By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
The sun remains in a deep slumber.
Today we are 15 days into April without a sunspot and with 603 sunspotless day this cycle minimum, 92 already this year. 2009 at this rate, is likely to enter the top 10 years the last century along with 2007 (9th) and 2008 (2nd) this summer.
If it stays quiet the rest of this month, the minimum can be no earlier than November 2008, at least a 12.5 year cycle length. I believe January 2009 is a better shot to be the solar minimum as sunspot number would have to be below 0.5 in June 2008 to prevent the running mean (13 month) from blipping up then. April needs only to stay below 3.2 and May 3.4 to get us to January. This would be very like cycles 1 to 4 in the late 1700s and early 1800s, preceding the Dalton Minimum. That was a cold era, the age of Dickens and the children playing in the snow in London, much like this past winter.
THE ARCTIC AND ANTARCTIC ICE STORY
As for the ice, we hear in the media the hype about the arctic and Antarctic ice. The arctic ice we are told is more first and second year ice and very vulnerable to a summer melt.
Actually the arctic ice is very 3rd highest level since 2002, very close to 2003, in a virtual tie to last winter and the highest year according to IARC-JAXA. The anomaly is a relatively small 300,000 square km according to The Cryosphere Today.
There was much attention paid in the media to the crack in the Wilkins Ice sheet bridge. It was not even reflected as a blip on the Southern Hemisphere ice extent, which has grown rapidly as the southern hemisphere winter set in to 1,150,000 square kms above the normal for this date and rising rapidly.
The net GLOBAL sea ice anomaly is also positive, 850,000 square km above the normal. See full PDF here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ray (16:03:28) :
Leif, could that feature be responsible for the big explosion of plasma we have seen?
Very likely, yes.
Lee at 15:46:03
Yes. I’m curious what phenomena from the sun were being measured during the Maunder Minimum besides sunspots.
=========================================
kim (16:24:30) :
Yes. I’m curious what phenomena from the sun were being measured during the Maunder Minimum besides sunspots.
Comets: The plasma tail is formed by the solar wind, so it was still operating.
Aurorae: Were still reported in Central Europe.
Cosmic Rays: The solar cycle modulation was still operative as per cosmogenic data in tree rings and ice caps
Spicules: [at least at the end of the Maunder minimum] were seen at solar eclipses.
P. Foukal and J. Eddy, Solar Physics, Volume 245, Number 2 / October, 2007, DOI 10.1007/s11207-007-9057-8, Pages 247-249.
Abstract: The presence of the red flash at total solar eclipses requires the existence of an extended chromosphere and therefore of a photospheric magnetic network that gives rise to spicules. We draw attention to the earliest historical reports of a red flash at the 1706 and 1715 eclipses, which therefore imply a substantial, widespread photospheric field during at least the last decade of the Maunder Minimum. Our finding is consistent with reports of a persistent photospheric field throughout the Maunder Minimum from analyses of 10Be radioisotope evidence. We note, however, that the last decade may not be representative of conditions throughout the roughly 1645 – 1715 extent of that prolonged activity minimum.
——
That feature might have been a nice big sunspot if it hadn’t just been blasted out to Venus. Add a few more hot ions to that nice warm atmosphere. The last few times we have seen a large feature like this it has shown up white instead of dark. Does that imply really low magnetism, or something else? Like maybe viewing an open caldera from the top – hot in the middle in any case.
You see, if sunspots go away, and if radio flux, plage formation, and TSI still continue to cycle in the dynamic fashion they have for the last century, and if temperature goes down and if there are no volcanoes, then somebody’s got some ‘splainin’ to do. No ifs and or buts about it.
=============================================
We’re all waiting with bated breaths and beaten breasts.
===================================
What might explain those sparse, large, and exclusively southern hemispheric spots? Surely not the concurrent volcanoes.
