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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It does not matter whether small sunspots are counted, what appears to be important is that the absent of large sunspots in the Maunder minimum coincided with a very cold period in history, similarly in the Dalton minimum there was also lower sunspot activity but this was viewed through a far superior telescope and smaller sunspots would have been counted, but this higher count still coincided with a very cold prolonged period.
It does not matter whether the science is fully understood the link is there and it appears to be solid, a lack of LARGE sunspots = a cold climate.
leif will state that the early counts are sparse and unreliable, read link below and concluding comments
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g621x2918n7l05q6/fulltext.pdf
Galileo began his observations of the sun in 1609 well before the lack of sunspots were obseved, see Leif graph.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/sunspots2.jpg
Leif should be trying understand the reasons why solar activity effects the earths climate instead of trying to debunk the historical evidence.
Framsteeds telescope,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Flamsteed.jpg
Galileo`s and Newtons telescope
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/galileonewton.jpg
Jeremy says:
December 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm
why was a spot that was 1 before 1945 suddenly made into 5? Did contact lenses come into use in 1945? Not sure how else to account for that. Sure it was a human decision that caused an issue, but only improved telescope resolution could make it possible, unless whoever is using this older scope is just deciding to imagine things.
It was a human decision to assign a greater weight to large spots [to ‘improve’ the index]. The telescope was exactly the same, and sunspot counters to deliberately use low resolution to make their count compatible with the historical record. There is the further issue that there is a minimum size to a [true] sunspot and once your telescope is ‘good enough’, improved resolution does not make any difference. It is like counting people on the other side of the street: using a high-powered telescope for this does not increase the number of people you can see.
That said, the ‘undercounting’ in Brussels is interesting. It is not what I would have expected.
I would have expected a correct count, neither too low, nor too high. My own guess at the reason for the undercount is that more and more stations are contributing to the count [always good to have more eyeballs, right?] and those observers do not weight larger spots more [as the reference station Locarno does].
Ira says:
December 20, 2010 at 2:23 pm
The Dalton Minimum was marked by peaks of 45 and the Maunder of under 10.
These numbers are HIGHLY uncertain and are not known even to within a factor of two.
Roger Sowell says:
December 20, 2010 at 1:51 pm
In my own view, I suspect it is quite a bit warmer world-wide today than in the 1850-1860 period based on the reports of ice, snow, and very cold winters 150 years ago. But, is it warmer today than in the 1930s?
Interesting, because in the graphs above, the sunspot numbers were pretty low leading up to and through the 1930s, and the AP index was low as well. So what does this say about either the correlation, or about our perceptions?
“Yes, the sun has an influence, but that is now dwarfed by the effect of CO2.”
CO2 : the Paul Bunyan of atmospheric gasses . Legendary heavy lifter of the climate.
More powerful than the sun itself.
Roger Sowell says:
December 20, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Also, is it warmer today than when Greenland was settled? We certainly do not see anybody today making settlements on the coast of Greenland like they did back then.
No, because the people living there would probably object to “settlers” taking their land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Greenland
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2010 at 1:50 pm
my SSN formula would have closer correlation during the 19th century.
We call that confirmation bias. Since it is junk, it doesn’t matter.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 20, 2010 at 1:13 pm
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2010 at 12:54 pm
I have no idea […] but I can firmly state
seems to be a frequent modus operandi around here.
Taken out of context. I have no idea what your motives are, but I can firmly state, whatever I have posted in last year or two you vehemently opposed, and likely to do for the foreseeable future. It is not only frequent but permanent modus operandi not only here, but it was on SC24 and J. Curry’s blog too, or maybe it is this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
but I can’t firmly state, since I have no idea.
Theo Goodwin says:
December 20, 2010 at 1:14 pm
You just said that the global average temperature does not measure something physical.
It doesn’t matter if it is physical. Let the number of children in an average family be 2.5 in one county and 3.3 in the next county. Nobody has 0.5 and 0.3 children, so the numbers are not ‘physical’, but they are a very good basis for estimating how large the school budget for next year should be, so are highly meaningful, useful, and necessary.
