WUWT Poll: What should we call the current solar minimum?

Solar state: cue ball quiet

Although we’ve been covering this quiet sun issue for over a year on WUWT, the light bulb seems to have gone on for mainstream media right about now.

There is growing press coverage about the current state of the sun, most recently from Charles Osgood of CBS News as well as the BBC and other major outlets. While the sun slumbers deeper and has missed its cyclic snooze alarm, our media is finally waking up to the solar somnolence.

Here is a short roundup of news articles on this subject today:

‘Still Sun’ baffling astronomers

Scientists warn sun has dimmed

Sun ‘at its quietest for 100 years’

Has the sun gone in? Earth’s closest star ‘dimmest it’s been for a century’

So the question arises, now that this has been identified, what should we call it?

There have been some good ideas, such as naming it after Jack Eddy, who coined the phrase “Maunder Minimum“. There’s been some discussion of a “Gore Minimum”, but I don’t like the idea of giving Gore credit for something he has nothing to do with, or even likely understands. There’s been suggestion of “The Hansen Minimum” which makes a little more sense, since he’s an astronomer by training. On that note, Leif Svalgaard predicted this, so maybe it should be his honor.

So, I’ve decided to have a poll, and I’ll take suggestions for other names than what I’ve listed.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
543 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Aron
April 22, 2009 11:46 am

Gore Minimum

M White
April 22, 2009 11:49 am

Gore Minimum

Philip G.
April 22, 2009 11:52 am

I suggest we call this the “Caused by Anthropogenic Emission of CO2” Minimum

EricH
April 22, 2009 11:53 am

Naughty Minimum.
It started in 08, naught eight, or naught nine, 09. And it is certainly naughty as it will upset a lot of people who were convinced that the sun had nothing (naught) to do with AGW.
Enjoy.

Matt
April 22, 2009 11:55 am

How about the Millenuim Minimum. Has a nice ring to it.

Ken Hall
April 22, 2009 11:56 am

Yes this quiet spell is garnering a lot of media interest. However they are using a big caveat that “THIS HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING”
I mean, how ridiculous that the sun would effect temperatures on earth and variances in the solar output (electronic, magnetic, radioactive etc) would have ANY variable effect on the earth’s systems that could in turn act as a catalytic method for temperature variability. What utter tosh!
Go back to sleep people, nothing to see here. Go back to sleep, we are still destroying the planet in a unique way that can only be remedied by taxes and surveillance of the ignorant masses, ignore our large planes and huge palaces and our constant jet-setting around the world, YOU, yes YOU in the little car, YOU MUST PAY MORE, YOU must let us monitor your travel, because only by doing this will the global molecules of CO2 really know that we mean to tackle climate change.
Now shut up and pay your climate taxes.

April 22, 2009 11:57 am

It kinda turns my stomach to immortalize either Gore or Hansen like this. And “Modern” is too generic – in addition to being “modern” only until the next generation at which time it would be no longer “modern”. That leaves either “Eddy” or “other”.
I prefer “other” – but what other? That requires some thought.

Claude Harvey
April 22, 2009 11:57 am

I still like “Gore Maximum”. It would force a footnote of explanation (exposure) every time it showed up in print. If I can’t have that, I want “Goracle Minimum”.

Mark
April 22, 2009 11:58 am

Landscheidt minimum after Theodore Landscheidt.
http://itsonlysteam.com/articles/landscheidt_minimum_part2.html

Glen Blackburn
April 22, 2009 11:58 am

Gore Minimum

Tom
April 22, 2009 11:58 am

Gore minimum (motion carried?)

April 22, 2009 12:01 pm

The Ignored Minimum

Roger Knights
April 22, 2009 12:01 pm

The Inconvenient Minimum
(This fits in with Osgood’s theme of how it will upset the AGWA apple-cart.)

Oskar
April 22, 2009 12:02 pm

The Mann-minimum

Patrik
April 22, 2009 12:03 pm

Hmmm… “Gore Minimum”… Hard to beat…
Hmmm… I give up. 🙂

Roger Knights
April 22, 2009 12:04 pm

The Watts Up Minimum

geophys55
April 22, 2009 12:06 pm

Hey yall,
Read this interview with Jack Eddy before you decide!
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/eddy_int.htm

Alec, a.k.a Daffy Duck
April 22, 2009 12:07 pm

Eek!!! The Mayan Minimum!

Brian Edwards
April 22, 2009 12:07 pm

I kind of agree with the point about not giving Gore credit, but the “Gore Minimum” is too good to resist although the Hansen Minimum has a nicer ring to it.

kim
April 22, 2009 12:08 pm

I don’t think it is shown yet to be a significant minimum, grand or lesser. It’s just a bit slow on the uptake to Cycle 24, and the spots may or may not be turning invisible.
If it turns into a real Minimum, my vote is for the Eddy Minimum. Jack Eddy liked words, and he is the one who popularized the idea that the sun has minimums. His extensive work should be recognized. Gore deserves to be remembered with scorn, or at the least, forgotten.
=============================================

Tom
April 22, 2009 12:08 pm

Upon reflection I’d like to rescind my vote for “Gore minimum.” There is a long and honorable tradition in science of naming things after their discoverer. “Gore min” and “Hansen min” are intended to be ironic and disparaging, and “Modern min” is just typical self-centeredness and recentism that won’t make sense in another hundred years. Eddy would be good choice, maybe Salvgaard as well. And maybe we should not be quite so sure of ourselves. The Maunder minimum lasted 70 years, it would be a shame to hang a nametag on this one and have it turn out to last 17 months.

Dave D
April 22, 2009 12:08 pm

Gore Minimum. There’s no credit being associated with what may turn out to be the start of a new ice age. Minimum’s bring misery and steal prosperity, no sane person would want his name on one. That qualifies Big Al.

cajun
April 22, 2009 12:10 pm
April 22, 2009 12:11 pm

In Theodore Landscheidt’s ‘Sun, Earth, Man’ published in 1989, and his 2003 paper ‘New Little Ice Age instead of Global Warming’ Energy & Environment , Vol 14 no 2&3, he makes the prediction that the sun will enter either a Dalton-type or Maunder-type minimum in the first cycles of the 21st century. He predicted that 1990 would be the peak of sunspots (cycle 22) and that cycle 23 peaking in 2000-2001 would be lower, and that cycle 24 would be much lower, with 25 leading into the minimum. He reckoned there was an 85% chance that it would be a Maunder-type minimum and that by 2030 we would be in the depth of a new Little Ice Age.
He also predicted the 1998 super El Nino and said that there would be one more in 2002, less strong but obscuring the cooling which would not be obvious until 2007!
He has been correct in all his projections.
So I nominate this minimum as the ‘Landscheidt Minimum’.
His projections were based upon Newtonian physics – the transfer of angular momentum from the giant planets to the solar sphere. The mechanism whereby this might affect the magnetic layers of the sun is not known, but his correlations and calculations of past patterns coincide with the previous Little Ice Age as well as other problematic climate events in the 5000 year history of agrarian civilisation – there is more in the book than in the paper.
Recent work on the accretion discs of newly forming stars is showing that the angular momentum of orbiting matter can be transferred by magnetic fields (I am not a physicist, so can only guess that this means if there is a low point in the angular momentum pattern (it varies according to the interplay of angles the planets make to each other), then maybe that also feeds back to the magnetic field – and if that operates on our own solar disc, then we are approaching a mechanism for affecting the sunspot frequency.
Irrespective of the mechanism, Landscheidt deserves credit for his predictions.

Cathy
April 22, 2009 12:11 pm

Algore Minimum.

April 22, 2009 12:11 pm

Can we call it the “Gore is a fraud minimum”?
I don’t want people a couple hundred years from now to get the impression that he got anything right.

CodeTech
April 22, 2009 12:12 pm

Absolutely NOT “gore” anything.
You name things after people worth remembering. Or, in science, as an homage to a scientist.
“Gore Minimum”, from what I can see, refers to his IQ.

Bill S
April 22, 2009 12:14 pm

How about “Congressional Minimum” – because of the dimness of the body

Doug Janeway
April 22, 2009 12:14 pm

The “Politically Incorrect Minimum”

Dave D
April 22, 2009 12:14 pm

I am curious if those readers more versed in Solar Physics have any expectation on when temps should start moving down. I saw david archibald’s short term perdiction – an action I applaud – but how does the theory go? Are we looking at reductions after this cycle (24 the one just trying to start) ends or does it trial 2-3 years from the lower output which started a few years ago – ideas?
All the AGW crowd seems to think that the levelling off (cooling, by not warming) data is proof the sun’s output will (has) not impact (ed) the Globe. I had thought the cooling was in the pipeline, but would lag… Am I in error with the theory?

Dave D
April 22, 2009 12:15 pm

BTW that is “prediction” and “trail’, respectively!

Paul S
April 22, 2009 12:16 pm

Of course, even with the news articles above, the AGW drumbeat rolls on, oblivious to the fact that the earth has been cooling for nearly a decade and oblivious to the fact of good correlation of minimums and colder era’s. One can only hope some sanity returns to media.

Dan Murphy
April 22, 2009 12:17 pm

I believe Leif should get the honor. Let’s face it, he publicly made the forecast for the current very low level of solar activity at a time when few others would do so. He should feel vindicated!
Speaking of that, Leif mentioned in another recent thread that Hathaway had publicly admitted in an e-mail that he (Leif) was right and Hathaway wrong. I do extend my congratulations to him, and suggest that in this circumstance it is perfectly acceptable to feel vindicated, and indeed, perhaps even a bit smug. This should rightly give Leif immense personal and professional satisfaction.
Again, my congratulations!
Dan Murphy

David Quist
April 22, 2009 12:17 pm

It is an unfortunate reflection of our time that this is such a pertinant topic. Science has been, to higher degree than normal, misused by politicians. The name of the minimum should perhaps stand as a reminder of our eager but premature folly to understand or even control nature. My vote is for the Gore Minimum.

