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.
David L. Hagen (13:47:45) :
What arguments are there for using the minima vs the mean or the maxima to form your trend curves?
Both F10.7 and TSI are really the sum of contributions with different physical causes. To be specific for F10.7: free-free emission and gyro-resonance emission. Free-free you get from electrons being deflected by other charges, and gyro you get by electrons having their direction of movement changed [i.e. being accelerated and hence radiating] by spiraling around magnetic field lines. Free-free gives you the background [‘minima’] emission presumably from emerging flux and network. Gyro gives you the rotationally modulated part, coming from active regions. See http://www.leif.org/research/Synoptic-Radio-Observations.pdf for more on this, especially section 2.
RE: EASTER
No brainer. Easter is linked to the moon, and this year Easter was late – IIRC, last year’s was early. So you can base NOTHING on the weather on Easter.
Now, the Spring Equinox is within a day every year – you can contrast the weather there from year to year.
(hoping I did the blockquote thingy right)
Another volcano, this time Pagan in the Marianas erupts:
http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2009/04/if_a_volcano_erupts_in_the_woo.php
Jeff at UCLA (14:51:25) :
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.
Because radiation, S, and temperature, T, are related by Stefan-Boltzmann’s law S = a T^4, changes are related thus: dS/S = 4 dT/T or the temperature change is one 1/4 of the radiation change, i.e. 0.1%/4 = 0.025% of 287K = 0.07 K which is small enough to be neglected.
“We are not predicting sunspots per se, but magnetic regions.”
Wow.
Pyrrhic certainly, but gotta give you credit. I thought you were tied, chained, duct-taped and vacuum packed in that box. Rabbit dies you know.
gary gulrud (16:02:29) :
“We are not predicting sunspots per se, but magnetic regions.”
Wow.
Pyrrhic certainly, but gotta give you credit. I thought you were tied, chained, duct-taped and vacuum packed in that box. Rabbit dies you know.
As usual, you make no sense whatsoever. Let me give you a few factoids [or at least what I think is happening]:
The solar dynamo works by coupling plasma bulk movements and magnetic fields. The dynamo amplifies and organizes the magnetic field drawing energy from the motions of the plasma. What comes out is magnetic flux that makes it to the surface where some of it is compacted into active regions that where strong enough cool the surface and appear as dark sunspots. If the field is less than 1500 gauss there is no cooling and instead a brightening is observed [called faculae]. Currently, the magnetic field in the darkest parts of active regions [the few there has been] is low, only ~1900 gauss, while a decade ago the field was typically 3000 gauss. The lower the field, the warmer the region and the lower is the contrast to the surrounding surface; at 1500 gauss the region becomes invisible in ordinary white light and at even lower fields it will appear brighter. So, the relationship between the visible sunspot count and the magnetic field depends in a sense on the regions all having on average the same field strength. If this is not the case the SSN as currently defined will not have the same ‘meaning’ as we traditionally ascribe to it. What we predict is the magnetic flux and not the average field strength, so it is possible, if L&P are correct, that the SSN will come out differently than it would have under the same field strength assumption.
Leif Svalgaard (08:58:58) :
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.
That is but one forecast of many. I am predicting less than 50SSN for SC24 & SC25, and around 120SSN for SC26… it will be interesting to see who is closest.
But I can see some weaseling starting to appear, no need to invent new ways of measuring sunspots or “baby grands”, the metrics are already in place.
Good posting debunking the Wilkinson Ice Shelf Drama and Alarmist Reporting:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AntarcticWilkinsIceShelf.htm
Excellent link there, Ron de Haan. Looks like the Guardian and MSNBC are infected with group-think. Or maybe just laziness, since they use the same picture and text from year to year.
Signs:
April 16th and the train of record breaking temperatures still has not stopped:
http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/california-temperatures-dipped-to-a-record-low-of-33-degrees/
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/04/valley-farmers-protect-crops-from-april.html
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/04/ktuu.html
And about the Caitlins (again!) http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/04/are-catlin-propagandists-now-finding.html
Leif Svalgaard (08:32:05) :
“[…] One can call such a minimum a Grand minimum if one is so inclined, but perhaps a ‘Baby Grand’ is more appropriate.”
–
Leif Svalgaard (13:33:13)
“It doesn’t really matter, because what is predicted is not sunspots per se, but […] ‘equivalent’ sunspot number. But I do also predict a lot of confusion about this.”
–
Geoff Sharp (17:31:19)
“But I can see some weaseling starting to appear, no need to invent new ways of measuring sunspots or “baby grands”, the metrics are already in place.”
