The sun on 08/12/2008 just before midnight UTC – spotless
As many of you know, the sun has been very quiet, especially in the last month. In a NASA news release article titled What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) solar physicist David Hathaway goes on record as saying:
“It does seem like it’s taking a long time,” allows Hathaway, “but I think we’re just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last.”
No argument there. But it does seem to me that the purpose of Hathaway’s July 11th article was to smooth over the missed solar forecasts he’s made. Here is a comparison of early and more recent forecasts from Hathway:
Click for a larger image
He also seems intent on making sure that when compared to a grand minima, such as the Maunder Minimum, this current spotless spell is a mere blip.
The quiet of 2008 is not the second coming of the Maunder Minimum, believes Hathaway. “We have already observed a few sunspots from the next solar cycle,” he says. (See Solar Cycle 24 Begins.) “This suggests the solar cycle is progressing normally.”
What’s next? Hathaway anticipates more spotless days1, maybe even hundreds, followed by a return to Solar Max conditions in the years around 2012.
I would hope that Hathaway’s newest prediction, that this is “not the
second coming of the Maunder Minimum” or even a Dalton Minimum for that matter, holds true.
1Another way to examine the length and depth of a solar minimum is by counting spotless days. A “spotless day” is a day with no sunspots. Spotless days never happen during Solar Max but they are the “meat and potatoes” of solar minima.
Adding up every daily blank sun for the past three years, we find that the current solar minimum has had 362 spotless days (as of June 30, 2008).Compare that value to the total spotless days of the previous ten solar minima: 309, 273, 272, 227, 446, 269, 568, 534, ~1019 and ~931. The current count of 362 spotless days is not even close to the longest.
Though, Livingston and Penn seem to think we are entering into a grand minima via their recent paper.
As mentioned in “What’s next?”, we are now adding to the total of spotless days in this minima, and since the last update in that article, June 30th, 2008 where they mention this, we have added very few days with sunspots, perhaps 3 or 4.
Adding up every daily blank sun for the past three years, we find that the current solar minimum has had 362 spotless days (as of June 30, 2008).
So it would seem, that as of August 12th, 2008, we would likely have reached a total of 400 spotless days. The next milestone for recent solar minimas is 446 spotless days, not far off. It will be interesting to see where this current minima ends up.
h/t to Werner Weber
Hi Leif:
You wrote:
IIRC your historical analysis projects higher TSI than Lean’s or Wang’s.
The last fat lady to sing then would be what? Isotopic proxies of 10Be & 14C? We’ve touched on this before & IIRC the jury’s still out. After all this, are we to just asperse correlations between sun spots & climate as worse than anecdotal? Coincidental?
leebert (19:39:58) :
The last fat lady to sing then would be what? Isotopic proxies of 10Be & 14C?
The problem with the radionuclides is that different ice cores or tree-ring series give different results and there are calibration issues as well. A good example of some of the problems with the 10Be record can be found here:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf and here: http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf
The final word here is not in as you remark. In time, these things will sorted out. We should not draw too hasty conclusions on the preliminary data we are still trying to understand.
One of the problems with the 10Be record is the deep ‘drop-outs’ every 100 years or so, see page 2 and 3 in: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf Comparisons with other proxies [geomagnetic activity] suggest that these drop-outs are spurious. They also coincide with significant volcanic eruptions that produced large quantities of sulphur-rich aerosols, which in turn influences the deposition of 10Be. But, as I said, in due time, we’ll figure all this out. It will be an interesting journey.
Leif Svalgaard (07:58:37) :
For the record, I believe the climate undergoes swings: MWP, LIA, modern warming, possible cooling coming. I do not believe these swings are caused by the Sun. Or rather, I believe that the scientific case has not been made that they are. This means in my book that they could have been caused by the Sun, just that we have no evidence that they are, or, rather, that the ‘evidence’ presented is too weak to convince me. You may be convinced, that is your problem.
One does not have to be convinced to observe what’s going on all around you, one only has to take the time to look.
Theories, this isn’t about the whys and hows, it’s about what’s going on for well over a year now.
We are in a deep extended lull, and it’s quieter now up there than it’s been in a very long time, and there are phenomena going on that science has run away from, preferring to dwell in theory rather than informing.
I get the feeling I’m talking to government scientists paid to keep this swept neatly under a rug.
All this ‘nobody can tell, maybe we’ll know in 100 yrs maybe not, gosh we could be wrong’ stuff is analysis paralysis.
We know from the Maunder and Dalton minimums what happened in Europe and North America. We know from the Spanish missions what went on with their crops on the West Coast when the sun went quiet. We see the same quiet sun and the very same things that happened then appear now.
When does it stop being merely interesting and take on the form of fair warning?