Low solar activity link to cold UK winters (14 April 2010 00:33 UK).
Recent studies suggest that when solar activity is low, “blocking” events move eastwards from above north-eastern North America towards Europe, and become more stable.
A prolonged “blocking” during the most recent winter was responsible for the long spell of freezing conditions that gripped Europe.
Written observations from the period of the Maunder Minimum referred to the wind coming from the east during particularly cold winters, which strengthened the team’s “blocking” hypothesis.
The way in which solar activity affects the behaviour of blocking episodes is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.
So Leif is this what you are looking for, the sign, low sunspot numbers, the cause, solar activity is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Taken out of context.
The context was clear enough [and anybody can read your comment too]
whatever I have posted in last year or two you vehemently opposed
‘vehemently’? No, just pointing out that it is junk with no physical basis. Such is the duty of every scientist.
Robuk says:
December 20, 2010 at 3:05 pm
So Leif is this what you are looking for, the sign, low sunspot numbers, the cause, solar activity is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.
There is little, if any general correlation with solar activity. Compare the temperatures [upper panel] with solar activity [middle and lower panel – the latter from two different proxies] over the past 2000 years:
http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Taken out of context.
The context was clear enough [and anybody can read your comment too]
whatever I have posted in last year or two you vehemently opposed
‘vehemently’? No, just pointing out that it is junk with no physical basis. Such is the duty of every scientist. Post something good, and I’ll not object.
Robuk says:
December 20, 2010 at 3:05 pm
So Leif is this what you are looking for, the sign, low sunspot numbers, the cause, solar activity is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.
There is little, if any general correlation with solar activity. Compare the temperatures [upper panel] with solar activity [middle and lower panel – the latter from two different proxies] over the past 2000 years:
http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
Sense Seeker says:
December 20, 2010 at 2:04 pm
“Those who still maintain that ‘it is the sun’ are flogging a dead horse. Such people are rightly ridiculed in science. Only on blogs like these are they still believed.”
Which is why the scientists at CERN are doing very expensive CLOUD experiments.
Solar Activity/Cosmic Rays/Clouds may or may not have a link. One only needs a 1% impact on cloud cover to explain all of Global Warming.
It can’t be confirmed until we can look backwards and see that the whole thing happened as stated. We can say “the prediction, thus far, is confirmed.” Do not overstate your case.
Overstatement was what the CAGW crowd did (and a possible reason why there is so much data-fiddling going on now—they went out on a limb and they have to “prove” they were right). The data-driven among us should only state what the data supports.
Robuk says:
December 20, 2010 at 3:05 pm
…………….
You are nearly there: What you are looking for is the Sun-Arctic link:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF-PV.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
but then you will be told: ‘that is not how either solar or climate science works’.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 20, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Jeremy says:
December 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm
why was a spot that was 1 before 1945 suddenly made into 5? Did contact lenses come into use in 1945?
Leif says,
There is the further issue that there is a minimum size to a [true] sunspot and once your telescope is ‘good enough’, improved resolution does not make any difference. It is like counting people on the other side of the street: using a high-powered telescope for this does not increase the number of people you can see.
Leif, when the next sunspeck appears see if this
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/galileonewton.jpg
GOOD ENOUGH.
The Sun’s current low level of activity just confirms what I’ve always said – don’t invest in solar power as it comes from a non-renewable source that we can’t control. 🙂
Sense Seeker says:
December 20, 2010 at 2:04 pm
“Since the AGW alarmists have savaged the reputations of anyone who maintains that the sun has an influence on weather,…”
Nonsense. Climate scientists have not ‘savaged the reputations of anyone who maintains that the sun has an influence on weather’. Scientists agree that solar activity has a very important influence on climate, and that until about 1950 it was the main factor determining global average temperatures, toghether with volcanic activity.
