NASA Headline: Deep Solar Minimum

“To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913”
Using the same limit of sensitivity that was used 100-150 years ago, I think we are way above that in term of % of days with no sunspots.
Speaking of sunspots, there has been this huge magnetic “anomaly” on the sun for several days now, and never it got into a visible sunspot stage. It seems that the sun might sink even lower after this burst of magnetic activity for the last few days.

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

So they can understand and can predict Earth’s climate, but the Sun? Not so much. It’s a good thing the one doesn’t affect the other!
Speaking of global warming–and this is a completely unrelated aside–just how much warmer are we these days?

Question with regards to this point:
“To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days”
Would some of those micro-spots that were counted in 2008 have been included given the 1913 technology?
If so, it is possible that we actually had less solar activity.

Interesting article but nothing really new to readers of this blog.
I had to note when the article threw this piece in “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming” when talking about irradiance which was then later followed by “The great uncertainty (about how long the cycle will last) stems from one simple fact: No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.”
But this snippet suggests an interesting correlation with late 20th Century warming .. “”Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.””
I was then looking for the line that “no one fully understands the sunspot cycle’s effects on world climate, but some have speculated a quiet sun could lead to cooling.” I couldn’t see it. Does anyone know where it went?

I think the question we all want to know is how much longer the sun is likely to be blank for?

They talk about the lack of sun spots but they dont mention that this solar cycle is the longest since the 1790s which predated the Dalton Minimum, a very cold period.
It is incredible to think that with several hundred years of data that shows the direct correlation between changing solar activity and global temperatures that more scientists do not give credit to the sun for causing the warming of the 1980s-1990s and the subsequent cooling of the past decade.
With the oceans now entering a cooling phase, and the sun with such low activity, watch out, it is going to get cooler and already is.

So: the Sun has had 5 intense cycles of waxing and waning.
Wouldn’t you need a good night’s sleep after a night of passion like that?

This jumps out at me:
“Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years”
That’s news to me. ie the same 50 years of unprecedented warming which is unequivocally due to ghg emissions according to the IPCC? I guess the signature is wrong. Then again, add a little aerosol cooling in the dips et voila.

As discussed, I am getting NO traction with this idea, but I keep repeating it if only for the Comedy of Repetition:
The Gore Minimum.
There, I said it.
And while you’re at it, Albert, keep that Nobel handy. Another couple of really bad winters (or say a DC blizzard on the Cherry Blossoms), and they might want it back. I’m cereal.
Anybody want to speculate what it would mean. climatologically, if the folks in Colorado are correct and we’re spotless for say a decade? Just wondering.
Good news is that thanks to technical advances in “tight shale” production, natural gas is now hovering around $4 per thousand cubic feet (roughly equvalent to $24/barrel oil), so the US is likely in good shape for plenty of clean-burning fuel.
The Bad News is that if this Spotlessness goes on for a while, we might want to be burning something a little less clean (ie spew-up some particulates and aerosols) to warm-up the planet. Buy Coal.

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

David Ball (14:15:27) :
Shouldn’t the phrase be “correlation is sometimes causation”? Just sayin’,…
Certainly a more elegant way of saying it- the scientists in me tries to at least appear unbiased

vg (14:13:24) :
Sorry to be so pedantic but again Mr David Archibald was right. I would follow his advice n this matter from now on LOL…
For me that is why his book is showing up in the next few days. Too bad I will probably have the only copy in Nebraska.

Per Tucker (14:40:25)
Being wrong never impeded Paul Ehrlich’s career- in fact for Ehrlich- prize money could be correlated with the number of times one is shamelessly wrong.
Sun spots are one thing- Ehrlich said we are all supposed to be dead. Nor did it impede the career of his coauthor on doom prediction- John Holdren our current Science Advisor

