The sun went spotless yesterday, the first time in quite awhile. It seems like a good time to present this analysis from my friend David Archibald. For those not familiar with the Dalton Minimum, here’s some background info from Wiki:
The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years.[2] The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. Solar cycles 5 and 6, as shown below, were greatly reduced in amplitude. – Anthony
Guest post by David Archibald
James Marusek emailed me to ask if I could update a particular graph. Now that it is a full two years since the month of solar minimum, this was a good opportunity to update a lot of graphs of solar activity.
Figure 1: Solar Polar Magnetic Field Strength
The Sun’s current low level of activity starts from the low level of solar polar magnetic field strength at the 23/24 minimum. This was half the level at the previous minimum, and Solar Cycle 24 is expected to be just under half the amplitude of Solar Cycle 23.
Figure 2: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle
It is said that solar minimum isn’t reached until the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has flattened. While the month of minimum for the 23/24 transition is considered to be December 2008, the heliospheric current sheet didn’t flatten until June 2009.
Figure 3: Interplanetary Magnetic Field
The Interplanetary Magnetic Field remains very weak. It is almost back to the levels reached in previous solar minima.
Figure 4: Ap Index 1932 – 2010
The Ap Index remains under the levels of previous solar minima.
Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2010
The F10.7 Flux is a more accurate indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number. It remains low.
Figure 6: F10.7 Flux aligned on solar minima
In this figure, the F10.7 flux of the last six solar minima are aligned on the month of minimum, with the two years of decline to the minimum and three years of subsequent rise. The Solar Cycle 24 trajectory is much lower and flatter than the rises of the five previous cycles.
Figure 7: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 210
A weaker interplanetary magnetic field means more cosmic rays reach the inner planets of the solar system. The neutron count was higher this minimum than in the previous record. Thanks to the correlation between the F10.7 Flux and the neutron count in Figure 8 following, we now have a target for the Oulu neutron count at Solar Cycle 24 maximum in late 2014 of 6,150.
Figure 8: Oulu Neutron Flux plotted against lagged F10.7 flux
Neutron count tends to peak one year after solar minimum. Figure 8 was created by plotting Oulu neutron count against the F10.7 flux lagged by one year. The relationship demonstrated by this graph indicates that the most likely value for the Oulu neutron count at the Solar Cycle 24 maximum expected to be a F10.7 flux value of 100 in late 2014 will be 6,150.
Figure 9: Solar Cycle 24 compared to Solar Cycle 5
I predicted in a paper published in March 2006 that Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would repeat the experience of the Dalton Minimum. With two years of Solar Cycle 24 data in hand, the trajectory established is repeating the rise of Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum. The prediction is confirmed. Like Solar Cycles 5 and 6, Solar Cycle 24 is expected to be 12 years long. Solar maximum will be in late 2014/early 2015.
Figure 10: North America Snow Cover Ex-Greenland
The northern hemisphere is experiencing its fourth consecutive cold winter. The current winter is one of the coldest for a hundred years or more. For cold winters to provide positive feedback, snow cover has to survive from one winter to the next so that snow’s higher albedo relative to bare rock will reflect sunlight into space, causing cooler summers. The month of snow cover minimum is most often August, sometimes July. We have to wait another eight months to find out how this winter went in terms of retained snow cover. The 1970s cooling period had much higher snow cover minima than the last thirty years. Despite the last few cold winters, there was no increase in the snow cover minima. The snow cover minimum may have to get to over two million square kilometres before it starts having a significant effect.
David Archibald
December 2010
“Pascvaks says:
December 20, 2010 at 5:39 am
During the Little Ice Age (and all the minima and the Big Ice Ages too) both poles experienced significant sea ice growth. Watch the sea ice global total for global cooling-warming indicators. It’s a kind’a global thermometer thingy-wingy. Atmospheric temperature is OK for any one ‘where’ at any one ‘time’ or from any one year to another year, but you don’t want to write home about it. Watch the sea ice. Watch the glaciers.
PS: In today’s much abused and overpopulated world we’ve lost touch with a number of realities. One very important one is that you never trust a politician any farther than you can throw them. (I don’t think I can say that too often.)”
As an “amateur watcher” here I could believe that, but to get to a state of significant sea ice growth we need a “tipping point” where the Globe stands still before significant cooling takes place. We may be at that stage or not as the case may be, but it is significant that there has been no atsmospheric warming now for 15 years (whatever happens to 2010). The N/S sea ice added together is within normal variation and more significantly sea levels are now declining http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ (off just now). Per the Argo site there has been barely any heating of the oceans since early 1960s “For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 – 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960’s.” There has been suggestions that recent information is not avaliable from ARGO because of recent cooling. This is still to be verified. So despite a relentless upwards trend of CO2 now at 390ppm temperature rise has stalled and sea ice is not diminishing. Ocean temperatures are flat more or less and sea levels are falling. Are we now at a “tipping point” where the Global heat budget may start to fall? Looking at AMSU-R near surface is more or less like last year but surface is 0.24C below last year.
