No we aren’t talking pianos, but Grand Solar Minimums. Today a new milestone was reached. As you can see below, we’ve been leading up to it for a few years.
(Update: based on comments, I’ve updated the graph above to show the 2004 solar max by sliding the view window to the left a bit compared to the previous graph. – Anthony)
A typical solar minimum lasts 485 days, based on an average of the last 10 solar minima. As of today we are at 638 spotless days in the current minimum. Also as of today, May 27th, 2009, there were no sunspots on 120 of this year’s (2009) 147 days to date (82%).
Paul Stanko writes:
Our spotless day count just reached 638.
What is so special about 638? We just overtook the original solar cycle, #1, so now the only cycles above this are: cycles of the Maunder minimum, cycles 5 to 7 (Dalton minimum), and cycles 10 + 12 to 15 (unnamed minimum).
Since the last one is unnamed, I’ve nicknamed it the “Baby Grand Minimum”, in much the same way that you can have a baby grand piano. We would now seem to have reached the same stature for this minimum. It will be interesting to see just how much longer deep minimum goes on.
Of course it depends on what data you look at. Solar Influences Data Center and NOAA differ by a few days. As WUWT readers may recall, last year in August, the SIDC reversed an initial count that would have led to the first spotless month since 1913:
NOAA did not count the sunspot, so at the end of the month, one agency said “spotless month” and the other did not.
From Spaceweather.com in an April 1st 2009 article:
The mother of all spotless runs was of course the Maunder Minimum. This was a period from October 15, 1661 to August 2, 1671.
It totaled 3579 consecutive spotless days. That puts our current run at 17.5% of that of the Maunder Minimum.
By the standard of spotless days, the ongoing solar minimum is the deepest in a century: NASA report. In 2008, no sunspots were observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days (85%):
The lack of sunspots in 2008, made it a century-level year in terms of solar quiet. Remarkably, sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower.
We do indeed live in interesting times.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The FT wanted me to register – here is a link that just works…
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a2b172ba-4a54-11de-8e7e-00144feabdc0.html
Quote from HRH. “In so many ways we already are in the last chance saloon.”
It is a great pity that this person continues to demonstrate his non fitness to inherit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8070131.stm
Hello…?
Where is Leif when you need him…
Glenn (00:48:29) :
“Speaking of the solar flux, today it dipped down to 66.7. This is the lowest it has been since March 18th.”
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
How low can it go?
It’s just trying to get down to 61 so it can match up with the prediction graph
Anthony: Why does your graph go to 2015? I would have thought it’d be more useful to use that space to show the previous 11 years…
REPLY: Its an 11 year window, but I can easily adjust it. – A
I urge all readers of this entry to visit the homepage of Prof Dr Cornelius de Jager http://www.cdejager.com/sun‐earth‐publications
and study carefully his more recent papers, especially those jointly authored with Professor Silvia Duhau of the University of Buenos Aires.
Professor Duhau is a distinguished and much accomplished Professor of Physics.
Dr de Jager is a grandfather of modern solar physics. Here is a small extract from his CV:
“He was general secretary of IAU (International Astronomical Union), president of COSPAR (Intl. organization for co-operation in Space Research) and president of ICSU (Intl. Council for Science). He founded and was first editor of the journals `Space Science Reviews’ and ‘Solar Physics’. He is member of various learned societies, among which the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Royal Belgian Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Academia Leopoldina (Halle, Germany), the Indian Science Academy, Academia Europaea, etc. He received honorary doctorates in Paris and Wroclaw. He was recipient of awards and distinctions among which the Gold Medal of the Royal Astron. Soc. (UK), the Hale Medal of the Amer. Astron. Soc. (for solar research, US), the Jules Janssen Medal (for solar research, France), the Karl Schwarzschild Medal (for astrophysics, Germany), the Gagarin Medal and Ziolkowski Medal (space research, S.U.), the COSPAR medal for international cooperation, etc. He is honorary member of SCOSTEP, the international organization for solar-terrestrial physics.”
Study the papers for yourselves and carefully consider their analyses and findings. Listen attentively, but critically, to the science therein presented.
The white roofs are coming, only it won’t be paint…
Gary Crough: “how much evidence is there for the cosmic ray / cloud seeding theory?”.
I’m no scientist, but I would say there’s quite good evidence. See Palle, Butler, O’Brian document below.
