rays (only recently explained by Svensmark). Atmospheric tests were banned in 1963.
    We heard lot about ‘nuclear winter’, but no significant research was done at the time, possibly not politically suitable subject, in either of the two nuclear blocs.
    We cannot have it both ways, if low solar activity causes global temperature to fall, we should know why global temperature was falling during most intense solar activity ever recorded.
    Any climatologists on the blog?

  168. vukcevic (12:10:46)
    “Now, if global temperature is affected by solar activity, then period from 1945 to 1965 should have recorded steepest temperature rise of the 20th centaury.”

    Is this what you really think?

  169. the way you presented this article as the data is telling us something negative and unexpected in relation to the past data we have. The thing is we only have somewhere about a hundred years of actual data to make assertions from so your just playing on peoples fears so they read your blog, the speculation you present as a case for the cause of our warming doesnt fit with the data that thirty years ago the bell curve that they presented our planets atmospheric conditions doesn’t fit with the bell curve that you just showed because it fluxuates more rapidly then the cycles of our atmosphere appears to. or thats just my understanding

  170. vukcevic:
    “Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) demonstrated that the correlation between the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and solar activity was markedly improved when the sunspot number was replaced by the length of the solar cycle as an index of the long-term variability of the Sun, and it was concluded that this parameter appears to be a possible indicator of long-term changes in the total energy output of the Sun”

    http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

  171. Paul Vaughan (12:44:08) :

    vukcevic (12:10:46)
    “Now, if global temperature is affected by solar activity, then period from 1945 to 1965 should have recorded steepest temperature rise of the 20th centaury.”

    Is this what you really think?

    No.

    Hi Paul,
    Answer is in the following sentences:
    Upper atmosphere was loaded with radioactivity as result of the atmospheric nuclear tests, producing effect similar to that of cosmic rays (only recently explained by Svensmark). Atmospheric tests were banned in 1963.
    However, It really isn’t important what I may o may not think, it is important what science has to say on this particular period, which I remember well, and the stories about forthcoming Ice Age.
    I could not find any authoritative paper from either side of the argument on the mater.

  172. Adolfo Giurfa (13:09:07) :

    “Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) demonstrated that the correlation between the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and solar activity was markedly improved when the sunspot number was replaced by the length of the solar cycle as an index of the long-term variability of the Sun, and it was concluded that this parameter appears to be a possible indicator of long-term changes in the total energy output of the Sun”

    http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

    I’ve seen the paper and lot of charts inspired by it or a similar work. However there is one problem, SC4 was longest ever recorded, and yet it was cold at 1800. Similarly SC23 appears to be long, but all indications are that since 1995 temperature is steady or even falling. I think what may count is integral of the cycle curve (actual active area, data available only since 1860s on this, rather than SSN).

  173. Just received from Timo Niroma (who may be known to some of you interested in the solar maters):

    I have many times thought that the nuclear tests would be a good explanation for the cooling just when the Sun was at its greatest maximum. US began in 1945, Soviet Union 1949, soon with hydrogen bombs. The greatest blast ever was detonated by Soviet Union in 1960 in Novaja Zemlja (50 Megatons!). The agreement to stop the nuclear tests in atmosphere were really agreed in 1963. I have nowhere seen any study of the huge nuclear blankett containing much dust and other particles over Earth that must have existed. It could have acted as a cooling blankett many times the greatest volcano explosions.

  174. “Roddy Baird (19:34:41) :

    If I were a warmist and I read this stuff I’d say “ahah! This minimum is masking the warming and when it ends we’re toast!” I am very confident that this approach will deal with any inconvenient global cooling long enough for the warmists’ agenda to be realised”

    If solar variations coupled with the dynamic response of the Earth’s climate system to those input changes can completely countertact the warming influence of CO2 on today’s climate, what does that say about the contention made several years ago that the warming signal of carbon dioxide had become “clearly distinguishable” over natural climate fluctuations, and that the warming seen from 1980 – 1998 was “dominated” by the human influence of CO2? If nature can produce a cooling trend from 1998 – 2008 in the face of all that accumulated CO2, then nature could plausibly be responsible for most if not all of the warming seen in the past. Stated differently, how can you say that CO2 dominated natural variations in decades 1 and 2 and then see in the next decade 3 that nature dominated CO2 in the face of even further emissions?

  175. Pesnell says..
    These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects:

    Hansen says..
    “Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.”

    Since 20th century warming seems to coincide best with the past 50 years, Is Hansen making a statement in between official AGW funding lines ?
    Maybe deep down he does believe in the ARCHIBALD ideology despite the NOAA models not including any historical sunspot forcings.

    And ,as Gavin Schmidt would know, “Real Climate” can’t be based on an unproven theoretical model with only CO2 as the main forcing driver, can it ?

  176. The hockey stick graph [click] that New Scientist put in their article would certainly lead the general public to believe that temperatures now are higher than ever.

    But notice the New Scientist fine print on their graph: “Departures in temperature from the 1961 – 1990 average”. Departures are anomalies; they are not a record of the temperature. Yet they state that temperatures may be higher now than ever before. [When is "now"? Is it now? Or is it in 1990?]

    In other words, New Scientist picked the warmest time frame, and then they only showed anomalies — not actual temps. They conclude from a chart of anomalies something that is nowhere to be found in either the chart or the article.

    The New Scientist article then states: “The finding scuppers one of the favourite arguments of climate-change deniers.”

    New Scientist concludes with a supporting statement by none other than the internationally discredited climate fraud, Michael Mann — fabricator of the original fake hockey stick chart.

    If New Scientist had ended its graph in 2008 — instead of eighteen years earlier — the result would have been completely different. It would have shown that there has been substantial cooling.

    If New Scientist had used actual temperatures instead of [un-cited] anomalies, in a chart that ends in 1990 instead of 2008, the cooling of the climate over most of the past decade would have been obvious, since current temperatures are at about 1980 levels.

    And if New Scientist had used a credible scientist, instead of that perpetrator of climate fraud, Michael Mann, then their own credibility would not have taken another well deserved hit.

    Has New Scientist hired Dan Rather to write its articles now??

  177. Have you wonder why these stories of global warming, end of the world phantasies, people taken away by extraterrestrial spaceships, not mentioning some tragic events related to illuminated leaders have originated in the supposed more developed societies?
    What societies are the more developed?, first world societies?…Come on!
    If you have so many “demi-gods”, we, the under developed ones, can not do but politely smile and walk away, praying god you keep your demi-gods, prophets, and all illuminated leaders well saved in and don´t try to export them to us. :)

  178. Interesting to note on the New Scientist website that another of their lead stories is that Masturbation helps reduce Hay Fever. Who would have thought it? The New Scientist article on the medieval warm period seemed very thin on any actual evidence.

  179. Look at this monthly global mean temperature graph and you will understand why those who want to scare you use the anomaly graphs, appropriately scaled of course…

    Not really that scary, is it?

  180. What is even scarier are the strange figures that keep appearing in the MDI Magnetograms. Just wait until an apparition of the Virgin Mary appears in one of them, Adolfo. The demi-gods and the doomsayers will be swept away in the ensuing flood. Now, that’s what I call a real export.

  181. Is Hansen making a statement in between official AGW funding lines ?

    This isn’t the first scare ‘em half to death crusade by Hansen. He’s got himself wide open to ruinous flip-flopping.