Roger Knights
April 22, 2009 12:19 pm

The In-A-Minute Minimum

Willem
April 22, 2009 12:20 pm

It seems perverse to name a developing solar minimum after those who deny the role of the Sun in climate

Deedoe
April 22, 2009 12:20 pm

In honor of the man who called AGW the greatest scam in history – Coleman Minimun

Barry Foster
April 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Gore Minimum

A Stoner
April 22, 2009 12:21 pm

The end of the good times minimum.

RobH
April 22, 2009 12:21 pm

Deniers Minimum

hunter
April 22, 2009 12:22 pm

I will third that: “Gore Minimum”

Luis Dias
April 22, 2009 12:22 pm

Gore Minimum is bad. Real bad name. Remember, this will, if it will, be in the history of sol, so why give Gore just for the sake of the joke? It’s bad humour really.
Same about Hansen.
The obvious sane choice is Svalgaard Minimum.

Fred from Canuckistan . . .
April 22, 2009 12:22 pm

The Gore-Hansen Minimum would be a never ending reminder of these two bozos and all the crap they have spewed.
It would be a permanent reminder of how science can be perverted for fame, fortune and ego.
The name wouldn’t make them famous, it would make them infamous.

hereticfringe
April 22, 2009 12:24 pm

Well, given that we have been Gored by the bull^%&…

April 22, 2009 12:25 pm

Gore Minimum
Aron and M White beat me to it, but I assure you that was the FIRST thing popped into my mind.

ScurvyOaks
April 22, 2009 12:26 pm

How about the “Gore Effect Minimum?”

Medic1532
April 22, 2009 12:26 pm

Voted for Gore Minimum but OT anyone else notice that Catlin Survey has changed from “live from the Ice” to “Latest from the Ice” Woot for WUWT in pointing out the fake datastream. JG

W.Erjautz
April 22, 2009 12:26 pm

It´s clear for me. It should be the “Landscheidt Minimum”, named after Theodor Landscheidt who predicted almost 10 years before the weak solar cycle 24 and also several weak cycles after that what will create a Maunder type solar minimum.

Mark Wagner
April 22, 2009 12:28 pm

Landscheidt Minimum. I think he was among the first to predict the coming decline in solar activity some 20 years ago.

darwin
April 22, 2009 12:31 pm

The Anthony Minimum

Dave Middleton
April 22, 2009 12:34 pm

Gotta go with naming it after Leif!

Frank Lansner
April 22, 2009 12:34 pm

As as Dane, the country of Lomborg and Svensmark, i think “Svensmark minimum” is a really good choice.
After everything Svensmark had to go through I think he diserves this honour.
Svensmark is perhaps the most important scientist in the whole debate?
Svensmark Minimum
Hmm.. its different and i like it..
OT: http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/peer1.gif

b_C
April 22, 2009 12:35 pm

CESIND Minimum – Cause and Effect: See, It’s Not Difficult!

Indiana Bones
April 22, 2009 12:35 pm

Gore Minimum!

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 12:36 pm

It might be time to call it a solar nadir, then it could be named Gore’s Nadir.

Richard Hanson
April 22, 2009 12:36 pm

Save the Landscheidt Minimum for the time he predicted it…around 2030. I’d call this one The Warminimum.

Roger Knights
April 22, 2009 12:37 pm

IF Gore should be honored, which I don’t agree with, call it The Gorey Minimum. (“The Gore Minimum” sounds flatfooted.)

Flashman
April 22, 2009 12:37 pm

Gore Minimum

Ben G
April 22, 2009 12:37 pm

I’ll sit on the fence and say the ‘Archibald Landscheidt Svalgaard Minimum’

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 12:38 pm

How about:
The Science is Settled Minimum…

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 12:39 pm

Since it’s not supposed to be happening at all:
The Oops Minimum

Curtis Mears
April 22, 2009 12:40 pm

I vote for the “A.J. Gorrible Minimum”.

Joel
April 22, 2009 12:40 pm

The over exaggerated underestimated theoretically incorrect solar cooling event

April 22, 2009 12:42 pm

The inconvenient minimum?

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 12:43 pm

Maybe appropriately for the current era…
It’s The Sun Stupid Minimum?

TomLama
April 22, 2009 12:43 pm

The Gore Minimum is a maximum slap at the perversion of science.
The Gore Minimum would memorialize the triumph of science and reason over hype and propaganda.
The Fat Albert Arnold Gore Minimum, (FAAG Minimum,) also has a nice ring to it.
History books will document that Svalgaard predicted the Gore Minimum long before Gore could cash in on his carbon ponzi scheme.

Greg
April 22, 2009 12:45 pm

Re: “Gore Minimum”
Why honour a reprehensible liar with such a title that will live on in history? Put Gore in the incinerator of history where we belongs…
It is not an amusing irony.
Name it after the real scientist who actually predicted this.
Svalgaard Minimum FTW.
Millennium Minimum has a nice ring too.

NoAstronomer
April 22, 2009 12:46 pm

I voted for ‘Gore’, it’s not like we’re actually giving him credit for discovering it. Everyone will have forgotten ‘Truth’ in a few years. I’d like for professors In 100 years time to use Al’s name to scare their undergrads.

April 22, 2009 12:46 pm

The “I wish our government was as inactive” Minimum

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 12:46 pm

The Inconvenient Minimum

Gordon Ford
April 22, 2009 12:47 pm

How about the Gorian Minimum in honour of the age of false prophets and the new Pied Piper

Mike from Canmore
April 22, 2009 12:49 pm

Leif got my vote because I learn too much from Leif not to pay my respects.
Gore’s name should only be remembered in the butt of jokes. He represents one of the largest threats to my children’s future.

SJones
April 22, 2009 12:50 pm

Please not the Gore Minimum. How many people think Molotov invented the Molotov cocktail? The Finns invented it in the Winter War against Russia (1939/40) and nicknamed them after Molotov who was the Russian defence minister at the time. You may name something sarcastically to begin with but time will erode that meaning eventually and I hate the idea of a fraud like Gore being commemorated in this way.
If this does turn out to be a significant minimum it should be named after the first predictor of it – which would appear to be Landscheidt.

Mike McMillan
April 22, 2009 12:50 pm

Jim Owen (11:57:36) :
It kinda turns my stomach to immortalize either Gore or Hansen like this.

Ditto.

Mary R
April 22, 2009 12:51 pm

I wouldn’t want anything named after Gore! I vote absolutely NO to naming it the Gore Minimum. Come on people get creative. Many of you are incredible scientists, you must know the name of someone to name this after. Perhaps one of the scientists who first claimed a connection between a quiet sun and a colder planet?
Stop the nonsense and give credit to someone who has added to this field of science, who has been committed to analyzing data and promoting intelligent debate.
We have to be smarter than this….

George Tobin
April 22, 2009 12:52 pm

Norwegian Blue Parrot Minimum — “it’s not dead, it’s resting” a la Monty Python:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=dead+parrot+monty+python&hl=en&emb=0&aq=1&oq=dead+parrot#

Skeptic Tank
April 22, 2009 12:53 pm

Landscheidt Minimum (the motion is carried)
We won’t be making a joke out of this, as tempting as that is. So let’s give credit where credit’s due.
Assuming, of course, this does indeed turn out to be a minimum worth naming.

Phillip Bratby
April 22, 2009 12:54 pm

Landscheidt Minimum

kim
April 22, 2009 12:55 pm

Hold your horses, everyone; I could be mistaken, but I don’t think Leif Svalgaard has predicted a minimum, yet. I think he’s only committed to Cycle 24 being low on sunspots at its peak. And I’m pretty sure that everyone is wondering at the evidence that Livingston and Penn are finding.
==========================

BernardP
April 22, 2009 12:56 pm

After reading all the preceding posts, I am going with ‘Landscheidt- Svalgaard Minimum’.

Dell Hunt, Michigan
April 22, 2009 12:57 pm

I still suggest:
The Algorian MilliVanillian Minimum
(i.e. give back the award cause you are a fraud)

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 12:58 pm

“In honor of the man who called AGW the greatest scam in history – Coleman Minimum”
Good idea, name it after Gary Coleman and hope it’s really short.

cassandraclub
April 22, 2009 1:00 pm

I second the “Inconvenient Minimum”.

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 1:01 pm

How about, “Leif’s Grand Minimum”
That way it has two meanings…

jorgekafkazar
April 22, 2009 1:04 pm

We shouldn’t name anything after Gore. I could live with the Eddy Minimum, but most of the other possibilities don’t appeal to me in the least.
There’s been such a concerted effort on the part of the MSM not to let the word out, I have to go with The Media-Suppressed Minimum or The Secret Minimum.

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 1:08 pm

Jorge,
How about
“Mum’s the Word Minimum”?

April 22, 2009 1:08 pm

It is self evident!
It should be called The Mann-Made Minimum.
Or MMM for short.
Climate change has been proven to be the products of man activity as was discovered by the eminent geologists Michael Mann.

Kum Dollison
April 22, 2009 1:08 pm

I suggest we ignore it. It will probably end soon, and we don’t need the distraction. If it doesn’t, that will be okay, also.
Focus, People. 1998 was the Peak. 1998 It’s set in stone, and it’s a pretty safe bet it’s not going to be bested any time soon.
Everything else is built on sand. It’s a good chance this years temeratures will be closer to 07′, than 08′. A good storm in the Arctic in August, and all the ice disappears quicker than Mandrake’s manservant. The Sunspots can reappear at any moment.
The only thing that matters is that it’s getting cooler. How do you know? 1998. KISS

Don B
April 22, 2009 1:10 pm

The Solar Slumber
The alliteration should appeal to the media.

geo
April 22, 2009 1:16 pm

“The Upside Down Hockey Stick Minimum”

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 1:18 pm

“Mu” is a Japanese word alleged to mean “Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions”.
So with that bit of knowledge, and hoping it’s a short solar minimum, how about:
The Mu Mini Minimum… which is also a palindrome. I’m sure that Jack Eddy would’ve loved it. And it does roll off the tongue doesn’t it? In the future, people would know we hadn’t lost our sense of humor. It reminds me of another old palindrome from the latin, “Roma summus amor” which means Rome supreme love. Of course mine is not so elegant.

