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

ralf ellis (07:57:29)
“I could not find a joint Fairbridge and Shirley paper.”
See here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/

Has everyone been paying attention to the waning spots, waning white-light faculae, waning amplitude of both 10.7cm flux and GCR’s (which both rise, btw. now why do you suppose that is?), and absolutely horrid contrast on the rare SC23 & 24 spots that make it to the surface before drowning.
If this keeps up, we’ll be looking at sunspot oldies.
The Dead Sunspot Minimum.

I’m fine with your 2008.75, and I’ll let you pick any time you want for minimum.
What I am not so good with is the scarce & stillborn sunspots 1/2 year into a new cycle plus poor amplitude of both GCR’s & 10.7cm flux that is all going on at the same time.
When & why would the waning rotational signal caused by active regions turn around and start back up? What needs to happen?

Leif Svalgaard (21:30:24)
“No, this is very wrong.”
At points they appear to be ‘talking past’ one another and there are quantitative judgement errors on both sides. Are they out-on-a-limb stirring the pot on purpose to shake loose old ideas & stir up new ones? [rhetorical Q]….
My impression from delving into the details of the Usoskin, Berdyugina, et al. vs. Pelt, Brooke, Tuominen, et al. dispute is that it is raising awareness of the merits (& details) of basing statistics on alternate spatiotemporal frames — & it is easy to see how they can improve quantitative methods further, moving forward — I’ve noticed a lot of dreadfully simple errors that a good Stat 101 student wouldn’t make….
Leif: “It is an active area of research because we are trying to map the wind systems in space and time.”
This is a much better song for attracting more research funding to the field of solar science. (The “sun varies little & has little effect” tune may have been producing the opposite-of-desired effect.)
If solar scientists make a substantial discovery, I caution against using the term “surprised” in interviews. (It conveys the wrong message.)

In honor of Dick and Jane:
See Spot Run Minimum

The Fairbridge/Shirley paper can be found, and read in its entirety, at:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987SoPh..110..191F/0000191.000.html
Some thoughts (liberally qualified with “weasel words”) on this “Minimum” discussion thread:
1) It seems to me that this minimum, while pretty long, isn’t exceptionally long…yet. Perhaps too soon to start labeling it?
2) The SKY & pending CLOUD experiment (by a team at CERN?) may show that reduced solar activity as being observed now leads to increased cloud cover that reflects incident solar energy–causing measurable global cooling. In skimming the history, above, I failed to notice any commentary on this interaction/linkage. IF reduced solar activity leads to global cooling, the cosmic ray-to-cloud formation theory seems to be the best explanation that I’m aware of (not being an expert in this arena, that’s not saying much…). It seems to me that the CLOUD experiment, if done rigoursly will show, one way or other, the extent of such a solar/GW link, or refute such a link. Time will tell.
ALSO,
Related to this barycentric orbit influence/theory (aka Landscheit, Fairbridge/Shirley, etc.) is a recent paper by NASA on the same theme:
NASA/TM-2007-214817; “Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets,” by Ching-Cheh Hung, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, July 2007.
– Sorry, I lost the link, but was able to locate that on the internet.
My review of the “barycentric papers” (my summary phrase) indicates that they are not necessarily contradictory (179 yr cycle, vs. other cycle durations, etc.) when one understands the assumptions & methodology applied, etc.
The point derived from them is a possible explanation, with predictive value, of effects leading to an active or inactive sun. The mystery still remains as to what & how exactly such in/activity leads to global warming/cooling…or not. And as far as I’m aware, the CLOUD experiment is the “best” research going that might explain such a mechanism (if it exists) decisively.
If anybody has substantive comments on the above, I’m sure there’s a bunch of us eager to learn more!

The Digitus Impudicus (DI) Minimum. Or DIM for short.