  182. vukcevic (10:25:22) :
    “1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
    If the solar energy changed 1.4% the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would change 1.4/4=0.35% of 288 degrees or 1 degree. The reason for the division by 4 is Stefan-Boltzman’s law.

  183. “for farmers it is a chilling tail for sure!!!!!
    There is a disconnect between going to the store and buying food and the one in the dirt growing it, then the ones preparing it and then shelving the boxes and cans to be bought .
    God help us all.” Pearland Aggie

    Yes and not only do we have the “cow tax” to fight, rfid tags on animals (NAIS) and plants but Rosa Delauno wants to saddle us with red tape and $1,000,000/day fines if Monsanto’s lawyer Mike Taylor wants to steal our farm for the new greenways/conservation land authorized in the Omnibus bill. Don’t bother to try and grow your own food, home gardens are NOT exclude. Have the polititians gone insane???

    Even the liberals are scream about this.

  184. I’m not a scientist and I don’t play one on TV, a la Hansen et. al., but I did read recently about the Earth’s magnetic field weakening, with speculation about a reversal of field polarity in the near future (geologically speaking, 10-100K years)? How does that figure into a solar minima with respect to Earth’s climate? Has it ever happened before (Earth’s magnetic field essentially flipping while a solar minima is underway)? Or could the solar minima be part of the cause of the weakening of the field?

    Based on what I’ve read, a weakening magnetic field combined with weakened solar wind would result in increased cosmic rays above a solar minimum or weakened field alone, wouldn’t it? And that would mean enhanced cooling via increased cloud cover…or sufficient cosmic radiation to cause a major extinction event, in the most extreme…maybe the Maya knew something we don’t.

    It seems these events could combine to create enhanced climatic effects, at the very least…curious about the thoughts on this from the excellent minds here.

  185. Leif Svalgaard (19:57:49) :

    vukcevic (10:25:22) :
    “1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
    If the solar energy changed 1.4% the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would change 1.4/4=0.35% of 288 degrees or 1 degree. The reason for the division by 4 is Stefan-Boltzman’s law.

    1 degree. That’s more than 100 years worth of global warming isn’t it?
    Would the figure given for the effect of the Stefan-Boltzman law be affected by the contraction of th atmosphere said to have taken place Leif?

  186. Can anyone point me to some recent literature that is representative of the “solar science consensus view” on sunspot area N-S asymmetry? If so, thanks.

  187. Leif Svalgaard (19:57:49) :
    vukcevic (10:25:22) :
    If the solar energy changed 1.4% the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would change 1.4/4=0.35% of 288 degrees or 1 degree. The reason for the division by 4 is Stefan-Boltzman’s law.

    Thermodynamics was never my forte, vaguely remember something 100 degree K approx 6W/m2, I am certain you are correct, but even 1 degree K could be a severe reversal.
    What is more important: How do you interpret sudden reversal at 1945.

    Adolfo Giurfa (13:51:41)
    Look at the graph and remove Mann’s Hockey Stick then you will see temperature difference equals ZERO degrees.
    You surely have an opinion.

    I only skimmed trough the article, I do not understand all driving mechanics, so best is not to forward uncertain views.
    As far as graph is concerned, that is different matter, it has been taken out from publication:
    Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
    Published by NRC, which you can find here,

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

    It is a voluminous discussion, with individual interpretations for all reconstruction methods. You may not take all for granted, it is a useful reading, regardless on which side of the argument you happen to be on.

  188. So lets think this through, back in 2007 we had this presentation
    solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20070216_NSSTC.ppt in it, there is a prediction of a very small cycle 25, now this was produced by Hathaway. there are come really interesting points in it, perhaps the “political constraints” of AGW meant that the prediction for Cycle 24 was offset by a cycle to 25. I’m not defending Hathaway, as his predictions have been proved wrong, but note in the presentation the implicit criticisms of the Dikpati method.
    Quote
    They used our data – which was 20% high for cycle 20.
    Their prediction for the actual size of cycle 20 was good but later cycles were also predicted accurately in spite of the error in the input data.

    They kept the meridional flow speed constant.
    They allow it to change in cycle 23 and find a 10% change in the prediction. Similar variations in meridional flow speed should have occurred in the past.

    The latitudes at which they introduced the sunspot magnetic fields were not representative of the actual latitudes.
    They had sunspots start the cycle at 35° and drift linearly to 5° over exactly 11 years. A far better representation is a parabolic trajectory from 25° down to 8°.

    So, get your winter woolies out, you’ll need them

  189. Paul Vaughan (23:42:27) :

    Can anyone point me to some recent literature that is representative of the “solar science consensus view” on sunspot area N-S asymmetry? If so, thanks.

    I’m not sure there is a ‘consensus view’ on it. Leif told me no-one has ever been able to make much sense of it a year or so back, and there seem to be as many opinions as papers about it. You have seen the correlation I’ve discovered. I took note of your comment on the other thread about the matter, but I’m unsure how you used logarithms to get a high correlation N-S difference and overall sunspot area. I found there is still a visually obvious correlation between solar displacement in the z axis and absolute difference in hemispheric sunspot distribution without including overall sunspot area, though it’s R value will be low.

  190. tallbloke (22:31:22) :
    “1.4% less overall solar energy
    1 degree. That’s more than 100 years worth of global warming isn’t it?

    Except that the 1.4% just came in from nowhere. The Sun’s output has not changed 1.4%, but less than 0.05% over a century…

  191. “Wasn’t it around about 1913 when the early 20th century warming began.”

    The Waldemeier Effect observes that late-rising solar cycles are weak. Not a ‘physical’ observation but statistical. Not a guarantee without exception but more reliable that the above conjecture which depends on solar behavior being random.

    But this is sensible only as random with regard to our expectation, not to prior solar behavior and therefore contrary to the fundamental assumption of all physical models.

    Of the ‘physical’ modelers only Badalyan, predicting Rmax of 50, will be found within one sigma of the solar result. Some few of the remainder are still babbling on about what they know, whereas the wise ones of their number are notably quiet.

    One has no choice to take a hit on 19 when the dealer shows 20. That one does so does not not make one wise.

  192. vukcevic (00:30:04) :
    What is more important: How do you interpret sudden reversal at 1945.
    Any solar-climate enthusiast will tell you that the reversal is due to the cooling effects of the [then] yet to come very large cycles 18 and 19…

  193. vukcevic (00:30:04) :
    What is more important: How do you interpret sudden reversal at 1945.
    Leif Svalgaard (06:32:06): Any solar-climate enthusiast will tell you that the reversal is due to the cooling effects of the [then] yet to come very large cycles 18 and 19…

    There are too many climate enthusiasts around to solicit individual views. I was asking for an expert interpretation. For the moment, I would, and perhaps some others on this blog, welcome a more detailed analysis.
    It is an important test case, since all data for the period are available, well understood, and no “double meaning” proxies are required.
    This is a period of rapid post-war industrialisation, thousands of coal power stations belching CO2, solar cycles 18 and 19 breaking all records, and yet the global temperature was falling or static.
    Do you know what was going on?