– – – –
Now this is getting interesting.
This is part of why WUWT gets traffic.
Leif Svalgaard (10:25:16) :
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.
And which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
It’s like this: You get more volcanic activity in Minimums, and you get more cosmic rays, and it snowballs. There is a lag time for the changes to take effect, but it happens, and that is all one really needs to understand. As for the evidence, it’s in the literary works.
Cassandra King…”Perhaps and I stress perhaps, perhaps ‘the powers that be’ the ones who are pushing the AGW theory so hard, actually have known for some time that we are in fact heading into a maunder minimum?”
“They” have known since 1968. They being David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong, two of the powers behind the thrones of the world.
In 1968 Mikhail Budyko came up with two mathematical models, one predicted an Ice Age, the other Global Warming from the Greenhouse Effect. In 1970, Broecker using new radioactive decay dating methods (oxygen isotopes) identified and dated five full ice age cycles in 1970. He stated his work was in agreement with Milankovitch. In 1971 Gleissberg published “The Probable Behaviour of Sunspot Cycle 21” and “Revision of the probability laws of sunspot variations” in 1973. In 1975 Veerabhadran Ramanathan pointed out that human-made chlorofluorocarbons (or CFCs) are particularly potent greenhouse gases, with as much as 200 times the heat-retaining capacity of carbon dioxide.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php
Back to Maurice Strong:
In 1970 Maurice Strong lead the UN Conference on the Human Environment and became Executive Director of the Environment Program of the United Nations from 1971 to 1975. He chaired the 1972 Montreal Protocols for reducing Chlorofluorocarbons. He sought to blame increased UV radiation on “holes in the ozone” due to CFCs,and not increased sun spot activity.
Hanne, Strong’s wife, likes to tell the story of how in 1978, a mystic informed the Strong that “the Baca [ranch] would become the center for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.”
Could the “environmental catastrophes” be an “Ice Age” instead of “Global Warming”??? Bacca is sitting in “the San Luis Valley in southern Colorado, known as one of the most productive agricultural areas in the West.” It is also sitting on the largest Aquifers in the USA. Here is a map of the last Ice Age
This is a description of the Baca Ranch area during the last Ice Age “Colder and often drier than present conditions predominated across most of the USA. The eastern deciduous and conifer forests were replaced by more open conifer woodlands with cooler-climate species of pines and a large component of spruce. The open spruce woodland and parkland extended somewhat further west than present, into what is now the prairie zone. As a result of aridity and lowering of sea level (which lowered inland water tables), much of Florida was covered by drifting sand dunes. Notably moister than present conditions occurred across much of the south-west, with open conifer woodlands and scrub common in areas that are now semi-desert.
Since 1968 we have had OSHA, EPA,the anti-Nuclear hysteria, Animal Rights, the loss of the US industrial base and the locking up of US natural resources in the name of environmentalism. Note the Sierra Club and Greenpeace are UN sanctioned NGOs for the “Convention on Biodiversity”. They are also heavily financed by the Rockefeller’s. The Omnibus bill just locked up more US resources including hydro-power from a thousand miles of “wild and scenic rivers” We have several anti farming bills with fines of up to a million dollars a day such as HR 875 and thanks to “Carbon Credits” a shift of US industry to China at the taxpayer’s expense.
I think this says it all:
“Barton Briggs, one of Wall Street’s most legendary investment strategists, is advising the rich and powerful to buy up farms and stock them with “seed, fertilizer, canned food. wine, medicine. clothes etc.” (and the “etc” would seem to mean guns to keep away the rest of us”
And to thin out the population before the climate cools live avian flu virus was placed in vaccines sent to 18 different countries. “Good Manufacturing Practices” if followed would not allow a bio-weapon anywhere near the same property used for human vaccines.
Pamela,
I sacrificed four goats to you so far this year. Two were even young virgin females!
Mike Bryant (07:00:43) :
“Instead of worrying about oppressive fundamentalist religion, how about we keep ALL religion out of politics, especially what passes for “science” lately. That should be the last word on the subject.”
I agree, unless the Church starts to promote the hoax of run away global warming!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7964880.stm
Actually, this was the subject of one of the better “Twilight Zone” episodes. Tell freezing people they are baking, and they won’t notice the truth.
Leif Svalgaard (10:25:16) wrote: “but there is no evidence [other than the coincident association] that the cooling was caused by the Sun.”
There you go AGAIN….all or nothing language: “no evidence.”
Why is it either or? How can you say that with a straight face, Lief?
