WUWT Poll: What should we call the current solar minimum?

Solar state: cue ball quiet

Although we’ve been covering this quiet sun issue for over a year on WUWT, the light bulb seems to have gone on for mainstream media right about now.

There is growing press coverage about the current state of the sun, most recently from Charles Osgood of CBS News as well as the BBC and other major outlets. While the sun slumbers deeper and has missed its cyclic snooze alarm, our media is finally waking up to the solar somnolence.

Here is a short roundup of news articles on this subject today:

‘Still Sun’ baffling astronomers

Scientists warn sun has dimmed

Sun ‘at its quietest for 100 years’

Has the sun gone in? Earth’s closest star ‘dimmest it’s been for a century’

So the question arises, now that this has been identified, what should we call it?

There have been some good ideas, such as naming it after Jack Eddy, who coined the phrase “Maunder Minimum“. There’s been some discussion of a “Gore Minimum”, but I don’t like the idea of giving Gore credit for something he has nothing to do with, or even likely understands. There’s been suggestion of “The Hansen Minimum” which makes a little more sense, since he’s an astronomer by training. On that note, Leif Svalgaard predicted this, so maybe it should be his honor.

So, I’ve decided to have a poll, and I’ll take suggestions for other names than what I’ve listed.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Fun_stuff, Solar. Bookmark the permalink.

543 Responses to WUWT Poll: What should we call the current solar minimum?

  1. Aron says:

    Gore Minimum

  2. M White says:

    Gore Minimum

  3. Philip G. says:

    I suggest we call this the “Caused by Anthropogenic Emission of CO2″ Minimum

  4. EricH says:

    Naughty Minimum.

    It started in 08, naught eight, or naught nine, 09. And it is certainly naughty as it will upset a lot of people who were convinced that the sun had nothing (naught) to do with AGW.

    Enjoy.

  5. Matt says:

    How about the Millenuim Minimum. Has a nice ring to it.

  6. Ken Hall says:

    Yes this quiet spell is garnering a lot of media interest. However they are using a big caveat that “THIS HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING”

    I mean, how ridiculous that the sun would effect temperatures on earth and variances in the solar output (electronic, magnetic, radioactive etc) would have ANY variable effect on the earth’s systems that could in turn act as a catalytic method for temperature variability. What utter tosh!

    Go back to sleep people, nothing to see here. Go back to sleep, we are still destroying the planet in a unique way that can only be remedied by taxes and surveillance of the ignorant masses, ignore our large planes and huge palaces and our constant jet-setting around the world, YOU, yes YOU in the little car, YOU MUST PAY MORE, YOU must let us monitor your travel, because only by doing this will the global molecules of CO2 really know that we mean to tackle climate change.

    Now shut up and pay your climate taxes.

  7. Jim Owen says:

    It kinda turns my stomach to immortalize either Gore or Hansen like this. And “Modern” is too generic – in addition to being “modern” only until the next generation at which time it would be no longer “modern”. That leaves either “Eddy” or “other”.

    I prefer “other” – but what other? That requires some thought.

  8. Claude Harvey says:

    I still like “Gore Maximum”. It would force a footnote of explanation (exposure) every time it showed up in print. If I can’t have that, I want “Goracle Minimum”.

  9. Mark says:

    Landscheidt minimum after Theodore Landscheidt.

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

  10. Glen Blackburn says:

    Gore Minimum

  11. Tom says:

    Gore minimum (motion carried?)

  12. The Ignored Minimum

  13. Roger Knights says:

    The Inconvenient Minimum

    (This fits in with Osgood’s theme of how it will upset the AGWA apple-cart.)

  14. Oskar says:

    The Mann-minimum

  15. Patrik says:

    Hmmm… “Gore Minimum”… Hard to beat…
    Hmmm… I give up. :)

  16. Roger Knights says:

    The Watts Up Minimum

  17. geophys55 says:

    Hey yall,
    Read this interview with Jack Eddy before you decide!

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

  18. Alec, a.k.a Daffy Duck says:

    Eek!!! The Mayan Minimum!

  19. Brian Edwards says:

    I kind of agree with the point about not giving Gore credit, but the “Gore Minimum” is too good to resist although the Hansen Minimum has a nicer ring to it.

  20. kim says:

    I don’t think it is shown yet to be a significant minimum, grand or lesser. It’s just a bit slow on the uptake to Cycle 24, and the spots may or may not be turning invisible.

    If it turns into a real Minimum, my vote is for the Eddy Minimum. Jack Eddy liked words, and he is the one who popularized the idea that the sun has minimums. His extensive work should be recognized. Gore deserves to be remembered with scorn, or at the least, forgotten.
    =============================================

  21. Tom says:

    Upon reflection I’d like to rescind my vote for “Gore minimum.” There is a long and honorable tradition in science of naming things after their discoverer. “Gore min” and “Hansen min” are intended to be ironic and disparaging, and “Modern min” is just typical self-centeredness and recentism that won’t make sense in another hundred years. Eddy would be good choice, maybe Salvgaard as well. And maybe we should not be quite so sure of ourselves. The Maunder minimum lasted 70 years, it would be a shame to hang a nametag on this one and have it turn out to last 17 months.

  22. Dave D says:

    Gore Minimum. There’s no credit being associated with what may turn out to be the start of a new ice age. Minimum’s bring misery and steal prosperity, no sane person would want his name on one. That qualifies Big Al.

  23. Peter Taylor says:

    In Theodore Landscheidt’s ‘Sun, Earth, Man’ published in 1989, and his 2003 paper ‘New Little Ice Age instead of Global Warming’ Energy & Environment , Vol 14 no 2&3, he makes the prediction that the sun will enter either a Dalton-type or Maunder-type minimum in the first cycles of the 21st century. He predicted that 1990 would be the peak of sunspots (cycle 22) and that cycle 23 peaking in 2000-2001 would be lower, and that cycle 24 would be much lower, with 25 leading into the minimum. He reckoned there was an 85% chance that it would be a Maunder-type minimum and that by 2030 we would be in the depth of a new Little Ice Age.

    He also predicted the 1998 super El Nino and said that there would be one more in 2002, less strong but obscuring the cooling which would not be obvious until 2007!

    He has been correct in all his projections.

    So I nominate this minimum as the ‘Landscheidt Minimum’.

    His projections were based upon Newtonian physics – the transfer of angular momentum from the giant planets to the solar sphere. The mechanism whereby this might affect the magnetic layers of the sun is not known, but his correlations and calculations of past patterns coincide with the previous Little Ice Age as well as other problematic climate events in the 5000 year history of agrarian civilisation – there is more in the book than in the paper.

    Recent work on the accretion discs of newly forming stars is showing that the angular momentum of orbiting matter can be transferred by magnetic fields (I am not a physicist, so can only guess that this means if there is a low point in the angular momentum pattern (it varies according to the interplay of angles the planets make to each other), then maybe that also feeds back to the magnetic field – and if that operates on our own solar disc, then we are approaching a mechanism for affecting the sunspot frequency.

    Irrespective of the mechanism, Landscheidt deserves credit for his predictions.

  24. Cathy says:

    Algore Minimum.

  25. Hoystory says:

    Can we call it the “Gore is a fraud minimum”?

    I don’t want people a couple hundred years from now to get the impression that he got anything right.

  26. CodeTech says:

    Absolutely NOT “gore” anything.

    You name things after people worth remembering. Or, in science, as an homage to a scientist.

    “Gore Minimum”, from what I can see, refers to his IQ.

  27. Bill S says:

    How about “Congressional Minimum” – because of the dimness of the body

  28. Doug Janeway says:

    The “Politically Incorrect Minimum”

  29. Dave D says:

    I am curious if those readers more versed in Solar Physics have any expectation on when temps should start moving down. I saw david archibald’s short term perdiction – an action I applaud – but how does the theory go? Are we looking at reductions after this cycle (24 the one just trying to start) ends or does it trial 2-3 years from the lower output which started a few years ago – ideas?

    All the AGW crowd seems to think that the levelling off (cooling, by not warming) data is proof the sun’s output will (has) not impact (ed) the Globe. I had thought the cooling was in the pipeline, but would lag… Am I in error with the theory?

  30. Dave D says:

    BTW that is “prediction” and “trail’, respectively!

  31. Paul S says:

    Of course, even with the news articles above, the AGW drumbeat rolls on, oblivious to the fact that the earth has been cooling for nearly a decade and oblivious to the fact of good correlation of minimums and colder era’s. One can only hope some sanity returns to media.

  32. Dan Murphy says:

    I believe Leif should get the honor. Let’s face it, he publicly made the forecast for the current very low level of solar activity at a time when few others would do so. He should feel vindicated!

    Speaking of that, Leif mentioned in another recent thread that Hathaway had publicly admitted in an e-mail that he (Leif) was right and Hathaway wrong. I do extend my congratulations to him, and suggest that in this circumstance it is perfectly acceptable to feel vindicated, and indeed, perhaps even a bit smug. This should rightly give Leif immense personal and professional satisfaction.

    Again, my congratulations!

    Dan Murphy

  33. David Quist says:

    It is an unfortunate reflection of our time that this is such a pertinant topic. Science has been, to higher degree than normal, misused by politicians. The name of the minimum should perhaps stand as a reminder of our eager but premature folly to understand or even control nature. My vote is for the Gore Minimum.

  34. Roger Knights says:

    The In-A-Minute Minimum

  35. Willem says:

    It seems perverse to name a developing solar minimum after those who deny the role of the Sun in climate

  36. Deedoe says:

    In honor of the man who called AGW the greatest scam in history – Coleman Minimun

  37. Barry Foster says:

    Gore Minimum

  38. A Stoner says:

    The end of the good times minimum.

  39. RobH says:

    Deniers Minimum

  40. hunter says:

    I will third that: “Gore Minimum”

  41. Luis Dias says:

    Gore Minimum is bad. Real bad name. Remember, this will, if it will, be in the history of sol, so why give Gore just for the sake of the joke? It’s bad humour really.

    Same about Hansen.

    The obvious sane choice is Svalgaard Minimum.

  42. Fred from Canuckistan . . . says:

    The Gore-Hansen Minimum would be a never ending reminder of these two bozos and all the crap they have spewed.

    It would be a permanent reminder of how science can be perverted for fame, fortune and ego.

    The name wouldn’t make them famous, it would make them infamous.

  43. hereticfringe says:

    Well, given that we have been Gored by the bull^%&…

  44. Cap'n Bob says:

    Gore Minimum

    Aron and M White beat me to it, but I assure you that was the FIRST thing popped into my mind.

  45. ScurvyOaks says:

    How about the “Gore Effect Minimum?”

  46. Medic1532 says:

    Voted for Gore Minimum but OT anyone else notice that Catlin Survey has changed from “live from the Ice” to “Latest from the Ice” Woot for WUWT in pointing out the fake datastream. JG

  47. W.Erjautz says:

    It´s clear for me. It should be the “Landscheidt Minimum”, named after Theodor Landscheidt who predicted almost 10 years before the weak solar cycle 24 and also several weak cycles after that what will create a Maunder type solar minimum.

  48. Mark Wagner says:

    Landscheidt Minimum. I think he was among the first to predict the coming decline in solar activity some 20 years ago.

  49. darwin says:

    The Anthony Minimum

  50. Dave Middleton says:

    Gotta go with naming it after Leif!

  51. Frank Lansner says:

    As as Dane, the country of Lomborg and Svensmark, i think “Svensmark minimum” is a really good choice.

    After everything Svensmark had to go through I think he diserves this honour.
    Svensmark is perhaps the most important scientist in the whole debate?

    Svensmark Minimum

    Hmm.. its different and i like it..

    OT: http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/peer1.gif

  52. b_C says:

    CESIND Minimum – Cause and Effect: See, It’s Not Difficult!

  53. Indiana Bones says:

    Gore Minimum!

  54. Mike Bryant says:

    It might be time to call it a solar nadir, then it could be named Gore’s Nadir.

  55. Richard Hanson says:

    Save the Landscheidt Minimum for the time he predicted it…around 2030. I’d call this one The Warminimum.

  56. Roger Knights says:

    IF Gore should be honored, which I don’t agree with, call it The Gorey Minimum. (“The Gore Minimum” sounds flatfooted.)

  57. Flashman says:

    Gore Minimum

  58. Ben G says:

    I’ll sit on the fence and say the ‘Archibald Landscheidt Svalgaard Minimum’

  59. Mike Bryant says:

    How about:

    The Science is Settled Minimum…

  60. Mike Bryant says:

    Since it’s not supposed to be happening at all:

    The Oops Minimum

  61. Curtis Mears says:

    I vote for the “A.J. Gorrible Minimum”.

  62. Joel says:

    The over exaggerated underestimated theoretically incorrect solar cooling event

  63. The inconvenient minimum?

  64. Mike Bryant says:

    Maybe appropriately for the current era…

    It’s The Sun Stupid Minimum?

  65. TomLama says:

    The Gore Minimum is a maximum slap at the perversion of science.

    The Gore Minimum would memorialize the triumph of science and reason over hype and propaganda.

    The Fat Albert Arnold Gore Minimum, (FAAG Minimum,) also has a nice ring to it.

    History books will document that Svalgaard predicted the Gore Minimum long before Gore could cash in on his carbon ponzi scheme.

  66. Greg says:

    Re: “Gore Minimum”

    Why honour a reprehensible liar with such a title that will live on in history? Put Gore in the incinerator of history where we belongs…

    It is not an amusing irony.

    Name it after the real scientist who actually predicted this.

    Svalgaard Minimum FTW.

    Millennium Minimum has a nice ring too.

  67. NoAstronomer says:

    I voted for ‘Gore’, it’s not like we’re actually giving him credit for discovering it. Everyone will have forgotten ‘Truth’ in a few years. I’d like for professors In 100 years time to use Al’s name to scare their undergrads.

  68. superDBA says:

    The “I wish our government was as inactive” Minimum

  69. Mike Bryant says:

    The Inconvenient Minimum

  70. Gordon Ford says:

    How about the Gorian Minimum in honour of the age of false prophets and the new Pied Piper

  71. Mike from Canmore says:

    Leif got my vote because I learn too much from Leif not to pay my respects.

    Gore’s name should only be remembered in the butt of jokes. He represents one of the largest threats to my children’s future.

  72. SJones says:

    Please not the Gore Minimum. How many people think Molotov invented the Molotov cocktail? The Finns invented it in the Winter War against Russia (1939/40) and nicknamed them after Molotov who was the Russian defence minister at the time. You may name something sarcastically to begin with but time will erode that meaning eventually and I hate the idea of a fraud like Gore being commemorated in this way.

    If this does turn out to be a significant minimum it should be named after the first predictor of it – which would appear to be Landscheidt.

  73. Mike McMillan says:

    Jim Owen (11:57:36) :
    It kinda turns my stomach to immortalize either Gore or Hansen like this.

    Ditto.

  74. Mary R says:

    I wouldn’t want anything named after Gore! I vote absolutely NO to naming it the Gore Minimum. Come on people get creative. Many of you are incredible scientists, you must know the name of someone to name this after. Perhaps one of the scientists who first claimed a connection between a quiet sun and a colder planet?
    Stop the nonsense and give credit to someone who has added to this field of science, who has been committed to analyzing data and promoting intelligent debate.

    We have to be smarter than this….

  75. George Tobin says:

    Norwegian Blue Parrot Minimum — “it’s not dead, it’s resting” a la Monty Python:
    http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=dead+parrot+monty+python&hl=en&emb=0&aq=1&oq=dead+parrot#

  76. Skeptic Tank says:

    Landscheidt Minimum (the motion is carried)

    We won’t be making a joke out of this, as tempting as that is. So let’s give credit where credit’s due.

    Assuming, of course, this does indeed turn out to be a minimum worth naming.

  77. Phillip Bratby says:

    Landscheidt Minimum

  78. kim says:

    Hold your horses, everyone; I could be mistaken, but I don’t think Leif Svalgaard has predicted a minimum, yet. I think he’s only committed to Cycle 24 being low on sunspots at its peak. And I’m pretty sure that everyone is wondering at the evidence that Livingston and Penn are finding.
    ==========================

  79. BernardP says:

    After reading all the preceding posts, I am going with ‘Landscheidt- Svalgaard Minimum’.

  80. Dell Hunt, Michigan says:

    I still suggest:

    The Algorian MilliVanillian Minimum

    (i.e. give back the award cause you are a fraud)

  81. Mike Bryant says:

    “In honor of the man who called AGW the greatest scam in history – Coleman Minimum”

    Good idea, name it after Gary Coleman and hope it’s really short.

  82. cassandraclub says:

    I second the “Inconvenient Minimum”.

  83. Mike Bryant says:

    How about, “Leif’s Grand Minimum”

    That way it has two meanings…

  84. We shouldn’t name anything after Gore. I could live with the Eddy Minimum, but most of the other possibilities don’t appeal to me in the least.

    There’s been such a concerted effort on the part of the MSM not to let the word out, I have to go with The Media-Suppressed Minimum or The Secret Minimum.

  85. Mike Bryant says:

    Jorge,
    How about

    “Mum’s the Word Minimum”?

  86. It is self evident!
    It should be called The Mann-Made Minimum.
    Or MMM for short.
    Climate change has been proven to be the products of man activity as was discovered by the eminent geologists Michael Mann.

  87. Kum Dollison says:

    I suggest we ignore it. It will probably end soon, and we don’t need the distraction. If it doesn’t, that will be okay, also.

    Focus, People. 1998 was the Peak. 1998 It’s set in stone, and it’s a pretty safe bet it’s not going to be bested any time soon.

    Everything else is built on sand. It’s a good chance this years temeratures will be closer to 07′, than 08′. A good storm in the Arctic in August, and all the ice disappears quicker than Mandrake’s manservant. The Sunspots can reappear at any moment.

    The only thing that matters is that it’s getting cooler. How do you know? 1998. KISS

  88. Don B says:

    The Solar Slumber

    The alliteration should appeal to the media.

  89. geo says:

    “The Upside Down Hockey Stick Minimum”

  90. Mike Bryant says:

    “Mu” is a Japanese word alleged to mean “Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions”.

    So with that bit of knowledge, and hoping it’s a short solar minimum, how about:

    The Mu Mini Minimum… which is also a palindrome. I’m sure that Jack Eddy would’ve loved it. And it does roll off the tongue doesn’t it? In the future, people would know we hadn’t lost our sense of humor. It reminds me of another old palindrome from the latin, “Roma summus amor” which means Rome supreme love. Of course mine is not so elegant.

  91. George Patch says:

    Obamaminimum

    He promised change and delivered it in this minimum.

  92. Bullseye says:

    The Inconvenient Minimum

    Love that one !. got my vote

  93. Varco says:

    Watt Minimum?

  94. I would prefer to call it after Paul D.Jose, the “Jose’ s Minimum”
    See his work: http://www.giurfa.com/jose.pdf

  95. pyromancer76 says:

    I think it is an insult to the sun, our earth, and our dynamic, cyclical climate changes to let the phoney Goricle any where near the name of this new minimum, or the science. I also hope his investment company, Generation Investment Management, of which he is co-founder (along with Goldman Sach’s Hank Where-Did-All-Our-Money-Go Paulson) and chairperson, and from which he buys his carbon credits (The Tennessean), rots in, oh, well, you know.

    When Obama was part of all sorts of scams in Chicago through serving on the board of the Joyce Foundation, among others, he voted to give money ($1.1 million in two separate grants) to found the Chicago Climate Exchange, the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits “for all six greenhouse gases” that, what do you know, the EPA has just found to be serious pollutants. From my reading, Gore’s GIM has considerable influence over it. Just wait until a cap-and-trade law is passed. The participants — the new government-created bureacratic elites — are slobbering over their newly generated wealth that will be stolen from productive nations, industries, and people.

    Today is Earth Day. Two ironies leap from the consideration of its creation April 22, 1970. First the save-the-earth hysteria at that time was focused on GLOBAL COOLING — the new ice age acomin’. Second, does it seem a little strange to anyone that April 22 is also Valdimir Lenin’s birthday? Since Al Gore has celebrated this anniversary everyday in our recent memories, one might wonder whose example he is following. I think Al’s father would turn over in his grave.

  96. Peter Burns says:

    If President Obama goes ahead with his proposed cap and trade bill or permits the EPA to enact regulations taxing or otherwise penalizing the use of Fossil fuels, then he will wind up owning the crisis that will follow, and he will deserve to be remembered as the man who initiated the greatest policy blunder of modern times. It should be called the Obama Minimum.

  97. Troy says:

    The Archibald Minimum!

  98. Ray says:

    The Goracle Maximus Minimum

  99. Mike Bryant (12:39:58) :
    No. As far as I know it began in 1989 and the decrease in temperatures started in 1998, when all the heat saved in the south pacific seas began to be transferred to the atmosphere.

  100. Paul says:

    How about the “Imaginary Minimum” because it just doesn’t fit with the computer models.

  101. jryan says:

    I voted for Svalgaard because it is only fair.

    But if I was in a wistful mood I would want it to be called “The Mann-imum”

  102. M White says:

    Gore minimum only really works if a real proof/mechanism of the sun being the major cause of global climate and temperature being identified.
    Remember Al Gore is the public face of AGW, a hasbeen politician who with others has influenced the way climate science is conducted. If the sun is eventually proved to be the major climate driver the name AL Gore should be used as a warning to all who use unproven science to tell others how to live their lives.
    Of course if there is no significant solar minimum it won’t be called anything

  103. ScurvyDawg says:

    Initially call it the Mother of All Minimums. As a society we’re always proclaiming everything (people, places, gadgets, sporting events, headaches) to be the greatest/worst of all time, so if a solar minimum might occur during our lifetimes, it should be proclaimed ahead of time as the greatest ever. After a decade or so, we should get serious and give credit to Landscheidt by renaming the minimum as the Landscheidt Minimum. But, if the solar minimum results if chaos, mayhem, and global annihilation, then hopefully one of the last surviving humans will rename it The Last Known Minimum.

  104. Tamara says:

    “Inconvenient Minimum”

    It says it all.

  105. SteveSadlov says:

    The Beginnings of Sorrow.

  106. Mike Bryant (13:18:09) Mu it is also a question in itself, hoping the disciple will find the unnameable truth within reality. So Mu?

  107. English Major says:

    George Tobin (12:52:20) :

    Norwegian Blue Parrot Minimum — “it’s not dead, it’s resting” a la Monty Python:

    Perfect!

  108. /sea/ says:

    Al Gore should be stricken from the list of possibilities

  109. Richard Henry Lee says:

    Heliogenic Minimum.

    It may be the sun driving climate. It is certainly not man.

