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.
‘An Inconveninent Minimum’ is a hoot, but I’ll be calling it the Landscheidt Minimum to give credit where credit’s due. Google it – it’s almost a fait accompli.
From the Guardian online today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/apr/23/sun-cooling-down-space-climate
“There’s even a chance, says Weiss, that we might be heading for a low as deep as the Maunder minimum of the 17th century. Either side of that trough, Europe shivered through the Little Ice Age, when frost fairs were held on the Thames and whole Swiss villages disappeared under glaciers. So should we expect another freeze?
Those who claim the rise in temperatures we’ve seen over the last century are predominantly the result of intense solar activity might argue that we should, but they’re in the minority. Most scientists believe humans are the main culprit when it comes to global warming, and Weiss is no exception. He points out that the ice remained in Europe long after solar activity picked up from the Maunder minimum. Even if we had another, similar low, he says, it would probably only cause temperatures on Earth to drop by the order of a tenth of a degree Celsius – peanuts compared to recent hikes. So don’t pack your suncream away just yet.”
So a minimum in the past caused The Little Ice Age, but a SIMILAR minimum today will be peanuts….
I must be real thick, because I cannot understand why.
The Gore Minimum sounds far too much like an honor.
I propose “The Gore Deficiency”.
If there is to be someone honored by the naming, then I go along with The Svalgaard Minimum.
How about: ‘God’s silent revenge’?
I vote for the Inconvenient Minimum, or if it has to be named after a person, the Landscheidt Minimum.
Personally I think, Landscheidt Minimum; because despite the petty remarks and criticism made by some, he was the one who predicted this 20 years ago.
It boils down to his prediction, and his prediction ONLY (not wether he had interest in astrology), and so far his prediction is holding true.
ralph ellis: “Prof Landscheidt wrote about the present Landscheidt Minimum back in 2007 (a blogger after the essay says 2005)”
Unless he has a body double, that is impossible in the relm of reality.
Landscheidt passed away in 2004, well before the current cooling was noticed as something of interest.
Roger Knights:
Funny stuff–you should be able to work something in about “Goring” that ox.
How about Landscheidt’s Inconvenient Minimum! It acknologes his prediction and still manages to poke fun at Gore without naming him.
Landscheidt minimum after Theodore Landscheidt. The man beat everyone else to the punch including Lief AND he is dead and deserves recognition.
Otherwise Svalgaard gets my vote
InGored Minimum
If in fact we are entering into a grand solar minimum, the only scientists who actually predicted the event and sounded the alarm are William Livingston and Matthew Penn; therefore, the event should be named the Livingston-Penn Minimum. If I were the editors of the Journal Science, I would very politely invite Drs. Livingston & Penn to resubmit their rejected 2006 paper for publication, updated to include recent observations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is going to have a lot of egg of its collective face if a grand solar minimum occurs and would be wise for them to start mending fences now. They can always say that they wanted more data to verify the observations.
I will now go one step further and suggest that if a grand solar minimum occurs, and that even is still not a given, Drs. Livingston & Penn be nominated for and awared a Nobel Prize in Science. A Nobel will go a long ways towards healing old wounds. When the full extent of the AGW fraud is exposed, the scientific establishment is going to need heroes and Drs. Livingston & Penn have perfect because their work was suppressed by the establishment. The good Doctors join a very exclusive company of scientists who have suffered rejection, persecution, imprisonment and even death in the cause of advancing human knowledge.
Mike
p.s. Let the term Gore Minimum become a mark of derision not to be used in polite company; an execration to be used in the same breath as Judas Iscariot or Benedict Arnold.
DH.R. (14:17:13) :
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.
I agree. Leif, being very succinct and meticulous would not want his name attached to a minimum with less than 75 SS count (discounting error bars, I expect perfection from my scientists). Then it is the maximum minimum, it inconveniently rolls off the tongue.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/22/wuwt-poll-what-should-we-call-the-current-solar-minimum/#comments
Temperatures dropped below freezing again yesterday and we are having another snowstorm in southern Alberta. This winter is so long and cold – everybody is tired of it.
I really wish the warmists were right. If it helped, I’d drive a semi to work, and leave it running all day in the parking lot.
I see in the latest screed that obesity contributes to global warming. Think I’ll have a sandwich or two, and maybe a big bowl of pasta for breakfast.