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

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

per philw1776 (15:23:24) :
agreed with submitted proviso

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

Does anyone see a peculiar disconnect here?
First, Dr. Hathaway released an article contending the sun was behaving most abnormally (a couple or three years ago) in which he observed that the “big conveyor belt had shut down”.
Then, more recently, Hathaway released a series of assurances that there was nothing unusual about the sun’s most recent behavior during the minimum and assuring us that cycle # 24 was poised to take off any day.
Then, NASA released a proposal to study the current minimum in which it used descriptions such as “extraordinary”, “lowest ever recorded”, “near record levels”, etc.
Now we hear from these same people that, “The current solar minimum is part of that pattern. In fact, it’s right on time.”
Over the years, I have learned that when I see and hear series of contradictory messages coming out of some bureaucratic organization on some big issue of the day, it means that someone of authority within the organization is struggling (partly unsuccessfully) to maintain control of the organizational agenda. There is a power struggle underway.
Smack in the middle of this latest release lies an answer to what the core of that unraveling agenda may be. Out of nowhere and completely out of context plops the following message: “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects.” I also notice that Dr. Hathaway, the usually cited NASA expert on sun matters is not the author of this latest release.
I believe we can safely conclude that Dr. Hansen is starting to experience some difficulty in forcing reputable scientists within NASA to “carry his water”.

Claude Harvey (15:47:35) :
Smack in the middle of this latest release lies an answer to what the core of that unraveling agenda may be. Out of nowhere and completely out of context plops the following message: “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects.” I also notice that Dr. Hathaway, the usually cited NASA expert on sun matters is not the author of this latest release.
I believe we can safely conclude that Dr. Hansen is starting to experience some difficulty in forcing reputable scientists within NASA to “carry his water”.
Your analysis sounds “spot on” to me. I also noticed that particular sentence and the way it encodes the assumptions under which the organization is, unfortunately, still operating.

Just doing a little cherry picking….
For the first time in history, we’re getting to see what a deep solar minimum is really like.
Whose history?
We’re due for a bit of quiet-and here it is,” says Pesnell.
A ” Prediction Flipflop”?
These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming
Perish any other thoughts immediately!
Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of top solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be.
But don’t apply this rationale to climate change modeling.
Pesnell believes sunspot counts will pick up again soon, “possibly by the end of the year
But but but …. didn’t he just they can’t predict? Science can be so damned confusing to a layperson….

“These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects.”
Doesn’t that statement admit that it WILL have an effect on the course of global warming? Are they referring to the recent cooling, then?
Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. What really IS causing the recent cooling?

Nice to see recognition from NASA of what we have all been speculating about for…what…at least 18 months now?
In other breaking news – NASA computer modelling suggests that the sky might get dark at night.

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

“These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming …”
The writers are obviously confirming that the global cooling trend of the last 10 years will continue unabated.

Regarding the comment by:
philw1776 (15:23:24) :
Just because Hathaway has been wrong in his predictions he needen’t be trashed. In science you advance a hypothethis based upon what is known and extrapolating to testable predictions. […]
I will add this; Dr. Hathaway is constrained in making his predictions by the simple fact that they are NASA’s best estimate of the impact of solar storms on satellites whose life expectancy will be well within Solar Cycle 24. If he errs on the wrong side, well, a bunch of taxpayer money potentially goes down the silicon-lined drain.
I must say, however, we live in interesting times. I would love to hear what Dr. Hathaway has to say off the record.

Solar minimum is promoting poetry creation:
evanmjones´and, more humbly, me:
Round and round I go,
the barycenter longing to find and rest,
because the farthest I go
the more furious I become
changing Ninos into Ninas
prairies into barren fields
and climate prophets into farting cows
The Sun

What’s this?
A WUWT Sunspot article… and no “A-Watt Affect” sunspots popping up like pesky whack-a-mole moles?
Sir, you’re credibility may be taking a hit 😉
REPLY: The article is less than 4 hours old, and I didn’t write it. The mojo is weak.- Anthony

hareynolds (14:11:33) :
As discussed, I am getting NO traction with this idea, but I keep repeating it if only for the Comedy of Repetition:
The Gore Minimum.
I applaud your proposal and I absolutely believe that Gore’s name should be attached to what might well become a sunspot anomaly that results significant, historic cooling. In an effort to assist in the “traction” department. I propose a solution to the legitimately expressed worries over “canonizing” the man in the process.
Name the solar minimum “The Gore Maximum”. That will lead future historians on every reference to the event to explain to freezing generations the source of that contradictory handle; “The ‘minimum’ was named the ‘maximum’ in sarcastic reference to a charlatan of the period who convinced large portions of the general population and highest circles in government of the preposterous proposition that a 1/4 inch, man made CO2 tail was wagging a 100-yard-long atmospheric dog. In defense of the general level of intelligence of the non-scientific population of that time it should be noted that large numbers of their scientific “experts” failed them in a rush of excitement, fame and fortune which attended the largest financial and political ‘honeypot issue’ to ever arrive on the scene in the entire history of mankind up to that time.”

