Dalton Minimum Repeat goes mainstream

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

362 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael
February 15, 2010 2:19 pm

This topic brings tears to my eyes. The public has been kept in the dark as to the status of their sun. A great public service is done every time this subject comes up.
The current stretch of sun specks does not impress me. It’s just slight venting. Solar minimum continues.

Simon Hart
February 15, 2010 2:21 pm

There have been lots of sunspots lately. Anyone know when can we expect an analysis of their contrast? i.e. an update to Livingston and Penn. Are they still fading?

February 15, 2010 2:23 pm

Andrew30 (13:48:21) :
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 first results from a pilot test of CLOUD was inconclusive:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/18235/2009/acpd-9-18235-2009.html

wws
February 15, 2010 2:24 pm

I know exactly what Harriban has got up his sleeve, as do we all. His side, the warmists, are losing badly and they know it! They see it all slipping away and they are desperately trying to negotiate a way out of their final political defeat!
NO ARMISTICE WHEN VICTORY IS AT HAND!!!
What would skeptics have to gain from an “armistice”, anyways? It would just be “you shut up while we stay in power and do whatever we want.” The warmists, after having been proved to be liars and frauds, are now going to promise to talk a little more nicely and cheat a little bit less and that is supposed to make everything hunky dory???
NO!
The IPCC must be DISBANDED it cannot be reformed!!! How about that for an “armistice”???

Richard Garnache
February 15, 2010 2:29 pm

Hey Kim; I vote that it does.

February 15, 2010 2:30 pm

tallbloke (14:16:18) :
The top 12 Earthquakes of the last century and the associated sunspot numbers
Of course, it is well known that earthquakes cause sunspots, even make Jupiter dance around. You can learn more here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/astrologicalmusings/2008/01/more-on-sunspot-cycles.html

Jean Parisot
February 15, 2010 2:35 pm

DirkH —
Just pray a volcano doesn’t decide to cook off this Spring.

February 15, 2010 2:37 pm

Ray (14:10:41) :
if our solar system was passing through a cosmic dust cloud? In that case, less cosmic rays could get to the solar system.
Dust wouldn’t do much, but it is possible that there are variations of cosmic rays in interstellar space: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/reprints/2007bieber.pdf
radun (14:14:57) :
Any recent measurements (or results) from Livingston & Penn ?
Livingston only has limited access to the telescope, so we’ll have to wait. He sends me data as soon as he has them.

Andrew30
February 15, 2010 2:41 pm

Leif Svalgaard (14:23:22) :
“The first results from a pilot test of CLOUD was inconclusive:”
Yes, this has been attributes to the small size of the chamber used in the pilot experiment and the materials used to construct the chamber and the variability to a ground state that existed in the pilot chamber.
If you check you will notice that the pilot experiment was to determine how to run the actual experiment. Note also that the pressures and densities used in the pilot were beyond the limits of natural atmosphere.
The pilot was a test of the requirements needed for construction of the experiment more than a test of the Theory.
The new chamber is much, much larger, is stainless steel (except for small beam and detector windows) and is entirely at ground. These factors should reduce the interior surface condensation problems of the pilot experiment; surface condensation needed to be eliminated to best reproduce actual atmospheric conditions.

Tucci
February 15, 2010 2:45 pm

The Prometheus Award-winning 1991 novel Fallen Angels by Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, and Michael Flynn discussed this minimum. See Chapter 7, “Black Powder and Alcohol…” from which I quote:

Lutenist beamed. “The sun goes through sunspot cycles. Lots of sunspots, it gets warm here. Few sunspots, colder weather. An astronomer named Maunder recorded sunspots and found that the last time there weren’t any the planet went through what was known as the Little Ice Age, the Maunder Minimum.” He paused dramatically. “And in the 1980s it became certain that the planet was going into a new Maunder Minimum period.”
“Yes, yes, we know this,” Gordon said. “Sunspots are important to us. But if so important to Earth, why do they not know cold is coming?”
“Bastards did,” the man in the bush jacket growled. “But they said Global Warming.”
“Grants,” Bob said. “There’s money in climate studies. All the Ph.D. theses. All that would go if things were so simple —”

The people in the science fiction community had picked up on the AGW fraud very early.

Leo G
February 15, 2010 2:52 pm

Dr. Svalgaard,
I have read that the suns’ energy output was higher pre-1950, since then has been lower. I have also read that the suns’ energy output has been higher post-1950 then pre 1950.
Could you please let me know which, if any version is correct?
Thanx.

February 15, 2010 2:53 pm

Leif Svalgaard,
It is always a good day when I see you posting on solar topics.
Were you at the AGU Fall meeting? Wondering if there are hints of any upcoming new theories in the pipeline that are focusing on the solar variability versus our climate variability?
By new I mean not the several theories sometimes mentioned here. I mean new as in the pre-embryonic stage of thought about new theories. Sort of like thinking of creating a new baby, but just thinking at this stage.
John

Ross M
February 15, 2010 3:04 pm

Maybe as the Earth cools it shrinks a little causing the earthquakes 🙂
An interesting read about how the indigenous people here in Australia predict the weather:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/03/18/offbeat.weather.aborigines.reut/index.html
“…local Aborigines lived according to an annual six-season calendar.
For longer-range weather forecasting they used an 11-12 year cycle and a massive 8,000-10,000-year cycle…”
“The 11-year cycle started in 2001 with the appearance of the Aurora Australis, the luminous pale green and pink phenomenon that occurs in the upper atmosphere above the South Pole…”

February 15, 2010 3:05 pm

steven mosher (13:52:51) :
Dr. S you always make my day when you contribute.
patience of job.

Only matched by the tenacity of the voodoo-peddlers not to knuckle under to the forces of reason:
rbateman (13:28:55) :
“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.”
Robert has a point there.