  110. David Ball says:

    Willem (12:20:12) :
    It seems perverse to name a developing solar minimum after those who deny the role of the Sun in climate I couldn’t agree more.

  111. EW Matthews says:

    Svensmark minimum

    It would be a great ending to a movie.

    (1st to predict a future movie about the trials of Henrik Svensmark after 2010 to celebrate his victory of the Cern cloud chamber experiment.)

  112. tangoactual says:

    From the BBC article, a quote attributed to one Professor Lockwood of Southampton University…

    “If you look carefully at the observations, it’s pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that’s been going on for a couple of decades.

    “If the Sun’s dimming were to have a cooling effect, we’d have seen it by now.”

    And the beat goes on…

  113. Bill Adams says:

    Best suggestion here: Roger Knights’s Inconvenient Minimum.

    A much better way of twisting Gore’s tail.

  114. Ray says:

    What about the Osama Bin Laden Minimum? Because he hates your Freedom and Way of Life and dimming the sun is a good way to change that… with the help of Hallah and American politicien that will surely do it in order to destroy your Empire and society.

  115. Doug Arthur says:

    The Melting Minimum.

  116. I.M. Cold says:

    The Gor Blimey

  117. cam says:

    The Watts Waning!

  118. Richard deSousa says:

    Landscheidt Minimum

  119. Old PI says:

    I’m with Cathy – the “Algore” Minimum. Not Gore, but AlGore. That way, it absolutely, positively, requires an explanation. It also fits his penchant for showing up at a conference or speaking engagement along with the coldest weather in a generation. It will help ensure that AlGore is the laughingstock he deserves to be, and will go a long way toward awakening the average American to the swindle that AlGore represents.

  120. Ira says:

    The “Inconvenient” Minimum. Inconvenient to the alarmists if it turns out, as we believe: “It’s the Sun, stupid!”

    The “scare quotes” denote it will not actually be inconvenient to humanity if it helps global temperatures stabilize.

  121. Basil says:

    Well, as much as I respect Leif, he didn’t forecast a minimum, just a low sunspot cycle.

    If this turns out to be a true minimum, I think real choice would be “Livingston and Penn Minimum.”

  122. Hangtown Bob says:

    I say……. Anthropogenic Solar Cooling

    After all, everything is our fault.

  123. Erick Barnes says:

    1 for landscheit-svaalgard minimum.

  124. Ozzie John says:

    Leif preficted a minimum, but not a grand minimum. We only name the latter so it’s got to be the….

    The Archibald Minimum

  125. Pearland Aggie says:

    The Carbon Tax Minimum….oh wait, that might be The Carbon Tax Maximum! LOL

    Seriously,
    I like the Svensmark Minimum or the Archibald Minimum.

  126. Doug says:

    I like the Eddy or Archibald Minimum. Eddy earned it and Archibald is providing specifics (based on others work) http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf

    If its named after Gore, he’ll just make a speech taking credit for it. Although the Inconvenient Minimum may be best of all.

  127. Pearland Aggie says:

    I also like the Climate Common Sense Minimum.

  128. Sean says:

    I would like to suggest the Veritas Minimum for exposting the truth about global warming and the truth about who or what controls the weather.

  129. Doug Arthur says:

    What was I thinking?

    It’s The Minimum Melting Minimum.

  130. R Warren says:

    Gore Minimum seems redundant.

    Inconvenient Minimum works.

    What about something like the “In Spite of Consensus Minimum”?

  131. Bill Illis says:

    Watt about the Watts Minimum.

    I suggested the Svalgard Minimum before so I had to stick with that but I think Leif didn’t like it.

    It should be named after whoever predicted it the most accurately having the best proven-in-the-long-run method/model. In that case, it will be few decades before it can receive the proper name.

  132. Tom says:

    Please not Gore, or Hansen. Those frauds have already received far too much publicity. Let us not make their name remembered any more than they would be anyway.

  133. Inconvenient Minimum has to be the one.

  134. rhodeymark says:

    I remember being one of the first to propose Hansen Minimum (because it had two syllables and I despise him), but in the interest of history and seriousness I too have already decided to call it the Landscheidt Minimum. It’s only right.

  135. Steve Burrows says:

    Earth Day Minimum

  136. J Watt says:

    FYI
    it has a name
    “Landscheidt Minimum”
    just google ( Landscheidt Minimum )

    http://www.google.com/search?q=Landscheidt+Minimum%E2%80%99&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

    results 3100 hits

  137. hareynolds says:

    I have been pushing for some time for The Gore Minimum without gaining any traction (see poll results).

    My logic is quite simple: The Nobel Committee is unlikely to take back Albert’s Prize, regardless of the subsequently discovered “truths”.

    For the benefit of future generations, we need to slap a big “asterisk” on that Nobel Prize in the form of “The Gore Minimum” (particularly if we get “climate” similar to that experienced during the Maunder and Dalton Minima).

    The HUBRIS of the AGW folks, and especially their College of Cardinals, Gore & Hansen. has been positively Biblical in scale and reach. Future generations need to hear about it.

  138. Cathy says:

    I withdraw Algore (as in Igor) and vote for Roger Knight’s”Inconvenient Minimum”.

    It appropriately skewers Al without immortalizing his name.

  139. Gary says:

    For fun: Gore Minimum
    For real: Landscheidt Minimum

  140. hotrod says:

    I would definitely not support using either Gore or Hansen in the name. It would be a travesty to immortalize them for something they actively ignored.

    By the same token at this point it is not a “minimum” although it may become one.

    I would suggest we refer to it as the Y2K quiet period until it develops more fully or fades away. That gives a convenient handle for it and it can be associated with someone like Eddy, Landscheidt, or Salvgaard who ever has the best basis for being recognized as its predictor, if and when it shows it will be reasonable to call it a minimum.

    I think there is some question at this time if Landscheidt’s predictions had any “scientific basis”, so even if he was correct, it would be more appropriate for the minimum if it develops to be named after someone who demonstrates what the mechanics of the minimum might be.

    There is always the case for a combined name like the “Landscheidt, Salvgaard Minimum” and the “Eddy quiet period” or something similar.

    I just think it is a bit premature to call it a minimum although the sharp down turn to a quiet sun should be given a name at least for discussion and reference.

    Larry

  141. FGW says:

    For fun, how about Mann Bear PIg minimum?
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bear_pig

    But seriously, I think Landscheidt Svaalgard Minimum would be appropriate

  142. George E. Smith says:

    Well my vote is to wait until at least the September solstice and see what happens to the ice.
    I’m definitely against calling it anything that even hints of anybody in the MMGWCC cult movement; or that very movement itself.

    George

  143. Watt’s mininum.

  144. captbob says:

    Well, only because nobody else has said it: The AGW (as in Al Gore was Wrong) minimum.

  145. Ray says:

    What about: Algorisphulovscheit Minimum

  146. Ted Clayton says:

    I say we continue to hang onto our riggin’, don’t get the cart out ahead of the horse, and watch to see just how events with the sun ultimately play out. It doesn’t look like namin’ time yet.

    The longer the sun remains in the doldrums, the more portentious & important the consequences. If the sun suddenly begins behaving ‘normally’, ‘as expected’, in the near future, then the quiet pattern we’ve seen so far is relatively minor. But otoh, it could go on like it is now for, well … who knows how long? We don’t know, do we?

    Let the story unfold. If it turns out to be a BIG story, then others will abscond with the naming-privelege.

    So far, the status of the sun remains an increasingly tantalizing … mystery. It’s tough to let a mystery remain a mystery, but it’s the right – and the smart! – thing to do.

    Most who enjoy WUWT think that if the sun continues its present low ebb ‘indefinitely’, the consequences will be quite severe.

  147. Ray says:

    But like most things nowaday will will give it a number, like the SC24 Minimum or whatever…

  148. Lucy says:

    lets face it, no one can spell svalgard. Gore Minimum, the man deserves infamy.

  149. Bill McClure says:

    Congrats to Lief he is winning the silent majority vote and mine.

  150. Ralph Couey says:

    The “Watts Up With the Sun?” minimum
    The Blame It On Bush Minimum
    The Re-Think Solar Panels Minimum

    …but seriously folks…

    The Svalgaard-Landscheidt Anomalous Minimum (SLAM)

  151. John G says:

    Just a Minimum
    Anthropogenic Global Minimum
    Here’s Your Minimum

    But I’ll vote for ‘An Inconvenient Minimum.’

  152. theBuckWheat says:

    Calling it the GORE MINIMUM is the best from the standpoint of PR, and we should admit that we are having this very discussion because Gore and his fellow AGW advocates have been able to trump the facts of climate change via good PR. We need to make them eat their spin, and eat all the crap they throw at those who are really trying to let the facts speak for themselves.

  153. John H says:

    When a Solar Minimum aligns with a Mental Minimum perhaps there is causation.

    Could it be that the solar minimum is causing the global mental minimum witnessed at RC etc.?
    Something has to be causing the Gore, Hansen, Schmidt, Lubchenco, Chu minimums.

  154. Thomas Gough says:

    The Landscheidt Minimum. There has been a suggestion of leave that for 2030 which he predicted. I believe he predicted the absolute minimum for 2030. Just maybe this is the start of it (i.e. a Maunder type minimum)

    TG

  155. H.R. says:

    I voted for Svalgaard Minimum on the official poll, since you said that he called it.

    My fun vote would go to “Maximum Minimum,” although we’d have to wait quite a while to see if “Maximum” (longest) would apply. It’s my nod to the current spate of Orwellian newspeak.

  156. co2sceptic says:

    Hi guys

    Your overlooking the best name….

    21st Century Minimum

  157. Tracy says:

    I submitted “The Humbling Minimum” due to the fact that we know so little about our Universe. However, I do like “The Inconvenient Minimum”. Do not give the narcissistic Gore any more credit for anything other than being a damn, arrogant fool.

  158. Jody Wilson says:

    GORE Minimum. It’s not about giving him credit – it’s about rubbing it in the faces of AGW zealots.

  159. Bill Hunter says:

    Landscheidt or Daly (John Daly) Minimum

  160. DJ says:

    The Little Ice Age – err that’s right it’s not even cold because of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Still, future generations will think of the current hot planet as almost Arctic by the standards they will endure.

    BTW why are you repeatedly gagging my posts. They are not rude, defamatory, or a slur on anyone?

  161. crosspatch says:

    “Jody Wilson (14:20:09)”

    I think it would be more appropriate to call the last few very active cycles The Gore Maximum rather than name any minimum after him.

  162. WakeUpMaggy says:

    I don’t want to see Gore or Hansen mentioned anywhere in the history books.
    Since Obama’s gonna get mentioned anyway, I’d call it the ObaMessiah Minimum.
    He promised to cool the earth and lower the sea levels, didn’t he?
    Maybe that will shut up the Goracle.

  163. LarryD says:

    The Hansen-Gore Maximum,
    the Landscheidt Minimum.

  164. Stephen says:

    Landscheidt Minimum

  165. vukcevic says:

    Credit Crunch Minimum

  166. Peter Plail says:

    The Clearasil minimum – not spots

  167. realitycheck says:

    If you are going to use Gore or Hansen, I think you should go with idea above of “Gore Maximum” or “Hansen Maximum”.

    My suggestion is the “Elephant Minimum” – like the Elephant in the room that (most) missed or ignored.

  168. Adolfo Giurfa (13:19:27) : “I would prefer to call it after Paul D. Jose, the ‘Jose’s Minimum.’ See his work: http://www.giurfa.com/jose.pdf

    Jose, can you see by the dawn’s early light…any real sunspots, yet?

  169. Domingo Tavella says:

    I live in California, where we have had one of the coldest Winters in memory. I wonder if that is due to the dimming of the Sun. At any rate, it seems pretty clear that the cold spell in CA shows what is plain and obvious: The Earth is cooling off much faster than anticipated.

  170. Lance says:

    I refuse to acknowledge Gore or Hansen. They have created enough havoc on the Earth.
    Perhaps Willie Soon Minimum? He deals a lot with Solar Physics!

  171. Rob R says:

    landscheit-svaalgard minimum

  172. Ray says:

    The Hathaway Minimum

  173. John Galt says:

    If Leif Svalgaard correctly predicted this, then he should get credit.

    However, let’s wait until it’s over and see if that also matches predictions. It’s too early to give full credit at this time. Maybe the ‘Svalgaard Modern Minimum’ for now.

  174. John Galt says:

    I’d like to change my vote and submit ‘Nothing to do with Climate Change Solar Minimum’ as an entry..

  175. The Tom Paine Minimum, since sunshine warmers will be replaced with winter soldiers.

    Or, obviously, the watts minimum!

  176. Certainly do not name it after Gore, we want to reserve his name for the dust bin of history.

    What is amazing is that the AGW crowd could give credit to the sun for causing cooling but not the warming of the late 20th century.

    If lower solar activity causes cooling, then clearly the reverse is also true, increases solar activity causes warming.

    But this crowd just can’t give an inch.

  177. Konrad says:

    My vote is for the Gore Minimum. One selfish reason is that I printed a T-shirt last year that reads The Gore Minimum – An Inconvenient Ice Age, which I wear to annoy warmists at parties. It features a list of previous minimums and a nice picture of the quiet sun in cool blue.
    The more serious reason is that the world needs to remember the stupidity of these recent years. While naming for a scientist may initially seem more proper, I feel we need a reminder of how the good folk of science allowed evil to triumph. Choosing the Gore Minimum as a name is not about making jokes about one man. It is about leaving a permanent reminder to future generations to separate science from politics, just as we now know to separate religion and state.

  178. DaveE says:

    Landscheidt Minimum in honour of his predictions of the current low activity.

    Otherwise Svalgård Minimum

    Regarding any effects. IF there are any, (through mechanisms unverified), I would expect a several year delay.

    DaveE.

  179. jlc says:

    The “Lief-us-alone” minimum in honour of WUWTs know-it-all genius.

  180. BCH says:

    Probably “Landscheidt” as the first word but we can’t have “minimum”.

    After all, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is now officially the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA).

    Clearly, since the GCM’s didn’t predict it, it must be an anomaly.

    My vote: Landscheidt Spot Anomaly

    (Which, unfortunately, sounds a bit like something that you may need antibiotics to treat.)

  181. DaveE says:

    “Dan Murphy (12:17:02) :

    Speaking of that, Leif mentioned in another recent thread that Hathaway had publicly admitted in an e-mail that he (Leif) was right and Hathaway wrong. I do extend my congratulations to him, and suggest that in this circumstance it is perfectly acceptable to feel vindicated, and indeed, perhaps even a bit smug. This should rightly give Leif immense personal and professional satisfaction.”

    I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Hathaway for his honour. It takes a big man to admit being wrong.

    Unfortunately, a bigger Mann won’t!

    DaveE

  182. Alec Rawls says:

    Actually, the “What’s Up With That?” minimum fits pretty well, capturing both the real and the pretend quizzicality of the alarmists who intentionally ignored 500 million years of correlation between solar activity and climate to claim that late 20th century warming was due to CO2.

    It also captures the quizzicality of the general public, which was kept in the dark about the well known correlation between solar activity and climate, as they get to slowly learn what is up with that.

  183. FatBigot says:

    The Watts Wane.

  184. DaveE says:

    As regards the Goracle…

    To name the minimum would be an honour… however… The Gore Pessimum is a description of the ill effects.

    DaveE.

  185. Bruce says:

    The “Mother Nature Spits In Hansen/Gore/AGW Faces Minimum”.

  186. Feedback says:

    The Mata Hari Minimum?
    The Muffled Madman Minimum?
    The Mann from Massachusetts Minimum?
    The Missing Puck Minimum?
    The Monster in the Model Minimum?

    And the winner is….
    The Svalgaard Minimum.

  187. Ray says:

    DaveE (14:48:45) :

    “… I would expect a several year delay.”

    Maybe we haven’t reached the true minimum yet. What kind of starter/force/mechanism can get a sun restarting? Could there be a partial collapse that could restart the internal processes?

  188. urederra says:

    Tom (13:54:47) :
    Please not Gore, or Hansen. Those frauds have already received far too much publicity. Let us not make their name remembered any more than they would be anyway.

    Agreed 100 %

    I voted Svalgard because I have read his comments here and at CA. But I am afraid I am not qualified to be the St. John of minima.

  189. Mike Bryant (13:18:09) : (varjious comjments)

    I rjeally mjust stojp sijppijng tjea bejfffffore rjeadinjg yjour cjommenjts. Ljook wjhat jyou dijd tjo mjy kjeybjoard!

  190. EricH says:

    It just has to be Landscheit Minimum. The evidence is overwhelming.

    Please Anthony put Landscheit on the voting list.

    Enjoy.

  191. But what’s wrong with “The Dr. Hathaway Says There’s Nothing Wrong with the Sun Minimum?”

    Just kidding, David. ☺

  192. First, it is not clear when a minimum should be called a Grand Minimum. Solar activity 100 years ago was low too and we are likely to get down to at least that low level of activity. The Dalton minimum was perhaps [although our data is poor] a tad deeper, and may be called a Grand minimum too, but I personally think that we should reserve ‘Grand Minimum’ for the ones that are REALLY deep like the Maunder. Perhaps one can still name some minima without requiring them to be ‘Grand’, so we could still have a Dalton Minimum [1810], a Gleissberg minimum [1910] , an Eddy Minimum [for the coming one, 2020]. Since these minima have come about every 100 years for a while now, it is no big feat to ‘predict’ one [my little grandson Peter did that several years ago just by looking at http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html ].

  193. Lee Kington says:

    Off Topic Heads-Up

    Air pollution helps plants blunt climate change: study
    LINK to Story

    “Surprisingly, the effects of atmospheric pollution seem to have enhanced global plant productivity by as much as a quarter from 1960 to 1999,” said Linda Mercado, a researcher at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Britain, and the study’s lead author.

    “This resulted in a net ten percent increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land,” she said in a statement.

  194. Jim Owen says:

    There’s a lot of humor here – and I do appreciate that. But — Gore Minimum would give the man exactly what he wants – immortality. Even if not quite the way he’d most want it to happen. The best revenge on Gore is to ignore him – and allow his memory to fade into history as a loser and a non-entity.

    For that reason, my vote was for Svalgaard.

    One possibility that everyone seems to have overlooked was Aaron Wildavsky, who said that Global Warming was the mother of all environmental scares. But not many people remember that today. And it wasn’t directly related to the subject at hand.

  195. Austin says:

    As much as the “Gore Minimum” has a yuk-yuk factor, Leif and Landscheidt should get the credit.

    Perhaps call this one the Svaalbard Minimum with Landsheidt Cycle covering the phenomenon.

  196. Jeff Alberts says:

    I vote for the “Much Ado About Nothing Minimum”.

  197. Feedback says:

    Only ONE more try pleeese….

    The Roll over Rasmus Minimum

  198. Man’s Minimum.

    (Plays with Mann, and Man’s influence.)

  199. Bruce H says:

    I proudly vote for the Svalgaard Minimum. Who cares if people can’t spell it today. It’s time to learn.

    Bruce H

  200. Leif Svalgaard (15:14:38) :

    … but I personally think that we should reserve ‘Grand Minimum’ for the ones that are REALLY deep like the Maunder. …. Since these minima have come about every 100 years for a while now, it is no big feat to ‘predict’ one [my little grandson Peter did that several years ago just by looking at http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html ].

    —–

    OK, so, can we use “The Grandsum’s Mini-Minimum” ? 8<)

    Please?

  201. Steve R says:

    Anthony, you are being too modest here! WUWT has done more to promote awareness of this minimum than anyone. You deserve the honour. I propose “Watts Minimum”. This name has the additional benefit of reminding the general public that the suns’s output has reached a minimum wattage….

  202. Retired Engineer says:

    I’m not sure having a minimum named after you is an honor, with the potential climate side effects. And we don’t know if we really have a minimum. Leif deserves recognition for his expertise and contributions. Al Gore, who might understand 0.0001% of the problem deserves something else.

  203. Mike Bryant says:

    In Aeschylus’ Eumenides, the repeated moaning of the letter Mu is the sound made by the sleeping Furies, or Erinyes which literally means ‘the angry ones’.

    Since the angry sun is now sleeping it is obviously moaning Mu when you listen to the radio waves converted to sound waves. I am certain that Leif will back me up on that. With that I nominate:

    Mu Minimum… another palindrome of course.

  204. Tom in Florida says:

    If I were a AGW believer I would name it the “Masking Minimum”. But I’m not so I’ll go with the “Inconvenient Minimum”. Let’s hope no one will ever have to re-name it the “Final Minimum”.

  205. david atlan says:

    How about :
    ‘The moving minimum’ (also with a footnote) or the
    ‘drowing polar bear minimum’ (which would also require a footnote)

    or the Svalgaard-Watts minimum

  206. Leon Brozyna says:

    My choice is for Leif.

    A man can know he’s right, despite what all around him may say. He may know he’s right and feel a certain satisfaction in knowing he knew. Dr. Svalgaard put himself out there with his view that a change was coming, yet he’s not gone to extremes of fantasy; he’s adhered to solid science. It’s only fitting that he be so recognized for his work in this fashion.

    Let it be the Svalgaard Minimum.

  207. Thom Scrutchin says:

    I immediately thought of the Gore Minimum. Then I recalled that Apple tried to give the code name Sagan to an internal project. Carl Sagan had a hissy fit and threatened to sue.. They renamed the project Butthead Astronomer. We could just skip the middle step and call it Tje Butthead Politician Minimum.

  208. pft says:

    They probably will call it the Deniers Minimum. But with all that CO2 in the air, this should protect us from getting too cold, right?. Of course, if it does get cold despite CO2′s thin blanket near the surface, it’s just a matter of time before they tell us CO2 enhances Global Cooling brought about from the suns inactivity by releasing heat from the upper troposphere to space, and risks plunging the world into an ice age which would have even more dire consequences than Global Warming. It’s truly an Orwellian world we live in.

  209. Ray says:

    What about the Catlin Minimum?… because they are experiencing first hand its effect and how it will be if it stays like that.

  210. Ralph Couey says:

    The more I think about it, the better I like it:

    The Svalgaard-Landscheidt Anomalous Minimum

    It even comes with a nifty acronym:

    SLAM

  211. Mike Bryant says:

    Since know one knows yet the scale of this minimum, how about,

    The Enigma Minimum

    or

    The Conundrum Minimum

  212. Mike Bryant says:

    The It’s In The Pipeline Minimum

  213. Jeff L says:

    1 spot yesterday, already faded away.

    http://www.solarcycle24.com/

    Does anyone know if it was a cycle 23 or cycle 24 spot?

  214. David S says:

    Definitely The Gore Minimum.