Leif:
I followed your replies to the numerous comments here and on Climate Audit Thread #8.
In answering all of the specific questions on these two threads regarding various theories, ideas, and speculation three broader questions remain in my mind.
1) Given the current understanding of the science what, in your professional opinion, are the remaining significant uncertainties (if any) regarding the influence of the sun and cosmos on earth’s climate?
2) Who (if anyone) is conducting research on those uncertain influences.
3) Is there any evidence that the IPCC is considering these uncertainties?
Your patience is phenomenal.
Keith
[…] only been a handful of days in the past two months where any sunspot activity has been observed and over 400 spotless days have been recorded in the current solar […]
If you want to check out a solar tide relationship to sunspots, take a look at http://www.heavens-above.com and click on solar system under astronomy. There, for August 2008, you will see Jupiter and Saturn postioned in what would be slightly past the last quarter of the moon in earth tide comparison. A time of very little tidal activity on Earth. It will be January of 2011 before Jupiter and Saturn come into Oppostion with the Sun. A time comparable to the New Moon phase on Earth which is a time of high and low tidal fluctuation. If Solar Tides caused by planet position have any effect on sunspots, the year of 2011 should see some marked increase in sunspot numbers.
Keith Wooster (10:36:34) :
remaining significant uncertainties (if any) regarding the influence of the sun and cosmos on earth’s climate?
You three questions are really three sides of the same coin [if you can imagine such one 🙂 ]. Claims of solar influences on weather and climate have been put forth ever since it was discovered that the Sun was not perfect [had blemishes in form of spots]. The Jesuit Giovanna Battista Riccioli speculated in 1651 that variations in the number of spots had considerable influence on the Earth. We are still struggling [rather unsuccessfully] to get a handle on that question. It seems to me that the issues of today are more political than scientific. The clearest way to progress is to remove politics [and emotionally laden wishful thinking and ideology] from the scientific pursuit of insight. Here it is not only about sun and climate [AGW], but also about numerous other things, like evolution [creationism], cosmology [the universe is 6000 years old], biology [immortal souls], etc. I have added [between brackets like these] some of the [weird] things that a large percentage of [supposedly educated and self-proclaimed rational] people believe in or pay lip-service to.
A fundamental problem is the [until now] uniqueness problem: we have only one planet with good data on climate, only one star with good data on activity, only one biosphere, only one sentient and articulate [even if not always rational] kind of beings.
Comparative studies go a long way towards a fuller understanding. The study of other planets, of boreholes on the Moon, of ice cores from Mars, of activity on solar-like stars, etc, will help us in separating the many simultaneous causes and effects in the extremely complicated physical systems we are part of. This is only now beginning [or near a beginning in the foreseeable future].
It is often said that more funding for science is key, and if we only give scientists more money all will be good. This is a misunderstanding of the reality of the human condition. We do not study science for the sake of science or truth or whatever [although some scientists may like to think so]. We study science and fund science and improve education only when and if there is something in it for us economically or ideologically [which in the end is also economically]. We go to the Moon, map the Ocean Bottom, set up vast networks of observatories or measuring stations, etc, because there is a perceived benefit derived from it. Even the ancient astronomers [e.g. Kepler] made horoscopes for their benefactors, because the benefactors thought it was to their own benefit. So, in the end, science is bound up with the goals and aspirations of society [although a small percentage of scientists manage to slip in some ‘pure’ science for their own fun and enjoyment].
A huge problem is the complexity of our environment [and possibly of ourselves, as well]. Public understanding of this is important, but the declining quality of science education [at least in the US, where Intelligent Design and such are creeping into the curriculum] makes it more difficult for the public to assess and weigh the societal effects of and need of scientific research. This is also a potential National Security Issue if other nations should pull ahead [think of a Chinese on Mars, or a Sputnik overhead]. Policy based on faulty science [e.g. Lysenkoism in the former USSR] can be disastrous.
So, back to your questions. What are the uncertainties? I’ll like to answer that by quoting Donald Rumsfeld: “there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns”. It is the latter that you are asking about, and if we knew, they wouldn’t be unknown unknowns. Maybe more dangerous are the things we know, that ain’t. I have a feeling that much of climate research belongs in that category.
I’m sorry for this long and rambling answer, which necessarily has taken on a somewhat personal flavor. There are no easy answers.
Jamie D. Tucker (12:08:18) :
It will be January of 2011 before Jupiter and Saturn come into Oppostion with the Sun
illustrate what I meant by the level of scientific understanding among the public. The Emperor that Kepler worked for would have been happy with this argument. Today we know, that the tidal effect of Jupiter is minuscule and that of Venus is much larger [~30 times] than that of Saturn.