Agreed Alec.
Per this article, and the nervous, reactive, ostrich-head-in-sand tone, how much longer can some of these individuals be continued to be thought of as credible in the light of the current potentially serious situation we have on our hands?
It is astounding that, on top of all the other “bureaucraSPEAK” in this article, how does Dr. Phillips even have the gall to make the remark: “These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming.”
HUH? I’m sorry but how ******* stupid does he think we are??
Oh….right….some people are stupid enough to fall for such rhetoric.
In light of the magnitude of this situation, and the gravity of its potential impact on civilization, it is REPREHNSIBLE that such mildly-informative, but quasi-censored “journalism” would be allowed to come out of the world’s leading science organization [such as it is!].
[FIRE James Hansen!] Sorry…..Turretts Syndrome here. 😉
Chris
Norfolk, VA

Deanster (19:09:28) :
Well … I read a good bit .. and noticed .. nobody brought up Landschiedt. He predicted this years ago.
Maybe the GODS at NASA may want to take a closer look at his methods and theories. There just may be some truth to them.
Between Landschiedt, Svensmark, and Archibald, I have been recomending people get good winter coats because global warming is over.

MattB wrote: “There just may be some truth to them.
Between Landschiedt, Svensmark, and Archibald, I have been recomending people get good winter coats because global warming is over.”
Agreed…these guys don’t get enough airtime that they should. Listen to what they have to say.
Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

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

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

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

I’ve been saying this for at least 10 years. In 1998, and the years leading up to it, we had some record setting aurora. So much so that we were seeing them in northern California (an extremely rare event), of course since then auroral activity has dwindled to nothing, as Solar Cycle 23 has ramped down, and cycle 24 is yet to show.
Correlation is not evidence of causation, but it certainly gives you a place to start looking.
cheers,
Robert

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

But is it supposed to be this quiet?

It’s gonna blow! Run for the hills! 😉

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

“To cap it off, Hathaway’s prediction graph STILL has solar cycle 24 ramping up tomorrow. Even his colleagues ignore him, with Pesnell saying that sunspots counts will pick up, “possibly by the end of the year.””…Alec Rawls 18.40.16
Yes ,that bothers me too.
That 23 min is scrapping along the bottom in time and demolishing that Bell,pushing the ‘uplift’ of 24 steeper and steeper.
It’s the distortion you get trying to get the real numbers to fit a prediction.

My continued debate with ClimateProgess.org…who influences the Congress in testimonies presented her as “free use” copyright.
You may want to snip this Anthony, et al:
—–Original Message—–
From: mikestrong@XXXXXXX .com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 05:03 PM
To: ‘Joe Romm’ (Climateprogress.org)
Subject: You win! Uncle! Ouch!
Joe,
It has been fun in the exchanges with you. You think you are correct and I think I am correct [about AGW]. And my car looks better than your car. My house is built better than your house. I can prove it!
I don’t know what “type” I am [skeptic versus liberal]. I think I mentioned before…I will still continue to drive a small car. I believe in recycling as I do it like a religion, with my kids. My entire house has CFL lighting. I hate Rush Limbaugh and never watch FOX news. I had no respect for Bush as President and I voted for Obama. I am a liberal of the first order…except when it comes to the IPCC, Hansen and the fear mongering Al Gore who makes money off of it. So what “type” am I ?
I just happen to believe that what is going on is pure Mother Nature and not unlike the cycles in the last the last millennium including the little ice age and the warm periods in the 400s. And I do believe solar influence is a thousand times more the cause of these cycles than CO2 or other gases and climate change is not AWG-induced, even if it is happening. I got sun-burned the other day from snow skiing but no ill effects I could detect from the CO2 I was exhaling when breathing hard. Over the course of a year the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is roughly 1,300 watts per square meter. Wow! Do you really think that nearly 663,000,000,000,000 watts of energy of the sun each year is not the most significant influence on climate here versus a gas like CO2 that is .000366 parts of the atmosphere? Hmmm. Yep, I am a believer in the solar cycle (sun spot) argument for climate influence.
um…just for fun, can I send you $100 bucks as a bet, and assuming I make it (stay alive) for five years…can we see what the “consensus” of the IPCC, the politicians and Gore is, in say, the year 2014.
One thing that our jousting the past few days has taught me is that we both seem to be very tenacious.
And, as I mentioned earlier, there are so many, many messed up things in the world and people starving and dying, right now, today from all sorts of things, that AWG just seems so minor compared to the millions killed in Cambodia after the Vietnam war, all the dying folks in Africa, right now, etc.
Let’s all move to higher ground when New York and Disneyworld are under water!
Mike