  215. Ryan Welch says:

    My vote is for the Eddy Minimum. The huckster AL Gore does not deserve to have his name on toilet paper. The credit should go to a scientist (not a politician) who originally discovered the object. In this case Eddy. My second choice would be Landscheit Minimum.

  216. Tim says:

    The McIntyre “ITOLDyaso” minimum

  217. Feedback says:

    Re: many

    Don’t like the Gore Minimum at all – Svalgaard, Watts, Landscheidt et al are all better.

    Don’t confuse Al Gore with “the Gore Effect” – that’s something different. It’s speculation-proof protection provided by the real world.

  218. MikeW says:

    At first I thought Gore Minimum was a cinch. Then I realized that considering the speed with which history always gets rewritten (and not in a good way), it would soon turn into yet another honor for him. Not!

    So I humbly propose it be called… The Igno Minimum.

    It’s been studiously ignored as the whole planet has caught a chill. It will aslo have much of the scientific/political world deserving of shame and disgrace in thier ignominy.

    Mike

  219. crosspatch says:

    Why is everyone predicting such a dramatic minimum? Maybe it is going to be just like Leif predicts it will be … a regular cycle, just smaller than the ones we have seen in recent history but nothing unprecedented.

    REPLY: This is mostly just for fun. See the tag “fun stuff”. – Anthony

  220. Robert Wood says:

    Tough call there. I wanted to call “Gore” out of irony but Leif does something useful, and actually predicted a down-turn in solar activity.

    Now, Leif studies the Sun; there appear to be very few who study the interaction of Sun and Earth and Moon. Probably a whole fresh new arena for PhD dissertations :-)

  221. J Sumrall says:

    Bare Minimum

    or

    Carbon Minimum

    or

    Landscheidt Minimum

  222. polistra says:

    Danish Minimum. Honoring Svensmark, Svalgaard, and Lomborg.

    Lomborg goes along with the “science” of AGW but has done
    more than anyone else to break down the political side of AGW.

  223. bill-tb says:

    Gore minimum.

    I think tying Gore to the sun behavior is the kiss of death to the AGW crappie.

  224. Robert Wood says:

    Ken Hall @ 11:56:47

    A fine piece of rhetoric. Not hard science, but political science; you put it in the nutshell!

  225. groweg says:

    Its nice to see that some in the “mainstream media” are finally catching on that the sun’s activity is at a very low ebb and that might have consequences for the earth’s climate going forward.

    What puzzles me is how many highly educated supporters of AGW are so dense as to not understand any of the compelling evidence against global warming. Things like that the length of the solar cycle is highly and negatively correlated to the earth’s temperature (and we are now at or near the end of a distinctly long solar cycle), that over geological time CO2 levels followed rather than preceded temperature change (making it virtually impossible that CO2 levels drove climate change in the past), that relying on computer models never successfully tested on “out-of-sample” data is foolhardy, etc.

    Many of the AGW crowd have Ph.D.’s in hard sciences yet they are espousing a cause that (to me) defies common sense. Furthermore, are pushing a regulatory agenda that is environmentally meaningless and will be an economic disaster. Why can’t they figure out what Charles Osgood and us at this website already know?

  226. Bill P says:

    Re: The Igno Minimum

    Nice.

  227. SpringwaterKate says:

    I like either Landscheidt Minimum (scholarly) or Inconvenient Minimum (ironic).

    Although Leif predicted fewer sunspots, my impression is that he’s not at all convinced that this will even be a minimum, let alone predicting it as such.

    I also like the Watts Minimum since Anthony has brought a wider audience to this subject than anyone, and it’s quite catchy with its double entendre.

    Some of the other options (Landscheidt, Inconvenient, Watts) need to be added to the Poll so that over the next few days we have a level playing field for the various choices. In fact, why not replace Gore and Hansen with them? Like so many others, the idea of recognizing either of them in any way just leaves me cold….

    Kate

  228. Mike Bryant says:

    The Clearly Alarming Minimum, The Alarmingly Accelerating Minimum, The Alarmingly Decelerating Minimum, The Climate Catastrophe Minimum, The Meltdown of Sanity Minimum, The Miracle Minimum, The Minimized Minimum, The Minimal Minimum, The Maximum Minimum, The Pre-Max Minimum, The Ultimate Minimum, The Penultimate Minimum, The Marginally Alarming Minimum, The Marginal Minimum, The Insignificant Minimum, The Minor Minimum, The Negligible Minimum, The Underrated Minimum, The Overrated Minimum, The Untimely Minimum, The Opportune Minimum, The Inopportune Minimum, The Embarrassing Minimum…

    OK enough fun with the Thesaurus…

  229. Wansbeck says:

    The Leif Lull

  230. Trevor says:

    Landscheidt minimum

  231. Mike Bryant says:

    If we call it the Gore Minimum it will undoubtedly snow on the sun’s surface.

  232. Shaun says:

    A lot of people seem to assume that this means cooling. As far as I can see Leif isn’t saying that. I await with interest to see what happens. One name that isn’t mentioned as far as I can see is Fairbridge. I think Landscheit owes something to him.

  233. ujagoff says:

    I wrote in “Inconvenient Minimum”, but almost submitted “The Shinola Minimum” since it would be interesting to see if Gore and his flock could differentiate solar phenomena from the warm steamy Sins of Mankind Theory

  234. Jeremy says:

    The Mote in Gore’s Eye

  235. Robert Wood says:

    Following up the idea from David Quist @ 12:17:53:

    The Canute Minimum.

  236. Douglas DC says:

    Leif fer sure,I dissagree with some of what he says,but by training I’m a Biologist,not a
    Solar expert and never used my degree,,,
    No Gore or Hansen-maybe name the Ice field covering Chicago,after one of them,
    but not this minimum…

  237. Feedback says:

    Re Mike Bryant (16:32:58) :

    If we call it the Gore Minimum it will undoubtedly snow on the sun’s surface.

    *ROTFL*

  238. Andrew says:

    How about the “SOHO Minimum”

    Most of the sun freckles that keep resetting the spotless days count are only visible from its images.

  239. Robert Wood says:

    Just a thought: What is Gore’s Truth Footprint :-)

  240. RoyfOMR says:

    After casting my vote, and then experiencing the all-too-rare feeling of ‘Yehah’ that inevitably accompanies the inward satisfaction that can only be met by picking the best candidate- all I can add is a humble appeal to maintain a noble, respectfull and mature approach that respects all the candidates for this particular award.
    Leif, Leif you’re the man. Kick ‘em in the biosphere. If you can!

  241. Jerry Haney says:

    I voted for the Svalgaard Minimum, for an honest scientist, who has been generous with his time on this site, as well as for his prediction.

    Jerry Haney

  242. sky says:

    How about the Gored Watts minimum?

  243. Mike Bryant says:

    I asked my wife if she had a suggestion for the name of the new minimum… She said “Bob”… no “The”, no “Minimum” just… “Bob”… then she made me promise to put it in comments here. I suggested “Robert” because it’s more formal but she said, “No, Bob.” So here it is:

    “Bob”

    Reply: Do you really want to go there? ~ charles the moderator

  244. If you want to name something after Gore, why not using that name for designating any exhaust, chimneys, ….also those…, any death or living duct expelling the so called “green house gases”

  245. meemoe_uk says:

    Isn’t it whoever’s prediction is most accurate?
    Last year I bagsied Octember 2009, which is Archibald’s prediction plus 2.5 months to compensate for the Dec2007\Jan2008 1st SC24 spot being so weak that most obsevation tools over the last 300 years probably wouldn’t have seen it. We’re using the ‘min is 10 to 20 months after 1st spot of new cycle’ rule here btw. This rule disqualifies Svalgaard’s assertion of min = August 2008 from the running btw.

    So looks like it’ll be the meemoe_uk minimum.
    Rock on!

  246. Smokey says:

    Gore already was handed the Nobel prize and the carbon credit franchise, no need to swell his head any more: click

  247. meemoe_uk says:

    Great comments btw everyone. Funny thread!

  248. Bobby W says:

    “Gore (as a bull) Obama Minimum”

  249. Wansbeck says:

    As many here will know, King Canute ordered back the sea not because he believed he had that power but to demonstrate the opposite to his more sycophantic courtiers.

    Most people are unaware of this and Canute is now considered a joke.

    The ‘Gore Minimum’ may well lead to future generations believing that our Al was a great scientist.

    Beware!

  250. Mike Jonas says:

    Not Gore!!! In the scientific arena, he is, was, and must remain an absolute nobody.

    The first scientist to predict the minimum (and get the mechanism right) should get the credit, and from what I have read here, that is likely to make it the

    Landscheidt Minimum.

  251. MarcH says:

    Any takers for The Ironic Minimum

  252. Mike Bryant says:

    Perhaps an English motorcar company could use the occasion to promote their wares.

    As the sun is viewed through the fog by an older lady, A young gent pulls alongside her in his convertible. As she carefully looks at the sun and shades her eyes she says,
    “It’s spotless, I tell you, it’s spotless…” He says,
    “Why of course…

    It’s a Cooper Mini, Mum…”

    Place Groan here_______________________

  253. Harry says:

    Name the current solar minimu “The Gorical Minimum”.

  254. Britannic no-see-um says:

    Just another offering- Ulysses Solar Cycle

    The last report I can find on this magnificently successful scientific mission includes this comment
    ‘ (After more than 17 years…) The mission is expected to end by 1 July. Once it is clear that the fuel needed to keep the main antenna pointing towards Earth has started to freeze, ground controllers will put Ulysses into a stable configuration. It will continue to orbit the Sun indefinitely.’

    See

    http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMUBG1A6BD_index_0.html

  255. Robert Wood says:

    Andrew @16:41:35 said”

    Most of the sun freckles that keep resetting the spotless days count are only visible from its images.

    Good point. So-called SP 1015 was only visible in SOHO , optically and magnetically. This was not observed from Earth. It would not have been seen 300 years ago.

    Leif, your thoughts?

  256. pkatt says:

    I have a compromise lets call the double peak of the last maximum the gore whatever..and call the minimum by the guy who went against the masses and actually predicted the thing.

  257. George Gillan says:

    “What should we call the current solar minimum?”

    How about the Gore-Hole

    :-)

  258. George E. Smith says:

    Speaking of solar mimima; the available satellite measurments of “The Solar Constant” or TSI, covering almost three sunspot cycles but unfortunately from several satellites; it is apparent, that over a typical sunspot cycle the TSI has a P-P amplitude cycle of about 0.1%; around 1 1/2 W/m^2, and many people think (including me) that that 0.1% doesn’t really have much temperature impact on earth climate.
    But nevertheless it IS a 1.4-1.6 W/m^2 climate “forcing” to use that silly term from the climate cult lexicon.

    It is interesting to ask what real down to earth effect could create some similar magnitude forcing.

    I have often said that the whole GIStemp/HADcrut “anomaly average is a farce since the earth’s thermal infrared radiation is not a linear function of temperature, and therfore mean temperature means nothing. If one took the mean of the fourth power of temperature; that might relate to the total earth radiant emittance, since any surface element should follow a Black Body like function with some spectral emmissivity factor added.
    So averaging the 4th power of temperature (K) makes more sense than averaging anomalies which mean nothing.

    This leads further to the practice of ignoring cyclic changes in temperature.

    If some station’s owl box reports a daily min max temp from which one takes the daily mean, and reports that (anomaly); how far wrong is that report. Well it is wrong because of the daily temperature cycling, and the non linear variation of radiant emittance with temperature.

    So let’s assume some mean station temperature (To) Kelvins and assume a daily sinusoidal temperature cycle of amplitude (t) deg,

    So we can write the instantaneous Temperature as T = To + t sin (a) where (a) goes from zero to 2pi radians or equivalently zero to 24 hours cycle period.
    We want to take T^4 as a function of 9a) and integrate it over the complete cycle.
    So T^4 = {To + t sin (a)}^4 = To^4 + 4To^3 tsin (a) + 6To^2 t^2 sin^2 (a) + 4 To t^3 sin^3(a) + t^4 sin^4 (a) ; and we want to integrate that from
    0<(a)<2pi radians or 24 hours if we want to use time instead.
    Now we know that odd powers of sin integrate to zero over a full cycle, so the second and fourth terms disappear. Also (To) is say +15 deg C or 288.15K and (t) is maybe a few degrees, so the last 4th power term is going to be negligible compared to the squared term.
    So we have; Integral (T^4) d(a) = integral To^4 [1 + (t/To)^2 sin^2 (a) ] d(a) which comes out to 2pi To^4 [1 + 3(t/To)^2] for (a) = 0 to 2pi or simply
    To^4 x period [ 1 + 3 (t/To)^2 ] where period is the total integration period which is also the period (P) of the sinusoidal cycle or for that matter, any number of full cycles.\
    It is left as an exercise for the reader to show that we get essentially the same result for ANY cyclic function, so long as we integrate over an integral number of complete cycles; and of course (To) has to be the real average value of (T) over any such cyclic variation.

    So if there is no cyclic variation, then the integral is simply:
    P x T^4 = P x To^4

    BUT if (t) has any non zero value, then the integral has an always positive increase over the integral of the average, and so the total emitted radiant energy over such a cycle will be under-reported if you simply take the average temperature.

    So how much of a daily temperature cycle does it take to under-report the “forcing” by the same 0.1% that we get from the solar sunspot cycle variation of TSI.

    We simply have to put 3(t/To)^2 = 0.001, giving (t/To) = 0.01826 .

    Since To is say 288.15 K (15 C) then (t) is 5.26 deg C.
    Remember this is the amplitude of the temperature cycle, so the peak to peak temperature change is 10.52 deg C to get the same “forcing” as the sunspot cycle TSI variation. That’s about 19 deg F, which is certainly in the range of ordinary day/night temperature cycles almost anywhere on earth; and in the hotter dry desert regions, you can easily see 60 deg F overnight temperature drops and more, which is three times as high.
    Don’t forget the “forcing” goes as the temperature cycle squared so suddenly we have a 1% effect over dry desert areas.

    Don’t forget, that over a longer cycle, namely a full seasonal cycle, the total (t/To) range is now much bigger, and the effect of the standard practice of ignoring cycles and simply averaging the anomalies, is to grossly underreport the total radiation energy emitted from the planet, which translates into overestimating the mean equilibrium global temperature.

    Like I have said before GISStemp is nonsense.

    Those cycles are important. I forgot to say, that when the periodic temperature cycling is not sinusoidal, the (3) factor in the 3(t/To)^2 term will change to some other value.

    George

  259. Aelric says:

    The anthropogeneousorbiscaloraphobia minimum

    (i.e. the sun got disgusted and went to sleep)

  260. Geoff Sharp says:

    Very interesting to see how many people mentioned Landscheidt, but didnt have a chance to vote on it. Personally I think Jose will go down in history as the man who truly discovered the recurring grand minima pattern…his time will come.

    I know this is just fun, but cant understand why Svalgaard would rate a mention. He has only predicted one low cycle 24 at about 72 SSN. That is not anywhere near a grand minimum. My definition of a grand minimum is at least 2 very low cycles that occur between high cycles, the early 1900′s type event does not qualify.

  261. Pamela Gray says:

    Leif gets my vote. I think it should stand alone as a minimum in its own right and not be connected to arguments, one side or the other, about Earth’s temperature. It should be purely about the Sun.

  262. Bill Illis says:

    In terms of how the current low solar activity has affected temperatures so far – it is probably closing in on -0.1C now.

    Total Solar Irradiance (from the SORCE solar instrument) has declined from 1361.8 Watts/m^2 (solar max) to 1360.8 Watts/m^2 (current).

    In the short-term, this would translate into 0.3C per W/m^2 * -1.0 W/m^2/4 = -0.1C.

    It may still take a little longer for the full effect of this to occur since it is thought there is some lag before the surface oceans and the land surface cools down etc. If it continued for several more years, the effect might bump up to 0.2C or so.

    So, it isn’t much unless it lasts much longer or solar activity falls even farther.

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?ION__E1=PLOT%3Aplot_tsi_data.ion&ION__E2=PRINT%3Aprint_tsi_data.ion&ION__E3=BOTH%3Aplot_and_print_tsi_data.ion&START_DATE=1950&STOP_DATE=2500&TIME_SPAN=6&PLOT=Plot+Data

  263. MattE says:

    I prefer the Grand Minimum. They’ve been calling the recent ‘hot’ sun the “Grand Maximum,” so that seems the proper title to me. On the other hand, I’m all for giving Leif some credit

  264. Geoff Sharp (17:31:07) :
    My definition of a grand minimum is at least 2 very low cycles that occur between high cycles, the early 1900’s type event does not qualify
    By that definition 1831 was not during the Dalton Minimum…

  265. INGSOC says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the great province of British Columbia, I cast all one of my delegates, to the next great minimum of the whole world, for Dr. Svalgaard!

    Cheers!

  266. Landscheidt-Fairbridge Minimum. They were the original predictors. But probably it’ll be called the Eddy minimum, or if we’re lucky, the Eddy-Svalgaard minimum. I guess the official namers won’t even know Svensmark let alone Landscheidt or Fairbridge.

    Unexpected Minimum, Unwelcome Minimum, Unpredicted Minimum, Unpredictable Minimum, Unstoppable Minimum, Unalterable Minimum, Unimaginable Minimum, Untaxable Minimum.

    Inappropriate Minimum, Inconvenient Minimum, Invincible Minimum, Indefensible Minimum, Incognito Minimum, Indolent Minimum.

    Eeny minimummy mo
    Catch a warmist by his toe
    If he hollers let him go
    Eeny minimummu mo.

  267. Howard Barlow says:

    Gore-Hansen Minimum

  268. Mike Bryant says:

    Al Gore was overheard recently as he was talking on the phone…

    “Man, if old man sun don’t wake up pretty soon, it’s gonna cost us a whole lotta money… Do you hear what I’m saying? Get with your scientist buddies right away and let’s get a bunch of studies coming out!!… Ya, like maybe thirty, studies… I want four or five of them things coming out every week for the next six or eight weeks… I don’t CARE what it’ll cost… Get it done NOW. And when are those Catlin guys gonna make a splash… We can’t just lollygag along here… Let’s get this show on the road…”

    Because of the sensitive nature of this material I am not at liberty to discuss how it was acquired, however IF I was at liberty, I would say that I just made it up…

  269. John H says:

    Do scientist know for sure that the sun is not dying?

    Suppose the dimming continues?
    That can’t be good.

    Will NASA and NOAA try to re-ignite it?

    Or do we all have to relocate to that new planet that was found?
    Will be on one of the first escape spaceships?

  270. INGSOC says:

    Folks will figure it was named after some guy named Eddy Svalgaard! LOL

  271. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (17:45:09) :

    By that definition 1831 was not during the Dalton Minimum…

    It was the tail end. SC5 & SC6 are a product of SC4 and are considered in my book true grand minimum. SC7 was more like a weak SC20 and contributed to the cooling in a similar fashion as SC20. For those who dont understand what causes a grand minimum this might seem hard to grasp, but there are very good reasons, that I wont go into here.

    So do you think you should have your name on the upcoming grand minimum?

  272. Jeremy says:

    How about “The Kyoto Diminution”

  273. Herbert says:

    I suggest:
    “The Gavin Schmidt Minimum”
    “The Team MiniMann”
    “The Concensus Minimum”
    “The Settled Science Minimum”
    “The Debate is Over minimum”
    “The Denialist Minimum”
    “The WUWT Minimum”

    Thanks
    Herbert

  274. David L. Hagen says:

    Endorse
    Mark (11:58:10) :

    Landscheidt minimum after Theodore Landscheidt.

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

    (Strongly VETO Gore Minimum or Hansen Minimum as they have not done anything deserving of being honored by a notable Solar cycle.

    However you are welcome to call record COLD or Precipitation records by gore/hansen which are associated with the Landscheidt Minimum.)

  275. Mike Bryant says:

    Ok… if the Grand Maximum just happened… and Leif undoubtedly has called this recent downturn… and I think we can all agree that Leif is a grand person…
    And also life is grand… maybe “Leif is Grand Minimum” is OK because it’s not really saying that the minimum is grand…. uhhhh I lost track of what I was saying but I think it’s all in there somewhere….

  276. François GM says:

    Unprecedented minimum.

  277. Geoff Sharp (17:54:54) :
    “By that definition 1831 was not during the Dalton Minimum…”
    It was the tail end. SC5 & SC6 are a product of SC4 and are considered in my book true grand minimum.

    But don’t fit your scheme as they are twenty years off. You should then change your Figure to say 1811 instead of 1831.

  278. Geoff Sharp (17:54:54) :
    “By that definition 1831 was not during the Dalton Minimum…”
    It was the tail end. SC5 & SC6 are a product of SC4 and are considered in my book true grand minimum.

    But don’t fit your scheme as they are twenty years off. You should then change your Figure to say 1811 instead of 1831. and 1811+172 = 1983 hmmm, I can now see why you try to slip in 1831 instead of 1811…

  279. JohnD says:

    I’d offer “Won’t-Get-Fooled-Again Minimum”, but the phrase mocks itself.

    Get on the band wagon for…

    Mike Bryant (12:46:57) :

    The Inconvenient Minimum

  280. Corky Boyd says:

    I didn’t have time to read every suggestion,so I may be duplicating someone else.

    There is only one name for this minimum.

    It’s the WATT MINIMUM. Well maybe the Watt’s Up Minimum. With over 7 million hits, you deserve it.

    Just start using it.

  281. Mike Bryant says:

    If it’s named by the alarmists…

    “The I Hope This Doesn’t Ruin Our Gravy Train Minimum”

    (I tried but I couldn’t make it any shorter)

  282. Larry Sheldon says:

    The Watt’s Down With That Minimum

    The Hockey Stick

    The GoreBull Maximum

  283. Mike Bryant says:

    Well since he fiddled while Rome burned (at least that is the popular perception)
    Why not

    The Nero Minimum

    Besides, it kinda goes with

    The Wolf Minimum

  284. Mr Lynn says:

    I vote for:

    The Happy Minimum!

    because of the undeniable element of glee with which it is being received by climate realists.

    /Mr Lynn

  285. Mike Bryant says:

    Mr. Lynn, Then why not The Optimum Minimum?

  286. RLGrin says:

    I Like the “Concensus Minimum”

  287. Mike Bryant says:

    Since the world is turning to collectivism…

    The Minimum Wage Minimum

  288. Mike Bryant says:

    Hmmmm I liked The Bare Minimum… The Polar Bear Minimum?

  289. Hugh says:

    I vote for the Landscheidt-Svalgaard Minimum. Much as I would love to taunt Gore, this will end up being history and I don’t want to create the impression that Gore was a positive figure in all of this.