  194. I’m neither a climatologist nor an astrophysicist. However, I do work in developing systems that have to manage chaotic processes initiated by mega Joule scale events. The principles I apply daily in my field seem relevant to this area, and lead me to some observations:

    1. The value of interest to me isn’t Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), its Total Energy Flux (TEF) (of which TSI is a component). I’ll add that one of my pet peeves is the use of Watts, a unit of POWER, to measure energy. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

    2. People have cited the value 1300 w/meter**2 at the surface of the atmosphere. Assuming that’s peak, and neglecting energy such as cosmic rays (which I’ll come back to), that’s an average energy flux of 650 Joules per second = 2.3 MJ per hour = 20.5 GJ per year. Per square meter. In a square kilometer, that works out to 20.5 x 10**15 Joules. For the central Pacific (taken as one third of the total area of the Pacific Ocean, 60 M square kilometers), that is 1.2 x 10**24 Joules. .1% of that is 1.2 x 10**21. (For comparison, a 250 KT nuclear weapon has a total energy release on the order of 10**15 Joules.) I am profoundly aware of the difference between (relatively) steady state and impulsive energy release. Nonetheless, and with all due respect to some of the other posters, do NOT tell me this is an insignificant factor.

    3. All Joules are not created equal – a fact the young engineer usually learns the hard way. Cosmic rays DO NOT couple into the atmosphere the same way UV does, which is different than visible light, which is different from IR, etc. In fact, not all wavelengths within a given band interact in the same way. I not only want to know the change in TEF, I also want to know if and how the distribution across the spectrum changes.

    4. TSI is only the energy from photons. It does not reflect energy produced by interaction of the planetary magnetic field with the solar magnetic field. It does not include the energy flux contributed by particles. TEF includes these.

    When I look at the climate, I see a dynamic system seeking a point of energy equilibrium. The processes such as El Nino, La Nina, PDO, etc. are not initiated by magic. They are initiated by a change in the energy input to the system. I want to understand that energy input, the coupling of the energy into the system components, and the process initiated as a result of the coupling. The reason I consider Hansen, Gore, Gavin, Mann et. al. to be monumental frauds is because they claim they can model a system without accounting for the energy driving it. I would hope we don’t make the same mistake.

    BTW, I vote for the Eddy Minimum, with “Gore Global Catastrophe” reserved for the disastrous consequences of the policies he advocates.

  195. “4. TSI is only the energy from photons. It does not reflect energy produced by interaction of the planetary magnetic field with the solar magnetic field. It does not include the energy flux contributed by particles. TEF includes these.”

    Thank you.

  196. Today in Holland an adaption of this WUWT-article was posted in dutch at http://www.nu.nl (“nu” is dutch for now, at present: <a href=”http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/1943183/zon-was-in-bijna-100-jaar-niet-zo-inactief.html”: “Sun was for a 100 year not so inactive”
    Including the quotation about the stock market: The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.. Unfortunately no any source was mentioned, nor a link to WUWT was included.
    http://www.nu.nl is a top ten site in Holland!

  197. Janet Rocha (12:24:52)
    “Thank you, John W. for a wonderful post”

    ditto
    – – – – – – – – – – –
    Next – Regarding North-South (N-S) Sunspot-Area Asymmetry:

    tallbloke (02:16:25)
    “Leif told me no-one has ever been able to make much sense of it a year or so back”

    Thank you – this is the kind of info I was looking for on socioscientific context.

    tallbloke: “I took note of your comment on the other thread about the matter, but I’m unsure how you used logarithms to get a high correlation N-S difference and overall sunspot area.”

    Log(|N-S|+1) is one of the simpler transforms I explored.
    You have to add 1 (or some other positive number) to avoid the singularity [i.e. Log(0)].
    I work in base 2 because it facilitates interpretation (one can speak of the effect of doubling).
    There are other transforms that give even higher correlations, but discussing them here will pollute the thread with excessive technicalities.

    I don’t know the physics, but there is no (1st-order at least) statistical mystery here, aside from the well-known anomaly (centred at ~1964) related to Solar Cycle 19.

    I ran some time-integrated cross-correlation analyses and the following variables are all very strongly related:
    |N-S|, Total Sunspot Area, Sunspot Number, geomagnetic aa index

    Schwabe (~11a) subharmonics appear in the timescale spectra (which is no surprise).
    [Note on terminology: Do not confuse "timescale" with "time".]

    I haven’t looked in the N-S sunspot area literature yet, but I will be very surprised if |N-S| isn’t already on this list of related variables (with total sunspot area, sunspot number, geomagnetic aa index, & others) in the consensus view.

    It is noteworthy that |N-S| shows a less straightforward time-integrated relationship with cosmic ray flux. (Although noteworthy, this is not surprising.)

    tallbloke: “You have seen the correlation I’ve discovered. [...] I found there is still a visually obvious correlation between solar displacement in the z axis and absolute difference in hemispheric sunspot distribution without including overall sunspot area, though it’s R value will be low.”

    Can you (or anyone else) post monthly summaries of these z-displacements to a webpage in plain-text? I need at least 1891-2006. It would be best if you keep the format simple: 3 columns: Year Month z-displacement (nothing else).

    If you do this, I should be able to shine some light on this pretty quickly.

    Leif, if there are any articles you think I might benefit from reviewing, please fire away.

  198. I think to try and pin climate on any one event is the mistake that most folks make. I know I have said this before but if you think of climate like a big one armed bandit, all conditions must be right for extremes in climate temp. With the current solar min, had it hit during a warm ocean phase, it wouldnt be so worrysome.. Had there been no major volcanic erruptions, it wouldnt be so worrysome. Ect.. Ect.. All these things need to be in sync to cause unusual cooling or warming. I found it interesting that volcanic erruptions during some of our warmest periods were low, add a El Nino and a very active sun and you get .. ding ding ding ding…. warmer temps..
    ( http://toms.umbc.edu/ , about half way down page has “Recent chart of TOMS volcanic SO2 against time” )

    Are they interrelated? I dont know but it seems like conditions currently are ripe for some darn cold climate to occur.

  199. vukcevic (13:17:13) :
    Natural mechanism for medieval warming discovered

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html


    Thanks vukcevic. I read the publication referred to in the sci-news story this morning:

    Valerie Trouet, Jan Esper, Nicholas E. Graham, Andy Baker, James D. Scourse, David C. Frank (2009). Persistent Positive North Atlantic Oscillation Mode Dominated the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science 324, 78-80.
    Abstract:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5923/78

    Comment:
    This speculation about a La Nina/MCA link is interesting when considered in conjunction with regional glaciation-history anomalies – for example Garibaldi Park in southwestern British Columbia, Canada:

    Koch, J., Clague, J.J., and Osborn, G., 2007. Glacier fluctuations during the last millennium in Garibaldi Provincial Park, southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 44: 1215-1233.

    http://www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/cjes_2007.pdf

    Note what they have to say about when the LIA started.
    (Caution: I’m not so sure about their interpretation of Grove (2001).)

    The Garibaldi glaciation-history article was inspired, in part, by the following gem:

    Gregory C. Wiles, Rosanne D. D’Arrigo, Ricardo Villalba, Parker E. Calkin, and David J. Barclay (2004). Century-scale solar variability and Alaskan temperature change over the past millennium. Geophysical Research Letters 31, L15203.

    http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/GRL_2004.pdf

    Those who read Charvatova, Fairbridge, etc. may find solace in these articles.

    Even if the judge is out, there is plenty of interesting evidence to consider.