Hoi Polloi (13:25:09) :
“The sun might be flaming out?”
I have pondered the same thoughts. But we’ve had ice ages before so maybe just another phase in the cycle.

Leif Svalgaard (20:40:00) : “Eddy Minimum”
I knew there was a good name out there – just not what it would be.
Good idea. I suggest we start using this.
“Eddy Minimum” “Eddy Minimum” “Eddy Minimum”

I don’t care what people call the approaching grand minimum, I will always refer to it as the “Jose Minimum”.

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

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

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

Pearland Aggie (15:47:12) :
A serious question for all the smart folks out there….assuming the Archibald prediction or some variant of 2.2C cooling happens, has anyone see any data on the practical implications of such an event? I mean, will we still need our air conditioners here in Houston in August and should we expect ice every winter? I’ve never seen a prediction of how such cooling might affect, say for the sake of argument, the continental U.S.
for farmers it is a chilling tail for sure!!!!!
There is a disconnect between going to the store and buying food and the one in the dirt growing it, then the ones preparing it and then shelving the boxes and cans to be bought .
God help us all.

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

Roddy Baird (19:34:41) :
If I were a warmist and I read this stuff I’d say “ahah! This minimum is masking the warming and when it ends we’re toast!” I am very confident that this approach will deal with any inconvenient global cooling long enough for the warmists’ agenda to be realised
~~~~~
The hole in that theory is the public has the attention span of a toddler. Gore, Hansen and their cronies will still be crying AGW, but their audience will have moved on – to looking for ways to stay warm and fed.

“Gore does not deserve to have anything named after him. ”
Well, I could be fairly easily convinced to support something in the theme of “Ponzi scheme”….

Ladies & Gentlemen:-)
May suggest that this minimum, if indeed it is such a phenomena, be called the “Hansen Minimum”. This will enable historians many years from now to write about the “Hansen Minimum, which lead to the Gorey Little Ice Age that ravaged many communities world wide. Because, if it is a minimum of prolonged endurance, get the thermal underwear on as the Russian scientists are arguing.
As to whether sunspots cause changes in the climate, well, it is true to say that correlation does not equal causation, unless you are a AGW believer, but correspondingly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! We just haven’t found it yet in a tangible form other than correlaion. However, it is very clear that we know very little about our planet, the sun, the stars, & how they interact with each other on the grand scale of things. Mankind has made wonderful advances in science, knowledge, tools, ever since that ape picked up that stick & whacked that rock for a home run, but we are after all, just an intelligent ape, & advancement through science is still problematic for the witchhunters, who prevail through fear & ignorance.

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

hareynolds (14:11:33) :
“As discussed, I am getting NO traction with this idea, but I keep repeating it if only for the Comedy of Repetition:”
“The Gore Minimum.”
I’m with you, however I would suggest making it more official sounding (Latin-esque).
Something like the AlGorian Solar Minimum
Or Perhaps the Algorian/Millivanillian Solar Minimum (Give back the award ’cause you are a fraud.)
;>P

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

“These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming,”
Correct, 1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly. While this is the distal cause of the lower temperature, they are right there needs to be amplifying elements to this effect to give us noticeable changes in environment.
Has anyone in the AGW crowd researched the difference in a cloudy day compared to a day in direct sunlight?

“So they can understand and can predict Earth’s climate, but the Sun? Not so much. It’s a good thing the one doesn’t affect the other!”
Wish we could say it took real intellect beside the millions of our tax dollars to see this coming.
On the contrary, it took concerted ignorance and hubris to miss it.

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

“This was noticed 5 years ago by the Max Planck Institute, and they went back 8000 years. Here’s the 2004 article from Aviation Week:”
How on Earth are they able to count the sun-spot number from 7300BC? i.e. before the start of recorded Human History?

“Speaking of global warming–and this is a completely unrelated aside–just how much warmer are we these days?”
If you ask the folks at NASA or NOAA, 2009 is shaping up to be in the top 10 warmest years since records were kept.

Leif Svalgaard has NOT been able to refute the oberservational evidence for
for a spin-orbit coupling between the Sun’s orbital motion around the Solar System’s Barycentre and Sun’s equatorial rotational motion.