  290. Jim Papsdorf says:

    OT: Neil Cavuto had an AGW type on today on the Fox Cable News channel and did one hell of a job confronting him in focusing on the recent reports re Antarctica ice levels.He was clearly NOT impressed with the guest’s arguments and was essentially dismissive of the points the guy was trying to make. I was VERY impressed with Cavuto’s stance !!!! Anyone else see it ?????

  291. Frank Ravizza says:

    I voted Gore. Science needs more sarcasm.

  292. Deanster says:

    Without Doubt .. it should be called the Landscheidt Minimum .. as he called it long before any of the pointy headed Ph.D.s in astrophysics who study the sun.

    IMO, It would be a flat out injustice to call it anything other than that.

  293. WestHoustonGeo says:

    Quoting:
    “The Nero Minimum
    Besides, it kinda goes with
    The Wolf Minimum”

    Commenting:
    I get it. But I am among the few ;-)

  294. dgallagher says:

    I second Varco! It shall be called the WATT minimun.

    Not only does this give proper credit to a significant climate researcher who recognised the significance of the event early on, think of the who on first fun we can have with solar deniers. We refer to the Watt minimun, they say “what minimun” we say “exactly”. When they finally admit that the sun can actually have an effect on climate and start blaming the sun for masking the intense warming that’s not happening, we can say “watt solar minimun” they call us deniers all over again.

  295. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (18:24:37) :

    But don’t fit your scheme as they are twenty years off. You should then change your Figure to say 1811 instead of 1831. and 1811+172 = 1983 hmmm, I can now see why you try to slip in 1831 instead of 1811

    This is not hard to understand, you are intelligent and should be able to grasp this, but we seem to be going over it again. At the risk of raising Anthony’s hackles, the 172 year pattern has a centre with usually 3 opportunities for solar downturn. The Wolf, Sporer and Maunder looked to use all 3, the Dalton used one and a bit (the centre is 1831) and this time around we are right in the centre after SC20 didn’t quite make the grade.

  296. Mike Bryant says:

    NASA is calling it a Deep Solar Minimum,

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

    The warmers want more ice to save the polar bears, and this minimum might be the start of more ice, so why not anagram NASA’s Deep Solar and call it:

    The Polar Seed Minimum

  297. dgallagher says:

    I vote for the WATT minimun.

    Not only does this recognise Anthony’s significant contribution to climate education and research, it will provide many opportunities for who’s on first fun with solar deniers.

    We mention the current solar minimun, they say “what minimun”, we say “exactly”!

  298. Paul R says:

    I voted for the Svalgaard Minimum, Gore’s name should only be used for new models of Porta Potties, septic tanks and the like.

    The Malthus Minimum might be appropriate.

  299. Tim F says:

    Roger Knights’ “Inconvenient Minimum” is brilliant. Funny, sarcastic, satire at its best. I wish I had thought of it.

  300. Roger Knights says:

    Eureka!

    The Mooning Minimum

    This has:

    Alliteration and lilt (very important, because they aid memorability);
    Descriptiveness (the image atop this thread looks like it’s a bald-butt “mooning” the viewer);
    Sting (Nature is expressing its contempt toward its shallow and simplistic diagnosticians with a visual “raspberry”)

  301. Robert Bateman says:

    I voted for Eddy Minimum, but I am pleased to see Dr. Svaalgard’s name on top.
    He stays with us, even though he gets a devil of a time here & there.
    Gore already has his reward.

  302. gandolphxx says:

    I suppose watermelon minimum would be to obvious.

  303. ked says:

    Landscheidt was predicting this back in the 90′s

  304. Dan Lee says:

    Livingston-Penn minimum. If their work is confirmed by observation over time, who can say how long sunspots will remain invisible.

    Could that be what happened during the Maunder minimum? If so, and if we’re entering another such phase of that cycle, then they should get the credit for spotting it.

  305. Mark says:

    Dim Sun? Is this a new type of Chinese food?

    (Sorry)

  306. Robert Bateman says:

    Just wait until somebody digs up those Heirogyphic SOHO magnetograms from the big plage of March, 2009. You could easily sell 100 million the idea of The Handwriting on the Sun. AGW would find it’s soapbox unattended, it’s thunder stolen, in a heartbeat. Or, it could be seen dodging rotten fruit instead of shoes.

  307. Roger Knights says:

    Tim F: Thanks for the pat on the head!!

    However, although I invented “The Inconvenient Minimum” on my own, somebody else deserves equal credit, because two weeks or so ago we both submitted it at about the same time, on another thread on this site. It was during a period when comments were piling up in the moderator’s in-box and so neither of us saw the other’s submission. I was astounded and dismayed to discover, that he’d beaten me to the punch, once my comment was out of moderation. (I felt like the guy who lost out to Alexander Graham Bell by an hour at the patent office.)

    Anyway, I’ve made lots of other little bits of wordplay to console me. Here’s one we can toss at the AGWAns outraged at our heresy: “Your ox is not a sacred cow.”

  308. JFA in Montreal says:

    The WUWiT Minimum

  309. Mike Bryant says:

    So funny that CT doesn’t support the Comparison Product any longer. Also so very far behind on the seasonal graphs that are fatally flawed. Their website is so shabby and falling apart like the AGW hypothesis itself…

  310. Mark says:

    Interestingly they mentioned the dim sun on the Communist Broadcasting Corporation news here in Canada tonight and even had there science guru in to talk about it. But to no surprise, they made the mandatory comment at the end that this does nothing to prevent the dreaded global warming! Pathetic!!

  311. Geoff Sharp (19:19:55) :
    This is not hard to understand
    Indeed, it is easy, as we here have typical examples of ‘explanations’ of the type “the stock market failed to rally in spite of the good employment figures”. Descriptive after-rationalizations with no predictive power or understanding of the reasons behind what happened.

    the 172 year pattern has a centre with usually 3 opportunities for solar downturn. The Wolf, Sporer and Maunder looked to use all 3, the Dalton used one and a bit (the centre is 1831) and this time around we are right in the centre after SC20 didn’t quite make the grade.

    No explanations of why some used all three, one only one and a bit, and one that didn’t make the grade.

    Specifically, the angular momentum graph from 1800 to 2060 includes the Dalton minimum and our present time:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum%201800-2060.png

    If you shift the modern data left 172 years, you see that the angular momentum [AM] graphs are identical:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum%201800-2060,%20shifted.png

    If the AM is the controlling factor we should therefore expect identical [to the same degree - unless the Sun does some crap-shooting] sunspot numbers, and clearly we did not see that:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%201800-1850%20and%201978-2028.png (cycles 24 and 25 predicted)

    In the 1831-case, the low cycles were before 1831, in the present case the low cycles will be after 1831+172= 2003. There is nothing in the AM graph that explains or hints at this. It is in this sense that your empirical method fails.

    Now, it is perfectly OK to say that something other than AM is driving the cycle and producing the correlations so fervently believed in, but it is not OK [and that is my only problem with this] to say that everything is explained by the run of AM, because clearly it is not.

    You comment on intelligence and grasping ability is a disgrace.
    And with this, it is time for you to return to your sandbox.

  312. Mike Bryant says:

    This post MUST have set a record for the most comments in one day…
    Mike

    Reply: Funny, you posted this just as I was counting YOUR comments today, which also may be an individual record. 52 and rising with 3.5 hours to go. ~ charles the moderator

  313. INGSOC says:

    If the MSM et al had kept on hiding their head up their bottoms, we could have called it The Missed Minimum… Now it’s just The Dismissed Minimum.

  314. Tripod says:

    I was going to suggest the Deniers minimum but will vote for the Inconvenient minimum. Need to start a new poll with this added to the list.

  315. Karl says:

    Let’s see how this minimum plays out. If it’s the “Maunder” type as Landscheit has forecast (http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm) , then it should be named for him.

  316. Michael Hauber says:

    The very warm minimum.

    Maybe it will cool down next year?

  317. AnonyMoose says:

    On third thought.. maybe “Modern Minimum” is exactly what is needed to remind future generations of how self-centered “Modern” scientists were. Now to go see if “Modern architecture” means what I think it means…

  318. Frederick Michael says:

    The name should depend on how long the minimum lasts and how severe the consequences. If it ends real soon, it shouldn’t even be called a minimum. If it lasts a very long time, it’ll be known as “The Modern Ice Age”.

    One in between possibility: “The Mini Minimum”

  319. Westhighlander says:

    It’s not a minimum yet — it appears to be just a really long cycle 23 (complete with its rare double peak)

    The problem with all of these suggestions for this Minimum — or even the existing “Named Minimums” is that we don’t really have enough data to accurately even define what is normal behavior — let alone what is unusual and how unusual that Cycle 23 or 24 might be. Outside of the direct observations of the predecessor 23 cycles the rest is anecdotal or proxy data with insufficient time resolution to enable reliable time series analysis.

    When we are given the task of doing signal processing on a time series data set — the first thing we like to is what is the “signal bandwidth” so that we can decide on the size of the appropriate sample and the type of window which should be applied in order to extract a reliable principle period (or frequency). Only, then can we start to analyze the power spectrum and how stationary the spectrum is or how it evolves with time and the relevant statistics related to principle frequencies, etc.

    Unfortunately, we have only have 23 “cycles” since the rules for collecting the data were codified by Wolfe. Also unfortunately, these “cycles” are all different enough in shape (some feature a sharp rise, some are nearly symmetrical, some rarely feature double peaks, etc.), that even the canonical 11 +/- 2 years is just a crude guess for an average period and an even cruder measure of variance.

    After all of the spectral shape-related debate — then we need to talk about how the currency which we use for accounting (i.e. the “Sunspot Number”) has changed — is a 54 in 2009 the same as a 54 in 1856 or 1798? — let alone what Galileo or Heavalius might have reported in the 17th century? — we just really don’t know

    Looking at the best data which we can look at — we are limited to about 4 cycles where the comparison can be made with some degree of fidelity and where we have a good supply of high-quality space-based data to correlate with our larger supply of less reliable ground-based data.

    So — I would just say at this point (somewhat poetically) — “the sun seems to be resting is in the arms of Morpheus and Hypnos” — let’s just hope for our sake that its not the prelude to a longer and deeper rest with Thanatos

  320. Paul says:

    It’s amazing how climate change even affects the sun!

  321. bsneath says:

    The “Awe Heck There Goes Our Grant Funds” Minimum

  322. George M says:

    Way back in this thread, someone asked if the speck (1015) was SC 23 or SC 24. Spaceweather (see http://www.spaceweather.com/ ) tagged it as 24, based on magnetic polarity. The specks on the magnetogram
    ( http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html ) were even tinier than the visible seck, so I guess I’ll have to take their word for it.

  323. Nasif Nahle says:

    Nahle’s Minimum sounds well… doesn’t it? No, I’m joking. Svalgaard’s Minimum or Watt’s Minimum, one of these two names would be ok.

  324. Jeremy (16:37:33) :

    The Mote in Gore’s Eye

    Brilliant, but you know, the original was actually good science-fiction. Not to much handwavium (waving at physics, saying “get lost”) and loads of unobtanium (we can’t do that).

  325. nanny_govt_sucks says:

    “Gore Minimum”. I’ll take an ounce of credit for that one http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/27/new-sunspot-but-still-a-solar-cycle-23-spot/#comment-9537

  326. Mr Lynn says:

    Mike Bryant (18:55:11) :
    Mr. Lynn, Then why not The Optimum Minimum?

    Not bad. But I’m gravitating toward ‘The Inconvenient Minimum’ now; it’s funny on so many levels.

    However, I’m new to all this, so must defer to the regulars here and say that if this minimum turns out to be significant, and if this forum’s eminence griseDr. Svalgaard predicted it, then he should get the credit.

    /Mr Lynn

  327. Ron House says:

    Do NOT name it after any AGW scaremonger! It seems a nice ironic little insult today, but you will perpetuate their name long after the reason the minimum is named after them is forgotten. They deserve obscurity (or ignominy) but nothing else. Name it honestly after someone whom you respect. I suggest the McIntyre Minimum, as Steve has done so much slogging hard work on difficult stuff in order to get the truth out there.

  328. Ray says:

    The Pantless Emperor Minimum

  329. Ray says:

    Or just, The Substandard Cycle.

  330. Landscheidt Minimum, hands down!

    For fun: Gore Maximum Chutzpah

  331. J. Bob says:

    Some time ago, I started looking at Spectral, or wave analysis, of the available temperature data, to evaluate so-called “Global Warming”. So I took the Hadcet data from 1659 to see what, if any, long term waves or periodic cycles which might be present. In addition, evaluate any relationship between the Solar sunspot activity and temperature. This process involved using the FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) to see where the “wave energy” is located. Since I gave my Matlab program away long ago, the analysis was done on EXCEL using the Visual Basic capability. The Harcet data was downloaded from the http://www.Climate4you.com site.

    The first step was to do a linear best fit of the yearly averages of the Hadcut data. This turned out to be an equation with the initial point of 8.69 and a slope of 0.003 deg/year. That is:
    T_lin = 8.69 + 0.003*(Yr – 1659) where 1659 <= Yr < 2009
    The top illustration (a) of fig. T_est_01 shows this:
    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_01-JtVah.gif

    The next step was to look at the error T_er = T_act – T_lin. This error is shown on the middle illustration (b) of T_est_01, labeled Input. It is noted that the data seems to stay around the line, indicating that there are no significant higher order terms to cause the error to grow in the 1980-2008 period. A Spectral analysis was then run on the Input, using the FFT to transform the Input into the frequency domain. The Spectral plot showing “energy” or signal strength, against frequency (cycles/yr) is shown in the bottom illustration (c). As a check on the computations, the signal was then transformed back into the real domain, as indicated by the Output signal in the middle illustration (b).

    In looking at the spectral chart, a small break showed up about 0.12 cy/yr (8 yr.) point. So a second run was made “cutting off” all freq. above 0.12. Figure T_est_02 is the result. The upper illustration shows the before (Input) and after (Output) filtering. From the Output it can be seen there are definite periodic cycles in the 10 year period. There are some lower freq. also present. A peaking seems to be forming just after the year 2000.
    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_02-XHCZp.gif

    Another run was made to look at temperature variations in the 10 year period range. This involved blocking out the freq. not only above the 0.12 freq., but lower ones between 0.003 and 0.06 cy/yr. This allowed a better look at the ~10 year period cycles, as shown in T_est_03.
    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_03-0KLEO.gif

    The top illustration shows both the unfiltered and filtered temperature, and sunspot activity plotted below. It would appear that the 10 year solar cycle is reflected in some way to the temp., and existence of a strong correlation. A more detail analysis of this would be interesting in the future.

    Figure T_est_04 shows the result of cutting off freq. above 0.06 cycles/yr ( 16 yr period). From the figure it appears there are a couple of harmonics present, one with about a about 25 year period and a longer wave.
    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_04-QIVpI.gif

    Figure T_est_05 shows this longer wave, with about a 50 year period.
    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_05-NVRm1.gif

    It also has a fairly strong amplitude. It also shows that there is a peaking about the year 2000. This peaking around the year 2000 of this and other wave would suggest that the recent warm up could be due to the re-enforcement of several waves such as the 50 and 10 year wave.

    One last wave was very interesting, but not enough data is present to really make a case for it, is shown in T_est_06.
    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_06-6LauH.gif

    This one was found by cutting off all but the lowest frequencies. It shows a weak oscillation in the 600+ year period. One could wonder if it is part of the 1000 year cycle that shows up in the chronicles.

    I guess in conclusion, to this rather simple analysis, there seems to be a very strong correlation of temperature to Solar activity, at this one point on the globe. The second point would be, if I were a gambling man, I would not bet the farm on man/CO2 causing global warming.

    It will also be interesting add and correlate the North Atlantic Cycle & Pacific Cycles to this temperature data, similar to the sunspot graph.

  332. F. Ross says:

    Depending on how deep it gets:
    The Mini-minimum
    The Maxi-minimum
    The Al -[uminium]

    Seriously though I think the Eddy minimum is most appropriate.

  333. par5 says:

    The Science Minimum? I voted for Leif…

  334. Ron de Haan says:

    Anthony,
    I don’t care how this Solar Minimum is called.

    But if we really want to make a statement about “HONESTY and Skeptics honoring another Skeptic, there is only One NAME:

    The Landscheidt Minimum

    “In 2003, Landscheidt published his paper, ‘New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming’,[5] that refined his study of the sun’s baryocentric motion to the Gleissberg cycle which takes into account all the planets. It is here that he proposed the mechanism by which themotion of the planets affected Solar Activity. He calculated the change in torque on the sun caused by the planets over time and theorized this accelerated and decelerated the solar transport in the solar core which in turn affected the solar activity which manifested
    itself in sun spots. He theorized the process of braking would start in 1990 and that solar cycle 24 would be of Maunder Minimum character (<80 Wolf number) and a number of solar cycles after with the Deep Minimum occurring in 2030. At this time Climate Scientists which were becoming known as Global Warming Skeptics found the work compelling enough to propose this Minimum be called the Landscheidt Minimum[14]“.

  335. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (20:19:24)

    We are not going there again. Plus I did not mean any offense, I was thinking you might have been playing dumb as it suited your cause.

    I noticed you chose not to answer my earlier question.

    So do you think you should have your name on the upcoming grand minimum?

  336. kuhnkat says:

    Gore/Hansen Interruption!!!

  337. E.M.Smith says:

    It ought to be the Gore Cold Period or Gore Pessimum (if we get very cold) but the solar minimum ought not to be named for him.

    IFF we don’t get cold, it ought to honor Eddy.
    IFF we DO get cold, Landscheidt.

  338. CR Hill says:

    The Mann-Gore-Pig Minimum
    I’m cereal!!

  339. Geoff Sharp (21:55:04) :
    I noticed you chose not to answer my earlier question.
    So do you think you should have your name on the upcoming grand minimum?

    I would be honored, but my preference is for the Eddy minimum. Doug Biesecker has already in NASA/NOAA circles referred to the Svalgaard Minimum [possibly a bit mocking a la Hoyle's 'Big Bang']. But your question is somewhat odious it seems to me.

  340. pwl says:

    The CBC has already called it “Dim Sun”!!! ;-)

    Here was their broadcast from tonight. Shockingly mainstream mind icky ….

    Dim Sun.

  341. I have argued on my website for the Gore Minimum, but that has been mostly because it makes the AGW people go nuts.

    On a more serious note:
    I would argue for the Landscheidt Minimum.
    I have seen many arguments on this website why the Sun’s movements around the barycenter are not the cause of solar grand minima.
    I have found all these arguments to be not valid and being the result of lack of knowledge of Classic Mechanics, the Gyroscopic Effect and of the Lagrange’s equation.
    Subjects which I have studied.

    These arguments also violate direct observations of variations of the different and varying rotations at different depths and latitudes.
    It is the blocking and unblocking of magnetic activity caused by different angular rotations at different depths near the tacholine which is main cause of what we now are seeing.
    Basta!

  342. Richard111 says:

    If this turns out to be a significant minimum, I feel the name for it should carry a warning to the future to beware hubris.

  343. Mike D. says:

    So I want to change my vote, after reading all the entries, including my own Mucahadoabout Minimum, to the best , by far:

    Igno Minimum

    which is priceless and I will use it from now on.

  344. Ron de Haan (21:53:22) :
    “In 2003, Landscheidt published his paper”
    By 2003 it was clear which way the wind was blowing [as I said many a time my grandson Peter knew this]. So, it is not a unique achievement to ‘predict’ lower cycles to come.

    Here is Ken Schatten’s version:
    Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?
    Schatten, K. H.; Tobiska, W. K.
    American Astronomical Society, SPD meeting #34, #06.03; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 35, p.817, Publication Date: 05/2003

    Abstract
    Long-range (few years to decades) solar activity prediction techniques vary greatly in their methods. They range from examining planetary orbits, to spectral analyses (e.g. Fourier, wavelet and spectral analyses), to artificial intelligence methods, to simply using general statistical techniques. Rather than concentrate on statistical/mathematical/numerical methods, we discuss a class of methods which appears to have a “physical basis.” Not only does it have a physical basis, but this basis is rooted in both “basic” physics (dynamo theory), but also solar physics (Babcock dynamo theory). The class we discuss is referred to as “precursor methods,” originally developed by Ohl, Brown and Williams and others, using geomagnetic observations.
    My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using “solar dynamo precursor” methods, notably a “SODA” index (SOlar Dynamo Amplitude). These methods are now based upon an understanding of the Sun’s dynamo processes- to explain a connection between how the Sun’s fields are generated and how the Sun broadcasts its future activity levels to Earth. This has led to better monitoring of the Sun’s dynamo fields and is leading to more accurate prediction techniques. Related to the Sun’s polar and toroidal magnetic fields, we explain how these methods work, past predictions, the current cycle, and predictions of future of solar activity levels for the next few solar cycles.

    The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.
    ———–
    As the polar fields in 2003 stabilized, the size of the next cycle could be predicted with reasonable accuracy.

  345. abraxas says:

    Great observations are always named after the person who either predicted or observed an event first.

    Mr Svalgaard has more than earned this age old right to be remembered for excellence in science.

  346. Paul Vaughan says:

    World War III Minimum
    (because without more honesty….)

  347. Tom in South Jersey says:

    It’s too early to name it, but it’s also great fun.

    Perhaps in his travels, Al Gore will hitch a ride to the ISS and spend some time in space. Then when the Gore Effect causes the Sun to remain spotless, and perhaps even cool down some, then it would be most appropriate to name it after him.

  348. Robert Bateman says:

    So what should we name the actions of Sol?
    Gore: We have the technology. We can control the climate. We must act quickly.
    Sol: Oh no you don’t. Watch this ! Observe carefully, Earthling, as I pull your plug.
    Certainly not after Gore. Sol is irritated enough as it is.
    We should name it after one who respects it, and cares about what it does or does not do.
    I’m fine with any Solar Physicist.

  349. hugo smith says:

    Gore and Hansen don’t deserve to have their names immortalized like this. Stick to real scientists names who have done real and useful work on this.

    But in any case, I don’t think it deserves a name yet, there was no sign of anything five years ago and all this is right now is a very long quiet period between cycles. folk might end up with egg on their faces if the sun does something weird and ramp up. I say wait one or two more cycles.

    it would be typical of humans in this day and age to name something and print a million column inches about it before it really is anything at all (like AGW for ex).

  350. chillybean says:

    How about AGM Anthropogenic Global Minimum.

    Firstly as it will mark the end of AGW and secondly because mankind is obviously causing it but the alarmists are still brainstorming how the imaginary link can be forged.