George Patch
April 22, 2009 1:18 pm

Obamaminimum
He promised change and delivered it in this minimum.

Bullseye
April 22, 2009 1:18 pm

The Inconvenient Minimum
Love that one !. got my vote

Varco
April 22, 2009 1:18 pm

Watt Minimum?

April 22, 2009 1:19 pm

I would prefer to call it after Paul D.Jose, the “Jose’ s Minimum”
See his work: http://www.giurfa.com/jose.pdf

pyromancer76
April 22, 2009 1:20 pm

I think it is an insult to the sun, our earth, and our dynamic, cyclical climate changes to let the phoney Goricle any where near the name of this new minimum, or the science. I also hope his investment company, Generation Investment Management, of which he is co-founder (along with Goldman Sach’s Hank Where-Did-All-Our-Money-Go Paulson) and chairperson, and from which he buys his carbon credits (The Tennessean), rots in, oh, well, you know.
When Obama was part of all sorts of scams in Chicago through serving on the board of the Joyce Foundation, among others, he voted to give money ($1.1 million in two separate grants) to found the Chicago Climate Exchange, the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits “for all six greenhouse gases” that, what do you know, the EPA has just found to be serious pollutants. From my reading, Gore’s GIM has considerable influence over it. Just wait until a cap-and-trade law is passed. The participants — the new government-created bureacratic elites — are slobbering over their newly generated wealth that will be stolen from productive nations, industries, and people.
Today is Earth Day. Two ironies leap from the consideration of its creation April 22, 1970. First the save-the-earth hysteria at that time was focused on GLOBAL COOLING — the new ice age acomin’. Second, does it seem a little strange to anyone that April 22 is also Valdimir Lenin’s birthday? Since Al Gore has celebrated this anniversary everyday in our recent memories, one might wonder whose example he is following. I think Al’s father would turn over in his grave.

Peter Burns
April 22, 2009 1:23 pm

If President Obama goes ahead with his proposed cap and trade bill or permits the EPA to enact regulations taxing or otherwise penalizing the use of Fossil fuels, then he will wind up owning the crisis that will follow, and he will deserve to be remembered as the man who initiated the greatest policy blunder of modern times. It should be called the Obama Minimum.

April 22, 2009 1:25 pm

The Archibald Minimum!

Ray
April 22, 2009 1:27 pm

The Goracle Maximus Minimum

April 22, 2009 1:28 pm

Mike Bryant (12:39:58) :
No. As far as I know it began in 1989 and the decrease in temperatures started in 1998, when all the heat saved in the south pacific seas began to be transferred to the atmosphere.

Paul
April 22, 2009 1:29 pm

How about the “Imaginary Minimum” because it just doesn’t fit with the computer models.

jryan
April 22, 2009 1:29 pm

I voted for Svalgaard because it is only fair.
But if I was in a wistful mood I would want it to be called “The Mann-imum”

M White
April 22, 2009 1:31 pm

Gore minimum only really works if a real proof/mechanism of the sun being the major cause of global climate and temperature being identified.
Remember Al Gore is the public face of AGW, a hasbeen politician who with others has influenced the way climate science is conducted. If the sun is eventually proved to be the major climate driver the name AL Gore should be used as a warning to all who use unproven science to tell others how to live their lives.
Of course if there is no significant solar minimum it won’t be called anything

ScurvyDawg
April 22, 2009 1:31 pm

Initially call it the Mother of All Minimums. As a society we’re always proclaiming everything (people, places, gadgets, sporting events, headaches) to be the greatest/worst of all time, so if a solar minimum might occur during our lifetimes, it should be proclaimed ahead of time as the greatest ever. After a decade or so, we should get serious and give credit to Landscheidt by renaming the minimum as the Landscheidt Minimum. But, if the solar minimum results if chaos, mayhem, and global annihilation, then hopefully one of the last surviving humans will rename it The Last Known Minimum.

Tamara
April 22, 2009 1:32 pm

“Inconvenient Minimum”
It says it all.

SteveSadlov
April 22, 2009 1:32 pm

The Beginnings of Sorrow.

April 22, 2009 1:33 pm

Mike Bryant (13:18:09) Mu it is also a question in itself, hoping the disciple will find the unnameable truth within reality. So Mu?

English Major
April 22, 2009 1:33 pm

George Tobin (12:52:20) :
Norwegian Blue Parrot Minimum — “it’s not dead, it’s resting” a la Monty Python:
Perfect!

/sea/
April 22, 2009 1:33 pm

Al Gore should be stricken from the list of possibilities

Richard Henry Lee
April 22, 2009 1:33 pm

Heliogenic Minimum.
It may be the sun driving climate. It is certainly not man.

David Ball
April 22, 2009 1:35 pm

Willem (12:20:12) :
It seems perverse to name a developing solar minimum after those who deny the role of the Sun in climate I couldn’t agree more.

EW Matthews
April 22, 2009 1:36 pm

Svensmark minimum
It would be a great ending to a movie.
(1st to predict a future movie about the trials of Henrik Svensmark after 2010 to celebrate his victory of the Cern cloud chamber experiment.)

tangoactual
April 22, 2009 1:37 pm

From the BBC article, a quote attributed to one Professor Lockwood of Southampton University…
“If you look carefully at the observations, it’s pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that’s been going on for a couple of decades.
“If the Sun’s dimming were to have a cooling effect, we’d have seen it by now.”
And the beat goes on…

Bill Adams
April 22, 2009 1:39 pm

Best suggestion here: Roger Knights’s Inconvenient Minimum.
A much better way of twisting Gore’s tail.

Ray
April 22, 2009 1:43 pm

What about the Osama Bin Laden Minimum? Because he hates your Freedom and Way of Life and dimming the sun is a good way to change that… with the help of Hallah and American politicien that will surely do it in order to destroy your Empire and society.

Doug Arthur
April 22, 2009 1:43 pm

The Melting Minimum.

I.M. Cold
April 22, 2009 1:43 pm

The Gor Blimey

cam
April 22, 2009 1:44 pm

The Watts Waning!

Richard deSousa
April 22, 2009 1:44 pm

Landscheidt Minimum

Old PI
April 22, 2009 1:44 pm

I’m with Cathy – the “Algore” Minimum. Not Gore, but AlGore. That way, it absolutely, positively, requires an explanation. It also fits his penchant for showing up at a conference or speaking engagement along with the coldest weather in a generation. It will help ensure that AlGore is the laughingstock he deserves to be, and will go a long way toward awakening the average American to the swindle that AlGore represents.

Ira
April 22, 2009 1:45 pm

The “Inconvenient” Minimum. Inconvenient to the alarmists if it turns out, as we believe: “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
The “scare quotes” denote it will not actually be inconvenient to humanity if it helps global temperatures stabilize.

Editor
April 22, 2009 1:47 pm

Well, as much as I respect Leif, he didn’t forecast a minimum, just a low sunspot cycle.
If this turns out to be a true minimum, I think real choice would be “Livingston and Penn Minimum.”

Hangtown Bob
April 22, 2009 1:47 pm

I say……. Anthropogenic Solar Cooling
After all, everything is our fault.

Erick Barnes
April 22, 2009 1:48 pm

1 for landscheit-svaalgard minimum.

Ozzie John
April 22, 2009 1:49 pm

Leif preficted a minimum, but not a grand minimum. We only name the latter so it’s got to be the….
The Archibald Minimum

Pearland Aggie
April 22, 2009 1:50 pm

The Carbon Tax Minimum….oh wait, that might be The Carbon Tax Maximum! LOL
Seriously,
I like the Svensmark Minimum or the Archibald Minimum.

Doug
April 22, 2009 1:50 pm

I like the Eddy or Archibald Minimum. Eddy earned it and Archibald is providing specifics (based on others work) http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf
If its named after Gore, he’ll just make a speech taking credit for it. Although the Inconvenient Minimum may be best of all.

Pearland Aggie
April 22, 2009 1:51 pm

I also like the Climate Common Sense Minimum.

Sean
April 22, 2009 1:52 pm

I would like to suggest the Veritas Minimum for exposting the truth about global warming and the truth about who or what controls the weather.

Doug Arthur
April 22, 2009 1:53 pm

What was I thinking?
It’s The Minimum Melting Minimum.

R Warren
April 22, 2009 1:54 pm

Gore Minimum seems redundant.
Inconvenient Minimum works.
What about something like the “In Spite of Consensus Minimum”?

Bill Illis
April 22, 2009 1:54 pm

Watt about the Watts Minimum.
I suggested the Svalgard Minimum before so I had to stick with that but I think Leif didn’t like it.
It should be named after whoever predicted it the most accurately having the best proven-in-the-long-run method/model. In that case, it will be few decades before it can receive the proper name.

Tom
April 22, 2009 1:54 pm

Please not Gore, or Hansen. Those frauds have already received far too much publicity. Let us not make their name remembered any more than they would be anyway.

April 22, 2009 1:55 pm

Inconvenient Minimum has to be the one.

rhodeymark
April 22, 2009 1:56 pm

I remember being one of the first to propose Hansen Minimum (because it had two syllables and I despise him), but in the interest of history and seriousness I too have already decided to call it the Landscheidt Minimum. It’s only right.

Steve Burrows
April 22, 2009 1:57 pm

Earth Day Minimum

J Watt
April 22, 2009 1:57 pm

FYI
it has a name
“Landscheidt Minimum”
just google ( Landscheidt Minimum )
http://www.google.com/search?q=Landscheidt+Minimum%E2%80%99&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
results 3100 hits

hareynolds
April 22, 2009 1:58 pm

I have been pushing for some time for The Gore Minimum without gaining any traction (see poll results).
My logic is quite simple: The Nobel Committee is unlikely to take back Albert’s Prize, regardless of the subsequently discovered “truths”.
For the benefit of future generations, we need to slap a big “asterisk” on that Nobel Prize in the form of “The Gore Minimum” (particularly if we get “climate” similar to that experienced during the Maunder and Dalton Minima).
The HUBRIS of the AGW folks, and especially their College of Cardinals, Gore & Hansen. has been positively Biblical in scale and reach. Future generations need to hear about it.