Just sayimg something is true without actualy backing it up with supporting evidence does not make it true.
The observational evidence is available for all to see in figure 8 on page 90
(6th of 9 pages) of our paper at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
Simply dismissing the diagram because you don’t trust the measured velocities
does not cut in the scientific world. You must show why these measurements
are wrong. The data is freely available to anyone who wants to look at along with the best estimates of the errors involved.
It is bad science to dismiss clear observational evidence simply because
you don’t like what it is telling you.

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

has anyone see any data on the practical implications of such an event?
millions will starve

“1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
Why not? (open question)

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

Hmmm…
Let’s not get too excited yet, yes the sun is blank but look at how many plagues have been popping up (esp a recent large one), activity is on the ramp up it seems.
BUT we cannot cry mini ice age yet! I disagree with certain people’s conclusions that the sun is irrelevant in the equation, of course it is, but due to the complexity of the system can we really say that there will be a Dalton minimum???
It sounds very exciting but we must be careful to not let it escalate into sceptics’ hype or else if nothing happens by 2030 then we (the sceptics) will also have egg on our faces, …
‘You must be cautious of the enemy, but even more cautious of yourself.’…
So let’s wait a year or so, and I think that in March 2010 WUWT should post an article describing whether the Archibald predictions have come true and perhaps remind the readers of what was predicted on both sides!
***** Also note how the back of the sun always seems to be bursting with flares and energy but when they rotate into view there are only plagues!!! It is almost as if nature is teasing Earth!!! Or perhaps the sun is SOHO camera shy O_o

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

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

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

“1.4% less overall solar energy hitting the earth will not change the environment significantly.”
Why not? (open question)

Based on http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=21&page=32#15365 (h/t poitsplace), won’t a smaller cross section reduce the amount of energy the earth (including the atmosphere) receives from the sun?

Alex:

BUT we cannot cry mini ice age yet!

That would be premature indeed.
First of all it took 2 successive solar grand minima (the Oort & Maunder) to show an impact on temperatures inland.
Jan Janssens’ spotless days evolution chart speaks volumes in trend analysis & I’m sure we’d all like to see the spotless evolution trends for SC 1 – 9 as comparison but I don’t know if there is sufficient data.
*IF* the stratosphere and upper troposphere are cooling (due to lower UV) *AND* cloud cover *is* greater than it would be otherwise (cosmic ray ionization) then the manifold effects from a longer slump in solar activities could be so pronounced as to offset actual global warming.
That alone doesn’t exculpate CO2. A grand minimum of 20 – 30 years might only offset what potential warming increased GHG levels may in fact pose. If the data can demonstrate the energy budget differences then we might be able to demonstrate the relative offsets against GHG-driven warming.
Some studies suggest the net decline in insolation/TSI comes to 0.01 degrC/decade. If that’s the current GHG signal then the sky’s not falling (melting). CO2’s not fully exculpated but there may be no looming catastrophe.

evanmjones (22:49:27) :
I do that sometimes, but my MO in the solar threads is quoting rock lyrics.

Here’s one I haven’t seen that seems particularly apropos:
Brave Helios, wake up your steeds,
Bring the warmth the countryside needs
Or in the case of data obfuscation, and from the same lyrics:
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colors from our sight,
Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which is right,
And which is an illusion.

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

PFC (02:50:28) :
“Gore does not deserve to have anything named after him. ”
Well, I could be fairly easily convinced to support something in the theme of “Ponzi scheme”….

I agree, Gore should be associated with dishonest representation of faux science facts to further a political or economic agenda.
Perhaps the appropriate equivalent to “Ponzi Scheme” is the “Goracle hoax”.
A “Goracle hoax” would be defined by several features.
* It would be the intentional misrepresentation of fact to generate a large scale public perception of a false imminent threat to their well being.
* This threat is then used to manipulate the masses through the media to accomplish goals that would otherwise be impossible.
* signature features of a Goracle hoax would be:
