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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How about: The Get Real Minimum? Or, Taking Andrew Z’s point on board, the Blizzard Minimum? You could have a nice oxymoron – the Icecap Minimum?
I’ll go get on with my life now. :0)
In this topsy turvy world, the Modern Warm Period, or the Modern Optimum, is regarded as something to be feared, despite Golkany’s much-appreciated explanations of it’s many benefits. At the same time, apparently, the coming, pessimum, is looked to as something to be desired since Global Warming will be vanquished.
So I believe the optimum, or solar maximum, and the pessimum, or solar minimum, should be named in a way that illustrates this societal derangement, that will be a lesson to future generations.
The Odious Optimum, which is ending, followed by The Paradise Pessimum, in which mankind need fear the warmth no more.
Ninderthana (20:00:34) :
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
Thank you for the penetrating analysis of my perverse character and fearful motives. Nobody is trying to stop anybody, to wit the persistent and sucessful hijacking of just about any [solar related] thread by the planetary cultists. I feel it is a scientists duty to point out bad ‘science’ and such when encountered. The planetary theory was once the preferred explanation for solar cycles [or modulation] but has been found to be wanting by later research, simple as that. One can accept that no mechanism is known if the correlations are VERY good. This happened with the relation between sunspots and genomagnetic activity and aurorae, where we only really found the correct explanation sometime in the 1960s. But the correlations touted by the planetary folks are simply not good, they are lousy to b polite. There is no ‘fear’ involved. It would be great if we could incorporate planetary influence as an element in the theory, but scientific honesty does not permit me to join the bandwaggon.
Ninderthana (20:00:34) :
“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. ”
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.
It is a severe criticism to claim that I say things that I know are false, and I take great offense at that. The all important word in my statement was ‘back’ and the tidal transfer is one-way. The planetary theories require a two-way transfer for the cycles to work.
Maybe it would be prophetic to call it the “AGW Deniers’ Vindication
Minimum”
Bob
While endeavoring to understand & fairly assess Theodor Landscheidt’s works, I learned about:
1) wavelet analysis, cross-wavelet analysis, recurrence & cross-recurrence methods, …
2) wave theory, harmonics, acoustics, nonlinear dynamics, …
3) PDO, NAO, SOI, …
4) geomagnetic indices, sunspot areas, differential rotation, active longitudes, north-south asymmetry, …
5) de Vries cycle, Hale cycle, solar cycle, …
6) magnetosphere, heliosphere, ionosphere, HMF structure, cosmic ray flux, …
7) orbital dynamics, geodesics, …
8) Chandler wobble, terrestrial polar motion, variable earth rotation rate, …
9) atmospheric angular momentum, atmospheric tides, long-term ocean tide cycles, lunar nodal cycle, …
10) Dansgaard-Oeschger events, recent glacial-history reconstruction methods, …
11) homogenization of daily temperatures, spatially heterogeneous diurnal temperature range trends, …
12) Jack (John) Eddy
It’s not like I lacked education, but Landscheidt triggered voracious new learning (rate: ~1000 journal articles per year) about climate, geophysical, planetary, statistical, & solar science.
Landscheidt provided a less dull null model than the usual random one. The message transcends science and can be regarded as a bright light cast upon the limits of human willingness & ability to grapple with nonlinearity.
I propose that the next ‘grand’ minimum, whenever it occurs, be known as Landscheidt Minimum.
Furthermore:
I propose that we drop ‘grand’ in favor of ‘Eddy’, such that Oort, Spoerer, Maunder, Landscheidt, etc. will be known collectively as Eddy Minima.
– – –
Anecdote about what caused me to learn of Landscheidt’s works:
I saw projections showing that daily minimum temperatures are going to overtake daily maximum temperatures. These projections were made by an organization that calls itself an “Institute for Climate Studies”. This organization is funded by a government that has implemented a substantial carbon tax. (Note: I have verified that many other jurisdictions employ the same methodology.)
Here’s something to think about:
If modeled future nighttime temperatures are allowed to regularly exceed daytime temperatures, what effect does this have on forecasted mean temperatures if mean temperature is defined as the average of max & min?