First, I guess you have read Svensmark’s and Shaviv’s descriptions of the cosmoclimatology theory, but for others I can recommend it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/338170/svensmark-2007cosmoclimatology
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
–
Palle, Butler, O’Brian: “The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and low level clouds”
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
There’s correlation on >99.5 % significance level for GCR and low level clouds. The document you has this diagram:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3374704163_299b77b5c9_o.jpg
–
About the usually mentioned critics against the cosmoclimatology and a strong sun-climate connection:
Warwick Hughes has a good post about the critics from Lockwood/Frolich and Sloan/Wolfendale here:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=153
Errors in Sloan/Wolfendale’s critics is explained by Tom Moriarty here:
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/applying-monte-carlo-simulation-to-sloans-and-wolfendales-use-of-forbush-decrease-data
David Archibald: ‘We are due for a de Vries cycle cooling event every two hundred and ten years, and actually even a Bond event because the last one of those was in the Dark Ages. And severe cooling over the next twenty years is now a certainty.”
Scientists proclaim climate change is natural
Thursday, 28 May 2009, 9:30 am
Press Release: Citizens Electoral Council
Scientists proclaim climate change is natural
As the Rudd government geared up its push for a CO2 cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme (ETS), which would annihilate what’s left of Australia’s collapsing physical economy, a public symposium last Sunday heard evidence from several leading Australian scientists that climate change is a natural phenomenon.
The symposium, ignored by the lying mainstream media, was held at Monash University and convened by Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee. Several scientists identified hard evidence that severe cooling is the biggest climate challenge that we face—and its cause is entirely natural.
SEARCH NZ JOBS
Comment & Win $1000 Free Power
Powershop Pioneers – Join & Win!
Professor Lance Endersbee, former Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monash University, clearly pointed out that for thousands of years human civilisation has endured natural climate variation much greater than any climate change in the last century. When warm climate prevailed civilisation flourished such as in Ancient Greece, whereas cold climate led to crop failure and mass migration of people escaping the bitter cold, for example during the Dark Ages.
David Archibald, an expert in solar cycles identified the actual climate problem we face: “You haven’t seen any sign of the end of Solar Cycle 23 yet and the cooling over Solar Cycle 24 as a consequence may be as much as 2.8 degrees centigrade. We are due for a de Vries cycle cooling event every two hundred and ten years, and actually even a Bond event because the last one of those was in the Dark Ages. And severe cooling over the next twenty years is now a certainty.”
William Kininmonth, former head of the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre pointed out that even if atmospheric carbon dioxide were to hypothetically double [an impossibility with forecast emissions and natural cooling—ed.], this would only provide 0.6 degrees centigrade of a warming effect—a small value when compared to the several degrees of historical natural climate change.
Professor Robert Carter blasted our government’s insane ETS proposal, identifying that it would cost average Australian families $3000 per year. And the climate outcome—an immeasurable temperature reduction of one ten thousandth of one degree! As Professor Carter said, “Not one newspaper in this country will publish those figures. Why not? Because the taxpayers—the second they knew that this was the cost benefit equation, they would completely reject this nonsense.”
Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood today applauded the courage of the scientists to continue speaking out against superstitious fraud dressed as “science”, and called on the Rudd government to cease and desist from its threat to destroy the Australian economy:
“Make no mistake, Rudd’s ETS is not a mere political ploy to trigger a double dissolution; it will smash agriculture, manufacturing, and energy generation, and trigger a population dissolution,” he said.
“It will collapse the world into a new Dark Age—I call upon thinking people everywhere to join the fight against it.”
From: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0905/S00369.htm
The word is getting out.
More supporting reportage at Intellicast this AM.
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=149
This brings to mind the whole sunspot/cloud seeding from cosmic rays idea. We have had seemingly endless cloudy days here in Georgia the last few months. This after one of the worst droughts on record (I think, they may have hyped it a bit) the last few years prior. That drought has been busted. Makes me wonder.
Sonicfrog,
You just pointed out that one of hte major tenets of AGW- that CO2 is the main driver of climate- is untrue, and that the AGW leadership knows it.
If merely painting roofs and re-specifying road reflectivity would make that large a difference, then why in the !@ur momisugly#&#$^&*(!) heck are our ‘leaders’ insisting we spend the money they are ready to make us spend to solve this great crisis?
Dear Mr Watt,
I don’t think Mr Chu’s idea of increasing the albedo of the earth is such a foolish idea.
If sunlight is reflected as such back into the atmosphere there will be less radiation absorption by greenhouse gasses such as water, CO2 and methane.
On the contrary if the albedo goes down, the surfaces will capture sunlight and emit this absorbed energy back via longer wavelength infrared radiation. This longer wavelenght IR radiation is much easier absorbed by these greenhousesgasses and this absorbed energy is reëmitted as heat.