The use of dishonest facts based on junk science, where the desired outcome drives the investigations, rather than honest scientific investigation.
Systematic use of grant funding awards to skew the science investigation to only support the intended result rather than to provide equal funding to all sides of the question.
Creating cult like authority figures (Gore Hansen) who push the agenda through a personal aura of authority, rather than skill or data.
Misuse of the peer review process to “freeze out” competing studies to the desired false threat, making it near impossible for sound science on the topic to publish in authoritative journals.
Refusal to debate the perceived threat on its merits, and using unfalsifiable assertions, or character assassination to suppress skeptical views of the desired threat.
I’m sure there are a few other features that would be applicable!
Gore and Hansen should go down in history as worst case examples of bad science not given eternal life in the name of an astronomical event.
Larry

Thanks Leif,
When I see the solar posts here I always look for your comments.

DUDE!…. Sol Min is soooooo pwning awg…..sweet!

These features of the sun can be interesting:
1. Paul Stanko gave us a ranking of the spotless days: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/ . From his list, a take the following items:
“#10) Solar Cycle 12, 1878-1889, 1028 spotless days
#11) Solar Cycle 15, 1913-1923, 1019 spotless days
#12) Solar Cycle 14, 1901-1913, 938 spotless days
#13) Solar Cycle 13, 1889-1901, 736 spotless days
#14) Solar Cycle 10, 1856-1867, 647 spotless days
#15) Solar Cycle 1, 1755-1766, 638 spotless days
#16) Solar Cycle 24, 2009-20??, 580 spotless days”
The latest value for the number of spotless days, at the end of March 2009, (for SC24) was *585*.
So, if the sun remains quiet, within a few months we can rival the numbers of Solar Cycle 10, 13, 14, … (period of the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the twentieth century).
2. The lenght of the solar cycle
On “http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html” you can read:
“As can be seen, there is a big difference between solar cycles 10 to 15 and 16 to 23. The first group has a long delay (66 months) and many spotless days (almost 800 on the average), whereas the other group, containing the more recent cycles, has only 33 months between first spotless day and cycle minimum and not even half of the total number of spotless day of the first group (less than 400 days!). This makes a prediction for the start of SC24 very difficult. According to the second group, this minimum should occur late 2006 (March 2007 at the latest), but this has been excluded by the recent Wolfnumbers. On the other hand, if SC24 belongs in the category of the old cycles, then minimum would take place mid-2009 (March 2009 at the earliest). But then SC23 would have last over 13 years, making it one of the longest solar cycles over the last 250 years (SC04: 169 months). This still seems not very likely, in particular because SC24-groups have been outnumbering SC23-groups during the last few months.” (Last update, 2 January 2009)
I wonder when the new solar cycle would begin. If the sun remains in a quiet mood for some hundred days, then we can rival the situtation of more than 200 years ago. You know this was the time of the Dalton minimum.
Paul Stanko (21 March 2009):
“1) Solar Cycle 4 was 164 months long (13.67 years)
2) Solar Cycles 6 and 13 were tied at 157 months long (13.08 years)
3) Solar Cycle 9 was 150 months long (12.50 years)
4) Solar Cycle 23 is currently 145 months long (12.08 years)
5) Solar Cycle 5 was 144 months long (12.00 years)”
We are witnessing a very exciting period in history…

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

vukcevic:
“Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) demonstrated that the correlation between the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and solar activity was markedly improved when the sunspot number was replaced by the length of the solar cycle as an index of the long-term variability of the Sun, and it was concluded that this parameter appears to be a possible indicator of long-term changes in the total energy output of the Sun”
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Readers may find this interesting and helpful, if they have not been there already —
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glory_irradiance.html

Pesnell says..
These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects:
Hansen says..
“Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.”
Since 20th century warming seems to coincide best with the past 50 years, Is Hansen making a statement in between official AGW funding lines ?
Maybe deep down he does believe in the ARCHIBALD ideology despite the NOAA models not including any historical sunspot forcings.
And ,as Gavin Schmidt would know, “Real Climate” can’t be based on an unproven theoretical model with only CO2 as the main forcing driver, can it ?

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

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