  200. There is a precedent here. The standard dogma (ie realclimate etc.) is that the dip is due to fewer aerosols and a few papers have been published to support this idea. Whereas the standard dogma about the sun is that while there seems to be a good historical sunspot-temperature correlation, sunspots haven’t actually increased since 1960. Hence they conclude that the rise from 1980 to 1998 must be due to manmade GHG’s. But all these clever people didn’t stretch themselves to connect those two arguments and say that it’s just as feasible to say that the suns effect too may have been masked until the atmosphere cleared up. Hence one could easily conclude, using similar logic that we should have been on a temperature plateau since 1960, not 1998. Ok so it’s no more than convenient guesswork but exactly the same standard of guesswork is often called “evidence” in climate circles.

  201. Let me throw something out there for the math wizards to consider. I recently saw a TV special on Rogue waves that discussed how until very recently, scientists thought rogue waves described by seamen were physically impossible or extremely rare. Newtonian wave models just would not cooperate in showing how they could exist.

    However, A. R. Osborne (Fisica Generale, Torino) noticed a similarity to Schrodinger’s wave equation in quantum mechanics, to traces of wave action that hit a major oil platform and went to work to see if a rouge wave could be predicted by a modification of that formula.

    He found that it in deed could, and that when they went looking for them with satellite radar data, they found that rogue waves were relatively common in the deep ocean.

    The thing that has been nagging at me is, that the trace of a rogue wave in this link, looks a lot like the 1998 temperature spike.

    http://at.yorku.ca/i/a/a/h/51.htm

    On thinking about it, if a rouge wave is possible in the ocean, is it not conceivable that the same sort of behavior could exist in an average temperature plot for a body like the earth, as it oscillates around an average temperature? This like the PDO and AMO are just different types of periodic motion.

    Likewise could it not also apply to the sun and its cyclic behavior of sunspots and levels of energy output?

    Just curious if anyone is looking at this sort of non-linear approach to these cyclic events?

    Larry

  202. hotrod (17:54:00) :

    Excellent post, Hotrod I SAW that Science Channel piece on rogue waves.

    Very interesting the 1998 temperature spike as being a “rogue wave.”

    Waves are nothing but a transfer of energy…..and even if those waves take years or many years…they are STILL transfers of energy.

    Fascinating thought….and I follow you. Thanks.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  203. if ‘it is therefore less “puffed up.” ‘ then the volume of the atmosphere is smaller.

    From gas function: VP=KT,

    T=VP/K,

    the total mass of the air is constant, average P should have no change.

    Do we expect lower average temperature on earth?

  204. Tallbloke,

    That blog thread was really long (though informative). Couldn’t weed through all of it. Can you post the actual link to the graph you mention?

    Thanks
    Chris

  205. Leif Svalgaard (19:57:49) :

    vukcevic (10:25:22) :
    “1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
    If the solar energy changed 1.4% the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would change 1.4/4=0.35% of 288 degrees or 1 degree. The reason for the division by 4 is Stefan-Boltzman’s law.

    I’m layman. but Stefan-Boltzman’s law is for radiation body ( the sun) not the earth.

    If the earth receives 1.4% less energy, then the temperature of the earth will decrease accordingly by 1.4%.

    I think, that there is a linear relation between temperature and the energy. (if there is no state change, heat capacity change ..)

    For example: using 10 cal energy heating 1 gram of water, the water temp will increase 10 C. using 20 cal energy will cause the water temp increases 20 C. (assume under normal pressure and the water heat capacity is a constant. all water remains as liquid. )

    Leif Svalgaard, what do you think?

  206. Chris:

    A nice demonstration of the way 5 cycles of varying lengths can interact to accurately hindcast the temperature record, and predict a cooler few decades ahead, but read the caveats in the post I linked above.

  207. John W. (08:29:48) :

    I would add to your list two more total energy inputs:

    1)gravitational, with the tides. This is not only friction but also continuous movement of waters in the ocean from the whole column, the cold bottoms and the hot tops.

    2) geothermal not only the occasional active volcanoes on earth and ocean bottom but also the continuous heating from magma towards the surface, particularly at the ocean bottoms where the depths are large. In south african gold mines temperatures of 50C of the rocks have been found at 4 km down. Some ocean bottoms are 4km down and I see no reason the internal heating of a sphere ( nearly) would not follow the symmetry.

    I have looked at the values and translated to watts per m**2 ( and I agree that it is a funny unit for total energy, but that is the way the climate science projects energy !!) these last two inputs are of the order of a small percentage to the purported CO2 induced energies.

    But it is a chaotic system and there are large regional variations in the changes in incoming energy, both totally and differentially in the spectrum. Take the UV which has the largest changes within the 0.05% of total sun energy that Leif acknowledges, it is 6% , and if you look at the map (third down in article) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/uvb_radiation3.php
    you will see that it is absorbed more in specific ocean sites. Adolfo (upstream) noticed they are correlated with the Nino locations, but I am not familiar with those to be able to give an opinion. This differential absorption allows for a mechanism of correlations with TSI . In addition an article on plankton http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
    adds more correlations with changes in albedo, to which albedo the climate is extremely sensitive: try the toy model http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html .

  208. Thanks Tallbloke. But would the 1998 spike be considered a “rogue wave” or in the bounds of normal variability?

    Whats your thoughts….

  209. hotrod (17:54:00) :

    Just curious if anyone is looking at this sort of non-linear approach to these cyclic events?

    Larry

    Have a look at the thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/16/synchronized-chaos-and-climate-change/

    Climate and weather are the result of many more coupled differential equations than waves in the ocean, and that is where the analysis of dynamical chaos applies.

    A rogue wave presentation http://www.tulane.edu/~lkaplan/Cuernavaca_freak.pdf

  210. 1998 Spikes – supplementary images:

    Note the really sharp drop in length of day (LOD) during 1998, which is synonymous with a sharp increase in earth rotation speed:

    Rate of change of LOD = dLOD and MEI = multivariate ENSO index:

  211. savethesharks (22:23:34) :

    Thanks Tallbloke. But would the 1998 spike be considered a “rogue wave” or in the bounds of normal variability?

    Whats your thoughts….

    1878 was a whopper:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1870/to:1880

    So on the limited dataset, you might say such an event might be a once in a hundred year natural variability sort of thing. It might be interesting to see if historical records from ships logs etc had anything to say about unusual trade winds in the south china seas, indian ocean etc at that time. And then maybe see if the atlantic temperature rose soon after. That might tell you if it was a similar El Nino type event. Don’t know where you’d find the records though.

    It’s interesting that it occurred not long before solar min, rather than on the upswing of a new cycle like the 1998 event.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1885/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:1885/scale:0.0015/mean:12

  212. tallbloke (22:02:26) :
    Chris:

    A nice demonstration of the way 5 cycles of varying lengths can interact to accurately hindcast the temperature record, and predict a cooler few decades ahead, but read the caveats in the post I linked above.

    5 cycles sequence is important.
    Solar cycle anomalies as well as N/S asymmetry are subject to the 5 cycle sequence.

  213. Paul, please email me rog at tallbloke dot net for the ephemeris data. Let’s collaborate.

  214. vukcevic (01:14:54)
    5 cycles sequence is important. Solar cycle anomalies as well as N/S asymmetry are subject to the 5 cycle sequence.