Perhaps if these folks were more honest …
=
Mike Bryant
“How many climate scientists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”
=
Couple thousand to write computer models, couple thousand more to write grant proposals, (multiply by 3 to factor in the cost of the support staff if you’re keeping notes…), etc…..
And ONE to announce the bulb burned out instantly upon installation, despite the all the calculation….
….Explanation:
They overlooked water – apparently no one figured it was a wet bulb.
This isn’t bad news. It probably means job security – and if there is no disaster, that is not a bad thing.
– – –
Neither climate science nor solar science can provide the answers we seek as long as only a fraction of the required financial investment is being made …so until there is adequate (& stable) research funding, we have astrology…
Landscheidt Minimum
Leif Svalgaard (09:49:53) :
It is a severe criticism to claim that I say things that I know are false, and I take great offense at that. The all important word in my statement was ‘back’ and the tidal transfer is one-way. The planetary theories require a two-way transfer for the cycles to work.
Perhaps this is where the “charlatan” tag comes from. You are very aware the tidal cause is not what is important here, it is the mechanism observed in the AM conservation that needs to be addressed. You have stated yourself:
“If you were to shrink the Moon’s orbit [moving the Earth closer to the Moon] the Earth would indeed speed up because of conversation of AM (angular momentum) similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up.”
Its time to drop 2 of your standard defense mechanisms:
1. The “Carsten experiment” has no validity.
2. The Tidal effect is irrelevant.
Geoff Sharp (19:24:14) :
You have stated yourself:
“If you were to shrink the Moon’s orbit [moving the Earth closer to the Moon] the Earth would indeed speed up because of conversation of AM (angular momentum) similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up.”
I don’t know what department you are challenged in, but I have explicitly stated that I worded this clumsily. It is not the change of distance that does the trick. That is: if you by some external force change the distance it will have absolutely no effect. Tidal [or magnetic] coupling internal to the system can slow the Sun or the Earth down and increase the AM of the orbiting body, and if you go back to a time when the Moon was closer to the Earth [because the friction has not yet slowed down the Earth’s rotation], then the Earth was rotating faster.
Or I could go with The Piltdown Minimum, in celebration of a 100+ year old hoax, though on a smaller scale.
Perhaps this should be called the Livingston-Penn minimum as they have predicted it.
It is plain that anybody who finds this sits knows the consequenses of the quiet sun. While they deserve it, Landscheidt and Fairbridge likely woudn’t apreciate thier names being associated with the coming disaster. Perhaps they will be trumped by the 60 (58) miles to the TALIBAN MINIMUM.
The (pause for breath) …”OH MY GOD! We’re all going to die horribly unless we sacrifice our current civilisation on the altar of Greenery and Political Correctness” Minimum.
OMGWAGTDHUWSOCCOTAOGAPC for short.
or we could just call it Nigel….
Agree with others who think that it should be “Inconvenient Minimum”
Very Inconvenient for Mr. Gore and those who buy into his “Truths”
Haven’t read all the comments. How about…
“Mum’s the Minimum”
Like in “Mum’s the word”, that is… keep quiet, say nothing
Manbearpig Minimum
I’ll say “The first anthropogenic CO2-caused solar minimum that heated the earth” What? Don’t u believe me? According to my lolcat calculations, the CO2 (not the solar cycles) by the Lolcat effect maded the sun laugh so hard that it reduced it’s activity. So, more anthropogenic CO2 means less solar activity, that means less solar wind and a warmer earth.
Note: As far as I understand, the solar wind, because it is made of particles, absorbs/blocks/reflects away some of the quasi-constant heat-convertible radiation emitted by the sun and cools the earth. Most of the particles that absorbed/blocked/reflected the radiation and might contain some energy are repelled in space by the earth magnetic field.
This is a joke. Ted Landscheidt predicted this minimum years ago, and it is already called the “Landscheidt Minimum” by many people. A google search on the term brings up lots of pages using the term.
I find this to be an egregious and sneaky way to deny Ted his due. He was a good man who was roundly savaged by his opponents in the AGW camp during his life. As much as I respect Leif Svalgaard for his pioneering work, I, for one, find it despicable for him to try to deny Ted credit for his discovery (NOT EDDYS DISCOVERY) after his death.
w.