Seriously, a fun discussion re “Name the Minimum” but it is too early to name anything, imo.
Definitely not Gore, Hansen, IPCC or other climate clowns.
Science requires a degree of predictive ability – the climate clowns have NO track record of successful prediction – they haven’t even gotten the sign correct – they predicted warming and Earth is cooling.
If we can figure out who got the science right, name the Minimum, if it persists, after him or her.
In December 2006, NASA predicted SC24 would be an active one.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
Dec. 21, 2006
Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.
Excerpt:
“Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.”
Then in April 2007, this position started to shift:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html
Excerpt:
“In the cycle forecast issued today, half of the panel predicts a moderately strong cycle of 140 sunspots, plus or minus 20, expected to peak in October of 2011. The other half predicts a moderately weak cycle of 90 sunspots, plus or minus 10, peaking in August of 2012. An average solar cycle ranges from 75 to 155 sunspots. The late decline of Cycle 23 has helped shift the panel away from its earlier leaning toward a strong Cycle 24. Now the group is evenly split between strong and weak.”
Not sure I’d give a lot of points to NASA/NOAA for being on the leading edge, but by 2007 they certainly had all the bases covered.
Houston, we have a problem.
I have not studied Landsheit’s work but believe that he was among the earliest to predict cooling – but exactly when did he say would cool – by 2030, or sooner? An informed response would be appreciated.
Informally, in 2002 paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson predicted global cooling starting in 2020 to 2030, In fairness, he only had about 5 seconds to respond to my direct question during our phone call, and he based his answer on the Gleissberg Cycle. His comment is included in my Calgary Herald article of September 2002.
Excerpt:
Kyoto hot air can’t replace fossil fuels
September 1, 2002
“Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.
Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.
Only since 1975 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming.
If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
Not bad for 5 seconds work by Tim – who knows what he might have accomplished if I’d sent him an email and given him a whole 5 minutes to respond.
My point is that there appears to be some correlation of Earth “average” temperature with solar activity, and this has been a commonly held belief for hundreds of years. OK we don’t adequately understand the mechanisms – to me that means we should just work harder and see what truth prevails – to deny this relationship and aggressively promote other causes (such as CO2, like the IPCC et al) is foolish. There probably are climate drivers in addition to the Sun, some natural, some cyclical (regular or irregular) and maybe even a very small humanmade component.
Regrettably, the IPCC’s insistence on biasing the debate in favor of greenhouse gases has cost us several decades of scientific progress. Had the climate debate not been hijacked by zealots and research funding misallocated in favor of this CO2 bias, we would be much further progressed in our understanding of the true mechanisms that drive Earth’s climate.
[end of sermon]
The Colbert Minimum.
Ironic names should not be used- the only honest choice is clearly Landscheidt.
If it does turn out to be grand minumim, how about Hollywood style…
Dalton minimum 2 the return (Gore’s nemesis)
The Gorebull Minimum.
Oxymoron Minimum
Assumption: At a time when OXYgen is combining with Carbon fuel supposedly causing a future record temperature increase with over exaggerated consequences [also not occurring]…… a strange rare solar phenomenon occurs that causes the opposite result. Also: In honor of sitituations where large groups ignore all opposing scientific information to champion their cause. [See also oxymoron scientificum.]
In Response to Allan M R MacRae:
‘but exactly when did he say would cool – by 2030, or sooner? An informed response would be appreciated.’ :
Taken from Landscheidt’s paper ‘New Little Ice Age
Instead of Global Warming?’ See 11. Outlook:
“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. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong.”
Link for Allan:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html
I voted for Svalgaard Minimum. He put a lot of work into his forecast. Gore, and Hansen have nothing to do with this. More of a bad joke with them. I also liked the choice of Landscheidt Minimum, but that wasn’t on the poll. That work was done before Leif’s, so I would have voted that way if it were on the poll. Either way, both deserve serious consideration for their hard work.
Wow! 395 comments thus far.
I say call it the Gore Minimum
There was a young girl in the States who started a web blog on “Remember the Maunder”., which I can’t find now as she has gone on to college.
YOU HAVE GOT TO NAME IT AFTER HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply: Kristen Byrnes ~ charles the moderator
Michael Ronayne (04:52:00)
Good post!
Many scientific societies are indeed in need of a good personnel house-cleaning, starting from the top and on down.