===================================
Leif 16:40:51
Every day in every way you keep adding to my store of knowledge. Were those manifestations you mention some evidence that, except for spotlessness, the sun was otherwise acting in its usual fashion?
Also, since we don’t know by what mechanism the sun directs the climate, or even if it does, how can you be sure that such a hypothetical mechanism was still acting during the Maunder Minimum, and thus not responsible for the cooling of the earth at that time. I know you don’t believe in such mechanism, because it hasn’t been shown, but just assume one temporarily for the purposes of my question. I realize I’ve probably exceeded your boundaries for speculation, but I’m trying to explain to myself your skepticism that the spotless sun during the grand minima was responsible for the globe’s cooling.
=================================
This might be a good time to mention the study by Feynman and others showing a correlation between historical mention of aurorae and Nile River levels.
=============================================
kim (17:46:37) :
but I’m trying to explain to myself your skepticism that the spotless sun during the grand minima was responsible for the globe’s cooling.
I’m not skeptical about that, I’m waiting with bated breath for someone to demonstrate to my satisfaction that such a connection exists. And I do know there are thousands of such claims and that I have not examined all of them, but I have looked at several hundred of them and found them all wanting. As I have said so many times, I really do wish it were true, as that would vastly increase the societal importance of my research [and my funding, of course], but alas, if I have to be honest, I cannot point to a single compelling case. And it would be a bit disconcerting if there was only one or a few such among the thousands of bad papers on this. You know, if something is significant at the 99% level, after you have looked at 100 cases you would expect one just by chance…
Lee (16:45:38) :
The last few times we have seen a large feature like this it has shown up white instead of dark. Does that imply really low magnetism, or something else?
Bot really low, as the magnetic field just have to fall to half its usual value for dark areas to turn bright. But every spot has bright stuff around it anyway.
Not really low, just low.
kim (17:46:37) :
Were those manifestations you mention some evidence that, except for spotlessness, the sun was otherwise acting in its usual fashion?
Basically yes, but likely in a slightly subdued way.
Paul Vaughan (23:20:44)
“I remember anna v wisely pointing out in another WUWT thread that “indirectly” the sun is the driver.”
–
Leif Svalgaard (00:07:24)
“I don’t…”
– – –
OK:
Memory-jogging:
1) Google keyword-combo:
watt’s tea leaves and leif’s other weeds
2) Pursue link 1.
3) Find post by:
anna v
Paul Vaughan (23:20:44) :
Leif Svalgaard (22:20:36)
“[…] What I’m saying there is no evidence for is that the Sun is a MAJOR driver, or even THE driver. I’m railing against the all or nothing attitude.”
I remember anna v wisely pointing out in another WUWT thread that “indirectly” the sun is the driver.
I do not know that “wisely” is an adjective descriptive of the contribution you refer to on this board, particularly as I do not remember it. 🙂
We have to define what “driver” means in the context used here. I do not think that anybody rational can dispute that the grand proportion of energy fueling the earth we know comes from the sun ( the internal energy sources are much smaller, as well as gravitational ones).
Driving in the context of climate and sun means that “current changes in the sun are driving current changes in the climate”. A direct cause and effect.
From the data Leif has given over and over again, I am convinced that the changes in TSI, i.e. the energy from the sun impinging on the top of the stratosphere, smaller than 0.1% in the variation of the sun cycle, is not enough to do anything on the order of magnitude we observe of climate changes in the last centuries.
If we accept that the correlations seen are not fortuitous, other mechanisms have to be found, and some have been suggested, like the cosmic ray connection, and recently this plankton cloud formation, both working through the amplifying effect of albedo on the small changes of TSI. The jury is out on these, maybe in ten years we will know more. After all we have very little data on albedo ( http://www.leif.org/research/albedo.png ) which is also affected by the ocean currents on which we also have data for a hundred years or so.
My opinion still is that the climate system being chaotic needs the tools of chaos to be analyzed, as Tsonis and all have started doing.
