Guest Post by David Archibald
This is a plot of three year windows on the Maunder and Dalton Minimum and the current minimum:
What it is showing is how the start of the current minimum compares with the starts of the Maunder and Dalton Minima. The solar cycle minimum at the start of the Dalton was a lot more active than the current one. If you consider that very small spots are being counted now, the activities are very similar. This is how they look without the Dalton:
If you consider the [current sunspot] counting problem, they are actually a pretty good match.
David Archibald
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is your graph based upon published numbers or Leif’s corrected numbers?
How about the Oort Minimum? Can you put up a chart for that?
Whatever the outcome, I hope “Science” gets its act together and
never allows the statement “The debate is over!” to be heard ever again.
No kidding… this was in the Google Ads from this post:
“Is Doomsday Sooner Than
We Think? Find Out What Nostradamus Says About The Years 2009 – 2012.
http://www.NostradamusOnline.com”
If we are at the start of a Maunder Minimum, it’s gonna be hard for many generations to come.
Hmmm, how will Gore spin this one in order to keep fooling the people to still pay for this… because he will make sure that we can still feel the guilt of what nature decides to do next.
This current solar minimum may give a chance for Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute to test his theories regarding the effect of galactic cosmic rays on cloud formation as playing a role in climatology.
He postulates that, in this case, a decrease in solar activity would also reduce the solar wind would also lead to a decrease in the interplanetary magnetic field which acts as a shield for galactic cosmic rays. The decreased magnetic field would allow more galactic cosmic rays to enter the Earth’s atmosphere and induce more cloud formation due to the production of ions which act as nuclei for cloud formation. An increase in cloud formation would lead to a cooling cycle.
Svensmark’s current work is here:
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Service/Phonebook.aspx?lg=showcommon&id=38287&type=publications
While his work is not broadly accepted, it is an interesting theory nevertheless. His book, “The Chilling Stars”, is interesting reading.
My first prediction came true 🙂 The first region is indeed a plague, although it wasn’t difficult since it did look less active than the other region in the behind images! Now we will see what the next region brings, a few spots perhaps..
Neil O’Rourke:
What do you mean by “corrected”? Are these “corrected” numbers viewed as correct by other solar physicists? Just curious.
These graphs are indeed pretty but I doubt that the weaker activity of the sun post 2006 is similar to the Maunder…
Neil O’Rourke (22:44:08) :
The data is from NOAA: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/AMERICAN_NUMBERS/MONTHLY
Dr Svalgaard exists in a parallel universe of data series he has created to support his notion that the Sun does not vary enough to change climate. He can’t fiddle with the Be10 data though. We can’t go back to the 19th century and rerecord the aa data, but we can go back to the Greenland ice sheet and get the same ice core data over and over again.
Mike Lorrey (22:48:01) : No data for the Oort. The observations for most of the 17th century were pretty good, and more consistant that parts of the early 19th century.
There a few signs that this minimum is special. The sunspot data suggests that it could be Maunder-type special.
Better yet, chart it against the so-called ‘Damon Minimum’ of the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
How comparable are the three datasets ?
Were the technical means during dalton and maunder minima that accurate that they could deliver data that can compared with the actual data ?
>>Is your graph based upon published numbers
>>or Leif’s corrected numbers?
I wouldn’t put much stock in Leif’s corrected numbers – he was arguing on the basis that “the data does not agree with my theory, so the data must be wrong.” Thus, the Maunder minimum disappeared in a puff of logic, in much the same way that Douglas Adam’s Babel-fish made god disappear in a similar puff of logic.
Now I know that Einstein was supposed to have said, “if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”, but the facts still are the facts. The Maunder minimum was cold, and many distinguished astronomers of that era could not see any spots. Spot-counting is not rocket science, after all. Its not something that is going to be wildly affected by observational technique and there were many different teams doing the observing – so even if the Vienna team were a bit off (as Leif argues), the Greenwich team would not have been affected by any presumed Austrian incompetence. So why did the Greenwich observer’s data mimick that of the Vienna team? Answer – there were very few spots and the data is correct.