Cathy
April 22, 2009 1:59 pm

I withdraw Algore (as in Igor) and vote for Roger Knight’s”Inconvenient Minimum”.
It appropriately skewers Al without immortalizing his name.

Gary
April 22, 2009 1:59 pm

For fun: Gore Minimum
For real: Landscheidt Minimum

hotrod
April 22, 2009 1:59 pm

I would definitely not support using either Gore or Hansen in the name. It would be a travesty to immortalize them for something they actively ignored.
By the same token at this point it is not a “minimum” although it may become one.
I would suggest we refer to it as the Y2K quiet period until it develops more fully or fades away. That gives a convenient handle for it and it can be associated with someone like Eddy, Landscheidt, or Salvgaard who ever has the best basis for being recognized as its predictor, if and when it shows it will be reasonable to call it a minimum.
I think there is some question at this time if Landscheidt’s predictions had any “scientific basis”, so even if he was correct, it would be more appropriate for the minimum if it develops to be named after someone who demonstrates what the mechanics of the minimum might be.
There is always the case for a combined name like the “Landscheidt, Salvgaard Minimum” and the “Eddy quiet period” or something similar.
I just think it is a bit premature to call it a minimum although the sharp down turn to a quiet sun should be given a name at least for discussion and reference.
Larry

FGW
April 22, 2009 2:00 pm

For fun, how about Mann Bear PIg minimum?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bear_pig
But seriously, I think Landscheidt Svaalgard Minimum would be appropriate

George E. Smith
April 22, 2009 2:01 pm

Well my vote is to wait until at least the September solstice and see what happens to the ice.
I’m definitely against calling it anything that even hints of anybody in the MMGWCC cult movement; or that very movement itself.
George

April 22, 2009 2:04 pm

Watt’s mininum.

captbob
April 22, 2009 2:04 pm

Well, only because nobody else has said it: The AGW (as in Al Gore was Wrong) minimum.

Ray
April 22, 2009 2:04 pm

What about: Algorisphulovscheit Minimum

Ted Clayton
April 22, 2009 2:05 pm

I say we continue to hang onto our riggin’, don’t get the cart out ahead of the horse, and watch to see just how events with the sun ultimately play out. It doesn’t look like namin’ time yet.
The longer the sun remains in the doldrums, the more portentious & important the consequences. If the sun suddenly begins behaving ‘normally’, ‘as expected’, in the near future, then the quiet pattern we’ve seen so far is relatively minor. But otoh, it could go on like it is now for, well … who knows how long? We don’t know, do we?
Let the story unfold. If it turns out to be a BIG story, then others will abscond with the naming-privelege.
So far, the status of the sun remains an increasingly tantalizing … mystery. It’s tough to let a mystery remain a mystery, but it’s the right – and the smart! – thing to do.
Most who enjoy WUWT think that if the sun continues its present low ebb ‘indefinitely’, the consequences will be quite severe.

Ray
April 22, 2009 2:06 pm

But like most things nowaday will will give it a number, like the SC24 Minimum or whatever…

Lucy
April 22, 2009 2:07 pm

lets face it, no one can spell svalgard. Gore Minimum, the man deserves infamy.

Bill McClure
April 22, 2009 2:08 pm

Congrats to Lief he is winning the silent majority vote and mine.

April 22, 2009 2:11 pm

The “Watts Up With the Sun?” minimum
The Blame It On Bush Minimum
The Re-Think Solar Panels Minimum
…but seriously folks…
The Svalgaard-Landscheidt Anomalous Minimum (SLAM)

John G
April 22, 2009 2:12 pm

Just a Minimum
Anthropogenic Global Minimum
Here’s Your Minimum
But I’ll vote for ‘An Inconvenient Minimum.’

theBuckWheat
April 22, 2009 2:13 pm

Calling it the GORE MINIMUM is the best from the standpoint of PR, and we should admit that we are having this very discussion because Gore and his fellow AGW advocates have been able to trump the facts of climate change via good PR. We need to make them eat their spin, and eat all the crap they throw at those who are really trying to let the facts speak for themselves.

John H
April 22, 2009 2:14 pm

When a Solar Minimum aligns with a Mental Minimum perhaps there is causation.
Could it be that the solar minimum is causing the global mental minimum witnessed at RC etc.?
Something has to be causing the Gore, Hansen, Schmidt, Lubchenco, Chu minimums.

Thomas Gough
April 22, 2009 2:15 pm

The Landscheidt Minimum. There has been a suggestion of leave that for 2030 which he predicted. I believe he predicted the absolute minimum for 2030. Just maybe this is the start of it (i.e. a Maunder type minimum)
TG

H.R.
April 22, 2009 2:17 pm

I voted for Svalgaard Minimum on the official poll, since you said that he called it.
My fun vote would go to “Maximum Minimum,” although we’d have to wait quite a while to see if “Maximum” (longest) would apply. It’s my nod to the current spate of Orwellian newspeak.

April 22, 2009 2:19 pm

Hi guys
Your overlooking the best name….
21st Century Minimum

April 22, 2009 2:19 pm

I submitted “The Humbling Minimum” due to the fact that we know so little about our Universe. However, I do like “The Inconvenient Minimum”. Do not give the narcissistic Gore any more credit for anything other than being a damn, arrogant fool.

April 22, 2009 2:20 pm

GORE Minimum. It’s not about giving him credit – it’s about rubbing it in the faces of AGW zealots.

Bill Hunter
April 22, 2009 2:20 pm

Landscheidt or Daly (John Daly) Minimum

DJ
April 22, 2009 2:25 pm

The Little Ice Age – err that’s right it’s not even cold because of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Still, future generations will think of the current hot planet as almost Arctic by the standards they will endure.
BTW why are you repeatedly gagging my posts. They are not rude, defamatory, or a slur on anyone?

crosspatch
April 22, 2009 2:26 pm

“Jody Wilson (14:20:09)”
I think it would be more appropriate to call the last few very active cycles The Gore Maximum rather than name any minimum after him.

WakeUpMaggy
April 22, 2009 2:26 pm

I don’t want to see Gore or Hansen mentioned anywhere in the history books.
Since Obama’s gonna get mentioned anyway, I’d call it the ObaMessiah Minimum.
He promised to cool the earth and lower the sea levels, didn’t he?
Maybe that will shut up the Goracle.

LarryD
April 22, 2009 2:29 pm

The Hansen-Gore Maximum,
the Landscheidt Minimum.

Stephen
April 22, 2009 2:31 pm

Landscheidt Minimum

April 22, 2009 2:32 pm

Credit Crunch Minimum

Peter Plail
April 22, 2009 2:33 pm

The Clearasil minimum – not spots

realitycheck
April 22, 2009 2:34 pm

If you are going to use Gore or Hansen, I think you should go with idea above of “Gore Maximum” or “Hansen Maximum”.
My suggestion is the “Elephant Minimum” – like the Elephant in the room that (most) missed or ignored.

jorgekafkazar
April 22, 2009 2:35 pm

Adolfo Giurfa (13:19:27) : “I would prefer to call it after Paul D. Jose, the ‘Jose’s Minimum.’ See his work: http://www.giurfa.com/jose.pdf
Jose, can you see by the dawn’s early light…any real sunspots, yet?

Domingo Tavella
April 22, 2009 2:36 pm

I live in California, where we have had one of the coldest Winters in memory. I wonder if that is due to the dimming of the Sun. At any rate, it seems pretty clear that the cold spell in CA shows what is plain and obvious: The Earth is cooling off much faster than anticipated.

Lance
April 22, 2009 2:37 pm

I refuse to acknowledge Gore or Hansen. They have created enough havoc on the Earth.
Perhaps Willie Soon Minimum? He deals a lot with Solar Physics!

Rob R
April 22, 2009 2:38 pm

landscheit-svaalgard minimum

Ray
April 22, 2009 2:38 pm

The Hathaway Minimum

John Galt
April 22, 2009 2:41 pm

If Leif Svalgaard correctly predicted this, then he should get credit.
However, let’s wait until it’s over and see if that also matches predictions. It’s too early to give full credit at this time. Maybe the ‘Svalgaard Modern Minimum’ for now.

John Galt
April 22, 2009 2:43 pm

I’d like to change my vote and submit ‘Nothing to do with Climate Change Solar Minimum’ as an entry..

April 22, 2009 2:44 pm

The Tom Paine Minimum, since sunshine warmers will be replaced with winter soldiers.
Or, obviously, the watts minimum!

geoff pohanka
April 22, 2009 2:44 pm

Certainly do not name it after Gore, we want to reserve his name for the dust bin of history.
What is amazing is that the AGW crowd could give credit to the sun for causing cooling but not the warming of the late 20th century.
If lower solar activity causes cooling, then clearly the reverse is also true, increases solar activity causes warming.
But this crowd just can’t give an inch.

Konrad
April 22, 2009 2:45 pm

My vote is for the Gore Minimum. One selfish reason is that I printed a T-shirt last year that reads The Gore Minimum – An Inconvenient Ice Age, which I wear to annoy warmists at parties. It features a list of previous minimums and a nice picture of the quiet sun in cool blue.
The more serious reason is that the world needs to remember the stupidity of these recent years. While naming for a scientist may initially seem more proper, I feel we need a reminder of how the good folk of science allowed evil to triumph. Choosing the Gore Minimum as a name is not about making jokes about one man. It is about leaving a permanent reminder to future generations to separate science from politics, just as we now know to separate religion and state.

DaveE
April 22, 2009 2:48 pm

Landscheidt Minimum in honour of his predictions of the current low activity.
Otherwise Svalgård Minimum
Regarding any effects. IF there are any, (through mechanisms unverified), I would expect a several year delay.
DaveE.

jlc
April 22, 2009 2:54 pm

The “Lief-us-alone” minimum in honour of WUWTs know-it-all genius.