February 15, 2010 3:06 pm

On the subject of paleoclimatology, in an interview with NatureNature , our expert at CRU again draws into question the up and down swings in temp in the last milleniuum:

“A lot of people have this view that there was a MWP and then a little ice age,” he says. “It might not be the case.”

Thankfully, Nature had asked the pressing question that was absent from the BBC interview, that is: if you have found (without knowning the cause) the unreliability of tree ring data to show the post-1960 warming (the famous ‘decline’), could this not also suggest that historic warming is also be understated?

“It potentially does,” admits [Phil] Jones, but says that analyses using other methods — proxy temperature markers from ice core samples, for example — still show much the same temperature change over the past 1,000 years, backing up Mann’s hockey stick.

Now, I really want to understand how these guys were thinking…What I dont get is why the Hockey Team would not use this ice core data in their reconstruction. I mean, why did they not use ice cores that confirm the tree rings? Surely they could find some.
What I also dont get is why Jones would repeat this call for more collecting and collating of data:

“We need more reconstructions from different parts of the world to reproduce a better history of the past thousand years”. Jones challenges his critics to help with those efforts. “Why don’t they do their own reconstructions?” he asks. “The work that’s been published has been through the peer-review process; if they want to criticize that they should write their own papers.”

I cant believe that a paleoclimatologist cannot know about the studies suggesting global MWP – or are they dismissed for some reason?
I dunno about everyone else but the view from the blogosphere of the Hockey Team all seems just too incredible to be true. Maybe I should not try to understand them and just take Jones’ advice:

“I don’t think we should be taking much notice of what’s on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process.”

Michael
February 15, 2010 3:16 pm
crosspatch
February 15, 2010 3:21 pm

” Leif Svalgaard (12:27:39) : ”
Well, in particular the comment at the end about the volcanic activity, the more I read, the more I am swayed toward the notion that it is not exactly one thing … orbital mechanics, solar activity, volcanic activity, weather patterns, etc. … that cause great climatic changes. It seems most likely to me that it is some combination of these events happening when conditions tend to favor the outcome leaning more likely in one direction than the other.
So if you have a period of declining insolation at the North Pole, a period of weak solar magnetic activity, a fairly significant volcanic event, and maybe some change in persistent weather patterns that causes a tip in a direction that is unrecoverable, one slides rather quickly into glacial conditions.
Or maybe you don’t if, say, solar insolation is enough to recover from such an event (Krakatoa AD 535?). Would a similar eruption today be enough to tip the balance? I don’t know but I don’t believe it is any one single cause, I believe it is a combination of different factors.

Craig Moore
February 15, 2010 3:22 pm

Is there any way we can test the hypothesis that if Mount Svalgaard erupts this blog will go cold? ;?)

Christopher
February 15, 2010 3:27 pm

With all these sunspots not a word from L&P. I heard they where on vacation until end of January . I guess they still having a good time there. Or unless these sunspots theory are not working out so good on chart. mmmmm

Green Sand
February 15, 2010 3:33 pm

Way O/T, but can’t resist:-
Snow became a rare event! Now it is the Golden Gate Fog!
Fog over San Francisco thins by a third due to climate change
The sight of Golden Gate Bridge towering above the fog will become increasing rare as climate change warms San Francisco bay, scientists have found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7243579/Fog-over-San-Francisco-thins-by-a-third-due-to-climate-change.html
I must go to bed before they produce any more scary stories I don’t want to have nightmares!

chili palmer
February 15, 2010 3:40 pm

The above reference to Harrabin and ‘climate armistice’ is more blowing smoke. This is nothing so trivial as a matter between bloggers and anyone else. This is a multi-trillion dollar vicious economic and social fraud centered around carbon trading. The article doesn’t mention carbon trading nor the money behind it, the crime in it, just tries to trivialize the whole thing by saying it’s between bloggers and others. It makes brief mention of ‘politicians’ who counted on AGW for economic reasons. As previously noted in a Guardian article 1/25/10, Gordon Brown expressed that London is the carbon trading center of the world and he ties CO2 trading’s success to that of London. One green fund alone, INCR, owned by ceres.org, has $8 trillion in investments. Al Gore has already mounted forces to attack 22 swing senators for AGW legislation. If bloggers are an issue at all, it is that the Supreme Court 5-4 decision in 2007 based on corrupt data probably would not have happened were bloggers well into the issue back then. That was followed by the EPA ruling made on the same false grounds. And this says nothing about the cancer of regional and state CO2 groups already well entrenched and shaking down some poor slob every minute of the day. They would like to make it a little tiff, but it is the biggest battle of our lifetime. It has had a 25 year head start, trillions of dollars and careers are invested. Naturally, they will do everything in their power to make it succeed.

rbateman
February 15, 2010 3:51 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:18:12) :
AGW is enough voodoo. We don’t need more pseudo-science.

Well said. It is not reasonable to play around with opposite universe theories when there is more than enough uncertainty to deal with in this one.

BillyBob
February 15, 2010 3:56 pm

Robert: “but given that the Oughts were the warmest decade on record”
At airports and in cities … maybe.
After all, GISS and CRU have been removing true rural stations from the record and “in-filling” data from airports to former rural sites.

rbateman
February 15, 2010 3:57 pm

Christopher (15:27:19) :
A cheap 70mm refractor, used on a clear day, is enough to project the current crop of sunspots onto a plain piece of white paper and observe the lowered contrast.
Strong contrast spots are nearly black in the glare.
Greytoned spots are indicative of weakened contrast.
Compare with L&P reports to calibrate your seat-of-the pants judgement.
Last I looked (last week) the spots were of low contrast.

Verified by MonsterInsights