    Link for 5 cycle temperature anomaly graph is:

  215. wenx (21:45:05) :

    Leif Svalgaard (19:57:49) :

    vukcevic (10:25:22) :
    “1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
    If the solar energy changed 1.4% the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would change 1.4/4=0.35% of 288 degrees or 1 degree. The reason for the division by 4 is Stefan-Boltzman’s law.

    Hi, I’m not Leif, nor am I pretending to be, but I am familiar with the Stefan-Boltzman law. First of all, all bodies are radiating bodies. Their temperature is always consistent with the radiation emitted. Their outgoing radiation is always consistent with the incoming radiation once it is in radiative balance, which is to say the temperature is no longer changing due to radiative processes.

    Second, you would not divide the 1.4% by 4, you would take the 4th root of it! The 4th root of 0.986 = 0.9965. Taking the earth’s average temperature to be about 288 Kelvin (around 15C) would then suggest a new average temperature of 287 Kelvin (around 14C). So, assuming the 1.4% figure you started with is correct, we should not be surprised by a drop of up to 1 degree Celsius in temperature.

    It should be noted that Leif believes the change is quite a bit smaller, on the order of 0.1%. In that case, the change becomes essentially undetectable. What really happens? Time to find out! We’ve now got the instruments to study a grand minimum to maximum effect if we should be so blessed.

    Geoff Pohanka (13:21:55) :

    They talk about the lack of sun spots but they dont mention that this solar cycle is the longest since the 1790s which predated the Dalton Minimum, a very cold period.

    Sorry, this doesn’t agree with my records… I have Solar Influences Data Center’s International Sunspot Numbers back into the 1600’s. It shows an average cycle length of 132 months with a standard deviation of 15 months. Cycle 23, according to the 13 month smoothed ISN, has not yet ended as of Sep 2008 (most recent month of 13 month smoothed data available, as the most recent 6 months have to be smoothed into it). It is now 145 months long. Mean +1 sigma is 147 months. We are not even at 1 sigma yet! Cycles 4, 6, 9 and 13 are still longer. Cycle 4, from 1784 to 1798, is still a full year and half longer than cycle 23 in its present duration. A real statistical yawner unless it stretches out another 6 months.

  216. anna v (22:05:08) :

    John W. (08:29:48) :

    I would add to your list two more total energy inputs:

    1)gravitational, with the tides. This is not only friction but also continuous movement of waters in the ocean from the whole column, the cold bottoms and the hot tops.

    2) geothermal not only the occasional active volcanoes on earth and ocean bottom but also the continuous heating from magma towards the surface, particularly at the ocean bottoms where the depths are large. In south african gold mines temperatures of 50C of the rocks have been found at 4 km down. Some ocean bottoms are 4km down and I see no reason the internal heating of a sphere ( nearly) would not follow the symmetry.

    Thanks for pointing that out. I was focused on incident energy, and neglected internal energy. (Some sort of recursive making myself an example of my own point. ;^) )

    The reason I focused my back of the envelope estimate on the Central Pacific was because its the location of the Nino events.

    When I get some time for it, I plan to build a coupling model (one sq. km column) beginning at the outer atmosphere and continuing into the oceans until all energy is accounted for. Step two will be applying Maximum Entropy Method (MEM) to distribute the energy within and out of the column.

  217. Paul Stanko (02:57:53) :
    Second, you would not divide the 1.4% by 4, you would take the 4th root of it! The 4th root of 0.986 = 0.9965.

    First, there has been no change of the solar output of 1.4%.

    Second, but if there were, we can explore the consequence like this:
    S-B law says S = a T^4. Differentiate to get changes: dS = 4 a T^3 dT. Divide both sides by S: dS/S = 4 dT/T, or dT/T = 1/4 dS/S, meaning that the percentage change in T [dT/T * 100] is 1/4 of the percentage change of S [dS/S * 100], so 1/4 of 1.4% = 0.35% of 288K = 1.0K.
    Taking the 4th root of a small change is the same as dividing by 4:
    (1 + x)^(1/4) = 1 + x/4 for x small.

  218. I am sorry causing all the trouble over Stefan-Boltzman law.
    Going back to the global temperature variations, and not being climate expert, it occurred to me that the Earth’s heat sink system might have some hysteresis built in. What I mean is that system may be absorbing or radiating heath on the wrong side of what would be a natural balance. If so than we would have natural short term oscillations between cool and warm periods, of order of few decades, which possibly may be superimposed on the top of long term Milankovic type cycles.
    Is this within capability of the system as currently understood?

  219. Nice thread, folks, and thanks. I vote for Eddy Minimum; he liked words, and man, oh man, could he use them. Gore and Hansen will live in infamy without any more attribution than has already accrued to their work.

    I’ve two questions. One is about Bill Livingston’s measurements of the internal magnetism of the spots we do see. Are they still on the decline curve to becoming invisible by 2015? This is an important point because disappearing spots is something the scientifically naive muddle can understand. Now, if we only knew the connection, if such be, between spots and climate.

    Secondly, I’d be interested to hear Leif’s, and others’, responses to JohnW’s comment at 8:29 on 4/3. I think that his comment is very important, because it suggests mechanisms other than simply TSI which might impact climate. As we know(thanks, Leif), TSI doesn’t vary enough to explain the range of climate variability, without introducing a destabilizing multiplier. Might some of JohnW’s suggestions fill in the gap? Thanks in advance.
    ===========================================

  220. Comment on Paul Stanko (02:57:53)

    Solar cycle length statistics based on the assumption of a normal distribution are at best misleading (and at worst wrong) since the assumption is not justified on the basis of empirical observation.

    More specifically: It is an error to use standard deviation to assess probabilities when the assumption of normality is not justified.

    Q-Q plots and percentiles are the way to go, but even histograms will provide a good clue if one is attentive to the effect of varying bin-width.
    – – – – – –
    Re 1998 spike – note the sharp drop in atmospheric angular momentum (AAM) – which relates to zonal winds:

  221. tallbloke (01:25:42)
    “Paul, please email me [...] for the [...] data. Let’s collaborate.”

    Yes, let’s collaborate – but here in public with data that is publicly available.

    To repeat my offer/request as it was stated:

    Paul Vaughan (13:13:49)
    “Can you (or anyone else) post monthly summaries of these z-displacements to a webpage in plain-text? I need at least 1891-2006. It would be best if you keep the format simple: 3 columns: Year Month z-displacement (nothing else).

    If you do this, I should be able to shine some light on this pretty quickly.”

    If anyone is trying to follow this exchange, context can be gathered by using your web-browser’s ‘Find’ function to locate all appearances of both “asymmetry” & “smoking gun” at:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/

    (The discussion moved because that forum was closing.)

  222. Yes, let’s collaborate – but here in public with data that is publicly available.

    I’m unable to use ftp via my mobile phone/modem, but I can email the data to you, and you are welcome to post it if you wish. I’m an open source kinda guy too.

  223. I’ve two questions. One is about Bill Livingston’s measurements of the internal magnetism of the spots we do see. Are they still on the decline curve to becoming invisible by 2015? This is an important point because disappearing spots is something the scientifically naive muddle can understand.
    You can see a comparison between like numbered spots of 1913 and 2008 here:

    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin2.htm

    You can do histograms with an AstroImaging program such as CCDSoft, AIP4Win, AstorArt, MaximDL etc.
    I would like to be able to download images of 1913 that ostensibly Hale took at Mt. Wilson, and do some histogram comaparisons.
    Because it looks like L&P is on track, the spots are losing thier contrast with the background, and they are fading fast.
    The contrast is even falling on the MDI Continuum images.
    I don’t believe this happened in 1913, but I’d like to know for sure.