Thank you Anthony & WUWT team. I love the purely solar posts and especially ones about the solar cycle (11 year variety) history, its current behavior and projections.
The urge to take the ~11 year solar cycle activity as a direct proxy for climate variation is almost irresistible. I recommend resisting that temptation. For me, any perceived correlation between the ~11 year solar cycle and climate variation has produced interesting hypotheses which as yet have not been shown to be widely supported by theory with associated verifying observations. I am not being negative about the exciting possibilities, yet do not wish to over-reach into the land where it is “turtles all the way down”.
Happy Holidays.
John
Thermodynamics states that all energetic systems must lose energy and eventually become equal to cosmic noise [a little above absolute zero].
EUV, Infrared, etc., must pass through 10.7 cm Flux on the way to cosmic noise. Therefore, measuring and using 10.7 cm Flux [about the same frequency as your microwave oven] as a proxy for “all energy from the Sun reaching the Earth’s surface” is a reasonable assumption.
My simple Sun/Earth model duplicated the temperature as researched by Loehle from 1620 until ~2000 {Loehle data end point}. During ‘normal’ Sunspot/Flux years, the Earth loses then gains 0.1 C. Since the Flux has gone “quiet (if you call quiet very near its lowest value of ~67)”, this started in 2005. Now we are losing ~0.1C/2 years. This will continue until we lose 2C or the Flux hits ~+250 and we start heating again. A 2C lower Earth temperature can be maintained by a Flux of 67 [energy in/energy out].
Solar physicists have no explanation for the variability of the Sun. According to them the Maunder/Dalton minimums are impossible [as caused by the Sun].
It appears that the oceans have a energy storage time of ~0.1C/2.5 years at a Flux input of ~67. This does not appears to be an exponential decline, but more a straight line relationship. It appears to be strongly influenced by EUV puffing up the troposphere and the stratosphere. Puffed up more insulation, deflated, less insulation.
The GISS UHI driven data will not be able to “hide” the cooling in the future [next 2 years, or beyond]. Watch their “Global Temperatures” plummet.
Additional information freely available
jlurtz@basicisp.net
Dr. Lurtz
Theo Goodwin says:
December 20, 2010 at 8:14 am
The information about Wolf’s telescope is very interesting. However, the telescope alone does not tell us what standards are being applied today or if they have changed over the years. Has someone had the good sense to publish the standards and the history of their use?
The standards and methods have been extensively documented over time starting with Rudolf Wolf himself 150 years ago. Observers try VERY hard to keep the standard intact [not always successful]. The observers using the original telescope have been using it [the same way] the past 50 years.
Robuk says:
December 20, 2010 at 8:17 am
The 17th century technology is not the issue. We have good data and even the original telescopes [still in use] since the 1850s.
Studies show that by the end of the 20th century the Sun’s activity may have been the highest in more than 8,000 years, with the Sun’s magnetic field almost doubling in the past century.
Recent studies suggest that this is not the case. E.g. there is now general agreement that the Sun’s magnetic field today is what it was a century ago, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 20, 2010 at 7:46 am
Dave Springer says:
December 20, 2010 at 7:30 am
So like the instruments used to view the sun have gotten worse in recent years?
That claim has zero credibility.
Counting of sunspots uses telescopes of same power as 150 years ago [on purpose]. In fact, the very same telescope Rudolf Wolf used in the 1850 is still being used and serves as a nice standard.
Show me the telescope, who is using it and where.
Apples with apples,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Flamsteedstelescope.jpg
“Given that solar activity has been low in recent years and knowing that this gives a cooling effect, but that high average global temperatures have nonetheless been observed (with each subsequent decade being warmer than the previous for the past several decades), can we conclude that carbon-induced global warming has so far been stronger than the cooling effect of low solar activity?”
No. You’d need to eliminate other factors in that argument. We can conclude that if solar activity has been low, there is no time-lag, and all other factors are eliminated, then any genuine warming must be carbon-induced. The points of contention there are mainly the elimination of other factors, and the reliability of measurements.
“And assuming that solar activity has inadequately been accounted for in climate models, does this imply that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on world average temperature may have been underestimated?”
No, the reverse.
I would note that the Dalton minimum was 200 years ago, and the maunder was 300-350 years ago. It’s possible then by your reasoning here (I’m trying not to attribute stance, I realize you’re only making an argument), that we’re still over-counting w.r.t. those eras, correct?
AGW now affects the sun?
I’m amazed by people with mad graphing skillz all over the place here.
Could someone reading this possibly produce a youtube video showing a picture of the sun getting bluer when sunspots are low and redder when sunspots are high then alongside it show a picture of the earth (not to scale of course) where it turns bluer as global temperature falls and redder as it rises? To sex it up a little put digital counters on the screen labeled year, sunspots, and global average temperature.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I say Youtube videos that go viral are worth a thousand pictures.