The revised Sunspot number theory for the Maunder and Dalton minimums just does not stack up.
.
P.S. We had a big discussion about this on another thread, but I cannot find it any more. I did a search for ‘Einstein’ and ‘Greenwich’ and it did not find the other thread.
.
After further examination, my uncle (who is also a meteorologist) and I came to a similar conclusion… rather than simply competing with the Dalton, this minimum may actually be on course to crush it. Also, other interesting research points to a potential Maunder-like minimum…
First of all, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, Dr. Hathaway’s prediction for cycle 24 bombed, but just suppose he does have a good method (speed of convection currents) for forecasting 2 cycles out. He has gone on record as saying that he expects cycle 25 to be the weakest in centuries as the speed of convection currents has dropped off the bottom of his chart. So, in fact, Dr. Hathaway is really not that far removed from talking Maunder-like stuff himself.
Second, of course, is Penn and Livingston and the ongoing evident correctness of their observation that after 2015 visible sunspots will be quite rare indeed. Couple that with Leif’s prediction of a 2014 maximum for cycle 24 and things start to get very interesting indeed. It seems that cycle 24 may actually struggle to a very weak level then after that, almost nothing.
Of course, that is the greatest curse a Chinese person can give you, “May you live in interesting times.”
Regards to all,
Paul
I wonder what Unreal Climate will make of this, perhaps the graphs are pictures of fishing lines!
David Archibald (23:55:46) :
Neil O’Rourke (22:44:08) :
The data is from NOAA: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/AMERICAN_NUMBERS/MONTHLY
Of course it is not. Try to click on it to see for yourself.
Dr Svalgaard exists in a parallel universe of data series he has created to support his notion that the Sun does not vary enough to change climate. He can’t fiddle with the Be10 data though
don’t need to. McCracken and Beer have already calculated the Heliospheric Magnetic Field from the 10Be data. I replot their [hard to read] Figure here:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
It should be clear from the Figure on page 2 that the HMF during the Maunder minimum was not any different from that in the 18th, 19th, and first half of the 20th centuries. As David points out, one cannot fiddle with the 10Be data, and they clearly show no change in HMF between 1600 and 1945, apart from the regular 11-year cycle and the occasional volcanic effects as marked on the Figure.
If what we are witnessing is the onset of a Maunder type minimum then surely, once it has been confirmed, this will kill warmist driven alternative energy policies stone dead?
Will increased CO2 emissions then be feted as the saviour of Greeniekind? Will the prospect of freezing their buttocks off and going hungry lead them to a rethink on the whole AGW agenda?
Probably not.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” Albert Einstein.
Be afraid… be very afraid. This could be nature’s way of culling the human race. If indeed we are heading towards a Maunder type minimum, the die off of humans will be severe.
Richard 111;-)
I don’t know, it could still be used for the AGW debate, surely? I agree that it should quitely dissappear from all scinetific debate, along with words like “consensus”, a word I always associated with “we don’t really know for sure but we’ll go along for the time being”.
O’Rourke
makes a good point.
Dave may be comparing today’s trend to sunspot observations that were rough and arbitrary in the past.
How sure can we be of the sunspot numbers from a technically primitive era?
He may have a point here, but I feel he might be 6 months or a year premature. But certainly worth posting and reading.
Looking at the latest solar image, there were some spots.
Aren’t they a little low in lattitude?
Without getting into the science, I had felt skeptical about the impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation. In my experience, a rising column of air is doing to form a cloud with 100 percent certainty once the relative humidity hits 100 percent.
However if the cloud formation was facilitated by cosmic rays, then the rising air will more quickly heat up, causing a convective kick and a tendency to suck up more air from below. Although the amount of vapor in the atmosphere is likely to remain relatively constant, the extra air movement would facilitate convective heat transfer (at 180 W/m2 average, it wouldn’t take much fractional change to have a big impact), and any increase in those ephemeral clouds that come into being then dissipate will decrease the amount of solar energy reaching the surface.
Richard,
If there is a die off, I predict that said die off will consist of the Catlin Team members, their wannabes, fans, everyone who is looking forward to living fat off of Carbon Tax welfare statism, PETA members, and all the other fools who couldn’t live without a big city to support them.