“[at least in the US, where Intelligent Design and such are creeping into the curriculum] ” Leif
Why don’t we abolish the government school system and allow a diversity of viewpoints to be taught? Surely, the viewpoints closest to the truth will win out on a fair playing field?
As for ID, Newton and Einstein would come down in its favor, or do you disagree?
Giovanni, not Giovanna.
statePoet1775 (13:57:16) :
Why don’t we abolish the government school system and allow a diversity of viewpoints to be taught? Surely, the viewpoints closest to the truth will win out on a fair playing field?
Maybe, but the poor children that were taught the loosing viewpoint would suffer. Would you want your children to partake in such an experiment?
As for ID, Newton and Einstein would come down in its favor, or do you disagree?
They were products of their age. Certainly Newton. I would think that if Newton knew what we know today about biology, geology, and evolution, that he would not embrace ID. Einstein to my knowledge did not have an opinion on this.
Even I could have been taught better [or learned better}: “losing”. My excuse is, of course, that English is not my mother tongue.
Then, on the other hand, perhaps “loosing” was not so bad, after all. There strong and tight, and weak and loose lines of argument…
Dear Poet, I would believe in ID if it weren’t for the number of highly educated but woefully unintelligent humans that populate the Earth. And I must respond to your truth statement:
Truth can sometimes equal fact, and fact can sometimes equal truth. But it is dangerous to say that truth will win the day. It is not so dangerous to say that fact will win the day.
Pam,
I would chime in on that too. If I – me – am a product of the ID the Designer could come up with, that alone is a strong argument against her. 🙂
“Would you want your children to partake in such an experiment?” Lief
I wouldn’t mind having a Newton for a son. It is dangerous to put all our eggs in one basket. As you mentioned, millions of Soviets were misled with regard to genetics because of political reasons.
“Einstein to my knowledge did not have an opinion on this.” Lief
Einstein was a deist as far as I can figure, i.e., he believed in a Creator but not an Intervener .
“I would think that if Newton knew what we know today about biology, geology, and evolution” Lief
I read the mathematicians and the biologists broke up in 1964 over the origin of life.
Pam,
I am not arguing for ID but for academic freedom. In my world, YOU could pick a school (or even start one) that agreed with what you believed. Of course you could do that now, but with all the money people pay in taxes for government schools, only the rich can afford decent private schools.
Lief,
Actually, you are a good argument for a Creator. And wasn’t He nice to allow you to even be able to discover SOME things about the Universe?
statePoet1775 (15:31:02) :
“Would you want your children to partake in such an experiment?”
I wouldn’t mind having a Newton for a son. It is dangerous to put all our eggs in one basket.
You really didn’t answer the question. From what you did say it seems that you would put your son in a school with one viewpoint and your daughter in a school with the opposing viewpoint?
I believe there are schools that teach young students to hate certain people and to even develop goals to kill these people. And it is, I believe, their understanding of “truth” that has led to such schools. Yeh. I would want my next door neighbor to start that school. My hunch is that were it the case that anybody could start a school based on their own beliefs, the very people who advocated for such a method would soon be hollering to limit such schools.
statePoet1775 (15:47:21) :
Actually, you are a good argument for a Creator. And wasn’t He nice to allow you to even be able to discover SOME things about the Universe?
I consider that my accomplishment, not something She allowed me to do.
Leif: “Maybe, but the poor children that were taught the loosing viewpoint would suffer. Would you want your children to partake in such an experiment?”
What experiment? Science is an experiment, and is always changing, “self -correcting” if you will. Many things kids are taught turn out to be incorrect, or just plain wrong. You beliefs are showing when you claim they would be taught the “losing viewpoint”, but what StatePoet actually said was to teach a variety of viewpoints, and having a “fair playing field” where the “true” viewpoint will win out. I’d interpret “playing field” to be taught critical analysis, and “true” to be the most valid at the moment.
The view of many here in the US is to allow students access to and analyze a variety of “viewpoints”, and that the teaching of critical learning skills is much more important than teaching the current mainstream view. Those mainstream views have been wrong before. ID and AGW are very much alike now in this respect, with views skeptical discussion of AGW being suppressed, as is ID.
I think this thread is coming too close to spiralling into a religious discussion,
but as evolution is a “fact” and “discussion over” compared to ID, so is AGW a
“fact” and “discussion over”. Is that how you see AGW? Which is the “losing
viewpoint”, and which viewpoint do you hold?
“From what you did say it seems that you would put your son in a school with one viewpoint and your daughter in a school with the opposing viewpoint?” Lief
I would put both in the best school(s) I could find best on MY beliefs. That is the best I can do. But I would expect you to pick the best school(s) according to YOUR beliefs. Isn’t freedom wonderful? We both do the best we can for our children but yet an experiment is run for the benefit of future generations.
typo, first “best” = “based”. When i wax eloquent, typos abound.