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
Leif said:
I’m curious what you think of the solar inertial motion type theories, because it seems to me that this technique is spookily accurate as a predictor for ENSO events. The most outstanding being 2007 – most were predicting El Nino, SIM suggested, as one possibility, an El Nino that “fizzed out”, which is exactly what happened. The last 5 major ENSO events (inc. 2007) predicted at least 3 years in advance is not too shabby!
The dismissal of the Sun as a driver of climate is based on the Sun not varying enough to account for the variations of the climate that we are seeing.
So, Leif, are you saying you’re a solar denialist? Couldn’t it be possible, indeed more likely that you just don’t know, or indeed want to know about the sun? You seem to have made up your mind, and that you already know all there is to know about the sun. Some scientist.
Lief, I find your posts interesting.
My “conservative” (i.e. only a few physically based coefficients to adjust) physics 101 “modeling” indicated a strong possibility that solar effects (of some possibly complex sort) timed to the sunspot numbers could account for all but 0.2C of the temperature rise in the last couple centuries. My model even reproduced much of the variation in GT on a decade scale (if volcanic activity was figured in). Intellectually, it seemed unlikely that “GT being such a clean (in climate model terms) function of Sunspot count” could be accidental — though I did nothing to prove significance & cannot argue that my results are more than “interesting”. It makes me feel there is something yet to be learned.
You say “no”. And, not only do you know much more about the topic than me, you present fact based arguments. Since all that matters is the truth, I’ll keep an open mind on this one.
Leif, sorry about misspelling your name.
Leif
A brief sampling of my analysis of Makarova’s work based on monthly totals arrived from daily and hourly average solar wind ram pressure plots. As you can see, as the number of major solar wind ram pressure spikes changes in any month[ as determined from hourly average plots] , the global land temperature anomalies also changes. I have switched to collecting the data on a daily bases now and I am finding better correlation. With the aid of AMSU satellite data , I can now look at the changing temperatures at different elevations as each solar wind ram pressure spike occurs. Other data like magnetopause position and solar wind angle or direction can also be plotted daily. I have done this for June, July and August in 2008
2008 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER CRUTEM3
hourly av hourly av of hours of hours GLOBAL
MONTH SOLAR SOLAR SOLAR SOLAR LAND
RAM RAM WIND RAM TEMP
PRESS. PRESS. FROM PRESSURE MONTHLY
SPIKES SPIKES SOUTH’ SPIKES ANOMALY
5nPa & > 10nPa&> 5nPa & > [C]
JAN 2 6 15 0.24
FEB 3 5 11 0.336
MAR 4 2 17 26 0.902
APRIL 4 6 12 0.328
MAY 2 1 1 4 0.282
JUNE 3 10 17 0.432
JULY 2 6 8 not yet
available
Bruce, Leif is a fact based scientist and can change his mind. No-one has come up with the proof of small solar variations effecting weather. The correlation is not absolute, and even if it were, correlation is not causation.
If someone could prove the link, solar scientists would become some of the most important scientists around. I doubt Leif would object to that.
Leif
It would appear that the excel spread sheet does not reproduce on the post. For you information these are the column headings after each month of 2008.
THE FIRST DIGIT IS THE NUMBER OF SOLAR RAM PRESSURE SPIKES 5NPA & >
THE SECOND DIGITIS THE NUMBER OF SOLAR RAM PRESSURES SPIKES 10NPA & >
THE THIRD DIGIT IS THE NUMBER OF HOURS THE SOLAR WIND IS FROM “SOUTH” OR [-]
THE FOURTH DIGIT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS SOLAR WIND IS 5 NPA & >
THE FIFTH DIGIT IS THE CRUTEM3 MONTHLY GLOBAL LAND TEMPERATURE ANOMALY [C]
If anyone wants a clean spread sheet e-mail me [ tartu950@cogeco.ca]
Jared (16:17:25) :
First of all, La Ninas don’t occur every 5-6 years on cue as you infer. There is no such exact pattern, or they would be easy to predict and time, wouldn’t they?
But they occur at each solar minimum 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985, 1996 and so seem also easy to predict, no? just go forward 10 and a bit years and you have the next.
Your idea that La Ninas occur at minimum does not take into account that one of the strongest [should I begin to use your phrases: guess what, what do you know ?] occurred at the maximum of solar cycle 23 during 1999-2000. And another strong one during the maximum of cycle 22 in 1988-1989. And another good one near the maximum of cycle 20 in 1970-1971. But, as I said, all of this doesn’t matter to you.