Perhaps this low solar activity will cause Mount Tambora to erupt again, as it did in late 1815 (largest eruption in over a 1000 years), which lead to the “year without a summer”.
Bring on the Gore Minimum!
Re Dave Springer says:
December 20, 2010 at 7:54 am
“The global ocean has over 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere and it’s average temperature from top to bottom is scary-cold at 4C which is scary because any change that increases the mix rate between surface and deep waters will make the planet very very cold. The climate is controlled by the global ocean. Weather is controlled by the atmosphere. The sun heats the ocean and the ocean heats the air. ”
Logical and easy to follow post Dave, I would only change one sentance, the last one to; The sun’s SWR heats the ocean and the ocean heats the air.
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2010 at 7:14 am
Are those “Magnetic Ropes” of the Indian levitating Ropes’ kind?
Though, in this case, the “trick” it’s an invisible string of electricity 🙂
Keep a focus on the big picture. Earth is in an ice age interglacial WARMING period. Interglacial get a sun tan play golf drink fine wine period. Glaciers are going to keep right on receding and growing according to the climate oscillates fixed to earthbound systems, solar cycles, and other catastrophic periodic and non-periodic events, such as asteroid strikes and volcanism. Why was it was warmest just after the last icing event. What causes the glaciations to recede for a short period of 10,000 to 20,000 years? Enlighten me. Is it CO2? Methane?, Coal power? Too many people? Not enough green appliances?
Do we know why we have interglacial warming? We see they happen at a somewhat regular period. Will we see a continuation of this period of ice ages? Do we want more sea ice? I don’t think so. We want palm trees in Siberia, sunny warm beeches in Greenland, condos on golf course in Antarctica. Right?
Frosty says:
December 20, 2010 at 4:46 am
……………..
Useful reference list, it does confirm that the Dalton min ( 1800-1830) was not to bad. Number of winters you listed can be easily identified in :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
Ref – Dave Springer says:
December 20, 2010 at 7:54 am
& – Dave Springer says:
December 20, 2010 at 8:12 am
& – John Peter says:
December 20, 2010 at 8:21 am
Thanks for your feedback. Sometimes I get slap happy and go for the lowest common denominator. Really do appreciate both of you taking the time to address my comment. If people lived for 100K years climate would probably be more important than it has been for the past 10K, and we’d probably have a better idea about how it works. Mersey Buckets! (Really)
PS: I still think the old KISS principle of “keeping it simple” has merit and I’ll put my neck out on the limb and say I think we’re already on the way down the far side of the old temperature mountain for this interglacial. Best to both of you.
“For cold winters to provide positive feedback, snow cover has to survive from one winter to the next so that snow’s higher albedo relative to bare rock will reflect sunlight into space, causing cooler summers.”
Well, snow cover in NOT surviving the spring/summer season:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=5
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=8
And the cold winter of 2009/2010 was obviously caused by a extreme negative Arctic Oscillation, that caused cold wether in continental USA and Eurasia , but ALSO record warmth in Greenland, Canada, Eastern Siberia and the Arctic Ocean:
“Winter Temperatures and the Arctic Oscillation”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42260
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_Figure4.png
Not qite the same are they Leif.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/galileonewton.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/telescope1850-1852.jpg
I mean Quite.
Leif says
Quote
The hard data has been there a long time. ‘Recognized’ means being accepted as fact and that acceptance is decades old.
Unquote
You mean just like global warming science, its settled?
“The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum.”
I think we should be cautious about a statement like this that seems to imply that “The Year Without a Summer” was caused by the sunspot minimum rather than the eruption of Tambora in 1815. We can be guilty of the same nonsense as the CAGW alarmists.
JohnM says:
December 20, 2010 at 8:07 am
It is not about power but about fear, fear of the court we could realize that the “King is naked”. History shows that the same fear appeared every time a commoner usurped a throne. They don’t want their “pedigree” to be revealed.
Lately, I’ve been thinking… wouldn’t it be … interesting… if we continue to cool, and suddenly we are urged to use *more* fossil fuel to offset the drastic cooling….. and *it doesn’t work* because CO2 was never much of a driver in the first place? As we desperately burn everything we can get our hands on, but the Sun’s lack of sunspots is relentless and our climate is inexorably chilled?
(fighting a sudden urge to buy a wood burning stove)
Joanie
Sean Peake says:
December 20, 2010 at 8:13 am
If we are entering into a period similar to the Dalton, I propose it be named the Hanson Minimum
———————————————————————————
“The Hanson Minimum”….It has a nice ring to it….
E.M.Smith says:
December 20, 2010 at 2:31 am
Well, a “Sun Page” in addition to the “Ice Page” and “Sea Page” would be nicer. But until then, this is where I go:
SOHO Space Weather
OK S.