  351. Jeff B. says:

    Well, it really should be called the Landscheidt minimum. But if there is a comedy category, Roger Knight’s “Inconvenient Minimum” should win. Another suggestion would be the “Consensus Minimum.”

  352. Jean Meeus says:

    Certainly NOT the Gore Minimum.
    That would immortalize that guy.

  353. hotrod says:

    In the spirit of the fun_stuff tag, I thing the only appropriate name would be:

    The WTF minimum, but that will probably not sell unless someone can think up a “scientific” acronym that resolves to WTF. —– like Where’s The Forcing?

    Larry

  354. Russ Blake says:

    I recommend ” Incovenient Solar Paradigm”.

  355. Konrad says:

    OK, I know I posted a couple of reasons in support of Gore Minimum earlier, but if I were naming in recognition of a scientist then I would choose Landscheidt Minimum. I feel a few mainstream solar scientists need to remember that a good idea doesn’t care who has it.

  356. Chris Schoneveld says:

    Definitely NOT “Svalgaard Minimum”. Leif is the most outspoken critic of a possible relationship between climate and solar activity.

  357. Rickj says:

    Why not the Watt minimum?

  358. ralph ellis says:

    >>I am curious if those readers more versed in Solar Physics
    >>have any expectation on when temps should start moving down.

    I think Prof Landscheidt suggested a 7 year lag between solar changes and temperatures.

    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/

  359. Chris Schoneveld says:

    I think the “Inconvenient Minimum” is the most appropriate.

  360. ralph ellis says:

    .

    How about the Gore-dian Minima.

    A complex situation and argument that was solved at a stroke by a decisive lack of solar output.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_knot

    .

  361. ralph ellis says:

    Prof Landscheit himself calls this the Gleissberg Minimum, but Lanscheit Minimun sounds better to me.

    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

    In addition, Landscheit predicts that this will be a Maunder-style Minimum, rather than a Dalton Dip.

    Quote:
    “So there are good reasons to expect that the coming Gleissberg minimum around 2030 will be a deep one. As there are three consecutive extrema below the quantitative threshold, there is a high probability that the event will be of the Maunder minimum type.”
    End quote.

    .

  362. Tim James says:

    The ‘Bear Minimum’

  363. PM says:

    The hoax buster minimum.

  364. ralph ellis says:

    .

    Prof Landscheidt wrote about the present Landscheidt Minimum back in 2007 (a blogger after the essay says 2005), although he acknowledges that his prediction goes back two decades.

    Quote:
    We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago.
    End quote.

    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2007/06/04/new-little-ice-age-instead-of-global-warming/#more-24

    .

  365. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (22:10:28) :

    Geoff Sharp (21:55:04) :
    I noticed you chose not to answer my earlier question.
    So do you think you should have your name on the upcoming grand minimum?
    ——————————————-
    I would be honored, but my preference is for the Eddy minimum. Doug Biesecker has already in NASA/NOAA circles referred to the Svalgaard Minimum [possibly a bit mocking a la Hoyle's 'Big Bang']. But your question is somewhat odious it seems to me.

    If we are talking about a grand minimum then it is kind of ironic if your name would be associated with it. You yourself have stated if the SC24 SSN is outside of the range of 72+/- 8 then your theory and predictions are shot. A grand minimum (how we used to count them) should be 2 cylces below 50SSN if we go by the Dalton figures. But if we have one low cycle around 70SSN and it gets some sort of minimum tag like SC20 might do, then you indeed should get some credit.

  366. Richard Hobley says:

    The – I CAN’T BELIEVE IT’S NOT WARMING – minimum.

  367. Robinson says:

    Those who said we should call it the “Svalgaard” have no sense of fun.

  368. Frank Lansner says:

    Svalgaard is of course a Dane, which gives him a lot of credit, and he did indeed foresee the present minimum better than many. So I agree that he is a relevant candidate, and definetely an ok choice.

    But Svensmark Minimum is my favourite!!

    Really from my heart, this scientist really deserves all the credit and respect we can give him. Ha more than anyone has done the solid basic science to give solar science a place in the global warming debate.

    Hes a real good and honest scientist, give him your vote :-))

  369. Alan the Brit says:

    Oh all right, I’ll put my tu’ppence-ha’penny worth in & go for the “Gorey Minimum”! This is because of what will result if we follow this Messiah down his naive slime green path!

    One cannot use Hansen simply because Prof John Brignell of Numberwatch has already defined the term “to Hansen”, as playing around with the data until it becomes meaningless!

    There are some very naughty people out there with wicked senses of humour! Well done all.

  370. stumpy says:

    what about the “Inconvenient Minimum” or the “lovelock minimum”?

  371. MattN says:

    Gore.

  372. CPT. Charles says:

    Landscheidt Minimum

  373. Ozzie John says:

    Not sure if this has already been claimed ?

    The Gore-Effect Mimimum

  374. Dan P says:

    ‘An Inconveninent Minimum’ is a hoot, but I’ll be calling it the Landscheidt Minimum to give credit where credit’s due. Google it – it’s almost a fait accompli.

  375. Patagon says:

    From the Guardian online today:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/apr/23/sun-cooling-down-space-climate

    “There’s even a chance, says Weiss, that we might be heading for a low as deep as the Maunder minimum of the 17th century. Either side of that trough, Europe shivered through the Little Ice Age, when frost fairs were held on the Thames and whole Swiss villages disappeared under glaciers. So should we expect another freeze?

    Those who claim the rise in temperatures we’ve seen over the last century are predominantly the result of intense solar activity might argue that we should, but they’re in the minority. Most scientists believe humans are the main culprit when it comes to global warming, and Weiss is no exception. He points out that the ice remained in Europe long after solar activity picked up from the Maunder minimum. Even if we had another, similar low, he says, it would probably only cause temperatures on Earth to drop by the order of a tenth of a degree Celsius – peanuts compared to recent hikes. So don’t pack your suncream away just yet.”

    So a minimum in the past caused The Little Ice Age, but a SIMILAR minimum today will be peanuts….

    I must be real thick, because I cannot understand why.

  376. jtom says:

    The Gore Minimum sounds far too much like an honor.

    I propose “The Gore Deficiency”.

    If there is to be someone honored by the naming, then I go along with The Svalgaard Minimum.

  377. Rhys Jaggar says:

    How about: ‘God’s silent revenge’?

  378. Mr Green Genes says:

    I vote for the Inconvenient Minimum, or if it has to be named after a person, the Landscheidt Minimum.

  379. Alex says:

    Personally I think, Landscheidt Minimum; because despite the petty remarks and criticism made by some, he was the one who predicted this 20 years ago.

    It boils down to his prediction, and his prediction ONLY (not wether he had interest in astrology), and so far his prediction is holding true.

  380. Alex says:

    ralph ellis: “Prof Landscheidt wrote about the present Landscheidt Minimum back in 2007 (a blogger after the essay says 2005)”

    Unless he has a body double, that is impossible in the relm of reality.
    Landscheidt passed away in 2004, well before the current cooling was noticed as something of interest.

  381. Tim F says:

    Roger Knights:

    Funny stuff–you should be able to work something in about “Goring” that ox.

  382. Tripod says:

    How about Landscheidt’s Inconvenient Minimum! It acknologes his prediction and still manages to poke fun at Gore without naming him.

  383. GailC says:

    Landscheidt minimum after Theodore Landscheidt. The man beat everyone else to the punch including Lief AND he is dead and deserves recognition.

    Otherwise Svalgaard gets my vote

  384. Garacka says:

    InGored Minimum

  385. Michael Ronayne says:

    If in fact we are entering into a grand solar minimum, the only scientists who actually predicted the event and sounded the alarm are William Livingston and Matthew Penn; therefore, the event should be named the Livingston-Penn Minimum. If I were the editors of the Journal Science, I would very politely invite Drs. Livingston & Penn to resubmit their rejected 2006 paper for publication, updated to include recent observations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is going to have a lot of egg of its collective face if a grand solar minimum occurs and would be wise for them to start mending fences now. They can always say that they wanted more data to verify the observations.

    I will now go one step further and suggest that if a grand solar minimum occurs, and that even is still not a given, Drs. Livingston & Penn be nominated for and awared a Nobel Prize in Science. A Nobel will go a long ways towards healing old wounds. When the full extent of the AGW fraud is exposed, the scientific establishment is going to need heroes and Drs. Livingston & Penn have perfect because their work was suppressed by the establishment. The good Doctors join a very exclusive company of scientists who have suffered rejection, persecution, imprisonment and even death in the cause of advancing human knowledge.

    Mike
    p.s. Let the term Gore Minimum become a mark of derision not to be used in polite company; an execration to be used in the same breath as Judas Iscariot or Benedict Arnold.

  386. Tim Clark says:

    DH.R. (14:17:13) :
    I voted for Svalgaard Minimum on the official poll, since you said that he called it.
    My fun vote would go to “Maximum Minimum,” although we’d have to wait quite a while to see if “Maximum” (longest) would apply. It’s my nod to the current spate of Orwellian newspeak.

    I agree. Leif, being very succinct and meticulous would not want his name attached to a minimum with less than 75 SS count (discounting error bars, I expect perfection from my scientists). Then it is the maximum minimum, it inconveniently rolls off the tongue.

  387. Allan M R MacRae says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/22/wuwt-poll-what-should-we-call-the-current-solar-minimum/#comments

    Temperatures dropped below freezing again yesterday and we are having another snowstorm in southern Alberta. This winter is so long and cold – everybody is tired of it.

    I really wish the warmists were right. If it helped, I’d drive a semi to work, and leave it running all day in the parking lot.

    I see in the latest screed that obesity contributes to global warming. Think I’ll have a sandwich or two, and maybe a big bowl of pasta for breakfast.

    Seriously, a fun discussion re “Name the Minimum” but it is too early to name anything, imo.

    Definitely not Gore, Hansen, IPCC or other climate clowns.

    Science requires a degree of predictive ability – the climate clowns have NO track record of successful prediction – they haven’t even gotten the sign correct – they predicted warming and Earth is cooling.

    If we can figure out who got the science right, name the Minimum, if it persists, after him or her.

    In December 2006, NASA predicted SC24 would be an active one.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

    Dec. 21, 2006
    Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.

    Excerpt:
    “Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.”

    Then in April 2007, this position started to shift:
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html

    Excerpt:
    “In the cycle forecast issued today, half of the panel predicts a moderately strong cycle of 140 sunspots, plus or minus 20, expected to peak in October of 2011. The other half predicts a moderately weak cycle of 90 sunspots, plus or minus 10, peaking in August of 2012. An average solar cycle ranges from 75 to 155 sunspots. The late decline of Cycle 23 has helped shift the panel away from its earlier leaning toward a strong Cycle 24. Now the group is evenly split between strong and weak.”

    Not sure I’d give a lot of points to NASA/NOAA for being on the leading edge, but by 2007 they certainly had all the bases covered.

    Houston, we have a problem.

    I have not studied Landsheit’s work but believe that he was among the earliest to predict cooling – but exactly when did he say would cool – by 2030, or sooner? An informed response would be appreciated.

    Informally, in 2002 paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson predicted global cooling starting in 2020 to 2030, In fairness, he only had about 5 seconds to respond to my direct question during our phone call, and he based his answer on the Gleissberg Cycle. His comment is included in my Calgary Herald article of September 2002.

    Excerpt:
    Kyoto hot air can’t replace fossil fuels
    September 1, 2002

    “Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.

    Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.

    Only since 1975 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming.

    If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

    Not bad for 5 seconds work by Tim – who knows what he might have accomplished if I’d sent him an email and given him a whole 5 minutes to respond.

    My point is that there appears to be some correlation of Earth “average” temperature with solar activity, and this has been a commonly held belief for hundreds of years. OK we don’t adequately understand the mechanisms – to me that means we should just work harder and see what truth prevails – to deny this relationship and aggressively promote other causes (such as CO2, like the IPCC et al) is foolish. There probably are climate drivers in addition to the Sun, some natural, some cyclical (regular or irregular) and maybe even a very small humanmade component.

    Regrettably, the IPCC’s insistence on biasing the debate in favor of greenhouse gases has cost us several decades of scientific progress. Had the climate debate not been hijacked by zealots and research funding misallocated in favor of this CO2 bias, we would be much further progressed in our understanding of the true mechanisms that drive Earth’s climate.

    [end of sermon]

  388. JB says:

    The Colbert Minimum.

  389. Norman Page says:

    Ironic names should not be used- the only honest choice is clearly Landscheidt.

  390. Nick Yates says:

    If it does turn out to be grand minumim, how about Hollywood style…

    Dalton minimum 2 the return (Gore’s nemesis)

  391. fred says:

    The Gorebull Minimum.

  392. BROOSE says:

    Oxymoron Minimum

    Assumption: At a time when OXYgen is combining with Carbon fuel supposedly causing a future record temperature increase with over exaggerated consequences [also not occurring]…… a strange rare solar phenomenon occurs that causes the opposite result. Also: In honor of sitituations where large groups ignore all opposing scientific information to champion their cause. [See also oxymoron scientificum.]

  393. Alex says:

    In Response to Allan M R MacRae:
    ‘but exactly when did he say would cool – by 2030, or sooner? An informed response would be appreciated.’ :

    Taken from Landscheidt’s paper ‘New Little Ice Age
    Instead of Global Warming?’ See 11. Outlook:

    “We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong.”

  394. Brian D says:

    I voted for Svalgaard Minimum. He put a lot of work into his forecast. Gore, and Hansen have nothing to do with this. More of a bad joke with them. I also liked the choice of Landscheidt Minimum, but that wasn’t on the poll. That work was done before Leif’s, so I would have voted that way if it were on the poll. Either way, both deserve serious consideration for their hard work.

  395. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Wow! 395 comments thus far.
    I say call it the Gore Minimum

  396. Brian BAKER says:

    There was a young girl in the States who started a web blog on “Remember the Maunder”., which I can’t find now as she has gone on to college.

    YOU HAVE GOT TO NAME IT AFTER HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply: Kristen Byrnes ~ charles the moderator

  397. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Michael Ronayne (04:52:00)

    Good post!
    Many scientific societies are indeed in need of a good personnel house-cleaning, starting from the top and on down.

  398. Perry Debell says:

    Marxist-Leninist Lunatics Minimum

  399. TJA says:

    De-Liar minimum.

  400. Pierre Gosselin says:

    How about:
    “The Monbiot Minimum”
    or
    IPCC Minimum?

  401. Allan M R MacRae says:

    Thank you Alex for this excellent reference on Landscheidt – it appears this was written in early? 2002 – is that correct?

  402. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Monbiot Mann Minimum?
    We need lots of Ms!

  403. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Seriusly, I’d gladly accept Landscheidt Minimum.
    The guy was a genius.

  404. fred says:

    Having now read other comments, if Gore’s name being attached bothers folks, which I understand, I vote for the Inconvenient Minimum.

    @Brian BAKER: Were you perhaps referring to “Ponder the Maunder”?

  405. Smokey says:

    Brian BAKER,

    Is this who you were thinking of?: click

    [Click on the Table of Contents for some interesting reading.]

  406. gary gulrud says:

    My favorite among the above so far is Igno Minimum edging the dead parrot.

    Apocalypse Interrupted minimum?

    I voted for Eddy, prefer Jose but my pleasure would be Landscheidt, hands down.

    Pity the wind is blowing Incorrigible Curmudgeon.

  407. Robert Bateman says:

    Allan M R MacRae (04:55:59) :

    Then we should informally refer to this Minimum as the “BumSteer” Minimum.
    Science got derailed. Sent on a Wild Goose Chase. A snipe hunt.
    Not everyone was wasting time with comic book models, however.
    It’s just that the voices of those who continued working hard have been drowned out by Hollywood Blockbuster Disaster scripts.
    The fanatics were looking for a sensation, but in reality the Sun was quietly heading out of Dodge.

  408. Allan M R MacRae says:

    Warmus Interruptus!

  409. Ken says:

    Name for the Minimum (Other): The Fairbridge/Shirley Minimum

    REASON: They predicted it in 1987, based on objective analysis, via their paper, “Prolonged Minima and the 179-Yr Cycle of the Solar Inertial Motion.”

    After all, isn’t it the actual discoverers of a thing that get the name…or…get to name it?

    As far as I can tell, those two (R.W. Fairbridge & J.H. Shirley) are the first to see this coming — and to do so based on objective analysis. If ANY of the folks listed or recommended have a better qualification, I have yet to see/read/hear of it.

  410. Ken says:

    Name for the Minimum (Other): The Fairbridge/Shirley Minimum

    REASON: They predicted it in 1987, based on objective analysis, via their paper, “Prolonged Minima and the 179-Yr Cycle of the Solar Inertial Motion.”

    After all, isn’t it the actual discoverers of a thing that get the name…or…get to name it?

    As far as I can tell, those two (R.W. Fairbridge & J.H. Shirley) are the first to see this coming — and to do so based on objective analysis. If ANY of the folks listed or recommended have a better qualification, I have yet to see/read/hear of it.

    Put another way, give credit where credit is due. On matters such as this, being first to make the discovery [and/or to publish it] is a, if not THE, primary criteria.

  411. Ray says:

    Has someone been keeping a list and track the numbers of times for each name of all the suggestions above?

  412. Ray says:

    There’s like a bubble on the sun on the EIT 171 picture.

  413. Geoff Sharp (02:02:14) :
    A grand minimum (how we used to count them) should be 2 cylces below 50SSN if we go by the Dalton figures. But if we have one low cycle around 70SSN and it gets some sort of minimum tag like SC20 might do, then you indeed should get some credit.

    The Dalton and the coming minimum are not Grand Minima. But one can, of course, still name significant minima as a shorthand in referring to them. Since really low cycles often come in groups, cycle 25 will likely be low too, although only a statistical prediction can be made.

  414. Alan Chappell says:

    Alan Chappell minium, why? because he is as ignorate as 99.9999% of the rest [see Anthony I left you out]

  415. Eugene B. Veek says:

    Nominee:

    DIM SUN (It’s what’s for dinner by the Chinese)

  416. Donn Dears says:

    Naming it after a person, even a scientist, will be seen as a political rather than a scientific event.
    I suggest calling it the Climate Minimum

  417. ralf ellis says:

    >>but exactly when did he say would cool – by 2030, or sooner?

    He predicted the solar maximum would peak in 1990, but that temperature had a 7 or 8 year lag, which would place the peak temperature in 1998. It is all downhill from there – and remarkably accurate too.

    He made two papers on this subject, one in 1988 and one in 1999.

    See fig 6.
    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Landscheidt#cite_note-Landscheidt-1

  418. Geoff Sharp says:

    Lots of support for Landscheidt, others mentioned incl Jose, Fairbridge and Shirley.

    Its great to see Planetary Influence Theory has a solid following.

  419. ralf ellis says:

    Here is a paper by Fairbridge, based upon his 1980s research. The imagery of the Sun-cycle and its relationship to peak and minima output is the best I have seen – however some graphs with temperature corolations might have been nice.
    http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

    Quote:
    The solar internal motion hypothesis predicts that the period from 2010 to 2040 will be one of relatively severe cold throughout the world.

    I could not find a joint Fairbridge and Shirley paper.

    .

    R.W. Fairbridge & J.H. Shirley

  420. SteveSadlov says:

    The Second Age of Migrations.

  421. Dave says:

    All kidding aside, this name would be an honor.

    It should be The Watts Minimum.

  422. Nasif Nahle says:

    I’ve changed my preferences. No way, I vote for Landscheidt Minimum.

  423. Rebar says:

    I voted for the Gore Minimum because he is responsible for more climate awareness than any other current figure and the Sun has more impact on the climate than any other factor. (Not necessarily climate variability, but remove the Sun and see how much influence the other factors have on total climate!)

    It would be good for future generations that when they learn about the Gore Minimum, they also learn that Gore was wrong about his claims.

  424. Great idea!

    I agree with Mark, “LANDSCHEIDT MINIMUM” in honor of a real scientist, Theodore Landscheidt.”

    Another possibility, “NO MORE GORE MINIMUM” in honor of a politician, an enemy of science, and our best known Nobel Prize winner.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    http://www.thesunisiron.com/

  425. Alex says:

    Allan, no problem; The paper was issued in 2003, a year before his death; here is a link for more of his papers:

    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/papers-by-dr-theodor-landscheidt/

    I had a video link of a presentation by Landscheidt on cycles and the like, but the link appears to have expired/broken.

  426. Indiana Bones says:

    Heard last night on Coast to Coast, Dr. Michio Kaku, NYC College, warning of impending EMP disaster from “Solar Tsunamis.” It appears that if we can’t blame climate on man-made CO2 – then we’ll have to accuse the sun of heresy.

    The warning was offered as “the sun is having a tantrum and a sudden explosion (CME) could occur at anytime, destroying Earth’s communications networks, electrical grids and all things… electric.”

    Heavens! That wily ol’ sun is up to no good while feigning sleep! Comments please.

  427. Finallly, the solar minimum might be named HANSEN’S DEMISE to remind us all of the validity of ancient truths:

    “Truth is victorious, never untruth.” [Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85]

    “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” [Proverbs 16:18, King James Bible]

    Oliver K. Manuel
    http://www.omatumr.com/

  428. Ninderthana says:

    I vote for the Oort II minimum – If you want to know why, go and see my paper at:

    http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/wilson/Syzygy.pdf

    and flick through to Figure 7 on page 12.

    Failing this I would support oneof the following combinations:

    Jose/Landscheidt Minimum – serious suggestion

    Gore/Svalgaard Minimum – funny suggestion

  429. Geoff Sharp (07:41:25) :
    Its great to see Planetary Influence Theory has a solid following.

    Yeah, as much a cult as AGW, it seems…

  430. Rob says:

    Talking about specks and spots and historical sitings and the reliability of those historical sitings. What is the average length in time of a medium to large size sunspot, is it hours, days, weeks or months, and would it have mattered whether these historical sitings were taken every day.

  431. Roger Knights says:

    Many thanks to all the people who’ve endorsed My “Inconvenient Minimum.” I think it’s the best choice for the “informal” name, if I say so myself.

    However, I was very tickled by the ingenuity of Ralph Ellis’s “Gore-dian Minima.”

    I think that, if this poll is rerun, there should be nominations for both formal and informal names.

    Richard111 (22:41:19) wrote:

    “If this turns out to be a significant minimum, I feel the name for it should carry a warning to the future to beware hubris.

    That’s an implicit endorsement of my second-choice name, “The Mooning Minimum.” (I wrote, “This has … Sting (Nature is expressing its contempt toward its shallow and simplistic diagnosticians with a visual “raspberry”).”)

  432. Ray says:

    There seems to be another (not micro but) picosunspot slightly above the equator on the left.