Neil claims that SIM suggested, as one possibility, an El Nino that “fizzed out”, which is exactly what happened. I can only ask if those predictions fit in with what Jared thinks and if Neil and Jared could harmonize their views and convince us that there is something there.
Bruce and Allen seem to have somewhat differing view on my knowledge of the Sun. The arguments [including MarkW’s] begin to be increasingly about me and what I know and don’t know, rather than on the Sun and its influence. At such a point it seems prudent to stop bickering and let this thread die, as all of these ‘solar threads’ eventually do [even ending with the traditional ‘barycenter’ arguments].
Leif writes: “I agree with Hathaway. The solar contribution would be of the order of 0.1 degree or smaller [as it was during the last Grand Minimum, when average TSI was 0.5 W/m2 smaller than now]. Archibald’s 2 degrees has no solid justification.”
Let’s consider this: Leif is suggesting that the Maunder Minimum climate change was not related to the sun! He is suggesting that the current transition from a warming period to a cooling period on Earth has nothing to do with the sun!
For someone who knows so much about solar physics, Leif, you sure have a low opinion of the sun! Or maybe you’re a warmist, here to distract the skeptics from their pursuit of truth :0
Leif has admitted elsewhere, by the way, that he has never read the definitive text on cosmic rays and climate, Henrik Svensmark’s “The Chilling Stars.” It’s ALMOST as if he is competitive with Svensmark and can’t give him his due. If you had read the book, Leif, you might know that measuring cosmic rays at sea level is far from telling. I promise you that as you shake your head above your computer screen, cosmic rays are forming sun-shielding, cold-engendering clouds.
For those who want to engage with a scientist willing to spar with non-scientists, Leif is a rare find. Feel free to keep letting him sidetrack you with his the “perfectly stable” TSI. Several prominent experts, though, have pointed out that the only thing total about TSI is the first word in its name as well as the fact that the atmosphere is influenced in complex ways by many solar factors.
For those who want to understand why Leif’s professional work predicting solar cycles actually does matter, read Svensmark. He is the Einstein of climatology and will be recognized as such by and by.
matt v. (17:44:00) :
It would appear that the excel spread sheet does not reproduce on the post.
And I must admit that the post is so hard to decipher that I don’t see what you are getting. Maybe post something like this:
YYYY MM — XX — YY — ZZ
and explain in words what we are supposed to see.
David Corcoran (17:32:41) :
If someone could prove the link, solar scientists would become some of the most important scientists around. I doubt Leif would object to that.
David hits a very important point. I would personally be elated if a solar-climate relationship would be established. Just think of all the funding that would come my way. In particular, if I was the one proving such a relationship. So, I’m personally as motivated as one could be, but alas, the funding agencies [read: the tax payers] don’t share such enthusiasm.
Mary Hinge: “Hi Pamela, should first say that ‘Fanny’ has a different meaning in the UK than the USA!”
And elsewhere. There are folk remedies for warming up freezing fannies, but since this is a family blog, best left unsaid.
I should add that Svensmark himself does measure cosmic rays at sea level, but carefully enough to limit various forms of noise. If he publishes a paper saying that cosmic rays are not varying with the solar minimum, that would mean something to me. Because cosmic rays’ lifespans are incredibly short, and because having created condensation nuclei they are less likely to be measured at ground-level, getting a good number for them is not all that straightforward.
Read “The Chilling Stars”! That means you, too, Leif!
Old Man Winter (18:26:57) :
[…] Leif has admitted elsewhere, by the way, that he has never read the definitive text on cosmic rays and climate, Henrik Svensmark’s “The Chilling Stars.”
I think ‘admitted’ is not the right term to use here. I have not read his book [which is for public consumption], but I have read every one of his technical papers which ought to count for more than reading the popularized book. And, as I said, the thread is becoming more about me, the ‘some scientist’, than about the Sun which means we have left science behind.
Old Man Winter (19:00:03) :
I should add that Svensmark himself does measure cosmic rays at sea level, but carefully enough to limit various forms of noise. If he publishes a paper saying that cosmic rays are not varying with the solar minimum, that would mean something to me. Because cosmic rays’ lifespans are incredibly short, and because having created condensation nuclei they are less likely to be measured at ground-level, getting a good number for them is not all that straightforward.
Read “The Chilling Stars”! That means you, too, Leif!