  224. Did anyone see the comment on Spaceweather.com They adjusted the spotless days from the current 27 to 9 are you ready because there appeared to be a spot on 3/26 that wasn’t counted. It must have been one of those specks that could only be seen or counted after 2000.

  225. I’m reading about sunspot northern hemisphere / southern hemisphere (N-S) asymmetry – a branch of the literature I had never looked at before recently when I ran into some claims (of “provocative” correlations) which I wanted to assess rigorously.

    (Note: The claims were portrayed as possibly being relevant to the present minimum.)

    Today I encountered this claim (below) in Astronomy & Astrophysics, based on an analysis of sunspot numbers & sunspot area over an interval spanning 2 solar cycles:

    “The existence of significant N-S asymmetries in the occurrence of solar activity and in the rotational behavior provides strong evidence that the magnetic field systems originating in the two hemispheres are only weakly coupled.”
    Temmer, Veronig, & Hanslmeier (2002).

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0208/0208436v1.pdf

    I will be very surprised if I do not find far more insightful papers as I continue digging, but I will appreciate comment on this claim from anyone who feels moderately (or more) qualified to address the claim.

    Please don’t hesitate to comment even if you are not sure, as it may instill a sense of responsibility in those more knowledgeable to become active contributors – to correct the record.
    – – – – – – –
    tallbloke, “Rome wasn’t built in a day” may apply here. I’m content to be patient until you can secure arrangements to have the data hosted on a fully public site – so that the collaboration can be inclusive & transparent. [Re: tallbloke (13:25:21)]

  226. Thanks Tallbloke.

    Question: If we were able to speed up time and turn the oscillations (such as global temps) into periods like that of ocean waves……would 1878 and 1998 be candidates for for being shrodinger rogue waves?

    Steep-walled, non-linear crests that rob energy from surrounding waves, to gain unimaginable size?

  227. Leif Svalgaard (04:51:41) :

    “First, there has been no change of the solar output of 1.4%.”

    So it is safe to assume that the current cold spell is not to blame on the sun, right? Could I coax you into a conjecture about what would happen if it did change?

  228. savethesharks (20:42:20)
    “Steep-walled, non-linear crests that rob energy from surrounding waves, to gain unimaginable size?”

    Sounds like a description of the progenitors of our financial crisis.

    You could be onto something.

  229. kim (10:02:13) :
    Might some of JohnW’s suggestions fill in the gap?

    1st: W/m2 is the appropriate way of measuring the solar input. 1 W is 1 J/s, so you get total energy E over the time t and the area A as E = TSI (W/m2) * t * A.

    2nd: The TOTAL energy of every else [cosmic rays, solar wind, magnetic interaction, whatever...] is so minuscule compared the TSI that it is totally negligible.

    So, I don’t see what the proposed mechanism is.

  230. savethesharks (20:42:20) :

    Thanks Tallbloke.

    Question: If we were able to speed up time and turn the oscillations (such as global temps) into periods like that of ocean waves……would 1878 and 1998 be candidates for for being shrodinger rogue waves?

    Not that it proves anything but if you take the graph of the shrodinger wave out of my first link and rescale it properly it will almost over lay the 1998 plot peak from the “RSS and UAH Global Temperature Anomalies for March 2009″ thread above.

    Both have the sharp single peak flanked on both sides by distinct dips. They are not “exact matches” but close enough to make you go “Hmmmmm that is interesting”.

    I only did the over lay in MS paint so resolution sucked, but the similarity in shape is sufficient to peak your interest. If that RSS plot was smoothed properly except for the flanking dips being slightly wider and not quite as deep/sharp the general structure is almost identical.

    Larry

  231. Ohioholic (21:08:43) :
    “First, there has been no change of the solar output of 1.4%.”
    So it is safe to assume that the current cold spell is not to blame on the sun, right? Could I coax you into a conjecture about what would happen if it did change?

    would probably change the temperature by 1 K.
    BTW, the solar input to the Earth changes 7% during the year [5 times more].

  232. savethesharks (20:42:20) :

    Thanks Tallbloke.

    Question: If we were able to speed up time and turn the oscillations (such as global temps) into periods like that of ocean waves……would 1878 and 1998 be candidates for for being shrodinger rogue waves?

    Steep-walled, non-linear crests that rob energy from surrounding waves, to gain unimaginable size?

    Hi Chris, That introduces an interesting philosophical question about the connectedness of time dimension. Rogue waves build up with the confluence of two or more waves in the continuum of the sea surface oscillation. The waves in front and behind the rogue wave are robbed of amplitude. This all happens ‘at once’.

    The big El Nino event in 1998 also had quite a dip in temperatures before and after the event. The question would be: is the causality similar in both rogue waves and El Nino peaks? Perhaps the dip in temperatures preceding the event brings on some feedback which precipitates the release of energy from the pacific warm pool, and an increase in the trade winds which drive the warm water outwards to where it is spread by current to higher latitudes, El Nino. Then negative feedback (perhaps more cloud due to higher humidity/evaporation) redress the situation but overshoot and cause the dip in temperatures before a smaller recovery.

    For more detail on that stuff try bobtisdale.blogspot.com and for a different perspective Erl Happ’s work at climatechange1.wordpress.com

    As for the philosophical question about time, try ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’ by David Bohm or some pot luck with more recent texts on holistic ways of knowledge.

  233. Paul Vaughan

    tallbloke, “Rome wasn’t built in a day” may apply here. I’m content to be patient until you can secure arrangements to have the data hosted on a fully public site – so that the collaboration can be inclusive & transparent.

    Hi Paul, I have toyed with the idea of setting up a website for the collaborative study of solar system dynamics already, and when I get a new ADSL connection sorted out I may do so.

    In the meantime it’s slightly frustrating to be unable to progress work on the correlation I discovered. And I’m concerned we may lose contact with you. I do value your offer and it’s great to have someone with real ability with stats take an interest. Maybe someone else here would mail me; rog at tallbloke dot net so I can send them the file and they can upload the data to a temporary page so interested parties can work on it?

    Anyone?

  234. Paul Vaughan;
    “The existence of significant N-S asymmetries in the occurrence of solar activity and in the rotational behavior provides strong evidence that the magnetic field systems originating in the two hemispheres are only weakly coupled.”
    Temmer, Veronig, & Hanslmeier (2002).

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0208/0208436v1.pdf

    I will be very surprised if I do not find far more insightful papers as I continue digging, but I will appreciate comment on this claim from anyone who feels moderately (or more) qualified to address the claim.

    I came across the same paper. :-)

    From what I gathered, they noticed differentiated phase shifts in the patterns of northern and southern sunspots. They also noted that these ‘phase shifts’ were highly dependent on the averageing periods used for the studies. To me, a non-expert in stats, this would indicate that there are many different cycles and sub-cycles occurring in the resonances that affect sunspot production.

    Speculatively: perhaps as many cycles as there are planets and planet pairings with enough oomph to make a difference. Roughly speaking; The four Jovians plus Earth and Venus. Perhaps a re-evaluation using a FFT transform of the solar cycle data to guide the choice of periods would help elicit some order out of the chaos. This graph may be a good place to start:

  235. You can’t use black-body calculations on the grey-body Earth.
    This mix of radiation hitting TOA with surface temperature is just nonsense.