Erick Barnes (09:38:03) :
Hi Leif, could you explain some of your skepticism of Planetary Influence?
Eric,
The main problem is that a cult following (religiously) believe that Leif is the ONLY voice of reason when it comes to commenting on the Sun. Their is
NO doubting he has an incredibe wealth of knowledge on solar matters.
For this he is to be commended. I particular admire the care and patience that he takes in answering peoples questions about the Sun. What is sad however, is his perverse use of this knowledge to try and shut down genuine dicussion about ideas with which he disagrees.
Here is another scientists humble response to the Gospel According to Leif.
Leif said:
1) The various followers advocate [and claim fantastic correlations] different periods: Jose, 179 yr; Geoff, 172 yr; Landscheidt, 166 yr; and more. They can’t all be right.
Ninderthana’s reply:
This also means that these times can’t all be wrong, as well! All it shows is that there are collection of planetary hypothesis as to why their appears to be correlation between the level of solar activity and the planetary alignments.
All scientific ideas take to time to evolve towards a clear picture of what might be happening. Only a scientific charlatan would try to use this uncertainty to try to stop people reporting on their particular investigations of a particular idea or theory.
Leif said:
2) A popular [but not the only one] ‘mechanism’ is ‘transfer’ of angular momentum [AM] from the Sun’s orbit to its spin and back. This mechanism is a non-mechanism because the variations of the Sun’s orbital AM is precisely balanced by a similar and opposite variation of the orbital AM of the planets, so there is no ‘extra’ AM to transfer.
Ninderthana’s reply,
Leif knows that this statement is false, provided a coupling mechanism can be found between the Jovian planets and the Sun.
The Earth Moon sysytem is an irrefutable example of such a momentum
transfer that occurs because of the tidal coupling between the Moon and the Earth’s oceans. Hence, this a statement is really just a lead into his third comment and has little or no value in this arguement.
Leif said:
3) There is no coupling mechanism to transfer AM other than tides and those are extremely small [less that 1/1000 of a meter] and act one- way only: slowing down the Sun, so can’t give rise to cycles.
Leif is completly correct in what he says here. This is the weak point of the
planetary models. There is no know way that the extremely weak tidal
forces of the planets can couple to the Sun to cause a transfer of momentum. Leif should be praised for pointing this critical point out to those who ask.
However, Leif knows that just because we can not come up with a plausible
mechanism at this time, that does not mean that that mechanism does
not exist. He is right, however, to point out that the onus is on the proponents of the planetary modelers to come up with a plausible mechanism if they want to be taken more seriously.
Leif said:
4) The magnetic polarities reverse in every cycle which is unexplained by gravitational influences [although there are variants of the planetary theories that are supposed to work with electric forces instead – which still don’t explain reversals].
The planetary models do not necessarily have to explain the magnetic pole reversals, at it possible for an internal mechanism on the Sun (e.g. a
Babcock/Leighton dynamo driven by meridional flow) to be solely
responsible for the pole reversals. In this case, the planetary models
simply act as an external forcing agent that modifies or governs the
level of activity of the internal mechanism.
Leif said:
5) Planetary theory is not needed as there are physics-based dynamo theories that give a good account of the solar cycle.
Ninderthana’s reply:
True, but that does not rule out the possibility of an external forcing mechansim. This is particularly true if the planetary models consistantly
indicate both past and future changes in the level of solar activity, something that the dynamo models have been so far been incapable of doing.
[I have data showing a correlation between these two phenomenon that spans 2000 years. I would challenge Leif to come up with predictions based on
soley on Dynamo models that could do the same.]
Leif said:
6) The practitioners of the theory advocate things that are contrary to physical laws on the assumption that perhaps there are more between heaven and earth than we know [yet] that when discovered will change the face of physics. In my book, such claims are a give-away for snake oil.
Ninderthana’s reply:
The statement above a confession of fear. Leif, has a lot invested in the
current internal dynamo models being free of any influences that are
external to the Sun. I genuinely believe that if Leif is ever confroted with
facts that are contradictory to his world view, he will reluctantly but
eventually adopt the models that best fit the observatios and data.
Leif has all the attributes of a great scientist.
However, right now he appears to petrified of the possibility that
their may [and I emphsis may] be something to the weird idea that
solar activity cycle is influenced by as yet unknown external mechanism
that is related to the planetary cycles.
Ninderthana concludes:
The proponents of the planetary models are genuine people who are trying to their best to explain what appears to be a compelling corellation between the planetary cycles and the level of solar activity. They are just following one of the great traditions of science and that is to observe nature and ask why it behaves that way.
Leif, on the other hand, prefers to ignore these extensive
observations because he cannot come up a valid physical model to explain them. This is like deliberatly wearing blinders while searching for a needle in hay stack. All I can suggest is that Leif has decided to put on these blinders because he is petrified that he might be peceived as straying from the fold of “good science” if he took them off.
I genuiely believe that Leif is a better man than this.

In honor of the AGW Alarmists:
“The Moaner Minimum”
LOL – That’s my suggestion and I’m stickin’ with it!

Ninderthana, oh very, very well said. Thank you for giving credit where credit is due on both sides, for calling out where both sides are weak, and for naming the fear.
I would only say one more thing: While one’s psychology may be very clear to others, it can take time (if it happens at all) to see oneself. If one does face one’s knee-jerk-reaction blinders, it may be tough but it is infinitely rewarding.
Leif, I’m rooting for you.