However, solar activity cannot explain the warming seen over the past 30 years. This has been snown in countless peer-reviewed papers. Those who still maintain that ‘it is the sun’ are flogging a dead horse. Such people are rightly ridiculed in science. Only on blogs like these are they still believed.
Yes, the sun has an influence, but that is now dwarfed by the effect of CO2.
_________
Sense Seeker, I agree with the general direction of your comments, but again, the vast majority of those here on WUWT will not. I do however believe that the role of the sun on climate, through secondary effects, such as the GCR/Cloud effects, high-energy UV, etc. has not been fully accounted for in Global Climate Models because it is not fully understood nor even acknowledged. When and if the secondary solar effects are considered and put properly into the models, it will be interesting to see what kind of difference it makes when compared to the effect of the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s.
Jimash
( coincidentally the same time that all of them were young bucks, cool and care free and healthy )
Your comment immediately reminded me of my mum, she turned 91 this year.
I can remember during the 70s she was constantly complaining about the cold “I hate the cold” she would say “it wasn’t this cold when I was a girl”. However by the late 90s she often remarked “yes this is much more like it was when I was a girl, I prefer this sort of weather”
I guess the reality is that life is better when you’re young and whatever conditions were then, they are the conditions that you prefer.
“So Leif is this what you are looking for, the sign, low sunspot numbers, the cause, solar activity is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm
According to the article, that only applies to England.
I didn’t know a hair could be split that fine.
Robuk says:
December 20, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Leif, when the next sunspeck appears see if this is GOOD ENOUGH.
We already know it is not, so what is your point?
R. Gates says:
December 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I do however believe that the role of the sun on climate, through secondary effects, such as the GCR/Cloud effects, high-energy UV, etc. has not been fully accounted for in Global Climate Models
All known – and quantifiable – effects [UV, TSI, etc] are fully incorporated into Global Climate Models already.
Pamela Gray says:
December 20, 2010 at 7:23 am
Creighten says: “Then there is past correlation to consider. Correlation may not be causation, but that’s the way to bet it. A hypothesis without correlation of some sort to back it up will not fare well.”
“Oh my. So MUCH harm and sorrow has been caused in the past by just such a belief as you state regarding science. And much harm repaired by people courageous enough to purpose a hypothesis not so evident to the masses but proposed first through plausible mechanism, followed by observation, then through experimentation, and by every attempt to disprove it. Let us never, never go back to your way of thinking, else we find ourselves in a modern dark age.”
=============================
If your hypothesis makes predictions which show a low correlation to observed conditions, and fail to correlate with the results produced through experimentation, and if these efforts produce a high corelation with the predictions of the null hypothesis… I fear your hypothesis will not fare well.
But if some subsequent findings trump the lack of happy correlation, you hypothesis might just be able to weather the storm… and I would have made a bad bet. Those who are making truely gigantic bets on the AGW Hypothesis, for example, with taxpayer’s money, are doing just that, making bets. I would be happy to have lost and for them to have won, if that turned out to be the case.
I fear that it will not turn out that way. Indeed, it may already not have.
harrywr2 says:
December 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Which is why the scientists at CERN are doing very expensive CLOUD experiments.
No, the scientists at CERN are not doing any such experiments. CERN only lends some unused, obsolete capacity to outside scientists for this.
Binny
“I guess the reality is that life is better when you’re young and whatever conditions were then, they are the conditions that you prefer.”
Mum sounds very sensible and perceptive. She liked the 30’s when it was warm and she liked the 90’s when it was warm.
The climate scientists on the other hand, idealize a mean that was a fleeting moment,
and think that we somehow can backstep into that moment and nail it down for good.
But look at the graphs. The “normal” was just a few years in the 60’s .
That is why they work so hard at flattening out the handle of that hockey stick, to make it appear as if there were some lasting norm that should be re-attainable .
If they were honest about it they would admit that their “norm” was a transitional moment and that any attempts to recapture that transitional moment and make it permanent, are deluded.