  433. Rob (08:54:45) :
    What is the average length in time of a medium to large size sunspot
    Large spots live for weeks, most spots are small with a lifetime of a day or two.

  434. Alex says:

    “Yeah, as much a cult as AGW, it seems…”
    We will see in the future what will happen and where the cards will fall, but as far as I know Landscheidt had some predictions that came true with regards to ENSO for ex.
    There are many who propose different mechanisms and the current unusual (in terms of the last 150 yrs) minimum can at least bring forward some debate, discussion and consideration instead of mere dismissal.

  435. Jeff Alberts says:

    Mike Bryant (17:08:56) :

    Except It’s not a British motorcar company…

  436. Erick Barnes says:

    Leif Svalgaard (08:48:34) :

    Geoff Sharp (07:41:25) :
    Its great to see Planetary Influence Theory has a solid following.

    Yeah, as much a cult as AGW, it seems…

    Hi Leif, could you explain some of your skepticism of Planetary Influence?

    Thanks!

    Erick

  437. Ueber_Ales says:

    How about the “Sendler Minimum” in honor of Irena Sendler, the woman who should have won Al Gore’s 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for her actions to save 2500 children during WWII.

    Since the award is not awarded posthumously, that was her last chance to win, as she passed away last year.

  438. Erick Barnes (09:38:03) :
    Hi Leif, could you explain some of your skepticism of Planetary Influence?

    this has been hashed through many times, but here are some reasons:

    1) The various followers advocate [and claim fantastic correlations] different periods: Jose, 179 yr; Geoff, 172 yr; Landscheidt, 166 yr; and more. They can’t all be right.
    2) A popular [but not the only one] ‘mechanism’ is ‘transfer’ of angular momentum [AM] from the Sun’s orbit to its spin and back. This mechanism is a non-mechanism because the variations of the Sun’s orbital AM is precisely balanced by a similar and opposite variation of the orbital AM of the planets, so there is no ‘extra’ AM to transfer.
    3) There is no coupling mechanism to transfer AM other than tides and those are extremely small [less that 1/1000 of a meter] and act one- way only: slowing down the Sun, so can’t give rise to cycles.
    4) The magnetic polarities reverse in every cycle which is unexplained by gravitational influences [although there are variants of the planetary theories that are supposed to work with electric forces instead - which still don't explain reversals].
    5) Planetary theory is not needed as there are physics-based dynamo theories that give a good account of the solar cycle.
    6) The practitioners of the theory advocate things that are contrary to physical laws on the assumption that perhaps there are more between heaven and earth than we know [yet] that when discovered will change the face of physics. In my book, such claims are a give-away for snake oil.

  439. Jamie D. Tucker says:

    “The George Walker Bush Minimum” Why not? He’s getting blamed for everything else.

  440. Pearland Aggie says:

    it looks like a new SC24 plage area is appearing at about the 10 o’clock position on the sun’s surface…we shall see if it produces a spot.

    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html

  441. Ron de Haan says:

    For who is interested in the work and predictions of Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, you can pay a visit to the following web site.

    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/papers-by-dr-theodor-landscheidt/

    A listing of PDF downloads with a short introduction:

    Papers by Dr Theodor Landscheidt

    There are two online sources of Dr Theodor Landscheidt’s papers I am aware of – if anyone knows of any other online papers, please post the URL’s in the comments below.

    Perhaps the best known of these is the Climate Change: Guest Papers page of the late John Daly’s Still Waiting for Greenhouse website.

    A probably less well known source of many of his earlier papers is the SELECTED PUBLICATION OF THEODOR LANDSCHEIDT page on the Bourabai Research website, where you will find many of his methods in far more detail.

    Below is a list of direct links to these papers mainly in chronological order from both the websites mentioned above. I fully acknowledge the service to the community both those websites are providing by making these quite interesting papers freely available.

    The comments / abstracts accompanying each link are copied straight out of the page it was found on for your convenience in looking for specific material:

    UPDATE: thanks to storage space generously donated by my brother David, PDF versions of all these papers are now available to make it easier for researchers looking into Dr Theodor Landscheidt’s work, with links below.

    SWINGING SUN, 79-YEAR CYCLE AND CLIMATIC CHANGE [PDF 309K]
    J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19.
    ABSTRACT. The secular cycle of solar activity is related to the sun’s oscillatory motion about the center of mass of the solar system. Comparatively short periods of revolution with relatively high rates of curvature constitute a potential for crucial values of the time integral of torque AL = J t0 r (t) dt which seem to give rise to a weak but long lasting flow of solar plasma that modulates short-term flow due to the dynamo effect. Relatively strong impulses of the torque A L occur at mean intervals of 19.86 years. Four consecutive impulses respectively define a permanent wave with a quasiperiod of 79.46 years which determines the distribution of positive and negative extrema in activity. Phases of 0° or 90° indicate a potential for peaks and phases of 180° or 270° can lead to troughs. Such potentials are actually released if A L transgresses a definite threshold value. The ensuing interval variations in the secular cycle are verified by records of sunspots and aurorae dating back to the 4th century AD. Rare activity-deficient periods like the Maunder Minimum, which according to Eddy et al. are related to changes in the Earth’s climate, solely occur when AL reaches exceptional values meeting a special criterion. This is confirmed by radiocarbon data going back to the 6th millenimum BC. The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990. It will be more pronounced than the minimum in 1811.

    CYCLES OF SOLAR FLARES AND WEATHER [PDF 202K]
    In: Moerner, N.A. & Karlen, W., Hsg.:
    Climatic changes on a yearly to millenial basis. Dordrecht, D. Reidel, 1984, 475, 476.
    ABSTRACT. Sunspots only constitute potentials of solar activity which are actually released by solar eruptions. Single energetic flares and periods of enhanced eruptional activity seem to be related to weath-er. This is valid for the quality of weather forecasts (Scherhag, Reiter), atmospheric circulation changes (Schuurmans) , rainfall (Clarkson) , and thunderstorm incidence (Bossolasco et a1.). There are models that explain this effect (e.g. Roberts and Olson, Flarkson, Neubauer, and Bucha). This poses the problem of the prediction of solar flares. Such eruptions seem to be distributed in a stochastic manner. But closer examination reveals cycles of solar flares with mean periods of 9 years, 2.25 years, and 3 months. They are accessible to forecasts, because they run parallel with special phases in the Sun’s motion about the center of mass of the solar system, and with a cyclic pattern formed b/ the change in the angular acceleration of the vector of the tidal forces of the planets Venus, Earth, and Jupiter.

    CYCLIC DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGETIC X-RAY FLARES [PDF 161K]
    Solar Physics 107 (1986) 195 – 199.
    ABSTRACT. The Blackman-Tukey power spectrum of flare generated X-ray bursts > X1 observed from 1970 to 1982 by satellite instrumentation (SOLRAD/SMS/GOES) shows prominent peaks at 156, 4.8, 2.8, and 1.1 months. According to a statistical test of the significance of the deviation of these peaks from Markov red noise, the peaks at 2.8 and 1.1 months are significant at the 99% confidence level while the peak at 4.8 months reaches the 95 % level. A replication by means of the maximum entropy spectral analysis (MEM) yields the same prominent peaks at the same frequencies.

    SOLAR ROTATION, IMPULSES OF THE TORQUE IN THE SUN’S MOTION, AND CLIMATIC VARIATION [PDF 461K]
    Climatic Change 12, 265-295, 1988.
    ABSTRACT. Running variance analysis and maximum entropy spectral analysis applied to Mount Wilson rotation data yield arguments in favor of a connection between variations in the Sun’s rotation rate, energetic X-ray flares, and impulses of the torque (IOT) in the Sun’s irregular motion about the barycenter of the planetary system. Such IOT, that have been shown to be related to the secular cycle of solar activity and excursions of the Maunder minimum type, also seem to be linked to outstanding peaks in geomagnetic activity, maxima in ozone concentration, incidence of blocking type circulation, as well as rainfall over Central Europe, England/Wales, eastern United States, and India. Statistical tests, that confirm these links, additionally point to IOT connection with temperature in Central Europe and the number of icebergs that pass south of latitude 48° N. IOT relationship with X-ray flares and strong geomagnetic storms was tested in successful long range forecasts.

    Sun-Earth-Man: a Mesh of Cosmic Oscillations (Book 1989) [PDF 3.9M]
    How planets regulate solar eruptions, geomagnetic storms, conditions of life, and economic cycles.

    CREATIVE FUNCTIONS OF CYCLES: Predictable Phase-Shift in Solar-Terrestrial Cycles [PDF 269K]
    Foundation for the Study of Cycles, May/June 1989
    ABSTRACT. Recent research has shown that cycles are at the core of creativity. They form antagonistic centers of polar tension, the competing realms of which generate fractal boundaries, sites of instability where new forms emerge. This knowledge, when applied to cycles and boundaries in the solar system, makes it possible to predict phases of instability, phase-shift, and emergence of new patterns in solar-terrestrial cycles.

    PREDICTABLE CYCLES IN GEOMAGNETIC ACTIVITY AND OZONE LEVELS [PDF 254K]
    Foundation for the Study of Cycles, Sept/Oct 1989
    Geomagnetic storms, which are released by energetic solar eruptions, are important geophysical events. Newer results indicate that there is a connection with weather. There is shown the zonal type of atmospheric circulation as a result of geomagnetic disturbances caused by the sun’s erup-tional activity, and meridional circulation related to a lull in geomagnetic activity. This is a permanent feature that regulates the prevalence of warm westerly flow or cool arctic air over Europe and North America.

    MINI-CRASH IN TUNE WITH COSMIC RYTHMS [PDF 626K]
    Foundation for the Study of Cycles, Nov/Dec 1989
    Energetic solar eruptions and corresponding disturbances in the earth’s magnetic field form a solar-terrestrial bridge for conveying instability, which induces a change of pattern in all kinds of terrestrial cycles. The last phase of major instability started in 1968 and ended in 1972. The next phase will begin in 2002 and come to an end in 2011.

    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RAINFALL IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE AND IMPULSES OF THE TORQUE IN THE SUN’S MOTION [PDF 269K]
    In: K. H. Schatten and A. Arking, eds.: Climate impact of solar variability. Greenbelt, NASA, 259-266, 1990.
    The analysis of major change in the angular momentum of the sun’s irregular motion about the barycenter of the solar system, represented by extrema in the running variance of impulses of the torque (IOT), discloses a connection with both extrema in the Gleissberg cycle of secular sunspot activity and maxima in the thickness of varves from Lake Saki, Crimea. This significant relationship can be traced back to the 7th century, further inquiries link the running variance in IOT to rainfall over central Europe, England, Wales, eastern United States, and India, as well as to temperature in Europe. This significant correlation covers more than 130 years.

    THE GOLDEN SECTION: A Building Block of Cyclic Structure [PDF 558K]
    Foundation for the Study of Cycles, May/June 1992
    ABSTRACT. In this paper it is shown how to reveal the hidden cycles in the Nature, society and economy. The mechanism of forming of such cycles and their structure and are shown.

    Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics [PDF 676K]
    (1998) Demonstrates that climate changes are predominantly the result of solar activity, not human activity).
    See also Comments on ‘Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics’ [PDF 126K]
    by Charles ‘Chick’ F. Keller (USA)
    Disputes findings by Dr Landscheidt on solar-climate linkages.
    Also, see `Open Review’ of Chick Keller’s paper Part 1 [PDF 269K] and Part 2 [PDF 139K].

    EXTREMA IN SUNSPOT CYCLE LINKED TO SUN’S MOTION [PDF 203K]
    Solar Physics 189, 413 – 424, 1999
    ABSTRACT. Partitions of 178.8-year intervals between instances of retrograde motion in the Sun’s oscillation about the center of mass of the solar system seem to provide synchronization points for the timing of minima and maxima in the 11 -year sunspot cycle. In the investigated period 1632-1990, the statistical significance of the relationship goes beyond the level P = 0.001. The extrapolation of the observed pattern points to sunspot maxima around 2000.6 and 2011.8. If a further connection with long-range variations in sunspot intensity proves reliable, four to five weak sunspot cycles (R < 80) are to be expected after cycle 23 with medium strength (R ~ 100).

    SOLAR WIND NEAR EARTH: INDICATOR OF VARIATIONS IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE [PDF 144K]
    ESA-SP 463,497-500, 2000.
    Abstract. Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature (r = 0.96; P < 10-7). Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years.

    Solar Activity Controls El Nino and La Nina [PDF 293K]
    A new solar model to explain the timing of previous ENSO events and to predict future ones. Plus, Reactions to Landscheidt’s paper (415 KB Zip file), or [PDFs: Part 1 397K, Part 2 423K, Part 3 308K, Part 4 447K].

    ‘Top Climate Events’ Linked to Solar Motion Cycle (3 Jan 2000) [PDF 172K]
    NOAA’s top climate events of the 20th Century correlate with solar motion cycle

    Sun’s Role in the Satellite-Balloon-Surface Issue (26 Mar 2000) [PDF 66K]
    How the satellite and sonde data shows a more natural response to the sun than does the surface record.

    New Confirmation of Strong Solar Forcing of Climate (7 Nov 2000) [PDF 96K].
    Recent flooding of the River Po in Italy was predicted in advance through Solar Motion Cycle analysis.

    Solar Eruptions Linked to North Atlantic Oscillation (9 April 2001) [PDF].
    After predicting that the next El Nino will peak late next year, Dr Landscheidt now shows that a similar correlation exists between solar motion/activity cycles and the N.A.O.

    Trends in Pacific Decadal Oscillation Subjected To Solar Forcing (25 April 2001) [PDF 173K].
    First ENSO, then the NAO (item above), now Dr Landscheidt completes the trilogy demonstrating that the 50-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation is also a product of solar forcing, not random chance.

    El Nino Forecast Revisited (19 March 02) [PDF 287K]
    Dr Landscheidt reviews his prediction made over 3 years ago on this website of the El Nino now developing, and describes his method in layman’s terms for the benefit of non-expert readers.

    Long-Range Forecast of U.S. Drought Based on Solar Activity (15 Mar 2003) [PDF 250K].
    Following from his stunning success in predicting the timing of the current El Nino over 4 years ago, Dr Theodor Landscheidt has now applied his solar analysis technique to the problem of periodic drought conditions in the U.S. He has developed a long-range forecast covering the period up to 2030. He predicts that the next extended wet period should begin around 2007 and last about 7 to 8 years. A drought peak is to be expected from 2025 on and should last about five years.

    New Little Ice Age instead of global warming [PDF 429K]
    Energy and Environment 14, 327-350. – 2003
    Abstract: Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Nino years before the respective event.

    Decadal-Scale Variations in El-Nino Intensity (20 May 2003) [PDF 131K].
    Where does El Nino and La Nina go from here? Using his solar motions analysis (which successfully predicted the last La Nina and the recent El Nino), Dr Landscheidt looks 80 years into the future and finds La Nina more dominant.

    Variations in CO2 Growth Rate Associated with Solar Activity (21 Sept 03) [PDF 103K].
    Solar activity and solar motion variations are found to explain much of the variability of CO2 growth over the last several decades. The average annual increase over the last 10 years was 1.66 ppmv/yr, which is less than half that assumed by climate models.

  442. Jordan says:

    The Unsettled Minimum

  443. TJA says:

    Andrew, I can’t believe anyone would object if you ran some ads.

  444. Ron de Haan says:

    A fine written piece about the current Solar Minimum by Philip Stott,
    with a nice remark and link to WUWT. (That is why I have posted it.)
    I really love the header of the article:

    Is the sun a Global Warming Denier?

    The Sun isn’t playing ball with the ‘global warmers’. Indeed, I expect one of our more rabid Labour ministers to come out any day now fatuously accusing the fading star of ‘global warming’ denial on a par with denying the effects of smoking or the link between HIV and AIDS.

    But one has to laugh. The sun is currently so inactive that even our ‘global warming’-obsessed media has been forced, through heavily rose-tinted sunglasses, to admit the phenomenon, rushing to add, of course, that this doesn’t mean that ‘global warming’ has halted, or that we must stop mending our evil ways.

    ‘Global Warming’ In Trouble

    Yet, the truth is that ‘global warming’ [not, let’s be clear, climate change] is possibly in trouble. The whole point is that climate is the most complex of systems, and that it is impossible – madness even – to try to predict future climates with respect to one politically-selected variable.

    So what precisely is all the fuss about this very big other variable, the Sun? Put simply, a thing called ‘Solar Cycle 24’ is long overdue; it just can’t seem to get going. Solar-cycle intensity is measured by the maximum number of sunspots. Sunspots are dark blotches on the Sun that mark areas of heightened magnetic activity. The more sunspots, the more likely it is that major solar storms will occur. The next 11-year cycle of solar storms (i.e. ‘Solar Cycle 24’) was predicted to begin in Autumn, 2006, but it appears to have been seriously delayed.

    This is what Paul Stanko of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is reported as saying about this on the wonderful Watts Up With That? web site:

    “My running mean of the International Sunspot Number [ISN} for 2009 just dipped below 1.00. For anything comparable you now need to go back before 1913 (which scored a 1.43) which could mean we’re now competing directly with the Dalton Minimum [see below for details].

    Just in case you’d like another tidbit, here is something that puts our 20 to 30 day spotless runs in perspective… the mother of all spotless runs (in the heart of the Maunder Minimum, of course!) was from October 15, 1661 to August 2, 1671. It totaled 3,579 consecutive spotless days, all of which had obs[ervations].”

    So Why Do Sunspots Concern Us Here On Planet Earth?

    But why does a spotless sun matter to you and me? The reason is simple: there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth’s climates.

    During an active solar period, violent eruptions occur more often on the Sun. Solar flares and vast explosions, called coronal mass ejections, shoot energetic photons and highly-charged matter towards Earth, affecting the planet’s ionosphere and geomagnetic field, potentially disrupting power grids, critical communications, satellites, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and even threatening astronauts with harmful radiation. These storms also illuminate night skies with brilliant sheets of red and green, called auroras or aurorae – the Northern Lights (aurora borealis) and the Southern Lights (aurora australis).

    However, sunspot numbers also affect the temperature of the Earth. A famous student of solar cycles was Edward Walter Maunder (1851-1928). Maunder was an English astronomer who identified an historical climate period, dating from 1645 to 1715, which is now named after him as the ‘Maunder Minimum’ [see the graph right: reproduced under the GNU Free Documentation Licence Version 1.2. Original by the excellent ‘Global Warming Art’ website].

    This was a period in the Little Ice Age when sunspots became very rare, as noted by observers of the era. During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers recorded only about 50 sunspots. Although a simplistic correlation is rightly contested, the Maunder Minimum thus appears to coincide with the middle – and the severest part – of the Little Ice Age.

    Moreover, a second time a cycle was delayed like our current ‘Solar Cycle 24’ occurred during the so-called Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon’s Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

    Thus, what currently is happening to the average temperature of the Earth’s surface? Since at least 2001, it has been falling, and dramatically so during the last two years.

    Nobody Knows

    Will this lead to a new mini Little Ice Age? I don’t know, and nor does anybody else, anymore, I might add, than the global warmers know ‘the truth’ about climate.

    What it does remind us, however, is that climate remains entirely beyond human control and management, and that there will be no predictable outcomes to managing CO2 emissions at the margins.

    The question we should be asking every Minister who comes out blathering that we must ‘fix’ climate is: “What climate precisely are you going to conjure up for us?”

    Political Madness

    ‘Global warming’ is a quite extraordinary political madness. In the immortal words of Bruno Latour: “Nous n’avons jamais été modernes”.

    Coffee in the garden beneath a spotless Sun (if you value your eyes, please nobody look directly at the Sun!). And what shall I be reading in the garden? A scathing denunciation of the political claim that we can reduce carbon emissions written by the brilliant Dr. Peter W. Huber, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow and co-author, most recently, of The Bottomless Well: ‘We Cannot Make a Dent in Global Carbon Emissions’ (FrontPage Magazine, April 19):

    “Like medieval priests, today’s carbon brokers will sell you an indulgence that forgives your carbon sins. It will run you about $500 for 5 tons of forgiveness – about how much the typical American needs every year. Or about $2,000 a year for a typical four-person household. Your broker will spend the money on such things as reducing methane emissions from hog farms in Brazil.

    But if you really want to make a difference, you must send a check large enough to forgive the carbon emitted by four poor Brazilian households, too – because they’re not going to do it themselves. To cover all five households, then, send $4,000. And you probably forgot to send in a check last year, and you might forget again in the future, so you’d best make it an even $40,000, to take care of a decade right now. If you decline to write your own check while insisting that to save the world we must ditch the carbon, you are just burdening your already sooty soul with another ton of self-righteous hypocrisy. And you can’t possibly afford what it will cost to forgive that…”

    Do please read Peter’s trenchant piece in full – I bet the Sun has! And, if we do actually enter a severe cold period, just wait for that inevitable Headline: “It’s The Sun Wot Done It!”

    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/4/22_Is_the_Sun_a_%E2%80%98Global_Warming%E2%80%99_Denier.html

  445. Paul Vaughan says:

    Consumerism Minimum

  446. Peter says:

    “Modern Dark Age” minimum. It can stand as a marker for when the Enlightenment – Rational, Empirical thought, again gave way to romantic idealism and religion. When numbers, proof, and careful (skeptical) examination of evidence gave way to consensus, politics, .. and rage.

    The question is, does this mark the beginning or end?

  447. Peter (11:04:46) :
    “Modern Dark Age” minimum. It can stand as a marker for when the Enlightenment – Rational, Empirical thought, again gave way to romantic idealism and religion. [...]
    The question is, does this mark the beginning or end?

    Judging from the cultist following, this marks the beginning. What Carl Sagan called ‘The Demon-haunted World’.

  448. Ray says:

    In a world where up is down, left is right and warming causes cooling, I think “The Bizzaro Minimum” is more appropriate.

  449. SteveSadlov says:

    The “Age of Migrations” is a euphemism for “The Dark Age.” :-)

  450. Allan M R MacRae says:

    Ken (07:18:16) :

    Name for the Minimum (Other): The Fairbridge/Shirley Minimum

    REASON: They predicted it in 1987, based on objective analysis, via their paper, “Prolonged Minima and the 179-Yr Cycle of the Solar Inertial Motion.”

    After all, isn’t it the actual discoverers of a thing that get the name…or…get to name it?

    **************

    Good point Ken!

    I vote for Fairbridge.

    One other good reason – Rhodes was a Queen’s man.

    Believe it or not, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario did not know that Rhodes did his undergrad there.

    When I mentioned Rhodes’ connection to Queens, Alumni Affairs first suggested I was mistaken. Imagine their delight when, upon further investigation, they found that I was correct.