BCH
April 22, 2009 2:55 pm

Probably “Landscheidt” as the first word but we can’t have “minimum”.
After all, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is now officially the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA).
Clearly, since the GCM’s didn’t predict it, it must be an anomaly.
My vote: Landscheidt Spot Anomaly
(Which, unfortunately, sounds a bit like something that you may need antibiotics to treat.)

DaveE
April 22, 2009 2:55 pm

“Dan Murphy (12:17:02) :
Speaking of that, Leif mentioned in another recent thread that Hathaway had publicly admitted in an e-mail that he (Leif) was right and Hathaway wrong. I do extend my congratulations to him, and suggest that in this circumstance it is perfectly acceptable to feel vindicated, and indeed, perhaps even a bit smug. This should rightly give Leif immense personal and professional satisfaction.”
I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Hathaway for his honour. It takes a big man to admit being wrong.
Unfortunately, a bigger Mann won’t!
DaveE

Editor
April 22, 2009 2:57 pm

Actually, the “What’s Up With That?” minimum fits pretty well, capturing both the real and the pretend quizzicality of the alarmists who intentionally ignored 500 million years of correlation between solar activity and climate to claim that late 20th century warming was due to CO2.
It also captures the quizzicality of the general public, which was kept in the dark about the well known correlation between solar activity and climate, as they get to slowly learn what is up with that.

April 22, 2009 2:59 pm

The Watts Wane.

DaveE
April 22, 2009 3:02 pm

As regards the Goracle…
To name the minimum would be an honour… however… The Gore Pessimum is a description of the ill effects.
DaveE.

Bruce
April 22, 2009 3:03 pm

The “Mother Nature Spits In Hansen/Gore/AGW Faces Minimum”.

Feedback
April 22, 2009 3:05 pm

The Mata Hari Minimum?
The Muffled Madman Minimum?
The Mann from Massachusetts Minimum?
The Missing Puck Minimum?
The Monster in the Model Minimum?
And the winner is….
The Svalgaard Minimum.

Ray
April 22, 2009 3:05 pm

DaveE (14:48:45) :
“… I would expect a several year delay.”
Maybe we haven’t reached the true minimum yet. What kind of starter/force/mechanism can get a sun restarting? Could there be a partial collapse that could restart the internal processes?

urederra
April 22, 2009 3:07 pm

Tom (13:54:47) :
Please not Gore, or Hansen. Those frauds have already received far too much publicity. Let us not make their name remembered any more than they would be anyway.

Agreed 100 %
I voted Svalgard because I have read his comments here and at CA. But I am afraid I am not qualified to be the St. John of minima.

jorgekafkazar
April 22, 2009 3:09 pm

Mike Bryant (13:18:09) : (varjious comjments)
I rjeally mjust stojp sijppijng tjea bejfffffore rjeadinjg yjour cjommenjts. Ljook wjhat jyou dijd tjo mjy kjeybjoard!

EricH
April 22, 2009 3:12 pm

It just has to be Landscheit Minimum. The evidence is overwhelming.
Please Anthony put Landscheit on the voting list.
Enjoy.

jorgekafkazar
April 22, 2009 3:12 pm

But what’s wrong with “The Dr. Hathaway Says There’s Nothing Wrong with the Sun Minimum?”
Just kidding, David. ☺

April 22, 2009 3:14 pm

First, it is not clear when a minimum should be called a Grand Minimum. Solar activity 100 years ago was low too and we are likely to get down to at least that low level of activity. The Dalton minimum was perhaps [although our data is poor] a tad deeper, and may be called a Grand minimum too, but I personally think that we should reserve ‘Grand Minimum’ for the ones that are REALLY deep like the Maunder. Perhaps one can still name some minima without requiring them to be ‘Grand’, so we could still have a Dalton Minimum [1810], a Gleissberg minimum [1910] , an Eddy Minimum [for the coming one, 2020]. Since these minima have come about every 100 years for a while now, it is no big feat to ‘predict’ one [my little grandson Peter did that several years ago just by looking at http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html ].

April 22, 2009 3:21 pm

Off Topic Heads-Up
Air pollution helps plants blunt climate change: study
LINK to Story

“Surprisingly, the effects of atmospheric pollution seem to have enhanced global plant productivity by as much as a quarter from 1960 to 1999,” said Linda Mercado, a researcher at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Britain, and the study’s lead author.
“This resulted in a net ten percent increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land,” she said in a statement.

April 22, 2009 3:22 pm

There’s a lot of humor here – and I do appreciate that. But — Gore Minimum would give the man exactly what he wants – immortality. Even if not quite the way he’d most want it to happen. The best revenge on Gore is to ignore him – and allow his memory to fade into history as a loser and a non-entity.
For that reason, my vote was for Svalgaard.
One possibility that everyone seems to have overlooked was Aaron Wildavsky, who said that Global Warming was the mother of all environmental scares. But not many people remember that today. And it wasn’t directly related to the subject at hand.

Austin
April 22, 2009 3:23 pm

As much as the “Gore Minimum” has a yuk-yuk factor, Leif and Landscheidt should get the credit.
Perhaps call this one the Svaalbard Minimum with Landsheidt Cycle covering the phenomenon.

Jeff Alberts
April 22, 2009 3:24 pm

I vote for the “Much Ado About Nothing Minimum”.

Feedback
April 22, 2009 3:28 pm

Only ONE more try pleeese….
The Roll over Rasmus Minimum

April 22, 2009 3:28 pm

Man’s Minimum.
(Plays with Mann, and Man’s influence.)

April 22, 2009 3:30 pm

I proudly vote for the Svalgaard Minimum. Who cares if people can’t spell it today. It’s time to learn.
Bruce H

April 22, 2009 3:32 pm

Leif Svalgaard (15:14:38) :
… but I personally think that we should reserve ‘Grand Minimum’ for the ones that are REALLY deep like the Maunder. …. Since these minima have come about every 100 years for a while now, it is no big feat to ‘predict’ one [my little grandson Peter did that several years ago just by looking at http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html ].
—–
OK, so, can we use “The Grandsum’s Mini-Minimum” ? 8<)
Please?

Steve R
April 22, 2009 3:32 pm

Anthony, you are being too modest here! WUWT has done more to promote awareness of this minimum than anyone. You deserve the honour. I propose “Watts Minimum”. This name has the additional benefit of reminding the general public that the suns’s output has reached a minimum wattage….

Retired Engineer
April 22, 2009 3:34 pm

I’m not sure having a minimum named after you is an honor, with the potential climate side effects. And we don’t know if we really have a minimum. Leif deserves recognition for his expertise and contributions. Al Gore, who might understand 0.0001% of the problem deserves something else.

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 3:34 pm

In Aeschylus’ Eumenides, the repeated moaning of the letter Mu is the sound made by the sleeping Furies, or Erinyes which literally means ‘the angry ones’.
Since the angry sun is now sleeping it is obviously moaning Mu when you listen to the radio waves converted to sound waves. I am certain that Leif will back me up on that. With that I nominate:
Mu Minimum… another palindrome of course.

Tom in Florida
April 22, 2009 3:39 pm

If I were a AGW believer I would name it the “Masking Minimum”. But I’m not so I’ll go with the “Inconvenient Minimum”. Let’s hope no one will ever have to re-name it the “Final Minimum”.

david atlan
April 22, 2009 3:40 pm

How about :
‘The moving minimum’ (also with a footnote) or the
‘drowing polar bear minimum’ (which would also require a footnote)
or the Svalgaard-Watts minimum

Leon Brozyna
April 22, 2009 3:41 pm

My choice is for Leif.
A man can know he’s right, despite what all around him may say. He may know he’s right and feel a certain satisfaction in knowing he knew. Dr. Svalgaard put himself out there with his view that a change was coming, yet he’s not gone to extremes of fantasy; he’s adhered to solid science. It’s only fitting that he be so recognized for his work in this fashion.
Let it be the Svalgaard Minimum.

Thom Scrutchin
April 22, 2009 3:43 pm

I immediately thought of the Gore Minimum. Then I recalled that Apple tried to give the code name Sagan to an internal project. Carl Sagan had a hissy fit and threatened to sue.. They renamed the project Butthead Astronomer. We could just skip the middle step and call it Tje Butthead Politician Minimum.

pft
April 22, 2009 3:46 pm

They probably will call it the Deniers Minimum. But with all that CO2 in the air, this should protect us from getting too cold, right?. Of course, if it does get cold despite CO2’s thin blanket near the surface, it’s just a matter of time before they tell us CO2 enhances Global Cooling brought about from the suns inactivity by releasing heat from the upper troposphere to space, and risks plunging the world into an ice age which would have even more dire consequences than Global Warming. It’s truly an Orwellian world we live in.

Ray
April 22, 2009 3:47 pm

What about the Catlin Minimum?… because they are experiencing first hand its effect and how it will be if it stays like that.

April 22, 2009 3:49 pm

The more I think about it, the better I like it:
The Svalgaard-Landscheidt Anomalous Minimum
It even comes with a nifty acronym:
SLAM

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 3:53 pm

Since know one knows yet the scale of this minimum, how about,
The Enigma Minimum
or
The Conundrum Minimum

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 3:55 pm

The It’s In The Pipeline Minimum

Jeff L
April 22, 2009 3:56 pm

1 spot yesterday, already faded away.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
Does anyone know if it was a cycle 23 or cycle 24 spot?

David S
April 22, 2009 3:58 pm

Definitely The Gore Minimum.

Ryan Welch
April 22, 2009 4:03 pm

My vote is for the Eddy Minimum. The huckster AL Gore does not deserve to have his name on toilet paper. The credit should go to a scientist (not a politician) who originally discovered the object. In this case Eddy. My second choice would be Landscheit Minimum.

Tim
April 22, 2009 4:07 pm

The McIntyre “ITOLDyaso” minimum

Feedback
April 22, 2009 4:09 pm

Re: many
Don’t like the Gore Minimum at all – Svalgaard, Watts, Landscheidt et al are all better.
Don’t confuse Al Gore with “the Gore Effect” – that’s something different. It’s speculation-proof protection provided by the real world.