  236. WOW is Einstein in the house. After you guys are done can you summarize it for us interested but lay persons.

  237. lgl (01:13:21) :
    You can’t use black-body calculations on the grey-body Earth.
    This mix of radiation hitting TOA with surface temperature is just nonsense.

    The problem with the Internet is that people pickup stuff like this assertion without having any idea of what they are talking about.
    The difference between a grey body and a black body is that the constant of proportionality between radiation and the fourth power of the temperature [yes, grey bodies have that same temperature dependence] is less than that given by Stefan-Boltzman’s law, or in other words S = e*a*T^4, where the emissivity e is 1 for a black body, but less than 1 for a grey body, Since the differential version of the law dS/S = 1/4 * dT/T does not depend on the constant e*a [thus not on e or grey vs. black], it is valid no matter what e is.

  238. Leif Svalgaard (08:01:32) :
    OT: SOHO has made it to the finals in the NASA Mission Madness contest: http://mission-madness.nasa.gov/mm/results.html?1
    Don’t forget to vote on Monday/Tuesday.

    Since I had been voting for the Hubble, it is apparent that someone with programming skill and an interest in solar physics rigged the voting. Now I know. :~P

  239. Re: tallbloke (22:56:19)

    As noted, I didn’t find the Temmer, Veronig, & Hanslmeier (2002) paper terribly insightful. (That’s my polite assessment.)

    The thing that struck me about their claim was that it was based on an analysis of sunspot numbers & sunspot area over an interval spanning 2 solar cycles.
    – – – – – – – – – – –
    On another theme in this thread, why are we so attached to the word “grand”? Wouldn’t it be appropriate that Spoerer, Maunder, etc. Minima be known collectively as Eddy Minima?

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/eddy_int.htm

  240. lgl (09:55:36) :
    And why is climate sensitity one of the most debated issues on this planet if you can settle it in a few lines of writing?

    You will notice that the sensitivity dT/T = 1/4 dS/S is exactly the same for grey and black bodies. Has nothing to do with that. The feedback issue is separate. The albedo issue is separate. Both albedo and emissivity cancel out of dT/dS as you yourself can see from the link you provided.
    Where your deep confusion comes in is in not noticing that the T in dT/T I used is already 288 K talking into account the actual temperature, not the 255 K you assume it would be for a black body [including albedo]. As I said, just linking to stuff without knowing what you are talking about is one of the reasons this issue is debated with no end in sight.

  241. lgl (09:55:36) :
    And why is climate sensitity one of the most debated issues on this planet if you can settle it in a few lines of writing?

    the link you provide is a prime example of the misleading ‘information’ that you find on the Internet. The black body assumption is for the emission and not for the absorption. So, the albedo should have been included in the black body calculation in your link. The general formula is
    T = ((1-A)S/4/(ea))^(1/4). For a black body e = 1, and for grey body e is less than one. To get a feeling for how big this effect is one calculates [for A=0.3 and e=1] the 255 K. For a real [grey] Earth, one has be take e into account. Some representative values are for water e=0.96, for sand e=0.76, and for vegetation e=0.98. The effect of grey-bodiness is that the temperature must be higher for the same energy input, namely 2.5K for water, 17K for sand [it is hot in the desert], and 1.3K for vegetation, for a weighted average of perhaps 3K [depending on how you apportion water, sand, and vegetation]. That gets us up to 258K. Greenhouse gases and feedbacks add another 30K for an total of 288K. The grey/black issue is completely misplaced and obviously misunderestimated by you [to use Dubya's apt phrase].

  242. Paul Vaughan (09:57:30) :
    Re: tallbloke (22:56:19)

    The thing that struck me about their claim was that it was based on an analysis of sunspot numbers & sunspot area over an interval spanning 2 solar cycles.

    For you gentlemen interesting in the N/S asymmetry here is a test case for you. Crack this one. Good luck. I would like to know how you get on.

  243. Leif,
    To know what the temperature will be you need to know the albedo, which may change, and the sensitity. So if the question is:
    How will a 1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth affect temperature on Earth? The answer is: No one knows, not even Leif Svalgaard.

  244. lgl (12:03:32) :
    To know what the temperature will be you need to know the albedo, which may change, and the sensitity. So if the question is:
    How will a 1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth affect temperature on Earth? The answer is: No one knows, not even Leif Svalgaard.

    You changed your tone a bit. From “read and learn” to “nobody knows”. From your own link:

    “λ=0.35±0.09°K/(W m-2). (Corresponding to ΔTx2=1.3±0.4°). Interestingly, this result is quite similar to the so called “black body” (i.e., corresponding to a climate system with feedbacks that tend to cancel each other).”

    So to the extent that Shaviv [whom I'm supposed to learn from] knows, the blackbody calculation is pretty good, and to the extent that anybody knows the number I gave is not a bad estimate. This is a far cry from the ‘nonsense’ you called it.

    I believe that Shaviv claims he has some inkling on low clouds and albedo etc, so not everybody is completely in the dark as you suggest ["nobody knows..."]

  245. Leif,
    The nonsense part is that your method is wrong. You need to know the sensitivity and you don’t, nor does Shaviv. You know very well that the Earth is a dynamic ‘organism’ where black body calcs don’t apply.
    I never suggested that “everybody is completely in the dark”.

  246. vukcevic (11:11:00)
    “For you gentlemen interesting in the N/S asymmetry here is a test case for you. Crack this one. Good luck. I would like to know how you get on.”

    I’m not really looking to “crack” this vukcevic. It’s just a small piece of a more interesting puzzle.

    Let me again explain what motivated me to turn a scrutinizing eye towards climate modeling:

    I encountered a government-sponsored graph that projected average daily minimum temperatures were going to overtake average daily maximum temperatures within a number of years.

    Since the document was sponsored by a government that has implemented a carbon tax, the graph roused my suspicion of politics (or sheer stupidity) superseding undeniable truth.

    By definition, the minimum trend cannot overtake the maximum trend. (And in layman’s terms: Who is going to believe nights are going to become reliably warmer than days??? – ridiculous.)

    The sheer idiocy of the projection was what sparked me onto a path of reading nearly 1000 journal articles during the past year and performing countless analyses.

    If the grassroots lift hard enough, perhaps we can raise the bar of integrity & conduct (or at least help power realize we’re not “seeing wool”).

    Also: Maybe we’ll inspire a few scientists to try a little harder. Maybe we’ll evolve past the “There is no known mechanism” auto-responses that pepper discussions without providing answers — & perhaps these forums will influence the funding channels

  247. lgl (13:24:05) :
    The nonsense part is that your method is wrong. You need to know the sensitivity and you don’t, nor does Shaviv. You know very well that the Earth is a dynamic ‘organism’ where black body calcs don’t apply.
    That is why I used the grey body formula to ‘conjure’ the change [as the poster asked me to do]. I say again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Even the link that I was supposed to read and learn from substantiates my estimate. Now, you could have said: “I [and anybody else] have no idea what the change will be, but nevertheless the suggested change is nonsense, based on me not knowing anything”. But, remember that the poster asked me what my opinion was.