    A recent article in the alumni paper corrected this oversight.

    Rhodes Fairbridge is now recognized as one of Queen’s most illustrious alumni.

    Oilthigh! (Secret cult language, dedicated to Leif)

    8^)

  451. Ray says:

    About that picosunspot… it seems it is the wrong polarity and could be a SC23… or SC25?

  452. Garacka says:

    Sol’s Revengimum

  453. Linda B. says:

    Dang! Hit the wrong button.

    The Oh Scheidt Minimum. (apologies if this one has already been proposed).

    On a more serious note:

    1. The Eddy Minimum
    2. The Landscheidt Minimum (b/c as I understood Eddy to have inferred, it is not always the discoverer who gets the credit. It oftentimes, and rightfully so, goes to the person who is responsible for shining the light of day on that discovery).
    3. The Jose Minimum

  454. Ray says:

    [snip]

    (p.s. my appologies to all women reading this blog)

  455. A Lovell says:

    How about the Ad Ho Minimum?

    [REPLY - Har! Har! ~ Evan]

  456. John Cooper says:

    Coming late to the thread, but when I read the title, the first thing that immediately popped into my head was “Gore Minimum”. LOL!

  457. Robert Wood says:

    Pearland Aggie @ 10:21:15

    I saw that on the magnetogram earlier today but nothinmg optical. Perhaps it is; but is it 24 or 23?

  458. Smokey says:

    Since this is ‘fun stuff’, just a heads-up: tomorrow is World Penguin Day. Followed by Hug an Australian Day. click

    And on April 30th, Al Gore’s head explodes.

  459. Ray says:

    Robert Wood (13:17:31) :

    Look closer, close to the equater, on the left, between 9 and 10 o’clock. That little pico spot corresponds to something on the magnetogram. It’s not what could be a burnt pixel.

  460. Ron de Haan says:

    A Russian Scientist, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the Space Research Lab at the Pulkovo Observatory believes this Solar Minimum will last much longer!
    If he is right, shall we name it after him? I think not, who in the world would be able to pronounce his name, let alone write it down!

    This article appears in the April 17, 2009 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
    GOODBYE, GLOBAL WARMING
    Deepest Solar Minimum in Nearly a Century

    by Gregory Murphy and Laurence Hecht

    The authors are editors of 21st Century Science & Technology magazine.

    [PDF version of this article]

    April 9, 2009—A continued low in solar activity, as measured by the appearance of irregularities on the Sun’s surface known as sunspots, may be responsible for the recent phase of cooling experienced in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere. In the opinion of many specialists, the downturn in solar activity likely marks the beginning of a prolonged cooling period.

    The expected cooling will produce many hardships for a human population already stressed by a prolonged downturn in global physical-economic productive capability. But the bright side may be that such bloated windbags as Al Gore and his leaner companion James Hansen, who have led Royal Consort Prince Philip’s genocidal global warming promotion, will finally be silenced.

    For students of the Sun, the length of the solar cycle, which lasts an average of 11 years but may go longer or shorter, has proven the best historical indicator of short-term climate. At the ends of these solar cycles, sunspot activity first declines, and then picks up markedly, indicating the beginning of a new cycle. The precise relationship between the sunspots, which are thought to be determined by magnetic activity within the Sun, and the energy output of the Sun, is not known. However, long-term studies of the historical record have shown that when the minima in sunspot activity extend beyond the average 11 years, significant declines in temperatures on Earth are experienced. Regular records of sunspot activity go back to the 17th Century.

    The current solar cycle, numbered 23, began in 1996, and was expected to reach minimum and transition to solar cycle 24 in January 2007.

    It did not. Instead, a prolonged period of excessively low solar activity has continued to this moment. In 2008, 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,” NASA reported in a press release. Since the beginning of the current year, sunspot counts have dropped even lower: As of April 9, there were no sunspots on 89 of the year’s 99 days (90%).
    The Schwabe Cycle

    The approximately 11-year, or Schwabe cycle, was discovered in the mid-1800s by Heinrich Schwabe, a German astronomer and collaborator of Alexander von Humboldt. Schwabe saw that peaks of solar activity were always followed by valleys of relative calm—a pattern that has held true for more than 200 years. The association between longer solar cycles and cooler climate was first demonstrated in 1991 by two Danish researchers, Egil Friis-Christensen, the director of the Danish Space Center, and Knud Lassen, a solar scientist at the Center, in a paper published in Science.

    Other researchers, including the Australian geologist David Archibald, have confirmed this relationship, and have also found that for every one-year increase in solar cycle length, there is a 0.5° Celsius decline in surface air temperature during the following cycle. Archibald points out that the end of the current solar minimum associated with solar cycle 23 could occur in July 2009, but may continue until January 2010, which agrees with NASA’s latest estimate. This means that solar cycle 23 will be 13 years in length and, using the relationship that Archibald found, there would likely be a 1.0-1.5°C (1.8-2.7°F) decline in temperature over the next solar cycle. This possible temperature decrease may not sound like much, but it is twice as large as the 0.6°C increase in average global temperature during the 20th Century. (That small average warming trend was already eliminated by the cooling that occurred in the decade after 1998.)

    During the last Little Ice Age, which lasted from the 14th to the 19th centuries, a period of prolonged cold known as the Dalton Minimum (1796-1824), began with a solar cycle that lasted for 13.6 years. That solar cycle, numbered 4, was then followed by two very inactive solar cycles. During this time period, there were reports of wide-scale crop failures and food shortages. If similar conditions occur after this present, ongoing, deep solar minimum, and there is a large drop in temperature due to an inactive Sun, the world could see further stress on the food supply. Areas that had become available for growing food during the recent short period of warming, may become too cold again to grow food over the next two cycles.

    The Russian Forecasts

    The continued solar inactivity is consistent with forecasts from Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg, over more than a year. On Jan. 22, 2008 senior scientist Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the Space Research Lab at the Pulkovo Observatory, said in an interview with RIA Novosti that, “temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming.”

    Abdusamatov warned correctly, at the beginning of 2008, that global temperatures would drop slightly that year, rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the past 30 years, and would continue decreasing, even if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels. According to Abdusamatov’s 2008 forecast, “By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-60. It will last for about 45-65 years and by mid-21st Century, the planet will face another Little Ice Age.”

    Belittling the global warming scare, Abdusamatov pointed out, “According to scientists, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade—but global warming has practically stopped. Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1°C in the past ten years—however, it never happened.”

    Over a century of climatological studies has demonstrated that longer-term climate is driven by changes in the Earth’s orbital relationship to the Sun. Over the past 2 million years, cycles in orbital parameters lasting 20,000, 40,000, and 100,000 years have combined to produce glaciations lasting from 100,000 to 200,000 years over the Northern Hemisphere. The last glacial advance, which ended approximately 12,000 years ago, covered North America, down to the latitude of New York and Chicago, with a blanket of ice estimated to be 1 to 2 miles thick.

    The present Earth-Sun orbital relationship is such that the onset of a new glaciation is to be expected at any time soon. The Earth, indeed, has been in a prolonged cooling since the Holocene climatic optimum of 3000 B.C. A descent into a new Little Ice Age, triggered by such short-term variations in sunspot activity as are reported here, is thus a scientific likelihood. For a variety of reasons, the increase in carbon dioxide from human industrial activity has not been able to change the direction of climate dictated by the Sun’s output of energy. Carbon dioxide has been much exaggerated as a greenhouse gas. It is not out of the question that the coming Little Ice Age will mark the beginning of a prolonged period of continental glaciation such as the Earth experienced for the 100,000 years prior to the beginning of our current interglacial, about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago.

    The immediate possibility of cooling over the next two decades is going to add more challenges in the face of the onrushing global economic crisis. But it is also in times of crisis, that mankind’s gift of creativity is of the greatest importance. When mankind uses its creativity, there is no problem or challenge so great that it cannot be solved.

    http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2009/sci-techs/3615solar_min.html

  461. gary gulrud says:

    Adolfo, how do you do Greek script? It should come in handy nearing the end.

  462. Mike Bryant says:

    Since Islam is the fasting growing religion, and since muminim is the transliteration of the word believer in Arabic,

    Maybe The Muminim Minimum…

    actually only picked because I like palindromes… Feel free to delete if you wish…

  463. Smokey says:

    Muminim Minimum. Let’s hear you say that three times, fast.

  464. Randy says:

    Simple. The “AGW Minimum”.

  465. Robert Wood says:

    Ray, my Q is whether it is a 23 or 24? In fiorget which way the S/N have to be for a 23 (N is leading) but it is right on the equator

  466. Mike Lorrey says:

    The Politically Incorrect Minimum. If you order now we’ll include for free a Gulag Archipelago Climate.

  467. Ray says:

    The Dynamic-Duo Minimum (i.e. Gore-Hansen)

  468. Mike Bryant says:

    I Lucy Skywalker suggested The Untaxable Minimum… I like that or The We Didn’t Do It Minimum or The Don’t Blame Us Minimum or The Devil Made Me Do It Minimum or The There’s Plenty of Blame To Go Around Minimum…

    Or from the AGW contingent The We Know Man Is Responsible And A Study Will Prove it Soon Minimum… or The CO2 Negative Correlation Connection Minimum…

  469. Mike Bryant says:

    Or we could name it after Smokey and call it The Hammer Minimum…

  470. Shane says:

    I like the ad ho minimum

    Shane

  471. Rog says:

    Come on….it’s obvious that the sun is dimmer because of CO2 and global scamming. That’s why it is such a disaster. Next thing you know, the galaxy will stop spinning because of “man-made” global warming.

  472. Mike Lorrey says:

    http://astronomynow.com/090422sun.html

    Lockwood is continuing to play the Wizard of Oz card.

  473. Martin Brown says:

    Landscheidt Minimum seems good to me since his predictions seem spot on although i don’t know if he was the first to predict but i think he deserves it.

  474. Ron de Haan says:

    After all the creative proposals to find a name for the current Minimum
    Have I missed the “Wattsupwiththat Minimum”?

    It perfectly illustrates the “question mark” that symbolizes the big question what consequences this Minimum will have for the human civilization and the scientific processes that take place.

    How cold is it going to be, how long will it last, what mechanisms causes the cooling,
    will we see an increase in volcanic activity, will we be able to feed the world, etc. etc?
    All questions that “hunger” for an answer.

    Passed Minimums have caused cultural and political earthquakes, hunger, epidemics and agricultural disasters but when we came out of the cold the planet counted almost one billion inhabitants.
    Many people survived because they could escape the extremes and migrate to other places.

    Today, this will proof to be a limited option.
    The further South we go the higher the population densities get.
    Individual countries could close their borders.

    Anyhow, the “Watsupwiththat Minimum” will proof to be an interesting time.

  475. Mr Lynn says:

    Allan M R MacRae (07:15:54) :
    Warmus Interruptus!

    Climactus Interruptus!

    /Mr Lynn

  476. M. Simon says:

    Mini Mum

    Small and quiet. As opposed to a Dalton type minimum. Which would be called Maxi Mum.

    Easy to remember too.

  477. Oh, bother says:

    I went with Svalgaard Minimum, but I do agree that Inconvenient Minimum has scope and texture.

    Thank Anthony and these commenters for providing such a useful site! I come at it from the history side and never believed the AGW hype, and have learned so much about the science from this site.

  478. Eugene B. Veek says:

    Dim Sun! Chinese contribution to saving the Earth by polluting the air is recognized.

  479. Geoff Sharp says:

    ralf ellis (07:57:29) :

    Thanks for the fantastic link ralf:

    http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

    I would recommend it to anyone interested in Planetary Theory. It covers a vast area in reasonably simple layman’s terms and even includes Svalgaard’s work.

    Points of interest include how the DE JAGER and VERSTEEGH (2005) attempt to debunk planetary theory has been debunked itself. The De Jager paper has been held up many times in this forum….perhaps it can now be buried.

    The linked paper (a study produced by Mackey 2007) suggests SC24 to be very similar to SC14, with SC25 & SC26 being the real low cycles. This will be very interesting to watch, history shows us grand minima can occur on the disturbed cycle or just after, its a matter of timing. I think it may happen on the cycle this time around.

  480. I’m all for the “give it up, Climahysterics” minimum

  481. Jack Green says:

    OK. I have one you guys haven’t thought of yet.

    Snow White Minimum.

    I can’t think of who the seven dwarfs are but they could be all the continents?

    Just a thought or two. What do you guys think?

  482. Chris Edwards says:

    Goricus Stupisius Minimus sounds latin!
    Kings New Clothes Minimum is fine too.
    7 or 8 years back a Russian scientist reported this and predicted this minimum, name it after him.

  483. John Goetz says:

    I voted “Gore Minimum” after reading an excerpt in the BBC article that said: “This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change.” Only a politician can spin the definition of a word like “change” to mean “warming”. I guess that means “stasis” is “cooling”.

    But then I thought we should call it the “Dr. Evil Minimum”. I can hear Austin Power’s nemesis say as he lifts pinky to mouth: “I shall call it, ‘Mini-mum’.”

  484. Larry Sheldon says:

    I still think “Gorebull Maximum” outlines the whole story of getting things bassakward.

  485. Geoff Sharp (17:16:11) :
    Points of interest include how the DE JAGER and VERSTEEGH (2005) attempt to debunk planetary theory has been debunked itself.

    The ‘debunking itself’ is invalid. Here is what the paper said:
    “de Jager and Versteegh (2005) reported that the accelerations of the Sun caused by the planets seem to completely disappear in the accelerations observed inside the Sun and therefore cannot influence the solar dynamo significantly.”

    This is still the case and has not been debunked [not even with the above statement].

    And: “However, de Jager and Versteegh (2005) may have been looking for the wrong phenomena. de Jager and Versteegh (2005) appear to have misunderstood solar inertial motion since Shirley (2006) shows their inappropriate use of rotational equations for modelling particle motions due to orbital revolution.”

    This shows that Mackey has the shoe on the wrong foot. What Shirley (2006) showed was that there can be no spin-orbit coupling via angular momentum. It is, indeed, silly to even look at the influence of orbital momentum in view of what Shirley (2006) points out, but deJager and Versteegh (2005) play Devil’s advocates and calculates that even if there were such a coupling it is woefully inadequate, recognizing that many people would not be able to grasp Shirley’s paper [if they did, there would be no need to debunk anything, because it would be obvious]. From Shirley’s abstract: “The Sun’s orbital motion is a state of free fall; in consequence, aside from very small tidal motions, the associated particle velocities do not vary as a function of position on or within the body of the Sun”

    It is sad that the general level of scientific literacy has fallen this low combined with a seeming disregard for honest brokering of information.

  486. Roger Knights says:

    Ron de Haan (15:59:47) wrote:

    “After all the creative proposals to find a name for the current Minimum, Have I missed the “Wattsupwiththat Minimum”?

    “It perfectly illustrates the “question mark” that symbolizes the big question what consequences this Minimum will have for the human civilization and the scientific processes that take place.”

    I suggested “The Watts Up Minimum,” with the same intended connotation.

  487. Mike Bryant says:

    Well, no one has said it yet and I know that alot of you have been thinking it but just were not brave enough to say it:

    The MONKEY Minimum

    Do I really have to justify it?

  488. Declan says:

    Jesters minimum.

  489. Mike Bryant says:

    The Zombie Minimum, It’s dead but the light’s still on…

  490. Mike Bryant says:

    The Limbo Minimum, it’s out of commission for awhile, but it’ll be back…. we hope.

  491. Mike Bryant says:

    The Mythbuster Minimum

  492. Mike Bryant says:

    OK… I hope this is # 500:

    The Ministry of Truth Minimum

  493. Indiana Bones says:

    Mike Bryant (19:15:29) :

    Utterly unnecessary Mike. And out of place.

  494. Paul Vaughan says:

    Shirley 2006:
    “The inappropriate use of rotational equations for modelling particle motions due to orbital revolution is an ongoing problem (yet another example is found in Section 2 of De Jager & Versteegh 2005).”
    -
    “In order to isolate the motions of revolution, we will initially suppose that our subject body is not rotating.”
    -
    While the word “initially” may seem to suggest Shirley will later address differential rotation, he does not do so.

    Judging by the misunderstandings & ongoing disputes in the solar physics literature with regard to differential rotation and related frames, it is absolutely evident that solar physicists do not yet have their heads wrapped around the complexity in consensus-form; as Leif Svalgaard admits, this is still an active area of research.

  495. Ron de Haan says:

    Mike Bryant (20:11:22) :

    “The Mythbuster Minimum”

    This one I like very much.

  496. Mike Lorrey says:

    Folks need to start breaking out their copies of Niven and Pournelle’s “Fallen Angels”, about some astronauts stranded on an Earth living through an Ice Age and ruled by Greens and their Global Warming religion, who blamed the astronauts for the cooling via their “stealing atmosphere” for their space station. Niven and Pournelle predicted the future…

  497. Mike Bryant says:

    It is possible that it will be a very short minimum and will come to be called,

    The Minute Minimum…

  498. Mike Bryant says:

    “Indiana Bones (20:22:21) :
    Mike Bryant (19:15:29) :
    Utterly unnecessary Mike. And out of place.”

    People have been telling me that my whole life. In fact, “Utterly unnecessary Mike” is my nickname… :)

  499. Paul Vaughan says:

    ralf ellis (07:57:29)
    “I could not find a joint Fairbridge and Shirley paper.”

    See here:
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/

  500. Paul Vaughan (20:26:03) :
    Judging by the misunderstandings & ongoing disputes in the solar physics literature with regard to differential rotation and related frames, it is absolutely evident that solar physicists do not yet have their heads wrapped around the complexity in consensus-form; as Leif Svalgaard admits, this is still an active area of research.

    No, this is very wrong. The interior of the Sun does not have differential rotation, for once, and as far as spin and orbits are concerned, the differential rotation is not a problem. In a sense, you can look at the differential rotation as ‘winds’, not as ‘rotation’. All planets with a dense atmosphere (Earth, Jupiter, etc) have differentially rotating atmosphere, driven by temperature differences causing meridional circulations. The Sun is no different. As well as rotation itself not being affected by orbital movement, differential rotation isn’t either.

    It is an active area of research because we are trying to map the wind systems in space and time.

  501. Robert Bateman says:

    Has everyone been paying attention to the waning spots, waning white-light faculae, waning amplitude of both 10.7cm flux and GCR’s (which both rise, btw. now why do you suppose that is?), and absolutely horrid contrast on the rare SC23 & 24 spots that make it to the surface before drowning.
    If this keeps up, we’ll be looking at sunspot oldies.
    The Dead Sunspot Minimum.

  502. Robert Bateman says:

    3009, Jan 3rd, somewhere near Mt. Wilson.
    “Hey Fred, did you see this report? Some nut reported a spot on the Sun. Ain’t that a good one”.
    “Yeah, Sam, that’s really crazy. Hey, you been outside today? Seems awfully bright. Had a hard time driving to work”.
    “Now Fred, don’t you start believing in that Sun turning yellow myth. Everyone knows the Sun has always been a red dwarf.”
    “I know, Sam, the archaelogists debunked the yellow sun paintings caused by extreme UV bleaching 50 years ago. Hmpff.”

  503. Robert Bateman (21:35:35) :
    Has everyone been paying attention to the waning spots, waning white-light faculae, waning amplitude of both 10.7cm flux and GCR’s, which both rise, btw. now why do you suppose that is?

    1: waning amplitude of 10.7 flux, because the rotational signal caused by active regions is waning
    2: uptick in lower envelope of 10.7 flux, because new cycle flux is beginning to appear as small ephemeral regions
    3: GCRs rising because it takes a year or so for the solar wind to permeate the heliosphere, so the CGRs don’t know yet that a new cycle has started. If for illustration we take the 2008.75 time as the minimum [as given by the lower envelope of the 10.7 flux - feel free to cherry pick another time], then only by next summer would that be fully communicated throughout the heliosphere.
    Remember that various aspects of solar activity don’t have minima [or maxima] all at the same time.

  504. Geoff Sharp says:

    Current Doppler imaging is showing different levels of deceleration at the Suns equator. This is not a result of “winds” and is a result of what transpired at the Tachocline 2 years previously according to Dr.Howe. There is an external driver that produces this regular pattern.

    A full copy of Dr.Howes paper and a brief article can be read here:

    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/02/25/latest-solar-differential-rotation-information/

  505. Robert Bateman says:

    I’m fine with your 2008.75, and I’ll let you pick any time you want for minimum.
    What I am not so good with is the scarce & stillborn sunspots 1/2 year into a new cycle plus poor amplitude of both GCR’s & 10.7cm flux that is all going on at the same time.
    When & why would the waning rotational signal caused by active regions turn around and start back up? What needs to happen?

  506. Geoff Sharp (22:15:59) :
    Current Doppler imaging is showing different levels of deceleration at the Suns equator. This is not a result of “winds”

    She calls the pattern “migrating zonal flows”, i.e. what we normally call ‘winds’ as furthermore the flows are spatially narrow: The bands extend over about 10◦ in latitude, and have velocities a few meters per second faster or slower than the surrounding material; all features characteristic of a ‘wind’. They are not ‘result of winds’, they are winds. And they do come from rather deep.

    There is an external driver that produces this regular pattern.
    Rachel does not conclude this [rather cites various models that consider the flows to be a side effect of the magnetic fields]. And you just make that claim with no support from her. I know Rachel’s work very well [in fact discussed the very paper you referred to with her after she gave a seminar based on the paper at University of Cal. at Berkeley a couple of weeks ago], as well as that of my colleagues at Stanford, Schou and Duvall, and she does not make any such claims.

  507. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (21:30:24)
    “No, this is very wrong.”

    At points they appear to be ‘talking past’ one another and there are quantitative judgement errors on both sides. Are they out-on-a-limb stirring the pot on purpose to shake loose old ideas & stir up new ones? [rhetorical Q]….

    My impression from delving into the details of the Usoskin, Berdyugina, et al. vs. Pelt, Brooke, Tuominen, et al. dispute is that it is raising awareness of the merits (& details) of basing statistics on alternate spatiotemporal frames — & it is easy to see how they can improve quantitative methods further, moving forward — I’ve noticed a lot of dreadfully simple errors that a good Stat 101 student wouldn’t make….

    Leif: “It is an active area of research because we are trying to map the wind systems in space and time.”

    This is a much better song for attracting more research funding to the field of solar science. (The “sun varies little & has little effect” tune may have been producing the opposite-of-desired effect.)

    If solar scientists make a substantial discovery, I caution against using the term “surprised” in interviews. (It conveys the wrong message.)

