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.
How about AGM Anthropogenic Global Minimum.
Firstly as it will mark the end of AGW and secondly because mankind is obviously causing it but the alarmists are still brainstorming how the imaginary link can be forged.
Well, it really should be called the Landscheidt minimum. But if there is a comedy category, Roger Knight’s “Inconvenient Minimum” should win. Another suggestion would be the “Consensus Minimum.”
Certainly NOT the Gore Minimum.
That would immortalize that guy.
In the spirit of the fun_stuff tag, I thing the only appropriate name would be:
The WTF minimum, but that will probably not sell unless someone can think up a “scientific” acronym that resolves to WTF. —– like Where’s The Forcing?
Larry
I recommend ” Incovenient Solar Paradigm”.
OK, I know I posted a couple of reasons in support of Gore Minimum earlier, but if I were naming in recognition of a scientist then I would choose Landscheidt Minimum. I feel a few mainstream solar scientists need to remember that a good idea doesn’t care who has it.
The None-Imum.
Definitely NOT “Svalgaard Minimum”. Leif is the most outspoken critic of a possible relationship between climate and solar activity.
Why not the Watt minimum?
>>I am curious if those readers more versed in Solar Physics
>>have any expectation on when temps should start moving down.
I think Prof Landscheidt suggested a 7 year lag between solar changes and temperatures.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
I think the “Inconvenient Minimum” is the most appropriate.
.
How about the Gore-dian Minima.
A complex situation and argument that was solved at a stroke by a decisive lack of solar output.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_knot
.
Prof Landscheit himself calls this the Gleissberg Minimum, but Lanscheit Minimun sounds better to me.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
In addition, Landscheit predicts that this will be a Maunder-style Minimum, rather than a Dalton Dip.
Quote:
“So there are good reasons to expect that the coming Gleissberg minimum around 2030 will be a deep one. As there are three consecutive extrema below the quantitative threshold, there is a high probability that the event will be of the Maunder minimum type.”
End quote.
.
The ‘Bear Minimum’
The hoax buster minimum.
.
Prof Landscheidt wrote about the present Landscheidt Minimum back in 2007 (a blogger after the essay says 2005), although he acknowledges that his prediction goes back two decades.
Quote:
We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago.
End quote.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2007/06/04/new-little-ice-age-instead-of-global-warming/#more-24
.
Leif Svalgaard (22:10:28) :
Geoff Sharp (21:55:04) :
I noticed you chose not to answer my earlier question.
So do you think you should have your name on the upcoming grand minimum?
——————————————-
I would be honored, but my preference is for the Eddy minimum. Doug Biesecker has already in NASA/NOAA circles referred to the Svalgaard Minimum [possibly a bit mocking a la Hoyle’s ‘Big Bang’]. But your question is somewhat odious it seems to me.
If we are talking about a grand minimum then it is kind of ironic if your name would be associated with it. You yourself have stated if the SC24 SSN is outside of the range of 72+/- 8 then your theory and predictions are shot. A grand minimum (how we used to count them) should be 2 cylces below 50SSN if we go by the Dalton figures. But if we have one low cycle around 70SSN and it gets some sort of minimum tag like SC20 might do, then you indeed should get some credit.
The – I CAN’T BELIEVE IT’S NOT WARMING – minimum.
Those who said we should call it the “Svalgaard” have no sense of fun.
Svalgaard is of course a Dane, which gives him a lot of credit, and he did indeed foresee the present minimum better than many. So I agree that he is a relevant candidate, and definetely an ok choice.
But Svensmark Minimum is my favourite!!
Really from my heart, this scientist really deserves all the credit and respect we can give him. Ha more than anyone has done the solid basic science to give solar science a place in the global warming debate.
Hes a real good and honest scientist, give him your vote :-))
Oh all right, I’ll put my tu’ppence-ha’penny worth in & go for the “Gorey Minimum”! This is because of what will result if we follow this Messiah down his naive slime green path!
One cannot use Hansen simply because Prof John Brignell of Numberwatch has already defined the term “to Hansen”, as playing around with the data until it becomes meaningless!
There are some very naughty people out there with wicked senses of humour! Well done all.
what about the “Inconvenient Minimum” or the “lovelock minimum”?
Gore.
Landscheidt Minimum
Not sure if this has already been claimed ?
The Gore-Effect Mimimum