MikeW
April 22, 2009 4:10 pm

At first I thought Gore Minimum was a cinch. Then I realized that considering the speed with which history always gets rewritten (and not in a good way), it would soon turn into yet another honor for him. Not!
So I humbly propose it be called… The Igno Minimum.
It’s been studiously ignored as the whole planet has caught a chill. It will aslo have much of the scientific/political world deserving of shame and disgrace in thier ignominy.
Mike

crosspatch
April 22, 2009 4:13 pm

Why is everyone predicting such a dramatic minimum? Maybe it is going to be just like Leif predicts it will be … a regular cycle, just smaller than the ones we have seen in recent history but nothing unprecedented.
REPLY: This is mostly just for fun. See the tag “fun stuff”. – Anthony

Robert Wood
April 22, 2009 4:17 pm

Tough call there. I wanted to call “Gore” out of irony but Leif does something useful, and actually predicted a down-turn in solar activity.
Now, Leif studies the Sun; there appear to be very few who study the interaction of Sun and Earth and Moon. Probably a whole fresh new arena for PhD dissertations 🙂

J Sumrall
April 22, 2009 4:17 pm

Bare Minimum
or
Carbon Minimum
or
Landscheidt Minimum

April 22, 2009 4:17 pm

Danish Minimum. Honoring Svensmark, Svalgaard, and Lomborg.
Lomborg goes along with the “science” of AGW but has done
more than anyone else to break down the political side of AGW.

bill-tb
April 22, 2009 4:18 pm

Gore minimum.
I think tying Gore to the sun behavior is the kiss of death to the AGW crappie.

Robert Wood
April 22, 2009 4:22 pm

Ken Hall @ 11:56:47
A fine piece of rhetoric. Not hard science, but political science; you put it in the nutshell!

groweg
April 22, 2009 4:27 pm

Its nice to see that some in the “mainstream media” are finally catching on that the sun’s activity is at a very low ebb and that might have consequences for the earth’s climate going forward.
What puzzles me is how many highly educated supporters of AGW are so dense as to not understand any of the compelling evidence against global warming. Things like that the length of the solar cycle is highly and negatively correlated to the earth’s temperature (and we are now at or near the end of a distinctly long solar cycle), that over geological time CO2 levels followed rather than preceded temperature change (making it virtually impossible that CO2 levels drove climate change in the past), that relying on computer models never successfully tested on “out-of-sample” data is foolhardy, etc.
Many of the AGW crowd have Ph.D.’s in hard sciences yet they are espousing a cause that (to me) defies common sense. Furthermore, are pushing a regulatory agenda that is environmentally meaningless and will be an economic disaster. Why can’t they figure out what Charles Osgood and us at this website already know?

Bill P
April 22, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: The Igno Minimum
Nice.

SpringwaterKate
April 22, 2009 4:29 pm

I like either Landscheidt Minimum (scholarly) or Inconvenient Minimum (ironic).
Although Leif predicted fewer sunspots, my impression is that he’s not at all convinced that this will even be a minimum, let alone predicting it as such.
I also like the Watts Minimum since Anthony has brought a wider audience to this subject than anyone, and it’s quite catchy with its double entendre.
Some of the other options (Landscheidt, Inconvenient, Watts) need to be added to the Poll so that over the next few days we have a level playing field for the various choices. In fact, why not replace Gore and Hansen with them? Like so many others, the idea of recognizing either of them in any way just leaves me cold….
Kate

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 4:29 pm

The Clearly Alarming Minimum, The Alarmingly Accelerating Minimum, The Alarmingly Decelerating Minimum, The Climate Catastrophe Minimum, The Meltdown of Sanity Minimum, The Miracle Minimum, The Minimized Minimum, The Minimal Minimum, The Maximum Minimum, The Pre-Max Minimum, The Ultimate Minimum, The Penultimate Minimum, The Marginally Alarming Minimum, The Marginal Minimum, The Insignificant Minimum, The Minor Minimum, The Negligible Minimum, The Underrated Minimum, The Overrated Minimum, The Untimely Minimum, The Opportune Minimum, The Inopportune Minimum, The Embarrassing Minimum…
OK enough fun with the Thesaurus…

Wansbeck
April 22, 2009 4:31 pm

The Leif Lull

Trevor
April 22, 2009 4:31 pm

Landscheidt minimum

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 4:32 pm

If we call it the Gore Minimum it will undoubtedly snow on the sun’s surface.

Shaun
April 22, 2009 4:35 pm

A lot of people seem to assume that this means cooling. As far as I can see Leif isn’t saying that. I await with interest to see what happens. One name that isn’t mentioned as far as I can see is Fairbridge. I think Landscheit owes something to him.

ujagoff
April 22, 2009 4:36 pm

I wrote in “Inconvenient Minimum”, but almost submitted “The Shinola Minimum” since it would be interesting to see if Gore and his flock could differentiate solar phenomena from the warm steamy Sins of Mankind Theory

Jeremy
April 22, 2009 4:37 pm

The Mote in Gore’s Eye

Robert Wood
April 22, 2009 4:39 pm

Following up the idea from David Quist @ 12:17:53:
The Canute Minimum.

Douglas DC
April 22, 2009 4:40 pm

Leif fer sure,I dissagree with some of what he says,but by training I’m a Biologist,not a
Solar expert and never used my degree,,,
No Gore or Hansen-maybe name the Ice field covering Chicago,after one of them,
but not this minimum…

Feedback
April 22, 2009 4:41 pm

Re Mike Bryant (16:32:58) :
If we call it the Gore Minimum it will undoubtedly snow on the sun’s surface.
*ROTFL*

Andrew
April 22, 2009 4:41 pm

How about the “SOHO Minimum”
Most of the sun freckles that keep resetting the spotless days count are only visible from its images.

Robert Wood
April 22, 2009 4:43 pm

Just a thought: What is Gore’s Truth Footprint 🙂

RoyfOMR
April 22, 2009 4:44 pm

After casting my vote, and then experiencing the all-too-rare feeling of ‘Yehah’ that inevitably accompanies the inward satisfaction that can only be met by picking the best candidate- all I can add is a humble appeal to maintain a noble, respectfull and mature approach that respects all the candidates for this particular award.
Leif, Leif you’re the man. Kick ’em in the biosphere. If you can!

Jerry Haney
April 22, 2009 4:44 pm

I voted for the Svalgaard Minimum, for an honest scientist, who has been generous with his time on this site, as well as for his prediction.
Jerry Haney

sky
April 22, 2009 4:47 pm

How about the Gored Watts minimum?

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 4:48 pm

I asked my wife if she had a suggestion for the name of the new minimum… She said “Bob”… no “The”, no “Minimum” just… “Bob”… then she made me promise to put it in comments here. I suggested “Robert” because it’s more formal but she said, “No, Bob.” So here it is:
“Bob”
Reply: Do you really want to go there? ~ charles the moderator

April 22, 2009 4:52 pm

If you want to name something after Gore, why not using that name for designating any exhaust, chimneys, ….also those…, any death or living duct expelling the so called “green house gases”

meemoe_uk
April 22, 2009 4:53 pm

Isn’t it whoever’s prediction is most accurate?
Last year I bagsied Octember 2009, which is Archibald’s prediction plus 2.5 months to compensate for the Dec2007\Jan2008 1st SC24 spot being so weak that most obsevation tools over the last 300 years probably wouldn’t have seen it. We’re using the ‘min is 10 to 20 months after 1st spot of new cycle’ rule here btw. This rule disqualifies Svalgaard’s assertion of min = August 2008 from the running btw.
So looks like it’ll be the meemoe_uk minimum.
Rock on!

April 22, 2009 4:53 pm

Gore already was handed the Nobel prize and the carbon credit franchise, no need to swell his head any more: click

meemoe_uk
April 22, 2009 4:57 pm

Great comments btw everyone. Funny thread!

Bobby W
April 22, 2009 4:57 pm

“Gore (as a bull) Obama Minimum”

Wansbeck
April 22, 2009 4:58 pm

As many here will know, King Canute ordered back the sea not because he believed he had that power but to demonstrate the opposite to his more sycophantic courtiers.
Most people are unaware of this and Canute is now considered a joke.
The ‘Gore Minimum’ may well lead to future generations believing that our Al was a great scientist.
Beware!

Editor
April 22, 2009 5:00 pm

Not Gore!!! In the scientific arena, he is, was, and must remain an absolute nobody.
The first scientist to predict the minimum (and get the mechanism right) should get the credit, and from what I have read here, that is likely to make it the
Landscheidt Minimum.

April 22, 2009 5:07 pm

Any takers for The Ironic Minimum

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 5:08 pm

Perhaps an English motorcar company could use the occasion to promote their wares.
As the sun is viewed through the fog by an older lady, A young gent pulls alongside her in his convertible. As she carefully looks at the sun and shades her eyes she says,
“It’s spotless, I tell you, it’s spotless…” He says,
“Why of course…
It’s a Cooper Mini, Mum…”
Place Groan here_______________________

Harry
April 22, 2009 5:12 pm

Name the current solar minimu “The Gorical Minimum”.

Britannic no-see-um
April 22, 2009 5:15 pm

Just another offering- Ulysses Solar Cycle
The last report I can find on this magnificently successful scientific mission includes this comment
‘ (After more than 17 years…) The mission is expected to end by 1 July. Once it is clear that the fuel needed to keep the main antenna pointing towards Earth has started to freeze, ground controllers will put Ulysses into a stable configuration. It will continue to orbit the Sun indefinitely.’
See
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMUBG1A6BD_index_0.html

Robert Wood
April 22, 2009 5:15 pm

Andrew @16:41:35 said”
Most of the sun freckles that keep resetting the spotless days count are only visible from its images.
Good point. So-called SP 1015 was only visible in SOHO , optically and magnetically. This was not observed from Earth. It would not have been seen 300 years ago.
Leif, your thoughts?

pkatt
April 22, 2009 5:16 pm

I have a compromise lets call the double peak of the last maximum the gore whatever..and call the minimum by the guy who went against the masses and actually predicted the thing.

