David Archibald writes in an email to WUWT:
The AGU Fall meeting has a session entitled “Aspects and consequences of an unusually deep and long solar minimum”. Two hours of video of this session can be accessed: http://eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.html
Two of the papers presented had interesting observations with implications for climate. First of all Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. He had said previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years. This is his last slide:
McCracken gave a paper with its title as per this slide:
While he states that it is his opinion alone and not necessarily held by his co-authors, he comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is most likely:
Solar Cycle 24 is now just over a year old and the next event on the solar calendar is the year of maximum, which the green corona brightness tells us will be in 2015.
I would tend to go for non-event. The Sun’s activity is ramping up nicely and radio propagation is beginning to improve.
JonesII (12:49:43) :
it is becoming every day more evident the electrical nature of the universe (plasma universe) then, it is possible the mutual influence between planets and the sun.
AGW is enough voodoo. We don’t need more pseudo-science.
NickB. (12:56:56) :
The sun during the second half of the 20th Century was more active than in the last 8000 years?
Except that it most likely was not.
“For those who agree that the IPCC and Al Gore have gone too far, signing the online petition “Al Gore and The UN IPCC Should Give Back Their Nobel Prize!” seems like a reasonable option. The link is http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nomorenobel/”
Would you be so kind as to point to where either Al Gore or the IPCC said that we would never see an event similar to the Dalton Minimum?
Solar irradiance is increasing at the moment; it shows up in the sunspot numbers. It remains to be seen whether this unusually long and deep solar minimum, which coincided with the warmest decade on record, is anything other than a blip. Even if it persists, there’s no reason to think it will be remotely as powerful a forcing as GHGs: last month was the warmest January ever according to the sat data, and that’s at the nadir of solar irradiance.
“Not to point out the obvious, but given that the Oughts were the warmest decade on record, and corresponded with an unusually long and deep solar minimum, doesn’t that suggest the presence of a large non-solar forcing which is warming the planet in spite of the slight fall in irradiance?
If solar forcing had caused the anomalous temps of the 20th century, wouldn’t we have expected a long and deep solar minimum to stop the warming trend?” – Robert
Robert, during the Solar maximum we had enjoyed the oceans warmed up, so how long to do think it takes the oceans to release all the heat they built up during that maximum? And just because a few sunspots occured doesn’t mean this minumim is over. In fact it still just began. (By the way – the oceans are cooling off, so the net effect will be a cooling trend.)
Maybe of note: http://solarimg.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=246
OT but BBCs Roger Harribin is calling for a “climate armistice”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8516905.stm
This sentence gave me the creeps though, esp as Harribin has been in touch with Anthony on this issue.
Although it is near impossible to find UK academic scientists professing to be “climate sceptic” (more on this in a future column) plenty of them agree there is much uncertainty about climates past and future.
I wonder what Mr Harribin has got up his sleeve next?
“Our resident lake-effect expert, Tom Moore, noticed Lake Erie is frozen over completely for the first time in 14 years!”
http://twitter.com/TWCi/status/9150581623
http://twitter.com/TWCi
O/T?
Robert (12:35:12) :
Or maybe a long Solar Minimum drives Global temperatures absolutely stark raving wild.
Hey, if Global Warming can cause Global Cooling, then certainly a Solar Minimum can cause massive Polar Ice Cap melting.
This is what the Mayans were so worried about for 2012: The world isn’t coming to an end, reason is coming to an end.
AGW is dead. Now we have a real problem.
BTW,
Donald Trump also defends the idea of taking the Nobel away from IPCC & Al Gore: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/global_cooling_7njz5ZtpFblMuF5Vf7LJmN
Ecotretas
Milwaukee Bob (12:32:02) :
Note to self: SELL carbon credits ASAP!
Buy puts instead. Even though it is morally questionable to take money from weak minded individuals.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/investools-options-ge-in_wh_0823investools_inl.html
Mike Ramsey
Does anyone measure 10Be production in “real time”?
geo (13:08:57) :
Someone remind me why we believe we know sunspot records in detail further than a few hundred years back?
Solar activity influences the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth. The cosmic rays produce radioactive nuclei that we can measure the concentration of in old trees and in deep ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica.