How cold do you bet it will get before they start telling us to throw more logs on the fire?
Then again, they already took care of a new ice age in “The Day After Tomorrow”: thats due to global warming also.
@UK Sceptic “once it has been confirmed, this will kill warmist driven alternative energy policies stone dead?”
Since when have facts got in the way of Al Gore, or the AGW social-political religion in general? AGW will only be dead once they’ve found some other equally bad scare to replace it. (AGW replaced the AIDS hysteria, for which several decades of facts have proven their dooms-day predictions wrong.)
What are the x and y axes please?
There were some meteorological errors in that movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”. I got stuck on a 14 hour flight from Houston to Narita with only Japanese movies with English subtitles or “The Day After Tomorrow”. I tried for 8 hours to watch the other movies, but even with the English subtitles it was a bit tough. Probably just a culture barrier. I finally threw in the towel and was left watching “The Day After Tomorrow” 3 times. Not bad as a story, but again, let’s just say it leaves something to be desired as a meteorology lesson.
Hurricanes (and Typhoons or any other name you can find) have a clear center because they are warm core. They actually end up being a high pressure system at high altitudes due to the hypsometric equation (how’s THAT for an inconvenient truth?). This causes the sinking air that forms the storm’s clear eye. Plainly, the storms they were depicting in “The Day After Tomorrow” were anything but warm core.
If you remember the scientist said when asked “Wouldn’t the sinking air warm?” and he replies it would, except it is sinking too fast. WRONG – if it sank faster it would warm faster. They only way it could avoid warming is for its pressure and volume to remain constant… about as likely as the North Pole becoming ice free next month. Air of any temperature sinking from the stratosphere would be much more likely to flash fry you than flash freeze you.
So, hopefully, we could shoot some holes in that as well if they started to use it. Interesting to get back in my field for a bit here. Since I’m employed by NOAA, I dare not comment on most of the weather related stuff here. It would be far too easy for what I said to be misinterpreted as the official opinion of NOAA, which it is not. I type what I think, and that’s all. This info is just from my meteorology degree.
Hope this helps,
Paul
The comparison is simple: Both the Maunder and Dalton were recorded in groups. They didn’t count spots, they counted groups. There are still group counts that go on to this day. Compare them at the group level.
The weakest part of the record for the 3 is the Dalton, and it still shows more activity at this point than present day. The Maunder actually had better coverage.
On this page, 2nd graph down:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin3.htm
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/2008fac.JPG – the white light faculae for 2008.
Rotating into view right now is a white-light faculae for the 1st region we saw on stereo behind.
As you can see in that graph, they too have become quite scarce.
Except for a small gap in the record, this data has been kept by Greenwich for 100 years and now http://www.vds-sonne.de/gem/res/results.html
The dearth of faculae at present is somewhat remarkable.
If you were to do a faculaless days count, you might be surprised.
On this and other blogs I have, from time to time, asked for evidence that the Dalton minimum period was in fact significantly colder than other periods in the 19th century. So far – nothing! None of the long term temperature records (apart from one, perhaps) indicate anything remarkable during the DM. A few tenths below the then average, perhaps, but nothing to write home about.
Actually, it’s not true that I got nothing back. There were a few pieces of anecdotal evidence. Most notable was the loss of Napoleon’s troops due to cold during the retreat from Moscow. Apparently, winter in Russia was cold during the Dalton Minimum. However, I don’t believe this is unique to the Dalton Minimum. I seem to think the Germans found it a bit parky in the early 1940s – a relatively warm period globally.
The DM picture is also confused by the level of volcanic activity including the massive Tombura eruption in 1815. But it’s also worth noting that on a polar expedition in 1817, William Scoresby Jr “noted a remarkable diminution of the polar ice” – a time when Britain was considering the possibility of opening up arctic sea routes.
So I’ll ask again. Is there any evidence that temperatures during the Dalton minimum (1790-1820) were significantly lower than the 19th century average. Here’s the CET record for starters
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html