  508. Robert Bateman (22:16:52) :
    When & why would the waning rotational signal caused by active regions turn around and start back up? What needs to happen?
    There are two completely different physical mechanisms that produce the F10.7 flux [as I have discussed earlier, e.g. at solarcycle24.com]. When we get stronger active regions the rotational signal [caused by gyro-resonance] will pick up in amplitude. The lower envelope [caused by free-free emission] will pick up [as it is now doing] because the density and the temperature of the lower corona generally increases towards solar maximum. We are contemplating a Science Nugget soon exploring this, so tune to: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/RHESSI_Science_Nuggets

  509. M. Simon says:

    In honor of Dick and Jane:

    See Spot Run Minimum

  510. Please see the numerous articles by Theodor Landscheidt here:

    http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm

    Variations in CO2 Growth Rate Associated with Solar Activity by Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Germany) (21 Sept 03).
    Solar activity and solar motion variations are found to explain much of the variability of CO2 growth over the last several decades. The average annual increase over the last 10 years was 1.66 ppmv/yr, which is less than half that assumed by climate models.
    http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm

    Decadal-Scale Variations in El-Niño Intensity by Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Germany) (20 May 2003).
    Where does El Niño and La Niña go from here? Using his solar motions analysis (which successfully predicted the last La Niña and the recent El Niño), Dr Landscheidt looks 80 years into the future and finds La Niña more dominant.
    http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/DecadalEnso.htm

    Long-Range Forecast of U.S. Drought Based on Solar Activity by Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Germany) (15 Mar 2003).
    Following from his stunning success in predicting the timing of the current El Niño over 4 years ago, Dr Theodor Landscheidt has now applied his solar analysis technique to the problem of periodic drought conditions in the U.S. He has developed a long-range forecast covering the period up to 2030. He predicts that the next extended wet period should begin around 2007 and last about 7 to 8 years. A draught peak is to be expected from 2025 on and should last about five years.
    http://www.john-daly.com/solar/US-drought.htm

    El Niño Forecast Revisited (19 March 02) by Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Canada).
    Dr Landscheidt reviews his prediction made over 3 years ago on this website of the El Niño now developing, and describes his method in layman’s terms for the benefit of non-expert readers.
    http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisit.htm

    Trends in Pacific Decadal Oscillation Subjected To Solar Forcing by Dr Theodor Landscheidt
    (25 April 2001). First ENSO, then the NAO (item below), now Dr Landscheidt completes the trilogy demonstrating that the 50-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation is also a product of solar forcing, not random chance.
    http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/pdotrend.htm

    Solar Eruptions Linked to North Atlantic Oscillation by Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Canada) (9 April 2001).
    After predicting that the next El Niño will peak late next year, Dr Landscheidt now shows that a similar correlation exists between solar motion/activity cycles and the N.A.O.
    http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/solarnao.htm

    New Confirmation of Strong Solar Forcing of Climate by Dr Theodor Landscheidt
    (7 Nov 2000).
    Recent flooding of the River Po in Italy was predicted in advance through Solar Motion Cycle analysis.
    http://www.john-daly.com/po.htm

    Sun’s Role in the Satellite-Balloon-Surface Issue (26 Mar 2000) – Dr Theodor Landscheidt
    How the satellite and sonde data shows a more natural response to the sun than does the surface record.
    http://www.john-daly.com/solar/temps.htm

    `Top Climate Events’ Linked to Solar Motion Cycle (3 Jan 2000) – Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Canada)
    - NOAA’s top climate events of the 20th Century correlate with solar motion cycle
    http://www.john-daly.com/topevnts.htm

    Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña – A new solar model to explain the timing of previous ENSO events and to predict future ones – by Dr Theodor Landscheidt. (11 January 1999).
    http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm

    Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics – Dr Theodor Landscheidt (Canada) demonstrates that climate changes are predominantly the result of solar activity, not human activity)
    http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

    New ENSO Forecasts Based on Solar Model by Dr Theodor Landscheidt (22 Dec 2003)
    http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm

    — — —

    Also of interest:

    New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
    by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
    http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html

  511. G. Karst says:

    I hate to give Gore or Hansen any more attention. The following names, say it all!

    Debunker minimum
    OR
    Nutcracker minimum

    Everytime a student asks “Why was it named Debunker minimum?”, they will hear of the damage he caused and the dangers of settled science.

  512. Ken says:

    The Fairbridge/Shirley paper can be found, and read in its entirety, at:

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987SoPh..110..191F/0000191.000.html

    Some thoughts (liberally qualified with “weasel words”) on this “Minimum” discussion thread:

    1) It seems to me that this minimum, while pretty long, isn’t exceptionally long…yet. Perhaps too soon to start labeling it?

    2) The SKY & pending CLOUD experiment (by a team at CERN?) may show that reduced solar activity as being observed now leads to increased cloud cover that reflects incident solar energy–causing measurable global cooling. In skimming the history, above, I failed to notice any commentary on this interaction/linkage. IF reduced solar activity leads to global cooling, the cosmic ray-to-cloud formation theory seems to be the best explanation that I’m aware of (not being an expert in this arena, that’s not saying much…). It seems to me that the CLOUD experiment, if done rigoursly will show, one way or other, the extent of such a solar/GW link, or refute such a link. Time will tell.

    ALSO,

    Related to this barycentric orbit influence/theory (aka Landscheit, Fairbridge/Shirley, etc.) is a recent paper by NASA on the same theme:

    NASA/TM-2007-214817; “Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets,” by Ching-Cheh Hung, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, July 2007.
    - Sorry, I lost the link, but was able to locate that on the internet.

    My review of the “barycentric papers” (my summary phrase) indicates that they are not necessarily contradictory (179 yr cycle, vs. other cycle durations, etc.) when one understands the assumptions & methodology applied, etc.

    The point derived from them is a possible explanation, with predictive value, of effects leading to an active or inactive sun. The mystery still remains as to what & how exactly such in/activity leads to global warming/cooling…or not. And as far as I’m aware, the CLOUD experiment is the “best” research going that might explain such a mechanism (if it exists) decisively.

    If anybody has substantive comments on the above, I’m sure there’s a bunch of us eager to learn more!

  513. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ken (06:52:14)
    “NASA/TM-2007-214817; “Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets,” by Ching-Cheh Hung, [...] 2007.
    - Sorry, I lost the link, but was able to locate that on the internet. “

    The link is here:
    http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2007/TM-2007-214817.pdf

    Related article:
    http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/sunspots/

    For those investigating Landscheidt’s works, the most comprehensive list of links to his papers appears here:
    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/publications.htm

    For a list of Charvatova’s publications, see here:
    http://www.ig.cas.cz/en/structure/departments/geoelectricity/staff/index.php?action=section&section_title=Publications&pageaction=element_call&id=fafb83a83de5db9e264b53e4424fc254enpersonalPages1

  514. UK Sceptic says:

    The Digitus Impudicus (DI) Minimum. Or DIM for short.

  515. Dana H. says:

    No friggin way should it be called the Gore or Hansen minimum. One hundred years from now, if anyone has even heard of these guys, they will be mentioned in the same breath as Lysenko. Let’s keep it that way.

  516. Ninderthana says:

    Erick Barnes (09:38:03) :
    Hi Leif, could you explain some of your skepticism of Planetary Influence?

    Eric,

    The main problem is that a cult following (religiously) believe that Leif is the ONLY voice of reason when it comes to commenting on the Sun. Their is
    NO doubting he has an incredibe wealth of knowledge on solar matters.
    For this he is to be commended. I particular admire the care and patience that he takes in answering peoples questions about the Sun. What is sad however, is his perverse use of this knowledge to try and shut down genuine dicussion about ideas with which he disagrees.

    Here is another scientists humble response to the Gospel According to Leif.

    Leif said:

    1) The various followers advocate [and claim fantastic correlations] different periods: Jose, 179 yr; Geoff, 172 yr; Landscheidt, 166 yr; and more. They can’t all be right.

    Ninderthana’s reply:

    This also means that these times can’t all be wrong, as well! All it shows is that there are collection of planetary hypothesis as to why their appears to be correlation between the level of solar activity and the planetary alignments.
    All scientific ideas take to time to evolve towards a clear picture of what might be happening. Only a scientific charlatan would try to use this uncertainty to try to stop people reporting on their particular investigations of a particular idea or theory.

    Leif said:

    2) A popular [but not the only one] ‘mechanism’ is ‘transfer’ of angular momentum [AM] from the Sun’s orbit to its spin and back. This mechanism is a non-mechanism because the variations of the Sun’s orbital AM is precisely balanced by a similar and opposite variation of the orbital AM of the planets, so there is no ‘extra’ AM to transfer.

    Ninderthana’s reply,

    Leif knows that this statement is false, provided a coupling mechanism can be found between the Jovian planets and the Sun.
    The Earth Moon sysytem is an irrefutable example of such a momentum
    transfer that occurs because of the tidal coupling between the Moon and the Earth’s oceans. Hence, this a statement is really just a lead into his third comment and has little or no value in this arguement.

    Leif said:

    3) There is no coupling mechanism to transfer AM other than tides and those are extremely small [less that 1/1000 of a meter] and act one- way only: slowing down the Sun, so can’t give rise to cycles.

    Leif is completly correct in what he says here. This is the weak point of the
    planetary models. There is no know way that the extremely weak tidal
    forces of the planets can couple to the Sun to cause a transfer of momentum. Leif should be praised for pointing this critical point out to those who ask.

    However, Leif knows that just because we can not come up with a plausible
    mechanism at this time, that does not mean that that mechanism does
    not exist. He is right, however, to point out that the onus is on the proponents of the planetary modelers to come up with a plausible mechanism if they want to be taken more seriously.

    Leif said:

    4) The magnetic polarities reverse in every cycle which is unexplained by gravitational influences [although there are variants of the planetary theories that are supposed to work with electric forces instead - which still don't explain reversals].

    The planetary models do not necessarily have to explain the magnetic pole reversals, at it possible for an internal mechanism on the Sun (e.g. a
    Babcock/Leighton dynamo driven by meridional flow) to be solely
    responsible for the pole reversals. In this case, the planetary models
    simply act as an external forcing agent that modifies or governs the
    level of activity of the internal mechanism.

    Leif said:

    5) Planetary theory is not needed as there are physics-based dynamo theories that give a good account of the solar cycle.

    Ninderthana’s reply:

    True, but that does not rule out the possibility of an external forcing mechansim. This is particularly true if the planetary models consistantly
    indicate both past and future changes in the level of solar activity, something that the dynamo models have been so far been incapable of doing.

    [I have data showing a correlation between these two phenomenon that spans 2000 years. I would challenge Leif to come up with predictions based on
    soley on Dynamo models that could do the same.]

    Leif said:

    6) The practitioners of the theory advocate things that are contrary to physical laws on the assumption that perhaps there are more between heaven and earth than we know [yet] that when discovered will change the face of physics. In my book, such claims are a give-away for snake oil.

    Ninderthana’s reply:

    The statement above a confession of fear. Leif, has a lot invested in the
    current internal dynamo models being free of any influences that are
    external to the Sun. I genuinely believe that if Leif is ever confroted with
    facts that are contradictory to his world view, he will reluctantly but
    eventually adopt the models that best fit the observatios and data.

    Leif has all the attributes of a great scientist.

    However, right now he appears to petrified of the possibility that
    their may [and I emphsis may] be something to the weird idea that
    solar activity cycle is influenced by as yet unknown external mechanism
    that is related to the planetary cycles.

    Ninderthana concludes:

    The proponents of the planetary models are genuine people who are trying to their best to explain what appears to be a compelling corellation between the planetary cycles and the level of solar activity. They are just following one of the great traditions of science and that is to observe nature and ask why it behaves that way.

    Leif, on the other hand, prefers to ignore these extensive
    observations because he cannot come up a valid physical model to explain them. This is like deliberatly wearing blinders while searching for a needle in hay stack. All I can suggest is that Leif has decided to put on these blinders because he is petrified that he might be peceived as straying from the fold of “good science” if he took them off.

    I genuiely believe that Leif is a better man than this.

  517. MattB says:

    Actually the coming grand minimum should be called the Landshiedt minimum, he predicted it he should get it. If we want to be facitious we should call the last 50 years the Gore/Hansen maximum.

  518. Ben says:

    In honor of the AGW Alarmists:

    “The Moaner Minimum”

    LOL – That’s my suggestion and I’m stickin’ with it!

  519. Before Gore Kneel says:

    Teh Gore Gotcha

  520. Ninderthana, oh very, very well said. Thank you for giving credit where credit is due on both sides, for calling out where both sides are weak, and for naming the fear.

    I would only say one more thing: While one’s psychology may be very clear to others, it can take time (if it happens at all) to see oneself. If one does face one’s knee-jerk-reaction blinders, it may be tough but it is infinitely rewarding.

    Leif, I’m rooting for you.

  521. We shouldn’t try to name the current minimum after its discoverer because there are now too many people involved in collecting and analysing the data. There is too little basis for choosing one particular individual for commemoration.

    Nor should we name it after someone like Gore or Hansen as a form of mockery. That would be petty and spiteful, and the name would become meaningless as soon as the political conflicts of the present day are forgotten.

    But if this minimum does cause a period of global cooling then the consequences for humanity are likely to be very unpleasant. It will be seen as something dreadful, and its name should reflect that. Even if the effects are not too bad it would still destroy the credibility of the AGW ideology, and would force everyone to consider just how tiny we are in comparison to the huge natural forces that surround us. It would be a huge blow against anthropocentric hubris.

    Therefore it should be known as the Nemesis Minimum.

  522. UK Sceptic says:

    How about: The Get Real Minimum? Or, Taking Andrew Z’s point on board, the Blizzard Minimum? You could have a nice oxymoron – the Icecap Minimum?

    I’ll go get on with my life now. :0)

  523. Mike Bryant says:

    In this topsy turvy world, the Modern Warm Period, or the Modern Optimum, is regarded as something to be feared, despite Golkany’s much-appreciated explanations of it’s many benefits. At the same time, apparently, the coming, pessimum, is looked to as something to be desired since Global Warming will be vanquished.

    So I believe the optimum, or solar maximum, and the pessimum, or solar minimum, should be named in a way that illustrates this societal derangement, that will be a lesson to future generations.

    The Odious Optimum, which is ending, followed by The Paradise Pessimum, in which mankind need fear the warmth no more.

  524. Ninderthana (20:00:34) :
    Only a scientific charlatan would try to use this uncertainty to try to stop people reporting on their particular investigations of a particular idea or theory

    Thank you for the penetrating analysis of my perverse character and fearful motives. Nobody is trying to stop anybody, to wit the persistent and sucessful hijacking of just about any [solar related] thread by the planetary cultists. I feel it is a scientists duty to point out bad ‘science’ and such when encountered. The planetary theory was once the preferred explanation for solar cycles [or modulation] but has been found to be wanting by later research, simple as that. One can accept that no mechanism is known if the correlations are VERY good. This happened with the relation between sunspots and genomagnetic activity and aurorae, where we only really found the correct explanation sometime in the 1960s. But the correlations touted by the planetary folks are simply not good, they are lousy to b polite. There is no ‘fear’ involved. It would be great if we could incorporate planetary influence as an element in the theory, but scientific honesty does not permit me to join the bandwaggon.

  525. Ninderthana (20:00:34) :
    “2) A popular [but not the only one] ‘mechanism’ is ‘transfer’ of angular momentum [AM] from the Sun’s orbit to its spin and back. ”

    Leif knows that this statement is false, provided a coupling mechanism can be found between the Jovian planets and the Sun.
    The Earth Moon sysytem is an irrefutable example of such a momentum
    transfer that occurs because of the tidal coupling between the Moon and the Earth’s oceans. Hence, this a statement is really just a lead into his third comment and has little or no value in this arguement.

    It is a severe criticism to claim that I say things that I know are false, and I take great offense at that. The all important word in my statement was ‘back’ and the tidal transfer is one-way. The planetary theories require a two-way transfer for the cycles to work.

  526. bob says:

    Maybe it would be prophetic to call it the “AGW Deniers’ Vindication
    Minimum”

    Bob

  527. Paul Vaughan says:

    While endeavoring to understand & fairly assess Theodor Landscheidt’s works, I learned about:

    1) wavelet analysis, cross-wavelet analysis, recurrence & cross-recurrence methods, …
    2) wave theory, harmonics, acoustics, nonlinear dynamics, …
    3) PDO, NAO, SOI, …
    4) geomagnetic indices, sunspot areas, differential rotation, active longitudes, north-south asymmetry, …
    5) de Vries cycle, Hale cycle, solar cycle, …
    6) magnetosphere, heliosphere, ionosphere, HMF structure, cosmic ray flux, …
    7) orbital dynamics, geodesics, …
    8) Chandler wobble, terrestrial polar motion, variable earth rotation rate, …
    9) atmospheric angular momentum, atmospheric tides, long-term ocean tide cycles, lunar nodal cycle, …
    10) Dansgaard-Oeschger events, recent glacial-history reconstruction methods, …
    11) homogenization of daily temperatures, spatially heterogeneous diurnal temperature range trends, …
    12) Jack (John) Eddy

    It’s not like I lacked education, but Landscheidt triggered voracious new learning (rate: ~1000 journal articles per year) about climate, geophysical, planetary, statistical, & solar science.

    Landscheidt provided a less dull null model than the usual random one. The message transcends science and can be regarded as a bright light cast upon the limits of human willingness & ability to grapple with nonlinearity.

    I propose that the next ‘grand’ minimum, whenever it occurs, be known as Landscheidt Minimum.

    Furthermore:
    I propose that we drop ‘grand’ in favor of ‘Eddy’, such that Oort, Spoerer, Maunder, Landscheidt, etc. will be known collectively as Eddy Minima.

    - – -
    Anecdote about what caused me to learn of Landscheidt’s works:

    I saw projections showing that daily minimum temperatures are going to overtake daily maximum temperatures. These projections were made by an organization that calls itself an “Institute for Climate Studies”. This organization is funded by a government that has implemented a substantial carbon tax. (Note: I have verified that many other jurisdictions employ the same methodology.)

    Here’s something to think about:

    If modeled future nighttime temperatures are allowed to regularly exceed daytime temperatures, what effect does this have on forecasted mean temperatures if mean temperature is defined as the average of max & min?

    Perhaps if these folks were more honest …

    =
    Mike Bryant
    “How many climate scientists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”

    =

    Couple thousand to write computer models, couple thousand more to write grant proposals, (multiply by 3 to factor in the cost of the support staff if you’re keeping notes…), etc…..

    And ONE to announce the bulb burned out instantly upon installation, despite the all the calculation….

    ….Explanation:
    They overlooked water – apparently no one figured it was a wet bulb.

    This isn’t bad news. It probably means job security – and if there is no disaster, that is not a bad thing.

    - – -
    Neither climate science nor solar science can provide the answers we seek as long as only a fraction of the required financial investment is being made …so until there is adequate (& stable) research funding, we have astrology…

  528. Hans Erren says:

    Landscheidt Minimum

  529. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:49:53) :

    It is a severe criticism to claim that I say things that I know are false, and I take great offense at that. The all important word in my statement was ‘back’ and the tidal transfer is one-way. The planetary theories require a two-way transfer for the cycles to work.

    Perhaps this is where the “charlatan” tag comes from. You are very aware the tidal cause is not what is important here, it is the mechanism observed in the AM conservation that needs to be addressed. You have stated yourself:

    “If you were to shrink the Moon’s orbit [moving the Earth closer to the Moon] the Earth would indeed speed up because of conversation of AM (angular momentum) similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up.”

    Its time to drop 2 of your standard defense mechanisms:

    1. The “Carsten experiment” has no validity.

    2. The Tidal effect is irrelevant.

  530. Geoff Sharp (19:24:14) :
    You have stated yourself:
    “If you were to shrink the Moon’s orbit [moving the Earth closer to the Moon] the Earth would indeed speed up because of conversation of AM (angular momentum) similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up.”

    I don’t know what department you are challenged in, but I have explicitly stated that I worded this clumsily. It is not the change of distance that does the trick. That is: if you by some external force change the distance it will have absolutely no effect. Tidal [or magnetic] coupling internal to the system can slow the Sun or the Earth down and increase the AM of the orbiting body, and if you go back to a time when the Moon was closer to the Earth [because the friction has not yet slowed down the Earth's rotation], then the Earth was rotating faster.

  531. Or I could go with The Piltdown Minimum, in celebration of a 100+ year old hoax, though on a smaller scale.

  532. Spector says:

    Perhaps this should be called the Livingston-Penn minimum as they have predicted it.

  533. nano says:

    It is plain that anybody who finds this sits knows the consequenses of the quiet sun. While they deserve it, Landscheidt and Fairbridge likely woudn’t apreciate thier names being associated with the coming disaster. Perhaps they will be trumped by the 60 (58) miles to the TALIBAN MINIMUM.

  534. Dodgy Geezer says:

    The (pause for breath) …”OH MY GOD! We’re all going to die horribly unless we sacrifice our current civilisation on the altar of Greenery and Political Correctness” Minimum.

    OMGWAGTDHUWSOCCOTAOGAPC for short.

    or we could just call it Nigel….

  535. Rusty says:

    Agree with others who think that it should be “Inconvenient Minimum”

    Very Inconvenient for Mr. Gore and those who buy into his “Truths”

  536. noel says:

    Haven’t read all the comments. How about…

    “Mum’s the Minimum”

    Like in “Mum’s the word”, that is… keep quiet, say nothing

  537. Bob Kutz says:

    Manbearpig Minimum

  538. Lolcat says:

    I’ll say “The first anthropogenic CO2-caused solar minimum that heated the earth” What? Don’t u believe me? According to my lolcat calculations, the CO2 (not the solar cycles) by the Lolcat effect maded the sun laugh so hard that it reduced it’s activity. So, more anthropogenic CO2 means less solar activity, that means less solar wind and a warmer earth.
    Note: As far as I understand, the solar wind, because it is made of particles, absorbs/blocks/reflects away some of the quasi-constant heat-convertible radiation emitted by the sun and cools the earth. Most of the particles that absorbed/blocked/reflected the radiation and might contain some energy are repelled in space by the earth magnetic field.

  539. Willis Eschenbach says:

    This is a joke. Ted Landscheidt predicted this minimum years ago, and it is already called the “Landscheidt Minimum” by many people. A google search on the term brings up lots of pages using the term.

    I find this to be an egregious and sneaky way to deny Ted his due. He was a good man who was roundly savaged by his opponents in the AGW camp during his life. As much as I respect Leif Svalgaard for his pioneering work, I, for one, find it despicable for him to try to deny Ted credit for his discovery (NOT EDDYS DISCOVERY) after his death.

    w.

Comments are closed.