Robert !2:35:12 You are no more pointing out the obvious than the man in the moon. We don’t know how the sun modifies the climate let alone whether it even does or not.
==============================
Leif Svalgaard (13:18:12) :
“AGW is enough voodoo. We don’t need more pseudo-science.”
The CLOUD experiment is designed to test the theory that a decrease in solar magnetic activity causes an increase in clouds cover on the Earth. The idea is that the magnetic field from the Sun shields the Earth from interstellar cosmic rays and that these cosmic rays are a critical part of accumulation of free water molecules into water vapor micro-droplets (clouds).
An increase in cloud cover increases the amount light from the Sun that is reflected back into space. This increased reflection slowly cools the Earth. In the inverse situation when there are a lot of sunspots (increased magnetic activity) there are less clouds and the Earth slowly warms up.
There is substantial correlation between sun spots and cosmic rays and cosmic rays and global temperature in the current, historical and geologic record (cosmic rays leave a distinct atomic signature on some of the materials they strike); but in science, correlation is not causation. The CLOUD experiment seeks to prove at the sub-atomic level that these cosmic rays are in fact a required catalyst in the formation of water vapor micro-droplets and thus, clouds.
It is a simple idea; that makes a definite prediction; requires no proxy data, no adjustments and no interpretation of data. It is basic physics that anyone with a particle accelerator could reproduce. All of the data, methods and procedures will be available as soon as the experiment has been completed; later this year or early next year.
It is a Theory that explains climate change.
More Sun spots = Warmer Earth
Less Sun spots = Cooler Earth
It is not a popular Theory because people would have to accept that the ability for humans to affect the climate is the same as their ability to affect the Sun.
Dr. S you always make my day when you contribute. patience of job.
Thank you, Leif Svaalgard, for reasoned comments from careful research.
This link is to an excellent speech on the topic of solar minimums, sunspots and climate given at CERN by Dr. Jasper Kirkby of CERN at a colloquium on June 4, 2009.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
Title is “Evidence for pre-industrial solar-climate variability”. A must see!
I just attended the Fermilab colloquium on climate change given by Dr. Richard Lindzen, it was great! I’ll post the video when they put it up, please see the link below – his abstract is shown for 10 Feb 2010. It was a rather contentious crowd!
See: http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/colloq/colloq.html
Jean Parisot (13:38:16) :
Does anyone measure 10Be production in “real time”?
Yes, 10Be is used to study land-use and erosion processes [and some of that 10Be comes from the soil]. The issue is not so much the real-time production, but how that corresponds to the deposition in ice.
I agree that “stretched” cycles with low sun spot numbers is “very likely” for this cycle and the next. I predicted these long cycles years ago based on pattern recognition: http://graystonelabs.com/SolarCycle.html.
Leif Svalgaard (13:40:17) :
Leif, are the sun activity proxies created by the formation of radioactive nuclei from cosmic rays corrected by the state of then environment into which our solar system was in? Wouldn’t the amount of cosmic rays be also influenced not only by the sun’s activity but also, for example, if our solar system was passing through a cosmic dust cloud? In that case, less cosmic rays could get to the solar system.
Comparing annualized temperatures may be misleading. Seasonal anomaly may give a different impression. Here is a graph of CET summer temperatures anomaly normalized to the sunspot number
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET3.htm
It is matter of interpretation if Dalton minimum has any apparent correlation to the SSN.
More temp graphs on: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm
Dr. Svalgaard
Any recent measurements (or results) from Livingston & Penn ?
Leif Svalgaard (12:27:39) :
Leif Svalgaard (12:23:52) :
And any cooling may depend [as it did back then] on suitable volcanic eruptions: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040882.pdf 🙂
Thanks Leif, interesting paper in it’s own right, even if a bit light on location of the tree ring and coral proxies mentioned, and magnitudes of temperature drops.
There does seem to be more volcanic activity when the sun goes quiet. More big earthquakes too. Any ideas why?
The top 12 Earthquakes of the last century and the associated sunspot numbers:
http://www.jupitersdance.com/Top12.jpg
Well over at solarcycle24.com Bob K6tr believes that all this talk of Dalton etc. is poppycock while Solanki’s position has been public for awhile. It remains to be seen if Livingston and Penn’s assertion continues to hold. Very interesting time for science.