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
Patrick Davis says:
December 20, 2010 at 3:37 am
That is the good side of this “climate disruption”: A cooler summer with less or no bugs and no risks of intestinal infections.
David, UK says:
December 20, 2010 at 1:54 am
“This is showing no signs of stopping, despite the complete failure of alarmists to prove their corrupt hypothesis. If anything, the more evidence that mounts against them (i.e. that the recent warming is part of a natural cycle, and is nothing remotely unusual), the more totalitarian they become.
So again, I say bring on the cold.”
I’m essentially of the same mind. I’ll add that destroying this theory should put other costly, ineffective and downright deadly environmental crusades under a microscope and, most importantly, encourage a revival of skepticism among the younger generations that will hopefully generalize well to other topics – I may be too optimistic on that happening though.
Ideally, and I speak as a former democrat, it’ll smack these kids with a dose of reality and get them to consider libertarian/conservative solutions and philosophies in a rational manner rather than dismissing them as dumb anti-science racist rednecks – such prejudices are hard to kill though.
Jeff Alberts says:
When are we going to get over the fact that “global average temperature” has no relevance to anything. Certainly not to the reality of weather that any individual is experiencing at any given point in time. In stead of spending 4 hours covering plants here in central FL to keep them from freezing is there anyone of sound mind that would suggest I simply “believe” that the 1.6c increase (if it’s real – see below) in “global average temperature” over the past 100+ years is going to “protect” them?
And as Ian W said at 5:55 am
Temperature does not equal heat content. ….(it is) the incorrect metric. ….the ‘green house gas’ theory is that ‘heat’ is trapped in the atmosphere. So scientists should stop measuring temperature and doing temperature comparisons ! They are meaningless. Which is very well said AND has been being said here for years! After all, what is “weather” but the movement of greater and lesser amounts of heat vertically and horizontally? This, of course, begs the question where are the hourly/daily measurements of the total heat content of the global atmosphere so that we can compare them to the same measurements for say – 1860? or 1675? 0r 1975?
Oh darn…. what did we do with those records?? Santa, do you have those records? Oh right! We don’t need no sinking records! We’ve got tree rings!
Frosty:
Thank you very much for the link you provided – http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
A fascinating look at extreme weather events for two millenia. I am impressed by how many floods, freezes etc are accompanied by a comment like “no-one had ever seen such an extreme event in their entire lives”. I guess there is nothing new under the sun!
Malcolm
This is the “Progressive Minimum”…as temperatures progressively decrease to reach a minimum at about 2030-40, then the Sun King will be back again.
< 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.
Hansen, not Hanson, I presume?
Joanie says:
December 20, 2010 at 9:25 am
” and *it doesn’t work* because CO2 was never much of a driver in the first place?”
Soot would work. That was the plan we the last time the we thought we might be sliding into an ice age.
Robuk says:
December 20, 2010 at 8:36 am
Show me the telescope, who is using it and where.
pages 19 and 20 of
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf
Grey Lensman says:
December 20, 2010 at 9:23 am
You mean just like global warming science, its settled?
As settled as the Earth is round. Science is never settled. Some facts are accepted by most scientists as being true [as far as we know], which means that there is no debate currently going on on the issue.
Jeff Alberts says:
December 20, 2010 at 7:58 am (Edit)
“Global temps are still high by all five metrics (NOAA, UAH, RSS, GISS, and HADCRUT).”
When are we going to get over the fact that “global average temperature” has no relevance to anything.
#############
yes, if we banish the idea of a global average we can get rid of the notion that the sunspot cycle correlates to anything. we can get also get rid of the idea that there was a LIA. /sarc off
Right now the stratosphere is pretty clear, but our luck could change. Elbrus volcano could be a real party spoiler.
Kermit says:
December 20, 2010 at 9:24 am
“….it seems to imply “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.”
Spot On, Kermit!
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 20, 2010 at 8:35 am
Has no one published a book or article on Wolf, his telescope, and his successors at the telescope? Seems to me it would be quite an opportunity for a youngish historian of science.
Sense Seeker says:
December 20, 2010 at 3:10 am
Caution, SS, just down the road from the syllogism lies the faulty dilemma.
@tallbloke
“Enhanced co2 Greenhouse conjecture is dead in the water, because Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ isn’t hiding in the system, it is the figment of a failed model. There is no missing heat, we will have to make do with what heat the oceans are still retaining.”