Leif 21:12:31
Excellent, and thanks. On we ponder.
and 21:44:58 Perhaps lightly nudging the coupled oceanic oscillations.
======================
Leif Svalgaard (15:58:38)
“[…] active longitudes are a fact […] The question of a recurrence period of the IMF goes back to […]”
“[…] Whether or not the phase is maintained so well is a different [unresolved question].”
– – –
The latter is clearly of more interest (at present) than the mere “fact” that solar physicists have long-agreed that active longitudes exist.
Where can I find measured monthly average solar angular velocity data by latitude?
[If it’s available for different depths, that’s fine.]
anna v (00:14:39)
“[…] as I do not remember it.”
See Paul Vaughan (22:22:50).
Paul Vaughan (10:33:47) :
Where can I find measured monthly average solar angular velocity data by latitude?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/torsional.html
What is shown is the difference between the measured values and a canonical fixed solar differential rotation curve.
[If it’s available for different depths, that’s fine.]
It is, but first you have to understand it at the surface and get your head around the data and what they mean.
There is a slight semantic difficulty because what we are seeing are ‘winds’ in the solar atmosphere. You have to make up in your mind what you mean by ‘solar angular velocity’.
Ron de Haan wrote:
eric,
There is nothing exceptional with the warming since 1976 and there is absolutely NO proof that CO2 or the so called “Greenhouse effect (which is BS)” has anything to do with it either.
(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/markey_barton_letter.html)
There is however good proof that points at the oceans in combination with El Ninjo/La Ninja and cloud cover.
The warming that started in 1976 and ended in 1998 (22 years) causing a rise of 0.6 degree Celsius is well within historic trends, nothing special.
Ron,
There is good proof that the increases in greenhouse gases have been responsible for global warming. The changes in outgoing long wave radiation spectrum have been measured and reflect the changes that were expected based on the GHE.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2003)016%3C3820%3AOOTIOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
“In a recent paper, (Harries et al. 2001, hereafter H01), we presented the results of a study in which we carefully intercalibrated and compared IR spectra obtained from the Nimbus-4 spacecraft in 1970, by the Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS), with spectra from the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG), flown in 1997 on the Advanced Earth Observing Satellite 1 (ADEOS-1) spacecraft. This work showed that, over large regions of the earth, the clear-sky emission spectrum showed detailed changes, which agreed well with theoretical expectations based on the known changes of greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, O3, and chlorofluorocarbons 11 and 12. In this way it has been experimentally confirmed for the first time that the greenhouse forcing of the earth has, indeed, been changed through the growth of greenhouse gases.”
Leif Svalgaard (10:48:18)
“There is a slight semantic difficulty because what we are seeing are ‘winds’ in the solar atmosphere. You have to make up in your mind what you mean by ’solar angular velocity’.”
– – –
After playing around with autocorrelation functions (working out easily obtained improvements to Takalo & Mursula’s (2002) Figure 4(c)), I began to suspect that ‘wind’ ‘must’ be a factor in summaries (in addition to the differential lag rates Berdyugina & Usoskin (2003) investigated).
Thanks for the link to the pictures & research article.
Where do I find the data?
Paul Vaughan (11:48:19) :
I began to suspect that ‘wind’ ‘must’ be a factor in summaries (in addition to the differential lag rates Berdyugina & Usoskin (2003) investigated).
I’m lost as to the meaning of the above statement.
Where do I find the data?
You’ll have to email the observatory. We are talking about several gigabytes of data…
Paul Vaughan (11:48:19) :
“Where do I find the data?”
You’ll have to email the observatory. We are talking about several gigabytes of data…
What would you do with the data if you had it?
eric (11:31:23) :
Did you read the paper you linked to?
There are so many ifs and what then etc and more studies needed, and it was put up in 2003. Poor fellows need the mantra of greenhouse warming to get their grants.
Is that the best evidence you have for greenhouse warming ( over the tropics where H2O is rampant?, they do acknowledge this doubt in their conclusions ) .