George Gillan
April 22, 2009 5:16 pm

“What should we call the current solar minimum?”
How about the Gore-Hole
🙂

George E. Smith
April 22, 2009 5:22 pm

Speaking of solar mimima; the available satellite measurments of “The Solar Constant” or TSI, covering almost three sunspot cycles but unfortunately from several satellites; it is apparent, that over a typical sunspot cycle the TSI has a P-P amplitude cycle of about 0.1%; around 1 1/2 W/m^2, and many people think (including me) that that 0.1% doesn’t really have much temperature impact on earth climate.
But nevertheless it IS a 1.4-1.6 W/m^2 climate “forcing” to use that silly term from the climate cult lexicon.
It is interesting to ask what real down to earth effect could create some similar magnitude forcing.
I have often said that the whole GIStemp/HADcrut “anomaly average is a farce since the earth’s thermal infrared radiation is not a linear function of temperature, and therfore mean temperature means nothing. If one took the mean of the fourth power of temperature; that might relate to the total earth radiant emittance, since any surface element should follow a Black Body like function with some spectral emmissivity factor added.
So averaging the 4th power of temperature (K) makes more sense than averaging anomalies which mean nothing.
This leads further to the practice of ignoring cyclic changes in temperature.
If some station’s owl box reports a daily min max temp from which one takes the daily mean, and reports that (anomaly); how far wrong is that report. Well it is wrong because of the daily temperature cycling, and the non linear variation of radiant emittance with temperature.
So let’s assume some mean station temperature (To) Kelvins and assume a daily sinusoidal temperature cycle of amplitude (t) deg,
So we can write the instantaneous Temperature as T = To + t sin (a) where (a) goes from zero to 2pi radians or equivalently zero to 24 hours cycle period.
We want to take T^4 as a function of 9a) and integrate it over the complete cycle.
So T^4 = {To + t sin (a)}^4 = To^4 + 4To^3 tsin (a) + 6To^2 t^2 sin^2 (a) + 4 To t^3 sin^3(a) + t^4 sin^4 (a) ; and we want to integrate that from
0<(a)<2pi radians or 24 hours if we want to use time instead.
Now we know that odd powers of sin integrate to zero over a full cycle, so the second and fourth terms disappear. Also (To) is say +15 deg C or 288.15K and (t) is maybe a few degrees, so the last 4th power term is going to be negligible compared to the squared term.
So we have; Integral (T^4) d(a) = integral To^4 [1 + (t/To)^2 sin^2 (a) ] d(a) which comes out to 2pi To^4 [1 + 3(t/To)^2] for (a) = 0 to 2pi or simply
To^4 x period [ 1 + 3 (t/To)^2 ] where period is the total integration period which is also the period (P) of the sinusoidal cycle or for that matter, any number of full cycles.\
It is left as an exercise for the reader to show that we get essentially the same result for ANY cyclic function, so long as we integrate over an integral number of complete cycles; and of course (To) has to be the real average value of (T) over any such cyclic variation.
So if there is no cyclic variation, then the integral is simply:
P x T^4 = P x To^4
BUT if (t) has any non zero value, then the integral has an always positive increase over the integral of the average, and so the total emitted radiant energy over such a cycle will be under-reported if you simply take the average temperature.
So how much of a daily temperature cycle does it take to under-report the “forcing” by the same 0.1% that we get from the solar sunspot cycle variation of TSI.
We simply have to put 3(t/To)^2 = 0.001, giving (t/To) = 0.01826 .
Since To is say 288.15 K (15 C) then (t) is 5.26 deg C.
Remember this is the amplitude of the temperature cycle, so the peak to peak temperature change is 10.52 deg C to get the same “forcing” as the sunspot cycle TSI variation. That’s about 19 deg F, which is certainly in the range of ordinary day/night temperature cycles almost anywhere on earth; and in the hotter dry desert regions, you can easily see 60 deg F overnight temperature drops and more, which is three times as high.
Don’t forget the “forcing” goes as the temperature cycle squared so suddenly we have a 1% effect over dry desert areas.
Don’t forget, that over a longer cycle, namely a full seasonal cycle, the total (t/To) range is now much bigger, and the effect of the standard practice of ignoring cycles and simply averaging the anomalies, is to grossly underreport the total radiation energy emitted from the planet, which translates into overestimating the mean equilibrium global temperature.
Like I have said before GISStemp is nonsense.
Those cycles are important. I forgot to say, that when the periodic temperature cycling is not sinusoidal, the (3) factor in the 3(t/To)^2 term will change to some other value.
George

Aelric
April 22, 2009 5:23 pm

The anthropogeneousorbiscaloraphobia minimum
(i.e. the sun got disgusted and went to sleep)

April 22, 2009 5:31 pm

Very interesting to see how many people mentioned Landscheidt, but didnt have a chance to vote on it. Personally I think Jose will go down in history as the man who truly discovered the recurring grand minima pattern…his time will come.
I know this is just fun, but cant understand why Svalgaard would rate a mention. He has only predicted one low cycle 24 at about 72 SSN. That is not anywhere near a grand minimum. My definition of a grand minimum is at least 2 very low cycles that occur between high cycles, the early 1900’s type event does not qualify.

Pamela Gray
April 22, 2009 5:31 pm

Leif gets my vote. I think it should stand alone as a minimum in its own right and not be connected to arguments, one side or the other, about Earth’s temperature. It should be purely about the Sun.

Bill Illis
April 22, 2009 5:36 pm

In terms of how the current low solar activity has affected temperatures so far – it is probably closing in on -0.1C now.
Total Solar Irradiance (from the SORCE solar instrument) has declined from 1361.8 Watts/m^2 (solar max) to 1360.8 Watts/m^2 (current).
In the short-term, this would translate into 0.3C per W/m^2 * -1.0 W/m^2/4 = -0.1C.
It may still take a little longer for the full effect of this to occur since it is thought there is some lag before the surface oceans and the land surface cools down etc. If it continued for several more years, the effect might bump up to 0.2C or so.
So, it isn’t much unless it lasts much longer or solar activity falls even farther.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?ION__E1=PLOT%3Aplot_tsi_data.ion&ION__E2=PRINT%3Aprint_tsi_data.ion&ION__E3=BOTH%3Aplot_and_print_tsi_data.ion&START_DATE=1950&STOP_DATE=2500&TIME_SPAN=6&PLOT=Plot+Data

MattE
April 22, 2009 5:39 pm

I prefer the Grand Minimum. They’ve been calling the recent ‘hot’ sun the “Grand Maximum,” so that seems the proper title to me. On the other hand, I’m all for giving Leif some credit

April 22, 2009 5:45 pm

Geoff Sharp (17:31:07) :
My definition of a grand minimum is at least 2 very low cycles that occur between high cycles, the early 1900’s type event does not qualify
By that definition 1831 was not during the Dalton Minimum…

INGSOC
April 22, 2009 5:45 pm

Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the great province of British Columbia, I cast all one of my delegates, to the next great minimum of the whole world, for Dr. Svalgaard!
Cheers!

April 22, 2009 5:46 pm

Landscheidt-Fairbridge Minimum. They were the original predictors. But probably it’ll be called the Eddy minimum, or if we’re lucky, the Eddy-Svalgaard minimum. I guess the official namers won’t even know Svensmark let alone Landscheidt or Fairbridge.
Unexpected Minimum, Unwelcome Minimum, Unpredicted Minimum, Unpredictable Minimum, Unstoppable Minimum, Unalterable Minimum, Unimaginable Minimum, Untaxable Minimum.
Inappropriate Minimum, Inconvenient Minimum, Invincible Minimum, Indefensible Minimum, Incognito Minimum, Indolent Minimum.
Eeny minimummy mo
Catch a warmist by his toe
If he hollers let him go
Eeny minimummu mo.

Howard Barlow
April 22, 2009 5:46 pm

Gore-Hansen Minimum

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 5:50 pm

Al Gore was overheard recently as he was talking on the phone…
“Man, if old man sun don’t wake up pretty soon, it’s gonna cost us a whole lotta money… Do you hear what I’m saying? Get with your scientist buddies right away and let’s get a bunch of studies coming out!!… Ya, like maybe thirty, studies… I want four or five of them things coming out every week for the next six or eight weeks… I don’t CARE what it’ll cost… Get it done NOW. And when are those Catlin guys gonna make a splash… We can’t just lollygag along here… Let’s get this show on the road…”
Because of the sensitive nature of this material I am not at liberty to discuss how it was acquired, however IF I was at liberty, I would say that I just made it up…

John H
April 22, 2009 5:54 pm

Do scientist know for sure that the sun is not dying?
Suppose the dimming continues?
That can’t be good.
Will NASA and NOAA try to re-ignite it?
Or do we all have to relocate to that new planet that was found?
Will be on one of the first escape spaceships?

INGSOC
April 22, 2009 5:54 pm

Folks will figure it was named after some guy named Eddy Svalgaard! LOL

April 22, 2009 5:54 pm

Leif Svalgaard (17:45:09) :
By that definition 1831 was not during the Dalton Minimum…
It was the tail end. SC5 & SC6 are a product of SC4 and are considered in my book true grand minimum. SC7 was more like a weak SC20 and contributed to the cooling in a similar fashion as SC20. For those who dont understand what causes a grand minimum this might seem hard to grasp, but there are very good reasons, that I wont go into here.
So do you think you should have your name on the upcoming grand minimum?

Jeremy
April 22, 2009 5:56 pm

How about “The Kyoto Diminution”

Herbert
April 22, 2009 5:57 pm

I suggest:
“The Gavin Schmidt Minimum”
“The Team MiniMann”
“The Concensus Minimum”
“The Settled Science Minimum”
“The Debate is Over minimum”
“The Denialist Minimum”
“The WUWT Minimum”
Thanks
Herbert

David L. Hagen
April 22, 2009 5:57 pm

Endorse
Mark (11:58:10) :
Landscheidt minimum after Theodore Landscheidt.
http://itsonlysteam.com/articles/landscheidt_minimum_part2.html
(Strongly VETO Gore Minimum or Hansen Minimum as they have not done anything deserving of being honored by a notable Solar cycle.
However you are welcome to call record COLD or Precipitation records by gore/hansen which are associated with the Landscheidt Minimum.)