Hard to hide much heat in the ocean with good sea level measurement. Just a matter of splitting it between thermal expansion and change in mass. IIRC it’s presumed to be about half thermal and on the rise 2-3mm/year which is not at all outside the bounds of natural rate of change. If we start cooling off for real rate of sea level rise will decrease accordingly. It may go negative and stay negative for thousands of years as the current interglacial winds to a cold finish and glaciers build to historical maximum extent. That won’t be good. If we think fossil fuel supply is a problem now just think how bad it will be when it’s winter all the time north of the 40th parallel. Heating fuel use will go through the roof.
Jeremy says:
December 20, 2010 at 8:41 am
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?
We don’t really know what the count was back then. We have somewhat reasonable numbers back to ~1750, but are not quite sure what the calibration is. For the Dalton minimum there is very little good data, as there were but few observations. Starting in 1945 the sunspot number is overcounted [not because of better telescopes as the same telescope that Wolf used in the 1850s was used] but because people tried to ‘improve’ the sunspot number by counting bigger spots several times over [a single large spot was counted as 5 spots]. The past 1o years, the official counters in Brussels have been on the low side [undercounting]. They are away of this, but have not fessed up to it yet. [“it is under investigation, and we want to be cautious and thorough, etc”]
Sense Seeker
Baa, a lag effect of the oceans is not a very plausible explanation….
Scientists often go “Bah.” Only sheep go “Baa.” 8 > )
Kermit says:
December 20, 2010 at 9:24 am
“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.
The statement is one of correlation, and only implies a connection, not specific causation. Very likely, the “Year without a Summer” was caused by both the Tambora eruption and the fact that it occurred during the Dalton Minimum. It isn’t possible for Skeptics/Climate Realists to be guilty of the same nonsense as the Alarmists. Not without a cranioproctological inversion, that is.
Wonderful timing!
In my muddle-headed way I was wondering about this just last night. “Wait, ” I thought, “haven’t there been an annoyingly small number of sun spots recently? Could that have a connection to my house being GD freezing?!”
Now, correlation is not causation, but you’ve put together a lot of data here. Very nice.
Steven Mosher says:
December 20, 2010 at 10:29 am
Jeff Alberts says:
December 20, 2010 at 7:58 am (Edit)
“yes, if we banish the idea of a global average we can get rid of the notion that the sunspot cycle correlates to anything. we can get also get rid of the idea that there was a LIA. /sarc off”
Aren’t these claims true by definition? That is; what you mean by “the LIA” is a global phenomenon. But what reasons are there for insisting that it be a global phenomenon? After all, climate science is a branch of natural history, not a branch of physics. You might benefit from the use of physical theory along the way, but when climate science is complete it will be about the natural history of climate on Earth, just as someday the final word on the Giant Sequoia will be about the history of that plant on Earth. Claiming that there is this abstraction called “global temperature” seems very much like claiming that there is a “global Giant Sequoia.” Perhaps, along the way, such postulates are needed but they will not be part of the final account.
“Sense Seeker says:
December 20, 2010 at 3:10 am
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?”
Since the AGW alarmists have savaged the reputations of anyone who maintains that the sun has an influence on weather, that’s an entirely hypothetical question. The alarmists would first have to acknowledge that they were wrong on a particular issue, and that’s something they never, ever, ever do.
Theo Goodwin says:
December 20, 2010 at 10:41 am
Has no one published a book or article on Wolf, his telescope, and his successors at the telescope? Seems to me it would be quite an opportunity for a youngish historian of science.
I’m working on an article on this.
Some links to my previous studies [that have some overlap] of this:
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202010%20SH53B-03.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-1.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO23.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202008%20SP23A-07.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/SH13A-1109-F2007.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf
As you can see, I have worked on this for some years now, and you can follow the progress. At the present time, the picture is becoming clear and I believe that a coherent story can be told. Any changes to the ‘sacred’ historical record are bound to be met with stiff resistance because of the impact that such ‘revisionism’ might have on people’s pet theories and ingrained dogmas.
“It isn’t possible for Skeptics/Climate Realists to be guilty of the same nonsense as the Alarmists.”
Yes, when you are on the “right” side of the issue, you can say just whatever sounds good and supportive.
Met Office = Terra Flop
@Jean, You are correct. I was too hasty on the keyboard