This sort of evidence is fair enough in academia.
It is criminal if it is used to plunge the world into an irreversible energy strangulation adventure, an immolation of western society, by blaming CO2 with handwaves.
eric (11:31:23) :
Ron de Haan wrote:
eric,
There is nothing exceptional with the warming since 1976 and there is absolutely NO proof that CO2 or the so called “Greenhouse effect (which is BS)” has anything to do with it either.
(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/markey_barton_letter.html)
There is however good proof that points at the oceans in combination with El Ninjo/La Ninja and cloud cover.
The warming that started in 1976 and ended in 1998 (22 years) causing a rise of 0.6 degree Celsius is well within historic trends, nothing special.
Ron,
There is good proof that the increases in greenhouse gases have been responsible for global warming. The changes in outgoing long wave radiation spectrum have been measured and reflect the changes that were expected based on the GHE.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2003)016%3C3820%3AOOTIOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
“In a recent paper, (Harries et al. 2001, hereafter H01), we presented the results of a study in which we carefully intercalibrated and compared IR spectra obtained from the Nimbus-4 spacecraft in 1970, by the Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS), with spectra from the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG), flown in 1997 on the Advanced Earth Observing Satellite 1 (ADEOS-1) spacecraft. This work showed that, over large regions of the earth, the clear-sky emission spectrum showed detailed changes, which agreed well with theoretical expectations based on the known changes of greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, O3, and chlorofluorocarbons 11 and 12. In this way it has been experimentally confirmed for the first time that the greenhouse forcing of the earth has, indeed, been changed through the growth of greenhouse gases.”
Eric,
The world community has spend over 100 billion dollars now to get the scientific proof at the table that CO2 drives atmospheric temperatures.
Scientists were (are) paid to get that evidence and your report is an example of that.
They have compared satellite data from the time before we cleaned up our industrial and automotive emissions with data from the time we have filtered them out.
This RED HARING is so big, I don’t need my glasses to see it.
Despite all the money that went into research the only evidence they have is in the climate models and they are cooked.
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT CO2 DRIVES ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES!
Not a single shred.
Even the IPCC admits it as they admit there has been no significant change in Global Temps since 1995 and a cooling trend since 2001. That is why they have postponed their new report:
Read this:
Richard S Courtney Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 3:10 am
“Of course the next IPCC report has to be delayed.
The IPCC is the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change.
Governments are political bodies. And the IPCC’s function is – and always has been – to provide an appearance of scientific justification for political policies.
That appearance becomes progressively more difficult to sustain with each year the globe fails to warm.
The IPCC Reports were originally scheduled for publication at 5-year intervals. But a 5-year period after the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) would have to report cessation of global warming in the period since the AR4. There has been no mathematically significant rise in mean global temperature (MGT) since 1995. MGT has not again achieved the peak it had in the El Nino year of 1998 and has been static or gradually falling since 2001. Furthermore, the ‘fingerprint’ of enhanced greenhouse effect is greatest warming at altitude in the tropics, but independent measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show slight cooling at altitude in the tropics. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and anthropogenic emissions have continued to rise.
The warming period from ~1970 to ~2000 was sandwiched between the cooling periods of ~1940 to ~1970 and ~2000 to the present. The changes between these warming and cooling periods coincide with phase reversals of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and, therefore, it seems that the present lack of warming is likely to continue for the next two decades.
The governments served by the IPCC can only hope that global warming resumes prior to the next IPCC report. Failing that, the next IPCC Report needs to be delayed until the political objectives – such as those the governments hope to achieve at Copenhagen in December – are obtained”.
In the mean time there is scientific evidence that CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas:
http://tech-know.eu/uploads/ACCInput.pdf
And there is scientific evidence that the rise in CO2 has Natural Causes:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-5-15-years-only/
If you are still a believer of AGW, your in a minority situation now:
See latest WUWT posting, Only 43% of US citizens believe in AGW.