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 6:02 pm

Ok… if the Grand Maximum just happened… and Leif undoubtedly has called this recent downturn… and I think we can all agree that Leif is a grand person…
And also life is grand… maybe “Leif is Grand Minimum” is OK because it’s not really saying that the minimum is grand…. uhhhh I lost track of what I was saying but I think it’s all in there somewhere….

François GM
April 22, 2009 6:17 pm

Unprecedented minimum.

April 22, 2009 6:22 pm

Geoff Sharp (17:54:54) :
“By that definition 1831 was not during the Dalton Minimum…”
It was the tail end. SC5 & SC6 are a product of SC4 and are considered in my book true grand minimum.

But don’t fit your scheme as they are twenty years off. You should then change your Figure to say 1811 instead of 1831.

April 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Geoff Sharp (17:54:54) :
“By that definition 1831 was not during the Dalton Minimum…”
It was the tail end. SC5 & SC6 are a product of SC4 and are considered in my book true grand minimum.

But don’t fit your scheme as they are twenty years off. You should then change your Figure to say 1811 instead of 1831. and 1811+172 = 1983 hmmm, I can now see why you try to slip in 1831 instead of 1811…

JohnD
April 22, 2009 6:27 pm

I’d offer “Won’t-Get-Fooled-Again Minimum”, but the phrase mocks itself.
Get on the band wagon for…
Mike Bryant (12:46:57) :
The Inconvenient Minimum

April 22, 2009 6:34 pm

I didn’t have time to read every suggestion,so I may be duplicating someone else.
There is only one name for this minimum.
It’s the WATT MINIMUM. Well maybe the Watt’s Up Minimum. With over 7 million hits, you deserve it.
Just start using it.

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 6:37 pm

If it’s named by the alarmists…
“The I Hope This Doesn’t Ruin Our Gravy Train Minimum”
(I tried but I couldn’t make it any shorter)

Larry Sheldon
April 22, 2009 6:42 pm

The Watt’s Down With That Minimum
The Hockey Stick
The GoreBull Maximum

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 6:42 pm

Well since he fiddled while Rome burned (at least that is the popular perception)
Why not
The Nero Minimum
Besides, it kinda goes with
The Wolf Minimum

April 22, 2009 6:46 pm

I vote for:
The Happy Minimum!
because of the undeniable element of glee with which it is being received by climate realists.
/Mr Lynn

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 6:55 pm

Mr. Lynn, Then why not The Optimum Minimum?

RLGrin
April 22, 2009 6:58 pm

I Like the “Concensus Minimum”

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 6:59 pm

Since the world is turning to collectivism…
The Minimum Wage Minimum

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 7:04 pm

Hmmmm I liked The Bare Minimum… The Polar Bear Minimum?

Hugh
April 22, 2009 7:08 pm

I vote for the Landscheidt-Svalgaard Minimum. Much as I would love to taunt Gore, this will end up being history and I don’t want to create the impression that Gore was a positive figure in all of this.

Jim Papsdorf
April 22, 2009 7:10 pm

OT: Neil Cavuto had an AGW type on today on the Fox Cable News channel and did one hell of a job confronting him in focusing on the recent reports re Antarctica ice levels.He was clearly NOT impressed with the guest’s arguments and was essentially dismissive of the points the guy was trying to make. I was VERY impressed with Cavuto’s stance !!!! Anyone else see it ?????

Frank Ravizza
April 22, 2009 7:10 pm

I voted Gore. Science needs more sarcasm.

Deanster
April 22, 2009 7:11 pm

Without Doubt .. it should be called the Landscheidt Minimum .. as he called it long before any of the pointy headed Ph.D.s in astrophysics who study the sun.
IMO, It would be a flat out injustice to call it anything other than that.

WestHoustonGeo
April 22, 2009 7:14 pm

Quoting:
“The Nero Minimum
Besides, it kinda goes with
The Wolf Minimum”
Commenting:
I get it. But I am among the few 😉

dgallagher
April 22, 2009 7:19 pm

I second Varco! It shall be called the WATT minimun.
Not only does this give proper credit to a significant climate researcher who recognised the significance of the event early on, think of the who on first fun we can have with solar deniers. We refer to the Watt minimun, they say “what minimun” we say “exactly”. When they finally admit that the sun can actually have an effect on climate and start blaming the sun for masking the intense warming that’s not happening, we can say “watt solar minimun” they call us deniers all over again.

April 22, 2009 7:19 pm

Leif Svalgaard (18:24:37) :
But don’t fit your scheme as they are twenty years off. You should then change your Figure to say 1811 instead of 1831. and 1811+172 = 1983 hmmm, I can now see why you try to slip in 1831 instead of 1811
This is not hard to understand, you are intelligent and should be able to grasp this, but we seem to be going over it again. At the risk of raising Anthony’s hackles, the 172 year pattern has a centre with usually 3 opportunities for solar downturn. The Wolf, Sporer and Maunder looked to use all 3, the Dalton used one and a bit (the centre is 1831) and this time around we are right in the centre after SC20 didn’t quite make the grade.

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 7:24 pm

NASA is calling it a Deep Solar Minimum,
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
The warmers want more ice to save the polar bears, and this minimum might be the start of more ice, so why not anagram NASA’s Deep Solar and call it:
The Polar Seed Minimum

dgallagher
April 22, 2009 7:30 pm

I vote for the WATT minimun.
Not only does this recognise Anthony’s significant contribution to climate education and research, it will provide many opportunities for who’s on first fun with solar deniers.
We mention the current solar minimun, they say “what minimun”, we say “exactly”!

Paul R
April 22, 2009 7:35 pm

I voted for the Svalgaard Minimum, Gore’s name should only be used for new models of Porta Potties, septic tanks and the like.
The Malthus Minimum might be appropriate.

Tim F
April 22, 2009 7:40 pm

Roger Knights’ “Inconvenient Minimum” is brilliant. Funny, sarcastic, satire at its best. I wish I had thought of it.

Roger Knights
April 22, 2009 7:46 pm

Eureka!
The Mooning Minimum
This has:
Alliteration and lilt (very important, because they aid memorability);
Descriptiveness (the image atop this thread looks like it’s a bald-butt “mooning” the viewer);
Sting (Nature is expressing its contempt toward its shallow and simplistic diagnosticians with a visual “raspberry”)

Robert Bateman
April 22, 2009 7:48 pm

I voted for Eddy Minimum, but I am pleased to see Dr. Svaalgard’s name on top.
He stays with us, even though he gets a devil of a time here & there.
Gore already has his reward.

gandolphxx
April 22, 2009 7:49 pm

I suppose watermelon minimum would be to obvious.

ked
April 22, 2009 7:52 pm

Landscheidt was predicting this back in the 90’s

Dan Lee
April 22, 2009 7:57 pm

Livingston-Penn minimum. If their work is confirmed by observation over time, who can say how long sunspots will remain invisible.
Could that be what happened during the Maunder minimum? If so, and if we’re entering another such phase of that cycle, then they should get the credit for spotting it.

Mark
April 22, 2009 7:59 pm

Dim Sun? Is this a new type of Chinese food?
(Sorry)

Robert Bateman
April 22, 2009 8:04 pm

Just wait until somebody digs up those Heirogyphic SOHO magnetograms from the big plage of March, 2009. You could easily sell 100 million the idea of The Handwriting on the Sun. AGW would find it’s soapbox unattended, it’s thunder stolen, in a heartbeat. Or, it could be seen dodging rotten fruit instead of shoes.

Roger Knights
April 22, 2009 8:04 pm

Tim F: Thanks for the pat on the head!!
However, although I invented “The Inconvenient Minimum” on my own, somebody else deserves equal credit, because two weeks or so ago we both submitted it at about the same time, on another thread on this site. It was during a period when comments were piling up in the moderator’s in-box and so neither of us saw the other’s submission. I was astounded and dismayed to discover, that he’d beaten me to the punch, once my comment was out of moderation. (I felt like the guy who lost out to Alexander Graham Bell by an hour at the patent office.)
Anyway, I’ve made lots of other little bits of wordplay to console me. Here’s one we can toss at the AGWAns outraged at our heresy: “Your ox is not a sacred cow.”

JFA in Montreal
April 22, 2009 8:05 pm

The WUWiT Minimum

Mike Bryant
April 22, 2009 8:07 pm

So funny that CT doesn’t support the Comparison Product any longer. Also so very far behind on the seasonal graphs that are fatally flawed. Their website is so shabby and falling apart like the AGW hypothesis itself…

Mark
April 22, 2009 8:15 pm

Interestingly they mentioned the dim sun on the Communist Broadcasting Corporation news here in Canada tonight and even had there science guru in to talk about it. But to no surprise, they made the mandatory comment at the end that this does nothing to prevent the dreaded global warming! Pathetic!!

April 22, 2009 8:19 pm

Geoff Sharp (19:19:55) :
This is not hard to understand
Indeed, it is easy, as we here have typical examples of ‘explanations’ of the type “the stock market failed to rally in spite of the good employment figures”. Descriptive after-rationalizations with no predictive power or understanding of the reasons behind what happened.
the 172 year pattern has a centre with usually 3 opportunities for solar downturn. The Wolf, Sporer and Maunder looked to use all 3, the Dalton used one and a bit (the centre is 1831) and this time around we are right in the centre after SC20 didn’t quite make the grade.
No explanations of why some used all three, one only one and a bit, and one that didn’t make the grade.
Specifically, the angular momentum graph from 1800 to 2060 includes the Dalton minimum and our present time:
http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum%201800-2060.png
If you shift the modern data left 172 years, you see that the angular momentum [AM] graphs are identical: