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.
Many scientists theorize that the Maunder and Dalton minimums led to cooling, but the missing factor is by what mechanism did it do that.
Eddy already tried to disprove Sporer’s finding. Spent a lot of time trying. Didn’t work out the way he planned it. Consult the literary works to find out who wrote what about when cooling occured. There is no need for theory. You only need to know who wrote what, when they wrote it, and what they described.
A full year ago, there was no talk of even a baby Grand Minimum, there was talk of a repeat of 1954.
Today, there is talk of a baby Grand Minimum, and a repeat of 1913.
Next year, what will they be talking about?
Follow the Yellow Brick Road, and watch out for intersections that have had thier signs altered.
“The forecast is for cycle 24 to have a max sunspot number of 72, so no Dalton type minimum is in the offing.”
Move over Nostradamus and Edgar Caycee there’s a new sheriff in town.
Signs:
It’s April 16th now and Denver Colorado is buried by snow.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=rss&article=2
At the same time farmers in the Mid West are forced to delay crop planting due to wet and cold weather conditions
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=rss&traveler=0&article=7
“”I dont understand the logic.” – poster
“perhaps there isn’t any…” – Lief [snip–no personal attacks please]
More volcanic activity:
http://volcanism.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/siusgs-weekly-volcanic-activity-report-8-april-2009-14-april-2009/
“Leif Svalgaard (08:32:05) :
Geoff Sharp (23:42:03) :
“The Jose Minimum we are entering now will be Dalton like”
The forecast is for cycle 24 to have a max sunspot number of 72, so no Dalton type minimum is in the offing.”
But, if Livingston and Penn are right then those 72 will be invisible!! 🙂
Robert Bateman (09:40:54) :
Consult the literary works to find out who wrote what about when cooling occured. There is no need for theory.
There is no doubt that those were cold times [partly because of large volcanic activity…], but there is no evidence [other than the coincident association] that the cooling was caused by the Sun.
Ron de Haan (10:02:51) :
It’s April 16th now and Denver Colorado is buried by snow.
Wait till you see what we got coming – in CO Springs I’m expecting to have the snow blower in use this weekend (well, my wife, actually, because that’s her thing). On the plus side, Wolf Creek is re-opening this weekend and has thus been updating their snowfall totals. 24″ in the last two days and another 8-10″ coming. Should put them almost right on average for the year! 🙂
Mark
Hi Leif,
Thanks for the insightful notes. But one question seems to be hanging. When do we start worrying? Suppose we have say 10 sunspots over the next year and the sun looks just as blank or if possible even blanker – would that be the time? What would have to happen for you to think grand minima? Sort of a hypothesis if you will. Would it take 1, 2, 3, or just what number of years before one would change a prediction to no solar cycle (this time at least)? Grand minima do happen; can we see them only after the fact?
gary at 09:55:24
Perhaps you know this, and perhaps I’m mistaken, but Leif Svalgaard and David Hathaway used different theories to come up with their competing predictions for Solar Cycle 24, and so far, David is the one who’s had to adjust. I’d go with Leif on this one.
I’m curious, if Bill Livingston’s measurements are projecting the coming invisibility of spots, what other measures of sun’s activity are going to fail predictions. If spots are invisible, but plage activity continues, what happens to radio flux, and TSI and any number of other measures?
=======================================
Absolutely nothing new. I imagine those same sentiments appear in more than a few writings going back as far as you care to go.
I had an idea today for naming the current era in Science – The Early Macroscopic.
The time when mankind finally got a to see the “big picture” and just as in the Early Microscopic everything observed was anomalous.
(Early Macroscopic era (1980-20XX) – 3×2 – 2009 – for future historians)
During the so called Dalton minimum there was not a marked difference in temperatures here in Lima (12° south latitude) as you can see in this old graph:
http://www.giurfa.com/lima.jpg
So there won’ t be problems around the equator, but the higher latitudes and much more those in the NH are the ones to be affected.
There are more questions about minimums, but, which goes first the chicken or the egg?, the solar minimum or the volcanoes?
Comment on 3×2 (10:49:35)
“[…] everything observed was anomalous.”
Thanks for the laugh.
This phrase summarizes a lot.
“I’d go with Leif on this one.”
I trust in your native abilities but note you’ve been absent some months and appear to be picking up where you left off.
Just for jollies, accept if you don’t already, that the planetary measures like aa and ap collapsing Oct. 2005 and the sun spots, collapsing Feb. 2007 or so are different effects of a common cause.
Now entertain the thought that the heliomagnetic field generates both but, in fact, is an intermediate cause. Suppose also that the Livingston-Penn effect entails a modulation of the SS sinusoid by another, let’s call it a curve of flux tube ‘bouyancy’, now entering its own trough.
If sigma for the prediction of 72 is 8 and the result is 47 what do we say about the forecast?
Have a gander at the contortions required to make cycle 13 resemble cycle 23 and tell me that’s science, or even sensible.
http://www.globalweathercycles.com/
Free book download “Global Warming Global Cooling”.
The author states that the current cooling process will take a period of at least 180 years. Around 2023 the cooling will be severe.
More info on “Global Warming Global Cooling” here: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3259&linkbox=true
Since suitable virgins of an age acceptable to sacrifice (have to be more than 16 years old, otherwise it would be child abuse) are in rather short supply, politicians, being well in excess for our needs, would be a fine substitute, however many eyes they might have. Excellent idea, and without question, the most cost effective.
Cosmic rays and clouds,
Does a more active sun really block cosmic rays? I have read that the cosmic ray flux is very nearly uniform in all directions (with maybe a few hot spots). If the solar wind blocks cosmic rays: do noticably less cosmic rays hit the earth from the direction of the sun. The solar wind must be denser in the direction of the sun and there is the part heading towrds us as well as that headed away on the other side to block cosmic rays. If there aren’t more cosmic rays at night than in the daytime, I wonder why – my meager understanding suggests the sun itself should not contribute much to cosmic rays which appear to be extragalactic in origin.
Next: If there are more cosmic rays during grand minima, do cosmic rays cause clouds? There is anecdotal evidence from paintings that it was colder during the Maunder minimum (frozen Thames, frozen canal in Holland). However, would a much more extensive survey of landscape paintings show that there were more LOW clouds of the type cosmic rays are supposed to generate during the Maunder minimum as opposed to other time frames. Is it even possible to detect cloud types in paintings? Perhaps the actual colors might give a clue: the cloudier it is the less blue from the sky would light the scenes. Do contemporary reports from the late 1600’s refer to low overcast skies more than at other times?
Lee (12:27:28) :
See it for yourself:
http://www.giurfa.com/venice.jpg
http://www.giurfa.com/london.jpg
Adolfo Giurfa (10:18:14) :
But, if Livingston and Penn are right then those 72 will be invisible!! 🙂
It doesn’t really matter, because what is predicted is not sunspots per se, but magnetic active regions, which we can count on a magnetogram. Multiply by 12 and you get a reasonably accurate ‘equivalent’ sunspot number. But I do also predict a lot of confusion about this.
Lee (10:34:03) :
When do we start worrying?
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/Cycle_24_-_don%27t_panic_yet%21
kim (10:45:36) :
If spots are invisible, but plage activity continues, what happens to radio flux, and TSI and any number of other measures?
They will be there and show the activitivy, see above…
gary gulrud (11:53:04) :
If sigma for the prediction of 72 is 8 and the result is 47 what do we say about the forecast?
See above. We are not predicting sunspots per se, but magnetic regions. The SSN is just a proxy for those and may not be meaningful if L&P are correct. This is something the SIDC and NOAA will have to agonize over.
Leif Svalgaard
“Eyeballing works fine for this and shows a clear upturn. The trend curve [‘lower envelope’] just connects the minima.”
What arguments are there for using the minima vs the mean or the maxima to form your trend curves?
It would appear that other trends could be configured through the maxima or the mean that show a continued downturn or leveling off.
Ron de Haan (12:05:53) : More info on “Global Warming Global Cooling” here: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3259&linkbox=true
Ron, about 6 months ago, there was a “discussion” on SC24.com concerning this “free” $40 book. What was free were excerpts. Dilley joined the conversion and eventually released a section of one of his graphs. The “It’s the Moon Stupid” theory was debunked in that thread.
Tom in Texas (13:57:24) :
“Ron de Haan (12:05:53) : More info on “Global Warming Global Cooling” here: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3259&linkbox=true
Ron, about 6 months ago, there was a “discussion” on SC24.com concerning this “free” $40 book. What was free were excerpts. Dilley joined the conversion and eventually released a section of one of his graphs. The “It’s the Moon Stupid” theory was debunked in that thread”.
Tom,
Thanks for the info.
I downloaded the book but could not open it (I use Mac OS) so I did not read it.
The posting at climaterealists was from today so I assumed this was new stuff.
( posted this on the earlier …Calorimeter… thread, but unsure if anyone is still participagting there)
Why Celsius and not Kelvin?
Can anyone explain to me what good reason AGW advocating climate scientists use Celsius rather than Kelvin when employing statistics to variations in solar irradiance and global temperature change? Irradiance is measured up from zero, a dead sun. Kelvin’s 0 K is absolute zero, a good match to say the least. Celsius and Kelvin share the same intervals, but Celsius’ adjusts 0 °C to a human artefact, an interest in the freezing point of water at sea level, at one standard atmospheric pressure. Solar irrandiance measurements are not adjusted in any manner to the freezing of water on Earth at any elevation.
Mr. Shaviv notes above that solar irradiance varies about 0.1 % over the eleven year solar cycle. Assume a global mean surface temperature of 14 0 °C, the 20th century mean suggested by the US Government . If we apply “Celsius”: [+]14 0 °C x .001 = .014 [+]°C. .014 0 °C is a small amount, much less than recent temperature change, and on its face would seem to preclude solar irradiance as the primary driver of global temperature change.
However, let’s use the Kelvin scale. Assume a global mean surface temperature of 287.15 K (14 + 273.15). 287.15 K x .001 = .287 K. Tell me why a nearly .3 degree Kelvin (and Celsius) temperature change caused by solar irradiance variation does not support solar irradiance variation as the primary driver of recent global termperature change? Employing Celsius here rather than Kelvin can understate the effect of solar irradiance variation by a factor around 20. Or use IPCC AR4 Scientific Assessment’s .08 %. 287.15 K x .0008 = .23 K. Still, a significant number.
Above it is stated global temperatures during the Maunder Minimum were 1.0 °C cooler than today. I am not a heliophysicist, but I do not find it implausible that the longer term variation could be about triple the recent, .3 %. If the IPCC AR4’s discussion of recent irradiance levels at solar minimums in the past two or three solar cycles were almost identical, and this is implicitly argued to extrapolate that irradiance centuries ago could not be a tiny bit more different, I am not convinced.
So, does my argument absolve solar irradiance variation as a major, or the primary, driver of global temperature change without amplifications? (Not saying amplifications do not have some effect).
Why Celsius and not Kelvin? Feel free to criticize my post in whole or in part.