If the idea of Mr Chu is feasible, that is another question. But theoretically I think the idea is not bad at all ?
Or am I wrong ?
REPLY: I never said it was a bad idea, not sure how you came to that conclusion. White roofs in cities will help the UHI problem a bit. BTW the name is “Watts” – Anthony
Alex (01:31:44) :
I am guessing that commenters pointing out the 66.7 s.flux value will have Leif Svalgaard objecting, as this is the *un-adjusted* value, so the *adjusted* value is around 68! Were flux values adjusted in the 50s/60s??
About exactly 68.5. 🙂
Still, that’s a noticable decline from the ~75 it was at a couple of weeks ago. And CR flux has been climbing. The sun’s snoozing again.
I checked the SCORE page yesterday and TSI has definitely started to trend up.
The earth can turn into a giant snowball, the politicians will not be denied their TAX and RATION scam.
The white paint joke matches nicely withe the 1970s spread carbon black on the ice caps joke to stave off the ‘for sure’ coming ice age. The 747 was all the technological rage back then, so of course the public was wowed when they said that it would be used to do the deed. I wonder what would have happened if we had followed through with that nuttiness.
I am sure impressed with our new reliance on science in it’s rightful proper place.
but, but, but….
New Solar Cycle Prediction: Fewer Sunspots, But Not Necessarily Less Activity
http://www.physorg.com/news162653480.html
An international panel of experts has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle, stating that Solar Cycle 24 will peak in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots. Led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and sponsored by NASA, the panel includes a dozen members from nine different government and academic institutions. Their forecast sets the stage for at least another year of mostly quiet conditions before solar activity resumes in earnest.
“but the question is, would NASA tell us if it were happening?”
total ice coverage is increasing, not decreasing – and the various agencies involved haven’t seen fit to tell us about THAT yet!
Gary Crough – on the question of cosmic rays and cloud:
Svensmark managed to find a correlation with a 3% change over the solar cycle from peak to trough but only for low-level cloud and initially only for cycle 22; however, by using a slightly different method he found the same correlation over cycle 23, but was criticised for changing the method. It is not easy to see the correlations in ISCCP data for global cover, even when the cloud types are broken down – and it appears there is a latitudinal effect, as might be expected because the cosmic ray flux varies with latitude, as does cloud cover.
Another check on clouds can be made with data on albedo measured either from the CERES satellite or the ‘Earthshine’ effect at the Big Bear Observatory in Chicago (Palle and colleagues) – these two sources have recently been reconciled with each other, and show firstly a long term drop in albedo of about 5% through 1980-2000, and then a rise and what seems a steady level (but data do not go to the last year yet). Initially CERES data showed continuing drop in albedo (and hence cloud cover) whereas the Earthshine data showed a steep rise around 2001 – but the differences have been ironed out. It appears that low-cloud cover has continued to decline but mid and high level cloud increased in the last decade.
The effect on temperature is complex and there will be time lags. The complexity relates to the 70% of the planet which is ocean – this stores the extra SW radiation from the sun that gets through when the clouds are thinner, then recirculates and releases it in complex patterns that involve pressure oscillations like the PDO, but also prevailing westerly winds – recent analysis has demonstrated that the ‘global warming’ years on land (1980-2006) can be accounted for by heat transfer from the oceans (Compo & Sardeshmukha) the researchers found no clear greenhouse signal – other than the theoretical potential for the GHG effect to warm the oceans). Since 2007, land temperatures have fallen considerably, even in the Arctic.
There is evidence (Camp & Tung) that the single cycle variation (in TSI and any cloud effect) has a 0.2C effect on ocean surface temperatures without any timelag. I suspect this is mainly a cloud effect.
There is plenty of satellite data to show that in the 1980-2000 period there was an extra pulse of sunlight (SW radiation) to the surface and the only explanation is less cloud cover – and this radiation is 4-5x the power of the CO2 effect (as computed from theory – it is not evident in the data) in terms of watts/sq metre.