As a scientist, [and one of the world’s preeminent] how can you make such blanket, broad-brush, sweeping generalizations that there is “no evidence”?
Makes NO logical sense. You of all people should understand nuance and degree. How the heck can you say there is “no evidence”?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Steve Keohane (09:35:49) :
eric (19:30:04) Here is a paper with some nice correlations between cloud cover and cosmic rays from 2000
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0104/0104048v1.pdf
This shows that cosmic rays can nucleate condensation in the lab. It doesn’t show that they will have a significant effect on the real atmosphere.
In fact a recent study shows that they don’t seem to have any effect.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.html
In addition cosmic rays have not systematically decreased and cannot be responsible for the warming since the 1970’s.
That’s it I’m off to the Eclectic Universe people, you’re all too complicated.
It is another it is the sun! post. The sun explains it all! It does not, it is just a tad more complex. The shift in the PDO coupled with its link to la nina conditions coupled with the reduced solar TSI may lead to reduced global temperatures depending on what latitudes the temperature raise or lower. Low latitude temperature variation has little global impact as measured because there is very minor variation. It is the tropics, they are hot. They can’t get much hotter or convection takes over. At high latitudes a few degrees seems humongous because they are friggin’ cold.
So global temperature is basically driven by the Russians and Chinese. No I am not implying a communist plot. But variations that impact northern Eurasia statistically have a more significant impact on global temperature averages than the limited variations practical in the low latitudes.
Natural variation due to oscillation shifts plays a much more significant role than solar variation. Synchronization of natural oscillations including solar variation really make things change. Don’t credit solar without looking at the other effects.
captdallas2 (21:10:26) wrote: Natural variation due to oscillation shifts plays a much more significant role than solar variation. Synchronization of natural oscillations including solar variation really make things change. Don’t credit solar without looking at the other effects.”
Umm…why can’t it be both, bro. Oceanic forcing FIRST. Solar SECOND.
So just because the oceans won the game….doesn’t mean the other team did not put up a good fight.
Don’t throw the oceanic baby out with the solar bathwater.
It is BOTH. Rather…it is ALL.
It is a messy combination of things…including what Svensmark was saying…and all of the volcanic stuff as well.
No need to think inside just one major box when there are many more secondary and tertiary boxes to be considered.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Here are some interesting observations….for what they are worth:
The sun is blank…no sunspots.
The sun is blank…no sunspots.
The sun is blank…no sunspots.
savethesharks (21:03:01) :
How the heck can you say there is “no evidence”?
Perhaps your bar is MUCH lower than mine….
Coincidental association is not evidence. It rained last week and my car had a flat tire. Is that evidence of rain causing flat tires?
Perhaps in your book it is; in mine it is not.
savethesharks (21:51:40) :
Umm…why can’t it be both, bro. Oceanic forcing FIRST. Solar SECOND.
Or THIRD or FOURTH or ….
There is no doubt that the Sun influences the climate, as there is no doubt that CO2 does. The question is both cases is ‘how much?’, and IMHO the answer in both cases is ‘not by much’. 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.
Geoff Sharp (17:31:19) :
That is but one forecast of many. I am predicting less than 50SSN for SC24 & SC25
You prediction [like many of the others] is not based on sound physics and can be dismissed out of hand. If mine [72+/-8] turns out not to come to pass, I’ll have to abandon the theory. I assume that you will do the same if yours fail, i.e.should the SSN be greater than 50.
But I can see some weaseling starting to appear, no need to invent new ways of measuring sunspots or “baby grands”, the metrics are already in place.
Only someone who does not know what he is talking about can make such a statement. You seem not to understand what a sunspot is a marker for and what determines the proper interpretation of the SSN proxy.
From lief’s link re: Cycle 24
We do expect activity to pick up fairly suddenly soon
Gotta love the commitment there!
My point is (and will always be): We don’t know! The AGW people don’t know, and the skeptics don’t know. NO ONE FREAKIN’ KNOWS.
Yet we’re making policy based on complete unknowns? Man, I have to get off this train…
eric (21:05:02) :
“Steve Keohane (09:35:49) :
eric (19:30:04) Here is a paper with some nice correlations between cloud cover and cosmic rays from 2000
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0104/0104048v1.pdf
This shows that cosmic rays can nucleate condensation in the lab. It doesn’t show that they will have a significant effect on the real atmosphere.
In fact a recent study shows that they don’t seem to have any effect.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.html
In addition cosmic rays have not systematically decreased and cannot be responsible for the warming since the 1970’s”.
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.
Let’s observe what is happening now with the sun is at a minimum and the earth is cooling for 7 years now on row.