  248. Tallbloke wrote: “Hi Chris, That introduces an interesting philosophical question about the connectedness of time dimension. Rogue waves build up with the confluence of two or more waves in the continuum of the sea surface oscillation. The waves in front and behind the rogue wave are robbed of amplitude. This all happens ‘at once’”

    I understand the “all at once” thing….but if you were to slow down the scale of time to where years equal seconds or even minutes or hours….all things being equal [and of course they aren't...and I know I am treading on science fiction for now]…I understand all that…

    But the fact is that the occasional steep-walled, deep-troughed, “random” freak wave postulated by Schrodinger is being used in many different fields now….

    http://www.geotimes.org/feb08/article.html?id=nn_waves.html

    And waves are waves.

    They are transfers of energy…whether or not they occur all at once or over a span of many years.

    I know you agree that that the oscillations of the NAO between positive and negative over the months, or the same of the AMO or PDO over the decades, show a transfer of energy…..a wave….which occurs more slowly that we as humans can practically conceive.

    On the extreme…we could apply this idea to the Milankovitch waves….or others.

    They are ALL waves.

    Thanks Tallbloke for your responses and I always listen when you speak. ;)

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  249. Paul Vaughan (09:57:30) :

    Re: tallbloke (22:56:19)

    As noted, I didn’t find the Temmer, Veronig, & Hanslmeier (2002) paper terribly insightful. (That’s my polite assessment.)

    Paul, apologies, this is the paper I looked at:

    http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/non-refereed2/ESA_SP477_Vernova.pdf

    LONGITUDINALLY ASYMMETRIC SUNSPOT DISTRIBUTION: A SYSTEMATIC
    DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SOLAR HEMISPHERES
    K. Mursula1, E. S. Vernova2, M. I. Tyasto2, and D. G. Baranov3

    Perhaps you could comment on my ideas for re-examining the data after taking a look.

  250. vukcevic, tallbloke, & anyone interested in the N-S asymmetry:

    Have a look at this paper:

    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2007/45/aa8672-07.pdf

    R. Donner & M. Thiel (2007). Scale-resolved phase coherence analysis of hemispheric sunspot activity: a new look at the north-south asymmetry. Astronomy & Astrophysics 475, L33-L36.

    Very nice paper, with only a few forgivably-minor loose-ends that slipped through review.

    Note: Its conclusions are backed up (in full ‘consensus’ style) by a very recent publication:
    K. J. Li, P. X. Gao, & L. S. Zhan (2009). Synchronization of hemispheric sunspot activity revisited: wavelet transform analyses. The Astrophysical Journal 691, 537-546.

    I have time to look at a few articles by Zolotova & Ponyavin before I have to put this down.

    These articles establish the frame for any further discussions we may have on this topic.
    – –
    You might also benefit from taking a careful look at Figures 1,2,&3 in:

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2003ESASP.535…63B&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf

    This article pitches some of what I was saying above at an accessible level (but be careful about getting caught up in the article’s theme about QBO – skip that part unless you have time to be very careful & scrutinizing).

    Final note: In passing I found one website that reports the r^2 value I mentioned above, so there appears to be some natural convergence in lines of investigation.

  251. P.S. to my last post:

    In case anyone hasn’t yet invested what is necessary to develop an ability to interpret wavelet plots:

    You’ll find a lot of unhelpful ‘junk’ on the web about wavelets that is a stunning repeat of the same-old (unhelpful) rant.

    The only accessible introductory material I’ve been able to find on the net:

    http://www.ecs.syr.edu/faculty/lewalle/tutor/tutor.html

    The presentation format may seem a bit dated, but the site works sufficiently-well for those with a bit of patience.

  252. tallbloke, I wish you stamina in your exploratory journeys – and a good sense of timing.

    I’m still here if you want to discuss the papers.

    Those following along may be interested to know of the unique appearance of the solar minimum ~1913 (which received considerable attention above) in the N-S phase-difference graph (figure 4) in the Donner & Thiel (2007) paper.

    Also, Zolotova & Ponyavin have entered the controversy over Solar Cycle 4 (1784-1799) – from an N-S asymmetry perspective:

    Zolotova & Ponyavin (2007). Was the unusual solar cycle at the end of the XVIII century a result of phase asynchronization? Astronomy & Astrophysics 470, L17-L20.

    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2007/30/aa7681-07.pdf

    (vukcevic might find the latter paper interesting)

  253. Re N-S asymmetry:
    This one’s important:

    J. L. Ballester, R. Oliver, & M. Carbonell (2005). The periodic behaviour of the North-South asymmetry of sunspot areas revisited. Astronomy & Astrophysics 431, L5-L8.

    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=bibcode&bibcode=2005A%2526A…431L…5BPDF

    The difference between working with the following variables was not obvious to all N-S asymmetry researchers:
    a) N-S
    b) (N-S)/(N+S)

    This is a good example of how traditional trans-disciplinary boundaries impair progress.

    It is instructive to study both (a) & (b) – and a selection of other measures — (and it will be wise to not overlook what Ballester et al. (2005) are saying …as the error they point out could easily lead one to (accidentally perhaps) think spectral analysis results imply that….[hint: note the period of 11.8 years]).

  254. N. V. Zolotova & D. I. Ponyavin (2006). Phase asynchrony of the north-south sunspot activity. Astronomy & Astrophysics 449, L1-L4.

    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2006/13/aahk283.pdf

    For a concise overview – see the poster presentation (p.3) at:

    http://espm.kis.uni-freiburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/espm/Proceedings-Poster/p_2.2-54.pdf

    I suggest digging deep into references cited by Zolotova & Ponyavin when assessing their works on N-S asymmetry. For a listing of recent Zolotova & Ponyavin publications:

    http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/~ned/Publications.html

    For anyone needing to learn cross-recurrence methods for detecting orbit similarities in nonlinear dissipative systems, the following site is excellent:

    http://www.recurrence-plot.tk/glance.php

    Cautionary notes:
    1) Cross-recurrence (CR) math is dead-simple, even if the formal notation found in some presentations makes it appear otherwise.
    2) Important: Pay critical attention to line of synchronization (LOS) isolation methods.
    3) Note Zolotova & Ponyavin’s treatment of Ballester, Oliver, & Carbonell (2005).

  255. Clearly the evidence points toward man made solar cooling! I mean think about it, we keep putting up all those satellites and the metal in them are draining the heat from the sun! :( Anyway current status on MMGW is that, just like any other kind of mythology worship, it’s bunk. Here is a link to the current stats (as of March 2009) and it comes with pretty pictures and everything! Keep in mind the 1998 spike was do to el nino (Even the wack jobs admit that.).

  256. I wonder why world oil production statistics aren’t news together with the cooling climate. It is very clear by checking IEA data that world oil production peaked four years ago in 2005. Those two facts together bode ill for a planetary population looking at a dramatically cooling climate in the face of declining fuel inventories. Hello, hello? Why are Democrats so desparate to lean into this left hook by raising draconian taxes on the use of fossil fuels? Why are they spending so much national treasure to convince us that WE are responsible for a beneficial planet-wide warming, when we know, and have known for decades it’s the sun? Why are they demonizing CO2, an infinitesimal trace gas essential to life-giving photosynthesis, which increases crop and forest yields at higher atmospheric concentrations. It just doesn’t get much more Orwellian than this. Clearly we have entered the “New Age of Darkness”.

Comments are closed.