But this picture is further complicated by the unequal storage of heat in the oceans and the pattern of heat-loss which is driven by winds and cyclones (vortices that suck moisture and create clouds) – these are affected by the jetstream – which is in turn affected by the solar-minimum magnetic or UV status (Shindell at NASA) – and as cloud cover is spatially patterned, and heat stores spatially distinct also, then any major spatial shift in cloud (irrespective of percentage changes) can also come into play. For example – the North Pacific gyre stores heat over the 30 year warm phase of the PDO, and then gives it up on the westerlies into Alaska (which warms) – this knocks on to affect the Arctic ocean gyre, which weakens and sucks in warm water from the North Atlantic heat store (on a 25 year oscillation) under the ice which then melts faster in summer (there is also an increased Arctic cloud bank during this phase which insulates the Arctic seas and radiates IR onto the ice – melting it faster; when the PDO shifted in late 2006 (the heat store was depleted), Alaska cooled in 2007 and 2008, the Arctic gyre is recharged and in 2008, there was 9% more summer sea ice. The same thing should now happen to the North Atlantic heat store in the gyre south of Iceland – when that depletes, Europe will experience the same kind of cold winters as the US has just done- that cold comes down from the Arctic, and from a shift in the jetstream – which is also affected by a feedback from the cold waters of the north Pacific!
So – the whole pattern is complex – with several feedbacks, several mechanisms, oscillations and time-lags. That is why the global warming computer simulations have failed – they could not factor in either cloud feedbacks or ocean oscillations accurately enough, let alone the cosmic rays or UV or jetstream effects. The very latest attempt to factor in ocean cycles to the models, shows no expected warming for the next decade (and then it takes off driven by the ‘masked’ greenhouse effect).
The problem for the modellers is that though they have to admit that ocean cycles have the power to now dominate the GHG effect, they can’t admit that the 1980-2005 warming signal was also boosted by the warm phase of those cycles.
I deal with all of this in my book ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’ – which should be available from June 1st! And give all the full science references. Within the next week or so there should also be supplementary visual material on my website at ethos-uk.com
The eleven year window for the plot of the minimum doesn’t show the whole story. The maximum for cycle 23 was almost nine years ago now, late 2000. That we are 3 years beyond a ‘normal’ or average minimum seems more demonstrative of the present situation.
I actually think the spotless day count is low. I have been following the sunspots over on http://www.solarcycle24.com/ and the ones that have been identified in the last couple months i really doubt would be able to be identified without access to things like computer analysis of digital photography and Magnetogram images. I think we have tiny tim sunspots as well ad tropical storms and hurricaines.
pkatt (00:00:31) : re temp on other planets.
I’ve raised this question in an earlier post but didn’t get a bite. We must have some data on Mars going back to the 1970s and even earlier at least on the extent of the polar caps. Mars has been under surveilance for a few hundred years! Any astronomers out there? Events like the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum etc might be definitively connected to cooling if there were any records of notable expansion of the the polar caps.
Regarding the SIDC sunspots, I remember after Hurricane Katrina, there were a few years that above normal forecasts were forecast and they were almost counting the raindrops to make them correct as hurricanes became postergirls/boys for AGW. Waterspouts were making news, a bit of a breeze with rain became “named” storms. It is particularly unseemly to see scientists (SIDC) rejoicing like rain dancers when a spot on their spectacles appears.
I had posed the question regarding the temperatures of the other planets in our system about a month ago and have been searching ever since. Some of the planetary sites I had previously found info on no longer exist. Obviously, I will post any info I am able to find. Perhaps someone on the inside, like the inimitable Dr. Svalgaard would be kind enough to point us in the right direction. I had written Dr. Hansen on the subject, but oddly enough got no response. Must have got lost in the mountains of correspondence he receives. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Even though I don’t have the credentials or the scientific background to make such an assessment, thereby nullifying my opinion, I still believe the sun is the main driver of our climate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Dynamo Hum, Dynamo Hum, where is this Dynamo coming from”- Frank Zappa ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Love to quote Zappa, as he was one of the artist that Al and Tipper tried to censor. Extremely intelligent and eloquent, Zappa’s testimony had a great deal to do with the censorship panels lack of success. They did manage to get warning labels for lyrical content however, which is ok, IMHO.
pkatt (00:00:31) : re temp on other planets #2
It seems that Mars has been warming too! but don’t leap into the air. Planetary scientists blame it on changes in the albedo effect because of dust devils having blown dust away (to where?) darkening the surface and making it darker. They don’t go on to say that the plague of dust devils is itself a climate change.
so it seems the AGWers have taken over that branch of science too. Google it, there seems to be quite a few references. I think someone might profitably do a post on this. Some specialist who knows about past records on Mars observations
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/martian_warming/
One thing to keep in mind is that by the 17th Century the globe was already cooling since the 14th Century. The coldest decades of the LIA coincided with the Maunder Minimum. Of course, we’ve been warming since at least the end of the Dalton Minimum. The near 200 years of warming perhaps have come to an end.
Let us hope there isn’t a major volcanic erruption like the 1815 Tambora erruption.