Cosmic rays have been measured accurately by a worldwide network for over half a century. It is by reading only the popular account that the misconception expressed by Old Man Winter can come about. If and when Svensmark and colleagues publish a scientific paper setting out their experiments and their case, I’ll certainly read it with interest.
Old Man Winter (19:00:03) :
I should add that Svensmark himself does measure cosmic rays at sea level, but carefully enough to limit various forms of noise. If he publishes a paper saying that cosmic rays are not varying with the solar minimum, that would mean something to me.
From your study of the Book, can you expand on what “cosmic rays are not varying with the solar minimum” means? does it mean that CRs do not vary from one minimum to the next, i.e. that CRs at every minimum are the same? And that Svensmark does not think so?
Please don’t tell me that cosmic rays have been measured accurately by a “worldwide network” for over half a century. Not on this blog. Please. Could this be yet ANOTHER network that needs the eyes, ears, and instruments of one now famous Anthony? We all once thought that ozone was a well distributed blanket with a hole over the Antarctic now and then. But now that global satellite measures shows it to be a swirling mass of “thick here, thin there” globby mess, we ain’t so sure about our blanket no more. My hunch is that CO2 will follow. Case in point: water vapor swirls around like a ghost; here and then there, with broad brushstrokes of nothing inbetween. What else about our atmosphere do we friggin not know.
Leif: I am glad to read between the lines (and I hope I am getting this right) that you don’t think the science is settled.
Many here did take note of the pale green of spring this year. The trees were likewise pale and very late to bloom, and now some of them are ready to go back into dormancy. All the trees are looking pathetic, except for my Giant Sequoias, which turned green in mid june and sprouted thier 2 feet of growth.
Figures, they predate the Dinosaurs, pre-triassic? The cedars, pines, and firs are wimpy by comparison. The oaks are now dropping hollow acorns, or acorns devoid of the nut case altogether. The short-season tomatoes ripened but are tart. We barely made it with the long-season tomatoes last year, the nights just won’t stay much above 50 degrees. One lady reports ‘mini-corn’ where full ears should be. They are done.
The animals have come in droves out of the hills desperate for food in late July.
I hear it all the time, I work at a feed store.
When I ask have you heard of the solar minima, I get blank stares. Science has really been tight-lipped. I hope this changes before the public gets wind of how they have been kept in the dark once again.
They aren’t going to like it, and they aren’t going to like science that forgets to keep them appraised of notable changes.
There is more than enough phenomena on the ground to support the notion that this isn’t your normal minima.
Guess us laymen will have to do science’s work for them.
If we get it wrong, don’t blame us, it’s your job.
blessed be these wounds
blessed be my doom
as I burn, as I burn thy frozen sun
Pamela, how can it be settled? No-one has seen a grand minimum with modern instruments. What if it doesn’t behave like a normal minimum? In fact, how could it?
If the sun refused to shine
I don’t mind, I don’t mind
If the mountains fell in the sea
Let it be, it ain’t me.
As I watched the Olympic swimming tonight it finally occurred to me…
NASA might think about switching totally to swim suits.
Pam & David: the science is never settled. Here is a wild idea: if Livingston and Penn are correct that sunspots can warm up [and are doing it] such as to have so low contrast as to be ‘invisible’ [or at least harder to see], then it is possible that during the Maunder Minimum, the spots were still there, except invisible. We know from 14C and 10Be that the cosmic rays were still modulated by the magnetic fields presumably associated with the invisible sunspots. So, if there were magnetic fields around, but no dark spots, then perhaps TSI was higher then than today. This is a testable speculation if the next few cycles are really low. If correct, would further erode the idea that the lack of solar activity was the cause of the LIA, and give credence to the idea that the climate has internal oscillations.
REPLY: Well postulated, Leif. – Anthony
Evan:
PRAYER
to the sun above the clouds.
Sun that givest all things birth,
shine on everything on earth!
If that’s too much to demand,
shine at least on this our land.
If even that’s too much for thee,
shine at any rate on me.
Piet Hein, Danish poet.
Now that you mention it, the leaves fell off the Madrone trees a month ago in the canyons, followed by all the other trees leaves turning yellow and now they are falliing off in mid-august.
It’s a minimum all right, and I’m really sorry the science is so fouled up in fine print and crazy theories that it can’t look out the window.
The Asteroid movies had it all wrong, the scientists were too busy arguing formulas to warn anybody, let alone pay attention to what was in the telescope.